[Jon_R]

I was working as SO in our club level match this morning and had the following happen. I did what I did based on what I thought was fair and a decision had to be made. I am curious any feedback others may have.


The COF had you shooting up to this point. At this point you needed to conduct a reload with retention from behind cover as you would be low on ammo before you turned the corner and engaged three threat targets on the move. Shots must be fired on the move. The targets should have been engaged from cover with strict IDPA course design but the COF called for these targets to be shot on the move so that is what it required.

I had a a junior shooter not that it matters but he forgot to do the reload with retention turned the corner moving fired a shot or two went to slide lock did a reload all while taking steps. At this point he shot two targets but had moved off the line enough because he kept moving as required that if he was going to shoot the 3rd target he would have been shooting about 30 degrees up range toward an area I could not see do to vision barriers. I yelled stop before he engaged the target. I had him face down range unload and show clear and I gave him a re-shoot because I stopped him during his run. If he would have engaged the target I would likely have DQd him but I would have to check the where they put out the muzzle safety points but I think those where placed to restrict the 180 on the first target array. It was not considered someone would engage the last target from that angle.

Any feedback on if I did the right thing? If not what should I have done?

BTW I like the 180 degree rule a lot more then muzzle safe points. As RO/SO I have a feel at all times for the 180. Where the cones are changes as you move and they are usually behind the SO.

[steel1212]

Are you saying he was getting ready to shoot a target that would have been about 210 degrees, 30 degrees past 180? If you don't have muzzle stakes then I think you have to go with a 180 rule or somebody is going to get hurt. If you had muzzle stakes and he passed them DQ. If you don't have muzzle stakes and he passes the 180 DQ. If he didn't pass your muzzle stakes or pass the 180 I think you let him shoot on.

[Jon_R]

I don't know what he would have done if I did not stop him. He did not break the 180 up to that point but to shoot the last target from where he was would have been about 210 degrees based on a 180. He was about 12 years old though and the vision barrier blocked me from seeing the cones and if any body was in the line of fire. They should not have been but I had about a second to call "STOP".

This is the stage. Stage 1 on this link.

http://www.pmrpcidpa...ULY2009_COF.pdf

He ended up between T5 and T6 with T7 left to shoot when I stopped him.

I guess one question is do I let him make the shot and then DQ him? My job is safety officer and I saw something bad getting ready to happen and stopped it before it could. Maybe he would have stepped sideways and backwards then made the shot no way to know now.

[Flexmoney]

I think you did the right thing. Range Safety isn't about being DQ'ed or not.


It sure sounds like all your instincts knew what was coming next.

Quote

"My job is safety officer and I saw something bad getting ready to happen and stopped it before it could."

I don't have a 12 year old, but if I did...I'd feel good about you running him (and the lesson that you probably taught him by this).

[Mike P]

I think you did the right thing in maintaining range safety.

[atbarr]

Mike P, on Jul 26 2009, 06:13 PM, said:

I think you did the right thing in maintaining range safety.

+1!

A.T.

[Strick]

I think you did the right thing, especially with a younger shooter. I much rather see the shooter stopped before something bad happens then letting them go to see if it all works out. IDPA is a game but it is played with deadly equipment.

[Filishooter]

Safety first!

I don't want to high-jack this thread but what do you guys think of a SECOND set of muzzle safe points? I was at this match as well, and as Jon mentioned, the muzzle safe cones were intended for the first shooting position uprange. The COF had the shooter advance downrange towards a second and third array. With the shooter downrange that first muzzle safe point doesn't look very safe anymore. Had there been another cone lined up with the visqueen barrier downrange it would have been more visible to the SO and redefined the safety points while downrange.

i know it would help the SO. Do you think this would confuse the shooter? help the shooter? Obviously you don't want cones all over the COF but this is one instance where I think it may have been prudent.

[Nik Habicht]

You probably ought to do something......

Were the cones necessary for the first position or placed there because they always are? Could they have been moved downrange to where they were needed? Could you use multiple sets of different color cones --- to separate each shooting position? Could you place them so that only one set is visible from each position?

Could you erect a vision barrier? Did you use all available no-shoots? (In USPSA we often use no-shoots in situations where we're not expecting them to make the actual shot harder, but to serve as a warning that the shooter is about to break the 180. I understand IDPA rations the number of no-shoots you can use on a stage....)

[Jane]

Hard to second-guess, not having been there.

That said, I would have tried "MUZZLE" first.

From rule book, page 78:

Quote

Muzzle: Alert given to shooter to maintain muzzle control within
the muzzle safe points. Safety Officers may need to physically
push the shooter’s arms to get the muzzle downrange if they do not
immediately move at the command.

As a safety officer, safety is what you're responsible for regardless of where some cones may be. You obviously felt he was doing or about to do something unsafe.
180 is a club rule, if it exists. IDPA rule book (page 6) specifically says (emphasis in the original) :

Quote

S 1. Unsafe gun handling will result in immediate
disqualification from the entire match.
Examples (but not limited to) :
A. Endangering any person, including yourself.
B. Pointing muzzle beyond designated “Muzzle Safe Points”.
A 180° rule does NOT exist and will NOT be grounds for DQ.

He may have been within the limits of item B, but apparently your gut told you he was close to violating item A.

This post has been edited by Duane Thomas: 27 July 2009 - 10:30 AM

[Strick]

Jane, on Jul 27 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

Hard to second-guess, not having been there.

That said, I would have tried "MUZZLE" first.

