Muzzle Warning? 180 DQ?

[Shootingirons45]

I think the occasional warning has it's place, but they should not be overused. Even experienced shooters get a little off sometimes, like when the stage is going down the tubes, etc. I always caution against using them too much when I teach a seminar, but the question always comes up, and more than once. What especially bothers me is that some people think seeing the finger in the trigger guard is cause for a "finger" warning. It's not--that's cause for a "stop".

My .02

Troy

I should have DQed a guy for the finger thing recently... I was remiss in my duties. What's worse, I knew the guy and I can't help but think it might have been a factor in warning instead of the DQ. So I failed in two areas on this one. I've done a lot of soul searching since and am resolute... it won't happen again.

I applaud your honesty. Many aren't this honest as to look at what we do and see that we coulda/woulda/shoulda handled a situation different.

[Flexmoney]

We fight battles about whether the RO should ever use anything but the officially approved range commands, but this allows an RO to actually yell something else (undefined) at a competitor during a course of fire...

?

It is defined...in the rule book.

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.

[LPatterson]

I don't issue warnings any more as I have had shooters complain that I distracted them during their concentrated mind set of programed fire. At the local level I help set up the stages so I know where the 180 traps are. At the Area match I walked every stage at least 3 times and watched the RO's shoot each stage at least twice. As a squad we had a shooter get distracted by talking in the peanut gallery so sometimes electronic ear muffs are a bad idea.

[Jack Suber]

The last time I yelled muzzle it was at a new shooter. Went something like this:

muzzel Muzzle! MUZZEL!! STOP!!!!

Right handed, moving R to L shooting SS. I knew it was coming. Just couldn't stop it.

The best I ever heard went like this: "Muzzle, MUZZLE, BROKE IT, STOP!!" Everything going through that RO's mind came out his mouth.

Troy

Best I ever heard was Muzzle!! Muzzle!! Stop!! Stop!!! Stop!! God Dammit!!! (shooter could not hear well).

[XD Niner]

I don't issue muzzle warnings unless it is a new shooter and then only at around 160 degrees. This gives her or him time to correct. If the RO waits much longer the shooter will not have enough time to make an adjustment due to the time it takes you to yell and them to process the information. When I see a new shooter (<4 or 5 matches) come to the line I will often point out the 180 risk if there is an inherent one with the stage. If I am a stationary RO on a COF I will do this for all the competitors. In a Level 2 or 3 match I usually don't know who is or isn't a new shooter and then don't issue a muzzle warning for anyone.

We had two on Saturday that were first timers although experienced shooters. One way to shoot the final stage , as opposed to a longer range carefully aimed shot, was to finish the stage by backing up five yards while hosing the now much closer three targets on the right hand side. This was a perfectly acceptable way to shoot the COF and preferred by several of the iron sight competitors. I just reminded both of the risk and they did a great job of muzzle control. Being proactive is better IMHO than yelling "muzzle" when possible.

As several posters have stated I won't DQ someone for a 180 violation unless I am very sure. That means it is probably around 190 for me.

We had a shooter at a recent 7-stage state match in my squad that was cautioned about his muzzle on two stages and clearly broke the 180 on a third (reloading and running to the left and parallel to the rear berm as a right hand shooter.) The RO on that one either didn't see it or wasn't confident in his call but it was clear to the observers. Unfortunately this shooter won his Division and Class which was a shame since the shooters behind him were really due a better position and more $$$ as it was a cash payout.

My real beef is with this and other stage designers who seem to think it adds a challenge to place targets just short of the 180. This just begs for a number of DQ's and for the life of me I have never once seen what additional challenge these configurations provide other than the challenge to be able to complete the COF and match. Surely placing a target at 160 degrees relative to the front fault line of a shooting area is just as good as one at 178 degrees. If the stage designer really wants to have a shooter pivot widely from right to left a few well placed ports can accomplish this without the risk of a DQ.

