Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

What's the call - Decocking a pistol before any rounds have gone downrange


Krazy Kajun

Recommended Posts

I was the TO. The shooter drew a pistol and cocked it. I yelled "STOP" ! The shooter stopped with the cocked pistol pointed safely downrange and looked at me. I stated that the rifle was to be shot first. And said I was going to re-started him. The shooter de-cocked the pistol, indexed the cylinder to have the hammer down on an empty chamber and holstered the pistol. He did exactly as I expected him to do, as de-cocking was clearly implied in my statement to re-start him. Otherwise he could not have re-started. I believe this sequence was positive acknowledgement for the shooter to de-cock the pistol. Why should something else have to be said?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I was the TO. The shooter drew a pistol and cocked it. I yelled "STOP" ! The shooter stopped with the cocked pistol pointed safely downrange and looked at me. I stated that the rifle was to be shot first. And said I was going to re-started him. The shooter de-cocked the pistol, indexed the cylinder to have the hammer down on an empty chamber and holstered the pistol. He did exactly as I expected him to do, as de-cocking was clearly implied in my statement to re-start him. Otherwise he could not have re-started. I believe this sequence was positive acknowledgement for the shooter to de-cock the pistol. Why should something else have to be said?

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Common = that which is seen most often

Sense = a level of intelligence

Common + Sense = Sheer Stupidity

 

I much prefer that one demonstrate a certain level of "uncommon GOOD Sense."

Leave it to the wire to screw up something as simple as the accepted meaning of common sense. If that makes me stupid, fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was the TO. The shooter drew a pistol and cocked it. I yelled "STOP" ! The shooter stopped with the cocked pistol pointed safely downrange and looked at me. I stated that the rifle was to be shot first. And said I was going to re-started him. The shooter de-cocked the pistol, indexed the cylinder to have the hammer down on an empty chamber and holstered the pistol. He did exactly as I expected him to do, as de-cocking was clearly implied in my statement to re-start him. Otherwise he could not have re-started. I believe this sequence was positive acknowledgement for the shooter to de-cock the pistol.

Why should something else have to be said?

 

Because the RULE regarding decocking "requires a positive indication/ acknowledgement from the Timer Operator to the shooter"

 

...NOT assumptions or implications.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this was wrong!! experienced TO understood what needed to be done as well as the shooter. gave instructions that shooter understood. TO was observing the whole time.

 

now I know why I am SO paranoid about this situation......

 

STILL think this was absolutely WRONG!

Link to post
Share on other sites

This, of course, raises the question of what constitutes a "positive indication/ acknowledgement?"

 

If a shooter is given the OK to restart and then asks "can I decock my pistol" and the TO just appears to nod is that a positive indication/ acknowledgement?" Someone raises a question about the decocking so the posse marshal asks the TO if he gave a positive indication/ acknowledgement to decock and he says no. The shooter says, but you nodded. The TO says he was just thinking about lunch. If the TO says "restart and make your guns ready to start over" is that a positive indication/ acknowledgement? If "restart" is insufficient to allow a gun to be put back into a safe condition and a second positive indication/ acknowledgement to decock is requireed, then the only thing that is a positive indication/ acknowledgement is a verbal command to decock. This needs to be rethought by the ROC and clarification issued.

Link to post
Share on other sites

New range command

 

De-Cock your piece!

 

Sounds dirty don't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

my beef is that the TO and the shooter WERE on the same page!!!!

 

"no one other than the shooter may protest a call" hmmmmm

 

stinks!!!!!!!!

 

guess I'm still not a company line player!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

my beef is that the TO and the shooter WERE on the same page!!!!

 

"no one other than the shooter may protest a call" hmmmmm

 

stinks!!!!!!!!

 

guess I'm still not a company line player!!

I'm in 100% agreement here. Shooter and TO were good to go...what more is needed?

 

Phantom

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Ace of Hearts on this. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

my beef is that the TO and the shooter WERE on the same page!!!!

 

"no one other than the shooter may protest a call" hmmmmm

 

stinks!!!!!!!!

 

guess I'm still not a company line player!!

 

 

+1

That should have been the end of it right there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This, of course, raises the question of what constitutes a "positive indication/ acknowledgement?"

