final roc ruling. LOSS of SAFETY GLASSES MID-STAGE

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

1) Shooter must STOP (or be stopped) immediately due to the seriousness of the SAFETY issue involved.

This would NOT constitute "RO impeding/interference" in handling a shooter's equipment failure;

therefore there would be NO GROUNDS for a restart/reshoot.

Precedent exists regarding the handling of a suspected "squib" during stage engagement.

 

2) If the shooter is able to remedy the issue SAFELY, s/he may continue the stage after resolution.

An RO should be allowed to "safely assist" the shooter in this case (e.g. retrieve & return dropped safety glasses to the shooter if the shooter has a cocked firearm in hand)

 

3) If the shooter is unable to SAFELY resolve the situation (e.g. glasses are broken or end up ahead of an active firing line), the shooter would receive a DNF due to inability to continue and complete the stage.

 

[Griff]

I can certainly understand the reasoning... even if I don't like it.  (The reshoot/restart thing).  

 

Oh yeah, thanks for update and clarification.

[Rye Miles #13621]

Would this also apply to ear plugs??

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

2 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

Would this also apply to ear plugs??

Ear plugs are not mandatory safety equipment as per SASS rules. Safety glasses are.

OLG

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

30 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

Would this also apply to ear plugs??

 

As pointed out by OLG; in general, there is no immediate safety issue regarding ear plugs as they are recommended vs mandatory eye protection.
A shooter would certainly have the option to either continue without hearing protection OR stop on his/her own to fix the problem "on the clock".

 

[Shooting Bull]

The answer seems obvious but I'm going to ask anyway.  In the event the shooter can't correct the problem and receives a "DNF", that's simply misses for any rounds not fired, correct?  No additional safety penalty of any kind, right?

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

2 hours ago, Shooting Bull said:

The answer seems obvious but I'm going to ask anyway.  In the event the shooter can't correct the problem and receives a "DNF", that's simply misses for any rounds not fired, correct?  No additional safety penalty of any kind, right?

 

REF: SHB p.24

[Guest]

18 hours ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

 

As pointed out by OLG; in general, there is no immediate safety issue regarding ear plugs as they are recommended vs mandatory eye protection.
A shooter would certainly have the option to either continue without hearing protection OR stop on his/her own to fix the problem "on the clock".

 

 

What about at a range which REQUIRES ear protection for all participants on the ranges? I would presume the local rule supersedes?

[Assassin]

15 minutes ago, Hedley Lamarr, SASS #14478 Life said:

 

What about at a range which REQUIRES ear protection for all participants on the ranges? I would presume the local rule supersedes?

That's a range rule not a SASS rule.

[August West, SASS #45079]

4 hours ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

 

REF: SHB p.24

i.e.

"The score for a DNF (not finishing a stage) is the same as a Stage Disqualification penalty — the maximum allowed time for that stage."

[Shooting Bull]

4 hours ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

 

REF: SHB p.24

 

I usually get upset when people say, "That's dumb.  Why did they make that rule?"  My turn.  That's dumb.  Why did they make that rule? 

 

As you well know my head is like a cue ball.  I'm on a stage and have fired 23 out of 24 rounds, all hits, when my safety glasses fall off.  I stop.  You're going to give me essentially a SDQ instead of the one miss???  What am I missing?

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

6 minutes ago, Shooting Bull said:

 

I usually get upset when people say, "That's dumb.  Why did they make that rule?"  My turn.  That's dumb.  Why did they make that rule? 

 

As you well know my head is like a cue ball.  I'm on a stage and have fired 23 out of 24 rounds, all hits, when my safety glasses fall off.  I stop.  You're going to give me essentially a SDQ instead of the one miss???  What am I missing?

 

Precedent exists regarding the handling of a suspected "squib" during stage engagement.

[Ace_of_Hearts]

2 hours ago, Shooting Bull said:

 

I usually get upset when people say, "That's dumb.  Why did they make that rule?"  My turn.  That's dumb.  Why did they make that rule? 

 

As you well know my head is like a cue ball.  I'm on a stage and have fired 23 out of 24 rounds, all hits, when my safety glasses fall off.  I stop.  You're going to give me essentially a SDQ instead of the one miss???  What am I missing?

The last shot on the stage!

 

[Guest]

 

5 hours ago, Assassin said:

5 hours ago, Hedley Lamarr, SASS #14478 Life said:

 

What about at a range which REQUIRES ear protection for all participants on the ranges? I would presume the local rule supersedes?

That's a range rule not a SASS rule.

 

I guess I phrased my question badly.

At a range which requires SASS participants to wear ear protection at all times when on the range (shooting or not), if they were to loose their ear protection while shooting a stage, then the SAME penalty for loosing glasses would apply?

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

The clarification regarding the loss of safety glasses mid-stage pertains ONLY to that specific issue.

