Good on you. That's a "proper parenting" moment right there. Not only the lesson at hand, but teaching integrity by example.

I had to DQ someone last weekend before he even fired a shot. Hated to do it as this wasn't a regular match shooter. It wasn't some egregious turing move with a hot gun either. He was standing still and the gun was unloaded, but the situation was such that there were way too many people around and far too many people saw it. Had the setup been different I may have just stopped him, showed him the problem and gone on.

He was just racking the slide on the empty pistol, but he did it in such a way that the muzzle was pointing about 110 degrees to his left (behind him).

People learn bad habit that don't translate to match shooting, lots of "Tv reloads". A lot of "tactical Timmy" reloads also get the muzzle pointing over their heads.

When I worked as an RO I would see LOTS of people rack their slide with the left/right opposing motion across their chest method (several of them NYPD officers). I'd have to go tell them to STOP doing that, you just muzzle swept 50 people of the range with a loaded gun.

quote:

Originally posted by SCfromNY:
Hopefully as it was a local match after he was DQed he was allowed to finish the match. At a match a Master shooter came a long distance only to pass his hand in front of the muzzle while opening a door on a stage. Yes, he was officially DQed but it was only fair to let him shoot the match anyway for fun and practice.

DQ means no more shooting, their head is not properly 'in it' that day.

It's kind of funny or odd ... I've seen several borderline cases that as the safety officer I couldn't 100% call as a DQ. I gave the benefit of the doubt to the shooter. More often than not, that shooter does something else that same day and actually DQs. It's another indication that something was distracting them that day, and safety was not in mind. I'm not talking about strangers, it's shooters I know and it's clear their gun handling was off that day. Know yourself and skip the match if you're not feeling 100%. But this type of thing has only reinforced to me that a DQ means no more shooting.

Think about it this way - If you as a safety officer DQ someone on a safety violation and let them continue shooting, and an incident happens, who would also be partially at fault?

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:
Sigfreund, this pic explains the 180 easier than any amount of typing.

I was going to just say I would have to have it demonstrated to me, but I keep going back to the above illustration (thanks, BTW).

The illustration is how I have always understood the 180 rule, but how does that work with a stage like the one in the original video when the shooter has to engage targets that require a 90 degree change of direction? Is he supposed to walk backwards until he clears the barrier that permits shooting at the next targets? If so, that’s extremely dangerous with novice shooters in itself in an activity like that, and isn’t something I’d want to be around.

And as an observation, what should happen after someone makes a mistake depends at least in part on what the penalty is intended to accomplish. If it’s to ensure that we don’t have an unsafe individual around, then no more shooting is appropriate. The logical extension of that policy, though, would be, “Pack your stuff and git;” i.e., we don’t want anyone like that to be anywhere near us with a gun. And what does time have to do with it? If the person is considered too unsafe to continue with a match after being disqualified for a momentary lapse of attention, why would he be considered safe to come back another day?

As a point of educational theory, though, if the intent of an immediate DQ is to teach, there are a couple of things to consider. A basic principle of instruction is “Tell and show them what to do, not what to not do.” Also, mistakes should not only be corrected immediately, but the learner should be given the opportunity to do it right immediately. That is the best way to learn and to avoid developing the wrong habits. I of course realize that a full remedial corrective and training session would be impossible in a match like that, but allowing a shooter to continue after being disqualified from the standings would actually allow him to focus on doing right under close supervision rather than the usual emphasis on speed and accuracy. Note that I’m not criticizing common match rules or saying that they should be changed, just offering some things to consider from my perspective.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

OP, I didn't notice you being an RO on any of the stages shown on the video. You seem to be chatting with other people while your son is shooting and recording the video. It appears that you're participating as an observer or a competitor. One competitor cannot DQ another, only RO can. Your kid did break 180 and should've been DQ'd but if RO didn't see it, your kid gets a break. I understand parental instincts and wanting to keep your kiddo to the standards of safety, but if you're not an RO at the stage, telling an actual RO "throw him out" on another competitor is an unsportsmanlike conduct. Which is a DQ'able offense on its own.

I'm sorry I will disagree with most of the posters. A simple mistake and you are DQed for the match, YES! But that means you get no credit for the match. If it was a simple mistake you take it as a learning experience, take a deep breath, rest a minute, and shoot again. It doesn't mean your head wasn't in it that day or you were dangerous. Now I am talking about a simple non threating error. Especially new shooters or even old shooters who never shot in a match need the experience. Maybe it's the only monthly match in the area and an embarrassing experience means they will never come back. This is essentially a game and if not egregious they deserve a reset.

quote:

Originally posted by YVK:
OP, I didn't notice you being an RO on any of the stages shown on the video. You seem to be chatting with other people while your son is shooting and recording the video. It appears that you're participating as an observer or a competitor. One competitor cannot DQ another, only RO can. Your kid did break 180 and should've been DQ'd but if RO didn't see it, your kid gets a break. I understand parental instincts and wanting to keep your kiddo to the standards of safety, but if you're not an RO at the stage, telling an actual RO "throw him out" on another competitor is an unsportsmanlike conduct. Which is a DQ'able offense on its own.

I did act as RO in several stages and we were taking turns. Not that this will make any difference to you.

As far as walking backwards... Yes. Walk backwards or turn up trail the gun behind you still pointing down range. There are retreat stages where you start with ALL the targets behind you. They can be hairy with newer folks.

