DQ or ?

[Joe4d]

As an RO, or other match official using the "USPSA" title on your matches, you have taken on the responsibility to apply and enforce the rules as written, Not the rules you wish were written, not your opinion of a good or a bad holster all of that is irrelevant, The rules as written dont cause for a DQ, A shooter standing still didnt cause the gun to fall, nor can you use 8.6.4, as the shooter was standing still he didnt "commit" anything.

[Flexmoney]

If I'm stopped at a light in one of those super mini electric buggie-car thingees and get t-boned by a Ford F550 and mangled in the process, who's at fault for my injuries? Me for chosing the buggie-car thingee or the guy that t-boned me?

This actually brings to mind something I saw last year. In one match, I saw an RO's gun come flying out during a COF where he was running the timer. It wasn't loaded, of course, but I still half expected the RO to DQ himself. The shooter said afterward that he was so startled when the RO yelled stop that he almost let a shot fly out of control. Surely the shooter would not have been at fault there.

See...when we start getting into the logic(?) of "who's fault"...nobody ends up being acting responsible.

If I don't have to be responsible...then why would I?

Most everybody has bought a lottery ticket or took a gamble.

Mentally hurt:

[zhunter]

"As for the entire rig falling off, come on, let's be reasonable in our arguments!!!! " by Z

As for reasonable.....we passed that a long ways back when we decided we could run, trip and fall, and continue shooting as a very common occurence in our sport. In comparison dropping a gun doesn't even get in that ballpark...

Smokeshwn

I feel a lot safer with someone running around with a gun pointed in a SAFE direction, than a gun falling to the ground and bouncing.

I like Rich's blade-techlike holster

[Graham Smith]

See...when we start getting into the logic(?) of "who's fault"...nobody ends up being acting responsible.

Goes back to my Army days. You were responsible for a weapon from the moment you checked it out of the armory until the moment you returned it. No excuses.

[bbbean]

Without getting ALL of the Open shooters upset with me, YES, holster choice is a factor for safety issues.

How can it not be an issue

Agreed, but if a shooter is using a properly set up holster from a reputable manufacturer (i.e. in wide use among competitors with a good safety record), he's met the standard. I thought the standard was that a holster should retain your gun during normal match activities, not that the holster would retain your gun when ROs outside your line of sight knock it around!

[-JQ-]

See...when we start getting into the logic(?) of "who's fault"...nobody ends up being acting responsible.

Goes back to my Army days. You were responsible for a weapon from the moment you checked it out of the armory until the moment you returned it. No excuses.

If this is the case then I'm going to tell all RO's to stand to my left at all times - don't get close to me.

And I ain't in the Army...whole different set of rules.

And regarding the RO who's gun fell out - DQ - for all the reasons above.

Edited to add:

...didn't mean to sound too antagonistic

Edited May 26, 2009 by hk_mtbr

[uscbigdawg]

Z - That's TMC's holster.

Rich

[SA Friday]

If I'm stopped at a light in one of those super mini electric buggie-car thingees and get t-boned by a Ford F550 and mangled in the process, who's at fault for my injuries? Me for chosing the buggie-car thingee or the guy that t-boned me?

This actually brings to mind something I saw last year. In one match, I saw an RO's gun come flying out during a COF where he was running the timer. It wasn't loaded, of course, but I still half expected the RO to DQ himself. The shooter said afterward that he was so startled when the RO yelled stop that he almost let a shot fly out of control. Surely the shooter would not have been at fault there.

See...when we start getting into the logic(?) of "who's fault"...nobody ends up being acting responsible.

If I don't have to be responsible...then why would I?

Most everybody has bought a lottery ticket or took a gamble.

Mentally hurt:

What does this mean? Seriously, I'm not tracking your meaning.

[Gary Stevens]

11.1.2 seems to be ready made for this situation.

[zhunter]

I thought the standard was that a holster should retain your gun during normal match activities,

I agree.

In my opinion some of these race holsters are marginal on retention.

[SA Friday]

See...when we start getting into the logic(?) of "who's fault"...nobody ends up being acting responsible.

Goes back to my Army days. You were responsible for a weapon from the moment you checked it out of the armory until the moment you returned it. No excuses.

REALLY!

Hypothetically, I walk up to you, physically take your loaded gun from you, shoot you. You were responsible for the outcome?

Another Hypothetic: You are standing there with a loaded and holstered gun, I walk over, trip on a bananna peel and on the way down reach out. I inadvertantly grab your loaded gun, rip your holster apart from the force of my massive 5'11" frame, and the gun goes clattering across the chow hall floor.

Another Hypothetic: M-16 goes off and blows through an Airman's forearm arm taking a raquetball size chunk on the outie side. Laser trajectory analysis shows the round came from one specific area, only one M-16 on that table. Airman swears he never touched the trigger. Doesn't matter? To the military it did. I did the investigation. The ACT that lead to the infraction meant a lot. Weather it was intentional or accidental meant a lot too.