If a range/club wants to expand that to cover hearing protection, it is their choice; same as for any "over the berm" regulations.

 

 

 

 

 

[Shooting Bull]

13 hours ago, Ace_of_Hearts said:

The last shot on the stage!

 

 

Yeah, but apparently it doesn't count as a miss, it's a SDQ.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

1 hour ago, Shooting Bull said:

 

Yeah, but apparently it doesn't count as a miss, it's a SDQ.

 

Applying the RO2 rules regarding malfunctioning firearms and suspected squibs, if either of those occur while using the LAST firearm of the stage, the penalties for "unfired rounds" would be assessed.

If mid-stage with functional firearms remaining to complete the stage and the shooter decides to quit at that point, a DNF would apply because the shooter Did Not Finish.

[Shooting Bull]

My apologies to you Pale Wolf.  I realize I've become one of the very complainers that I hate so much.  I don't understand or like it but it is what it is so I'll stop complaining now.  Thanks for answering my original question.

[C0ckr0ach, SASS #26100]

The Clarification  is not unreasonable.   It is consistent with the definition of DNF.  But this discussion raises a question.   Years ago, as I recall, it was a Rule violation to sweep oneself with a loaded or unloaded firearm (unsafe), eg. Cross-draw Shooter or a Gunfighter most common.   Now it is considered safe to sweep oneself.  Could this not be a flaw in our focus on safety ?  I am sure there must be a good answer that I have forgotten.

[Ace_of_Hearts]

I hate drawing this out. I was hoping someone else would ask......

 

1 -No one stops the shooter and he/she finishes the stage without shooting glasses. Do we still assign a maximum time penalty?

 

2 - The shooter is without shooting glasses either coming to  the line or in the peanut gallery..... Are we now to assign a penalty for the safety violation?

 

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

3 hours ago, Ace_of_Hearts said:

I hate drawing this out. I was hoping someone else would ask......

 

1 -No one stops the shooter and he/she finishes the stage without shooting glasses. Do we still assign a maximum time penalty?

 

2 - The shooter is without shooting glasses either coming to  the line or in the peanut gallery..... Are we now to assign a penalty for the safety violation?

 

 

1. How about a SDQ for "Unsafe firearm handling" ? (REF: SHB p.22)

 

2. There is no written penalty for that situation; obtain some glasses & put them on immediately or leave the shooting area.

If no safety glasses can be found/provided, then, YES, the shooter would receive a DNF (x2 = MDQ)

How often is THAT going to happen??

 

(FWIW, I carry extra safety glasses and packaged ear plugs for observers who might happen to miss/ignore the signs on the range stating at what point safety glasses are required)

 

[C0ckr0ach, SASS #26100]

Seems, PWB is saying:   There cannot be a Rule for every possible action, in advance.   Use the Rule(s) we have, applying as best as we can to the action in question.   That seems to be the approach applied in the OP clarification.  

[Blast Masterson]

General observation; I realize many live under the hand of over-regulated state governments, but 1st of all this issue has never really happened yet. Do we need a written rule for everything that happens in the universe? Which hand must you use to wipe your butt in an outhouse?

 

This is a game for fun. Spirit of the game.

Aside from missing out on  trophies at a shoot that you have invested a lot to get to and shoot, time is not critical. Safety however, is.

 

Why must a penalty be added to the time it took to correct the safety issue, or missis for shots not fired? Did the shooter do something to not have glasses on purpose? That is a penalty already established. If you show up to the stage w/o glasses, take corrective action. How many do we see that show up without loading their gun? Must an additional penalty be added to an honest, unintentional mistake? 

 

It is more of a safety issue to bystanders for the shooter to correct glasses that failed than to the shooter for not having glasses and continuing.

If the shooter fails to stop on his own, he is accepting the responsibility for potential injury, not the range.

 

Assessing a penalty over the misses incurred from equipment failure is nothing more that kicking a shooter to the bottom of the standings just to get them out of the way... and I feel that is unfair and kills the spirit of the game. Personally I could care less about the timer or misses. For me. I shoot against the timer because it's no fun to shoot clean when you take 2 minutes to do it. And it's fun to see where your ability stands with your other Pard's. It's just a tool to gauge your progress.

 

The decision should be determined by the Timer and Spotters if the issue was intentional or accidental.

If a shooter leaves his glasses at the loading table, simply take corrective action to resolve it.

If they fall off after a shotgun blast, it's the responsibility of all to make guns safe, take corrective action and continue or stop and take the misses for that stage.

 

I shoot to have fun without hurting myself or others, not to play Barney Fife and impose penalties on others because of their misfortune.

At the range I shoot, we have a great laugh about train wrecks and trying to shoot with no bullets. Your penalty is getting ribbing the rest of the day for being safe but being a dumb-ass. If someone broke their glasses, I would give them mine and get off the line and fix my own safety issues (if this hypothetical issue would ever happen).

