82 replies to this topic

[motosapiens]

I was driving to Wal-Mart and had a thought; a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square. Meaning a shooter can have a gun malfunction that results in an AD, but that malfunction is still an AD, like you guys have said.

I think 5.7.1 could use an "exception", (akin to 10.4.2.1) stating something like "a malfunction that results in an action that would otherwise DQ the competitor (such as an AD when loading) does not apply under this rule" or something like that. Or a definition/few examples of what a malfunction is.

Whatever. I see where everyone is coming from. Malfunction or not, an AD is an AD.

Awesome mathematical reference. You're probably qualified to shop at Target.

Edited by motosapiens, 18 March 2012 - 07:07 PM.

[JayWord]

What if the malfunction caused you to break the 180, or drop the handgun. Would you still think there was a contradiction?

Sorry, that is a faulty analogy. What possible malfunction could cause a 180 break at the "Make Ready"?

About half of the 180 violations I've seen have been during remedial actions.

That said I'm pretty sure there used to be a rule regarding firearm malfunctions causing an AD. That rule was removed to eliminate this exact scenario. There is no conflict. A DQ supersedes all. Period.

A provision in the 2004 and earlier editions of the rulebook had the "broken gun Alibi" under the AD section. Specifically rule 10.4.9. This section was intentionally removed in the 2008 Edition of the rule book. This thread shows why that was done.

[Sarge]

awesome mathematical reference. You're probably qualified to shop at Target.

[aztecdriver]

What if the malfunction caused you to break the 180, or drop the handgun. Would you still think there was a contradiction?

Sorry, that is a faulty analogy. What possible malfunction could cause a 180 break at the "Make Ready"?

And yet, it is entirely possible for me to sweep myself dealing with an issue such as inspecting my front sight fiber that might be coming out. Just reach my hand over the muzzle... It's still sweeping and it's still a DQ.

[Nik Habicht]

Do you see a contradiction in 10.4.3 and 5.7.1? One says DQ and the other says no penalty. There is no definition of "malfunction". A shot without a trigger pull seems to be a malfunction.

No. If a competitor notices a malfunction -- missing front sight, gun won't go into battery, etc. -- without violating a safety rule, he can repair and return without penalty.....

Once you commit a safety infraction, it's game over. There's no more broken gun alibi.....

[Poppa Bear]

I was going to point out exactly what Jay did, the broken gun exemption disappeared in the 2008 rule book. Gun goes bang because the finger was on the trigger, or gun goes bang due to mechanical failure, either way it is a DQ if it happens when the rules say not allowed.

[Nik Habicht]

I'd have to go with gun malfunction myself, so I don't believe the shooter should be disqualified.

Please take an RO class......

[Nik Habicht]

Do you see a contradiction in 10.4.3 and 5.7.1? One says DQ and the other says no penalty. There is no definition of "malfunction". A shot without a trigger pull seems to be a malfunction.

There is no contradiction. If you have a malfunction, you can repair it and continue to shoot the match. That is not the case if you're disqualified. Once disqualified, a competitor cannot continue to participate.

Even though the shot was the result of a malf it was still a shot none the less.

Agreed. Which rule has priority? One says DQ the other says no penalty. Is this a case of letting the RM decide?

If you agree, then there's nothing to decide. The instant a shot goes off while loading the handgun, the shooter is disqualified. Once disqualified, it's irrelevant whether the shot was due to a "malfunction" or anything else for that matter, as the shooter can no longer participate in the match.

This is not an issue of a rule having "priority," but rather, defining what "disqualification" means. If a shooter does anything that results in a disqualification, other facts or rules that might hypothetically apply in the absence of that DQ have no bearing on the outcome.

I agree it was a shot. But I also see a contradiction in the rulebook.

There is no contradiction -- 5.7.1 includes a stipulation that no safety infraction may occur. If it does, it's irrelevant that the handgun malfunctioned....

The rule was carefully written to give the shooter the widest latitude for repair/attempt at a course of fire, without giving the competitor a pass on safety....

