Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

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

Cheyenne Culpepper 32827

possible rule change?

Recommended Posts

saw a shooter once trip over a 4x4 that stuck out from a prop,, one of the early shooters of the match tripped over it, fell and loaded pistols fell out of holsters,,  MDQ

 

the prop was then fixed,,,

 

my question is,,, since it was a prop problem, that was fixed for everyone else,, should that MDQ be forgiven, seeing how the rest of the shooters of the match didn't have to deal with that issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many other shooters successfully negotiated the hazard?  If one or more, then shooter earned the MDQ.  If first shooter, then... yes, forgive MDQ and start over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To differentiate whether he was the first shooter or not wouldn't make sense to me. Did all others before him just watched and saw the wood or maybe they were just in pure luck not to stumble?

 

1 hour ago, Cheyenne Culpepper 32827 said:

since it was a prop problem

 

Though it definitely sounds like a problematic prop, this piece of wood didn't magically appear and it was visible before the stumble. CAS isn't a sport with an exactly specified playground, you encounter different props and different grounds like grass or gravel, so you have to adapt your movement and watch where you walk, especially with loaded firearms. IMHO it's the shooter's problem, not a prop problem, and the MDQ earned. Lessons learned by shooter and prop builder. 

 

Equanimous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Griff said:

How many other shooters successfully negotiated the hazard?  If one or more, then shooter earned the MDQ.  If first shooter, then... yes, forgive MDQ and start over.

Sorry Griff, have to disagree. This shooter lost an entire match to something that was deemed enough of a problem to change. All of the subsequent shooters had a different stage to shoot; I don't care how many shooters were able to get through it safely. Would you be ok with targets that were 20 yards away when you shot them and were moved up to 10 for everyone else? If it was a prop and if it was changed by match officials, then MDQ erased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

Sorry Griff, have to disagree. This shooter lost an entire match to something that was deemed enough of a problem to change. All of the subsequent shooters had a different stage to shoot; I don't care how many shooters were able to get through it safely. Would you be ok with targets that were 20 yards away when you shot them and were moved up to 10 for everyone else? If it was a prop and if it was changed by match officials, then MDQ erased.

THIS!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the stage is unsafe but it was not realized that it was unsafe until the hazard knocked someone over, then it should be a do over for the person that fell, in my opinion.  I think this is a MD judgement and doesn't need a rule change.  The only other issue is should the first shooters be given a re-shoot because the prop had been changed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any specific rule change is necessary.

 

My opinion:

I would vote NO RESHOOT based on the one shooter having a problem navigating the stage

in the manner described by the OP.

 

BUT...because that particular situation deemed it a safety issue that it was later removed for

everyone else, then YES, I would vote for a RESHOOT under those circumstances.

 

AND furthermore, I would allow those who already shot the stage an option for a reshoot

OR, throw out the stage for EVERYONE.

 

..........Widder

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MDQ is as severe call and could permanently lose a responsible shooter. You help the fellow gather his pistols and get up and then let him go to the rear of the loading queue and check his guns and compose himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In most cases I believe that we, as shooters, must consider more than target sequence, transitions, etc into our performance at a match.  We need to take the environment (weather, landscape, etc), position of props, and so much more into consideration in order to navigate the through the stage with our best level of speed and accuracy AND SAFELY.  I might have even noticed something like that and mentioned that the posse needed to watch out for it when moving.  However, with that said, I do believe that if I was the one that fell and got the MDQ and the prop was fixed later, I would politely request a reshoot. 

In any case, fixing the prop was the correct thing to do for safety's sake.  A trip hazard in the path of movement with loaded firearms is not something to take lightly.  We often kick rocks and sticks out of the path of movement.  I've seen tables leveled or strengthen and other small repairs done to insure safety as well.  Safety first!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roscoe Regulator said:

MDQ is as severe call and could permanently lose a responsible shooter. You help the fellow gather his pistols and get up and then let him go to the rear of the loading queue and check his guns and compose himself. 

 

But definitely not a rule change scope.  

Almost correct

I would send him to the ULT first, to fully unload, then get back in line to load up and reshoot.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Almost correct

I would send him to the ULT first, to fully unload, then get back in line to load up and reshoot.  

There we go again. Common sense needs to have a place here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Roscoe Regulator said:

There we go again. Common sense needs to have a place here.

Common sense or not, the rules are pretty clear about shooters having to proceed to ULT when leaving the stage.  It's common practice for reshooters to go to the ULT, at every match I've ever competed in.  

