DQ or ?

[ima45dv8]

Flex, I don't mean to seem thick (which sometimes I am), but I must still be missing the point. I see the RO as both at fault and responsible for the falling gun. Unless some act of ommision on the shooter's part is being blamed ("race gun" type holster choice, holster not locked, etc.) I'm just not seeing it.

What am I missing?

[sperman]

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")

I think several posts have said that the RO is at fault. He is the one who sent the loaded gun tumbling, not the shooter.

Nothing in the original post mentions what type of holster the shooter was using. Many people have assumed it was a race holster. Let's look at it the other way. From what I understand (I take the RO class next month) the gun is supposed to be the focus of the RO's attention. If he is clumsy enough to manage to bang into it with the timer, I'm willing to assume he's clumsy enough to lift it out of a blade-tech. Heck, he might have tripped and managed to disengage a Serpa and pull the gun out at the same time.

[SA Friday]

DOAH!

My wife was ROing me while I was posting and and bumped the keyboard while I was standing by.

Edited May 27, 2009 by SA Friday

[SA Friday]

Anyone seen a blade-tec or Kytac so loose the gun jiggles in it when they walk? Anyone seen a blade-tec or kytac cut down so low in the front it looks like a bastardized Safariland? Anyone seen a Military guy have their M-9 come out of their standard issued nylon holster WITH the flap closed? Anyone seen the thumb snap on top of a pancake holster snag the front sight of a pistol during a draw and flip the gun out of the shooter's hand?

I have seen all of these.

The holster is either legal according to the current rules or it's not. Until the rules are ammended, changed, or rewritten, the potential safety issue will be there. A loaded gun in a holster is dangerous regardless of the holster or shooter. Mitigating the risk is subjective, and opinions vary as to where that line is. If USPSA changed the rules and I had to give up my WSM II and change to a blade-tec, I would do it. I would be none too happy about the wait or the bill. I would also write a letter to USPSA requesting all other equipement that's failed to properly secure a firearm, to include shooter's hands, like-wise be made illegal. Afterall, no excuses, right?

[George Jones]

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")

Well, I wasn't there, so it can't be me.

Seriously, the only one at fault here is the RO. Standing so close to a shooter's "space" without just cause is poor RO technique at best. So, if you need to hold someone responsible, let's call it on the RO. We don't know if it was a certified RO but the technique suggests that proper training would have prevented the event.

If the stage design was involved (such as forcing the RO into that position), well, there's a learning point there as well.

[el pres]

You people are all insane !! 6 pages in a few hours ??

I would say no DQ but the fact that a loaded gun hit the floor has to be addressed. Someone

should pay so this type of situation (possibility) is at least stored in the things not to do file.

Funny thing is I almost saw this very thing play out at this weekends match without any thought as to

what would have been done if it did transpire. A shooter was on the line LAMR, arms were down, head was

on the first target when I saw the loop of the CED7000 neck strap around the handle of the shooter's gun in

the holster as the RO was placing the timer by the shooter's ear. I was about to yell stop when it slipped right off

of the smooth, production, M&P 9. I did mention that this could be a serious issue with a gun with a large

magwell. No leashes on the timers !!

Edited May 27, 2009 by P.Pres

[h2osport]

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")

By "responsible" do you mean who is going home with the DQ. Except Nik, everyone has agreed to who is at fault. If I am ROing someone and I knock the gun out, I think I might be going home early.

There seems to be some consensus that if you are going to participate in a sport with a loaded gun, you are completely responsible for that gun. I also believe that if you are going to officiate a sport where loaded guns are used, you need to be responsible for your actions!

Randy

[Shootingirons45]

Good thread, interesting replies, comments. I'd only add that folks really need to take the Level 1 class and learn the current rules. I took the Level 1 class from George and learned and unlearned a lot. Also common sense ought to be used at all times.

[zhunter]

I want to ask one question. To be answered by someone who was actually there.

Would the RO's exact same actions have knocked the gun out of a non-race style holster ( I am NOT going to start naming brands etc...), like a Blade-Tech style holster ?

[Nik Habicht]

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.

And there it is --- George's caveat to the concept of "the shooter is responsible for his gun." That's pretty much was I was looking for......

