If You Are Finished ...

[reneet]

known shooter at a club match

I've seen this sort of thing go on regularly at club level matches. Typically, I think, because there are not many if any certified ROs running shooters but more likely due to the fact that "experienced" shooters are ahead of the RO.

From the shooter side, I would not mind showing the RO clear if he/she had not seen the empty chamber but don't think a DQ should be issued.

[Fireant]

Seen it here many times and am guilty myself. Sometimes in the heat of the summer the RO might get tounge tied so I'll just start the process and wait til the RO catches up. Now at a big match I tend to wait, because some people get wound a bit tight(myself included).

[JFD]

I always show the RO my chamber and I WILL see the chamber when I'm the RO.

I wouldn't approach it like the shooter did anything wrong, but he's going to show me that chamber.

[Jim Norman]

I always show the RO my chamber and I WILL see the chamber when I'm the RO.

I wouldn't approach it like the shooter did anything wrong, but he's going to show me that chamber.

If logic and good sense start to prevail here in this manner, I may have to stir things up!

OK, Humor off.

Essentially this is what most all of us do.

If the shooter refused after I asked, now that is a different story.

As to the Flip&Catch. Yes, you are probably no more likely to sweep yourself doing this than opening a port, HOWEVER, opening a port is a necessary movement, Flip&Catch is not.

Jim

[Nik Habicht]

If I'm ROing, I need to see that the gun is clear ---- so I'll be asking to see that.....

What he said. Nik does it to me, and I'm the Robin to his Batman, running one of the local matches.

Really?

Do you guys wear the masks and shiny tights as well?

Well I do .. I'm still trying to convince Nik that he would look dashing in a black cape.

Vlad,

I'm pretty sure the "Dark Lord of IPSC" title is already gone.........

George,

I figured to leave the cape and tights to you and Chriss.......

I've always asked nicely and Surprise ---- that's always worked. I suppose someone could opt for door number 2, and if they opted for it persistently enough, there might be a match fee refund involved, but I've never seen anything close to that happen......

[ima45dv8]

I've had a few shooters get ahead of me during UASC. It happens. Ask nicely to have them repeat it a bit slower, while reminding them that unloading is *not* part of the timed event. I've not had anyone refuse, and some have even apologized (!).

I guess if someone actually did refuse, I'd deputize the rest of the squad to hold them down and tickle them until they beg for mercy.

[Bigbadaboom]

I do it all the time, usually after a really smokin' run that went just like I planned it (This is happening more and more often lately). Some times th R.O. asks to see the chamber again and I unholster and show them and sometimes they just figure that if it didn't go bang it's not loaded. Either way it's no biggy to me. If I'm the R.O. my eyes don't leave the gun so 99% of the time (Even when Todd J. did it to me) if someone goes through it ahead of my commands I still see the empty chamber and don't make them redraw. the very few times that I didn't see it (Usually with left handed shooters) I just ask to see it once more. Again, no biggy.

[Steve Moneypenny]

I would politely ask to see the cleared gun. the whole DQing an unexperienced shooter thing makes me frown thats bad for our sport.

he clearly didn't understand how things should work in a match. after it was clear and scored i'd talk to him about it in a polite manner

[Flexmoney]

Ditto.

As the RO, I am required to ask for..and see...the unloaded chamber.

It's never an issue. If the shooter goes too fast, I just ask to see the "show clear" again.

Pretty simple.

[Loves2Shoot]

As an RO you are responsible for making sure the gun is clear. It happens all the time. Some people have poor hearing, some people just do it as habit, some people are too happy or mad. Not a big deal at all IMO, just remember you are in charge and responsible.

[Jim Norman]

Without rereading every post, I don't think anyone was after issuing a DQ. I think everyone wants to make sure that thegun is clear. If as an RO you are not sure, you ask the shooter to slowdown and show clear so you can see it. I think someone said that they tell the speed demons that ULSC is off the clock, no need to rush.

Now again, if someone refused to to comply, even after a quiet explaination, what recourse is there?

Jim

[open17]

As an RO you are responsible for making sure the gun is clear. It happens all the time. Some people have poor hearing, some people just do it as habit, some people are too happy or mad. Not a big deal at all IMO, just remember you are in charge and responsible.

Bzzzzzzzt! Wrong. The person ultimately responsible for determining that the gun is clear

is the SHOOTER. Hence the command "IF clear". It used to be that the RO was responsible under IPSC rules, but they changed that in the 2004 rules so that the

shooter is responsible. The shooter has been responsible under USPSA rules for as

long as I've been playing.

[Loves2Shoot]

Correct, if the gun is not empty and the gun goes bang the DQ goes to the shooter and not the RO

But it is the responsibility of the RO to makes sure the rules are followed and everybody is safe to the best of their ablility.

Making sure the magazine is out of the gun and the chambler is empty before the hammer falls is part of that job isn't it? If it isn't I think it should be.

[ima45dv8]

Now again, if someone refused to to comply, even after a quiet explaination, what recourse is there?

Jim

I can't think of a blanket response for that one. My response would have to take in the total circumstances of the event, the shooters attitude, level of rudeness, etc. I might simply refuse to run that shooter through any more stages - Ever.