[Jack Suber]

When I design/set-up stages, I try to eliminate targets that could cause 180 issues by using vision barriers. If a stage design does not allow for that, I am all in favor of puting reference marks on the ground to help out competitors and ROs. As an RO, I look for the reference mark and I know if that muzzle passes it at a certain point, its a DQ. I, too, will only issue muzzle warnings to new shooters. In my opinion, experienced shooters should know where there muzzle is.

The first time I got a "muzzle" warning was at the 1997 or 1998 Limited Nationals in Fredricksburg. I had been shooting for about two years. This particular stage (it was the one the super squad had to reshoot because they engaged a swinger before activating it) required the shooter to engage poppers from a table and then move hard left to shoot around a wall. I shot the stage the same way the super squad did. As I was moving over, the RO barked "MUZZLE!!!!" In my two years of shooting, I had never had ANY RO yell anything to me but "Standbye." This scared the crap out of me and I stopped. The RO just stood and looked at me. I asked "what was wrong?" He stood there. I asked "are you stopping me?" He stood there. I asked, "Do you want me to unload?" He just stood there. After an eternity, the RO with the clip board said, "Keep going." So, I did. I was pissed. I complained about interference, but that was no good. The layout of the stage required everyone to go left and shoot from that position. The super squad never was issued any muzzle warnings(wonder how they would have reacted). I know because my squad had to wait on them to reshoot the stage before we could. I shoot with double plugs so my programming is that if I hear anything yelled loudly by the RO, something is wrong and I should stop (especially after a close call I had with an RO downrange after the timer went off).

My point is that I do strongly believe that yelling anything to the shooter that distracts the shooter or causes him to stop is interference regardless of who they are - new shooter or GM. If the shooter stops because he thinks you barked out stop (remember, lots of people are double plugging or can not hear well), then that is interference - especially if no actual safety infraction occured. "If" any type of warning is to be issued, it must be in a manner that will not distract/startle the shooter. If I warn a new shooter about the the muzzle, I will not bark out "MUZZLE!!!" As they start getting close to the 180 I will say, "Watch your muzzle." If you are one to bark out warnings, then I think you should notify the squad during the walk-through that warnings will be given so as to not unfairly distract the shooter.

That is my opinion for what it is worth.

[Mistral404]

I was RO on a stage where the shooters came from the right and went left. In the stage briefing I emphasized then need for care when moving and reloading during the movement. I did issue a couple of warnings and NO DQs.

If I am running the shooter and on the right side or behind the shooter, I can not make the call. I expect the RO running the palm to be looking for the muzzle. Quite frankly, I have been to some matches where the scorer does not act like an RO. The second RO is there for a reason.

I too, dislike stages that encourage being on the brink of breaking the 90 degree rule.

[Flexmoney]

Quite frankly, I have been to some matches where the scorer does not act like an RO. The second RO is there for a reason.

+1

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=86511

[Xfactor]

Quite frankly, I have been to some matches where the scorer does not act like an RO. The second RO is there for a reason.

+1

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=86511

+2

I have been to a few matches where, in an effort to move things along, the scorer is "encouraged" to move along behind the shooter/RO to get a head start on scoring targets during the COF rather than keeping eyes on the shooter... VERY bad, IMO.

[vluc]

When I design/set-up stages, I try to eliminate targets that could cause 180 issues by using vision barriers. If a stage design does not allow for that, I am all in favor of puting reference marks on the ground to help out competitors and ROs. As an RO, I look for the reference mark and I know if that muzzle passes it at a certain point, its a DQ. I, too, will only issue muzzle warnings to new shooters. In my opinion, experienced shooters should know where there muzzle is.