A couple of points for those of you who don't know me and are convinced that I'm stubborn:

I consider rules discussions here the RO equivalent of dry-fire and practice --- this forum allows me to consider situations that I have not yet encountered, or to reconsider ones I've seen. I'd rather get it wrong here than on the range.....

I also sometimes takes an extreme position --- to see what else I'm missing on the other side. Being an RO/CRO/RM takes an awful lot of judgment; rarely are the issues black and white. Good judgment comes from experience; experience derives from bad judgment......

[Nik Habicht]

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.

O.K. here's a partial (and speculative, since I wasn't there) list --- I'm not saying that any of these happened; I'm merely suggesting that in a similar hypothetical situation these could be factors --- and likely eliminating any one or two prevents the occurence:

RO forced to stand too close to the shooter by stage construction

RO inattention -- perhaps shifting the timer to the other hand is the right move

RO out of position

RO distracted by any of a 100 other things

Shooter has a holster that doesn't fit the gun --- and yes, I've seen that.....

Shooter's holster is less than perfect design for retention

Shooter's holster is maladjusted

Shooter chooses not to engage a holster lock --- that is easily flipped off on the draw, or difficult to flip off on the draw

Shooter fails to lock blaster in the holster -- gun not clicked home

My point is simply this: whenever there is a dropped gun, or another serious safety infraction, responsible shooters and officials strive to learn from that situation. Identifying and considering all possible contributing factors is the first step in preventing a recurrence. I do this at matches I run even for obvious shooter error like a 180 break. I try and figure out if stage design contributed to the error. Did we place a target too close to the 180? Fail to block a target with a no-shoot or vision barrier?

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?

RO education comes to mind for starters.....

After that --- see my speculative list: you might need to address design/construction of the stage, the shooter's equipment, etc......

[GentlemanJim]

I have read every post here..and I can clearly see all opinions expressed

The one key..or Blessing here is the fact NO AD occured..every body went home in one piece!

I cant or wont argue any point here...but it all gives things to consider and lessons to be learned.

Bet we all pay a little more attention and take just a little more care

Jim

[oddjob]

I know the shooter, but I wasn't there. He uses an unmodified "race type" holster that was unlocked. I know the name brand, but would rather not say. The brand name is a widely accepted and used holster. I use one of these and so does my son. The way the shooter described how the R/O hit the grip area of his gun indicated to me it would not have fallen out of a Blade Tech type design.

[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")

By "responsible" do you mean who is going home with the DQ.

NOOOoooo.

Clearly I failed to communicate that a few times now.

I don't care who is at fault. I don't care about the score, the match, or making the right call. I care that nobody gets shot. I care that a loaded gun doesn't get dropped in the first place.

This whole thread is stuck in a negative downward spiral about who is at fault.

I want to quit crying about the spilt milk. I want us to think about what we can all do...in every aspect of all the roles we play at a match...to think if we can manage to not spill any more milk.

[G-ManBart]

While it's an interesting sidebar to discuss what the holster type was, I think that we could all come up with a reasonable scenario where the gun could be knocked out of almost any holster we regularly see used. Sure, from time to time we'll see someone using their duty level III holster and pretty much nothing is going to knock a gun out of that, but short of that type of setup we can "what if" it to death and come up with any number of ways for a dropped gun to happen without the shooter so much as blinking.

The lessons for me are 1) when ROing someone, be very mindful of where I am in relation to the gun even if it requires some contortions on my part to make sure I'm not in the way. 2) as a shooter, I like to keep my hand on the gun until the last second before assuming the start position and I'm going to keep doing this. I'm also going to consider where the RO is standing while I'm getting ready and if I'm concerned about it, I'll start from the semi-locked position and deal with the tenth or two it might cost me.

If the rules were changed such that "race" holsters had to have a lock, and that lock had to be engaged after LAMR, I wonder if we'd see a whole bunch of new designs hit the market? An Open gun almost forces you into a race holster with the majority of setups people are using so i can't see any prohibition on them, but the requirements could be tightened up a bit. R,

[mactiger]

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.

And there it is --- George's caveat to the concept of "the shooter is responsible for his gun." That's pretty much was I was looking for......

A couple of points for those of you who don't know me and are convinced that I'm stubborn:

I consider rules discussions here the RO equivalent of dry-fire and practice --- this forum allows me to consider situations that I have not yet encountered, or to reconsider ones I've seen. I'd rather get it wrong here than on the range.....