[Nik Habicht]

Whatever. I see where everyone is coming from. Malfunction or not, an AD is an AD.

Yep. Sorry, if it seems like I dogpiled on, late to the party and reading/replying in linear fashion....

[jdphotoguy]

<br />

<br />
I'd have to go with gun malfunction myself, so I don't believe the shooter should be disqualified.<br />

<br />
Please take an RO class...... <img src='http://www.brianenos...R#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /><br />

Doing just that in April and I'm mature enough to admit after reading the responses that I was wrong about it not being a DQ offense.

[jdphotoguy]

1332126920[/url]' post='1663291']

1332108356[/url]' post='1663049']
I'd have to go with gun malfunction myself, so I don't believe the shooter should be disqualified.

Please take an RO class......

Doing just that in April and I'm mature enough to admit after reading the responses that I was wrong about it not being a DQ offense. So I stand corrected.

[Nik Habicht]

1332126920[/url]' post='1663291']

1332108356[/url]' post='1663049']
I'd have to go with gun malfunction myself, so I don't believe the shooter should be disqualified.

Please take an RO class......

Doing just that in April and I'm mature enough to admit after reading the responses that I was wrong about it not being a DQ offense. So I stand corrected.

We'll be the better for you joining our ranks! Thank you sincerely, for caring enough to give up that weekend....

[twodownzero]

1332126920[/url]' post='1663291']

1332108356[/url]' post='1663049']
I'd have to go with gun malfunction myself, so I don't believe the shooter should be disqualified.

Please take an RO class......

Doing just that in April and I'm mature enough to admit after reading the responses that I was wrong about it not being a DQ offense. So I stand corrected.

There's really no shame in it. Some just may not realize that it's up to the competitor to bring a safe, 100% functional gun to the line.

Our sport is very safe when done with guns that are 100% safe and shooters who are muzzle conscious and adhere to our safety rules.

Venture too far from that and our sport would get very dangerous.

The first person I ever had to DQ had a single round fail to feed. In the process of clearing it, he managed to break the 180.

Having a gun that runs is an important safety issue.

[West Texas Granny]

At Make Ready, a competitor inserts mag and racks the slide with finger clearly outside the trigger guard. Gun fires a shot. Could that be considered a malfunction under 5.7.1, a DQ under 10.4.3, or something else?

It's a DQ, pure and simple. As others have pointed out, it's a shot fired, regardless of the reason. Basically the idea is that you're on the hook to bring a safe weapon.

FWIW, I earned a DQ for the same problem when my gun developed hammer follow on match day. At the time, I thought it might have been a malfunction, but running it up the chain at NROI cleared that misconception up for me.

BB

This incident occurred at the RO's make ready command. Trigger finger outside of trigger well. This I think is your key. A discharge that occurs without the trigger being pulled is a malfunction therefore the shooter should be allowed to correct the problem,use a backup gun meeting the same division requirements or withdraw without penalty.

Apparently the rule book is lacking in definitions for major keywords which need to be addressed to alleviate confusion as to what the rule actually says.

[remoandiris]

This incident occurred at the RO's make ready command. Trigger finger outside of trigger well. This I think is your key. A discharge that occurs without the trigger being pulled is a malfunction therefore the shooter should be allowed to correct the problem,use a backup gun meeting the same division requirements or withdraw without penalty.

This is exactly what I thought, too. But, I came to accept the wording of 10.4.3...and it says "shot". Doesn't say shot as a result of pulling the trigger, just says shot. "Shot" is defined in the rulebook. If there is a shot while loading, it is a shot. A shot caused by a malfunction of the the gun (or ammo), is still a shot nonetheless and a DQ offense based on the definition of "shot". The malfunction is secondary. It would be unfortunate to a shooter, whether at a local match or Nationals, but it is what it is. The shooter can always arbitrate and argue the malfunction rule.

One thing I failed to read before I started this (no one else pointed it out either), the second sentence in 10.4.3 further clears the issue, IMO;

"This includes any shot fired during the procedures outlined in Rule 8.3.1 and Rule 8.3.7."