The first time I got a "muzzle" warning was at the 1997 or 1998 Limited Nationals in Fredricksburg. I had been shooting for about two years. This particular stage (it was the one the super squad had to reshoot because they engaged a swinger before activating it) required the shooter to engage poppers from a table and then move hard left to shoot around a wall. I shot the stage the same way the super squad did. As I was moving over, the RO barked "MUZZLE!!!!" In my two years of shooting, I had never had ANY RO yell anything to me but "Standbye." This scared the crap out of me and I stopped. The RO just stood and looked at me. I asked "what was wrong?" He stood there. I asked "are you stopping me?" He stood there. I asked, "Do you want me to unload?" He just stood there. After an eternity, the RO with the clip board said, "Keep going." So, I did. I was pissed. I complained about interference, but that was no good. The layout of the stage required everyone to go left and shoot from that position. The super squad never was issued any muzzle warnings(wonder how they would have reacted). I know because my squad had to wait on them to reshoot the stage before we could. I shoot with double plugs so my programming is that if I hear anything yelled loudly by the RO, something is wrong and I should stop (especially after a close call I had with an RO downrange after the timer went off).

My point is that I do strongly believe that yelling anything to the shooter that distracts the shooter or causes him to stop is interference regardless of who they are - new shooter or GM. If the shooter stops because he thinks you barked out stop (remember, lots of people are double plugging or can not hear well), then that is interference - especially if no actual safety infraction occurred. "If" any type of warning is to be issued, it must be in a manner that will not distract/startle the shooter. If I warn a new shooter about the the muzzle, I will not bark out "MUZZLE!!!" As they start getting close to the 180 I will say, "Watch your muzzle." If you are one to bark out warnings, then I think you should notify the squad during the walk-through that warnings will be given so as to not unfairly distract the shooter.

That is my opinion for what it is worth.

It's a good opinion, Jack, but if they double plug and cannot hear you yell "muzzle", how does saying "watch your muzzle" change any of that?

All of this brings up an interesting conundrum. We use verbal signals to relay information to the shooter, but allow them to plug ears such that you cannot distinguish what a person says - causing confusion and possible distraction, also unsafe. There has to be a common ground.

[Paul B]

?

It is defined...in the rule book.

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.

??

Didn't read my post?? Maybe I was not clear?

[Singlestack]

I know one thing for sure. If you scare me, you are getting something yelled at you. Whether or not it is stop depends on how bad you scare me and how much time I have to choose my words.

[joecichlid]

As others have said, I have rarely had to call Muzzle myself. Most of the DQ's I have seen in the last several years at our range have been for breaking 180 and usually happened during a reload (right handed shooter reloading while moving right to left). As for RO "coaching" does an RO screaming at me to move faster as I am shooting count as coaching? LOL I actually did well on that stage.

Joe W.

[JThompson]

You guys are great...thanks for sharing, I have learned more about this in a few short days than I would have in years talking to ROs on the range. A lot of RO don't have the knowledge base to get this info from such a diversified group. This forum should be required reading for all new ROs. By new I mean less than five years.

It's also very good for the guys who have been around a long time to talk about rules changes and how they are to be integrated into their skill set.

While the forum can sometimes get heated, I think it's the single most valuable resource we have as ROs. The book doesn't talk back, nor explain thought processes or answer questions. Also, some of the rules are less clear than others and you guys/ladies often provide me with a interpretation I never considered.

I know we almost lost this forum several times for heated discussions, and I can't help but believe it's ones like this that have kept it open. I never want to see this forum go away... thanks to Brian and the Mods for putting up with some heated discussions. In my opinion, this forum is worth the upset it causes on occasion.

Keep the thoughts coming... I have been keeping my mouth shut and learning. (Shocking I know)

Thanks,

JT

Edited June 24, 2009 by JThompson

[JayWord]

When I design/set-up stages, I try to eliminate targets that could cause 180 issues by using vision barriers. If a stage design does not allow for that, I am all in favor of puting reference marks on the ground to help out competitors and ROs. As an RO, I look for the reference mark and I know if that muzzle passes it at a certain point, its a DQ. I, too, will only issue muzzle warnings to new shooters. In my opinion, experienced shooters should know where there muzzle is.

