lynn jones Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 the more you spray, the more you pay! (Edited by lynn jones at 4:15 pm on Jan. 14, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2alpha Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Not to nit pick but why use a Jarret class example when what I said was a USPSA match. And everyone is ignoring that more spectators and officials get hit with frags than the actual competitor. I certainly agree that the barrier I proprose doesn't have to be a Federal project. If a local club is not willing to put up a simple barricade maybe they shouldn't shoot steel? How's that for a rule? Most if not all accidents with steel could be avoided it only good clean steel was used. We all have seen clubs using pock marked, and even holed, steel, it's just a matter of time before someone gets hurt by those. the support structure also needs to be looked at closely if you want to avoid frags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 FYI The current IPSC Shotgun rules already have this as a DQ penalty. It first applied when the 2002 rules were accepted for a one year trial and these have now been carried over to 2003. The UK has operated this rule for SG for as many years as I can remember. We have had only a very few DQs as a result and I can even think of some years where nobody has had to walk. Competitors are perfectly happy to accept the rule and consider minimum distances carefully when planning a stage. As head of the mobile/floating range team at WSX I had to attend 3 accidents where spectators or crew (not the competitor) were hit by shrapnel. All 3 needed medical attention, 2 ended up needing a visit to hospital. One of these guys had a significant piece of copper jacket embedded not more than 1/2 inch from his jugular. I support a rule to include a DQ and I think some are worrying too much about this being a harsh penalty. Once the penalty is in place and known about, and with 2 charge lines or some other physical barrier being in place, there will hardly ever be a DQ because the competitor wants that even less than the RO. Therefore the DQ penalty isn't really a big problem, and you're not about to see loads of competitors heading for an early bath, but it will have a significant impact on holding competitors back from getting too close. I say too close based on the 10m rules as stated. I'm not trying to argue whether 10m is too close as a distance, that's for others to decide and a limit does need to be stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 This is the kind of evidence I am looking for. I assume, Neil, that those 3 injuries happened when a competitor shot poppers from closer than 10 y? What stages was that on? I do not remember any stage where a shooter would reasonably have wanted to run up closer than 10 y, nor one where he could have easily, but my memory may fail me... Is it reasonable to assume then that with Vice's proposed new rule these injuries would have been prevented? --Detlef (Edited by Detlef at 12:58 pm on Jan. 15, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 15, 2003 Author Share Posted January 15, 2003 Detlef, He's talking about WSX in Bisley (1993), and although I have many vices, my name is Vince ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 I can only positively answer on one count, a spectator, which was during the Man v Man on the Saturday. I wasn't on the specific ranges at the time of the other incidents and only attended in response to a radio call. I haven't got a C of F book to hand, it's at home somewhere. The first problem occurred within the walled range adjacent to the helicopter stage. An RO was badly hit just outside his eye. The other problem occured on "Century" range. A spectator was hit in the scalp and he was standing to the right of where the bus was parked, almost in line with the motorbike. I can't tell you which stage the splash back was from and at the time I didn't care, that part of the problem was dealt with by Barry Pollard, I was only interested in helping the casualty, fortunately it was only a scratch. I guess the shrapnel could have come off 2 or 3 stages on that range but I can't remember which ones had poppers. Sorry I can't be more specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 yeah, Vince, that must have been a Freudian slip of the ... fingertip.... . Good one, though, eh? Don't hold it against me, or I'll remind you of your Jan 13 post.... I do not doubt that backsplatter can be a serious problem. What I am still not convinced of is that introducing a new 10m-DQ rule would prevent "any" significant portion of the damage! Neither here nor anywhere else have I (thus far, I was hoping Neil could help out) seen evidence that we could significantly reduce backsplatter risk by DQing anyone who shoots steel from closer than 10m. Introducing an additional DQ rule (in fact, any rule?) must serve a significant purpose. At WSXIII, there was at least one serious (drawing blood and the medics) backsplatter injury to a spectator (the heli stage, I think) caused by berm rocks! What now? --Detlef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 15, 2003 Author Share Posted January 15, 2003 OK, consider these questions: Why DQ a guy for breaking 90 degrees when he doesn't fire a shot? And why is 90 degrees the number? Why not 120 degrees? Why DQ a guy for dropping his unloaded gun after the RO says "LAMR"? What's the big deal? If it's loaded, OK, but why for an empty gun? Why DQ a shooter for being in a safety area with an unloaded gun in one hand and a loaded mag in the other? The gun cannot fire a live round as it is, right? Why DQ a guy for firing a shot into the ground, downrange, but only 2m from his feet? He didn't shoot himself or anybody else in the foot, right? Why not make it 1m? Or 5cm? In all the above cases, nobody has been hurt, but the DQ is there to let you know, in advance, what we consider to be unsafe or unacceptable behaviour. Same for a popper DQ. We're merely defining our limits and boundaries. If you think we should only penalise actual injuries, then all of the above DQs should be withdrawn. Call me old fashioned, but it should be all or nothing. What am I missing here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Vince, let me counter: 1. Why not get rid of steel targets alltogether? 