Match Dq Opinions

[kdmoore]

Anybody else shot on a hot range? How many places run like that? What is the protocol? Do you load for the next stage instead of UASC?

NRA is a "hot range" (just outside of DC).

I shot one match there years back. I don't remember the protocol.

[Shawn Knight]

I think we are getting a little off topic.

Hot ranges are not the issue. The issue is whether or not this shooter should be DQ'd for the AD. In short I say Yes. The shooter still retains the ultimate responsibility for the condition of their firearm. The SO and MD need to examine their COF and procedures used to see where the breakdown in the process happened.

Every shooter needs to remember that they are responsible for their own firearm. If someone gives you heck about something you are doing to ensure safety then you need to have a talk with them and the MD. Somewhere someone was not following established safety procedures.

[Scott R]

I agree that the shooter should have been DQd.

In my opinion where the problem occured is when he could not confirm visually that the firearm was infact unloaded he should have asked for more light and stood with the slide back and muzzle facing downrange until someone obliged him. And if that upset anyone then so be it, safety must come first.

[Mike Wood]

Mike, are you saying that the shooters were not allowed to use their flashlights to verify an empty chamber? The lights were purposefully left off, and the only light being used, which you stated before wasn't enough, were the RO's red lights? Were the lights left off in an effort to save time? Why couldn't the shooters use their lights to UASC? Why not just turn on the lights when the shooters were done shooting?

That's what I'm saying. The only lights were the RO's red light which seemed to fine for everyone else (including the RO that was on the now infamous stage) I personally would have liked more light. The lights we were using were bright-but they were red. And you had to take a more intense look than you would in white light which probably made the time saved a wash.

At this time I don't have all the answers about why it's done that way in this annual match. I wasn't really involved with the planning of it and I kind of found out late in the game that I'd be working it. It probably does have something to do with keeping peoples night vision sharper and also a time saver in this time critical match.This is the only night match I've ever attended but like I stated before I think there could be a better way to do it. Let me make one thing perfectly clear. This is a well thought out and very safe match. No ones safety was ever comprimised-perhaps someones DQ, but no ones safety, so let's not go there.

The UASC revealed the gun wasn't empty and it went bang-too bad for the shooter, but he had the gun pointed downrange and no one was going to get hurt. As you guys well know if even ONE of the 4 rules of gun safety are followed- no one gets hurt.

One of the reasons this match runs so well year after year is it has so many safety features built in. For instance the shooters have one of those green tube lights hanging on their back the whole time they shoot the night stages and the RO's have a red one. If you can't see the light it means the guy has turned up range . When you're following him through the stage with the clock you of course have his light to go by as well, if he's reloading and you need to see what's going on you can discreetly use your red light. My only gripe is with the UASC, I think it should be lit.

IDPA Is not Tactical training. It is a game.

. I think this is a case of MD's and SO's taking their job a little too seriously. They are not tactical instructors.

I don't understand the comment. In what way are they trying to be tactical instructors?

[Mike Wood]

Every shooter needs to remember that they are responsible for their own firearm.

I don't know about you guys but even with my Glock in the dark I can tell when I drop the slide that I've just chambered a round. I believe this shooter was using a 1911 which as any 1911 shooter can tell you even a tuned one "kerchunks" a bit when a round is chambered.

I think he just got confused with the stage protocol of having to have the "cast" removed from his arm before he could UASC and got his steps backward. I know it sucks but the fact is the 1st responsibility is with the guy holding the gun. We're not babies out there (although to hear some shooters I could be wrong) and as it was stated before this is not training, you are already supposed to know these procedures and safe gun handling when you achieve a classification in this SPORT. And WAY before you come to the line in a sanctioned match.

[Shawn Knight]

IDPA Is not Tactical training. It is a game.

. I think this is a case of MD's and SO's taking their job a little too seriously. They are not tactical instructors.

I don't understand the comment. In what way are they trying to be tactical instructors?

I made that comment in response to this comment.

It is very simple for the shooter to verify an empty mag well and a loaded or unloaded chamber, in total darkness. The technique is taught in many first level self defense classes.

Maybe the too seriously part is a little local match anger oriented. Sorry. One of our SO's keeps giving out tons of "real world" training during matches. Kind of bugs me.

[Duane Thomas]

Okay, granted there are a lot of people in the world who don't know this, but it's really, really easy to verify an auto pistol is completely unloaded in even zero light. Just take the little finger of the non-dominant hand (the narrowest of your ten digits) and probe the magazine well, then the chamber. And I mean get your finger in there, feel that the chamber is unloaded. Maybe in the future at this match, they might give a minute-long block of instruction at the beginning of the match on how to do this, and then require every competitor to do it as part of UASC.

Please understand, not trying to be a smartass or a know-it-all, it's just that the problem experienced here is easily avoided with just a bit of knowledge. Over the years we've developed techinques to deal with checking that the gun is unloaded in low/no light. Maybe in the future at this match they can be used, and possibly avoid any future problems.