Technically, it's a SDQ (for prior stage) for shooter to arrive at LT with any loaded firearm.  (I didn't write the rules. but I'm not here to challenge 'em either.  I'm sure it was required for good reason). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shooter is not in control of the stage. Why should the shooter be responsible and carry the penalty?

 

Pg 20:  Reshoots are not awarded for ammunition or firearm malfunctions.  However, if there is a range failure (failure of props, failure of the timer, or Range Officer interference) beyond the competitor’s control, a reshoot may be granted.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Common sense or not, the rules are pretty clear about shooters having to proceed to ULT when leaving the stage.  It's common practice for reshooters to go to the ULT, at every match I've ever competed in.  

Technically, it's a SDQ (for prior stage) for shooter to arrive at LT with any loaded firearm.  (I didn't write the rules. but I'm not here to challenge 'em either.  I'm sure it was required for good reason). 

In this case the shooter will not be arriving at the ULT with a loaded firearm, the TO secures them and brings them to the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Common sense or not, the rules are pretty clear about shooters having to proceed to ULT when leaving the stage.  It's common practice for reshooters to go to the ULT, at every match I've ever competed in.  

Technically, it's a SDQ (for prior stage) for shooter to arrive at LT with any loaded firearm.  (I didn't write the rules. but I'm not here to challenge 'em either.  I'm sure it was required for good reason). 

 

The SDQ penalty for arrival at the LT with loaded firearms is for "failure to adhere to loading and unloading procedures" (on the previous stage).

That would not apply to a reshoot situation on the same stage.

 

The shooter should still be directed to the ULT to unload and inspect any firearms that were dropped for damage or obstructions in the barrel or chambers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Common sense or not, the rules are pretty clear about shooters having to proceed to ULT when leaving the stage.  It's common practice for reshooters to go to the ULT, at every match I've ever competed in.  

Technically, it's a SDQ (for prior stage) for shooter to arrive at LT with any loaded firearm.  (I didn't write the rules. but I'm not here to challenge 'em either.  I'm sure it was required for good reason). 

Not true.  ROII page 6.  "In the event the shooter is found to have illegal equipment or to be unprepared to begin the course of fire, the Chief Range Officer shall direct them to the loading or unloading table where the necessary corrections can be made prior to returning to the stage.

 

The TO has the option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case the ULT seems best, but it's not required.  In some cases the common sense thing to do is to send the shooter back to the LT.  For example, the shooter forgot his shotgun shells.  Go back to the LT, put your guns on it (all of them) then get your shells.  No need to unload and load again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Blast Masterson said:

In this case the shooter will not be arriving at the ULT with a loaded firearm, the TO secures them and brings them to the table.

Clarification:  I specified LT, not ULT.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

 

The SDQ penalty for arrival at the LT with loaded firearms is for "failure to adhere to loading and unloading procedures" (on the previous stage).

That would not apply to a reshoot situation on the same stage.

 

The shooter should still be directed to the ULT to unload and inspect any firearms that were dropped for damage or obstructions in the barrel or chambers.

Good clear clarification.  Thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooters should always be aware of the conditions of the props and ground, but;

My understanding of how and why a shooter may get a reshoot is based on the determination that the 4X4 was unsafe and corrected for the other shooters. Any time you modify a stage that has already been used it penalizes the previous shooters and provides a different shooting environment for the next shooters. SO if one out 20 shooters in a posse brings an unsafe condition to light because they were affected by out its tuff nuggies for them?

Unsafe condition, stage was modified, shooter collects themselves, goes to the ULT, unloads and inspects guns and their own self and gets a reshoot.

Ike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROII Page 9

 

"In the event of a prop failure, the Chief Range Officer should be prepared to make a determination of whether or not the shooter shall continue the course of fire or cease fire immediately. The shooter will not be penalized for a prop failure."

 

SHB page 21

Reshoots are not awarded for ammunition or firearm malfunctions. However, if there is a range failure (failure of props, failure of the timer, or Range Officer interference) beyond the competitor’s control, a reshoot may be granted. - On a reshoot, the competitor starts over clean, carrying only accrued safety penalties forward.

 

If we take ROII page 9 at face value, then perhaps the only safety penalties carried forward, per page 21 SHB should be non prop related infractions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Blast Masterson said:

However, if there is a range failure (failure of props,

 

3 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

The shooter will not be penalized for a prop failure.

