Area 7: Match DQ

[Nik Habicht]

I was hoping you'd chime in here.....

This thread forced me to dig through the rulebook again. Why, if you are correct, was 8.5.1 written in a manner that puts the onus on the shooter to visibly move his finger out of the trigger guard during movement? Given the wording of 8.5.1, and that 10.5.10 refers back to it, why wouldn't "not seeing the finger out" be enough? (That's assuming that the shooter has a trigger finger....) Educate me, please....

OK, I'll try....

Yes, it is the shooter's responsibility. It is the RO's responsibility to make calls he/she is certain about, especially those calls which have no residual evidence.

George,

thanks for the education! I often, not always, play devil's advocate in this forum.....

....I'm glad to see you finding a little time for us --- we all could certainly learn something or other from you.... :D

[Flyin40]

We can all agree that:

A finger on the trigger during movement when not engaging a target.. is "game over".

Actually I don't. If a shooter is shooting on the move, gun up pointing at targets waiting for the sweet spot to break the shot as a target shows up between others, I don't see that as a problem. How about shooting a swinger on the move and waiting for it come into view? I guess the real problem is what constitutes engaging a target. Is twisting your body or leaning to get a better shot engaging? Is waiting for a swinger to become visible engaging? How about if you do those things on the move?

+1

With as much "shooting on the move" as we do these days, there will need to be a clarification. The rule seems to be written with the old "box to box" stages in mind.

If there is a long transition to another target and I have to take a couple steps I'll have my finger on the trigger, prepping it. Running into a position I might have my finger on the trigger 2-3 steps out of my final position. Its all engaging targets.

There would be alot of the top guys DQ'ed for finger on the trigger/finger through the trigger guard while moving.

Flyin

[George Jones]

If there is a long transition to another target and I have to take a couple steps I'll have my finger on the trigger, prepping it. Running into a position I might have my finger on the trigger 2-3 steps out of my final position. Its all engaging targets.

There would be alot of the top guys DQ'ed for finger on the trigger/finger through the trigger guard while moving.

Flyin

Not as long as they're indexing on the targets while prepping.

[JThompson]

Deleted

Edited June 13, 2008 by JThompson

[Dan Hurley]

Frankly, I never got the name of the RO that issued the DQ. He ran me while another individual "Rasta Rocket" backed him up.

My issue from the onset was the call and rule, not the RO issuing the DQ.

But, it is interesting that the Level III Match rules state:

Minimum one Certified NROI official per stage

I have no idea if this requirement was met.

Also, I decided immediately not to arbitrate, but to accept the expertise of the RO, who I assumed was NROI Certified, as I am.

There were 3 currently certified ROs working the stage at the time of the DQ.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Dan Hurley

[Boris Zaretsky]

A while ago I heard a shooter AD but as I could not see where the bullet impacted so I did not call a DQ.(Boy, was I unpopular with the other shooters) It was totally irrelevant that all the other shooters could see that the bullet impacted in under 3 meters, I did not see it so not DQ. If I saw where it impacted and it was indeed under 3 meters the guy would have been DQ`ed.

Oh, Boy! This is another can of worms. Please read NEW rule book. It has been changed in this respect and clarifies what AD means. There are 6 different cases of AD in the rule book and all of them are EQUALLY important. You look for bullet impact when the shot occurred as a result of hard trigger jerk that causes the round to go down (Rule 10.4.2) or trigger pull on recoil - bullet goes over the burm (rule 10.4.1). In both these cases the shooter actually aims at the target and simply cannot control his gun.

I did not see what happened, of course, but from information you've provided it sims to me that the AD might have happened in one of the following cases: during loading/reloading (10.4.3); remedial action (10.4.4); transferring gun between hands; during movement (10.4.5). In all these cases you don't need to dig for impact because it is totally irrelevant here. Some times ago I've DQ'ed a shooter that had AD and actually hit a B-zone on the target. He moved laterally left-to-right, gun dismounted pointed down the range, did not even look at the target when the gun went off and hit a B-Zone. Boy, he was upset for this DQ. But he had and AD under 10.4.6 and I sent him home. In a way I did not DQ him. He did it himself. I just happened to be there to see it.

BTW there is not benefit of the doubt - you either see it or not.

I am 100% with you in this one!