I also sometimes takes an extreme position --- to see what else I'm missing on the other side. Being an RO/CRO/RM takes an awful lot of judgment; rarely are the issues black and white. Good judgment comes from experience; experience derives from bad judgment......

Even though the rest of us, including George, have stated that it's not a DQ, do you still maintain that it is? George did specifically state that in this instance there was no handling, therefore, no DQ--which sort of qualified his caveat. (Huh?)

Troy

[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.

O.K. here's a partial (and speculative, since I wasn't there) list --- I'm not saying that any of these happened; I'm merely suggesting that in a similar hypothetical situation these could be factors --- and likely eliminating any one or two prevents the occurence:

RO forced to stand too close to the shooter by stage construction

RO inattention -- perhaps shifting the timer to the other hand is the right move

RO out of position

RO distracted by any of a 100 other things

Shooter has a holster that doesn't fit the gun --- and yes, I've seen that.....

Shooter's holster is less than perfect design for retention

Shooter's holster is maladjusted

Shooter chooses not to engage a holster lock --- that is easily flipped off on the draw, or difficult to flip off on the draw

Shooter fails to lock blaster in the holster -- gun not clicked home

My point is simply this: whenever there is a dropped gun, or another serious safety infraction, responsible shooters and officials strive to learn from that situation. Identifying and considering all possible contributing factors is the first step in preventing a recurrence. I do this at matches I run even for obvious shooter error like a 180 break. I try and figure out if stage design contributed to the error. Did we place a target too close to the 180? Fail to block a target with a no-shoot or vision barrier?

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?

RO education comes to mind for starters.....

After that --- see my speculative list: you might need to address design/construction of the stage, the shooter's equipment, etc......

Thanks, Nik. That does help clarify your thoughts on the matter.

Despite the numerous hypothetical factors you listed, I still disagree with your original response that regardless of accident, carelessness, or interference by the RO, that's a match DQ for the shooter. We may have to just agree to disagree on that point. I hope I never have an RO knock my gun from my holster and then attempt to issue a DQ to me for their action. As interesting as that would be, the moments following that action would be even entertaining.

As for the list of potential learning points, many address the very real concerns of RO attentiveness and stage design. Both are worthy of concern at any match we attend.

I see one that mentions a lock not being utilized in the prescribed/accepted manner. That seems to infer that if the lock was engaged this incident would not have occurred. If that's the case should we then extend that logic to imply that any holster without a lock is unsafe and unsuitable for competition?

I'd be in a bad spot if we did. And I seem to remember that you too use a DOH-type holster for our sport. Do yours have locks? In their absense, should they be considered inherently unsafe?

[smokshwn]

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

Rich

And forks make people fat too

Let's put it this way, the race holster allowed this incident to happen

Be very careful about advocating the logic a completely inanimate object "allows" something to happen....you know those pesky guns we use allow people to get shot.

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.....

During my RO class, I seem to remember that there is no arbs for safety DQ's....

[persona non grata]

I have read every post here..and I can clearly see all opinions expressed

The one key..or Blessing here is the fact NO AD occured..every body went home in one piece!

I cant or wont argue any point here...but it all gives things to consider and lessons to be learned.

Bet we all pay a little more attention and take just a little more care

that reminds me Jim, I probably ought to do some research on which hospitals are close to the ranges I shoot at. If there is an AD/ND, I think that most if not all the EMT/ambulance crews would get lost on the way to the range. Not to mention that some of the ranges I can't get any cell phone signal. It might be a good idea to have mapquest print out directions from the range to the nearest hospital that can actually treat a bullet wound. It's scarey thinking what could have happened.

[Nik Habicht]

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.

And there it is --- George's caveat to the concept of "the shooter is responsible for his gun." That's pretty much was I was looking for......

Even though the rest of us, including George, have stated that it's not a DQ, do you still maintain that it is? George did specifically state that in this instance there was no handling, therefore, no DQ--which sort of qualified his caveat. (Huh?)

Troy

You apparently missed the meaning in my first line --- George has convinced me. He originally fed me the concept of "the shooter is always responsible for his gun," and I wanted to use this scenario to probe that a little further.....

You were already on the way --- but I was still playing devil's advocate......

Bad situation -- no DQ....

