11.2 Arguing A Dq Action Is Not Unsafe

[ErikW]

11.2 Says one may not argue an act did not occur (e.g., "I didn't break the 180") but one may argue the act itself was not unsafe.

I'm trying to think of some examples in which this would apply. A shot over the berm when there is a mountain behind the berm? A shot through a prop that is well downrange? Handling a snap cap in a safe area?

I sat on an arbitration committee that denied the competitor's request to overturn his 10.3.5 DQ for his dropped gun. He argued it wasn't unsafe because the safety was on and it landed pointing downrange. We concluded he hadn't proven it was not unsafe.

I don't quite understand how the rulebook can have all those 10.3 safety issues and yet allow for an appeal that an act is unsafe.

[Vince Pinto]

Erik,

A few examples which come to mind are:

1) You're the next competitor on the line, you're ready to shoot, the RO approaches you and says something, so you draw your gun to load. The RO gives you a match DQ because what he actually said was "I'm a roadie for Helen Reddy" not "Load and Make Ready". You appeal on the grounds that there was nobody downrange at the time and the incident was due to a misunderstanding.

2) You go for a pee in the porta-potty, and just when you open the door to leave, you bump your unloaded gun from it's holster and, after a brief fumble, you catch it mid-air then reholster it. An RO with a weak bladder is standing outside the porta potty, he sees what happens and gives you a match DQ just as he's wetting his pants.

While I'm not saying these DQs would be overturned by Arbitration, there's a possibility they could be.

By the same token, an Arbitration Committee worth their salt would do everything in their power to talk you out of submitting an appeal for breaking 90 degrees, dropping a gun during a COF or firing a round over the berm, because you'd just be wasting your money.

[ErikW]

Hey, you're saying I'm not worth my salt? By the time the committee has been formed, the competitor has already paid his money and taken his chances. That's what happened at Area 1; the M.D. and R.M. (and perhaps others) pleaded with the shooter to not put up the $100 to arbitrate a dropped-gun 10.3.5 DQ. Poor guy never got a shot off in the match, never even really drew his gun.

[Vince Pinto]

Erik,

I think you're the salt of the Earth, with a touch of Tabasco .............

Hey, if a guy insists on contributing US$100 to the RO Titty Bar Fund, the money is always welcome but, being the nice people that we are (at least in IROA), we do our best to talk competitors out of frivilous appeals.

[ErikW]

Yeah, I understand the MD has the option of refunding the money to a losing appellant, but I just don't think that happened in this case after the officials tried to convince him not to file.

I think somebody else lost a shot-over-the-berm DQ appeal, though I don't know whether he argued the "not unsafe" clause of 11.2.

[BDH]

2) You go for a pee in the porta-potty, and just when you open the door to leave, you bump your unloaded gun from it's holster and, after a brief fumble, you catch it mid-air then reholster it. The RO with a weak bladder is standing outside the porta potty, he sees what happens and gives you a match DQ just as he's wetting his pants.

VP, where do you come up with these examples?

if a guy insists on contributing US$100 to the RO Titty Bar Fund

Is this another IROA benefit that we are missing out on over here?

[Vince Pinto]

Brian,

These examples are all actual events which have occurred while working matches over a lot of years in a lot of different regions.

One of the funniest DQs ever occurred in the Philippines when a very famous Filipino (who shall not be identified, in order to protect the guilty), was standing inside a safety area, casually smoking a cigar while watching the world go past.

A range helper found a live round on the range floor and tossed it to our friend, who instinctively caught it while standing inside the safety area. The stage RO witnesses what transpired and, without missing a beat, DQs our friend for "handling ammo inside a safety area".

Within 10 minutes, 300 competitors hear about the incident, and all 300 peed their pants laughing.

Happy ending: Our dear friend (who today is a very senior IROA official), was eventually reinstated by the Range Master who overturned the DQ, but only after he stopped laughing.

[Vince Pinto]

Brian,

One more thing. When we eventually meet one of these days, you must remind me to show you the "tweety bird joke" from the 1996 Australasian Level IV championships.

It's a visual joke, so I need to demonstrate it, but I can tell you that I've never known anything else to cause ROs on 24 stages to simultaneously drop their timers and wet their pants.

[BDH]

One more thing. When we eventually meet one of these days, you must remind me to show you the "tweety bird joke" from the 1996 Australasian Level IV championships.

VP, okay, sounds good. I look forward to it. Are you going to Ecuador in October? Ever since you mentioned that match, I've been thinking about how I could pull it off. I haven't figured out a way yet, but I'm still thinking about it.....

[Vince Pinto]

Brian,

I'm juggling dates at the moment.

I must be in Italy in August for the General Assembly (which killed my chances of attending Arnie's Area 3), so I'm hoping to find a way to get to either the Pan Am in Ecuador or one of the US Nationals in Bend (where I might work the match).

Trouble is I have so many irons on the fire here this year, my usual travel freedom is being cramped, but I guess making money is kinda important.

[BDH]

I must be in Italy in August for the General Assembly (which killed my chances of attending Arnie's Area 3), so I'm hoping to find a way to get to either the Pan Am in Ecuador or one of the US Nationals in Bend (where I might work the match).

Trouble is I have so many irons on the fire here this year, my usual travel freedom is being cramped, but I guess making money is kinda important.

I hear you and have the same problem. On top of that, somehow I scheduled all my vacation time this year, before including Mrs. BDH, so if I try to swing the Pan Am, I'm probably dead meat at work, and on the home front.

If you end up in Bend, make sure you bring the key to that 'special IROA fund' you spoke about. It might come in handy at 'Starz' (located within convenient walking distance from the staff hotel).

[shred]

Dredging up this thread, did the "not unsafe" language disappear in the new rules? I was looking for it in the green book this morning.

The story that caused that was one of a shooter that goes to the line, is told to LAMR, unlocks their holster and the gun flips out onto the ground. Pretty clear DQ under 10.5.3 and 8.3.1. Unfortunate, but a DQ by the rules.

So then the shooter says "But if I had unlocked my holster five seconds earlier, before LAMR, and done nothing else different, it would not be a DQ. Therefore I was not inherently unsafe"

Anyway, so I looked in the new book and couldn't find the "not unsafe" language.

[bgary]

Yup, it went away.

Largely because of the trend in arbitrations towards arguing that "if nobody ended up bleeding, then it wasn't really unsafe."

There *are* certain things that should result in a DQ, even if nobody gets hurt. So, the "not unsafe" language was taken out, and replaced with "extraordinary circumstances."

Bruce