'08 Rulebook - DQ's for AD

[joseywales]

During a practice session this weekend, I was RO-ing a friend practicing a few El Prez runs.

On one of the runs, he turns, engages targets 2-2-2, does the reload, and before gun comes up fully on the target...BANG, there's about a 1/2 sec of hesitation on his part, and then he engages the targets, 2-2-2.

We both looked at one another..."had one that surprised you there, eh?"

Clearly he did not intend to fire that round at that time.

When the "surprise" round went off, he was facing downrange, he had COMPLETED his reload, he had both hands on the gun, he was bringing the gun to bear on the targets, and the round missed the target and impacted the berm.

Later that evening, I pulled out the '08 rulebook to see what specific rule would be used to issue a DQ.

Looked in 10.4 Match Disqualification - Accidental Discharge...can't find anything there that says it would have been a DQ.

Looked in 10.5 Match Disqualification - Unsafe Gun Handling...nothing there either.

To me it was an AD, and I thought AD's meant DQ - but what rule would you cite if your call is a DQ?

[dajarrel]

I'm working without the rulebook (I'm at work) but I'm pretty sure that if the round doesn't impact the ground within 3 meters or go over the berm, it wouldn't be a DQ due to an AD.

dj

[Rocket35]

Yeah if the round is downrange in the direction of targets being engaged, I think he is ok. Regardless of if it was a "surprised" shot. Kinda like "intentional grounding".

[Nik Habicht]

Looked in 10.5 Match Disqualification - Unsafe Gun Handling...nothing there either.

To me it was an AD, and I thought AD's meant DQ - but what rule would you cite if your call is a DQ?

Citing Section 10.5 is a possibility, since the header says "include, but are not limited to..."

So the rule would simply be 10.5

[Jim Norman]

What Nik says:

If you look like the shot caused you to "load" your drawers, then USGH

If the shot hit inside 4-5 feet, no need to quibble over the exact measurement, AD If it is at a questionable distance, then USGH

If the shot DEFINATELY cleared the berm, AD, if it just clips the top of a berm, no target nearby (like with in FEET) USGH

The 'go to' call is always USGH. really simple, if you scare the crap our of yourself or worse you scare the crap out of the RO (Me) you are done. If you shoot at a target and miss, no prob, if you are cranking hard across a COF shooting on the move and let one go early or late, but not so much tath you look like a scared rabbit, OK. It is the shot that fills your BVDs that I call USGH.

Jim

[JThompson]

This happened to a guy at Area 3 and they DQed him for UGH... it went to arb and he lost.

Edited December 3, 2007 by JThompson

[nipplehead]

Unless the rule has been revised, as long as the gun was pointed at a target ( as opposed to empty space while on the move) and the shot fired went into the berm or beyond the min distance if in the ground it is not a DQ.

[JThompson]

Unless the rule has been revised, as long as the gun was pointed at a target ( as opposed to empty space while on the move) and the shot fired went into the berm or beyond the min distance if in the ground it is not a DQ.

That was my understanding of the rule as well but, he did lose... just a FYI. He had just finished the reload and was bring the gun up to engage and it went bang... it was not under 3 feet or over the berm. I did not see it, but a guy I trust did.

Jim

[EZ Bagger]

Unless the rule has been revised, as long as the gun was pointed at a target ( as opposed to empty space while on the move) and the shot fired went into the berm or beyond the min distance if in the ground it is not a DQ.

That was my understanding of the rule as well but, he did lose... just a FYI. He had just finished the reload and was bring the gun up to engage and it went bang... it was not under 3 feet or over the berm. I did not see it, but a guy I trust did.

Jim

Hard thing is that the only one's view/opinion on where the gun was pointed that counts is the RO, and he/she must have had a different opinion.

[Rocket35]

Maybe I am wrong- but I don't think he should have been DQ'd.

[Larry White]

As decribed, 1 procedual, extra shot.-------------Larry

[nipplehead]

Unless the rule has been revised, as long as the gun was pointed at a target ( as opposed to empty space while on the move) and the shot fired went into the berm or beyond the min distance if in the ground it is not a DQ.

That was my understanding of the rule as well but, he did lose... just a FYI. He had just finished the reload and was bring the gun up to engage and it went bang... it was not under 3 feet or over the berm. I did not see it, but a guy I trust did.

Jim

The key there was bring the "gun up" the RO must have thought the gun was not yet index or close to being index at the critical moment . A differant RO may have not DQed him, its is like being an umpire...judgement is invovled and it is better to error on safty's side. But as far as I know the rule has not changed.

[eerw]

yep.. sounds like y'all describing the first shot after the reload..CRO and RO descretion that one as to where the the gun was..

another time, another RO..it might not have been a DQ..

