Out of position

[gino_aki]

At our weekly match a couple of weekends ago, one of our competitors was near the end of the course of fire, doing a standing reload at the top of a stairway platform where there is not room for both the shooter and me (the RO), and there is plywood with ports covering the front portion. Shooter is firing over the plywood (comes up to chest level) Shot goes off what appears to me to be prematurely but since I was two steps down on the platform I didn't SEE exactly where he had the gun pointed although by his body position; arms, shoulders etc. I could tell that the shot went downrange. Being one of our better shooters he covered it well by ripping through the last array. After finishing up and scoring, another of our better competitors (and RO's) asked why I didn't DQ the shooter. I told him that since I was out of position and I didn't see it, only heard it I had let it go. Yeah, it sounded lame to me too, as soon as I said it. I did ask the shooter if that shot had gone off prematurely and he admitted that it did.

I guess I've sort of answered my own question, but I'd like to see how other RO's would have handled it. Do you need to SEE a DQ? Or can you give one for one you're out of position on?

I will admit to a bit of embarrassment on my part since I take pride in my RO skills, and I wasn't quick enough to say STOP!

[Nik Habicht]

If the competitor fesses up --- yup, a DQ is warranted. The larger issue is stage design though ---- we should be careful about ensuring the the RO can follow/see the shooter at all times without getting trapped......

[Shooter Grrl]

An unexpected firing of a gun is not necessarily a disqualifiable action!

And I am a firm believer that if you didn't see it, how could you possibly *know 100%* that it was a DQ? If you didn't see, you can't call it!!!!

[LPatterson]

Just because the shooter said the shot was premature is not necessary a reason for a DQ. If you did not see the cause (finger on trigger during reloading or movement) then you should not issue a DQ. If your assistant RO (scorekeeper) saw the cause then you could issue the DQ but never base your decisions on what you THINK might have happened. Remember as the RO you are responsible for all decisions that you or your assistant SEE.

Kathy is faster than me unless I break her gun.

Edited July 21, 2007 by LPatterson

[BDH]

I agree with the posted comments that you can't DQ him since you were not able to see and be 100% sure. Then again, often tough to be the Sunday morning quarterback on some of these things, but assume he finished the reload, got a little quick on the trigger but the bullet actually scored on the target? I've seen stuff like this a lot of times and the usual telltale sign is when the competitor 'jumps' because he was not actually ready. Anyway, even though I knew he broke the shot early, it went in a safe direction and actually toward or hit the target. I certainly cannot call anything on it! I also agree with Nik's comments about stage design and positioning, but some times it is just tough (especially for someone as 'petite' as I am on a tight stage)...

I just had a stage at the Ecuador Open where the competitor climbed a couple of steps, ran across a platform several yards long, and back down a couple of steps and into the rest of the stage. While the competitor was on the platform, he had to engage targets on both sides of the platform, which put everyone in a position of having to be extremely aware of the 180 (or actually, the 90 since this was under IPSC rules). Further, the way the targets were layed out, the competitor shot one side, swung all the way around, shot the other side, then back around to the other side, etc. all while moving down the platform.

Hmmm, exactly how was I going to run this?? I decided right away that it would be a bad plan for me to follow them on the platform, so I had to work along one side of the platform, while the competitor shot from the platform. When making a call like a 180 violation, I like to be directly behind the competitor so I can see without a doubt that his muzzle swung past the 180. In this case, if I was in my preferred position while he was shooting let's say the left targets, I would have been almost directly in front of his muzzle when he swung around to shoot the right hand side targets. Obviously, I had to stay back farther than I would have liked to, but that was the only way to safely run this stage. Finally, what I ended up doing was standing on the platform myself, and putting marks along the side of the platform where I knew if the competitor shot target T1 beyond a certain mark, then he had to have broken the 180. Of course this was not perfect because of the different in left and right handed competitors, but sometimes you just have to do the best you can do.

[benny hill]

If you are in a free fire zone, your gun is pointed downrange & the bullet stay's in the bay, there is nothing say's you cannot fire anytime you want.

[John Baier]

If you are in a free fire zone, your gun is pointed downrange & the bullet stay's in the bay, there is nothing say's you cannot fire anytime you want.

I don't know about that one Benny, its my understanding that you must be engaging a target or it may be considered unsafe gun handling

[Gary Johnson]

If you are in a free fire zone, your gun is pointed downrange & the bullet stay's in the bay, there is nothing say's you cannot fire anytime you want.