 

Is it really a prop failure in this case? It doesn't sound like a one to me, a collapsing table or falling gun stand would. It's very bad stage "design", but the 4x4 didn't behave differently than expected.

And it's kind of the intention of most props to be an "obstruction", or why else should we shoot through windows and all kind? Sticking a rifle through jail bars to shoot is risky. Stepping on a wooden porch with western boots is risky. So get rid of all "unnecessary" props like windows, porches etc.? Where do you draw the line on what's too risky? In the moment someone trips or a gun is dropped?

 

I suppose no shooter to trip or drop a gun intentionally and it's almost ALWAYS kind of poor circumstances and a portion of bad luck that leads to a DQ. Maybe the shooter isn't to blame for what happened, but there's also noone else to blame, and at the end, the shooter is still the one responsible. If (s)he considers the stage as (too) risky (s)he could act at a safer speed or refuse to start the stage until something has been altered (and then granted the right of a reshoot to every shooter in front). But if the shooter takes this risk with the result of a loaded firearm dropped, it's still a dropped loaded firearm that might have swept people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Equanimous Phil said:

 

 

Is it really a prop failure in this case? It doesn't sound like a one to me, a collapsing table or falling gun stand would. It's very bad stage "design", but the 4x4 didn't behave differently than expected.

And it's kind of the intention of most props to be an "obstruction", or why else should we shoot through windows and all kind? Sticking a rifle through jail bars to shoot is risky. Stepping on a wooden porch with western boots is risky. So get rid of all "unnecessary" props like windows, porches etc.? Where do you draw the line on what's too risky? In the moment someone trips or a gun is dropped?

 

I suppose no shooter to trip or drop a gun intentionally and it's almost ALWAYS kind of poor circumstances and a portion of bad luck that leads to a DQ. Maybe the shooter isn't to blame for what happened, but there's also noone else to blame, and at the end, the shooter is still the one responsible. If (s)he considers the stage as (too) risky (s)he could act at a safer speed or refuse to start the stage until something has been altered (and then granted the right of a reshoot to every shooter in front). But if the shooter takes this risk with the result of a loaded firearm dropped, it's still a dropped loaded firearm that might have swept people.

You make a good point, but, they did change it, so clearly it wasn't what they had intended that stage to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Is it really a prop failure in this case? It doesn't sound like a one to me

Seeing we are not "seeing", everything is "opinion".

 

30 minutes ago, Equanimous Phil said:

but there's also noone else to blame, and at the end, the shooter is still the one responsible.

I can think of several people to blame besides the shooter.

Who wrote the stage?

Who set up the stage?

Who built the stage?

 

42 minutes ago, Equanimous Phil said:

And it's kind of the intention of most props to be an "obstruction", or why else should we shoot through windows and all kind?

Obstruction of the shooting practice, is not a safety to the shooter obstruction.

46 minutes ago, Equanimous Phil said:

refuse to start the stage until something has been altered

So now we are closely approaching a "Failure to engage" penalty? We are getting close to splitting hairs with the rules. Also getting close to intentionally trying to eliminate a competitor from the running.

 

Not every shooter shoots a stage the same way. If the 5th shooter shoots a sequence that results in an unforeseen fall and gun drop (under no fault of their own), there is no reason for everyone to require an auto re-shoot.   The point is, someone fixed the obstruction because it was an obvious obstruction for that particular stage sequence. What happened to the benefit of the doubt going to the shooter?  Dropping a gun is a safety to others, just as a stage obstruction creates a safety issue to all. Fix it and move on. Be thankful not one got hurt. You don't need to intentionally destroy someone's day over something no one noticed. It's called an accident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My strictly unasked for opinion is that if the obstruction was deemed enough of a safety hazard to warrant removing or fixing it after this shooter fell, then yes a reshoot is in order, regardless if someone(s) successfully negotiated it before him.   No rule change needed, just apply common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

Not true.  ROII page 6.  "In the event the shooter is found to have illegal equipment or to be unprepared to begin the course of fire, the Chief Range Officer shall direct them to the loading or unloading table where the necessary corrections can be made prior to returning to the stage.

 

The TO has the option.

The individual fell down and dropped two loaded firearms to the ground.  Would you really direct them to just pick up the guns and go back to the LT, not carry the guns to the ULT yourself to have them verified as safe? 

I doubt you would do that in a real situation.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

The individual fell down and dropped two loaded firearms to the ground.  Would you really direct them to just pick up the guns and go back to the LT, not carry the guns to the ULT yourself to have them verified as safe? 