The first time I got a "muzzle" warning was at the 1997 or 1998 Limited Nationals in Fredricksburg. I had been shooting for about two years. This particular stage (it was the one the super squad had to reshoot because they engaged a swinger before activating it) required the shooter to engage poppers from a table and then move hard left to shoot around a wall. I shot the stage the same way the super squad did. As I was moving over, the RO barked "MUZZLE!!!!" In my two years of shooting, I had never had ANY RO yell anything to me but "Standbye." This scared the crap out of me and I stopped. The RO just stood and looked at me. I asked "what was wrong?" He stood there. I asked "are you stopping me?" He stood there. I asked, "Do you want me to unload?" He just stood there. After an eternity, the RO with the clip board said, "Keep going." So, I did. I was pissed. I complained about interference, but that was no good. The layout of the stage required everyone to go left and shoot from that position. The super squad never was issued any muzzle warnings(wonder how they would have reacted). I know because my squad had to wait on them to reshoot the stage before we could. I shoot with double plugs so my programming is that if I hear anything yelled loudly by the RO, something is wrong and I should stop (especially after a close call I had with an RO downrange after the timer went off).

My point is that I do strongly believe that yelling anything to the shooter that distracts the shooter or causes him to stop is interference regardless of who they are - new shooter or GM. If the shooter stops because he thinks you barked out stop (remember, lots of people are double plugging or can not hear well), then that is interference - especially if no actual safety infraction occured. "If" any type of warning is to be issued, it must be in a manner that will not distract/startle the shooter. If I warn a new shooter about the the muzzle, I will not bark out "MUZZLE!!!" As they start getting close to the 180 I will say, "Watch your muzzle." If you are one to bark out warnings, then I think you should notify the squad during the walk-through that warnings will be given so as to not unfairly distract the shooter.

That is my opinion for what it is worth.

Jack as the CRO who most likely made that call, I have also learned to use it with a bit more judgement. The reason I did not say anything else, is I had lost an arbitration earlier at the PASA Nationals by saying something to a shooter other than a warning or range command.

I ran a flat wall stage at Area 5 last weekend and used the muzzle warning twice both for poor reloads that were right on the ragged edge of the 180. Both shooter stayed too tight to the front wall and turned the gun 90 degrees to their body while reloading.

If I screwed you up lo so many years ago, sorry but..... Safety is Job 1.

Jay

[Carmoney]

I've said this before, but I think it's worth repeating: As a revolver shooter, I'm looking to find ways to utilize my six rounds as efficiently as possible, and sometimes that means I will be taking a target from an angle that would never be considered by a shooter in any other division. This also means I will sometimes be forced to go all the way to 179 degrees to complete the stage according to my plan. I do not want to hear "MUZZLE" yelled at me.

I will say this--the experienced national-level ROs do know the difference between strategically using the full 180 and crazy gun-handling It's the newer, local-yokel ROs that are sometimes conscripted and quickly trained to help at sectionals and area matches that seem to be the problem. I've also noticed that ROs with a heavy background in IDPA tend to yell "MUZZLE" and "FINGER" nearly constantly, because it's encouraged in that rulebook. My view is that if my muzzle breaks the 180 or my finger is in the trigger guard when I'm moving or reloading, go ahead and DQ my ass like you're supposed to. Otherwise, keep quiet and out of sight until I'm done with the stage.

[Matt P.]

I've said this before, but I think it's worth repeating: As a revolver shooter, I'm looking to find ways to utilize my six rounds as efficiently as possible, and sometimes that means I will be taking a target from an angle that would never be considered by a shooter in any other division. This also means I will sometimes be forced to go all the way to 179 degrees to complete the stage according to my plan. I do not want to hear "MUZZLE" yelled at me.