I'm telling you, if you go down the road of "responsibility" without logical reflection of the events and motives, you will end up with FAILURE TO DO RIGHT.

[ExtremeShot]

I'm telling you, if you go down the road of "responsibility" without logical reflection of the events and motives, you will end up with FAILURE TO DO RIGHT.

+1 I agree with you. However, there are a lot of people that follow the rules as if they were written by God himself, assuming that there are no errors, no ommissions, and no opportunity for translation, adjustment, or correction. These Sheep will not listen.

PS: It's NOT a holster issue.

[edit] Before I get flamed AGAIN, what I'm saying is that if the rule book doesn't EXACTLY describe the situation, there are some that will ignore logic and go with the easy solution (in this case: DQ the shooter <---which I disagree with).

Edited May 26, 2009 by ExtremeShot

[Nik Habicht]

Is it reasonable to hold the shooter accountable for their gun?

IIRC, that's been the NROI position. It is my position.....

You choose to play a sport with a gun --- you are responsible for everything that happens to that gun, from your choice of gun, smithing services utilized, holster and ammo selection, to actually pointing it in the proper direction, following the four rules, etc......

I don't care (unless I'm overruled by NROI/RM) if an earthquake or a flashflood knocks a gun out of your holster during the course of fire --- you're responsible, and I'll very reluctantly inform you of a match DQ. Understand I'll hate that --- as I've hated every one of the handful of DQs I've issued --- but I believe the onus is on the shooter...

[Nik Habicht]

Slightly tangent, but if the RO came in contact with you during the course of fire and caused you to lite one off, or spun you around past the 180, would that be a match DQ also? The ruling sounds wrong all around (which seems to be the general consensus).

~Mitch

Those examples --- especially the break the 180 --- would result in a competitor being disqualified....

Lighting one off --- would depend on too many variables to call with the information provided....

[Flexmoney]

What does this mean? Seriously, I'm not tracking your meaning.

Sorry for the confusion. The little link was what came to mind when it was mentioned that a shooter got "startled" and about let loose a round because the RO yelled "stops". The suggestion that the shooter wouldn't be responsible for that round...

As for getting T-boned, or shoot from the other side of the chow-hall...

Instead of figuring "fault", I wonder what we can do to avoid the accident in the first place?

[ihatepickles]

I'll very reluctantly inform you of a match DQ.

Even though the rulebook doesn't support your ruling and Troy McManus has said as much in this thread? I just don't 'get' this stubborn position.

Your tenuous claim is that the shooters holster choice caused the pistol to hit the ground. In light of all the opinions that holster choice is completely immaterial to the discussion, how can you reach the conclusion that the holster choice does matter?

The RO caused the pistol to hit the ground. If you require your pound of flesh and we're going to not following the rulebook anyway, why isn't the RO being DQ'ed?

[CocoBolo]

I happen to share Troy's opinion, so +1.

I shoot open when I move after the make ready I will hold the gun in the holster, because little more than gravity is holding it in there.

The good thing is that it did not discharge.

[uscbigdawg]

Nik - I have to disagree. If a RO comes in to contact with me, forcing me to break 180, how is that the shooter's fault (and in your answer resulting in a DQ)? On the discharge, there are too many factors involved there without a specific case (i.e. was the shooter actively engaging and then fired inadvertantly due to contact).

Rich

ETA: 8.6.4 covers this that the competitor "may" be subject to 10.3, however, I would like to think that we can agree that if the competitor is doing his or her thing and through contact by another, that shouldn't have been there, it forces them to break 180, that we'd see it's not his fault and therefore not a DQ.

Edited May 26, 2009 by uscbigdawg

[Singlestack]

Is it reasonable to hold the shooter accountable for their gun?

IIRC, that's been the NROI position. It is my position.....

You choose to play a sport with a gun --- you are responsible for everything that happens to that gun, from your choice of gun, smithing services utilized, holster and ammo selection, to actually pointing it in the proper direction, following the four rules, etc......

I don't care (unless I'm overruled by NROI/RM) if an earthquake or a flashflood knocks a gun out of your holster during the course of fire --- you're responsible, and I'll very reluctantly inform you of a match DQ. Understand I'll hate that --- as I've hated every one of the handful of DQs I've issued --- but I believe the onus is on the shooter...

So.. Surrender start. I'm the RO and I tell you to LAMR. You assume the start position and I walk up, grab your pistol out of your holster, toss it on the ground, are you responsible?

The only difference between my example and the OP's is intent.

[uscbigdawg]

Is it reasonable to hold the shooter accountable for their gun?

IIRC, that's been the NROI position. It is my position.....

