Rules Question

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

...

 

PWB, I disagree that pulling the trigger = firing the gun.

In the context of the rule, "pulling the trigger" will either DRY FIRE (w/no round under the hammer) or FIRE one with a round under the hammer (unless it's a "dud"/bad primer/etc.).

It means to let the hammer drop unimpeded. Otherwise there would be no distinction listed in the rule.

 

Obviously if the hammer fall is impeded enough, by either a finger or dirt, etc. it won't fire. The rule DOES NOT say you must ask permission, nor does any rule say that you must ask permission if you want to unload an extra round by pushing the action release. What's the dif? It's either pointed in a safe direction or it's not. Oddly enough, it does seem to outlaw the use of any type of decocking lever, should any cowboy type gun actually have one.

 

PWB has spoken and that's the way it's going to be, but I disagree strongly with that interpretation of the rules as currently written. If that's the way it's supposed to be (and I don't care one way or the other) then they should be written so they can be clearly understood to mean just that. It remains a poorly written rule if that is to be the meaning of it.

PLEASE NOTE:

I don't see anywhere that it is written REQUIRING VERBAL confirmation in order to de-cock a firearm.

See posts 41 & 62.

 

[Ace_of_Hearts]

Just so I am clear.......

As this applys to Revolvers, some pump shotguns, and some pump rifles as they cannot be opened unless the hammer is down.

In order to decock any gun on the firing line - The shooter must obtain the attention of the TO before decocking. If he proceeds without this specific supervision then he earns a Stage DQ?

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

Just so I am clear.......

As this applys to Revolvers, some pump shotguns, and some pump rifles as they cannot be opened unless the hammer is down.

In order to decock any gun on the firing line - The shooter must obtain the attention of the TO before decocking. If he proceeds without this specific supervision then he earns a Stage DQ?

NO, that was not the intent!

 

At the Convention where this was discussed, there were many comments about the words "direction" and "supervision." IIRC, it was felt that using the looser word, "supervision," was preferable as the shooter could be so fast and decock in an appropriate situation before the TO had time to react and "direct" the shooter to decock. Again, IIRC, this was to prevent a "hard a$$" call on a shooter with fast reflexes. For example, shooter cocks, red flag or cease fire is called, shooter decocks before TO can react.

 

Please let me know who wants to make a call against the shooter in my example, so I can add YOU to MY list.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

[Black Angus McPherson]

OK, I re-read posts #41 and #62. RE: #41 OK, verbal confirmation is not required. I got that. But, is it actually written in the rule book that you must make ANY confirmation that you are under the TO's supervision and/or you must get his ok to decock? Good idea? Yes. But I took #41 as your interpretation of the rule and not a verbatim copy of any actual rule. After all, we aren't required to make sure we have the TO's attention while actually shooting. We are allowed to ASSUME that since the TO hit the buzzer he's paying attention. At what time are we allowed to, or should we, ASSUME he's no longer paying attention?

 

RE: #62 I agree, but doesn't actually answer the question.

 

As for "pulling the trigger", I didn't notice any distinction being made in the written rule. "Pulling the trigger" seemed to be listed as an acceptable method of decocking a firearm. No mention was made (In the rule as I saw it copied here on the wire) of firing or dry-firing any firearm. I did not infer that at all in the rule, as written.

 

And there is still that big "EXCEPT" in the rule that says you CAN decock as long as the gun is pointed downrange and you pull the trigger. I do not equate decocking with firing or dry-firing. While firing or dry-firing will certainly put the revolver in a decocked position neither is done (normally) for the express purpose of decocking the firearm.

 

I'm really not trying to be a PITA. I know that that's how it's been decided it's going to be, and I have no problem with that. It's just that I think the rule needs to be rewritten for clarification.

 

BTW, what is the official SASS definition of "Decocking"? If it was included somewhere in the previous posts, I missed it.

 

I think I fully understand what SHOULD have been done in the situation mentioned. Just trying to understand exactly what is or isn't required by the rules.

 

Angus (who usually stays away from the "What's your Call" threads and is sure PWB prefers it that way ) McPherson

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

OK, I re-read posts #41 and #62. RE: #41 OK, verbal confirmation is not required. I got that. But, is it actually written in the rule book that you must make ANY confirmation that you are under the TO's supervision and/or you must get his ok to decock? Good idea? Yes. ...