As for a DQ, it means you're done and you don't get to keep shooting (even for no score). That's the only way it has any teeth. At least in sanctioned disciplines. I'm sure that there are club matches that low that in some places. I have seen people DQ'd and never come back, but I've never been sorry about it. They were all scary, dangerous on every stage before the DQ, given warning and pointers before the final straw.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:
Yes. Walk backwards ....

Thanks. Now I understand.
And learned something very significant about such activities.

quote:

You get DQed you're done shooting for the day.

With one exception. We have DQ'ed shooters for not making the power factor. they are permitted to shoot the remainder of the match without score.

I've never seen a safety issue DQ allow the shooter to finish the match.

ANYONE can have a bad day and get DQ'ed. It happens. Fortunately I have never seen it result in a injury which speaks well for the ssafety of the sport.

quote:

Originally posted by 1KPerDay:

quote:

Originally posted by YVK:
OP, I didn't notice you being an RO on any of the stages shown on the video. You seem to be chatting with other people while your son is shooting and recording the video. It appears that you're participating as an observer or a competitor. One competitor cannot DQ another, only RO can. Your kid did break 180 and should've been DQ'd but if RO didn't see it, your kid gets a break. I understand parental instincts and wanting to keep your kiddo to the standards of safety, but if you're not an RO at the stage, telling an actual RO "throw him out" on another competitor is an unsportsmanlike conduct. Which is a DQ'able offense on its own.

I did act as RO in several stages and we were taking turns. Not that this will make any difference to you.

It does to some extent. But you weren't an RO on that stage. I think the question is whether you had rules-determined rights to DQ him if he wasn't your son but rather just a stranger. If the answer is yes, then there's nothing else to discuss. If the answer is no, then you've allowed your parental guidance, however well intended, run across the rules and some other things.

@SC: a DQ is a DQ, in absolutely any sport. No more competing for the day. What you're proposing is unworkable because it creates massive subjectivity in figuring out what constitutes malignant violation vs "mild".

Here's the thing, fellas.

Either right is right, or it's not. If the boy broke the 180, he broke the 180. And he needs to be called out for it. It's a lesson he'll learn, and he'll be better for it. Games have rules, but people, especially new shooters, need to learn the rules early, and improve on what they do. I learn way better from my mistakes, personally.

And yes, I do practice what I preach. I missed a first place win two weekends ago because of a procedural. I was offered a reshoot due to a technicality. I could have taken the reshoot and had a first place win overall. I chose to let the procedural stand because I SCREWED UP. There were several new shooters in the squad.

What am I teaching them about integrity in the sport if I weasel out of my screw ups? Integrity is doing the right thing even if no one is looking.

Being safe is like being pregnant. Either you are or you aren't, there is no almost.
Rod

quote:

Your kid did break 180 and should've been DQ'd but if RO didn't see it, your kid gets a break.

Around here, nearly every pre-match briefing includes: "Everybody is a Safety Officer/Range Officer. If you see something unsafe, say so."

quote:

As a point of educational theory, though, if the intent of an immediate DQ is to teach, there are a couple of things to consider. A basic principle of instruction is “Tell and show them what to do, not what to not do.” Also, mistakes should not only be corrected immediately, but the learner should be given the opportunity to do it right immediately.

A misconception. This is not training, this is competition and the competitors are assumed to be able to follow rules and policies. If one doesn't, we are not set up to correct him and see that he does it right the next try. You take training for that, not enter a match without a clue. Although it happens frequently. We have had several shooters get discouraged because we held their noses to the grindstone. Memorable quotation: "I can shoot the gun, I just can't handle all these RULES!" Unfortunately safety rules were included and we were not sorry to see him go. We did miss his wife, though.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Watson:

quote:

Your kid did break 180 and should've been DQ'd but if RO didn't see it, your kid gets a break.

Around here, nearly every pre-match briefing includes: "Everybody is a Safety Officer/Range Officer. If you see something unsafe, say so."

.

Around here only RO can stop a run mid-way, everyone else is standing back safe. In addition, here only match director can actually disqualify a shooter after a debrief that starts with a question "what did you see" to RO. If RO says "I didn't but Jake saw it," it is a problem. Competitors yelling something from the sidelines is prohibited in major matches, and doing so in our local matches is considered a poor form.

So, around here, if someone sees something, they tell it to the guy. I've been on both sides of the conversation, from "dude, you came really close" to "if I were RO'ing you, I would've DQd your ass." We also point out to RO where they missed it so they would learn too. But if RO didn't make a call themselves and stopped the shooter at that moment, these conversations happen after the run and the shooter gets to move on.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Watson:
A misconception.

No, no misconceptions at all. Note the word “if” in my statement.

And therefore if my “if” about the intent of a temporary disqualification being to teach someone something is not true and the DQ is to simply boot someone off the line because he’s unsafe, then my other questions still stand: Will he be any safer when he shoots in a subsequent match? If, by definition, he hasn’t been taught and therefore hasn’t learned anything from the DQ, when will he learn it?

(As for training elsewhere, I have attended many formal training classes, none of which ever mentioned such things as walking backwards while moving to a set of targets arrayed 90° from the previous set so that I wouldn’t sweep the base of the inverted U as described above. That idea is so foreign to anything I have been taught and learned on my own is why I couldn’t understand the basis for the DQ in the original video posted above until it was explained in detail.)

And anyone who actually reads the rest of what I’ve posted beyond the ifs will note that I’m not challenging the fact that rules—and sometimes highly arbitrary rules—are necessary to keep everyone safe in a potentially dangerous activity. I’m not even arguing about the validity and value of the rules except to question what the ultimate purpose of the DQ rule is. No one is required to explain it to me, of course, but that is why I raised it.