Rifle falling off table

[Kirk James]

When a rifle is falling off a table, should the TO grab the rifle to keep it from falling if it can be done safely?  Do you assign the msv or the stage dq since you do not know if the barrel would break the 170?

[Juan Solo]

The rule of thumb in most cases is typically that you should never grab a falling firearm. A safe and properly working firearm should not discharge from falling even if it's loaded, but a person grabbing it may pull the trigger in advertantly.

 

My buddy used to shoot with a guy that ended up shooting himself at a uspsa match when he tried to catch his falling gun.

[Russ The Red]

Trying to catch a falling gun is worse than trying to catch a falling knife. The result is almost never in favor of the attempted catch.

 

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

51 minutes ago, Kirk James said:

When a rifle is falling off a table, should the TO grab the rifle to keep it from falling if it can be done safely?  Do you assign the msv or the stage dq since you do not know if the barrel would break the 170?

Yes; if you can do it safely.

 

Allowing a long gun to fall should never be the preferred choice.

 

If the muzzle does not break the 170 ; then I would assign the only penalty that applies to what actually occurred;  which would be the MSV.

 

If my gun is falling; I'll eat the penalty.

I earned it.

But if the TO can safely stop my gun from falling; I shouldnt be penalized further with a dirt filled or broken gun.

 

[VICIOUS, SASS#8014]

We lost a action shooter two years ago who grabbed a fumbled hand gun.  Not at a CAS match.

[Dutch Coroner]

I was an observer to a conversation between Lassiter and a couple of my buddies on this topic a couple of years ago. Interesting conversation. As I recall, the gist of the conversation focused on you can’t make the correct call until the gun comes to a rest or stops moving. Big difference between a MSV an SDQ. 

 

If if a gun falls, it falls and the shooter gets the earned penalty.  Instinct says to catch it, but not during competition.

 

Dutch

 

As irony has it, the very next day one of my buddies shotgun started to fall and the other buddy, who was either spotting or running the timer, I don’t remember which, froze with the conversation with Lassiter running through his mind and the shotgun hit the ground, SDQ.   Other buddy didn’t care, he knew it was his fault. 

[Matthew Duncan]

6 hours ago, Kirk James said:

When a rifle is falling off a table, should the TO grab the rifle to keep it from falling if it can be done safely?    Yes

 

Do you assign the msv or the stage dq since you do not know if the barrel would break the 170?  How can a penalty be applied to a what might have happen?

 

[Dutch Coroner]

22 minutes ago, Matthew Duncan said:

 

And by doing that, the TO has just changed the outcome of the match.

 

The shooter has earned a penalty, what the penalty is we don’t know, until it comes to rest.  Stopping the gun from falling and not applying the earned penalty changes the outcome of the match.

[Assassin]

All TO's are not as quick to react or coordinated equally. One TO may help a shooter, the next doesn't have the same skill set. This was discussed by governors and it was decided it's best to let the gun fall in order to keep things fair for all. I've caught quite a few guns through the years and it's tough letting them hit the dirt. 

 

[Billy Boots, # 20282 LTG-Regulator]

7 hours ago, Kirk James said:

When a rifle is falling off a table, should the TO grab the rifle to keep it from falling if it can be done safely?  Do you assign the msv or the stage dq since you do not know if the barrel would break the 170?

Although I do not like it, it is my understanding that TO/spotter is to NOT touch the suspected or actual falling gun.  As has been mentioned, it is natural desire of someone to stop this action for safety, save damage to firearm, and to save shooter of penalty, but it can change the outcome in shooter's placement so unfortunately these days we are "to let it fall".

[Ace_of_Hearts]

2 hours ago, Assassin said:

All TO's are not as quick to react or coordinated equally. One TO may help a shooter, the next doesn't have the same skill set. This was discussed by governors and it was decided it's best to let the gun fall in order to keep things fair for all. I've caught quite a few guns through the years and it's tough letting them hit the dirt. 

 

This rule came to be because I caught a long gun falling at Winter Range. (Straw bails are slippery)

The argument that it changes the outcome of the Match depending on the Timing Operators skill level is specious.

