Shooter Grrl Posted February 18, 2002 Share Posted February 18, 2002 Anybody else run into a DQ for engaging steel closer than 10 yards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted February 18, 2002 Share Posted February 18, 2002 SG, Sounds like another case of poor stage design. Should be a fault/charge line at about 11 yards. This would allow the shooter to fault the line by a step and still not get inside the ten yard "safety" distance. But...to answer the question...no, I have never seen it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chriss Grube Posted February 18, 2002 Share Posted February 18, 2002 It's not a DQ its a foor fault. Actually had that question on my RO recert test. Obviously somebody didn't read the rules! Damn now there's a surprise! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted February 18, 2002 Share Posted February 18, 2002 Right, eleven yards would allow for a foot fault (which is a penalty, but not a DQ)...but would still keep the shooter over 10 yards away from the steel. All this should be on the stage designer shoulders, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted February 18, 2002 Author Share Posted February 18, 2002 What would you do if the MD still insisted that the club rules override USPSA and it's a DQ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titandriver Posted February 18, 2002 Share Posted February 18, 2002 Shooter Grrl -- tell 'im to read rule 3.3.1 ( page 36 & 37), 14th edition USPSA rulebook. Lacking the "express consent of the Regional Directorate" ( Mike Voigt in this case), I'd contact the section coordinator to try to resolve the issue. Failing that, move all the way to USPSA President if neccessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted February 18, 2002 Share Posted February 18, 2002 ....or the Area Director. This is one of my "pet peeves", so I'm always happy to help clubs and MDs understand (among other things) that they can't just make up rules, and still call it a USPSA match. The big argument is that it is the course designer's responsibility to "not allow the shooter" within 10 yards of steel... but everyone always thinks that it takes so much prop-building to "physically prevent" the shooter from getting within 10 yards of steel, that it is "easier" just to declare a "local rule" that getting yourself within 10 yards of steel is a DQ. Problem is, there is no rule in the book to support it. But, there are lots of ways to do it. You can put up a row of low no-shoots, a section of snow-fence, a row of barrels, two posts with a piece of rope, etc. It has to be more than a fault line, but you don't have to build a fortress, either. Bruce Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted February 18, 2002 Author Share Posted February 18, 2002 That's all fine and dandy, but doesn't change the fact the a shooter was disqualified. What would you do to help the shooter that's now so peeved they're ready to hang up their guns and not play anymore? Just what CAN USPSA do in this situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chriss Grube Posted February 18, 2002 Share Posted February 18, 2002 Until USPSA puts out a clarification on this that everybody sees it will be a problem. There have been so many changes to the rules in the last couple years that people are totally confused on what is legal and what is not. The biggest problem is getting RO's to realize that if it's not in the book you can't call it. It doesn't help when we have NROI clarifications and BOD resolutions to factor in. There needs to be a rulebook with all the changes put in it. Clarifications, resolutions etc. I know it is a bear to write a rule book that is going to cover everything but that's what we need. If somebody comes up with a way around the rule live with it until the new book comes out. Why not print the rulebook in 3 ring binder style. You change a rule or a clarification comes out you can download the new page and replace it. The rulebook is pretty clear, some course designers just don't think things through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDean Posted February 18, 2002 Share Posted February 18, 2002 "..What would you do to help the shooter that's now so peeved they're ready to hang up their guns and not play anymore..." We can only hope he realizes that the ruling (as it sounds) wasn't legit, this wasn't USPSA's ruling, it was an RO's. Tell him to exercise his political muscle and get his section coordinator involved. That's about all you can do...... Next time, It wouldn't hurt to have a rule book in your shooting bag (or range lawyer in your squad ) to challange these rouge RO calls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted February 18, 2002 Author Share Posted February 18, 2002 Tdean - I never shoot without my rulebook in my bag. I was also on the Board when they published this rulebook, so my "Range Lawyeressness" usually carries some weight behind it - but it didn't help this time. I'm so frustrated I could literally scream! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Hi folks, While Rule 2.1.8.2. requires course designers to take steps to prevent competitors approaching metal targets closer than 10 metres (and it also requires charge lines to be placed at 11 metres to allow for inadvertent faulting), there is no specific penalty in the rule book to deal with a competitor who, for argument's sake, runs well over a charge line and engages a metal target at, say, 5 metres. This oversight has been noted and it will be dealt with at the next IPSC General Assembly in South Africa later this year. DVC, Vince Pinto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titandriver Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Vince, Can anyone attend the GA meeting in September? Lookin' forward to meeting you and "Darth" --- hope you don't scare us too badly!