Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Dissection Of A Match DQ

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    580
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ST911 View Post
    Shooter was duly notified of a shot angle that was not acceptable to the range or MD, and took it anyway. A DQ is not inappropriate.

    That being said, there is plenty of fail to go around. The stage design is faulty, and everyone relied upon human beings following instructions during a gun race to mitigate it. It also sounds like a range layout issue if there's an accessible, downrange-ish area protected only by a non-ballistic wall.
    I agree wholeheartedly. I have only passing knowledge of USPSA rules, but as I understand it the "180" is defined as 90 degrees in either direction relative to the backstop.

    From the diagram shown it appears that nowhere on this bay is there a 180 degree safe range fan.

    Would the shooter have been DQ'd if he'd pointed his gun at the wall without firing?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    N.E. OH
    Posts
    7,595
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Frailer View Post
    I agree wholeheartedly. I have only passing knowledge of USPSA rules, but as I understand it the "180" is defined as 90 degrees in either direction relative to the backstop.

    From the diagram shown it appears that nowhere on this bay is there a 180 degree safe range fan.

    Would the shooter have been DQ'd if he'd pointed his gun at the wall without firing?
    That's interesting. From a safety standpoint it should be. If it's not safe to shoot, it's not safe to point.

    I've only been to a few, but every match I've been to had 3 berms with full 180 of available shooting.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    580
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MegademiC View Post
    That's interesting. From a safety standpoint it should be. If it's not safe to shoot, it's not safe to point.

    I've only been to a few, but every match I've been to had 3 berms with full 180 of available shooting.
    Exactly. After re-reading the original post, I caught this: "...no one was down range on the bay beyond the wall."

    If the diagram is accurate and it is *possible* for someone to be in the left bay forward of the firing line while someone is shooting on the right this would, IMHO, constitute unsafe conditions.

    OP: am I missing something?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,587
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Nowski87 View Post
    .....Seems like a combo of poor stage design and him gamming to a danger point.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    Sounds like a poorly designed range/stage given the stage rules "Do Not Shoot A Wall". Would a DQ result of a round ricocheted off the target or the BBLs the director placed?

    Quote Originally Posted by TAZ View Post
    ....I would however redo that stage jiffy quick.......Both the shooter and stage designer own the safety of a stage.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frailer View Post
    .......
    From the diagram shown it appears that nowhere on this bay is there a 180 degree safe range fan.

    Would the shooter have been DQ'd if he'd pointed his gun at the wall without firing?
    Quote Originally Posted by MegademiC View Post
    That's interesting. From a safety standpoint it should be. If it's not safe to shoot, it's not safe to point. ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Frailer View Post
    ......If the diagram is accurate and it is *possible* for someone to be in the left bay forward of the firing line while someone is shooting on the right this would, IMHO, constitute unsafe conditions.

    OP: am I missing something?
    You all are completely right.

    This bay has a "Berm" rule. Keep your muzzle pointed at the berm at all times. During reloads, when you're moving...all times...At the berm. The lax 180 I mentioned is somewhat inaccurate. Basically it's a "Don't turn around with your gun". Which doing so would break the berm rule anyways.

    The moment his bore pointed towards the wall he should have received a "Muzzle" warning which could have prevented even the first shot. Again, I should have caught that based on his stage position.

    A person gets one muzzle warning for an entire match. Second warning is a DQ. As ST911 pointed out, It's not a ballistic wall. There should be no warnings. Muzzle at wall should be DQ.

    Quote Originally Posted by ST911 View Post
    ....
    That being said, there is plenty of fail to go around....
    This sums it up nicely.