 

 

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

There were no ulterior motives in making this clarification, contrary to some of the comments made.

A number of Wire threads discussing this issue over the past few years indicated that if/when it did happen, there was no consistent solution.

The issue was taken to the ROC at the request/demand insistence that procedures be put in place to handle a (very rare) situation.

Existing rules covering other malfunctions ("honest, unintentional" such as broken firearms & squibs) mid-stage were applied, with the specific allowance for assistance in remedying the problem SAFELY.

 

The definition of "DNF" is in the phrase itself. If a shooter fails to "...continue on with the next procedure" THAT constitutes "Not Finishing".

If there is no "next procedure" (i.e. the malfunction occurs while using the LAST firearm of the stage), THEN "miss" penalties for "any unfired rounds" apply.

 

 

 

[Ramblin Gambler]

The allowance for assistance includes another member of the posse handing the TO their spare glasses in the case where the shooter's original glasses are unusable or irretrievable , right? 

 

 

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

1 hour ago, Ramblin Gambler said:

The allowance for assistance includes another member of the posse handing the TO their spare glasses in the case where the shooter's original glasses are unusable or irretrievable , right? 

 

Without confirming that option with the ROC, I can see no reason why that would not be allowed if done in a SAFE manner.

An RO should be allowed to "safely assist" the shooter in this case

Any additional time to do so would certainly be better than a DNF.

Not the same as providing ammunition (e.g. shotgun ammo), which is specifically forbidden.

 

 

 

 

[Shooting Bull]

On 3/21/2018 at 8:46 AM, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

 

Applying the RO2 rules regarding malfunctioning firearms and suspected squibs, if either of those occur while using the LAST firearm of the stage, the penalties for "unfired rounds" would be assessed.

If mid-stage with functional firearms remaining to complete the stage and the shooter decides to quit at that point, a DNF would apply because the shooter Did Not Finish.

 

I was going to start arguing again until my brain finally kicked in and I paid attention to the underlined part. Now it makes perfect sense. Thanks again. 

 

(I may be stupid but I’m not dumb. )

[Cheyenne Ranger, 48747L]

PWB:  thanks for clearing this up.  Glad safety is still Job One

[Bad Company, SASS #20195]

Shooter has cocked rifle one in chamber safety glasses are 5 feet in front of him and firing line. How do you handle that one?

[Beartrap SASS#57175]

Open the action, thus ejecting live round.

[Marauder SASS #13056]

On 4/3/2018 at 10:13 AM, Beartrap SASS#57175 said:

Open the action, thus ejecting live round.

But if you cannot hold the rifle and have to set it down, take the Stage DQ per the rules. Then pick up your glasses.

Shooter's Handbook, page 15

Quote

A rifle is considered SAFE to leave the shooter’s hands in the following condition only:
- Empty.
- Hammer fully down on an empty chamber or spent round, action closed (restaged
for further use).

 

In such an instant, you most likely could continue the stage only if someone else picks up the glasses for you

[Ace_of_Hearts]

1 hour ago, Marauder SASS #13056 said:

But if you cannot hold the rifle and have to set it down, take the Stage DQ per the rules. Then pick up your glasses.

Shooter's Handbook, page 15

Setting a rifle down with a round on the carrier is not a Stage DQ until you fire the next gun. You can eject the loaded round, set the gun down, retrieve your glasses safely, pick up your rifle and continue and use a reload for the round ejected if you desire..

 

 

In such an instant, you most likely could continue the stage only if someone else picks up the glasses for you

 

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

Quote

 

Minor Safety Violation (MSV) infractions include:

- Leaving empty or live round(s) in a magazine or carrier of the long gun in which it was loaded.

 

SHB p.21

[Red Eye Jim]

1 hour ago, Marauder SASS #13056 said:

But if you cannot hold the rifle and have to set it down, take the Stage DQ per the rules. Then pick up your glasses.

Shooter's Handbook, page 15

 

In such an instant, you most likely could continue the stage only if someone else picks up the glasses for you

 

The TO *CAN* assist the shooter in replacing the glasses if it CAN be done in a safe manner, if the shooter wants to continue to attempt for clean stage, etc.

 

In my reading of the thread(s) it appears a few folks have gotten their undies in a bunch over the very unlikely event that a ricochet breaks the safety glasses early in the stage forcing the shooter to stop and not finish the stage.

 

[Ace_of_Hearts]

1 hour ago, Red Eye Jim said:

 

The TO *CAN* assist the shooter in replacing the glasses if it CAN be done in a safe manner, if the shooter wants to continue to attempt for clean stage, etc.

 

In my reading of the thread(s) it appears a few folks have gotten their undies in a bunch over the very unlikely event that a ricochet breaks the safety glasses early in the stage forcing the shooter to stop and not finish the stage.

 

They really have commented on something that almost never happens. And then argued about it for several days.