What's the call?

[Beartrap SASS#57175]

I'll just throw in the comment that I find it hilarious that the same people that push a gun cart around all day with at least 2 guns pointed at their face go ballistic when one that's obviously open and empty gets pointed at their feet when it isn't in a gun cart!

 

p.s. not directed at anyone in particular, just a general observation.

p.s.s Not saying it's ok, just commenting on the disparity.

[Most Wanted]

BT , since the op was dealing with someone getting swept it seems natural to use that as an example. While some rules may be overkill they are still the rules. So if the shooter dropped a loaded gun earning him a MDQ would anybody be ok with getting swept with a loaded gun. If I were swept with a loaded rifle hammer down on empty chamber I would not be worried for my life but would be pissed the operator wasn't showing proper respect. Proper gun handling should never be put on hold.

[Kid Drover]

How about if a shooter has 3 safety's - no 4 safety's - uh? 5 safety's on the same stage? Is that someone you would defend who has the right to continue to participate in a match becasue only the first safety counts? Heck, if nothing else, it is unsafe gun handling. I have left public gun ranges back in the 80's and 90's that had no Line Supervisor allowing the untrained and or non-caring shooters to continue their shennigans. I am not going to continue to shoot with a posse that allows an unsafe shooter to continue. And, if it happens to be me, give me the dam& scoring pad, I know I can write safely......most of the time.

[Shooting Bull]

I'll just throw in the comment that I find it hilarious that the same people that push a gun cart around all day with at least 2 guns pointed at their face go ballistic when one that's obviously open and empty gets pointed at their feet when it isn't in a gun cart!

 

p.s. not directed at anyone in particular, just a general observation.

p.s.s Not saying it's ok, just commenting on the disparity.

 

I don't necessarily agree with that description. Since this particular incident happened between the firing line and the unloading table, the gun had not been verified to be empty. As far as it being open yes, that's kind of obvious but, that can change quickly with the slightest stumble.

[Buckhorn Bud]

 

Let's see, about 4 months ago, we had a very similar thread, and there were a TON of pards on the side of "once a SDQ has been awarded, the shooter is done on the stage and cannot be scored with another SDQ for a second violation at the unloading table".

 

It was argued by a few pards at the time, that safety has to take precedence over scoring, and that the range officers have to give a second SDQ, thus match-disqualifying the shooter (two accumulated SDQs make a MDQ).

 

Now, folks are strongly arguing the other side of this.

 

Time to make up our minds, pards!

 

Good luck, GJ

 

I missed the earlier discussion so I went back and read it. It seems that the answers there were about as evenly split as they are here.

 

 

Please reference the top pinned post on the RO Instructor Wire.

 

...AFTER reviewing the rule regarding SDQs for this specific case of failure to adhere to loading/unloading procedures

RO1 "Penalty Overview" p.25

 

Could you possibly enlighten me on how and where to access the RO Instructor Wire.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

 

I missed the earlier discussion so I went back and read it. It seems that the answers there were about as evenly split as they are here.

 

 

Could you possibly enlighten me on how and where to access the RO Instructor Wire.

 

Become an RO Instructor.

 

That comment was in response to a statement made by a (FORMER) RO Instructor.

[Buckhorn Bud]

Okay, thank you Pale Wolf. I thought I was missing something that I should already know.

 

As best I can tell neither the previously mentioned thread nor this one has adequately answered the question. Post 5 on the previous thread seems to ask a question to ponder rather than stating an answer. With that in mind I would still be inclined to believe that a person can indeed be guilty of two major safety infractions on the same stage resulting in a MDQ.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

The question of multiple SDQs on the same stage = MDQ has NOT BEEN RESOLVED by the ROC at this time.

As soon as all of the Committee members are back from Winter Range, I will be "calling the question" with references to both of the threads on the subject (the one from last October and this one).

 

Results will be posted ASAP

[Most Wanted]

Thanks PWB and the rest of the ROC

[Most Wanted]

Food for thought. We have two different penalties for major safety violations MDQ and SDQ. If the violations that received the SDQ were awarded 100 seconds instead I don't think anybody would have hesitated to give the op shooter 200 seconds. I look at the SDQ as a penalty for a safety violation and a way to score that violation. I do not look at it as the stage is officially over for the shooter. To me that doesn't happen until they are cleared at the ULT and headed to their cart. I'm not advocating changing the SDQ penalty. Only thinking we should look at it differently.