This seems to be one of those "what ifs" that probably (hopefully) won't ever happen in real life, anyway. Sort of like the long-debated, "What if someone lit off a shot while taking a sight picture with a loaded gun?" thread. Seems none of us has actually encountered that either, and hopefully never will.

[Nik Habicht]

Now again, if someone refused to to comply, even after a quiet explaination, what recourse is there?

Jim

I can't think of a blanket response for that one. My response would have to take in the total circumstances of the event, the shooters attitude, level of rudeness, etc. I might simply refuse to run that shooter through any more stages - Ever.

This seems to be one of those "what ifs" that probably (hopefully) won't ever happen in real life, anyway. Sort of like the long-debated, "What if someone lit off a shot while taking a sight picture with a loaded gun?" thread. Seems none of us has actually encountered that either, and hopefully never will.

I really can't imagine it ever getting that far ----- I've personally never had it, or heard of it, going farther than a request to show clear again. If you encounter that situation as an RO, you need to kick it upstairs to the proper authority ---- think CRO, then RM at a major; think match director at a club match. As a Club Match Director, that's our job. If it got kicked up to me, I'd talk to all parties involved, and try to broker a compromise/explain the club's/match's position and enforce it. I've never had to ask anyone to leave a match, and I've never had to ask anyone not to return ---- but it could conceivable happen to me someday. I've known match directors who have had the displeasure of having to ban shooters from their matches......

[Precision40]

I'm a new RO. Lets say you are running a known shooter at a club match, and immediately after his last shot, pointed downrange, he removes the mag, ejects the remaining round, works the slide a couple of times, clicks the hammer down, no boom, and holsters.

Everything's fine, except he does this prior to you issuing any commands besides "If you are finished ..." Is this Okay, or how would you handle it?

If the shooter just disregards the RO and does exactly how you explained, I would remind them about the range commands and ask them to do it by the book, that's usually all you have to do. Ultimate responsibility however isn't with the RO, it's with the shooter, the RO's job is "assist" the competitor in safely unloading their firearm.

[uscbigdawg]

Correct, if the gun is not empty and the gun goes bang the DQ goes to the shooter and not the RO

But it is the responsibility of the RO to makes sure the rules are followed and everybody is safe to the best of their ablility.

Making sure the magazine is out of the gun and the chambler is empty before the hammer falls is part of that job isn't it? If it isn't I think it should be.

open17 has it pretty much on. It is now the responsibility of the shooter to clear their firearm. Before it was on the RO. The RO's duty at this point in the stage is to direct the shooter to clear their weapon and maintain safe conditions on the range. If the shooter fails to clear his weapon, it is a DQ on their part, not a failing of inspection on the RO, hence the command change to, "If clear, hammer down, holster". If on, 'hammer down' the firearm goes bang it's on the shooter. There was a point in I believe IPSC history a couple of years back (not too long ago) when the range command was, "Gun is Clear, Hammer Down, Holster". On, 'hammer down', the gun went bang and in arbitration, someone put it on the RO for not clearing the weapon. Stupid I know, but that's what I recall as the reason for the command change.

Rich

[Jim Norman]

Actually we have always considered the ULSC to be the shooters responsibility. It was a bow to IPSC that we chanaged the wording.. Truthfully, if you read the wors correctly and use a rising inflection on the word "Clear" then the meaning would have been idential.

Read "If clear, hammer down, holster" OR

"Gun clear??, Hammer down, holster"

It was a PC/BS change. We all know/knew what was meant, it was the PC Police in IPSC that just didn't get it.

Point of fact, we were more specific, we asked if the gun was clear, now we just might be refering to the weather.

Jim

[open17]

Actually we have always considered the ULSC to be the shooters responsibility. It was a bow to IPSC that we chanaged the wording.. Truthfully, if you read the wors correctly and use a rising inflection on the word "Clear" then the meaning would have been idential.

It was a PC/BS change. We all know/knew what was meant, it was the PC Police in IPSC that just didn't get it.

Jim

Wow. I remember it a little differently. Here is what I recall:

In the old rulebook, the IPSC rule made it the RO's responsibility to verify that the gun

was clear. If the gun went BANG at "hammer down", they just started over at "unload".

No penalty.

There was a US--- rule that superceded the IPSC rule here, and it made it the shooters

responsibility. BANG=DQ.

The green book made it the shooters responsibility, IPSC, USPSA, everywhere. This is

actually a case where IPSC changed their rule to bring it in line with the USPSA rule.

So--"we" didn't change any wording, "they" did.

[Nik Habicht]

This is actually a case where IPSC changed their rule to bring it in line with the USPSA rule.

So--"we" didn't change any wording, "they" did.

Yep, you're right ---- IPSC changed the way they did business. Our range command however used to be "Gun clear, Hammer down, Holster." How do I remember this? Because Bill Kehoe drilled it into my head during my RO class in 2002.....

If the shooter just disregards the RO and does exactly how you explained, I would remind them about the range commands and ask them to do it by the book, that's usually all you have to do. Ultimate responsibility however isn't with the RO, it's with the shooter, the RO's job is "assist" the competitor in safely unloading their firearm.

