Question And Questions

[mai]

Last week, two evens came up at the local match.

First: One shooter who forgot to wear an earmuff and he silly enough to continue shooting until finishing the stage. But, lately, he found that he missed quite a lot, so he wanted to re-shoot and blame the RO for careless. I (RO for him) apologize to him and said that the ear-dangerous was already finished, and if he stop at first or second shot I will agree with the re-shoot, so, the re-shoot wasn’t a proper solution for his situation. You can guest, big argument came up. I wanted to give him a kind of DQ due to unsport man like. Finally, the RM stopped that fight and allow that guy to re-shoot because the noise got louder and louder. I just want to know what is the right solution for this even.

Second, In the Virginia-count stage that require reload between targets, if the shooter forget to reload and engage the next target for one round, he just realize the brief so he reload and continue shooting. He should get one or two penalties?

I think that he should get only one penalty for engage the target one round before reload, but my friend believe that the guy should get two penalties, one for reload command and one for extra shot. What do you think?

Mai

[Skywalker]

Hi mai,

I will relate to the IPSC rulebook only (do not know USPSA one).

5.4.2 Host organizations may require the use of such protection while on the range premises. In this event, Range Officials shall make every effort to ensure that all officials, spectators and competitors are wearing appropriate protection. If an official notices that a competitor has lost or displaced their eye or ear protection during a course of fire or has commenced a course of fire without them the official shall immediately stop the competitor who shall be required to re-shoot the course of fire after the protective devices have been restored.

A competitor who loses eye or ear protection during a course of fire, or commences a course of fire without them, shall be entitled to stop, point their firearm in a safe direction and indicate the problem to the official, in which case the provisions of the previous paragraph shall apply.

You noticed the competitor commenced the COF withouth earing protections on: at the time you realized it, it was pretty useless to stop the competitor, thus you can skip this step and apply the next sentence: "the competitor ... shall be required to re-shoot the course of fire after the protective devices have been restored".

It is my opinion that, if the hearing protections were not worn before the start of the COF, the competitor should have never get started, because he was not complying with the stage procedure, this occurrence is similar to the shooter starting in a different position than the stage required one, and the result is invariably a re-shoot.

You can't even look for DQ under unsportsmanlike behaviour, because the rule clearly says that this latter can be invoked under 5.4.3

5.4.3 Any attempts to gain a competitive advantage by removing the safety glasses or ear protectors after the course of fire has commenced shall be considered unsportsmanlike conduct (see rule 10.4.4).

only after the COF has begun.

Regarding the second issue, it is not clear to me how many rounds did the competitor shoot in total: I mean, if the virginia stage required 12 rounds, and a reload after 6, did the competitor shoot 7, reload and shoot 5 (12 total), or did he shoot 7, reload and shoot 6 (13 total)?

According to 10.1.4.4.:

10.1.4.4. A competitor who fails to comply with a mandatory reload as per 1.1.5 shall incur one procedural penalty for each shot fired in the component string after the point where the reload was required until a reload is performed.

the procedural for failing to comply with the mandatory reload at the specified moment earned the competitor one procedural for each shot after the moment the reload was stipulated.

Now, according to:

9.4.4 In a Virginia Count Standard Exercise course of fire:

9.4.4.1 Extra shots (more than the number specified) shall constitute a procedural penalty for each extra shot and only the highest scoring and correct number of hits shall be scored.

if the competitor shot more rounds than those stipulated by the virginia count stage, those are to be penalized with procedurals as well.

[Vince Pinto]

Skywalker,

You cite the correct rule but an incorrect conclusion, because the competitor did not stop due to a lack of hearing protection - he stopped because he had finished shooting at the available targets. As Mai said, the competitor was "silly enough to continue shooting", and that about sums it up.

The rules allow for "discovery" by the competitor or the RO in the early part of the stages, but if the competitor decides not to stop and he completes the COF, then a reshoot is not available. The intent is to correct an error as soon as possible, not to give the competitor a trial attempt at the COF.