[ebg3]

Warnings are for those cases where you are uncertain. As we discuss in the RO seminar, warnings are usually not welcome by experienced shooters and should be used with great restraint. New shooters should be briefed on warnings in advance - those are the shooters who need to hear them early and often.

Excellent points. I'd just be curious as to why an experienced shooter would not welcome a warning that they are potentially dangerously close to a DQ? The warning "finger!" may cause a moment of distraction but isn't it more important to ensure safety?

I consider myself an experienced shooter and I think it is a distraction. If I hear the RO say anything to me, my first instinct is to stop shooting or at least hesitate to comprehend what just happened. When you are trying to maximize your performance, any hesitation will cost valuable points. This brings up a question. If an RO yells finger or 180, isn't that considered coaching and against the rules? What if the shooter is so distracted that they stop shooting? Do they get a reshoot?

EG

[Flexmoney]

Read your rule book. That is specifically covered, if I recall correctly.

[Boris Zaretsky]

I consider myself an experienced shooter and I think it is a distraction. If I hear the RO say anything to me, my first instinct is to stop shooting or at least hesitate to comprehend what just happened. When you are trying to maximize your performance, any hesitation will cost valuable points. This brings up a question. If an RO yells finger or 180, isn't that considered coaching and against the rules? What if the shooter is so distracted that they stop shooting? Do they get a reshoot?

EG

Well, all "experienced shooters" I know read the rule book. Here's what it says:

8.6.1 No assistance of any kind can be given to a competitor during a course

of fire, except that any Range Officer assigned to a stage may issue

safety warnings to a competitor at any time. Such warnings will not be

grounds for the competitor to be awarded a reshoot.

[lugnut]

I consider myself an experienced shooter and I think it is a distraction. If I hear the RO say anything to me, my first instinct is to stop shooting or at least hesitate to comprehend what just happened. When you are trying to maximize your performance, any hesitation will cost valuable points. This brings up a question. If an RO yells finger or 180, isn't that considered coaching and against the rules? What if the shooter is so distracted that they stop shooting? Do they get a reshoot?

EG

Well, all "experienced shooters" I know read the rule book. Here's what it says:

8.6.1 No assistance of any kind can be given to a competitor during a course

of fire, except that any Range Officer assigned to a stage may issue

safety warnings to a competitor at any time. Such warnings will not be

grounds for the competitor to be awarded a reshoot.

Thanks- that is what I was referring to.

[ebg3]

I consider myself an experienced shooter and I think it is a distraction. If I hear the RO say anything to me, my first instinct is to stop shooting or at least hesitate to comprehend what just happened. When you are trying to maximize your performance, any hesitation will cost valuable points. This brings up a question. If an RO yells finger or 180, isn't that considered coaching and against the rules? What if the shooter is so distracted that they stop shooting? Do they get a reshoot?

EG

Well, all "experienced shooters" I know read the rule book. Here's what it says:

8.6.1 No assistance of any kind can be given to a competitor during a course

of fire, except that any Range Officer assigned to a stage may issue

safety warnings to a competitor at any time. Such warnings will not be

grounds for the competitor to be awarded a reshoot.

You shouldn't be mean to people you don't know. When I made my post I was not attacking anyone, I was just responding and giving my opinion. But thank you for answering my question. I should have read the rule book more thoroughly.

[Chris Keen]

Even "experienced shooters" don't always know the rules word-for-word.

This forum is about helping other shooters, is it not ?

[JThompson]

I consider myself an experienced shooter and I think it is a distraction. If I hear the RO say anything to me, my first instinct is to stop shooting or at least hesitate to comprehend what just happened. When you are trying to maximize your performance, any hesitation will cost valuable points. This brings up a question. If an RO yells finger or 180, isn't that considered coaching and against the rules? What if the shooter is so distracted that they stop shooting? Do they get a reshoot?

EG

Well, all "experienced shooters" I know read the rule book. Here's what it says:

8.6.1 No assistance of any kind can be given to a competitor during a course

of fire, except that any Range Officer assigned to a stage may issue

safety warnings to a competitor at any time. Such warnings will not be

grounds for the competitor to be awarded a reshoot.

You shouldn't be mean to people you don't know. When I made my post I was not attacking anyone, I was just responding and giving my opinion. But thank you for answering my question. I should have read the rule book more thoroughly.

I don't think the intent was to be mean, only to educate... it's hard to discern intent in the written word. Brevity often comes off this way while the "intent" was to answer the question and move on.

Best,

JT

[Boris Zaretsky]

You shouldn't be mean to people you don't know. When I made my post I was not attacking anyone, I was just responding and giving my opinion. But thank you for answering my question. I should have read the rule book more thoroughly.

Please accept my apologies. I did not mean to offend you. My point rather was to understanding that people should first read the rule book. Many questions are easy answered there. It is different matter when people have different interpretation of the rules. Then debate becomes interesting and engaging.

[chemepharmd]

Even "experienced shooters" don't always know the rules word-for-word.

This forum is about helping other shooters, is it not ?

Thank you, Chris. Many of the "experienced shooters" at my local range have full time jobs, kids, other hobbies, etc. It is obviously very important to know the rules, but many people do not have the time to memorize the book to the extent they can quote it verbatim. Consultation from the book and our fellow shooters, including the ones on this forum, can be most useful .

[Johann the Horrible]

A while ago I heard a shooter AD but as I could not see where the bullet impacted so I did not call a DQ.(Boy, was I unpopular with the other shooters) It was totally irrelevant that all the other shooters could see that the bullet impacted in under 3 meters, I did not see it so not DQ. If I saw where it impacted and it was indeed under 3 meters the guy would have been DQ`ed.

Oh, Boy! This is another can of worms. Please read NEW rule book. It has been changed in this respect and clarifies what AD means. There are 6 different cases of AD in the rule book and all of them are EQUALLY important. You look for bullet impact when the shot occurred as a result of hard trigger jerk that causes the round to go down (Rule 10.4.2) or trigger pull on recoil - bullet goes over the burm (rule 10.4.1). In both these cases the shooter actually aims at the target and simply cannot control his gun.

I did not see what happened, of course, but from information you've provided it sims to me that the AD might have happened in one of the following cases: during loading/reloading (10.4.3); remedial action (10.4.4); transferring gun between hands; during movement (10.4.5). In all these cases you don't need to dig for impact because it is totally irrelevant here. Some times ago I've DQ'ed a shooter that had AD and actually hit a B-zone on the target. He moved laterally left-to-right, gun dismounted pointed down the range, did not even look at the target when the gun went off and hit a B-Zone. Boy, he was upset for this DQ. But he had and AD under 10.4.6 and I sent him home. In a way I did not DQ him. He did it himself. I just happened to be there to see it.

BTW there is not benefit of the doubt - you either see it or not.

I am 100% with you in this one!

Sorry, I did not elaborate as I was making a point of what the RO see he calls. It was during draw at a fairly close target, just over 3 meters.

[Boris Zaretsky]

... It was during draw at a fairly close target, just over 3 meters.

Interesting! That might be an argument from shooter that the target was close and he did not have to aim at it to brake a shot. From what I've seen so far from years or RO'ing and shooting one good indication of an AD is when the shooter stumbles after he brakes that AD shot. That could be a good example of what you described before. If the target is that close and with no obstructions, I would draw and send two rounds one after another without even looking at a target. But this is what I want and this is not an AD. These are well controlled shots. If I would draw the gun and make an AD, believe me, I would not execute a double tap. There would be a short hesitation for first it would scare me, and second, I would wait for RO reaction. That hesitation would really give me away set me up for what really had happened – AD and DQ in this case. Keep in mind that there could be a trigger freeze. That’s where RO experience is of outmost value.

Heck. To be a good RO one has to start somewhere, sometimes. Agree?

[Johann the Horrible]

The shooter is very experienced and also very fast. He did not hesitate at all. It was one of that cases where I just "knew" a AD has occurred but did not see it. I did no make a call as I did not see it.

[shred]

While people can argue how 100% sure the RO can be, I can tell you from reviewing a lot of videos, photos and 'being there'; a) outside the US this is called much more frequently, a lot of shooters break this rule, regardless of what they think they are doing and c) the top shooters almost universally make their finger position very clear, rather than relying on the eyesight and judgment of the RO.

[Flexmoney]

While people can argue how 100% sure the RO can be, I can tell you from reviewing a lot of videos, photos and 'being there'; a) outside the US this is called much more frequently, a lot of shooters break this rule, regardless of what they think they are doing and c) the top shooters almost universally make their finger position very clear, rather than relying on the eyesight and judgment of the RO.

That sounds dead-on-balls*accurate to me.

*It's an industry term.

[Boris Zaretsky]

c) the top shooters almost universally make their finger position very clear, rather than relying on the eyesight and judgment of the RO.

This is exactly the point. Why not to follow the best and make sure there is no doubt that the finger is outside the trigger guard? I am all for it and would love to see everyone is for it as well.

[Jim Norman]

I can guarantee that being 100% sure that the RO is 100% sure that your finger is out of the trigger guard is impossible. There is no way to accomplish this. You can lay your finger straight along the frame, which will mean YOUR finger IS 100% out of the guard, but that will not ensure that the RO can see it.

Jim

[Jack Suber]

I can guarantee that being 100% sure that the RO is 100% sure that your finger is out of the trigger guard is impossible. There is no way to accomplish this. You can lay your finger straight along the frame, which will mean YOUR finger IS 100% out of the guard, but that will not ensure that the RO can see it.

Jim

I have to agree with this statement. This is the only way to ensure that ROs who are 100% correct; 100% of the time; and, who have the ability to process 100% of the visual information they are intaking at the speed of a computer or camera with a very fast shutter speed, do not ding you...

[Boris Zaretsky]

I can guarantee that being 100% sure that the RO is 100% sure that your finger is out of the trigger guard is impossible. There is no way to accomplish this. You can lay your finger straight along the frame, which will mean YOUR finger IS 100% out of the guard, but that will not ensure that the RO can see it.

Jim

I have to agree with this statement. This is the only way to ensure that ROs who are 100% correct; 100% of the time; and, who have the ability to process 100% of the visual information they are intaking at the speed of a computer or camera with a very fast shutter speed, do not ding you...

Looks to me like both of you are fixated on 100% things. Looks like you don't have any faith is RO's, do you? If you can do your job shooting, RO's can do their job RO'ing. Worry about your finger and you'll be just fine.

I wonder if you ever played other game sports, let's say basketball. Did you question the referee decision when he gave you penalty? Did you ask him 15 times if he is 100% sure? Did you ask him which position he was standing when you were slapping other player over the head? If he sure that he saw what he saw? 100%? The game is darn quick. How is it possible that you, basketball referee, "have the ability to process 100% of the visual information"?

Or, may be, just may be, you would accept his call? He is a basketball referee for the God's sake. They do have reputation to be right ..... 99%. Hah?! ….99%???? And it is OK with you? Wouldn't you think that way? So, why don't you all just give IPSC RO that 99% and have faith in him for he is trying to do his job the best he can. I know no RO's that would screw up a shooter on purpose. Have you finger visibly outside the trigger guard and let RO do his job. Please!!!

Regards.

[JThompson]

I can guarantee that being 100% sure that the RO is 100% sure that your finger is out of the trigger guard is impossible. There is no way to accomplish this. You can lay your finger straight along the frame, which will mean YOUR finger IS 100% out of the guard, but that will not ensure that the RO can see it.

Jim

I have to agree with this statement. This is the only way to ensure that ROs who are 100% correct; 100% of the time; and, who have the ability to process 100% of the visual information they are intaking at the speed of a computer or camera with a very fast shutter speed, do not ding you...

Looks to me like both of you are fixated on 100% things. Looks like you don't have any faith is RO's, do you? If you can do your job shooting, RO's can do their job RO'ing. Worry about your finger and you'll be just fine.

I wonder if you ever played other game sports, let's say basketball. Did you question the referee decision when he gave you penalty? Did you ask him 15 times if he is 100% sure? Did you ask him which position he was standing when you were slapping other player over the head? If he sure that he saw what he saw? 100%? The game is darn quick. How is it possible that you, basketball referee, "have the ability to process 100% of the visual information"?

Or, may be, just may be, you would accept his call? He is a basketball referee for the God's sake. They do have reputation to be right ..... 99%. Hah?! ….99%???? And it is OK with you? Wouldn't you think that way? So, why don't you all just give IPSC RO that 99% and have faith in him for he is trying to do his job the best he can. I know no RO's that would screw up a shooter on purpose. Have you finger visibly outside the trigger guard and let RO do his job. Please!!!

Regards.

Boris,

These are good people you're talking to here.... they don't need condescensions from you. Please try and be less argumentative/personel in your responses. We are all guests in Brian's house, and should treat one another accordingly... even if we don't like someone, or they don't like us, we need to remember where we are. These are the folks you trust your life to when you're on the range... please treat them accordingly.

Best,

JT

Edited June 20, 2008 by JThompson