That's not entirely true.

If a competitor is in a position where no targets are available, firing constitutes unsafe gun handling (finger off trigger until sights are on target).

This happened on my stage in Tulsa last year. Competitor touched off a round moving between ports. No targets were visible and he was DQ'd for violating rule 10.5.10/8.5.

That said, gino_akis's situation would only result in a DQ if the RO saw unsafe gun handling directly or could reasonably infer unsafe handling like in the example I gave. If targets were available from the competitor's location and the shot appeared to land safe then the competitor is OK.

Edited July 22, 2007 by Gary Johnson

[jobob]

You did exactly the right thing. You shouldn't DQ someone for what you think may have happened. Even if the shooter admits that the shot was unintentional, if it went in a safe direction with targets available, it's not on offense.

I've made some errors in judgement as an RO, usually in favor of the shooter. I'd rather it be that way than the other way around, assuming safety is not compromised.

[Barrettone]

You did exactly the right thing. You shouldn't DQ someone for what you think may have happened. Even if the shooter admits that the shot was unintentional, if it went in a safe direction with targets available, it's not on offense.

I've made some errors in judgement as an RO, usually in favor of the shooter. I'd rather it be that way than the other way around, assuming safety is not compromised.

+1

It is not what you think...it is what you know. If we DQ'd people for presumptions, then we would have a FTDR (Failure To Do Right) penalty like another sport I've heard about...and it becomes a little arbitrary IMO.

Edited July 22, 2007 by Barrettone

[chuckbradley]

Depends on what your definition of engaging is. I can be engaging a target when it is not yet available to shoot. Example, coming into a port where I know where the target is, gun is up , finger prepping trigger for instant firing as soon as its visible. If I get on the trigger a little too much and early resulting in a discharge and the round stays in the berm then its not a DQ in my book. Saying you cant put your finger on the trigger until your sights are on the target is a little tight. If that was applied then everybody who had a miss between two targets would be DQ'ed since the finger was obviously on the trigger and the sights obviously were not. We already have a rule to determine whats a DQ. Its the Accidental Discharge definition which says its a DQ if a round goes over the berm or hits within 3 meters of the shooter. I would almost assume this doesnt even apply when engaging a target since we shoot within 3 meters where the bullet impacts the ground closer than 3 meters frequently. Stage design should keep any rounds fired toward a target from leaving the berm.

Many moons ago at a nationals there was a stage with a big wall the shooter started in front of. There was a target on each end. After shooting the first target the shooter swung his gun to shoot the second target. A round discharged and hit the wall between the targets. The round stayed in the berm. The RO DQ'ed the shooter. He arbitrated and won. Forgot the exact ruling but I think it was two fold. I am shooting with one of the arbitration committee members tomorrow and I will try to remember to ask her what it was. But i think they determined the shooter was indeed engaging the target and the round impact did not qualify under the AD rule.

[gino_aki]

Thanks for the input, folks...I guess I can be a little less embarrassed now. Incidentally the shooter in question was the stage designer and MD. He's also a member and will probably read this thread. He'll be happy that most think he didn't deserve a DQ but I'm sure he will also start considering "RO traps" in his future COF's. I know I will.

[mlmiller1]

I am with the majority here, you can't DQ someone if you think they messed up. You have to witness it & if there were targets to shoot at, he can't be DQ'd without witnessing where the shot went.

My story, this year at a big match in the spring here in Texas we had a stage with a narrow hall & a 2 ft wide door at the end, the hall was the same width as the door. Nearly new guy, had only shot 3 or 4 local matches never a big match is up. He is a tall kid, by the way & the r.o. was a fairly round guy. The kid runs down the hall shooting through ports on both sides of the hall, gets to the door goes to open it. The r.o. DQ's him for pointing the gun at his hand. Now, the hall is very narrow, the r.o. is very round & the kid is very tall. I say there is no way he could even see the gun or the kid's hand. No way but the kid is so shook he doesn't even argue. Just to paint the picture better, the hall was so narrow that to unload & show clear, you had to step out the door, let the r.o. step out the door, then unload because you couldn't see the gun from inside the hallway.

That particular r.o. tried to DQ a guy in our squad for firing a round that hit right underneath the target. He said it was an AD. His assistant told him he couldn't do that. That guy was just waiting to DQ someone & he found that kid to do it to. He DQ'd him for something he thought he did. That is wrong. You have to witness it or your assistant/scorer whatever. You can't think he did it, you have to know.