In respect of the Virginia Count stage, the new rulebook is even clearer:

9.4.5 In a Virginia Count or Fixed Time Course of Fire:

9.4.5.1 Extra shots (i.e. shots fired in excess of the number specified in a component string or stage), will each incur one procedural penalty. Additionally, during scoring, no more than the specified number and highest scoring hits will be awarded.

10.2.4. A competitor who fails to comply with a mandatory reload will incur 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired after the point where the reload was required until a reload is performed.

Hence, in the case Mai mentioned, the competitor will incur 1 procedural penalty under 9.4.5.1 for the extra shot and another procedural penalty under 10.2.4 for firing an extra shot before the reload. To make matters worse, if the extra shot resulted in an extra scoring hit on the target, the competitor will incur yet another procedural under the following rule:

9.4.5.2 Extra hits (i.e. hits on the scoring area of a paper scoring target in excess of the number specified in the stage), will each incur one procedural penalty. Note that hits on hard cover and/or penalty targets are not treated as Extra Hits.

[Skywalker]

Vince,

not sure to agree with you on the first one.

IMO, if the competitor started the COF without hearing protections, it is my (as RO) fault not to have noticed it, and since he didn't start the COF with the protections fit, he was not compliant with the starting procedure, as well as if he started in a different than required position.

Given the above similitude, according to the conclusion of your reasoning, if a competitor started an imaginary COF with hands at naturally at sides (i.e. relaxed) instead of surrender position, and he finished the COF before you realized it, you wouldn't require him to re-shoot the COF because otherwise he would have had a free trial attempt at the COF.

There was (obviuosly unintentionally) a mistake in the starting sequence/procedure from the RO side: the competitor didn't shoot the stage in the same conditions of all previous competitors, thus equality of play is not ensured, hence have him re-shoot.

I want to stress the point of the similitude I cited: if something goes unnoticed to the RO that allows the competitor to start the COF differently from all other competitors, being this an advantage or a disadvantage, he will be required to re-shoot the COF.

[Garfield]

Hi,

I agree with Vince here Sky. Although the RO should have noticed that the competitor was not wearing hearing protection, the competitor should have (must have at first shot !) noticed as well. If the competitor then chooses to continue, that's the competitors choice. After that competitor has finished I as an RO would not grant him a reshoot, because to me that would be "a free practice run". And it can happen that the RO doesn't notice that the competitor isn't wearing hearing protection. With those small ear plugs many competitors wear I can imagine that the RO does not notice that they are missing, especially after the start of a course with movements to be made. I feel that the rules must allow for the RO to handle situations like this, but that it is certainly not automatic that the most favourable (for the competitor) option is chosen when something goes wrong. The new rules even reflect that more (eg: "IF the gun is clear ..." in stead of "Gun clear .."). The shooter always has some responsibility as well !

[Skywalker]

Garfield,

in the example I cited above, the competitor not complying with the starting position, and the RO not noticing it at all until the end of the COF, would you request a re-shoot to the competitor or not?

If the answer is no, according to the "no free-run" principle, aren't you violating the rules?

If the answer is yes, where the missing ear (or eye) protections issue is different?

Please note that to me the actual score of the stage has no influence on the re-shoot or not decision.

Moreover, it is clearly stated in the rulebook (5.4.2) that it is a RO duty to make all possible efforts to insure officials, competitors and spectators wear protections (not only a competitor's one, as you suggest), as well as to make all possible efforts to make sure the competitor starts the COF in the prescribed position.

In the wrong starting position example, a mistake from the RO side will eventually require a re-shoot, no matter if the competitor gets a free run at the exercise; now I wonder, why the protections issue shall be treated differently?

At last, if the competitor intentionally removes them to get e free run, and the RO has evidence of this, he is entitled to apply rule 10.4.4 and DQ him for unsportsmanlike conduct.

The rules seems clear to me: if the loss is unintentional, re-shoot, if it is intentional (to get a competitive advantage), DQ.