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 >> Can anyone attend the GA meeting in September? Yes, but only as an observer (you cannot address the GA). You will need an invitation from your Regional Director and attendance is always subject to space availability. We normally use a rectangular table setup, with the IPSC Executive Council sitting at one of the four sides and the RDs sitting on the other three sides. Observers sit in the chairs behind the RDs. We had quite a heavy turnout of observers in Quincy in Y2K (Hi Bruce!), in a tiny room but things went suprisingly well, despite the overworked air-conditioning. The GA in Germany last year was "classroom" style, which is not what we wanted, however the shape of the room didn't give us any choice. I've not seen the venue in South Africa yet, but I've already requested a BIG room, because the WS assembly is always well attended. >> Lookin' forward to meeting you and "Darth" --- hope you don't scare us too badly!!! Well I'm sorta looking forward to meeting you too eventhough I have no idea who you are !! Your profile only shows you are from Idaho. Anyway, Darth and I will be easy to spot. We'll be the guys with the back masks and robes, making "Click, wheeze" sounds :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Hey, Rich... I will add... although it was *really* difficult to sit for 10 hours without chiming in on things (there were a couple of times I wanted to jump out of my chair and pound my shoe on the table), it was very worth the time to have a chance to see how things work. If you have a chance to observe the GA, I hope you will. Bruce PS - hi, Vinnie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titandriver Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 Vince--- I have no doubt that I'll be able to spot you & Nick, I have it on good authority (IPSC list) that you two are eevill personified!! ~(:-) You'll be able to spot me easily as well, I'll be the one sportin' the cherubic grin and the gleaming halo! Ask Bruce, he'll tell ya! Bruce, I plan on sittin' in, if possible, just to get a better idea of what the rest of the world thinks about this sport. Just hope I have enough Riddlin to keep my "ants-in-the-pants" syndrom at bay! My wife already says she's sewin' my lips shut so I'll only be makin' gurgling sounds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinney Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 "US 2.1.8.2 - Course design should place steel targets within the course of fire where forward movement is restricted by physical barriers or charge lines to prevent competitors from engaging steel targets closer than ten (10) meters. Effort should be made to use physical barriers to restrict forward movement towards steel targets whenever possible. If charge lines are used to restrict forward movement toward steel targets, they must be placed at least eleven (11) meters from the targets, so that the competitor may inadvertently fault the charge line and still be outside the ten (10) meter limit. Should a competitor fault the eleven (11) meter line the competitor would incur a procedural penalty as per 10.1.4.1. " Seems pretty clear to me, a foot fault is not a DQ if the stage is designed correctly with the 1 meter "safety zone". The only clarification needed is as stated above, what if the shooter blows past 11 meters, and 10 meters and continues shooting despite the the R.O. trying to stop them? Should be a DQ at that point.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 There's the rub.... The rules say that it is the course designer's responsibility to make it so the shooter *can't* get within 10 meters of steel. They are silent on what penalty a *shooter* gets for blowing past that. Many of us believe that it "has always been" a DQ for shooting steel inside 10 yards. Interestingly, it has never been a rule - or, at least, not a real rule. Locally (western Washington) it had been a "local rule" for so long that when the 14th edition came out, people could not believe that the rules "had changed" - in fact, they hadn't. I personally think it should be a DQ - I think it is fairly obvious that the closer you shoot steel, the more likely it is that something is going to come back and bite you. The problem is, how close is too close? If we say 10 meters, are we (by inference) saying that 11 meters is "safe"? If we *really* want to pick a "safe" distance, what would it be? 50 yards? 100? (I've had a rifle jacket come back and hit me from 100 yards out...) The one thing that such a rule *would* do is make course design a more manageable challenge, again. Right now, if you want to use steel *and* be within the rules, you have to build walls or put up ropes or do something to "prevent" the downrange movement of the shooter... or, at least, to be able to demonstrate that they were "out of control" when they blew past. Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 PS to Rich: Vince is easy to spot. Picture "Pavoratti" with a funny accent and a hangover ;-) Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted February 25, 2002 Author Share Posted February 25, 2002 Mr Pinto - whadda pleasure :-) Back to the thread.... this was a serious case of brain fade on the shooter's part, I freely admit that! There was no blazing past lines, marks or anything of the such. As a matter of fact, there WAS a forward fault line that the shooter never passed, and actually didn't go all the way up to.... Did I mention that I was the shooter :-0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 Bruce wrote: "The rules say that it is the course designer's responsibility to make it so the shooter *can't* get within 10 meters of steel." No, the rules only suggest that, because of the word "should." The word "shall" would make them more accountable. The only "must" in there is buried within an "if." [rolleyes][/rolleyes] Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine with the rulebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 Hi guys, I would like to address the points made by various contributors: 1) It should be noted that Erik Warren's pet peeve concerning use of the words "should" and "must" in respect of Rule 2.1.8.2. only arises in respect of the US version of the rule. In the IPSC rulebook, it states that the course designer "MUST prevent competitors from shooting at steel targets from closer than 10 metres" and charge lines "MUST be placed at least 11 metres from the targets". I don't know why the US changed the first instance of the word "must" to "should", however they still use the word "must" in respect of the 11 metre placement of charge lines. 2) I agree with Shooter40 and Bruce Gary that a competitor who merely steps over a charge line placed at 11 metres (but remains further than 10 metres from a steel target) should only incur a procedural penalty, and the US rule book specifically states this (well done, John Amidon). On the other hand, both rule books are silent on the issue of a competitor who approaches a steel target closer than 10 metres. However, as I stated in my original post, this oversight has been noted and it will be formally addressed at the next IPSC Assembly. 3) Bruce raises concerns that if we declare "closer than 10 metres" to be unsafe are we, by default, declaring *beyond* 10 metres *is* safe? While I'm obviously aware of the litigious nature of certain regions :-) remember that IPSC needs to "draw the line" in our rule book. For argument's sake, there is no penalty for breaking a shot at 179 degrees but doing so at 181 degrees gets you a DQ! Are we therefore stating that the former angle is safe? No, I don't think so. As an analogy, is a Police officer stating a guy driving at 59mph in a 60mph zone is safe but another guy driving at 61mph in the same zone is unsafe? The "lines" we draw are our "best effort" at providing reasonable safety standards given the nature of our sport, and our excellent safety record speaks for itself. However our "lines" must also provide clear parameters for administration of the sport and the application of our rules. Without these "lines", every RO call would be a judgement call, and this would lead to endless disputes. 4) Yo Kathy, yes I realise you were the shooter and I'm sorry you were the victim of over zealous officiating but, as we say in Australia, "Don't let the bastards get you down" (can I use the word "bastards"?). Anyway, keep your chin up and put this matter behind you. IPSC needs more good people, and you are good people ! 5) OK Bruce, so what's this about me looking like "Pavarotti but with a funny accent and a hangover", huh? Get your facts straight, OK? I'll have you know that I shaved my beard off 6 months ago. Now I look like Sergeant Schultz with a funny accent and a hangover! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 Ok next question...if we have a safe distance rule for steel, what about paper? Without quoting directly from the rule book (I know I got it around here somewhere) Any discharge within 3m is considered unsafe, unles there is a target there, in which case its fine? So if a shooter AD's into his foot while engaging a 2ft target, what does he get? A warning for sweeping? There should be a rule that no target can be closer that 3m so that at no time can a bullet impact closer than the safe distance (or give a margin for error like the steel rule and make it 4m Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 Pat, ditto for soft cover and hard cover or props which are likely to be shot accidentally while engaging targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted February 26, 2002 Share Posted February 26, 2002 Hi Pat, There is no "minimum distance" rule for paper targets. Rule 10.3.1.1. defines the criteria for an Accidental Discharge and provides for a match DQ in the event that one occurs. One of the criteria is a shot striking the ground within 3 metres of the competitor *except* when a paper target being engaged is within 3 metres from the competitor. If a competitor actually shoots himself, he will receive a match DQ under Rule 10.3.7. as there is no doubt the handgun was pointed at his body. We do not have a specific rule dealing with competitors shooting themselves and I guess the main reason is that it is an exceptionally rare occurrence. Frankly we cannot make a rule for every single possibility and that is why the very first rule in the book, Rule 1.1.1. (and other rules such as 2.1.1. and 2.1.2.) emphasises safety as the first priority for course designers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts