Shooter Grrl Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Start position: Gun loaded in exam tray (looks suspicously like a cake pan!) Competitor reaches into pan and discharges a round through the rim of the pan. There is now a hole in the pan, but there's a hole in the D Zone of a target. What say you guys? DQ or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Hard call, really. Common sense would dictate nobody would want to engage a target (I suppose it was in clear view, not obscured by any cover) that way, thus the shot is presumably the consequence of unsafe gun handling. On the other hand, if the competitor was not moving (according to section 8.5), he is not required to have a sight picture on a target to engage it. Could you please tell us more about the start position? For example, if the competitor was not standing in front of the handgun, but rather seated, and had to stand up to pick up the gun, I'd say this falls under provision of section 8.5, thus he was moving and 10.3.2 applies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 SG, US 10.3.2.2 Any discharge/detonation during movement except while engaging targets. I don't know that the fact that the bullet happened to connect with the target really matters. The judgement ought to be made on whether the shooter was "engaging" targets in the first place. Luckily hitting the target shouldn't over-ride safety issues. A DQ for safety ought to be measured on the action...not the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 I agree with Flex. Negligent discharge. If you can't keep your finger off the trigger when you're picking the gun up, what's to say you aren't gonna shoot yourself or someone else in a draw or while moving? It was unsafe gun handling, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveP Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 DQ. plain and simple, its early bath time..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Sorry to disagree with both of you, Flex and Gorilla, but to DQ anybody you have to report the rule # that allows this. If the competitor was not moving (and this is the reason I asked more details on the whole incident, from the starting position), rule US 10.3.2.2 as reported is not applicable, unless USPSA has a different definition of movement of IPSC section 8.5. Moreover, Flex, let's suppose the competitor was not moving, and the target was at less than arms-lenght from the competitor: could you honestly tell the competitor didn't voluntarily engage the target that way, and judge the shot as unsafe gun handling? Hitting the target (luckily or not) should at least raise in you a slight doubt about the fact that the shooter was intentionally engaging the target that way. As I already posted, I'd like to read more about the discharge: a hard call anyway. I'm not sure the following could be useful examples, but here you are some links to similar threads with Vince's answers (and a totally different opinion of yours on a similar case, Flex): Thread #1 Thread #2 BTW, there is a small bug in the search function (or perhaps in the thread links): if you search for "table AND DQ" with Singlestack as membername filtering option, you would get the original post (locked) that originated the Thread #2 I linked, but when you click on the link, you are "magically teleported" to a different thread started by WMiller45. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Boy do I remember THAT thread....hehehe. DQ or not I'll look for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Here it is. Ok, thats wierd. It takes me to the wrong thread just like the link Skywalker posted. voodoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Hi guys, While I agree with Skywalker that more information would be useful, I support Flex's call for a DQ under Rule 10.3.2.2, based on the limited information which has been given. However I'd like to know: 1. Was the pan on a table? If not, where was it placed? 2. Did the competitor start seated in a chair behind the table? If not, where was the start position for the competitor? 3. After the start signal, what were the competitor's actions? 4. What was the exact location of the target that was shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Shooter Grrl: I assume you are talking about stage 2 "Table Top Standards" at the nats. Is this a hypothetical question that you and Jay discussed or did it really happen? Jay taught the RO class that I took last spring and he told me that shooting a prop is not grounds for a DQ unless the competitor is moving and not engaging targets in which case it could be surmised that the competitor was moving with his/her finger on the trigger. Common sense tells me this should result in a DQ as Flex suggests, but what happens if the competitor claims to be in the act of engaging targets? Let's take the tray out of the picture. What happens if a competitor grabs thier pistol and lets one rip while picking the gun up and hits a target? DQ or not? Heck let's just start with a holstered gun. The competitor just clears leather and sends one sailing down range and nails a target. Is that a DQ? It's an AD and should be a DQ but we all know it isn't. Should the starting position of the pistol and the presence of a prop make any difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Before I get painted too far into a corner here...my first post in this thread wasn't, necessarily, drawing a conclusion. I was leaving the call up to the judgement of the RO as to the application of U.S. 10.3.2.2. I was also pointing out that the fact that the bullet impacted the target did not give the shooter a "get out of jail free card". The impact of the bullet, as I see it, is not relavent in this case. As I said earlier, judge the action...not the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Flex: I couldn't agree with you more. But it seems like the rulebook has a habit of judging the outcome, thus the 3 meter rule for an AD. Heck I suppose I should shut up. I am just showing my ignorance now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted September 17, 2003 Author Share Posted September 17, 2003 Unfortunately, it's not a hypothetical question ;0 And you are correct, while I as the RO with the clock dq'ed the shooter, the RM and CRO overturned my call because it did not fit the criteria for an accidental discharge nor did it fit the criteria for unsafe gun handling, according to the rule book! So no DQ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Hi guys, Some rules depend on the competitor's actions and other rules depend on the outcome. There is usually no "outcome" when a competitor breaks 90 degrees because a DQ is justified even if no shot is fired while breaking 90 degrees. A classic example is a competitor who shoots a target while at, say, 80 degrees, but his forward momentum causes his muzzle to break 90 degrees after he's fired his shots at the subject target. On the other hand, a shot into the ground while a competitor is standing still is only subject to a DQ if the shot strikes the ground within 3 metres, hence it depends on the "outcome". It's interesting to note that Shooter Grrl's DQ was overturned, and now I'm more curious to have more information about the incident, because we might need to modify our rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Kath, I just reread all of Chapter 10 and 8.5 in the rulebook looking for something that would allow me to DQ the shooter. If the shooter was attempting the first string, I couldn't find anything. If the shooter was attempting the second string, I'd be inclined to cite Rule U.S. 10.3.2.2. as my justification for a DQ ---- but I'm not sure that that would necessarily fly, if the competitor stated that he had a brainfart and forgot that he was supposed to engage targets only from under the table.... I'd be sorely tempted to give him to Vince for a safety lecture and whipping though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul B Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 I would have applied the DQ also based on the information given (and may have been over ruled also, but it would have at least given the shooter and everybody a chance to think about what happened). Some other considerations though. If it was not a DQ and the hole was a full diameter hit in the cake pan then as a prop wasn't the cake pan inpenetrable? If so then no hit on the target. Also what kind of gun was this. If a 1911 variety was the safety not on? I keep thinking about those pesky Glock trigger safeties where you could theoretically depress the safety and the trigger at the same time as you jammed your finger in when you tried to pick it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted September 18, 2003 Author Share Posted September 18, 2003 Yes Unca Vinny - the rules definitely need changing! There really is no recourse for a DQ in this situation. Because the gun was on the table, facing downrange, when the competitor squeezed the trigger when picking up the gun, it clearly discharged, but didn't fit the criteria for an AD. Being the smart grrl that I am, I stated unsafe gun handling as the reason for the DQ, but again, the rulebook didn't support it. Nik - I too have poured over the rule book, but there really is nothing there. Kinda sad, heh? And it was a Glock, with an obviously VERY lightened trigger. And yes Paul B, that's exactly my attitude. I didn't mind at all being overturned, and it gave me a chance to pick the crap out of my face from the pan/bullet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 Hi guys, As you can probably imagine, it's virtually impossible for the rules committee to anticipate or provide for every possible scenario, because some of our competitors are incredibly adept at finding new and interesting ways to make our lives more difficult. However I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that under Section 10.5 of the recently approved IPSC Handgun Rules - January 2004 edition, it says: 10.5 Match Disqualification - Unsafe Gun Handling Examples of unsafe gun handling include, but are not limited to: -:and this serves to give Range Officers and Arbitration Committees more leeway to deal with unusual and/or unforseen circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 You da MAN, Vinnie!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 Kath, Are you o.k.? Do you need a plastic surgeon? Of course if you move to Mississippi, you should fit right in with a little bit of pan rash.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted September 18, 2003 Author Share Posted September 18, 2003 Yeah, I'm okay. Had a bit of a headache the rest of the afternoon, but not hurt at all, no blood or nothing Good Job Vince. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynn jones Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 hi all, i'm jumping in late, however, this situation is clearly a DQ. the competitor clearly used unsafe gun handling regardless of the bullet hitting the target. the competitor put his finger on the trigger while picking up the gun. clearly the competitor didn't mean to shoot that way right? i bet he stopped for a couple of seconds before trying to continue (i know this doesn't mean anything). safety is our biggest concern and shouldn't be overturned because the action doesn't slide perfectly into a rule slot. lynn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 Vince said: "include, but are not limited to." Lynn said: "the action doesn't slide perfectly into a rule slot" Those are the same side of the same coin, methinks. I can understand not wanting to be DQ'd (and not wanting to have to DQ a competitor), but in this situation it was warranted, IMO. It WAS unsafe gun handling. Bad call on the reversal, again, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 SG, Don't feel bad about the call getting over-turned...it happens. Sounds like you made a safe call. Are you working the same stage in the Open, or are you shooting? (I'd love to hear how much trouble people having "finding the dot" on the weak-hand portion of the Open Stage 2.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 Vince, thank you and the committee for having granted the RO and the Arb Com some degree of will in judging these weird situations. I agree that, with the new rules, the whole situation will result in a (fair) DQ. I also have to disagree with those who advocate a DQ under actual rules: there is no single rule that grants a DQ to a shooter who shoots an unwilling (in the opinion of the RO) shot from a steady standing position, for which it is not required a sight picture on targets. If you are going to DQ a competitor, you have to state the rule under which the DQ is called, and rule 10.3.2.2 simply doesn't apply IF the competitor was not moving. Don't wanna say that (morally) the one reported was not a DQable offense, just want to point out that there is a loophole in the actual rulebook that (thanks to the tireless work of uncle Vinnie and the handgun rule committee) has been addressed in the next year's rulebook. Singlestack, probably this is an error related to the conversion of the old forums into the new Invision PowerBoard. Or maybe it's just voodoo, as you suggested... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now