DQ or ?

[norbs007]

<grumble>

All this talk of guns falling out, or being knocked out of holsters, is bad Ju Ju.

Amen to that!

[Nik Habicht]

I agree completely that the competitor is responsible for his gun. But explain to me how I can comply with the WSB (very few, if any allow you to have your hand on the gun at the start position) and keep the RO from knocking my gun out of the holster.

Let's presume that the RO won't be doing that intentionally ---- if we presume that, it should be fairly easy.....

If you are my RO, and at LAMR I ask you to take a couple of step back, are you going to comply?

Depends on the stage --- but I tend not to crowd the shooter, unless something forces me to.....

What other reasonable recourse do I have to ensure the gun stays in my holster?

Well, you could pick a holster that's capable of doing the job, fits the gun, adjust it correctly (tension? cant? position on the belt?), use any provided safeties --- those all come to mind.....

In eight years of playing this game, it hasn't happened to me yet (quick --- where's some wood?) and I haven't seen it happen....

[GentlemanJim]

I have to look at this in very simple terms.

If an RO knocks my LOADED gun from my holster ...then DQs me

Aside from being really really unhappy that a loaded gun hit the ground endangering all present

Then to be DQed from the match for the ROs error

Im not sure how I may react....but it wouldnt be pretty

As in all things regulated by (rules)...a measure of common sense and right vs wrong would be called for.

Jim

[Nik Habicht]

If the holster is what caused the issue then cars cause drunk driving.

Rich

+1

Well I follow the rules the best I can and love this sport, but if I was told to make ready and was waiting for the start signal and the RO caused my gun to fall to the ground and I got DQ'd from it and that flew at NROI level, I would find another sport.

DQ'ing a shooter here is like blaming a guy that got car jacked because he stopped at a light, doesn't even make sense.

Not quite --- playing a sport with a potentially dangerous instrument places a different responsibility on you than does not having your car stolen.

Everyone on the NO DQ side of this argument seems to be stuck on the concept of it being the RO's FAULT ENTIRELY --- instead of being willing to look at this from the side of prevention, which would off course require looking at contributing factors.

The right answer might (and notice I said might be, not is) very well be to DQ the shooter under 10.5 --- as the rulebook (at least potentially) provides for that. The rulebook does not provide for DQing an RO; sure you can attempt to file a complaint with NROI regarding official misconduct, but if it's an honest mistake there's probably no one who feels worse about it than the RO....

[Gary Stevens]

Well having zero responses to my previous posting of 11.1.2, I'll try again.

11.1.2 Access – Appeals may be submitted to arbitration in accordance with

the following rules for any matter except where specifically denied by

another rule. Appeals arising from a disqualification for a safety infraction

will only be accepted to determine whether exceptional circumstances

warrant reconsideration of the match disqualification.

However, the commission of the infraction as described by the Range

Official is not subject to challenge or appeal.

IMO, this is not a DQ on the shooter. Yes the shooter is always responsible for their gun. However, 11.1.2 give us the oportunity to examine "exceptional circumstances" when making this decision. Additionally I don't think the dropped gun rule applies based on the exceptional circumstances.

Additionally I don't see any problem with the dropped gun rule stating "causes". This established a cause and effect relationship. In this case the cause was not the shooter but the RO.

I would "encourage" any RO working for me to strongly consider the probable outcome of any ARB committee before they make things set in stone. Afterall it is the RO who has to make the case to the committee to uphold the DQ.

In a worst case scenario the MD can waive the ARB fee and take the appeal directly to the committee.

Gary

[Nik Habicht]

Im not sure how I may react....but it wouldnt be pretty

My money's on "like a gentleman....."

...though an arbitration might be involved.....

[Flexmoney]

Everyone on the NO DQ side of this argument seems to be stuck on the concept of it being the RO's FAULT ENTIRELY --- instead of being willing to look at this from the side of prevention, which would off course require looking at contributing factors.

That is worth thinking about.

[uscbigdawg]

Prevention is the RO not getting near the pistol.