8.3.1 is the "Make Ready" command rule. So, any shot while the competitor responds to the "Make Ready" command is a DQ.

This situation happened to me about 2 yrs ago at a local match in the midwest. I wasn't a certified RO. Others on the squad were. They said the shooter could fix his gun or get another. The shooter had the gun serviced earlier in the week. I'll remember this and will pull the rulebook if it happens from here on.

Edited by remoandiris, 19 March 2012 - 06:17 AM.

[West Texas Granny]

This incident occurred at the RO's make ready command. Trigger finger outside of trigger well. This I think is your key. A discharge that occurs without the trigger being pulled is a malfunction therefore the shooter should be allowed to correct the problem,use a backup gun meeting the same division requirements or withdraw without penalty.

This is exactly what I thought, too. But, I came to accept the wording of 10.4.3...and it says "shot". Doesn't say shot as a result of pulling the trigger, just says shot. "Shot" is defined in the rulebook. If there is a shot while loading, it is a shot. A shot caused by a malfunction of the the gun (or ammo), is still a shot nonetheless and a DQ offense based on the definition of "shot". The malfunction is secondary. It would be unfortunate to a shooter, whether at a local match or Nationals, but it is what it is. The shooter can always arbitrate and argue the malfunction rule.

One thing I failed to read before I started this (no one else pointed it out either), the second sentence in 10.4.3 further clears the issue, IMO;

"This includes any shot fired during the procedures outlined in Rule 8.3.1 and Rule 8.3.7."

8.3.1 is the "Make Ready" command rule. So, any shot while the competitor responds to the "Make Ready" command is a DQ.

This situation happened to me about 2 yrs ago at a local match in the midwest. I wasn't a certified RO. Others on the squad were. They said the shooter could fix his gun or get another. The shooter had the gun serviced earlier in the week. I'll remember this and will pull the rulebook if it happens from here on.

Where we disagree is the malfunction caused the the round to fire. The " shot" did not occur as the result of the shooter pulling the trigger but it occurred due to the malfunction of the gun. Therefore the shooter should not be penalized for this incident as they had safely handled the pistol and at the RO's command.

It was a mechanical malfunction completely out of control of the shooter. This was a malfunction and the shooter should not be DQ'ed because of it.

A shot occurs when the trigger is pulled. A shot occurring without the trigger being pulled is a malfunction of the gun. It either is repaired or a backup gun is used meeting the same requirements as the first gun or the shooter is allowed to withdraw without a DQ.

[Leftridge]

Where we disagree is the malfunction caused the the round to fire. The " shot" did not occur as the result of the shooter pulling the trigger but it occurred due to the malfunction of the gun. Therefore the shooter should not be penalized for this incident as they had safely handled the pistol and at the RO's command.

It was a mechanical malfunction completely out of control of the shooter. This was a malfunction and the shooter should not be DQ'ed because of it.

A shot occurs when the trigger is pulled. A shot occurring without the trigger being pulled is a malfunction of the gun. It either is repaired or a backup gun is used meeting the same requirements as the first gun or the shooter is allowed to withdraw without a DQ.

Read the bold: A shot that occurs (period) during the make ready results in a DQ

Edited by Leftridge, 19 March 2012 - 07:10 AM.

[bbbean]

It was a mechanical malfunction completely out of control of the shooter.

It was his gun, right? Seems pretty well under his control, or at least should be!

[Flexmoney]

Even though the shot was the result of a malf it was still a shot none the less.

Agreed. Which rule has priority? One says DQ the other says no penalty. Is this a case of letting the RM decide?

This is a clear DQ. The wording USED to be different. It was clarified in the current edition of the rule book. (SEARCH...I know it was covered.)

[motosapiens]

Where we disagree is the malfunction caused the the round to fire. The " shot" did not occur as the result of the shooter pulling the trigger but it occurred due to the malfunction of the gun.