Timing operators change the outcome of the match all the time by preventing procedurals and various other mistakes. Sometimes going hands on by preventing a shooter from doing something they shouldn't do. Some TO's are good at it, some aren't. How about the TO that sees the empty hull in the shotgun as the shooter is putting it down and warns the shooter. Many TO's don't watch to see that shell is ejected. Which one is changing the outcome of the match?

Should we now assign a penalty for breaking the 170 when the Timing operator put his hand in the way and stopped the barrels of someone's shotgun from doing just that?

Stopping a gun from falling is just that. The gun has now come to rest. Assign the proper penalty for what happened. The entire posse has been saved in the process.

Penalties are earned for what did happen....... Not what might have happened.

 

After thought....

Maybe we should give the shooter a re-shoot if the TO interferes.

[Assassin]

1 hour ago, Ace_of_Hearts said:

This rule came to be because I caught a long gun falling at Winter Range. (Straw bails are slippery)

The argument that it changes the outcome of the Match depending on the Timing Operators skill level is specious.

Timing operators change the outcome of the match all the time by preventing procedurals and various other mistakes. Sometimes going hands on by preventing a shooter from doing something they shouldn't do. Some TO's are good at it, some aren't. How about the TO that sees the empty hull in the shotgun as the shooter is putting it down and warns the shooter. Many TO's don't watch to see that shell is ejected. Which one is changing the outcome of the match?

Should we now assign a penalty for breaking the 170 when the Timing operator put his hand in the way and stopped the barrels of someone's shotgun from doing just that?

Stopping a gun from falling is just that. The gun has now come to rest. Assign the proper penalty for what happened. The entire posse has been saved in the process.

Penalties are earned for what did happen....... Not what might have happened.

 

After thought....

Maybe we should give the shooter a re-shoot if the TO interferes.

I was at the same WR and saved one rifle from falling off the straw bail (probably the same bail), no call, the second one I was not quick enough and that person received a SDQ.  Therefore, I doubt you alone were responsible for the of ruling. Yes, the TO's need to keep everyone safe to the best of their abilities, the abilities are the variable in the equation.

As for assisting the shooter with other potential infractions, a good TO and a bad TO can change the outcome of a match. My preference would be to be left alone and if I earn a penalty so be it. When shooters are running stages in the teens it's just about impossible to "assist" them with anything. 

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

Hi Kirk,

 

If you check the posts for likes, you will know my thoughts.  I thought Ace's post was very well stated. (Shocked aren't you, Ace.  )

 

We have our guns checked at the ULT to ensure there are no live rounds remaining. So the possibility of a live round in the gun is a reason for preventing a gun from hitting the ground, especially where rocks are prevalent. The TO or other person preventing a gun from falling is a safety measure that I see like a TO preventing a muzzle from breaking the 170. The quest for safety is more important than changing the outcome of a match.

 

So, my opinion is yes, you should attempt to stop a falling gun and no, you should not assign a penalty as it has not come to rest.

 

Regards,

 

Allie

 

 

 

[Blast Masterson]

"Change of Match Outcome" is total BS in this conversation, period.

 

Letting a gun hit the ground to see what penalty can be assessed is stupid. What is "The Outcome of a Match"? Bragging rights? That's it. Grabbing a falling gun is no more dangerous than one hitting the pavement! Yea, people get shot "fumbling" with a gun, that is the result of a "Falling Gun", not trying to grab one.

 

If anyone can stop a 170 penalty, or a gun hitting the dirt causing a safety issue, then it should be done if safe to do so. I would not be grabbing a cocked, in the process of being fired falling gun, but most of the time it's end of sequence which your keeping tract of the number of shots fired anyway. If ten shots go down range, there is little likelihood of a loaded gun falling. But there is a chance, and because of that chance, it should not hit the ground to see the 50-50 chance it might sweep the 170 to assess a greater match score.