    Everyone involved received a needed refresher of basic firearms safety. I plan to push info up the chain regarding the wall situation.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    UT
    Posts
    2,044
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    No offense, but if you guys are running a USPSA sanctioned match and not an outlaw thing, the DQ contradicts the USPSA rules. The targets are downrange, hd shot from within shooting area, and he didn't break 180. If match director doesn't want shots hit the wall, then use the fault lines and position targets so that the wall cannot be shot through a target. We deal with the same issue at one of the local clubs all the time, with fixtures downrange that shouldn't be shot. It is handled through a stage design, not DQing a guy who didn't break any game rules. From standpoint of adherence to the USPSA rules, it is a terribly wrong DQ.
    Last edited by YVK; 05-24-17 at 19:38.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    963
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by YVK View Post
    No offense, but if you guys are running a USPSA sanctioned match and not an outlaw thing, the DQ contradicts the USPSA rules. The targets are downrange, hd shot from within shooting area, and he didn't break 180. If match director doesn't want shots hit the wall, then use the fault lines and position targets so that the wall cannot be shot through a target. We deal with the same issue at one of the local clubs all the time, with fixtures downrange that shouldn't be shot. It is handled through a stage design, not DQing a guy who didn't break any game rules. From standpoint of adherence to the USPSA rules, it is a terribly wrong DQ.
    This. This is part of the reason I shoot IDPA/USPSA once a month instead of 4. I saw a shooter get DQ'd on stage one of a sanctioned match for shooting steel from 9 yards instead of 10. Why was the stage(both my example and yours) set up to present these possibilities? I didn't see a "Watch out for shooting the walls!" clearly listed in the description either.

    The shooter shot an array without breaking the 180.... what's the problem?

    OP, you stated that you should have offered a muzzle or stop command- why did you end your "friends" shooting for the day? Dick move.
    Last edited by CPM; 05-27-17 at 06:42.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,929
    Feedback Score
    45 (100%)
    All games aside, regardless of how the stage was setup, the shooter ultimately had control over what was beyond the target when he pressed the trigger. I think that is the point that is being presented here.
    To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. --Theodore Roosevelt--

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    UT
    Posts
    2,044
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    When you shoot sanctioned matches, it is a given that targets and stages are set in a safe manner. It is something that is afforded to the competitors. Moreover, walls in background, unless made of glass, generally, on subconscious level and otherwise, are perceived as a safe stop. I am not aware of anyone stopping in a real life shootout to conduct a sectional density analysis of a background wall before deciding to shoot or not. I have no problem with them saying "this wall is not OK to shoot at", but the following course of action is either to set a stage appropriately, or not to have a match there at all, or have a match that is not a sanctioned USPSA match meaning no USPSA rules, no match fees under USPSA membership premise, no classifier scores submission. If you're shooting a sanctioned match, you can only be DQ'd on a basis of USPSA rules violation. If you are superimposing additional rules (this backstop is not a backstop is a superimposed rule), especially superimposed rules that can lead to such severe penalty as a DQ, it is not a sanctioned match anymore. In this case, the shooter was DQ'd on a basis of range rules violation, not USPSA rules violation. If those two sets of rules clash you can't have a sanctioned match at such venue, so if it was a sanctioned match that he was DQ'd from, it was a wrongful disqualification.
    Last edited by YVK; 05-27-17 at 10:35.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,929
    Feedback Score
    45 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by YVK View Post
    When you shoot sanctioned matches, it is a given that targets and stages are set in a safe manner. It is something that is afforded to the competitors. Moreover, walls in background, unless made of glass, generally, on subconscious level and otherwise, are perceived as a safe stop......
    That is a dangerous way of thinking. Basically, that means that there are only 3 fundamental firearm safety rules, when competing. It is apparent that, by the RSO own admission, that the stage could have and should have been set up differently. That he as well as others, could have and should have caught the potential for danger. But, even so, the shooter is the one putting rounds down range and is ultimately responsible for where they stop. Obviously, it is not always a given that targets and stages are setup safely 100% of the time from every conceivable angle.

    Once again, I think the wrong thing is being focused on here. The DQ, whether warranted or not, is not the most important issue here.
    To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. --Theodore Roosevelt--

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    UT
    Posts
    2,044
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    The fourth rule intent is to make sure that a) there are no bystanders behind, or around and b) there is a backstop behind, or a reasonably empty space for a given projectile (hunting). There were no bystanders behind the target and there was a wall behind a target, where the bullet stopped. If we're talking a grand scheme of things and general application of four rules without regard to the competition and this MD's instruction specifically, where is a violation of a fourth rule? No bystanders, check. Backstop sufficient to stop a bullet, check. I am curious to know what was behind that wall but it is less relevant.

    DQ may or may not be an important issue here, responsibility for a safe environment during a group shooting activity is. Mixing up safety rules violations and violations of an ineffective MD's instructions is an issue too.
    Last edited by YVK; 05-27-17 at 11:38.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •