Phil Dunlop Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 ...and rather than legislate yet another rule , could the RO just invoke the unsporting behaviour rule where a competitor BLATENTLY ignors the charge line. Countless RO's call 'finger' or 'muzzle', why not 'chargeline'? Lynn, I have shot steel as close as 2yds, in another country many years ago;). As long as the target is smooth and perpendicular to the bullets direction the shooter is quite safe. The danger zone would be at 90degrees to the target, nowhere either the RO or spectators would be expected to be, in my experience. P.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 Hi guys, In the opening post, I made the assumption there were two charge lines, one at 11m and one at 10m (as recommended by IPSC rule 2.1.8.2). Yes, huge physical barriers are better but I think charge (and fault) lines constructed in accordance with guidelines are a reasonable indicator. And it's not as if these charge lines are a surprise. We have walkthroughs. If you shoot while crossing the first line at 11m, you get a procedural. I asked asked about crossing the line at 10m, which means it's much more than just "a slip of the foot". Yes, you can shoot a popper at 5m without incident, but the same argument can be made about: 1. dropping a loaded gun; 2. running with your finger inside the trigger guard; 3. firing a shot vertically skywards; 4. shooting a target at 120 degrees; 5. firing a round 6" away from your big toe; 6. handling guns and ammo at the same time in a safety area; 7. everybody walking around cocked 'n' locked; 8. drawing your unloaded gun at any time. Should we drop the DQ for those issues too? Should we only DQ you if somebody actually gets injured (or worse)? With two charge lines, we give the competitor ample "Ooops" space, however it's my view that a competitor who charges more than 1m past that point is unsafe. Is 10m the correct "drop dead" distance? I really don't know, but do we mainly wear eye protection against splatter from metal or paper targets? If we accept the 10m "line in the sand" (as we do our other lines in the sand), I'd like to clearly state the penalty, so that competitors who want to bayonet metal targets know what's at stake. And I'm about as "DQ happy" as Sarah Brady is a gun lover. In fact, one more than one occasion, I've threatened to withdraw sanctioning from a match because the course designer had DQ traps or other evidence of sheer laziness which he didn't want to remedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noname Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Drifting.... If you have paper targets mixed in with your steel targets, other than hearing or seeing the steel being struck, how do you tell if a competitor is engaging steel, and not paper beyond the 11 meter line, and will receive a procedural penalty for doing so? Seems like he can only receive a penalty for hitting a piece of steel beyond the 11 meter line in this case, and not firing shots at steel, as stated in 10.1.4.1. I would hate to get a DQ under these circumstances. Please don't tell me it is the course designers responsibility to make sure that there are no paper targets next to any steel targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noname Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 How about adding to 10.1.2: Any hit on a steel target while faulting an established 10 meter line shall be assessed at 4 times the value of a single maximum available scoring hit on an IPSC paper target as stated in Appendix H. This will be a strong detterent, and will cancel out any advantage there would be to a shooter to engage a piece of steel closer than 10 meters that he may have forgotten, and is now faced with a FTE and the loss of the target points. A 20 point penalty would make his actions a scoring wash. My guess is that the scoring program can't handle/identify a 20 point penalty. Just score it as two 10 point penaties in that case. (Edited by noname at 10:06 am on Jan. 11, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynn jones Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 jon and phil, all i'm saying, if it's a safety issue, then it sould be a DQ if a violation occurs. the two charge lines thought is idea i can live with. phil, when you shot the steel at 2 yards, were you scared? i'd be. lynn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Dunlop Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Lynn, all I'm saying is that to my mind it is an acceptable practice issue rather than a safety one, and I gave you the insights behind my assertion. I agree that IPSC needs to draw a line, but disagree that infringement should require such drastic penalties. P.D. should add that I'm not advocating shooting steel at 2yds. The plate I used was in good condition so no I wasn't worried. (I offer that information to what I hope is an informed and intelligent audience.) I have shot Bianchi plates, well worn, and been hit many times BEHIND the 10 and 15yd lines! (Edited by Phil Dunlop at 1:03 pm on Jan. 11, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2alpha Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 It shouldn't be up to the shooter to have to decide the safe distance to shoot steel at while shooting the stage. This is the match directors call and he should make it difficult if not impossible to shoot the steel from an unsafe distance. Unsafe needs to be protected from by more than a fault line. We don't allow loaded rounds in the safety area because someone might load a gun and have an ad. Evidently we know the safe distance to shoot steel from so we should take the appropriate action to prevent it. If someone climbs over a barricade to shoot the steel they deserve to be DQ'd just like if they had climbed up on the berm. It's just plain unfair to DQ for a foot fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 True, we don't allow ammo be handled in safety areas however I've yet to see people prevented from doing so. It's a matter of self-discipline. There's a rule and, if you break it, you pay the price. I'm trying to apply the same concept in respect of breaching a second charge line which marks what we accept as a safe distance to shoot poppers. If there's a barricade, I doubt we need additional precautions or boundaries. When you can't use a barricade, we recommend the use of two charge lines and, if you charge across the second one, should it be the same penalty which applies if you handle ammo in a safety area. I think so. We only have two types of penalty in IPSC. A DQ is given for breaches of safety, while procedurals are given for lesser "competitive" offences. Breaching the first charge line is a "lesser" offence, but crossing a second charge line is unsafe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 We only have two types of penalty in IPSC. A DQ is given for breaches of safety, while procedurals are given for lesser "competitive" offences. Breaching the first charge line is a "lesser" offence, but crossing a second charge line is unsafe. Why does a foot fault at 10m (the safe distance) warrant a higher penalty than a foot fault at 11m? In order to make this really work, you need your 2 lines at 10.5 and then at 8 or 9. THEN and only then, IMHO, would you have a DQ'able offense. Because, you'd be engaging steel well past the "line in the sand" and you could still just penalize foot faults with procedurals. On another note, as others have stated - how the hell did we come up with 10 yards anyways? And, does IPSC really want to make that distinction? If someone gets dinged with steel splatter at 11 yards, IPSC is open to some truly serious litigation, because they've implied that 10 yards is safe! Why can't we just treat steel like a paper target? Just how many competitors have you seen blatantly ignore course description and charge targets? I've seen one, he was playing around, and he didn't shoot the steel!!!! Most of us are going to avoid penalties in order to achieve a decent score... why all this unnecessary crap to penalize something that just doesn't happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 why all this unnecessary crap to penalize something that just doesn't happen? Sorry if my questions and suggestions upset you so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 She does not sound "upset" to me. I think she asked a reasonable question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 anyone who has met kathy knows that *this* was not her being upset... :-) , maybe mildly annoyed... A good number of people here react in this fashion to rule proposals that do not seem to address a ubiquitously felt and/or clearly demonstrated *problem*. Again, Vince, what exactly is the problem this is designed to address? We may not have the information that you have --D (Edited by Detlef at 2:50 pm on Jan. 12, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 I have met Kathy and we even polluted the air together at Quincy in Y2K. I think she's great and I honestly felt she was upset, which is why I apologised. Now maybe some of you don't agree with me, and that's fine, but I believe we must mandate a minimum distance for shooting at poppers. Frankly, I don't mind if it's 1m, 10m or 100m, but we all know there's a risk of splatter which, if I'm not mistaken, is also 99% of the reason why we wear eye protection. Yes? No? In any case, we've already picked a bunch of numbers, and those numbers are 10m for poppers, 3m for ADs, 90 degrees for safe angles of fire etc. If we breach the 3m or 90 degree rules, we hit the showers, right, so shouldn't we be consistent and apply the same penalty to the popper distance? Moreover, if we accept 10m is the number for poppers, we don't want guys DQd for a mere foot fault, which is why we recommend an extra charge line at 11m. If you cross the 11m line you haven't breached the 10m threshold, so we spank you lightly on the back of your hand and make you go stand in the corner. However if you breach the 10m line, then this is the same as if you breach the 3m AD line or the 90 degree unsafe angle line. Surely you guys can see the logic? Kathy also asked about why should there be a heavier penalty for the 10m line than the 11m line. It's the same reason why there are different penalties for dropping an unloaded handgun outside a COF and immediately after the RO says "LAMR". In both cases the gun was unloaded, but we treat them differently depending on the circumstances. Now after 6 years of writing rules, and taking flack from people because: (a) we wrote a new rule or ( we didn't write a new rule I'm willing to admit the shrapnel wounds and lose-lose situation are taking their toll, so maybe I'm a little jaded. OK, nobody asked me to come here and seek your input on rules, but I don't see many others asking your collective advice. So, whether you agree or disagree with something, can you please cut me some slack? Anyway, it's 5:00 a.m. here, so I'm going to bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Quote: from Vince Pinto on 4:26 pm on Jan. 12, 2003 ... Now maybe some of you don't agree with me, and that's fine, but I believe we must mandate a minimum distance for shooting at poppers. ... indeed, you nailed it, the *must* is where you probably lose some of us... --Detlef (Edited by Detlef at 7:21 pm on Jan. 12, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2alpha Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Well Vince, you started this thread and asked for input, now you want some slack? Next time state at the opening that you want a pat on the head and only replies that agree with you. Or wait for a real issue. Right on Detlef!