[Ace_of_Hearts]

Many clubs score out a Stage Disqualification as 30 seconds + (number of rounds in the stage times 5)

A 10 - 10 - 4 stage would score out 150 seconds for a Stage Disqualification.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

IMO...part of the "problem" is that there are both SAFETY-related SDQs and NON-safety-related SDQs listed.

 

At one time it was suggested to institute a "class" system for DQ penalties based on severity and risk of personal injury...

e.g.

Class A SDQ for sweeping someone with an unloaded firearm; dropping an unloaded firearm, moving with a cocked/loaded firearm...

Class B for use of illegal equipment

Class C for the second "progressive" penalty for failure to adhere to category guidelines.

Two "Class A"s would = MDQ

Two "Class B"s or Class "C"s would = SOG penalty (if not remedied before the next stage)

Three B/Cs (which might also be retroactive) would be the same as two SOGs = MDQ.

 

Another discussion point was which SDQ takes precedence.

We need to come to a conclusion that is fair and makes sense.

 

IIRC, this was back when we were discussing the penalty for "decocking" a firearm during the stage.

[Waimea]

I'm thinking that sweeping anyone with a firearm loaded or unloaded is a bad thing and should be recognized with a penalty.

No matter the prior penalties on the stage.

 

(hafta say that my calls are generally wrong).

 

The Shooter did the right thing by dismissing himself. Good on him.

 

 

Waimea

 

[Gawd Awful]

IMO...part of the "problem" is that there are both SAFETY-related SDQs and NON-safety-related SDQs listed.

 

At one time it was suggested to institute a "class" system for DQ penalties based on severity and risk of personal injury...

e.g.

Class A SDQ for sweeping someone with an unloaded firearm; dropping an unloaded firearm, moving with a cocked/loaded firearm...

Class B for use of illegal equipment

Class C for the second "progressive" penalty for failure to adhere to category guidelines.

Two "Class A"s would = MDQ

Two "Class B"s or Class "C"s would = SOG penalty (if not remedied before the next stage)

Three B/Cs (which might also be retroactive) would be the same as two SOGs = MDQ.

 

Another discussion point was which SDQ takes precedence.

We need to come to a conclusion that is fair and makes sense.

 

IIRC, this was back when we were discussing the penalty for "decocking" a firearm during the stage.

Perhaps instead of different classes of a SDQ, consider a different kind of penelty perhaps " severe safty violation" or SSV? Give SSV to people with "unsafe actions" like sweeping with an unloaded gun or breaking the 170, and the SDQ to things like illegal equipment. 2 SSV peneltys are a MDQ then 2 SDQs aren't a MDQ Just thinking

[Smokestack SASS#87384]

I'm wondering, if the ROC were to decide that a shooter can receive two SDQs on one stage and therefore be MDQed, what happens if a a shooter comes to the line with both pistols on half cock?

[Buckhorn Bud]

I'm wondering, if the ROC were to decide that a shooter can receive two SDQs on one stage and therefore be MDQed, what happens if a a shooter comes to the line with both pistols on half cock?

 

One gun at half cock happens from time to time. Both pistols at half cock I would consider as two separate violations.

[C0ckr0ach, SASS #26100]

Post # 47 Sounds too complicated - but good concept.

 

Post #49 improves on the concept.

 

Root of the solution could be in this approach

[Kid Drover]

^{Yep, that-al-do-it! A SDQ which was given because of safety violations would be treated different than a SDQ from non-safety issues. Yep, that-al-do-it!}

[Straight Arrow Hombre]

 

One gun at half cock happens from time to time. Both pistols at half cock I would consider as two separate violations.

By that logic, the shooter that shows up at the line with two pistols on half cock gets a match DQ while a shooter that sweeps someone with an unloaded gun only gets a SDQ. Doesn't seem right.

[Whiskey Kid]

Can't let a match as big as a Winter Range go by without having some WTC fun.

 

Shooter has an AD and earns a Stage DQ. On his way to the unloading table he's flustered and sweeps the unloading table with his open and empty shotgun. Is there a call? If so, what is it?

 

For those of you who are going to ask yes, he was being guided to the unloading table by another shooter. It happened so fast the second shooter couldn't prevent it but he immediately corrected it.

Back to the OP....

 

I have been the TO in a situation where an AD occurred on a stage striking a prop 24" from my feet. I will tell you that it effected my clarity and I'm sure the shooter was much more troubled than I. It is of my opinion that doubling up the penalty on the shooter if he swept a competitor, in a state of mind where he may be lacking focus because of what just happened, isn't nearly as important as preventing the second infraction somehow. Please understand, I wasn't there so, I can't speak to the exact circumstances. In my situation, I had to hand off the time because I didn't feel comfortable running it for a while because I was unsettled. Maybe it would be better to assist a shooter in this situation with their guns in the event they too might not have there wits about them after the AD.