I haven't seen that kid shoot anywhere since, by the way, & he was coming along very well, having lots of fun, being safe, but I think one DQ by an overzealous r.o. killed him.

I say be very careful DQ'ing shooters. If they violate a safety rule & you witness it or have absolute evidence, then you have to do it but if you just think they did, I don't believe they should be DQ'd. Of course there are always exceptions & I'm sure someone here will post an example but thinking they did is certainly very arbitrary. USPSA doesn't have any arbitrary rules.

MLM

[Shooter Grrl]

Kathy is faster than me unless I break her gun.

>GROAN< It's a really good thing I don't hold you responsible for that LeRoy! Of course, it IS ALWAYS the RO's fault, right

[BDH]

Many moons ago at a nationals there was a stage with a big wall the shooter started in front of. There was a target on each end. After shooting the first target the shooter swung his gun to shoot the second target. A round discharged and hit the wall between the targets. The round stayed in the berm. The RO DQ'ed the shooter. He arbitrated and won. Forgot the exact ruling but I think it was two fold. I am shooting with one of the arbitration committee members tomorrow and I will try to remember to ask her what it was. But i think they determined the shooter was indeed engaging the target and the round impact did not qualify under the AD rule.

Chuck, as I stated earlier, it's always tough to be a Monday morning quarterback (especially since I did not see the incident or the stage), but from how you explained it, I would have DQ'd the competitor under the following rule...

10.5.10 Failure to keep the finger outside the trigger guard during movement in accordance with Section 8.5.

8.5 Movement

8.5.1

Except when the competitor is actually aiming or shooting at targets, all movement must be accomplished with the fingers visibly out the trigger guard

(my emphasis) and the safety should be engaged. The firearm must be pointed in a safe direction. "Movement" is defined as any of the action below:

8.5.1.1 Taking more than one step in any direction

8.5.1.2 Changing shooting stance (e.g. from standing to kneeling, from seated to standing etc.).

From your description, the competitor was not aiming or shooting at targets, and even if I did not have a clear view of his finger, if the gun goes off, either his finger was inside the trigger guard, OR his gun broke (which he will need to prove). I would call this one every time, and if the ARB committee overruled it, so be it...

That particular r.o. tried to DQ a guy in our squad for firing a round that hit right underneath the target. He said it was an AD. His assistant told him he couldn't do that. That guy was just waiting to DQ someone & he found that kid to do it to.

Again, tough call without being able to see the actual stage/hallway etc., BUT, if you truly believe that you had an RO that "was just waiting to DQ someone" you need to report that through the appropriate channels. Maybe the individual involved needs further training, or should not be an RO. In any case, USPSA/NROI has policies to deal with situations like this...

[mlmiller1]

Again, tough call without being able to see the actual stage/hallway etc., BUT, if you truly believe that you had an RO that "was just waiting to DQ someone" you need to report that through the appropriate channels. Maybe the individual involved needs further training, or should not be an RO. In any case, USPSA/NROI has policies to deal with situations like this...

I'm pretty sure after this match, that particular r.o. won't be back.

Last time I tried to deal with an official about an errant r.o. all I got was "I wish there was something in the rule book that I could go on". One r.o. at the nationals told me to stop shooting--range failure as I was shooting through a stage, while the chief r.o. wouldn't say a word . I asked him if the other guy yelled "stop" & he just looked at me. Then when John Amidon asked them about it, they both said "nobody said anything". My squad & some guys from the next squad all heard the r.o. yell "stop" but JA said he couldn't take their word for it. At least he backed up his r.o.s & he did listen to my side of it. I guess his hands were tied.

I won't make that same mistake again. If they ever want me to stop, they better make it very, very clear! In the big scheme, my situation didn't matter anyway as it was my last stage of the match & I wasn't going to win but still, I wanted to be treated fair. In all honesty, the r.o.s were very tired & mistakes were being made. That is just life. Get over it or go away, right? hahahaha.

MLM

[BDH]

Last time I tried to deal with an official about an errant r.o. all I got was "I wish there was something in the rule book that I could go on".

Well, there is something in the rulebook, see section 7.2. Also, here is the RO disciplinary policy in case you need it in the future. Sorry you had a bad experience...

[mlmiller1]

Thanks for the addy for the discipline. I was really steamed at the time but you know, in the end it was a lesson learned. Those guys have to live with the fact that they lied, both to John Amidon & to me so they are the losers in this deal.