Why do we verify that the gun is clear? For the same reason that most of our safety rules have redundancy built into them. That redundancy is what allows us to play the game safely.....

[Jim Norman]

Actually we have always considered the ULSC to be the shooters responsibility. It was a bow to IPSC that we chanaged the wording.. Truthfully, if you read the wors correctly and use a rising inflection on the word "Clear" then the meaning would have been idential.

It was a PC/BS change. We all know/knew what was meant, it was the PC Police in IPSC that just didn't get it.

Jim

Wow. I remember it a little differently. Here is what I recall:

In the old rulebook, the IPSC rule made it the RO's responsibility to verify that the gun

was clear. If the gun went BANG at "hammer down", they just started over at "unload".

No penalty.

There was a US--- rule that superceded the IPSC rule here, and it made it the shooters

responsibility. BANG=DQ.

The green book made it the shooters responsibility, IPSC, USPSA, everywhere. This is

actually a case where IPSC changed their rule to bring it in line with the USPSA rule.

So--"we" didn't change any wording, "they" did.

Sorry, but as Nik points out, we did change the wording. As did IPSC.

Here it was always understood that a Bang at ULSC was the fault of the shooter. IPSC as you correctly point out didn't see it that way. They said that "Gun Clear" was a declaratrory statement and that thereby put the onus upon the RO, not the shooter. The wording was changed becasue, well some people don't get it no matter how slowly and loudly you explain it.English may be spoken everywhere, but not always with the same meaning.

As I said earlier and the written word may fail to communicate, is that Gun Clear! can be a declaratory, or Gun Clear? and interogative. We here understood it as an interogative. IPSC as a declaratory.

Perhaps not everyone used teh rising inflection to signify a question, however, we all did realize that the hand that holds the gun is responsible for what happens. IPSC did not agree. They had the RO as the responsible party, even though he neither unloaded, nor failed to clear the gun, IPSC still said it was his fault.

So, what does all this mean? Absolutely nothing. In point of fact, our actions and responsibilities are unchanged, we had todo a little worldspeak with our commands, IPSC had to change.

Jim (I haven't written the words "Interogative or Declaratory" in a sentence in 30 plus years) Norman

[open17]

This is actually a case where IPSC changed their rule to bring it in line with the USPSA rule.

So--"we" didn't change any wording, "they" did.

Yep, you're right ---- IPSC changed the way they did business. Our range command however used to be "Gun clear, Hammer down, Holster." How do I remember this? Because Bill Kehoe drilled it into my head during my RO class in 2002.....

Yup. You are right. I should have dug out the old rule book. Now that you reminded

me of the old command, it brought back memories of my RO class--also in 2002--

but the instructor was Troy.

[chuckw]

Truthfully, if you read the wors correctly and use a rising inflection on the word "Clear" then the meaning would have been idential.

Read "If clear, hammer down, holster" OR

"Gun clear??, Hammer down, holster"

It was a PC/BS change. We all know/knew what was meant, it was the PC Police in IPSC that just didn't get it.

I think you don't get it, and you're adding stuff to support a flawed argument. Since when do we have "rising inflections" in the rules? Since when were there question marks after the words "Gun clear" in the rules? In my USPSA red book, it says

8.3.7 "Gun clear, hammer down, holster" - This command is given after the Range Officer is satisfied that the handgun is unloaded and safe for further action.

No question marks or rising inflections. It's an RO declaration - end of story - and it goes on to say it's made when the RO - not the shooter - is satisfied the gun is clear. You could blame or DQ who you want, but the printed rules were clear who was at fault for not doing their job.

Edited October 26, 2006 by chuckw

[Precision40]

8.3.7 Does Not say "Gun Clear, Hammer Down, Holster.

8.3.7 “If Clear, Hammer Down, Holster” – After issuance of this command,

the competitor must not resume shooting (see Rule 10.6.1).

While continuing to point the handgun safely downrange,

the competitor must perform a final safety check of the

handgun as follows:

8.3.7.1 Self-loaders – release the slide and pull the trigger (without

touching the hammer, if any).

8.3.7.2 Revolvers – close the empty cylinder (without touching the

hammer, if any).

8.3.7.3 If the gun proves to be clear, the competitor must holster his

handgun. Once the competitor’s hands are clear of the holstered

handgun, the course of fire is deemed to have ended.

8.3.7.4 If the gun does not prove to be clear, the Range Officer will

resume the commands from Rule 8.3.6 (also see Rule

10.4.3).

Edited October 26, 2006 by Precision40

[TreblePlink]

Seems that we have two schools of thought here.

1. Doesn't matter - no need to see the chamber clearly, as long as clear was reasonably demonstrated (hammer down and no boom). This theory is based upon on the "If clear" - the ultimate responsibility to clear the weapon is on the shooter, and he demonstrated that.

2. RO Must clearly see an empty chamber every time. This would seem to be based upon the (shared?) responsibility the RO has to ensure a cleared weapon, or perhaps redundancy for safety sake.

So, is this personal preference thing or is there an authoritative answer?