I doubt you would do that in a real situation.. 

Please show me where I said that.  You said that the rules were pretty clear that a shooter had to go to the ULT, which is not true.  I pointed out that you were incorrect.  At no time did I say that I would have sent them to the LT.  In fact I said the following.

 

2 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

In this case the ULT seems best, but it's not required.  In some cases the common sense thing to do is to send the shooter back to the LT.  For example, the shooter forgot his shotgun shells.  Go back to the LT, put your guns on it (all of them) then get your shells.  No need to unload and load again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

Please show me where I said that.  You said that the rules were pretty clear that a shooter had to go to the ULT, which is not true.  I pointed out that you were incorrect.  At no time did I say that I would have sent them to the LT.  In fact I said the following.

 

 

You kinda said both.  Fair enough (I think).   

As for me, the ULT would be my decision, regardless of any other options that might exist in the rules.   Dropped guns always need to be emptied and checked, IMHO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

You kinda said both.  Fair enough (I think).   

As for me, the ULT would be my decision, regardless of any other options that might exist in the rules.   Dropped guns always need to be emptied and checked, IMHO. 

Respectfully, no I didn't.  I never said that I would send that shooter to the LT.  Either quote where I said it, or please refrain from attempting to put words in my mouth that I didn't say.

 

I said that in this particular case the ULT SEEMS best, but it isn't required that the shooter always go to the ULT.


As an RO instructor, when someone posts a rule incorrectly on this forum (as you did) I'm going to respectfully lay out the correct rule, which is what I did.  That's especially true when they say "the rules are pretty clear" and then proceed to say something which is inaccurate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capt.,

 

Thanks for your post, comments and the rule(s) pertaining to this topic.

 

..........Widder

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

Capt.,

 

Thanks for your post, comments and the rule(s) pertaining to this topic.

 

..........Widder

 

My pleasure Widder.  Hope to see you at the Ocoee Rangers in a few weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Cheyenne Culpepper 32827 said:

saw a shooter once trip over a 4x4 that stuck out from a prop,, one of the early shooters of the match tripped over it, fell and loaded pistols fell out of holsters,,  MDQ

 

the prop was then fixed,,,

 

my question is,,, since it was a prop problem, that was fixed for everyone else,, should that MDQ be forgiven, seeing how the rest of the shooters of the match didn't have to deal with that issue?

The fact that it was FIXED AFTER the shooter tripped over it makes it pretty clear that they thought it was unsafe! Reshoot!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

Respectfully, no I didn't.  I never said that I would send that shooter to the LT.  Either quote where I said it, or please refrain from attempting to put words in my mouth that I didn't say.

 

I said that in this particular case the ULT SEEMS best, but it isn't required that the shooter always go to the ULT.


As an RO instructor, when someone posts a rule incorrectly on this forum (as you did) I'm going to respectfully lay out the correct rule, which is what I did.  That's especially true when they say "the rules are pretty clear" and then proceed to say something which is inaccurate. 

I think you and I could have quit posting right after seeing PWB's post.  The semantics of who said or didn't say what (or who inferred what) seem kind of anticlimatic.   I was talking about the original posted situation and question, not the broader scope of options afforded a T. O. by the rules for all possible situations. 

Obviously situations differ and pertinent rules are going to vary with them.  In this case, IMHO, it was a clear ULT and not LT call.   I think we both can agree on that part.  Let's leave it at that.   DDD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

I think you and I could have quit posting right after seeing PWB's post.  The semantics of who said or didn't say what (or who inferred what) seem kind of anticlimatic.   I was talking about the original posted situation and question, not the broader scope of options afforded a T. O. by the rules for all possible situations. 

Obviously situations differ and pertinent rules are going to vary with them.  In this case, IMHO, it was a clear ULT and not LT call.   I think we both can agree on that part.  Let's leave it at that.   DDD

 

6 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Common sense or not, the rules are pretty clear about shooters having to proceed to ULT when leaving the stage.  It's common practice for reshooters to go to the ULT, at every match I've ever competed in.  

Technically, it's a SDQ (for prior stage) for shooter to arrive at LT with any loaded firearm.  (I didn't write the rules. but I'm not here to challenge 'em either.  I'm sure it was required for good reason). 

Sure DDD, if it makes you feel better and helps you save face lets leave it at that. ;)

 

In the future you might consider asking what the rule is rather than stating something and then getting corrected by multiple people.  Less embarrassing that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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