I can't even imagine how you could get a competitive advantage by removing your ear protections, else than getting a free run at an exercise. I believed that rule 10.4.4 was intended specifically for those occurrencies: I'm tanking an exercise and I intentionally remove protections to get a re-shoot, I'm ready for early showers.

[Garfield]

Garfield,

in the example I cited above, the competitor not complying with the starting position, and the RO not noticing it at all until the end of the COF, would you request a re-shoot to the competitor or not?

No, I would not.

If the answer is no, according to the "no free-run" principle, aren't you violating the rules?

What rule would I be violating in your opinion ?

Please note that to me the actual score of the stage has no influence on the re-shoot or not decision.

To me this also no influence on my decision.

Moreover, it is clearly stated in the rulebook (5.4.2) that it is a RO duty to make all possible efforts to insure officials, competitors and spectators wear protections (not only a competitor's one, as you suggest), as well as to make all possible efforts to make sure the competitor starts the COF in the prescribed position.

True, but this has limits. What to do with electronic hearing protection for instance ? As an RO I am not able to check the correct functioning of that ...

In the wrong starting position example, a mistake from the RO side will eventually require a re-shoot, no matter if the competitor gets a free run at the exercise;

I think not. If the competitor for instance had his hands placed wrong and nobody (including the RO) notices or protests, how can that result in a reshoot ?

now I wonder, why the protections issue shall be treated differently?

Because it is harder for the RO to check if the competitor's hearing protection is ok; and imo the only reason why a competitor would finish a COF (with a "resaonable length") without wearing hearing protection would be to get a free run.

The rules seems clear to me: if the loss is unintentional, re-shoot, if it is intentional (to get a competitive advantage), DQ.

The loss might be unintentional, but finishing the COF is completely intentional !

[Vince Pinto]

Skywalker,

The incident mentioned by Mai is clearly a case of the competitor not knowing the rules, for which he blamed the RO, after which he demanded a reshoot.

Our rules place great emphasis on safety, so we allow a competitor to stop, without penalty, as soon as the competitor realises he's not wearing ear protection. I did this once in my early days of IPSC and, I assure you, it takes a maximum of 2 rounds before you realise you're not wearing ear protection, but in those days there was no published "stop 'n' fix it" rule.

However if the competitor decides to continue shooting and not take advantage of published rules, the damage (if any) is already done and a reshoot will not undo his hearing loss, but it might give him a better score. Moreover, by shooting without ear protection, the subject competitor did not have an advantage against other competitors. At most, he had a self-imposed disadvantage.

On the other hand, if somebody notices that a competitor started a COF with his hands by his side instead of in the mandated surrender position, then that competitor does have an advantage against other competitors, so a reshoot must be ordered, for the benefit of the other competitors.

Vive le difference.

[Skywalker]

If the answer is no, according to the "no free-run" principle, aren't you violating the rules?

What rule would I be violating in your opinion ?

Garfield,

you wouldn't find it into the rules, but it is general consensus that you can't start a COF if you are not in the correct start position. Should this happen, you have to re-shoot the stage, no matter what is the result.

Have a look at this thread for reference (especially Vince's 2nd post, 5th overall).

True, but this has limits. What to do with electronic hearing protection for instance ? As an RO I am not able to check the correct functioning of that ...

You are not supposed to check if a competitor's protection is functioning, just if he wears them.

I think not. If the competitor for instance had his hands placed wrong and nobody (including the RO) notices or protests, how can that result in a reshoot ?

By now it should have been cleared that if someone notices that, the shooter shall be required to re-shoot the COF.

The incident mentioned by Mai is clearly a case of the competitor not knowing the rules, for which he blamed the RO, after which he demanded a reshoot.

I agree with you.

However if the competitor decides to continue shooting and not take advantage of published rules, the damage (if any) is already done and a reshoot will not undo his hearing loss, but it might give him a better score.

Ok, so if the competitor starts his COF kneeling instead of standing erect, and finishes the COF without being stopped, since he didn't gain any advantage from an incorrect starting position, he won't be entitled a re-shoot because he could score a better run? I would argue that since he shot the COF with a self-imposed limitation, that made him shoot a different COF from anybody else, he should be entitled a re-shoot.