Rich

ETA: If I can't touch it 'til the start beep, then, at the very least, he can't touch it until it's fallen from my holster. I don't touchey, you don't touchey.

Edited May 26, 2009 by uscbigdawg

[Flexmoney]

Well having zero responses to my previous posting of 11.1.2, I'll try again.

Good grief, Gary. You didn't post a copy of the rule you were talking about the first time. Did ya expect us to go look it up ourselves??!!?? Heck...that is like 3 whole clicks and 15 seconds.

[Nik Habicht]

Prevention is the RO not getting near the pistol.

Rich

ETA: If I can't touch it 'til the start beep, then, at the very least, he can't touch it until it's fallen from my holster. I don't touchey, you don't touchey.

That's certainly one part --- but the prudent individual looks at all options to reduce the likelihood of a potentially fatal accident.....

You could live in a bubble too --- not getting in a car would probably reduce your chances of being in a car accident.....

[Nik Habicht]

I would "encourage" any RO working for me to strongly consider the probable outcome of any ARB committee before they make things set in stone. Afterall it is the RO who has to make the case to the committee to uphold the DQ.

Certainly if I had access to an RM (instead of being the RM), I'd call the RM to the stage to be present during the decision making process. Might as well take any and all guidance you can lay your hands on....

[uscbigdawg]

You could live in a bubble too --- not getting in a car would probably reduce your chances of being in a car accident.....

Now that's just silly. I live in California. We don't check the mail without getting the car. If we walked, we could hurt our *thumb rest [generic]* foot.

Rich

ETR: Did some surgery on holster-fest '09.

Edited May 27, 2009 by uscbigdawg

[Gary Stevens]

Well having zero responses to my previous posting of 11.1.2, I'll try again.

Good grief, Gary. You didn't post a copy of the rule you were talking about the first time. Did ya expect us to go look it up ourselves??!!?? Heck...that is like 3 whole clicks and 15 seconds.

Always trying to teach rather than to simply inform

Edited May 27, 2009 by Gary Stevens

[uscbigdawg]

In Flex's defense Gary, I know I'm not the only that didn't go look it up.

Rich

[ihatepickles]

I looked up 11.1.2 the first time Gary posted it, but that does little to make my match any better if I'm DQ'ed for something that's blame 100% squarely lies with the RO. Great, I spent $500 to get there, the gun is still bouncing around on the ground, the RO is still at fault, and I'm going home. No one was safer for me being DQ'ed and the RO is still out there knocking guns out of holster, what a great learning experience this is...

I don't see how we're gonna get off the topic of holsters while a forum moderator still taking the primary position that the shooter's decision to run a particular holster is at fault. Either the holster is inbounds or it isn't.

You want to talk about prevention? Talk about what penalty you'd apply to the RO who put people's lives at risk.

[Gary Stevens]

I looked up 11.1.2 the first time Gary posted it, but that does little to make my match any better if I'm DQ'ed for something that's blame 100% squarely lies with the RO. Great, I spent $500 to get there, the gun is still bouncing around on the ground, the RO is still at fault, and I'm going home. No one was safer for me being DQ'ed and the RO is still out there knocking guns out of holster, what a great learning experience this is...

I don't see how we're gonna get off the topic of holsters while a forum moderator still taking the primary position that the shooter's decision to run a particular holster is at fault. Either the holster is inbounds or it isn't.

You want to talk about prevention? Talk about what penalty you'd apply to the RO who put people's lives at risk.

It makes your match better when you are aware of it. It also makes your arguement stronger by pointing the officials to language that allows them to re-evaluate their original call.

Knowledge is power.

The RO made a mistake, a very bad one. If we require perfection, I doubt that we will have any RO's or shooters for that matter.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Gary Stevens

[Seth]

Had the RO NOT been sloppy and hit the gun, the shooter could have stood there (presumably until exhaustion or death) and the gun would have NEVER fallen.

Punishing the shooter for following instructions exactly (LAMR, gun holstered per ready conditions 8.1.1 and 8.1.2.) is absurd. There was no other input from the shooter. They were presumably standing there waiting for the next command.

