Jump to content


Photo

David Bold on Glasses DQ


  • Please log in to reply
206 replies to this topic

#1 Ben

Ben

    MFCEO

  • Administrators
  • 2,269 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 06:58 AM


My turn to rant and this will be the end of it.

This is gone on long enough. The simple summary is a USPSA club operating at a host range that has strict requirement for eye protection puts on a monthly match well attended by many local shooters on a
regular basis. At the morning shooters meeting before the match starts, match officials clearly state to everyone multiple times to wear your eye protection at all times or be faced with a DQ. At a match this past weekend, this same announcement takes place. A shooter later on, not just cleaning his glasses, but walking around between pits without his glasses on (admittedly) gets DQ'd per the announcement at the shooter's meeting. The rule DQ'd under is not for not wearing his glasses, but under 10.6.1 for failing to comply with the reasonable directions of a Match Official. Remember the strong warning during the safety briefing.

The warning to wear glasses that many of you are looking for was done at the shooter's meeting, specifically and clearly stated. Preemptively. If someone wasn’t clear on what those instructions were, or what steps they need to do if they want to take the glasses off for whatever reason, a reasonable person just would’ve asked a range official. Just like any other question that’s out there, we tell shooters to ask a range official. We don’t just guess at something and then complain about it later. If you have a question, you asked. Seems simple to me.

Harsh yes. At most ranges this incident would have just resulted in a talk with the shooter to put the glasses on. This host facility has a harsher view of the topic. Remember the DQ was for not following the reasonable directions of a match official. Period.

For all of you that help grow the sport and put on events at your local club, or bring new shooters to the game: I applaud you and thank you.

Being an internet bully, insulting and belittling other volunteers because they have harsher host requirements to deal with, shame on you. Not a good way to growth things. Especially trying to shame away long-time, well trained, hard working volunteers (just like many of you) will result in one less club that local members can shoot at.

This wasn't a case of 'local rules', it was a case of a shooter deciding to not follow the reasonable directions of a match official (by take off his glasses even though he was already warned to not to do so at the shooters meeting).

Social media is a great thing, making it easy to share lots of information, as example. But it brings out the worst in a lot of people. And this example here it’s quite disappointing to be honest. Childish comments, name calling, and in some cases veiled threats (which I hope was just some steam blowing off - any real retaliation will be dealt with by me bring action against that member to the entire Board for review), from both sides of the conversation is disappointing to say the least. Not something I would’ve expected from any USPSA member or any member of the shooting community.

This is the last comment on this subject. If anybody would like to discuss further with me, reach me at my email at Area7@uspsa.org. Any further comments on here will be deleted and poster will be removed from the group. Enough is enough.

I’m sure somebody will take this out of context and start a thread somewhere else, and that’s your right to do. But that speaks more about your character than the conversation that's happened here.

Rant over.

 




#2 SlivGod

SlivGod

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 659 posts
  • LocationThe Good Land

Posted 20 October 2017 - 07:19 AM

"For all of you that help grow the sport by condoning fictitious rules, garbage DQs, and illegitimate authority: I applaud you and thank you. "

 

Oh no, thank you, David. 


"Forget the necessities, it's the luxuries I can't live without." 


#3 CrappyShooter

CrappyShooter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 219 posts
  • LocationYour wife's Boner Garage

Posted 20 October 2017 - 07:22 AM

If it wasnt written down in the matchbook, or signs on the range, then it wasnt stated. Unless someone has video of the MD statung that and the shooter attending the meeting....

Seems like a very simple thing to put into the matchbook or on a sign at the range along with a sign that states where the eyehqlass safe area was.

Its a BS call, but i do understand that the range xould have stringent rules. If so, they, should have hammered that by numerous means into every shooter in every stage with signage and proof that it was required.

Otherwise, to enforce a rule for a DQ thay isnt written down is pretty lame.

#4 Peally

Peally

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,855 posts
  • LocationWisconsin, USA

Posted 20 October 2017 - 07:24 AM

Couldn't you just as easily demand everyone wear purple under that generic blanket rule?



#5 snark

snark

    Aberrant Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,098 posts
  • LocationNull Island

Posted 20 October 2017 - 08:00 AM

That's what Arbitration is for. The shooter can try to convince the arb committee that either they never got those instructions, or that the instructions aren't "reasonable".

Shooter: "This is unreasonable. Purple makes me look gay"

Arb: "We agree, you were doing a great job of hiding it before. DQ overturned"
or:
Arb: "We all thought you were gay already and the purple doesn't change that. DQ upheld"


Either way there will be a lot of butthurt, but the committee can overturn the DQ if they think the BS factor is high enough.

Troy says our Arb skillz are weak and we need more practice anyway.
  • MEISTERB likes this

Use the rules. Don't DQ someone who doesn't do anything DQable. -- Da Beard.