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 13, 2003 Author Share Posted January 13, 2003 On that note, I'm done here. Thanks to all those who contributed constructively to the discussion. I'll deal with the matter in committee next month in Orlando. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 I really don't understand all this fuss. IMHO Vince should have posed the question in a different way: shall shooting steel under a statuted distance mandate a safety infraction or not? What I can see is: IPSC considers shooting steel under a certain limit as a safety issue: there is a defined distance (to be negotiated if you like), and it means breaking this limit is a safety infraction, hence appropriate penalties shall apply (and I can't figure what other penalty, except from DQ, can be applied when dealing with safety matters). Some shooters disagree with this, considering shooting steel almost like shooting paper targets, hence no safety dealing with at any distance. I respect their opinion, even if I don't agree with them, and would vote for IPSC solution. I think this should be the topic to be debated for this thread, and all suggestions/experiences will greatly contribute. P.S. Please, all, don't disregard Vince's attempt to make all of us shooters part of the rules suggesting/improving process: this is the only useful link we have to express our opinions in a constructive way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dani Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Vince I believe that the 10M penalty shoulden't occure if the RO is doing his job, if I see a shooter that passes the 10M charge line with an obvious intention to shoot, I will stop him inmidiatly (safety is the first issue of a RO), but we know sometimes it can happen, if I can't stop him by any reason, if ho shoots he should get a DQ. I agree with you that he or she should be punished (untill he learns Maybe it should be: 1 foot passing the 10M charge line 2 procedural penalties, both feet get DQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinney Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 I agree with Vince. There has been numerous injuries (from minor to life threatening) from shooting steel "too close" (whatever that definition is, if it's 10m, so be it). I can't recall hearing of anyone ever being hospitalized from splatter from a paper target. So yes, a minimun safe distance for steel MUST be established for IPSC, and enforced as a safety violation, just like breaking the 180. The 11m charge line IS the buffer that allows you to have a mistep and still not be DQed; if you continue on past 10m, you are being UNSAFE (as currently defined) and should be DQed. Can anyone explain why in the world you'd WANT to shoot steel closer than 10m? The big argument I hear is that "Steel Challenge" shoots closer than that".... but Steel Challenge was invented when everyone was shooting big heavy lead. In today's environment of high speed, jacketed, light bullets you could make the argument that Steel Challenge distances are to short. And in Steel Challenge, you are for the most part stationary. In IPSC, the movement factor throws an extra "X" factor into the danger quotient. (engaging targets not 90 degree "square" to them, closing on the target as you engage them, etc.) (Edited by shooter40 at 10:07 am on Jan. 13, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 I wasn't mad, or even mildly annoyed. I thought I had a valid question Vince, my serious answer is that the 2 lines are okay, but they need to be at 10m and 8m so that a foot fault at 10m doesn't cause a DQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2alpha Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 >There has been numerous injuries (from minor to life >threatening) from shooting steel "too close" (whatever >that definition is, if it's 10m, so be it). Athough I haven't seen a single injury in a USPSA match from shooingt steel too close I suppose it's possible. I have seen lots of injuries though from shooting steel at the " safe " distance and farther. Shooter and spectator both. Maybe it would be more apropriate to deal with that situation? I'm afraid that 2 fault lines might get too complicated and isn't the current trend away from fault lines anyway? The answer is, if the course design doesn't take care of it, to use a barrier to make it difficult to get too close to the steel. It's not that hard to do. Everyone hates to get penalized for minor foot faults, a DQ is ludicrous. Vince is done, I hope you don't have any dissent in your comitee meeting so you can hang in there. (Edited by 2alpha at 11:16 am on Jan. 13, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinney Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Quote: from 2alpha on 1:56 pm on Jan. 13, 2003 > "Athough I haven't seen a single