[Turquoise Bill, SASS #39118]

It's my understanding that if the rifle was falling and the TO caught it, the shooter still earns the MSV since without the TO's assistance it would have falling all the way to the ground. Whether or not it breaks the 170 is not for one to speculate. Some TO's can catch it and some may not, "Are you felling lucky?" As BJZ states when if falls, "it sucks to be you"

 

TB

[Laramie]

In a sport that is supposed to be immersed in "spirit of the game", I can't believe that someone would willingly let a fellow shooter's gun fall just to see what penalty can be accessed. Really? Safety would be the only concern in my mind. When I'm TO, I will try my best to help the shooter not be penalized. 

[Shooting Bull]

Wait. What? Wasn’t this already ruled on? I thought it was decided that if a gun is falling but the TO catches it we still assign the appropriate penalty as if it had actually hit the ground. Was that just my imagination or did I misunderstand? 

[Chief Rick]

12 minutes ago, Shooting Bull said:

Wait. What? Wasn’t this already ruled on? I thought it was decided that if a gun is falling but the TO catches it we still assign the appropriate penalty as if it had actually hit the ground. Was that just my imagination or did I misunderstand? 

IIRC, if the TO provided any assistance to a "potentially" falling long gun the shooter was to be awarded a MSV.

[Laramie]

All I'm saying, is that in my opinion, saving a falling gun would almost always benefit everyone. It still could prevent an SDQ and a damaged gun. 

[Hells Comin]

Kurt James is referring to ME dropping a unloaded rifle yesterday.  It was my fault of course I was crowding the edge of the table so I could pick my shotgun up faster..It fell off the table and landed barrel pointing down range hell didn't even place the hole rifle on the table ( idiot) so I stopped shooting and went to the unloading tabe. I though it was a Sdq. But I ended up with a ms and 4 misses.  The (hole) day was a cluster _ _ _ _ !

[Cypress Sun]

8 hours ago, Ace_of_Hearts said:

This rule came to be because I caught a long gun falling at Winter Range. (Straw bails are slippery)

The argument that it changes the outcome of the Match depending on the Timing Operators skill level is specious.

Timing operators change the outcome of the match all the time by preventing procedurals and various other mistakes. Sometimes going hands on by preventing a shooter from doing something they shouldn't do. Some TO's are good at it, some aren't. How about the TO that sees the empty hull in the shotgun as the shooter is putting it down and warns the shooter. Many TO's don't watch to see that shell is ejected. Which one is changing the outcome of the match?

Should we now assign a penalty for breaking the 170 when the Timing operator put his hand in the way and stopped the barrels of someone's shotgun from doing just that?

Stopping a gun from falling is just that. The gun has now come to rest. Assign the proper penalty for what happened. The entire posse has been saved in the process.

Penalties are earned for what did happen....... Not what might have happened.

 

After thought....

Maybe we should give the shooter a re-shoot if the TO interferes.

 

I've saved many a long gun from falling. Isn't that what "Safely assisting a shooter" is all about? 

 

I'll abide by the rules......but this one (in the guise of fairness) is a bad rule.

 

Agree entirely with AOH assessment.

 

Sun

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

If folks want to start assigning penalties for what might have happened but did not, it will be a sign of my exit.  That is even worse than trying to fortune-tell the "intent" of a shooter.   Penalties are for what was done that was illegal, or not done when required. 

 

Give the MS for the falling gun, and recognize that in actuality, when the TO caught the gun, no one was swept (so no more penalty is in order).   (Which would be called Benefit of the Doubt to the Shooter!)

 

Good luck, GJ

[Ace_of_Hearts]

5 hours ago, Shooting Bull said:

Wait. What? Wasn’t this already ruled on? I thought it was decided that if a gun is falling but the TO catches it we still assign the appropriate penalty as if it had actually hit the ground. Was that just my imagination or did I misunderstand? 

 

19 hours ago, Kirk James said:

When a rifle is falling off a table, should the TO grab the rifle to keep it from falling if it can be done safely?  Do you assign the msv or the stage dq since you do not know if the barrel would break the 170?

