accidental discharge

[38superman]

In the example I gave, the RO got it right as far as his perception of what happened.

He clearly recognized that the gun went off before I meant for it to.

He simply interpreted the circumstances and the rules that apply and ruled that it was not a DQ offense.

It was my rookie year in IPSC and I really wasn't sure, but I thought he was correct based on the 6 foot rule.

I am now an RO and have studied the rule book quite extensively but I still am not sure if it was the correct call.

Thank God the statute of limitations has run out.

Tls

Edited November 2, 2007 by 38superman

[racerba]

I'm not really sure how I'm supposed to rule on a shooter's "intent". So I DQ the guy who let's one go and it visibly shocks him when it happens, but what about the shooters who are more experienced and faster at recovering? There are going to be times when only the shooter knows if the shooter did or did not intend to fire a round.

I do wish this game was played with a little more integrity at all levels. Not sure how we get there, but I get tired of hearing shooter's laughing and almost bragging about how they clipped a no-shoot that the RO never noticed or they swept themselves but fortunately the RO was behind them where they couldn't see it, etc. The only thing you're "getting away with" is the loss of your own honor. Congrats to you on that.

The only way you can rule is how YOU - THE RO saw it. The shooter can then argue their point and try to reverse your decision.

There are some integrity left in this sport. Not all hope is lost

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So someone questioned my previous post with the following:

so we could have two ADs one that was DQable and one that was not, and in the case of the one that's not the six foot rule would apply; say in the case of a draw and first target engagement?

My answer is Yes. I figure I would share the thought.

[JThompson]

I'm not really sure how I'm supposed to rule on a shooter's "intent". So I DQ the guy who let's one go and it visibly shocks him when it happens, but what about the shooters who are more experienced and faster at recovering? There are going to be times when only the shooter knows if the shooter did or did not intend to fire a round.

I do wish this game was played with a little more integrity at all levels. Not sure how we get there, but I get tired of hearing shooter's laughing and almost bragging about how they clipped a no-shoot that the RO never noticed or they swept themselves but fortunately the RO was behind them where they couldn't see it, etc. The only thing you're "getting away with" is the loss of your own honor. Congrats to you on that.

The only way you can rule is how YOU - THE RO saw it. The shooter can then argue their point and try to reverse your decision.

There are some integrity left in this sport. Not all hope is lost

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So someone questioned my previous post with the following:

so we could have two ADs one that was DQable and one that was not, and in the case of the one that's not the six foot rule would apply; say in the case of a draw and first target engagement?

My answer is Yes. I figure I would share the thought.

I think this is a good point and makes me rethink my position to some degree.

And with that, it's beer oclock... hold down the fort guys and I shall toast to your safety and good health.

Jim

[38superman]

I'm not really sure how I'm supposed to rule on a shooter's "intent". So I DQ the guy who let's one go and it visibly shocks him when it happens, but what about the shooters who are more experienced and faster at recovering? There are going to be times when only the shooter knows if the shooter did or did not intend to fire a round.

I do wish this game was played with a little more integrity at all levels. Not sure how we get there, but I get tired of hearing shooter's laughing and almost bragging about how they clipped a no-shoot that the RO never noticed or they swept themselves but fortunately the RO was behind them where they couldn't see it, etc. The only thing you're "getting away with" is the loss of your own honor. Congrats to you on that.

You make some good points John but I'm not so sure I see it as a point of honor.

As a shooter, I have been hurt by some rulings that I thought were just flat out wrong.

I have also had some calls that were questionable that went in my favor.

In any case I am always ready and willing to accept whatever the ruling is as a good sportsman.

The bottom line is that the RO runs the shooter, the shooter does not run the RO.

I call them like I see them and I expect whoever is running me to do the same.

Everyone of us makes mistakes, but at the end of the day the RO is the boss.

If he makes a bad call in my favor I don't argue, any more than I argue a bad call that works against me.