[Mike Wood]

. Just take the little finger of the non-dominant hand (the narrowest of your ten digits) and probe the magazine well, then the chamber. And I mean get your finger in there, feel that the chamber is unloaded. Maybe in the future at this match, they might give a minute-long block of instruction at the beginning of the match on how to do this, and then require every competitor to do it as part of UASC.

Maybe in the future at this match they can be used, and possibly avoid any future problems.

I concur.

[kdmoore]

. Just take the little finger of the non-dominant hand (the narrowest of your ten digits) and probe the magazine well, then the chamber. And I mean get your finger in there, feel that the chamber is unloaded. Maybe in the future at this match, they might give a minute-long block of instruction at the beginning of the match on how to do this, and then require every competitor to do it as part of UASC.

Maybe in the future at this match they can be used, and possibly avoid any future problems.

I concur.

How bout acknowledging that both the shooter and the SO had failed their responsibilities, and let both of them sit/paste for the rest of the match?

I go back to an earlier statement of mine, I don't think that all of the blame goes to one person. Much like the safety laws, there is overlapping responsibilities, redundant safeties so to speak. As they both failed, why not address both?

While red light isn't ideal, it should be enough to visually check a chamber, just need to slow down and confirm what you are seeing. A finger check from the shooter (encouraged or required) is also a great idea.

[Jim Watson]

this time critical match

What makes it time critical?

The main thing I have learned at low light - no light shoots is that you can't rush things. Everything takes longer in the dark.

[Mike Wood]

this time critical match

What makes it time critical?

The main thing I have learned at low light - no light shoots is that you can't rush things. Everything takes longer in the dark.

X amount of time allotted to run the match, with X amount of shooters, including any unplanned prop failures, reshoots, etc. Any event whether it be shooting or motorcycle racing or whatever has to be planned and run like clockwork. This match being all shot indoors one shooter at at time=TIME CRITICAL. If you were starting from scratch with this thing as our MD did on the 1st ones you would be faced with a monumental task. Over the years it's been prodded & tweaked into the smoothly running machine it is now.

You guys are making a huge deal out of one guy getting a justifiable DQ in one sanctioned match. Let me say this again and for the last time. IT IS A RANGE RULE, PERIOD and it's always been non-negotiable. I agree we can all learn something from this. I know I did and so did the 2 people directly involved.

MW

[Mike Wood]

How bout acknowledging that both the shooter and the SO had failed their responsibilities, and let both of them sit/paste for the rest of the match?

I go back to an earlier statement of mine, I don't think that all of the blame goes to one person. Much like the safety laws, there is overlapping responsibilities, redundant safeties so to speak. As they both failed, why not address both?

While red light isn't ideal, it should be enough to visually check a chamber, just need to slow down and confirm what you are seeing. A finger check from the shooter (encouraged or required) is also a great idea.

KD I read your earlier post again and the comment you made in this one about having the "RO sit/paste for the rest of the match" doesn't even seem like it was written by the same person. There is no way this RO should or would have had to be pulled from a sanctioned match because the SHOOTER had an AD. That's akin to a traffic cop being put on report because the drunk he was giving the breath test to fell down and the cop failed to catch him. I have already stated (too many times) that I agree the RO bears a small portion of the blame for the gun not being cleared. But you think he should get punished equally?

[Bear23]

Okay, granted there are a lot of people in the world who don't know this, but it's really, really easy to verify an auto pistol is completely unloaded in even zero light. Just take the little finger of the non-dominant hand (the narrowest of your ten digits) and probe the magazine well, then the chamber. And I mean get your finger in there, feel that the chamber is unloaded. Maybe in the future at this match, they might give a minute-long block of instruction at the beginning of the match on how to do this, and then require every competitor to do it as part of UASC.

Please understand, not trying to be a smartass or a know-it-all, it's just that the problem experienced here is easily avoided with just a bit of knowledge. Over the years we've developed techinques to deal with checking that the gun is unloaded in low/no light. Maybe in the future at this match they can be used, and possibly avoid any future problems.

Good post. Its what i do at low light shoots. We do them here with rifles on occasion, so safety must come first.

[CSEMARTIN]

Is the SO that stood there and watched the whole thing happen really ready to SO more shooters (in the dark)?

But you think he should get punished equally?

Yes. I think the SO should have been asked to sit out the rest of the day as well. Both the shooter and SO failed their duties. Both share equal responsibility.

[Singlestack Wonder]

Both share equal responsibility

No, it is the shooter's ultimate responsibilty to make sure the gun is clear, not the SO. The call was right, period.

[Shawn Knight]

Many of you have a copy of the Official IDPA "How To Run A Match" video. Key it up to 31:00 and let it run a minute or two. Hack says clearly that it is the SO's reponsibility to determine if the gun is really unloaded.

What happened at the particular match is over with and cannot be changed.