Howdy Pard,

 

Please read my post just before yours.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

[Ace_of_Hearts]

Then perhaps we should do away with the decocking rule as written.

 

Or make a clear definition of what "under the supervision of the TO" is.

[Black Angus McPherson]

Howdy Pard,

 

Please read my post just before yours.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

 

Allie,

 

I'm firmly on the side of the shooter here. (So please keep me off your "list" )

 

However, it appears PWB (who is the recognized expert here) and several others seem to see it as a clear SDQ. Unless I really mis-read something here.

 

I am trying to fully understand them.

 

Angus

[Ace_of_Hearts]

Allie,

 

I'm firmly on the side of the shooter here. (So please keep me off your "list" )

 

However, it appears PWB (who is the recognized expert here) and several others seem to see it as a clear SDQ. Unless I really mis-read something here.

 

I am trying to fully understand them.

 

Angus

 

+1

[Rance - SASS # 54090]

Allie,

 

I'm firmly on the side of the shooter here. (So please keep me off your "list" )

 

However, it appears PWB (who is the recognized expert here) and several others seem to see it as a clear SDQ. Unless I really mis-read something here.

 

I am trying to fully understand them.

 

Angus

 

 

+2.. Sorry but I'm kinda in this camp..

I've read the whole thread... I see the ruling by PWB and respect it and will accept it..

It seems to me the interpretation of being under the TO supervision is a key factor...

 

OK.. I started under his supervision.. when did I lose it?

 

Rance

Ain't arguin' the point.

but I sure see their point

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

..Shooter should have either asked permission or notified the T/O (to make certain he was "under direct supervision")...

Hi PWB,

 

I know I should step away from the keyboard or I may move up "the list. Then, you know me...

 

When this was discussed at the Convention, after much discussion, the word "supervision" was selected instead of direction to allow for decocking in SOME situations without having to ask the TO or be directed by the TO to do so.

 

I am not saying it was okay to decock in the situation in the OP. I am saying that it would be okay to not get permission or be directed by the TO in some situations. The comments on this thread are not clear in that regard and could lead to hard a$$ interpretations.

 

 

AM

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

There comes a time when COMMON SENSE must be applied to a situation.

 

I can take this issue to the ROC for review/revision if y'all INSIST.

 

We can attempt to come up with a UNIVERSAL definition that fits every type of firearm used in the game, as well as every conceivable situation under which a firearm MIGHT be "DE-COCKED".

 

Regarding the OP:

 

What’s the call? (This happened at today’s shoot) A shooter was completing a stage by shooting 4 shotgun knock-down targets. The last KD did not fall right away so the shooter loaded another round into his 97. Before he pulled the trigger, the target fell over. The shooter lowered the hammer of his shotgun and ejected the round.

 

The stage Timer Operator was still supervising the shooter and had not turned away to check with spotters or talk to the scorer.

The Time Operator stated that the shooter should have gotten his OK to lower the hammer on the round and awarded the shooter a stage DQ.

 

IMO...the T/O was mistaken in that assumption...there is NO NEED TO "ASK PERMISSION".

IF, as previously noted, the T/O was in a position to observe the action in order to award the penalty, the shooter WAS "under the direct supervision" of the T/O at the time.

Otherwise, how would he have known that the shooter did??

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

...

...

IF, as previously noted, the T/O was in a position to observe the action in order to award the penalty, the shooter WAS "under the direct supervision" of the T/O at the time.

Otherwise, how would he have known that the shooter did??

 

Those are the questions I would ask (as a Match Official) if the shooter chose to appeal the SDQ call.

 

...and I would have REVERSED the DQ.

[Grizzly Dave]

There comes a time when COMMON SENSE must be applied to a situation.

 

I can take this issue to the ROC for review/revision if y'all INSIST.

 

We can attempt to come up with a UNIVERSAL definition that fits every type of firearm used in the game, as well as every conceivable situation under which a firearm MIGHT be "DE-COCKED".

 

Regarding the OP:

 

 

 

IMO...the T/O was mistaken in that assumption...there is NO NEED TO "ASK PERMISSION".

IF, as previously noted, the T/O was in a position to observe the action in order to award the penalty, the shooter WAS "under the direct supervision" of the T/O at the time.

Otherwise, how would he have known that the shooter did??

 

So, by that logic a TO can never call an SDQ for decocking. Because as you said if he was able to see it to call it, then it was 'under direct supervision'

 

Now I'm really confused.

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

There comes a time when COMMON SENSE must be applied to a situation.

 

I can take this issue to the ROC for review/revision if y'all INSIST.

 

We can attempt to come up with a UNIVERSAL definition that fits every type of firearm used in the game, as well as every conceivable situation under which a firearm MIGHT be "DE-COCKED".

 

Regarding the OP:

 

 

 

IMO...the T/O was mistaken in that assumption...there is NO NEED TO "ASK PERMISSION".

IF, as previously noted, the T/O was in a position to observe the action in order to award the penalty, the shooter WAS "under the direct supervision" of the T/O at the time.

Otherwise, how would he have known that the shooter did??

I can see the merits of the above. How does it relate to post 33?

[Rio Brazos Kid]

Hi PWB,

 

I know I should step away from the keyboard or I may move up "the list. Then, you know me...

 

When this was discussed at the Convention, after much discussion, the word "supervision" was selected instead of direction to allow for decocking in SOME situations without having to ask the TO or be directed by the TO to do so.

 

I am not saying it was okay to decock in the situation in the OP. I am saying that it would be okay to not get permission or be directed by the TO in some situations. The comments on this thread are not clear in that regard and could lead to hard a$$ interpretations.

 

 

AM

 

 

Quite the contrary AM, (Re: stepping away from the keyboard). This post is one of the best you have made lately.

 

One of the major problems with our rules is that many of them leave themselves open to various interpetations. The armchair Lawyers, or maybe better called "Wordsmiths", worm, rearrange, work around, corrupt, miss-interpet, exagerate, and in general rearrange a rule to suit their desired purpose, and to the devil with what may or may not be the intended message of a specific rule.

 

Pale Wolf does a stellar job of trying to keep things level, but the truth is that he cannot be everywhere at every moment, and with rules written so ineptly and undefining, bad calls are going to happen with calculated regularity.

 

If we are going to have 1 chance in hell of ever having rules that level the playing field, then there needs to be a total re-writing of those rules that are constantly causing problems. No more of this "what's your definition of IS" type determinations of what a rule says and meams. They need to be stated clearly and concisely, with no doubt as to what they mean, leaving no room for mis-interpetations. Example= "Supervision" as used in your example above. what specifically, does that mean?? It can be interpeted a half dozen ways.

 

After 50 years of shooting about every dicipline out there, at one time or another, I finally came to CAS as the most desirable way finish my shooting career. This is one of the most fun shooting games I have ever been associated with. I however am astonished at the amount of bickering that goes on here on the wire. I do not find this kind of attitudes at the matches that I attend monthly, but I am gettion more and more aware of the politics that I had hoped were not a part of CAS, which so adversely effect so many of the shooting diciplines.

 

Down off the soap box.

 

RBK

[Grizzly Dave]

su·per·vise/ˈso͞opərˌvīz/

Verb:

 

1. Observe and direct the execution of (a task, project, or activity).

2. Observe and direct the work of (someone).

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

su·per·vise   /ˈsupərˌvaɪz/ Show Spelled[soo-per-vahyz] Show IPA

verb (used with object), -vised, -vis·ing.

to oversee (a process, work, workers, etc.) during execution or performance; superintend; have the oversight and direction of.

 

di·rect   /dɪˈrɛkt, daɪ-/ Show Spelled[dih-rekt, dahy-] Show IPA

verb (used with object)

1.to manage or guide by advice, helpful information, instruction, etc.:

 

These definitions are more in line with the discussion I remember and definitions were mentioned.

 

The difference in these two words indicates that in "direct" the individual overseeing the shooter must speak where "supervise" indicates that the overseer watches execution.

 

Regards.

 

Allie Mo

Thanks RBK

[Blastmaster]

Then you have the shooter on the loading table (part of the firing line). He levers the rifle a couple times to be sure it is empty. Closes action and rides the hammer down to its full resting spot with thumb (decocking) and proceeds to load the rifle. No one is supervising or if they are, nothing is said. Does everyone get a SDQ if there is no LTO or more than one person is loading, or ?

 

So PWB if the Range officer sees the decocking, then that is OK cause he has to be in a position to have seen it to make a call? Then if he doesn't see it, then he cann't make a call. So either way, a call can not be made,,,,hmmmm, unless a spotter witness the decocking action and reports it to the unaware RO.