 

If a shooter is given the OK to restart and then asks "can I decock my pistol" and the TO just appears to nod is that a positive indication/ acknowledgement?" Someone raises a question about the decocking so the posse marshal asks the TO if he gave a positive indication/ acknowledgement to decock and he says no. The shooter says, but you nodded. The TO says he was just thinking about lunch. If the TO says "restart and make your guns ready to start over" is that a positive indication/ acknowledgement? If "restart" is insufficient to allow a gun to be put back into a safe condition and a second positive indication/ acknowledgement to decock is requireed, then the only thing that is a positive indication/ acknowledgement is a verbal command to decock. This needs to be rethought by the ROC and clarification issued.

 

+1

That way the shooter doesn't move until he hears decock. And you better make sure that the TO is watching you closely while you are decocking hate to have some spotter or PM decide that you were not decocking under direct supervision.

 

Nawlins

Link to post
Share on other sites

PWB;

 

I believe the Rule, as currently written, was fulfilled when I told the shooter that I was going to re-start him. I regard that statement as positive indication/ acknowledgement to the shooter to de-cock by me (the TO) and the shooter understood and de-cocked, etc while I (the TO) observed and verified the hammer was down on an empty chamber. If the ROC wants some other "words" said, then they need to write them into the Rules.

 

If I tell my granddaughter to "drive to the pharmacy", it is implied that she has to get into a vehicle. Why would I need to tell her to both "drive to the pharmacy" and "get into a vehicle", as the only way to "drive" is to get into the vehicle ?

 

If the only reasonable way to accomplish a re-start on the firing line is to de-cock the pistol,etc, then the instruction "re-start" means "de-cock", etc.

 

It seems to me the intent of the Rule is to ensure that the Shooter and the TO both have the same understanding (at the same time) that the pistol is going to be de-cocked. How positive indication/ acknowledgement is obtained between the Shooter and the TO is not specified in the Rule, only that the Shooter and the TO accomplish such. In the case I described, that common understanding was accomplished with the instruction to "re-start". How is that a violation of the Rule, as currently written ?

 

I always value your interpretations, but I am really puzzled in this instance.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

This falls squarely in the line of fire for my crusade to give all benefit to the shooter. Whoever insisted that this end up as a SDQ should be forced to write 500 times " BOD goes to the shooter". For the life of me, I do not understand the rush by some to penalize an infraction or perceived infraction more than the minimum that can be assessed. In this case, no call.

 

CR

Link to post
Share on other sites

A good discussion and helpful reminder to be as clear as we can when being an R.O.

 

I see that you can be on the same page and it can be pretty clear. But as a general rule, it is better to stop, tell the shooter specifically to decock. Then tell them you will restart them. And seriously consider having the shooter make the guns safe, go back, and rethink the stage before going on.

 

That will help some folks who are probably already in a confused state to remain safe.

 

As to the original post, I was loading at the time of the incident. From what I understood, the shooter cocked the revolver, then got confused and stopped and quickly decocked the gun. So although no rounds had gone downrange, the incident happened on the firing line (between the loading and unloading table) and should have gotten a SDQ. I heard some of the discussion and realized confusion since a round had not gone down range yet. I hesitated to say anything because of that - and because I was loading my guns.

 

But hind sight says it should have been a stage DQ. And the R.O. probably could not have reacted quickly enough to avoid it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A good discussion and helpful reminder to be as clear as we can when being an R.O.

 

I see that you can be on the same page and it can be pretty clear. But as a general rule, it is better to stop, tell the shooter specifically to decock. Then tell them you will restart them. And seriously consider having the shooter make the guns safe, go back, and rethink the stage before going on.

 

That will help some folks who are probably already in a confused state to remain safe.

 

As to the original post, I was loading at the time of the incident. From what I understood, the shooter cocked the revolver, then got confused and stopped and quickly decocked the gun. So although no rounds had gone downrange, the incident happened on the firing line (between the loading and unloading table) and should have gotten a SDQ. I heard some of the discussion and realized confusion since a round had not gone down range yet. I hesitated to say anything because of that - and because I was loading my guns.

 

But hind sight says it should have been a stage DQ. And the R.O. probably could not have reacted quickly enough to avoid it.

^^^^ What Marauder said....I am the OP.

 

The shooter decocked the gun before I could get a word out and I made the call correctly, a SDQ. I had a few of the shooters make the comment about no rounds going down range yet and then questioned myself and gave the shooter a reshoot. My mistake....it was made, dually noted and hopefully won't happen again.

 

The question as to having the shooter to directly ask permission to decock after the TO tells him that he will restart...I'm not PWB but in IMHO it is implicitly understood that if I direct the shooter to restage his guns to restart and he has his pistol cocked that I have given him permission to decock. The shooter is not decocking to avoid a penalty in that case, he is decocking to accomplish the TO's directions....restaging his guns for a restart.