[Nik Habicht]

Thanks, Nik. That does help clarify your thoughts on the matter.

Despite the numerous hypothetical factors you listed, I still disagree with your original response that regardless of accident, carelessness, or interference by the RO, that's a match DQ for the shooter. We may have to just agree to disagree on that point.

You sure we disagree? Maybe you just need to read more closely.....

I hope I never have an RO knock my gun from my holster and then attempt to issue a DQ to me for their action. As interesting as that would be, the moments following that action would be even entertaining.

Aw, come on --- we both know you're a big teddy bear.....

As for the list of potential learning points, many address the very real concerns of RO attentiveness and stage design. Both are worthy of concern at any match we attend.

Yup, but I don't think the shooter gets a total pass in this situation. If I'm the shooter, I know I'd be taking a long hard look at my equipment, reviewing my procedures on that stage, evaluating what, if anything, might need to change to help prevent my loaded blaster from hitting the ground......

I see one that mentions a lock not being utilized in the prescribed/accepted manner. That seems to infer that if the lock was engaged this incident would not have occurred.

It's merely meant to suggest that it might have prevented it --- something to be evaluated. Part of looking at the totality of the circumstance....

If that's the case should we then extend that logic to imply that any holster without a lock is unsafe and unsuitable for competition?

Nope -- not going there.....

I'd be in a bad spot if we did. And I seem to remember that you too use a DOH-type holster for our sport. Do yours have locks? In their absense, should they be considered inherently unsafe?

I seem to remember the DOH having screws that could be tightened --- I'm not using one at the moment, but I'm using something similar. I shoot the occasional non-USPSA multigun match. It's a slightly physical match, and there's the added fun of having a hot handgun on my belt while utilizing a shotgun or rifle on some stages. For that match, I tend to crank down on the holster screws to tighten its grip on the handgun. Totality of the circumstances, right?

What I'm really trying to say here is that shooters should be making decisions on how they use their holster not out of habit, but as a result of having considered the challenges imposed by the stage --- playing a sport with a gun requires nothing short of this level of consideration and attention.....

[zhunter]

I know the shooter, but I wasn't there. He uses an unmodified "race type" holster that was unlocked. I know the name brand, but would rather not say. The brand name is a widely accepted and used holster. I use one of these and so does my son. The way the shooter described how the R/O hit the grip area of his gun indicated to me it would not have fallen out of a Blade Tech type design.

Thank you!!!

I want to quit crying about the spilt milk. I want us to think about what we can all do...in every aspect of all the roles we play at a match...to think if we can manage to not spill any more milk.

Correct

That is why I wanted to address the holster issue. There are always going to be human errors involved, in this case the RO, but a retention test would be a move in the correct direction.

And.... as Nik stated, yes, the blade-tech style holsters DO have screws to adjust tension too!!!

[Ed K]

Situation as is; no DQ.

Competitor tries to catch gun before it hits the ground, or pick it up after it hits the ground; DQ shooter. 10.5.14.

Either way, RO gets a good counseling session. When I run a shooter, if at all possible, I'll stand just short of an arms length away. I don't sweep the timer up from below my waist, I push it out from my shoulder. The worst that has happened is that I pinged the timer off of a shooters earmuff prior to the beep. I've gotten the "stink eye" from a shooter when that happens. LOL

I too use the rules forum as dry RO practice.

[Gary Stevens]

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

Rich

And forks make people fat too

Let's put it this way, the race holster allowed this incident to happen

Be very careful about advocating the logic a completely inanimate object "allows" something to happen....you know those pesky guns we use allow people to get shot.

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.....

During my RO class, I seem to remember that there is no arbs for safety DQ's....

I posted the rule that states otherwise. You can't arb the act, but you can arb "exceptional circumstances".

Gary

Edited May 27, 2009 by Gary Stevens

[ima45dv8]

I seem to remember the DOH having screws that could be tightened ---

I'm glad someone mentioned that. I had to pickup a Para that fell from one when the mounting hardware (not the retaining adjustment screws) got loose enough to fall out. With only one screw holding the holster to the bracket the gun weight flipped the holster upside down and then it exited the pouch. I've always been glad it didn't happen within a CoF (while standing up from a seated start, as an example). They should be checked often and/or loctited in place.

And, yes, I'm just a teddy bear...