[shooterbenedetto]

This shooter fell and the muzzle pointed up in the sky. I know in IPSC rules, it is a DQ!
but for us in the States under Uspsa rules it is not because I see a lot of shooters
point their muzzle up in the sky especially when reloading or taking out the mag.
BAD PRACTICE!! for most of us.

Comments.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=E8aWEFK_nSA

[SharonAnne9x23]

from what I could see he did not break the 180 but the RO was closer and had a better vantage point. But I think it was a bogus DQ.

[JThompson]

I dunno about that one....

You still have to break the 180 yes? He didn't fire, so I dunno how that is unsafe.

The only possible DQ I see is MAYBE a sweep of the weak hand on the way down.

This post has been edited by JThompson: 31 October 2008 - 09:41 AM

[Jake Di Vita]

wow....just wow...

[clown]

can't really tell. i don't think he broke the vertical but he may have swept himself.

[zhunter]

JThompson, on Oct 31 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

The only possible DQ I see is MAYBE a sweep of the weak hand on the way down.

I agree, and it is a very weak DQ if that is the case, it was not conclusive to me that this was even the case

This post has been edited by zhunter: 31 October 2008 - 10:11 AM

[L9X25]

JThompson, on Oct 31 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

The only possible DQ I see is MAYBE a sweep of the weak hand on the way down.

+1

[Mapzter]

shooterbenedetto, on Oct 31 2008, 06:08 PM, said:

This shooter fell and the muzzle pointed up in the sky. I know in IPSC rules, it is a DQ!

If he breaks the vertical 90, it's a DQ in IPSC. Not breaking the 90 may be a DQ if a lower vertical safety angle is in effect at the range in Bali. I don't know if that's the case.

[ChrisStock]

L9X25, on Oct 31 2008, 12:42 PM, said:

JThompson, on Oct 31 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

The only possible DQ I see is MAYBE a sweep of the weak hand on the way down.

+1

I just captured and looked at in slow motion...that's the ONLY thing I saw as a possibility. That sucks.

[FullRace]

Could have had finger in the trigger guard---Referee--I mean RO looks like he was able to see the gun at the RO's position.

I don't know about the "90 degree" rule, but did not look like a 180.

[HighVelocity]

That's tough to call from the video, once he was on the ground, I couldn't even see the gun, no less where it was pointed.

[ima45dv8]

Mapzter, on Oct 31 2008, 01:11 PM, said:

shooterbenedetto, on Oct 31 2008, 06:08 PM, said:

This shooter fell and the muzzle pointed up in the sky. I know in IPSC rules, it is a DQ!

If he breaks the vertical 90, it's a DQ in IPSC. Not breaking the 90 may be a DQ if a lower vertical safety angle is in effect at the range in Bali. I don't know if that's the case.

That's what I was thinking. We don't have provisions for declaring an unsafe angle in USPSA but I've read that it can be done in IPSC.

Anyone know if that's the case in Bali? Shred?

[John Heiter]

I agree that it didn't look like much, but I'm not familiar with IPSC rules vs USPSA rules, I have no idea if there are local rules that pertain to this situation, and most importantly I've learned from first hand experience that video from a single angle is NOT a good tool for determining things like this. I'm assuming these are experienced RO's, and if so the last thing an experienced RO wants to do in his/her career is DQ someone from a WorldShoot so I have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[shooterbenedetto]

From my opinion. I would let him continue..The video titled it DQ, if they did, that would suck big time especially at World Shoot and will definitely contest it using the video. I heard it is very strict INTERNATIONALLY.

[Nik Habicht]

Looks like maybe he bent the wrist toward the left enough to break the 180. Tough to tell from video, possibly really easy to see from the RO position.....

[Flexmoney]

What IPSC calls the 90 from the backstop is the same as what USPSA calls the 180, I believe. So, no difference there?

(IPSC)10.5.2 If at any time during the course of fire, a competitor allows the muzzle of his handgun to point rearwards,
that is further than 90 degrees from the median intercept of the backstop, or in the case of no backstop, allows
the muzzle to point up range, whether the firearm is loaded or not (limited exceptions: see Rules 5.2.7.3 and
10.5.6).


Just going off the video, I don't see a muzzle angle violation. And, I don't know that the body would allow him to bend enough to break the 180 (his gun arm elbow is planted).

Sweeping or finger might be the DQ ?

[JThompson]

Flexmoney, on Oct 31 2008, 12:38 PM, said:

What IPSC calls the 90 from the backstop is the same as what USPSA calls the 180, I believe. So, no difference there?

(IPSC)10.5.2 If at any time during the course of fire, a competitor allows the muzzle of his handgun to point rearwards,
that is further than 90 degrees from the median intercept of the backstop, or in the case of no backstop, allows
the muzzle to point up range, whether the firearm is loaded or not (limited exceptions: see Rules 5.2.7.3 and
10.5.6).


Just going off the video, I don't see a muzzle angle violation. And, I don't know that the body would allow him to bend enough to break the 180 (his gun arm elbow is planted).

Sweeping or finger might be the DQ ?

That's the only thing I see possible too Flex....

[JThompson]

Remember these guys are probably all a little gun shy after having someone AD to the foot.... I'm not making excuses, but that would make me a little jumpy.

[benny hill]

See the r.o. with the timer look at the 2nd r.o., either one did'nt know if he broke 180.

[ima45dv8]

Flex, no difference on the 90/180 as you pointed out. But I remember reading they have the right to declare a certain angle of elevation of the muzzle as unsafe (I think it largely depends on local range conditions, how close the general public may be, etc.). I'll look for the reference when I get back.

[Mapzter]

shooterbenedetto, on Oct 31 2008, 08:25 PM, said:

The video titled it DQ, if they did, that would suck big time especially at World Shoot and will definitely contest it using the video.

Neither video nor still images are admissible as evidence in an IPSC arbitration.

[George Jones]

There are several issues with the way the RO ran the shooter, not the least of which is that he gave the AYR command while the shooter was still getting set.

Although no one seems to know the actual reason for the DQ, the RO's positioning was not optimum. Given that, I wonder what he could clearly see.

[Flexmoney]

What the hell is that graphic on the wall anyway? Looks like a love spawn from Yoda and this:

Attached File(s)

•  Sam162edited.jpg (61.79K)
  Number of downloads: 70

[Steve J]

The shooter recovered quickly and was about to continue when stopped. Can't see the gun obviously in the video, but it certainly does look like he stayed safe and was in control. I vote bogus stoppage and DQ.

[Skizeks]

shooterbenedetto, on Oct 31 2008, 07:25 PM, said:

From my opinion. I would let him continue..The video titled it DQ, if they did, that would suck big time especially at World Shoot and will definitely contest it using the video. I heard it is very strict INTERNATIONALLY.

11.1.5