In the end, I'm still considering the lack of protections as a situation in which the competitor assumed the wrong start position (he's not complying with the protections requirements).

[Vince Pinto]

Skywalker,

Wearing of ear protection is a general safety recommendation - it's not part of the "start position", a term which we've included in the Glossary of the new rulebook as follows:

Start position - The location, shooting position and stance prescribed by a COF prior to issuance of the "Start signal" (see Rule 8.3.4).

and, in case you're wondering, the words in bold above are further defined as follows:

Location - A geographical place within a course of fire.

Shooting position - The physical presentation of a person's body (e.g. standing, sitting, kneeling, prone).

Stance - The physical presentation of a person's limbs (e.g. hands by the side, arms crossed etc.).

Anyway, if you still don't agree or if I can't convince you, no problem. The best I can do is give you the official ruling which will be applied at Level IV and Level V matches.

[Skywalker]

Ok,

so the eye and hear protections are not part of the start position, as I supposed, and are not requirements, only a safety recommendation, thus their lack from the beginning is not ground for a (possible) re-shoot.

As somebody said some 140 years ago, I don't agree but..."Obbedisco!".

(Garibaldi 1866, Italian Hero who unified Italy, when required from the Italian King to stop his campaign against Austrians because an agreement with them was to be discussed, answered "I obey").

[Flexmoney]

Second, In the Virginia-count stage that require reload between targets, if the shooter forget to reload and engage the next target for one round, he just realize the brief so he reload and continue shooting. He should get one or two penalties?

I think that he should get only one penalty for engage the target one round before reload, but my friend believe that the guy should get two penalties, one for reload command and one for extra shot. What do you think?

Mai

I not sure you gave enough information.

If the shooter took more shots than the stage required, then that would earn a penalty for each extra shot (and, as Vince mentioned, extra hits would earn extra penalties too). Plus, there would be a procedural penalty the shot after the mandatory reload that wasn't performed.

[Vince Pinto]

Skywalker,

Obbedisco ??????????????

No Sir. Disco is dead, even the Obbe type. Only last week I finally decided to give away my bell bottoms

And don't worry about disagreeing. If the day ever comes that there's a single rule which has 100% support worldwide, you can slap my ass and call me Susan.

Or, if you have a lisp, make that Thu-than.

OK, OK, I'll take my medication again ...............

[mai]

Thanks for all answers

At the range, all shooters chare the RO-roll because we lack of staff (and budget) and actually all the shooters are friends, well, probably were friends (I hope not). I was the RO for that guy and I had a kind of guilty feeling for my “not enough attention to the shooter”. And also for the first moment, I felt really sorry for him and his ear, but I don’t quite like the way he reacted. 4-5 shooter came and gave their opinion, that entire mean impossible to reshoot. But he still doesn’t agree with any body. That’s why I want to give him DQ for disturbing the peaceful of range (Well just thinking to my self).

The second stage required to shot 6 rounds at T1-T3, reload, 6 rounds at T4-T6. The shooter shot 6 rounds at the T1-T3 and one round at T4, then he reload and shot 6 round s at T4-T6.

By the information above, I think he should get 2 penalties. Right?

Mai

[Skywalker]

Right.

One procedural for the 7th shot before making the mandatory reload stipulated after 6th shot, plus 1 procedural for having shot a total of 13 rounds instead of 12 as reported in the stage briefing for Virginia Count.

The rule Vince cited (9.4.5.2) will be enforced from January 1st, 2004, so the third procedural he referred may not applicable at the moment.

I guess Vince (who's always well ahead of all of us), has his Rulebook clock a little bit in advance, thus he has already switched to the new rules...

[Roger Rabbit]

Dear Mai,

I'm in THAILAND also, I just want to know when and where does it happen and in what match. I never heard of any thing like this before. Me thinking, that shooter should stop by himself after he realize that he don't have the ear protection. The re-shoot is not an option here. Because you said that he kind of take advantage of the short of ear protection reason to re-shoot.