Both share equal responsibility

No, it is the shooter's ultimate responsibilty to make sure the gun is clear, not the SO. The call was right, period.

I see a conflict. Which person is right?

[Tom Freeman]

The shooter was 100% wrong for pulling the trigger.

The SO was 100% wrong for allowing it to happen.

Both should have taken the night off. One did by way of a DQ. The other should have realized it just isnt his night and handed the timer to someone else.

[CSEMARTIN]

The other should have realized it just isnt his night and handed the timer to someone else.

A few days before going to Smith & Wesson, another shooter and I went to the range to do some practice in the dark. I had an AD. It really freaked me out. This is how it happened. I'm right-handed. I had my timer set on random. I activated my timer, waited for the beep and drew my pistol. I had my flashlight stowed in my vest pocket (something I hadn't practiced before, but I knew that was how it was going to be at the match so I wanted to practice it that way). As my weak hand came up to the gun, my weak hand index finger hit the trigger. The gun went off, my flashlight went to the ground and I instantly felt a freakish feeling. It wasn't a match, the other shooter with me was working the lights on the range and wasn't right beside me, but I felt that if I made one mistake during that session, why take a chance that it could happen again. What had happened? Was I fatigued? Who knows. I just think that anyone involved in an AD, regardless of what percentage of blame you place on them, needs to call it quits for the day. The other shooter with me packed up her things too. We were done!!

Yes, I strongly believe the SO needed to take the rest of the day off.

[kdmoore]

KD I read your earlier post again and the comment you made in this one about having the "RO sit/paste for the rest of the match" doesn't even seem like it was written by the same person. There is no way this RO should or would have had to be pulled from a sanctioned match because the SHOOTER had an AD. That's akin to a traffic cop being put on report because the drunk he was giving the breath test to fell down and the cop failed to catch him. I have already stated (too many times) that I agree the RO bears a small portion of the blame for the gun not being cleared. But you think he should get punished equally?

I don't want to beat a dead horse, just explain my stance (which is just an opinion). Often time we pin the responsibility on one person (the one who was most at fault?). I think that sometimes the blame is shared between groups. Say we decide that the responsibility was 55/45 for the shooter/SO (hypothetical). Nothing wrong with sending a message to that effect, let them both sit. We have redundant safety rules, they all have to fail to have a real problem. We have redundant persons of responsibility, if they both fail (and they did) we have exposure to a catastrophic event.

I get torn myself, as when I'm wearing my competitors hat, I'd feel fully responsible, and when I'm wearing a RO hat, I'd feel mostly responsible.

The cop analogy works if part of the training for administering the test is teaching that cops are responsible for the well being of the suspected drunk, and should prevent accidents from happening while performing this test. In fact, in that case the cop shares responsibility and it IS reasonable to put him on report.

You said policy was to DQ the shooter (range policy). I can live with that. But I think if the range was to publically state that new policy leaves both sitting the rest of the match DQ'd, then the chance of a repeat performance would diminish. Any SO who disagree's isn't taking his responsibility for safety deeply enough IMO.

[micktom]

Edited April 12, 2007 by micktom

[Shawn Knight]

I guess I am still stuck on the Time issue. Was it just for the COF for the other shooters not to see the stage? Lights on before UASC is easy to do. One shooter (one that has already shot) is chosen to turn the lights on and off at the SO's command. This should have been done from the start.

Edited April 12, 2007 by theknightoflight

[RobMoore]

When I'm running a night fire requalification for my agency, I specifically leave the lights off until AFTER UASC to make them finger probe the chamber and magazine well. The shooter shouldn't have to have light to know the condition of his weapon, and the shooter should never trust someone else to check the condition for them.

[Shawn Knight]

When I'm running a night fire requalification for my agency, I specifically leave the lights off until AFTER UASC to make them finger probe the chamber and magazine well. The shooter shouldn't have to have light to know the condition of his weapon, and the shooter should never trust someone else to check the condition for them.

Again IDPA is not an Agency nor is it tactical training. SO's have a certain amount of responsibility even though the shooter is responsible for the condition of their firearm.

[Singlestack Wonder]

Let's compare this situation in IDPA to a similar one in USPSA. I've attended many USPSA matches, both local and area, where competitors were told to unload, show clear, and hammer down, and the gun fires. In all cases, the competitor was DQ'ed from the match. Nothing was said to the RO's and every competitor at the match agreed with the call.

Why should an IDPA SO who is following the rules be treated any differently?

[Shawn Knight]

Why should an IDPA SO who is following the rules be treated any differently?

He shouldn't. But this situation made itself more dangerous if the shooter didn't know any no/low light condition checking techniques. It would have been better if a "Lights On!" command had been given and/or a no/low light condition assessment briefing prior to the first hammer down. Nothing we can do about it now except learn from this and make sure our own clubs don't make the same series of mistakes, and yes I believe there was more than one mistake by SO, Shooter, Stage Designer, and MD.