As remoandiris eloquently explained above, it doesn't matter what caused the shot. An AD is a DQ. Period. You may wish it was otherwise, but the rule is pretty clear.

[aztecdriver]

Where we disagree is the malfunction caused the the round to fire. The " shot" did not occur as the result of the shooter pulling the trigger but it occurred due to the malfunction of the gun. Therefore the shooter should not be penalized for this incident as they had safely handled the pistol and at the RO's command.

It was a mechanical malfunction completely out of control of the shooter. This was a malfunction and the shooter should not be DQ'ed because of it.

A shot occurs when the trigger is pulled. A shot occurring without the trigger being pulled is a malfunction of the gun. It either is repaired or a backup gun is used meeting the same requirements as the first gun or the shooter is allowed to withdraw without a DQ.

As was stated, it doesn't matter what caused the shot. Competitor is responsible for the safety of the weapon. A shot occurred, it doesn't matter why, it occurred during 8.3.1 which says ANY SHOT during which is an invitation for ice cream.

A shot occurs when the bullet leaves the barrel. NOTHING ELSE defines it, and it's in the appendix. Despite how you seem to indicate how "IT IS" in the last sentence, it is not that way, and you need to make sure you are familiar with how the rules read before making statements like this. Maybe the statements should say "It Should" instead, and that was your intent - but at a USPSA match, if this situation occurs, the rule is clear, and it's a disqualification.

If you WANT the rules to be different that is a different issue. I suggest you first, join USPSA, and then contact your area director to campaign they ask the board to amend the rule. If you are still intending this is how it applies today, I really would suggest you go to USPSA.org and read the rulebook with particular interest in 8.3, 5.7.1 and 10.4. then explain to me how the rules fit in your description of how it is.

[twodownzero]

If the "shot" is a squib that does not clear the barrel, what result?

[Skydiver]

If the "shot" is a squib that does not clear the barrel, what result?

Ha! Ha! Ha! That would a be a great arbitration debate to watch (if only the deliberations were public, but alas 11.5.9 says otherwise). I would gladly put up the match fee or $100 for a 3rd party appeal if the shooter doesn't appeal it, just to read their decision and how they came to it.

I think that my $100 will end up going to NROI, though. Although the rules 10.4.3 says the word shot, and "shot" is defined in the glossary, I suspect that 3 experienced shooters/RO's that the MD selects for the committee will also make a decision that is "consistent and with the intent of the rules" (11.1.9). I feel that the intent of the set of rules is that there be no shooting to happen until the the Start Signal with the shooter in control of when shots are fired.

[Skydiver]

Also consider the case the shooter who has to lower their hammer. If they hold back the hammer with their weak hand, pull the trigger to release the sear, and then put their trigger finger back up against the frame. If the shooter loses their grip on the hammer after that point, would you also claim it to be a malfunction and not a DQ if the hammer falls firing off a round instead of coming to half-cock? i.e. The gun malfunctioned because the half-cock was designed specifically to prevent a shot from being fired in this situation.

I feel that this is still a DQ under 10.4.3 because a shot was fired during "Make Ready".

[twodownzero]

If the "shot" is a squib that does not clear the barrel, what result?

Ha! Ha! Ha! That would a be a great arbitration debate to watch (if only the deliberations were public, but alas 11.5.9 says otherwise). I would gladly put up the match fee or $100 for a 3rd party appeal if the shooter doesn't appeal it, just to read their decision and how they came to it.

I think that my $100 will end up going to NROI, though. Although the rules 10.4.3 says the word shot, and "shot" is defined in the glossary, I suspect that 3 experienced shooters/RO's that the MD selects for the committee will also make a decision that is "consistent and with the intent of the rules" (11.1.9). I feel that the intent of the set of rules is that there be no shooting to happen until the the Start Signal with the shooter in control of when shots are fired.

I'd probably put the shooter back into the match, and then only because I think all DQs must have a textual basis, and in this case, a strict reading doesn't result in a DQ.

It's one of those rare sorts of instances where the shooter would get the benefit of the rules' specificity.