2. Why not prohibit movement altogether? 3. Why not mandate 22 caliber? All or nothing (in safety) is going to get rid of or completely redefine our sport. The 90 deg rule and the cold range rule have been with us for decades, and there is no reason to touch them. Let's address real issues with new rules. Injuries from engaging steel closer than 10y by shooters who would *eat* a procedural (that's really all your proposal addresses) are *not* an issue (until proven otherwise to me, come forward everyone who can). --D. (Edited by Detlef at 3:57 pm on Jan. 15, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2alpha Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 So far all the examples given have been injuries to spectators or RO's as I predicted. No foot fault rule would have prevented these and didn't. We need to pay more attention to the steel and the way it's set up, that will lessen the injuries not DQing somebody for a foot fault. But of course you can't DQ or penalize anyone for poor steel setup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 Detlef - I've just got home and I've pulled the course design booklet for WSX out of my files. Like I said one of the incidents was the Man V Man and I can't remember the distances involved. For another of the instances (Melville Range) the only stages with poppers had them at 7m and 14m and so inconclusive. However the most likely stages on Century range, 2 of them, had poppers at 5m (St 32) and 3m (St 33). Certainly they're not showing anything at distances greater than 5m. St 32 was the motobike stage and it was behind this stage I attended the third injury. Everyone I've spoken to said it was a good match but it was hell behind the scenes!!! I really would like to reiterate that there isn't going to be a huge increase in DQs, far from it, competitors would quickly adapt. I hope the above info helps, limited though it is. I'm very much with Vince on this. I've eaten more than my fair share of splashback as crew and I certainly consider that distance lessens some of the effect. I'm no expert on the subject by any means but whilst the ballistics won't diminish much on the way to the target what about on the way back? Genuine question! I don't know if any of you will remember Jerry White from the UK but he was convinced that forward leaning FFPP significantly lessened the chances of splashback with most of the debris being directed downwards. I've found similar results with forward leaning plates for shotgun. We now use these a lot in the UK and the crew aren't getting stung so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 The USPSA Board has discussed this issue a lot, and one of the other issues that *we* have had to grapple with, here in the lawsuit-happy US, is the "implied responsibility" thing. The thinking goes like this: If we go on record saying that shooting steel inside (pick a number) yards is "unsafe", then we've laid the groundwork for someone's lawyer to say that we have gone on record that shooting steel outside that distance *is* safe. When someone then gets hit by a frag from a shot at that "safe" distance, we all of a sudden have actionable liability. Stupid? Yes. Does USPSA want to bet the bank account that it won't happen? Nope. We'd rather not say it is safe or unsafe at all, and control it with course design requirements, as the rules are currently written. Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 16, 2003 Author Share Posted January 16, 2003 Hi Bruce, An interesting point. Rule 2.1.3 only mentions "Minimum Distances" without mentioning the word "safe" or "safety". OTOH, Rule 2.1.8.2 (which we've already proposed to combine with 2.1.3), does mention a "safety limit". In view of your comments, I'll make a note to change the words "safety limit" in 2.1.8.2 (2.1.3) to "minimum distance". Of course I don't, for a minute, think that anything we do will stop the ambulance chasers looking for the deepest pockets, but we've got nothing to lose by making the change. Anyway, as a reward for your efforts, when we meet in Orlando next month, feel free to deduct one rum & coke from the dozens you owe me! See ya soon, buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muser Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Based on the Orlando meeting, I'm curious as to what may be coming in a rule change regarding the engagment of steel closer than 10 meters? Has it been decided if engaging steel closer than 10 meters is a safety violation, or do we let it go as a procedural? Do local clubs have the ability to supercede the IPSC/USPSA rules regarding safety issues and hand out match DQs for what it perceives to be a range safety violations for engaging steel closer than 10 meters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 I can't answer the first question - I wasn't in the "coordinating committee" meetings in Orlando, so I don't know where this topic landed. I can answer your second question, though. From a USPSA perspective, no, you cannot have a local rule unless it is required by law, and/or approved by the US Regional Director (Michael Voigt). That's always been the case... and has been the source of considerable discussion at most clubs I visit. It does, in effect, put the onus on the course designer... if you really don't want shooters engaging steel inside 10 yards, it is up to you to make sure that they can't *get* within 10 yards. Physical barriers don't have to be plywood walls - you can use things like highway cones with safety-tape strung between them to indicate the "don't go past here" line. And, note, that regardless of steel, if a shooter flagrantly disregards course instructions or RO commands, they can always be DQ'd under the unsportsmanlike-conduct rules.... Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted February 24, 2003 Author Share Posted February 24, 2003 Conventional wisdom tells us to treat a competitor who breaches the ?m minimum distance as being guilty of unsafe gun handling, and therefore subject to a match DQ. This is similar to our treatment of an AD. We don't specify that a shot into the ground at 3.01m is inherently safer than one at 2.99m, but we draw our "line in the sand" and classify the latter as being unsafe gun handling. And IPSC and the USPSA are on the same page here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muser Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Quote: from Vince Pinto on 7:52 pm on Feb. 23, 2003 Conventional wisdom tells us to treat a competitor who breaches the ?m minimum distance as being guilty of unsafe gun handling, and therefore subject to a match DQ. This is similar to our treatment of an AD. We don't specify that a shot into the ground at 3.01m is inherently safer than one at 2.99m, but we draw our "line in the sand" and classify the latter as being unsafe gun handling. And IPSC and the USPSA are on the same page here. So, are you saying that engaging steel closer than 10 meters is a safety violation? Why isn't it specified in the rule book under 10.3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinney Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Muser, please read the rest of this thread, starting at page one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muser Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Quote: from shooter40 on 8:18 am on Feb. 24, 2003 Muser, please read the rest of this thread, starting at page one. I read everyone of them. Interesting debate, but nothing was agreed upon as to whether it is a safety issue, and what is the penalty, if it was. The Orlando meeting was supposed to include this subject matter. I was wondering if any decisions were made there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted February 24, 2003 Author Share Posted February 24, 2003 The answer is in my post above. We agreed that a competitor who crosses a second charge line is guilty of unsafe gun handling and should get a match DQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muser Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Quote: from Vince Pinto on 10:25 am on Feb. 24, 2003 The answer is in my post above. We agreed that a competitor who crosses a second charge line is guilty of unsafe gun handling and should get a match DQ. Thanks Vince. Are we now free in USPSA to run our matches under that ruling? I noticed that one of your answers didn't mention any distances, but had a question mark (?m minimum distance). Are we free to use our own judgement on the distances, or is the rule supporting a specified distance, such as the distances used in the current rule book (10 and 11 meters). Sorry to ask these questions Vince, but your post was kind of cryptic. (Edited by muser at 3:02 pm on Feb. 24, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 At the moment, neither IPSC nor USPSA specifically states a DQ is the penalty for breaching the second charge line, however some regions already treat such actions as unsafe gun handling. This is why I want to specify the penalty, one way or the other, so that we don't get different interpretations from region to region. We're still working on the subject, and I'll advise everybody when a conclusion is reached. The other thing is that the general (but not final) view of the Handgun Committee is that we change our minimum distances of our 1st/2nd (procedural/DQ) charge lines from 11m/10m to 8m/7m. Again, nothing is 100% final yet, but the above gives an idea of the directions we are taking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 FYI - For IPSC SG it has been (for the last 2 years) and continues to be a DQ offence to shoot closer than 5m with the proc penalty charge line set at 6m. For slug the current distances are set to 50m/51m. The IPSC rifle rules which were trialled last year also set minimum distances of 50m/51m. For SG for 2004 we have submitted that we stay with the 5m/6m distances for DQ/Procedural for birdshot and buckshot but we have reduced the distance for slug AND increased the buffer zone so we have 35m/40m DQ/procedural. The intention is that 40m is the minimum intended shooting distance. The larger buffer zone refelects the greater distances involved overall and falls in line with the proposed change from the Rifle committee who are opting for a 5m buffer zone but with the distances set at 45m/50m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muser Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Quote: from Vince Pinto on 6:00 pm on Feb. 24, 2003 At the moment, neither IPSC nor USPSA specifically states a DQ is the penalty for breaching the second charge line, however some regions already treat such actions as unsafe gun handling. This is why I want to specify the penalty, one way or the other, so that we don't get different interpretations from region to region. We're still working on the subject, and I'll advise everybody when a conclusion is reached. The other thing is that the general (but not final) view of the Handgun Committee is that we change our minimum distances of our 1st/2nd (procedural/DQ) charge lines from 11m/10m to 8m/7m. Again, nothing is 100% final yet, but the above gives an idea of the directions we are taking. I'm looking forward to this much needed rule change. Thanks. 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