 

I agree, the shooter doesn't necessarily have to get a verbal OK to decock, but one of your #41 would have to occur.

 

I do like Allie Mo and Grizzly Dave post on the definition of supervise. The supervisior has to direct the work of decocking. Just being present doesn't fulfull that job.

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

Blastmaster,

 

There are big differences in my and Dave's definitions. Please review. Mine is in line with the intent of the word "supervise in our rules."

 

Also Folks, if you look at the Pocket RO Card, decocking is only listed as a SDQ when done "to avoid a penalty if cocked at the wrong time, position or location."

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

 

PS This shouldn't be so difficult. When in doubt, Benefit of Doubt to the shooter!

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

Then you have the shooter on the loading table (part of the firing line). He levers the rifle a couple times to be sure it is empty. Closes action and rides the hammer down to its full resting spot with thumb (decocking) and proceeds to load the rifle. No one is supervising or if they are, nothing is said. Does everyone get a SDQ if there is no LTO or more than one person is loading, or ?

...

 

That section of the rules also states:

13. A shooter shall not cock any revolver until the firearm is pointed safely down range.

How do I load/unload a Colt-style revolver at the LT/ULT??

Do we really need to state the difference between the 'firing line' as defined for the purpose of assessing dropped firearm penalties and the ACTUAL "stage" firing line (i.e. that area from which the shooter is actively engaging targets)??

We've already found it necessary to add the following because SOME people actually interpreted the NO DE-COCKING rule in that manner:

While at the Loading Table, shooters must be allowed to make corrections as necessary to be sure no round is under the firing pin and hammers are fully down on empty chambers without the assessment of a penalty.

 

[Rio Brazos Kid]

Still open to various interpetations. More than that which is apparently intended. This should not be. It should be stated so that there can ONLY BE 1 interpetation, not several.

 

Let's get real about it. If it was stated properly, this conversation would never have been. As it is this conversation will crop up every now and then for the remainder of the century and beyond. This simply should not be. It simply ain't that hard to do it right.!!

 

RBK

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

Blastmaster,

 

There are big differences in my and Dave's definitions. Please review. Mine is in line with the intent of the word "supervise in our rules."

 

Also Folks, if you look at the Pocket RO Card, decocking is only listed as a SDQ when done "to avoid a penalty if cocked at the wrong time, position or location."

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

 

PS This shouldn't be so difficult. When in doubt, Benefit of Doubt to the shooter!

 

The "Pocket RO Card" is an abbreviated version of the RO1 "PENALTY OVERVIEW", which also states (under STAGE DISQUALIFICATIONS):

 

• De-cocking a revolver, rifle or hammered shotgun with a live round under the hammer.

 

The exception to THAT penalty is when "under the direct supervision of the Timer Operator".

(or at the LT as noted above).

 

FWIW - this thread (and the other related one) will be taken "under advisement" by the ROC to determine what (if any) clarifications may be needed.

[Blastmaster]

ROI book, page 16

 

"7. De-cocking may not be done to avoid a penalty if cocked at the wrong time, position or

location once a round has gone down range. NO gun may be de-cocked on the firing line

except by pointing it down range and pulling the trigger or while under the direct supervision

of the Timer Operator. The penalty for de-cocking is a Stage Disqualification."

 

So yes, a SDQ is the penalty for de-cocking not under the direct supervision of the TO. If RO is not "manage or guide by advice, helpful information, instruciton,etc", then the shooter is not under direct supervision. Maybe supervised, but not direct supervision.

 

 

di·rect   /dɪˈrɛkt, daɪ-/ Show Spelled[dih-rekt, dahy-] Show IPA

verb (used with object)

1.to manage or guide by advice, helpful information, instruction, etc.:

 

 

su·per·vise   /ˈsupərˌvaɪz/ Show Spelled[soo-per-vahyz] Show IPA

verb (used with object), -vised, -vis·ing.

to oversee (a process, work, workers, etc.) during execution or performance; superintend; have the oversight and direction of.

 

I believe it is up to the RO to know if he was knowledgeable and was in agreement and in direct supervisiong position with the de-cocking operation the shooter was doing. If he was, then no call, if RO felt he was not in agreement or direct supervision capacity with the procedures and so forth of the de-cocking procedural then a penalty. Up to the RO to make that call.