injury in a USPSA match from shooingt steel too close I suppose it's possible. " Ask Todd Jarrett about one of his students he had to take to the hospital because he shot steel at @ 7 or 8M, he had a piece of lead come back and pierce his chest, almost hit his heart - freak accident, to be sure, but why chance it? I'm not talking aboutthe minor bloody nicks we've all got over time. "Everyone hates to get penalized for minor foot faults, a DQ is ludicrous." With the first line at 11m being a procedural, that would qualify as a minor foot fault. Crossing on a whole 1 meter further past 10m would demonstrate a blatant disregard and unawareness of your location on the course, and crossing the 10m would justify a DQ at that point. If you are crossing the 10m DQ line after just blowing past the 11m fault line, your not demonstrating to the RO that you have any intention of slowing down and shooting from the safe distance. "Foot Fault" should not be an issue at the 10m mark - you either realized you crossed the 11m line and are attempting to back up, or you are oblivious to your mistake and will cross on past the 10m line and further.... at what point should the RO stop you, if not 10m? 9m..7m...5m.. There needs to be SOME standard, for uniformity. I agree that good course design would eliminate the need for the 2 lines, but as we all know, in the real world at club levels good course design isn't guaranteed. (Edited by 2alpha at 11:16 am on Jan. 13, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xcount Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 My two cents worth.......... When this rule was first published I blasted one of USPSA's officials about it. My feeling was, by eliminating the DQ threat, IPSC & USPSA were jeopardizing their clubs by encouraging unsafe behaviour on the part of the shooter. Sooner or later, I said, someone would get hurt and that club would get sued out of existance. My reasoning was, if a shooter knew he would draw the same (procedural) penalty for faulting the charge line by 10 yards as he would by faulting by 1 foot, why would he shoot from a distance of 9.6 yards? Why not just run right up to the popper and shoot point blank? This official's response was interesting. First, he said, there never was a rule in any rule book requiring a DQ for engaging steel within a certain distance. This was merely a local safety rule that some clubs used. Second, he said, the shooter could still be stopped and DQed by the RO for Unsafe Gun Handling, just as if the shooter had run up on a side berm to engage targets. At what distance should the RO yell STOP, I asked. The answer was that the highly trained RO was expected to exercise his or her best judgement. I think what Vince is looking for is something a little more definitive than that. And I applaud his efforts. If you leave the question of "how close is too close" up to the shooter I would be surprised if we don't lose a lot of ROs. I, personally, wouldn't care how close the shooter got but I wouldn't endanger myself by following along 1 meter behind as he closed in for the point blank shot either. At some point I would stop him and give him a reshoot - with another RO. And if we leave the determination up to the individual RO we will have all kinds of rulings. Some may say 9' 11" is too close. The next guy may allow shooting from arm's length. Too inconsistent. We should keep in mind that a physical barrier does not have to be a federal construction project. A rope or safety net strung between two posts will limit a shooter's forward progress just as effectively as a wall or barricade. But if even that little of a construction effort is too much for some clubs to undertake, let them use two charge lines. As Vince suggests, place one at 11 meters and one at the established safety limit (which is currently 10 meters). Firing a shot within the 11 meter line should be a procedural penalty. Firing a shot within the established safety limit should be treated just like every other "safety" violation - Match Disqualification. I, like Vince, am not DQ happy. And I don't like having rules for every contingency. But I do feel that preventative measures should be in place on this issue. The organizations (IPSC & USPSA) have picked 10 meters as the "safe distance". I've been around long enough and have been splattered at various distances enough to realize that this is a number that was, pretty much, picked out of the air. Some would say 5 meters is safe while others would say 15 meters is too close. I, personally, have a healthy respect for steel. I took a piece of lead in my mouth while shooting Bianchi plates from the 20 yard line prone position once. What are the chances of that? (Before you all make wise cracks, there are only a couple of guys on this forum who know how big my mouth is. ) My point is a safe distance has been established. We can argue whether that is the correct number or not. But I don't think that we can argue that violation of that number (whatever it is) constitutes a safety violation. And safety violations result in DQs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynn jones Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 xcount, that's about 10 cents worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xcount Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Lynn, Do you mean I over-played for the amount I paid? Or was my BS worth more, in your estimation, than the price tag I put on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now