[boz1911]

Downrange, beyond 3 meters and in the vicinity of a target, I would not have Dq'd him. I prefer to watch the muzzle more than the facial expressions. Don't believe the "OH CRAP" facial expression warrants a DQ. I make those kind of faces when I shoot anyway.

[XRe]

Downrange, beyond 3 meters and in the vicinity of a target, I would not have Dq'd him. ... Don't believe the "OH CRAP" facial expression warrants a DQ.

+1. Also, the correct rule to cite if the gun were not pointed in the vicinity of the target is Accidental Discharge - a lot of stuff is covered under Unsafe Gun Handling, but this isn't one of them. ROs should make note of this - a astute competitor (aka, Range Lawyer) could get out of a DQ they deserve if you don't write down the call correctly (they can very easily ask the RO if they did one of the offenses described in the UGH rule - if not....). Know the rules and use the right one

Its obvious when a competitor ADs during a reload. Its also obvious when they get back on target (or thereabouts) and let one fly a little early - there's usually not grey area, as the gun tends to go off either when they smack the mag in, or when they are pushing the gun the last little bit of the way out and start to prep the trigger. The first is an AD. The second, while startling to the shooter, is not, even though technically they perhaps didn't mean to actuate the trigger at the time. Something in between is going to be left up to the RO, who hopefully had a good enough view to make an accurate call.

[ima45dv8]

(they can very easily ask the RO if they did one of the offenses described in the UGH rule - if not....)

Dave, I'm not so sure it would be that easy. Remeber, the UGH rule is written as, "...includes, but is not limited to...."

Asking to RO to cite which of the examples written in the rule could draw a response pointing to the wording quoted above.

As most have said, it would be a judgement call. I've had to make them and it's rarely popular with all parties involved.

[L9X25]

An RO can DQ you for anything that he does not like and categorize it under USGH, but that does not make it "right" or the correct call. The rulebook should set some restrictions on what is, or is not, USGH. Without guidelines, any shot that misses a target could be construed as USGH. Very slippery slope.

[Joe4d]

You knew it was a negligent discharge, he knew it was a negligent discharge, the issue can be tip toed around any way you want. Firing a round when you didnt want to is unsafe gun handling. Unload and show clear thanks for playing you are now the weakest link goodbye.

[joseywales]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

Here's something I think that we as individuals should consider (let's take the RO out of it for a moment).

Whenever I'm shooting, I ABSOLUTELY KNOW when I've had an AD - whether I act surprised or not - whether the RO calls/sees it or not.

By DEFINITION, I did not INTEND to shoot the pistol, yet I did...is that not in and of itself Unsafe Gun Handling?

It matters not that the round impacts: A-the target, or B-the berm, or C-leaves the range, etc.

My gun discharged ACCIDENTLY while I was handling it. That's not safe.

Safety in our sport is paramount, so as an individual shooter of integrity, shouldn't we just stop then and there?

We know what we did, something said by RO or not. Stop, unload & clear. Put your toys away, and make yourself handy with the tape, timer, and brass shagging.

Now, put the RO hat back on a minute.

As the rules (10.4 & 10.5) lack the absolute specifics for what we're describing, it seems that we are really back to a judgement call with some level of subjectivity to it.

Edited December 3, 2007 by joseywales

[Jim Norman]

In almost all cases an AD is USGH and the shooter and the RO both know it, just as Josey said. If the shooter AD's on the way to a target, perhaps a milli-second early and never misses a beat, the RO might miss it, but the shooter knows that he did it. AND if he doesn't then he is REALLY undafe!

THe SSS or Shaken Shooter Syndrome that manifests after an AD IS in my mind reason to stop the shooter. He is now in a state of mind where running with a gun is not perhaps as safe as we might like it to be. He can argue with me and he might get it overturned and if he does, that is fine by me. Point of fact, he haas had a chance to recover his composure and so have I. I will even run him on his reshoot without a problem.

To err on the side of safety is what we must do, or we will certtainly err on the side of tragedy.

Jim

[Carlos]

Downrange, beyond 3 meters and in the vicinity of a target, I would not have Dq'd him. ... Don't believe the "OH CRAP" facial expression warrants a DQ.