From rule book, page 78:

Quote

Muzzle: Alert given to shooter to maintain muzzle control within
the muzzle safe points. Safety Officers may need to physically
push the shooter’s arms to get the muzzle downrange if they do not
immediately move at the command.

The only problem I can see with just saying "muzzle" in this case (again only based on what is here not being there ) is that the shooter would be engaging a target that is in the COF. I would think that would not be understood or even ignored (as maybe not pertaing to him/her not that the SO is a quack) if you as a shooter knew you were aimed at a legitimate target and heard "muzzle".

Again without seeing the setup, I would think the layout needed to be examined a little closer so things like this are minimized.

[Flyin40]

In most sports you can't call foul until the foul is committed. Every official and player in the NBA knows and admits L James is one of the hardest driving players going to the basket. He can hurt you if you try to take the charge but the officials are not aloud to stop him because someone might get hurt. I think thats probably where your line of thinking comes from questioning yourself of whether you should of stopped him. We are just used to letting the foul happen then calling it.

That being said our sport in very unique in that a foul(safey issue) can result in someone being shot while most other sports just might get a bump or bruise.

I agree with your call 100%, good job looking out for the shooter, yourself and everyone else at the range.



Flyin

[Flexmoney]

It sure seems like the 180 ought to be the norm and the cones could come out for "special circumstances"?

[Nik Habicht]

Except that the IDPA rulebook specifically mentions that there's no such thing as a 180....

[ajackb]

I was also present for this match as MD. The possible violation occurred behind a vision barrier that would not allow anyone but the SO and possible score keeper to see what happened. IMHO, Jon absolutely made the right call especially with a Jr shooter. That would include allowing him a reshoot since he stopped him prior to a safety violation. The biggest issue is that I did not require the stage builder (although I recommended it) to erect another wall to allow more time for the reload before turning then more time again when advancing on the last target array. This was our first use of a full vision barrier with surprise targets.

Alan

[Duane Thomas]

It sounds like a great learning experience all-around. And everyone did learn. It's all good.

[glock34shooter]

It sounds like a forward fault line would have solved this problem. Another suggestion would be to tell the shooter to move back. But ultimately safety is paramount. At the club I shoot IDPA at we have a hard 180. It is a indoor range, and even pointing your gun past 180 is a no no, and usually a DQ.

Matt

[steel1212]

Flexmoney, on Jul 26 2009, 06:07 PM, said:

I think you did the right thing. Range Safety isn't about being DQ'ed or not.

I wasn't saying range safety is about the DQing somebody either. What I was saying was, and we didn't see it so we can't know for sure, is if the kids gun wasn't breaking the 180 how would you know he was going to? He may have seen them then realized he was going to break the 180 and backed up. Now the fact that the OP thought that the kid was going to stopped him but allowed him to reshoot just chalks it up to a learning experience for both. I feel that the OP did the right thing also.

In IDPA there isn't a 180 rule and I'm not fond of that because, like it has been discussed if the muzzle cones are more up range and you pass them what is keeping people from turning to get the targets with in the rules?

Let me bring something up to the discussion though. Where would you have drawn the line for a reshoot vs. a DQ? I'm being hypothetical here and I guess highjacking, but what if say Manny Bragg was the next shooter and did the same thing? Do you expect him not to do it but DQ him if he does? Do you think that because he has gone to far forward and not shot the targets you stop him and allow him to reshoot?

Again safety is always first, and no I'm not looking for a reason to DQ somebody, I just like things to be consistent for everybody

[GmanCdp]

Quote

Let me bring something up to the discussion though. Where would you have drawn the line for a reshoot vs. a DQ? I'm being hypothetical here and I guess highjacking, but what if say Manny Bragg was the next shooter and did the same thing?

Manny in an idpa vest????

[Flexmoney]

Corey,

My post wasn't directed at anything you had said.

My point was that range safety was bigger than the game of the day...especially if we want the games to continue.

I'm not a regular IDPA shooter, so this isn't that big of a talking point for me...other than the fact that a mishap could reflect on all practical shooters. I think the IDPA rules are a bit off in this regard...and this particular cof setup proves that out.

Of course, stage design and other things could address this.

The simple fix would be to make the 180 the default and allow cones for other circumstances.

[Jon_R]

I want to think everyone for the feedback. I have only been shooting action shooting for about 1.5 years and SO for about 9 months. I just wanted some feedback from people with more experience on if I did the right thing based on the IDPA rule book and if I did the right thing just in general based on the situation I was in.

I think the feedback is based on the rule book I should of let him continue and see how he handled it but it is probably best I stopped him. Since I stopped him I had no choice but to give him a re-shoot since other then a procedural for going to slide lock past the provided cover he had done nothing wrong or unsafe up to that point.

His father was running behind me acting as scorekeeper and followed what and why I did what I did. After all it is his ammo the kid is shooting up.

[Shootingirons45]

This is the sort of situation that calls for folks to use some common sense and discretion. The young man ought to have been stopped. Practical Shooting, USPSA and IDPA have fairly decent safety records and in this political climate we need to keep it this way. We also need the young shooters to keep our sports growing and going. I wasn't there so I can't do any "monday morning quaterbacking". However, given the same scenario that's been presented here I would have stopped the young man. Counselled him on what he appeared to be doing, or about to do, and then allow him a reshoot. I think the RO/SO did a good job and was reasonable and fair to the shooter.

[Duane Thomas]

And on that note, since the original question has been long since answered, I'm going to lock this one down.