Several very important lessons were learned that I won't forget at that match. It's all good!

MLM

[chuckbradley]

Many moons ago at a nationals there was a stage with a big wall the shooter started in front of. There was a target on each end. After shooting the first target the shooter swung his gun to shoot the second target. A round discharged and hit the wall between the targets. The round stayed in the berm. The RO DQ'ed the shooter. He arbitrated and won. Forgot the exact ruling but I think it was two fold. I am shooting with one of the arbitration committee members tomorrow and I will try to remember to ask her what it was. But i think they determined the shooter was indeed engaging the target and the round impact did not qualify under the AD rule.

Chuck, as I stated earlier, it's always tough to be a Monday morning quarterback (especially since I did not see the incident or the stage), but from how you explained it, I would have DQ'd the competitor under the following rule...

10.5.10 Failure to keep the finger outside the trigger guard during movement in accordance with Section 8.5.

8.5 Movement

8.5.1

Except when the competitor is actually aiming or shooting at targets, all movement must be accomplished with the fingers visibly out the trigger guard

(my emphasis) and the safety should be engaged. The firearm must be pointed in a safe direction. "Movement" is defined as any of the action below:

8.5.1.1 Taking more than one step in any direction

8.5.1.2 Changing shooting stance (e.g. from standing to kneeling, from seated to standing etc.).

From your description, the competitor was not aiming or shooting at targets, and even if I did not have a clear view of his finger, if the gun goes off, either his finger was inside the trigger guard, OR his gun broke (which he will need to prove). I would call this one every time, and if the ARB committee overruled it, so be it...

Problem in that situation is he wasnt moving by the definition. It was one box and he was merely transitioning from one target to the next.

[Flexmoney]

Many moons ago at a nationals there was a stage with a big wall the shooter started in front of. There was a target on each end. After shooting the first target the shooter swung his gun to shoot the second target. A round discharged and hit the wall between the targets. The round stayed in the berm. The RO DQ'ed the shooter. He arbitrated and won. Forgot the exact ruling but I think it was two fold. I am shooting with one of the arbitration committee members tomorrow and I will try to remember to ask her what it was. But i think they determined the shooter was indeed engaging the target and the round impact did not qualify under the AD rule.

Chuck, as I stated earlier, it's always tough to be a Monday morning quarterback (especially since I did not see the incident or the stage), but from how you explained it, I would have DQ'd the competitor under the following rule...

10.5.10 Failure to keep the finger outside the trigger guard during movement in accordance with Section 8.5.

8.5 Movement

8.5.1

Except when the competitor is actually aiming or shooting at targets, all movement must be accomplished with the fingers visibly out the trigger guard

(my emphasis) and the safety should be engaged. The firearm must be pointed in a safe direction. "Movement" is defined as any of the action below:

8.5.1.1 Taking more than one step in any direction

8.5.1.2 Changing shooting stance (e.g. from standing to kneeling, from seated to standing etc.).

From your description, the competitor was not aiming or shooting at targets, and even if I did not have a clear view of his finger, if the gun goes off, either his finger was inside the trigger guard, OR his gun broke (which he will need to prove). I would call this one every time, and if the ARB committee overruled it, so be it...

Problem in that situation is he wasnt moving by the definition. It was one box and he was merely transitioning from one target to the next.

No movement? He get lucky?

Sounds like he let one loose by mistake, but...since it wasn't movement...he got by with it ?

[BDH]

Problem in that situation is he wasnt moving by the definition. It was one box and he was merely transitioning from one target to the next.

Chuck, check out the italics in rule 8.5.1... 'Except when the competitor is actually aiming or shooting at targets'. Yes, it gets a little sticky on the movement definition, but I would view this as he 'is' changing positions if he is shooting all the way left, and then has to swing all the way to the right to engage the next target. Like I said, earlier, always tough being a Monday morning QB, but from the description I'm sure I would have called this one as well. Then again, that is why we have the Arb option...

[richardschennberg]

IMO you DQ for AD:

1. Whenever the gun is fired during a reload, regardless of whether targets are visible.

2. Whenever the bullet strikes the ground within 3 meters unless engaging a target placed that low.

3. Whenever the gun is fired and NO targets are visible to the shooter.

If at least one target is visible from the shooters position, a premature shot in a safe direction is not an AD. It is a waste of time and ammo, but it might even not be a miss if the shooter makes up the shot on a Comstock stage. If not made up, it is just a miss, not an AD.