+1. Also, the correct rule to cite if the gun were not pointed in the vicinity of the target is Accidental Discharge - a lot of stuff is covered under Unsafe Gun Handling, but this isn't one of them. ROs should make note of this - a astute competitor (aka, Range Lawyer) could get out of a DQ they deserve if you don't write down the call correctly (they can very easily ask the RO if they did one of the offenses described in the UGH rule - if not....). Know the rules and use the right one

Its obvious when a competitor ADs during a reload. Its also obvious when they get back on target (or thereabouts) and let one fly a little early - there's usually not grey area, as the gun tends to go off either when they smack the mag in, or when they are pushing the gun the last little bit of the way out and start to prep the trigger. The first is an AD. The second, while startling to the shooter, is not, even though technically they perhaps didn't mean to actuate the trigger at the time. Something in between is going to be left up to the RO, who hopefully had a good enough view to make an accurate call.

+2.

Joe4D wrote: "You knew it was a negligent discharge, he knew it was a negligent discharge, the issue can be tip toed around any way you want. Firing a round when you didnt want to is unsafe gun handling. Unload and show clear thanks for playing you are now the weakest link goodbye."

I understand and appreciate your concern for safety. But, we have a rule that an AD outside the 3 meter circle is NOT an automatic DQ - suggesting that often times a round striking the ground beyond that radius is also not a DQ under USGH; to view it otherwise is to render the 3 meter circle meaningless. Don't you think that a DQ for USGH where the shooter hits the target - or close to it into the berm - is less of an issue than a round that strikes the ground outside the 3 meter circle?

Furthermore, I think the mentality of "[y]ou knew it was a negligent discharge, he knew it was a negligent discharge" leads us away from the current objective rules and into a foggy grey area of guessing the shooter's intent (as opposed to his observable actions).

Regards,

C.

[Jim Norman]

Carlos,

I sort of, but only sort of agree with you. When a shooter lets one go and is visibly shaken, I think prudence dictates we Stop the shooter and take a deep breath. If he wants to Arbitrate, or just ask the RM/MD (local Match) to ovverrule me, OK, but do I really want a shooter that just obviously did something so scary that he stopped in the middle, emptied his drawers and continued on to actually continue?

A shooter that lates one off a split second early getting back onto a target and doesn't break cadence, makes up the shot and keeps going probably has a couple things in his favor. He likely didn't miss by much, the shot likely wasn't wild, it was a near miss (Near hit?) and his mental state is not shaken. He is likely still safe in that respect. We are, and I think we all can point to an incident in our career, looking at a situation where the shooter was not in control by more than a little and needs to be given a time-out. I know that this may be taking a bit of liberty with the rules by some peoples standtards, but if we all step back and think, my belief is that as a group we will not stop the shooter that doesn't need to be stopped and we will stop the shooter that needs to be.

Remember, a DQ is easier to arbitrate than a bullet hole.

Jim

[wide45]

You sort of think it's a DQ?

I know that this may be taking a bit of liberty with the rules by some peoples standtards, but if we all step back and think, my belief is that as a group we will not stop the shooter that doesn't need to be stopped and we will stop the shooter that needs to be.

You will never err on the side of caution?

You frighten me Jim.

[Jim Norman]

You sort of think it's a DQ?

I know that this may be taking a bit of liberty with the rules by some peoples standtards, but if we all step back and think, my belief is that as a group we will not stop the shooter that doesn't need to be stopped and we will stop the shooter that needs to be.

You will never err on the side of caution?

You frighten me Jim.

If you read all of my posting on this subject, I think you will see that I am full in favor of stopping a shooter if I think he should be. If on the otherhand I think he is in control, I would not stop him. I stated it is much easier to arbitrate a DQ than a bullet hole.

Yes, I err on the side of caution. What my statement you refer to is meant to say (and I think it does) is that we as a group (ROs) will make the decisions we need to make based upon the moment in time when that need arises. We will judge in an instant the actions and state of mind of the shooter and either pass him or stop him, but we will not be stopping shooters that shouldn't be.

Look at it this way; a shooter lets off a round as he approaches a ta rget, if he hits the target we can all agree he was engaging the target, but if he misses by 5 feet, was it an AD? 3 feet? 10 feet? and this is my point, we all know when the shooter intended to shoot. watching the shooter and his gun, we know if the shot was intentional.

If there is a question, I err on the side of safety.

Jim

[SA Friday]

Wow, this discussion is good. Thanks Steve.

I believe I have to weigh in the Carlos camp on this one. I would not DQ them because the firearm was in the act of engaging a target. When does this act start and when does it stop? In countless vids of many shooters, the first round from a draw or reload occurs before their arms have reached their desired extension. How am I to say that it was or was not an AD? When did the engagement really occur? Unsafe would be when the bullet is impacts anywhere but into the berm near a target. Even if the guy flinched, said Oh S*)&, and then continued, the bullet in this situation came from the gun while starting to engage a target and did not impact in an area unsafe. I WOULD give him a really nasty look afterwards though, and possibly recommend revolver division to him/her.