I will say this--the experienced national-level ROs do know the difference between strategically using the full 180 and crazy gun-handling It's the newer, local-yokel ROs that are sometimes conscripted and quickly trained to help at sectionals and area matches that seem to be the problem. I've also noticed that ROs with a heavy background in IDPA tend to yell "MUZZLE" and "FINGER" nearly constantly, because it's encouraged in that rulebook. My view is that if my muzzle breaks the 180 or my finger is in the trigger guard when I'm moving or reloading, go ahead and DQ my ass like you're supposed to. Otherwise, keep quiet and out of sight until I'm done with the stage.

I think I have to agree 100% with what you said.

[kimel]

And don't forget that you have the right during the walk-thru and stage examination periods to ask the CRO for their definition of the 180.

Three 180 examples from personal experience:

A good example of a confusing 180 problem was my stage at the Missoula O/L10 Nationals. For a variety of reasons (some of which were probably done on purpose as this was my "exam" stage for my RM) the stage was set into a corner of a very large bay. The shooting area was a diamond shape (keeping with the baseball theme of the stage) and the fault lines were not parallel to anything in the terrain.

About the first thing I did when I walked that stage the first time was to start thinking of where I was going to call 180s. I also consulted the RM (Thanks Floyd!) for his advice and we reached a mutually agreeable conclusion. When my staff showed up we spent a lot of time going over this so everyone was clear and would be calling the same way (thanks Jon and Roger!).

Most every squad through the entire match asked about where the 180 was and we were prepared with the right answer. Thankfully, we didn't have to DQ anyone although one shooter did get to 179.999999999 when he slipped off an activator and almost went to the ground.

At the 2008 Area 1 I was CRO of an L-shaped stage where the shooter had to move downrange and engage a number of targets hidden by barrels such that they weren't really available until about 160 degrees. There was a fault line running down range that everyone was traversing along so I stationed myself such that I could control the shooter and also use that fault line as the 180 mark. I won't issue a 180 DQ unless I know, for an absolute fact, that you broke it. That also turned out to be at the point where most comps were directing a LOT of gas but it was the right place to be to run things. I suspect it was this abuse that lead me to order an Open gun this Winter. Thankfully everyone was real safe (despite the oppressive heat) and we got out without any DQs there. A couple shooters received some friendly advice and one a very stern warning about muzzles and reloading but I wasn't 100% sure he had broken the 180 so no DQ.

At the 2009 Nationals (MudBowl II) I was again on a stage with an oddly shaped shooting area defined by fault lines. No targets had to be engage anywhere near the 180 but you could eliminate some movement by pushing the limits. This time it was set squarely in the bay so the berm sides could be used as a point of reference. Regrettably, a couple shooters got carried away and didn't take that one extra step. I forget who it was but one of them did it on his very last target for the match. At least he got to shoot the whole match less 1 round.

As for issuing warnings; I rarely do it but 95% of them are issued during reloads.

[Singlestack]

I've said this before, but I think it's worth repeating: As a revolver shooter, I'm looking to find ways to utilize my six rounds as efficiently as possible, and sometimes that means I will be taking a target from an angle that would never be considered by a shooter in any other division. This also means I will sometimes be forced to go all the way to 179 degrees to complete the stage according to my plan. I do not want to hear "MUZZLE" yelled at me.

I will say this--the experienced national-level ROs do know the difference between strategically using the full 180 and crazy gun-handling It's the newer, local-yokel ROs that are sometimes conscripted and quickly trained to help at sectionals and area matches that seem to be the problem. I've also noticed that ROs with a heavy background in IDPA tend to yell "MUZZLE" and "FINGER" nearly constantly, because it's encouraged in that rulebook. My view is that if my muzzle breaks the 180 or my finger is in the trigger guard when I'm moving or reloading, go ahead and DQ my ass like you're supposed to. Otherwise, keep quiet and out of sight until I'm done with the stage.

It is also in the USPSA rule book.