[Dubious Don #56333]

The "Pocket RO Card" is an abbreviated version of the RO1 "PENALTY OVERVIEW", which also states (under STAGE DISQUALIFICATIONS):

 

 

 

The exception to THAT penalty is when "under the direct supervision of the Timer Operator".(or at the LT as noted above).

 

FWIW - this thread (and the other related one) will be taken "under advisement" by the ROC to determine what (if any) clarifications may be needed.

 

Interesting that this thread is still going!

 

Unfortunately, some people define "supervision" (see big words above) as meaning "you gotta get my PERMISSION first". At work I supervise people - about a squad (if you ain't military, a "gaggle" would sufficiently describe the number. I do not expect them to ask "may I" for each and every action and when I RO a shooter, I don't do that either. If they ASK, I tell them. If they're doing it wrong, I tell them (or try to, if they be fast) If they're doing it right, I say nothing. If they're doing it wrong, I certainly wouldn't watch them doing that and then drop a DQ on'em! If I, as the RO be standing there watching them do nothing to interfere then my assent or approval of their conduct is IMPLIED. If my attention is elsewhere, well then, perhaps the shooter (as PWB said, good ad-vice there btw,) should ASK the RO.

 

In the OP the RO made his call and he's got to make the best of it. Others disagree which is only natural because for some "rules" there are interpetations that can be made. Hopefully with good judgement, common sense and a lack of hardass-ness.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

su·per·vise   /ˈsupərˌvaɪz/ Show Spelled[soo-per-vahyz] Show IPA

verb (used with object), -vised, -vis·ing.

to oversee (a process, work, workers, etc.) during execution or performance; superintend; have the oversight and direction of.

 

di·rect   /dɪˈrɛkt, daɪ-/ Show Spelled[dih-rekt, dahy-] Show IPA

verb (used with object)

1.to manage or guide by advice, helpful information, instruction, etc.:

 

These definitions are more in line with the discussion I remember and definitions were mentioned.

 

The difference in these two words indicates that in "direct" the individual overseeing the shooter must speak where "supervise" indicates that the overseer watches execution.

 

...

 

There's a significant difference between DIRECT (as a VERB) and DIRECT (as an adjective modifying "SUPERVISION").

IMO.

As soon as the ROC has the opportunity to discuss and clarify this issue (in an atttempt to avoid any future confusion),

I'll report back to the Wire.

[Unpleasant]

I know this will not help much but I will offer the veiw of the T.O..

The last firearm of the stage was the SG.

There were four targets to be knocked down.

The shooter only had to fire three rounds due to a good shot taking down two at once.

The shooter had all ready loaded the fourth round as he realized the fourth KD had fallen.

As the T.O. looked down range to see why the shooter was not shooting the fourth round the shooter had began the decocking process.

The T.O. started to instruct shooter to eject round but realized it was too late and couldn't stop shooter in time.

The T.O. asked shooter why he did not push button on side to eject round.

The answer was I did not know I could that.

The T.O. gave the SDQ penelty followed by showing the shooter ROI book, page 16 sec 7. pdf on mobile device.

 

 

 

 

I guess it is just the wonderful world of interpretation.

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

Interesting that this thread is still going!

 

Unfortunately, some people define "supervision" (see big words above) as meaning "you gotta get my PERMISSION first". At work I supervise people - about a squad (if you ain't military, a "gaggle" would sufficiently describe the number. I do not expect them to ask "may I" for each and every action and when I RO a shooter, I don't do that either. If they ASK, I tell them. If they're doing it wrong, I tell them (or try to, if they be fast) If they're doing it right, I say nothing. If they're doing it wrong, I certainly wouldn't watch them doing that and then drop a DQ on'em! If I, as the RO be standing there watching them do nothing to interfere then my assent or approval of their conduct is IMPLIED. If my attention is elsewhere, well then, perhaps the shooter (as PWB said, good ad-vice there btw,) should ASK the RO.

 

In the OP the RO made his call and he's got to make the best of it. Others disagree which is only natural because for some "rules" there are interpetations that can be made. Hopefully with good judgement, common sense and a lack of hardass-ness.

Hi Don,

 

Amen to your take on supervision and desirable TO behavior. The last seven years I worked, I had a supervisor. All but one was smart enough to know I could do my job without "direct supervision."