 

My $.02

 

WK

[Chili Pepper Pete 11917]

I agree with Most Wanted, When awarded a SDQ you are still in the match. All safety rules still need to be enforced.

[Dang It Dan 13202]

Class "A, B, or C" penalties? Can you imagine how confusing this will be to the average (and by "average" I mean the folks that shoot but have long given up on trying to understand the rules and how they are applied) shooter.

 

I understand the difference but if we were serious about safety the penalties for ALL safety infractions would be a MDQ (just like all the other shooting sports).

 

But then again, in this sport, we can actually sweep ourselves with a LOADED gun and it's a "no-call". Maybe I am asking too much.

 

Oh well.

[Missouri Marshal SASS #50682]

The violations that earn a SDQ are clearly defined in the rule book. The only question is can you get more than one SDQ per stage. Once the ROC clarifies that we are good to go. Everything else is just our individual opinions and should not have any bearing on the enforcement of the rules.

[Most Wanted]

Opinions are highly overrated.

[Shooting Bull]

Opinions are highly overrated.

 

Not mine. Mine is worth every cent you pay for it.

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

So when the ROC makes their decision, where will it be documented? If just noted on the SASS Wire, it will be lost in a few months and we will have to do it again for all concerned.

[Sedalia Dave]

Opinions are highly overrated.

My opinion and your $5.00 will get you a cup of coffee. Now who could ask for more than that?

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

So when the ROC makes their decision, where will it be documented? If just noted on the SASS Wire, it will be lost in a few months and we will have to do it again for all concerned.

 

Any rule clarification on this will be incorporated into the text of the rulebooks...most likely in the "Penalty Overview" section of the RO1.

[C0ckr0ach, SASS #26100]

When can we expect an answer ?

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

When can we expect an answer ?

 

As soon as all of the ROC members reply to the inquiry.

 

We have a majority consensus, but I need to make sure there are no dissenting votes to consider.

 

Also requesting an additional clarification (i.e. re: a single action that may carry two SDQ penalties)

[Wyatt]

We need more icons...................:holding breath:

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

 

additional clarification (i.e. re: a single action that may carry two SDQ penalties)

 

A suggestion to consider:

 

Our main goal with these major safety penalties is to prevent the action, by the power of telling the shooter that you get both

1) a major hit to your score

2) half way to having to put away your guns.

 

If one action results in two SDQs, I can see no added value for that being penalized as a 2 separate SDQs (essentially an MDQ). For example, dropped empty gun, that breaks the 170. I don't know anyone who would be happy with getting MDQd over that! It was the ACTION we wanted to prevent. Penalizing twice for that one action (dropping the gun) that breaks two rules - not very fun nor likely not going to be enforced uniformly. The action that generates one or more SDQs should be penalized as a single SDQ. Then, if the shooter performs a separate action that merits another SDQ, add the second SDQ because of the SECOND action - as the Original Post might well have been handled.

 

Good luck, GJ

[Granny Annie SASS #37063]

Wouldn't the AD be either a no call ( if striking more 6 ft from shooter) or a match DQ if closer to shooter than that?

[Kananaskis Kid, SASS #62402]

A discharge striking the ground 5 - 10' from the shooter is a SDQ.

[Ace_of_Hearts]

 

A suggestion to consider:

 

Our main goal with these major safety penalties is to prevent the action, by the power of telling the shooter that you get both

1) a major hit to your score

2) half way to having to put away your guns.

 

If one action results in two SDQs, I can see no added value for that being penalized as a 2 separate SDQs (essentially an MDQ). For example, dropped empty gun, that breaks the 170. I don't know anyone who would be happy with getting MDQd over that! It was the ACTION we wanted to prevent. Penalizing twice for that one action (dropping the gun) that breaks two rules - not very fun nor likely not going to be enforced uniformly. The action that generates one or more SDQs should be penalized as a single SDQ. Then, if the shooter performs a separate action that merits another SDQ, add the second SDQ because of the SECOND action - as the Original Post might well have been handled.

 

Good luck, GJ

I believe that most were concerned about two separate action each of which would have resulted in a SDQ should result in a MDQ.

IE: Decocking an empty revolver on the firing line and then dropping the gun when holstering. Two separate and distinct penalties withing the same stage.

Getting a stage DQ shouldn't mean that you can now commit as many stage DQ actions as you choose without suffering the consequences of those actions.