The RO may as well have thrown the gun on the ground intentionally... the shooter had successfully executed the commands they were given and the gun was safe.

EDIT: Frankly, as a shooter I'd be FURIOUS. Forget the DQ. You bump my gun on the ground and I'm GONNA cry like a little girl.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Seth

[ima45dv8]

I don't see how we're gonna get off the topic of holsters while a forum moderator still taking the primary position that the shooter's decision to run a particular holster is at fault. Either the holster is inbounds or it isn't.

Pickles, I going to have to have to agree.

The main thrust being made by a couple of the proponents for the DQ is that the shooter did not fully prepare for the possibility of an RO knocking a gun from their holster while they were not looking. I can only guess that they mean he should have not been using a "race rig" (if indeed that was the case), or it should have been locked until they went to draw the gun.

If I've got that wrong I'm sure a someone will correct me soon.

[Flexmoney]

I don't see how we're gonna get off the topic of holsters while a forum moderator still taking the primary position that the shooter's decision to run a particular holster is at fault. Either the holster is inbounds or it isn't.

That's a good point. I think the holster discussion is relevant. But, I don't want to tick off those moderators. They do a lot of work around here keeping the peace so we can talk about stuff like this.

[ima45dv8]

I don't see how we're gonna get off the topic of holsters while a forum moderator still taking the primary position that the shooter's decision to run a particular holster is at fault. Either the holster is inbounds or it isn't.

That's a good point. I think the holster discussion is relevant. But, I don't want to tick off those moderators. They do a lot of work around here keeping the peace so we can talk about stuff like this.

Go for it. As I said above, I think the two are now fully entwined in this thread, so have at it.

[Flexmoney]

The main thrust being made by a couple of the proponents for the DQ is that the shooter did not fully prepare for the possibility of an RO knocking a gun from their holster while they were not looking. ...

If I've got that wrong I'm sure a someone will correct me soon.

I don't think that is what Nik said, at all. My read is that he is exploring the "contributing factors".

Once again, I'd like to point out that...regardless of fault and who did right or wrong knocking the gun out...

...we still have a situation where a loaded gun is tumbling

[ima45dv8]

The main thrust being made by a couple of the proponents for the DQ is that the shooter did not fully prepare for the possibility of an RO knocking a gun from their holster while they were not looking. ...

If I've got that wrong I'm sure a someone will correct me soon.

I don't think that is what Nik said, at all. My read is that he is exploring the "contributing factors".

Maybe he'll expand on that a bit. I hope so.

Once again, I'd like to point out that...regardless of fault and who did right or wrong knocking the gun out...

...we still have a situation where a loaded gun is tumbling

Any suggestions of how it should be addressed? How do you see that being prevented in this case?

[Flexmoney]

For one...we are raising awareness by talking it up here.

And, some just might come out of this and think about their choices and actions. (on all fronts)

[George Jones]

Interesting thread!

I believe that Troy made the correct argument for no DQ. The rules (as written) do not present justification for a DQ in the scenario as described. Any DQ needs to be solidly supported by a specific rule - and there is none here. The shooter did not cause the event.

I am also a firm believer in the concept of "the shooter is responsible for his gun". However (and it's a big however), that concept is always in the context of gun handling. Since the shooter was not handling (see here) the gun and the fall was the direct result of the action of another party, there is no rationale for a DQ in my opinion. Unsafe gun handling does not apply.

As to the holster...... If it was a legal holster, functioning properly and correctly used by the shooter, and the shooter did not initiate the "fall" in any way, then there is no valid argument against the holster or the shooter. The holster retention test left the rulebook years ago. No amount of "opinion" as to the relative safety of any properly functioning holster can be inserted in the decision on that stage lacking a rule which supports it.

The word "may" in Rule 8.6.3 has been around a while too. I consider it one of those often unnoticed little gems which demonstrate how smart those rules writers of years gone past really were. Leave it as is.

[Flexmoney]

George,

I agree with everything you said...completely...

Yet, we still have a loaded gun tumbling...and nobody responsible for it? (and, I don't mean responsible as in "at fault")