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

 

PS I'm going to TRY to stay away from posting until PWB reports back.

[Brother King, SASS #69031]

I know this will not help much but I will offer the veiw of the T.O..

The last firearm of the stage was the SG.

There were four targets to be knocked down.

The shooter only had to fire three rounds due to a good shot taking down two at once.The shooter had all ready loaded the fourth round as he realized the fourth KD had fallen.

As the T.O. looked down range to see why the shooter was not shooting the fourth round the shooter had began the decocking process.

The T.O. started to instruct shooter to eject round but realized it was too late and couldn't stop shooter in time.

The T.O. asked shooter why he did not push button on side to eject round.

The answer was I did not know I could that.

The T.O. gave the SDQ penelty followed by showing the shooter ROI book, page 16 sec 7. pdf on mobile device.

 

 

 

 

I guess it is just the wonderful world of interpretation.

SIGH... don't your stage conventions require that a knockdown target be engaged even if it falls during the course of fire?

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

So much for my attempt to skedaddle.

 

Just had to say, "good point" BK. When we have KDs, the count is usually 4+, meaning at least 4. Some clubs, Chorro Valley for one uses 4+, meaning 4 more or less. In other words, "as needed."

 

That is not the real reason I am posting. I just wanted to tell you that I think I will have nightmares after looking at your avatar.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

[Brother King, SASS #69031]

That is not the real reason I am posting. I just wanted to tell you that I think I will have nightmares after looking at your avatar.

The HALLOWEEN look is courtesy of Wolf Bane and Indiana Jackson who did the makeup for the Zombie Cowboy filming. It was fun and they're awfully nice ambassadors for SASS.

 

PS.. plus, everyone keeps telling me that I don't look like my picture. I'm not sure what that means but it can't be that good.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

Bro King,

 

thats why I don't put my Avatar on the Wire.....I don't want our lovely ladies having nightmares.

 

Besides, in real life, I'm the Invisible Man.

 

 

..........Widder

[Pleasant , SASS #25245 L]

SIGH... don't your stage conventions require that a knockdown target be engaged even if it falls during the course of fire?

 

The instructions on this stage said "as needed". The targets on this stage were set with the intent that less than 4 rounds might be required.

 

Pleasant

------------

[Jacknife]

The instructions on this stage said "as needed". The targets on this stage were set with the intent that less than 4 rounds might be required.

 

Pleasant

------------

 

 

My question is, are Pleasant and Unpleasant related?

[Unpleasant]

How could you guess?

 

How's that for a father son set of names?

[Grizzly Dave]

RO I page 16 under range safety rules

7. De-cocking may not be done to avoid a penalty if cocked at the wrong time, position or location once a round has gone down range. NO gun may be de-cocked on the firing line except by pointing it down range and pulling the trigger or while under the direct supervision of the Timer Operator. The penalty for de-cocking is a Stage isqualification.

"NO gun may be de-cocked on the firing line except by pointing it down range and pulling the trigger or while under the direct supervision of the Timer Operator." is the key sentence. Lets break it down, shall we?

NO gun may be de-cocked on the firing line except by pointing it down range and pulling the trigger

What? NO Decocking

Where? On the firing line where conventions require the shooter be supervised by an RO / TO

Exception #1 - Point it down range and pull the trigger

or while under the direct supervision of the Timer Operator.

Exception #2 - under direct supervision of the TO. It's already understood that the shooter is on the firing line, under the supervision of the TO, but that is not just re-enforced here, it's stepped up a notch, 'under direct supervision'

What should be under direct supervision? The act of de-cocking.

NOTE - This does not address if the chamber is loaded with a live round or not.

In my mind, a shooter on the line is under supervision of the TO, but given the language used above, the action of de-cocking needs to be under 'direct supervision', that is to say the TO has to know what is happening, either by directing the shooter to decock, the decock being a logical next step such as in the case of a pistol cocked an extra time, or the shooter telling the TO what is about to happen.

 

RO I page 26 under penalty overview for SDQ

• De-cocking a revolver, rifle or hammered shotgun with a live round under the hammer.

Pretty clear to me.

 

I will restate what I said in an earlier post, if you assert that because the TO could see the decock then the shooter was under 'direct supervision' then by that logic a TO can never call an SDQ for decocking. Because if he was able to see it to call it, then the shooter was 'under direct supervision'