You choose to play a sport with a gun --- you are responsible for everything that happens to that gun, from your choice of gun, smithing services utilized, holster and ammo selection, to actually pointing it in the proper direction, following the four rules, etc......

I don't care (unless I'm overruled by NROI/RM) if an earthquake or a flashflood knocks a gun out of your holster during the course of fire --- you're responsible, and I'll very reluctantly inform you of a match DQ. Understand I'll hate that --- as I've hated every one of the handful of DQs I've issued --- but I believe the onus is on the shooter...

So.. Surrender start. I'm the RO and I tell you to LAMR. You assume the start position and I walk up, grab your pistol out of your holster, toss it on the ground, are you responsible?

The only difference between my example and the OP's is intent.

Exactly!

[Flexmoney]

I'll very reluctantly inform you of a match DQ.

Even though the rulebook doesn't support your ruling and Troy McManus has said as much in this thread? I just don't 'get' this stubborn position.

I can easily understand where Nik is coming from. Past threads...and guru-rule-guy opinions...lean toward the shooter being responsible, no matter what.

I wouldn't expect somebody to change their mind immediately...if they had half a decade of thinking the call was the other way. I know I can only get there (no DQ) by one word in the rule book.

Further, I am morally torn a bit. I'm not nearly as concerned about what call to make (whether the fault is the shooter's or the RO's) as I am about keeping everybody safe.

Whatever the wording of the rule and whoever gets the "fault"...we still have a loaded gun tumbling to the ground with a number of people in the immediate area.

[Nik Habicht]

Even though the rulebook doesn't support your ruling and Troy McManus has said as much in this thread?

Troy --- whom I respect immensely --- is simply one of the RMIs. I've had conversations with another member of the Instructor corps, that's convinced me that part of the intent of the safety rules was to place the onus on the shooter.....

I just don't 'get' this stubborn position.

Ever hear the term "Devil's Advocate?" This is a discussion forum. I've had the privilege of directing a monthly match for five years and growing attendance from an average of 25 to an average of 55 in that time frame. Do you think that's consistent with either disregarding the rulebook or being stubborn?

Your tenuous claim is that the shooters holster choice caused the pistol to hit the ground. In light of all the opinions that holster choice is completely immaterial to the discussion, how can you reach the conclusion that the holster choice does matter?

I'm not at all sure what the right answer is --- part of my position is designed to facilitate the discussion, to hopefully get other members of the Instructor corps to comment, and to hopefully spark a discussion among NROI and the Board that leaves the sport in a better (safer) place than it was in prior to this discussion.

The RO caused the pistol to hit the ground.

The RO had help. Pretty sure he could bump my blaster anytime without causing it to fall. It would probably take a hard yank.....

If you require your pound of flesh and we're going to not following the rulebook anyway, why isn't the RO being DQ'ed?

Because I really couldn't find/stretch a rule to support that? :devil:

[bbbean]

if an earthquake or a flashflood knocks a gun out of your holster during the course of fire --- you're responsible, and I'll very reluctantly inform you of a match DQ.

If an earthquake or flash flood knocks my gun out of its holster during a match, being DQ'ed is the least of my worries.

[Nik Habicht]

Nik - I have to disagree. If a RO comes in to contact with me, forcing me to break 180, how is that the shooter's fault (and in your answer resulting in a DQ)? On the discharge, there are too many factors involved there without a specific case (i.e. was the shooter actively engaging and then fired inadvertantly due to contact).

Rich

ETA: 8.6.4 covers this that the competitor "may" be subject to 10.3, however, I would like to think that we can agree that if the competitor is doing his or her thing and through contact by another, that shouldn't have been there, it forces them to break 180, that we'd see it's not his fault and therefore not a DQ.

That hasn't been the position of my instructors --- they've held pretty firmly to the notion that the shooter is responsible for the direction of the gun....

[Flexmoney]

Is it reasonable to hold the shooter accountable for their gun?

IIRC, that's been the NROI position. It is my position.....

You choose to play a sport with a gun --- you are responsible for everything that happens to that gun, from your choice of gun, smithing services utilized, holster and ammo selection, to actually pointing it in the proper direction, following the four rules, etc......

I don't care (unless I'm overruled by NROI/RM) if an earthquake or a flashflood knocks a gun out of your holster during the course of fire --- you're responsible, and I'll very reluctantly inform you of a match DQ. Understand I'll hate that --- as I've hated every one of the handful of DQs I've issued --- but I believe the onus is on the shooter...

So.. Surrender start. I'm the RO and I tell you to LAMR. You assume the start position and I walk up, grab your pistol out of your holster, toss it on the ground, are you responsible?

The only difference between my example and the OP's is intent.

Lets not get into examples that may be silly.

After all... What if I MR and holster...then you (RO) lightly lay your hand on my shoulder to ask/tell me something (correct hand position?)...and my gun falls out [of my magnetic holster]?