[JThompson]

I've said this before, but I think it's worth repeating: As a revolver shooter, I'm looking to find ways to utilize my six rounds as efficiently as possible, and sometimes that means I will be taking a target from an angle that would never be considered by a shooter in any other division. This also means I will sometimes be forced to go all the way to 179 degrees to complete the stage according to my plan. I do not want to hear "MUZZLE" yelled at me.

I will say this--the experienced national-level ROs do know the difference between strategically using the full 180 and crazy gun-handling It's the newer, local-yokel ROs that are sometimes conscripted and quickly trained to help at sectionals and area matches that seem to be the problem. I've also noticed that ROs with a heavy background in IDPA tend to yell "MUZZLE" and "FINGER" nearly constantly, because it's encouraged in that rulebook. My view is that if my muzzle breaks the 180 or my finger is in the trigger guard when I'm moving or reloading, go ahead and DQ my ass like you're supposed to. Otherwise, keep quiet and out of sight until I'm done with the stage.

I've had a couple stages where I was going to push the 180 right to the limit... I had a few words with the RO to let him know I was going to do it ahead of time and showed him, with my finger where the muzzle would be, I then asked him if he had a problem with it and he said as long as I did not go past what I showed him i would be good.

Sometimes a quick word before can help these types of deals from happening too. You old hats must help train the knew guys. You can size up and RO the same way you do a new shooter... if you get a green one it might be good to have a few words "before" you get yelled at. Just a thought there... Not all the newer guys read here and ask for input. This thread has really firmed up my thoughts on how to treat these issues.

Best,

JT

Edited June 25, 2009 by JThompson

[Flexmoney]

Sooo...if you are going to play the angles...play the angles?

[joecichlid]

Usually if I need to issue any kind of warning I will wait until the shooter is done then take them to the side and explain the warning instead of yelling anything while they are shooting. If I don't see them clearly braking any safety rules I keep my mouth shut. If I have to say anything to the shooter while they are shooting 99% of the time it involves a DQ. Never a fun thing to do but safety of the shooter, the RO and anyone on the range is top priority. Said it before and will say it again, Shooter know thy rulebook! It is the shooters job not to break the rules, not the job of the RO to prevent the shooter from breaking the rules.

Joe W.

[ac4wordplay]

I support communicating with the RO prior to executing the stage: "I plan to be very close to the 180 at these targets". That can keep the RO from being surprised (and acting/warning/DQing because of the surprising/unexpected action). However, plans can fall apart, and a competitor can't be held to a plan (it's contrary to freestyle), so the RO must remain vigilant.

I watch a competitor's body language, footwork, manipulation skills, and shooting skills closely and I take note of the stage design and what the competitor is trying to accomplish. From these inputs I draw a conclusion of their muzzle awareness and warn when I feel:

* they are unaware of how close to the 180 they are AND

* they are too close to (or too likely to break) the 180

For more skilled/aware competitors it's rarely been an issue for me; however, sometimes even they need to know what other people's perspectives offer. This past weekend I was CRO fro A1 stage 8 and many performed a right-handed reload while moving R to left (or mirror image)... some were quite close to the 180 but seemed to be aware and in control. A few were quite close, and although in control, may not have been entirely aware of how very close to breaking the 180 they were - after scoring their run I asked them aside and had a brief, quiet, private word with them to let them know that they may have been much closer to breaking the 180 than they realized. I tried to keep it friendly: "You haven't done anything wrong, just FYI you were way close. If you knew you were way close, then your awareness is good and we're finished, but if you thought that you had plenty left in the 180 then consider re-thinking things a little." Sometimes they understand this to mean that an overly-cautious RO may have DQ'd them for being very on the 180.

We all need a bit of feedback from time to time and most who I've approached in this manner have been understanding and appreciative. Occasionally a competitor's buddy has gently affirmed my position to the competitor. It's been nice to receive that support.

YMMV

ac