It was ruled on 3 to 4 years ago as far as what the penalty was. ( Prior to that, if the TO caught the gun BEFORE it fell it was usually ruled a NO CALL)

The discussion is whether the TO should interfere at all.....

Which takes us back to the thread last week where the TO doesn't coach/help at all as it might effect the outcome of the match.

 

 

[Kirk James]

My understanding is that if the rifle breaks the 170 it is a stage dq.  If the rifle does not break the 170 it is a minor safety.  The question is if the TO saves the rifle from falling you would not know whether it would break the 170 or not.  What to call???  I will follow the TG's ruling to let it fall if we are supposed to, but it doesn't seem right to let a rifle fall if you could avoid it.   

[Deadshot Dan]

I myself would be very greatful if the TO caught my rifle if he could safely,  and would have no problem taking a MSV.  After all it was my fault it was falling in the first place.  I kinda look at it as a spirit of the game thing.  On the other hand i can see a lot of shooter's move to fast for the TO stop a falling rifle and still keep up with the shooter.

[Hoss]

Given the opportunity, I’m going to stop the gun from falling. Makes zero sense to just watch it happen.

 

If my rifle is falling i woukd want TO to catch it if possible. If he doesn’t, I’m certainly not blaming him.   

[Wyatt]

 As a TO if you attempt to save a long gun and in the process, due to the your action, it broke the 170. 

 

 Isn’t the TO in control of the long gun at this time?

 

Who gets the DQ?

[Rye Miles #13621]

Personally I don't think I could stop myself from trying to catch a falling gun! My reaction would be to save it from hitting the ground! 

[Dantankerous]

And what if it is the TO who when trying to keep up with a fast shooter inadvertently bumps into the rifle and knocks the rifle to the ground, not the shooter himself? Who gets the penalty if anyone at all?

[Blast Masterson]

That gets me thinking. "What If" a tornado erupts in the middle of a stage and a rifle staged on a whisky barrel spins five times in a counter clockwise direction, how many SDQ's did God earn? Is it a MDQ for repeated SDQ's . or is it one event...? 

[Hoss]

6 minutes ago, Blast Masterson said:

That gets me thinking. "What If" a tornado erupts in the middle of a stage and a rifle staged on a whisky barrel spins five times in a counter clockwise direction, how many SDQ's did God earn? Is it a MDQ for repeated SDQ's . or is it one event...? 

but in Australia it would be clockwise.. Would shooter earn "get out of jail free' cards? 

[Blast Masterson]

On 8/27/2018 at 8:12 AM, Hoss said:

but in Australia it would be clockwise.. Would shooter earn "get out of jail free' cards? 

Nice catch! 

 

It would be a "No Call" there, as the "Rule Book" says counter clockwise. We must take things "Literally" !

[Shooting Bull]

38 minutes ago, Dantankerous said:

And what if it is the TO who when trying to keep up with a fast shooter inadvertently bumps into the rifle and knocks the rifle to the ground, not the shooter himself? Who gets the penalty if anyone at all?

 

No call. 

[Griff]

This is one of the things that would cause me to really re-think my involvement in a sport that showed such little respect for another's property that it would become against the rules to try to save another man's property from damage, never mind the safety aspect of a rifle spinning off a table and sweeping anyone.  I find it hard to believe this is even a point of discussion.  No matter what any call a TO might make is, it affects the outcome of the match.  What's next... eliminate spotters, because calling misses affects the outcome of the match?

 

Are decency and uncommon good sense out the window?

[Goody, SASS #26190]

26 minutes ago, Griff said:

This is one of the things that would cause me to really re-think my involvement in a sport that showed such little respect for another's property that it would become against the rules to try to save another man's property from damage, never mind the safety aspect of a rifle spinning off a table and sweeping anyone.  I find it hard to believe this is even a point of discussion.  No matter what any call a TO might make is, it affects the outcome of the match.  What's next... eliminate spotters, because calling misses affects the outcome of the match?

 

Are decency and uncommon good sense out the window?

EXACTLY!

As I was reading the responses to this I was thinking "Lord, don't ever let me get so caught up in this game we play that I won't do my best to help someone."