 


#6 vluc

vluc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 103 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 08:17 AM

How do you Arb a non-USPSA rule?  Hell, I take my glasses off when there is no shooting on the COF to wipe my eyes, face or glasses.

 

Now if he was walking around the range flagrantly violating the rule, that's one thing.  But if you have to walk half way across a range to wipe your eyes or clean your glasses, that's a touch unreasonable to me.


  • Alma and ralloway like this

#7 Can

Can

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 09:43 AM

I’m sure somebody will take this out of context and start a thread somewhere else, and that’s your right to do. But that speaks more about your character than the conversation that's happened here.


Time to question some characters....who do we start with?

qnFmwmR.jpg


#8 Alfred Salveti

Alfred Salveti

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 514 posts
  • LocationSugar City, USA

Posted 20 October 2017 - 09:44 AM

People should learn how to be criticized and be critical without getting their butt hurt.

 

Be confident in your decision and don't give a fuck about those that don't matter.


  • Roons likes this
I like to rewatch election night 2016 coverage and I want to marry a conservative black girl who likes to shoot.

#9 slink

slink

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,271 posts
  • LocationWA

Posted 20 October 2017 - 09:49 AM

Just wear your glasses.
  • ncav8tor, FL2549 and Part Of Me like this

#10 Roons

Roons

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 10:14 AM

g1336753594387750288.jpg


  • warpspeed and ToddKS like this

"You can give it the old spin."


#11 Michel Neaucheutte

Michel Neaucheutte

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 10:15 AM

Unless someone has video of the MD statung that and the shooter attending the meeting....


Do you even rules, bro? Video evidence not admissible.

#12 Sweet T

Sweet T

    Glock Master Race

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,694 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 10:26 AM

There are three important points here, and as usual, people fail to compartmentalize and reason through the problem.  This causes confusion about why and on what authority this happened.

 

1.  There are USPSA rules.  USPSA rules supercede or preempt any local match rules.

 

2.  There are local match rules, aka "local rules" imposed by USPSA match authorities that contradict USPSA rules.  This is not supposed to happen, but we know that it does.

 

3.  There are host range rules.  The host range would be "East Podunk Rod and Gun Club".  The USPSA club would be "East Podunk Practical Shooters".  These entities are separate for our purposes.

 

We've been told at different times from various different people that the shooter was DQ'ed for the following: USPSA rule 5.4.1, USPSA rule 10.6.1, a match-specific requirement to wear glasses at all times, and a host range rule to wear glasses at all times. 

 

There are a few questions to be answered.  Which of the above is the controlling authority?  What is the appropriate sanction?  And by what procedure is the sanction carried out? 

 

I think it can be argued that USPSA is the authority over the match operations itself, and the host range retains authority over the premises.

 

Going under USPSA rules alone, I think it is a big stretch to DQ someone without glasses on, even if it was covered during a briefing, in the absence of any individualized warning or opportunity to rectify the problem.  That's unreasonable. 

 

Further, a DQ under 5.4.1 is DOA.  5.4.1 is a general regulation for match administration and there is no penalty listed for non-compliance. 

 

A better argument exists for 10.6.1, but it's still not a good one.  10.6 is under the heading of "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" violations, and we should use that as a guide if we consider a DQ under that section.  I can't imagine anyone arguing that walking around without glasses or earplugs is unsportsmanlike.  Stupid, sure.  But so is shooting PCC and we don't disqualify people for that.  

 

Now addressing host range rules.  It has been claimed that the host range has a very strict rule about wearing glasses at all times.  If that is the case, then a person can be asked to leave by the host range for non-compliance with range rules.  USPSA would have no jurisdiction and there would be no recourse under USPSA rules.  They would not be disqualified from the match itself.  This is an important distinction.  

 

Now where this gets tricky is whether the person that sanctions the shooter for non-compliance with a rule is acting as an agent of the host range or as a USPSA match officer.  A person could be both, so it's important to identify in which capacity he is acting.  I think that should have been declared up front and clearly, so the shooter knows what his options for recourse are.


  • SlivGod, warpspeed, snark and 4 others like this

#13 Alfred Salveti

Alfred Salveti

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 514 posts
  • LocationSugar City, USA

Posted 20 October 2017 - 10:35 AM

Probably shouldn't be a match DQ.

 

But if the range wants to kick you off the property, that's their prerogative.

 

I'm a little unsure about how the rules are being interpreted these days.  DNROI seems a mess and USPSA follows suit.

 

The reasonable request of the RO is to.....not forget to put on your eye pro?  Screw that.  If the club is going to be that intolerant, that "zero tolerance = zero common sense" USPSA shouldn't follow suit.

 

It should not be a match DQ.  It should be a "you are kicked off the property."  Your score to that point is your score.


I like to rewatch election night 2016 coverage and I want to marry a conservative black girl who likes to shoot.