I simply defer to the judgement of the man in charge and let the chips fall where they fall.

Tls

[Flexmoney]

Tony,

It's a bit tough to call when you keep adding stuff in lol

you said

At a major match a few years back, I started a stage with gun holstered and hands on a prop.

On the start signal I dropped the prop and began to move toward the first target array while drawing the pistol.

Just as I got the gun up and my weak hand on it, I let one get away prematurely.

It was an accidental discharge, but was in the general direction of the targets.

That sure doesn't sound like you were engaging targets. It doesn't sound like you weren't to them yet. It doesn't sound like you were aiming. Your last line reads like you let one loose without any chance of it being "engaging".

then the RO said

...that shot was not an aimed shot but he was engaging targets when it happened...

OK...that sounds like...not aimed...but the round happened to go toward the targets. I don't know how a shooter can be engaging without aiming in some manner? And, I don't mean a hard sight focus either. Aiming can mean intentionally lining the the bore up with the target. Thus, engaging would be intentionally letting the aimed shot go.

then you said

It didn't happen while moving between arrays.

Hmmm, that reads different (to me) than what you first posted...which sounded like you were still moving toward an array.

I was approaching a target and taking aim.

OK...now you are coming in on the targets...and aiming ?

I touched one off a split second before I meant to, due to sloppy trigger control.

So...now that is sounding like a miss ?

The bullet went under the target and into the berm.

Well, that clears up any concern about muzzle direction and bullets leaving over the berm, at least.

[38superman]

Sorry Flex, when I was adding things in, I was trying to clarify, not muddy the water.

I didn't think I contradicted myself but maybe I did.

It comes down to this.

If you are moving between arrays you are not supposed to have your finger in the trigger guard.

If you touch one off at such a time that is clearly a DQ offense.

In my judgement, once you reach a point where you are bringing the gun to bear on a target and have the right to bring your finger to the trigger, you are now "engaging the target".

At such a time you can still screw up and bump the trigger before you meant to shoot which is what I did.

The point I was trying to make is that we have rules to cover AD's but there are times when it is difficult to know where to draw the line.

There is a fine line where movement ends and engagement begins.

In the case of someone falling down, that is pretty cut and dried.

At other times it is simply a matter of the RO's judgement and how he decides to interpret the rules.

Hope that helps explain my meaning.

Tony

Edited November 2, 2007 by 38superman

[Flexmoney]

That makes sense.

[ima45dv8]

Just to clarify for anyone new to this game who might wander by and read this thread, the rule actually states 3 meters/9.84 feet:

"10.4 Match Disqualification – Accidental Discharge

10.4.2 A shot which strikes the ground within 3 meters (9.84 feet) of the competitor, except when shooting at a paper target closer than 3 meters (9.84 feet) to the competitor. A bullet which strikes the ground within 3 meters (9.84 feet) of the competitor due to a “squib” load is exempt from this rule."

=============================

I agree that the situations we're asked to rule on aren't always crystal clear. Plus, you simply can't see everything.

Sometimes, good judgement, experience and a near-by rulebook are all you have to go on.

[richardschennberg]

If an RO is extremelly unreasonable and unwilling to learn, bring the situation to the MD, or if absolutely necessary the club President. If you know the local people, reporting the incident and lack of concern for safety to the Officer or Director you trust most should cure the problem. It would be very unusual for an entire club leadership to disregard safety. For a Level I match that's as far as it goes unless there is cause to report someone to the USPSA BoD.

Also, remember that the ROs are only the second person in the line of safe shooting. The shooter is the most responsible for his own actions, and everyone is responsible to stop the shooter for an unsafe situation regarless of fault. This is especially true of the shooter breaking the 180 but could also happen if an uninformed person climbs on a birm or otherwise goes downrange while the range is hot.

If someone other than the RO stops the shooter, it may be impractical to give a DQ. The shooter should however get remedial training before he is allowed to reshoot that shage, shoot any stage, or enter another match.

Richard