 

What Marauder said about having the shooter to unload his guns at the ULT and give the shooter a chance to compose himself and refamiliarize himself with the stage instructions is a good point as well.

 

I certainly will abide by whatever the official ruling is....that's just my own personal opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly will abide by whatever the official ruling is....that's just my own personal opinion.

i think that was settled much earlier in the thread -- SDQ -- because the shooter was acting without permission/direction from you, the TO.

 

Much of of the following discussion has been about situations that are different from yours.

 

This thread has been interesting but a bit difficult to follow because there are several topics being discussed. ^_^

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think that was settled much earlier in the thread -- SDQ -- because the shooter was acting without permission/direction from you, the TO.

 

Much of of the following discussion has been about situations that are different from yours.

 

This thread has been interesting but a bit difficult to follow because there are several topics being discussed. ^_^

Aye - but approval can be noted in different ways. As long as the shooter and the TO agree, others should have no say. The OP is clearly a SDQ, many of the interjected anecdotal incidents are not.

 

CR

 

CR

Link to post
Share on other sites

This falls squarely in the line of fire for my crusade to give all benefit to the shooter. Whoever insisted that this end up as a SDQ should be forced to write 500 times " BOD goes to the shooter". For the life of me, I do not understand the rush by some to penalize an infraction or perceived infraction more than the minimum that can be assessed. In this case, no call.

 

CR

 

...then write "If there is NO DOUBT, there is NO BENEFIT" 1000x.

Read the OP and subsequent comments from those who were there...on site...when it happened (e.g. post #89)

 

Some of the other examples might be handled differently, as the circumstances are variable enough to do so.

 

Remember, in the end, it is the T/O who assesses any earned penalties...IF the T/O is convinced that he and the shooter have complied with the rule "as written", then there should be no violation/penalty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...then write "If there is NO DOUBT, there is NO BENEFIT" 1000x.

Read the OP and subsequent comments from those who were there...on site...when it happened (e.g. post #89)

 

Some of the other examples might be handled differently, as the circumstances are variable enough to do so.

 

Remember, in the end, it is the T/O who assesses any earned penalties...IF the T/O is convinced that he and the shooter have complied with the rule "as written", then there should be no violation/penalty.

Likey! :wub:

 

So, if someone complains the exact words were not spoken, as in "Please Mr. TO, may I decock," don't let someone bully you (the TO) into giving a SDQ. If you, the TO, and the shooter are in synch with what should be done. So it should be done.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo :ph34r:;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, in the end, it is the T/O who assesses any earned penalties...IF the T/O is convinced that he and the shooter have complied with the rule "as written", then there should be no violation/penalty.

 

 

Then, should Larson have been SDQed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, in the end, it is the T/O who assesses any earned penalties...IF the T/O is convinced that he and the shooter have complied with the rule "as written", then there should be no violation/penalty.

 

 

Then, should Larson have been SDQed?

I'll interject that the TO thought everything was fine. He said restart and watched me get my handgun ready to restart. I shot and the stage was over. It was members of the ROC that argued about the call for 20 minutes and then said it was an SDQ. So, while I agree with what Pale Wolf said, that is not what happened.

 

P.S. It's all water under the bridge so it is not worth worrying about. My only point in mentioning the incident was to warn people that under the ROC "ruling" two distinct commands are necessary. Restart AND decock. As this thread progressed I have come to the conclusion that the matter needs to be clarified as to what constitutes a "positive indication/acknowledgement." To me a TO saying "restart" and then standing there and watching the shooter is a "positive indication/acknowledgment."

Link to post
Share on other sites

that is what I would like clarified, did someone overstep? sure seems like it to me!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

that is what I would like clarified, did someone overstep? sure seems like it to me!!

 

So after your lengthy investigation of the event that you were not present for,and after interviewing all parties involved this is your conclusion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

that is what I would like clarified, did someone overstep? sure seems like it to me!!

Like I said, this is all water under the bridge. An issue came up. It was discussed at length. At a certain point the discussion has to end and someone has to make a decision. A decision was made. Then it is time to move on. All of the people involved were and remain my friends. Would I have made the same call? Doesn't matter as I was not the decision maker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it has been clarified.

 

Remember, in the end, it is the T/O who assesses any earned penalties...IF the T/O is convinced that he and the shooter have complied with the rule "as written", then there should be no violation/penalty.

ok, I can live with this completely!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.