#14 Sweet T

Sweet T

    Glock Master Race

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,694 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 10:55 AM

Probably shouldn't be a match DQ.

 

But if the range wants to kick you off the property, that's their prerogative.

 

I'm a little unsure about how the rules are being interpreted these days.  DNROI seems a mess and USPSA follows suit.

 

The reasonable request of the RO is to.....not forget to put on your eye pro?  Screw that.  If the club is going to be that intolerant, that "zero tolerance = zero common sense" USPSA shouldn't follow suit.

 

It should not be a match DQ.  It should be a "you are kicked off the property."  Your score to that point is your score.

 

yes



#15 Ben

Ben

    MFCEO

  • Administrators
  • 2,269 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 11:02 AM

Being kicked off range property and not allowed to participate in a USPSA match (that is open to all USPSA members in good standing) is a USPSA problem.

Ranges that arbitrarily limit access to USPSA matches should not have a USPSA club any longer.

Thats how I see it anyways. I don't know if this glasses thing was legit or not but Troy blessing it kind of scares me.
  • SlivGod, warpspeed and vluc like this

#16 Alfred Salveti

Alfred Salveti

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 514 posts
  • LocationSugar City, USA

Posted 20 October 2017 - 11:04 AM

Other reasonable requests by match officials soon to be included in pre match briefings.

 

The club here has a zero tolerance policy on speed entering or exiting the property.  If you go faster than 10mph you will be DQ'd for failure to follow the reasonable direction of a match official.

 

The club here has a zero tolerance policy on muzzle over the berm.  If your muzzle lifts over the berm you will be DQ'd for failure to follow the reasonable direction of a match official.

 

The club here does not allow dogs.  If you bring your dog onto the property you will be DQ'd for failure to follow the reasonable direction of a match official.

 

The club here does not allow alcohol on the property.  If you have any alcohol in your car and it is discovered by a RO or club official, you will be DQ'd for failing to follow the direction of a match official.

 

And my personal favorite, the club here requires all shooters to assist in pasting targets and resetting steel.  If you do not help, you will be disqualified for failure to follow the direction of a match official.  Didn't make that up, that was PVH.

 

Welcome to USPSA.

 

Zero tolerance, zero common sense.


  • Ben, vluc, McFuckPants and 1 other like this
I like to rewatch election night 2016 coverage and I want to marry a conservative black girl who likes to shoot.

#17 Vagetarian

Vagetarian

    I used to have 3 warning points.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,981 posts
  • LocationLightyears from Ben's nuts.

Posted 20 October 2017 - 11:58 AM

I like rules.


Kitten_zps66d94599.jpg
I just man-handled that prick with my Type-A personality.
Dipshit tard duckweed goat humper.

You're all a bunch of fucking idiots and retards!


#18 Woodieproject

Woodieproject

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,074 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 12:08 PM

Dude walks around other people with a gun and ammo in his immediate possession. Allegedly, dude fails to follow a repeatedly verbalized safety instruction. That's kosher?

I understand a regulatory overreach but somehow I am less concerned about under what premise he's kicked out of the match, and more interested in that he's indeed kicked out. There are rules, procedures and bylaws, and there's common sense. If someone [allegedly] doesn't give a fuck about listening to what people say or following a reasonable safety request, there should be repercussions.
Bonafide asshole

#19 Mike Foley

Mike Foley

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 907 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 12:08 PM

Being kicked off range property and not allowed to participate in a USPSA match (that is open to all USPSA members in good standing) is a USPSA problem.

Ranges that arbitrarily limit access to USPSA matches should not have a USPSA club any longer.
.


How does USPSA force a property owner to accept someone who is barred from their private property? What legal implications could there be? You are big on unintended consequences, so consider this, I know of a club where two members had restraining orders against one another in the past, and another where two guys pulled guns on one another in the parking lot. I'm not down with forcing people to play together just because they like the framework of a USPSA match. The glasses thing appears to have been handled poorly. The best assessment here is the one by Sweet T above. Ranges gonna range.

#20 aceinyerface

aceinyerface

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,166 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 12:26 PM

I don't give 2 shits about some doofus who took off his eyepro.

 

I do care that there seems to be no official process being followed for issuing official rulings. 

 

Shit just kind of happens as if it were some outlaw match. Not good. I expect to see at least some attempt at structure.

 

I would prefer to see ANY ruling issued on ANYTHING be posted on the USPSA website for all to see. https://www.uspsa.or...ngs-listing.php

 

It is very unprofessional to have to find out what gun parts are legal by searching the enos forum for a 2nd hand email from the DNROI, or have to monitor a dozen Facebook pages for DNROI rulings on match DQs.

 

The USPSA can and should do better.


  • Ben, Mistadobalina, GuanoLoco and 1 other like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users