Jump to content


Photo

David Bold on Glasses DQ


  • Please log in to reply
206 replies to this topic

#21 Ben

Ben

    MFCEO

  • Administrators
  • 2,269 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 12:43 PM

How does USPSA force a property owner to accept someone who is barred from their private property?


This doesnt follow from anything I said.

If a range hosts a uspsa club and the uspsa club sets up a match then nobody is forcing the range to do shit. The range is hosting a uspsa event and uspsa events are open to uspsa members.

Occasinally fucksticks get banned and ranges gonna range and all that. I get it.

What I am pointing out is this is 2 way street. Holding a uspsa match comes with certain strings. If people dont like strings being attached then maybe they dont need to affiliate with uspsa and agree to them.

Ranges occasionally pull bullshit and sometiemes you need to get rid of people from a match. Maybe this was one of those times and maybe not. I dont know.
  • Mistadobalina likes this

#22 Mike Foley

Mike Foley

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 907 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 12:57 PM

This doesnt follow from anything I said.

If a range hosts a uspsa club and the uspsa club sets up a match then nobody is forcing the range to do shit. The range is hosting a uspsa event and uspsa events are open to uspsa members.

Occasinally fucksticks get banned and ranges gonna range and all that. I get it.

What I am pointing out is this is 2 way street. Holding a uspsa match comes with certain strings. If people dont like strings being attached then maybe they dont need to affiliate with uspsa and agree to them.

Ranges occasionally pull bullshit and sometiemes you need to get rid of people from a match. Maybe this was one of those times and maybe not. I dont know.

Ok. Agreed. Sometimes there are three entities. My club as an example, has the big club that owns and governs the property, the pistol division that has access to part of the property and hosts events for 6-7 sports, and the USPSA matches which are run by an even smaller group. If the big club bans a member, or puts in place some stupid rule, them the only way for those who want USPSA to have a place to host it have to comply. The big club could get rid of USPSA, or one guy. I'll miss that one guy, but I would miss my monthly match more. Some clubs don't even own their property, and that gets even more tricky. Some USPSA matches are hosted at public indoor range busienesses, so add the business owner to the list. There should be no fluid part of USPSA rules. A property owner, business owner, or big club could usually care less about USPSA. We need them more than they need us.

#23 mosher

mosher

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 162 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 12:59 PM

If the guy was asked to leave by range because of range rule he should've been DNF'ed and scores up to that point stood in match.

If a regular range member at this range takes off glasses to wipe face not during a match are they immediately asked to leave like this?

#24 Ben

Ben

    MFCEO

  • Administrators
  • 2,269 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 01:00 PM

Let me express it this way:

I dont look so much at the "can they DQ this guy" angle here. I am more interested in asking the Match Organizer:

"Are you sure you want to run your match as a USPSA event? Maybe IDPA affiliation is a better fit?"
  • warpspeed, Mistadobalina and Will like this

#25 Mike Foley

Mike Foley

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 907 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 01:14 PM

Let me express it this way:

I dont look so much at the "can they DQ this guy" angle here. I am more interested in asking the Match Organizer:

"Are you sure you want to run your match as a USPSA event? Maybe IDPA affiliation is a better fit?"

I agree. Unfortunately, as I pointed out, the match organizers may not have control over the premises rulers who may not profit in any way from USPSA. Remember, we can't have a Nats in Vegas because of gun club BS.

#26 Mike Foley

Mike Foley

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 907 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 01:14 PM

Let me express it this way:

I dont look so much at the "can they DQ this guy" angle here. I am more interested in asking the Match Organizer:

"Are you sure you want to run your match as a USPSA event? Maybe IDPA affiliation is a better fit?"

I agree. Unfortunately, as I pointed out, the match organizers may not have control over the premises rulers who may not profit in any way from USPSA. Remember, we can't have a Nats in Vegas because of gun club BS.

#27 snark

snark

    Aberrant Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,097 posts
  • LocationNull Island

Posted 20 October 2017 - 01:32 PM

On the flip side, our range (completely separate from the USPSA club-- all we do is rent the dirt once a month) was all set to make matches follow a bunch of inane "safety" rules like 'no muzzle over the berm ever' and require 'all pistols to be locked open when not on the line' and crap like that. When we pointed to the 'no local rules' section of the USPSA rules, they decided they wanted USPSA more than they wanted to make up stupid rules. If it gets out that stupid local rules are now OK, I wouldn't be surprised to see them come back; lose-lose for everyone.

The 'open to everybody' rule also made it so the MD couldn't just arbitrarily ban shooters they had personal disagreements with (personal disagreements, not general asshattedness on the shooters part... they just wanted to shoot a match). The way this is interpreted now, I don't know if that's still a thing.

There is power in the USPSA brand and USPSA rules, don't just say 'eh well, whatta can we do??'. Anything outside the USPSA rulebook should not be up to USPSA to police.
  • Ben and Alfred Salveti like this

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

 


#28 Suck It Trebek

Suck It Trebek

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

Posted 20 October 2017 - 01:47 PM

If the guy was asked to leave by range because of range rule he should've been DNF'ed and scores up to that point stood in match.

If a regular range member at this range takes off glasses to wipe face not during a match are they immediately asked to leave like this?

 

Do we even know if the guy was asked/told to leave immediately?  Or just told, "You've been DQ'd for not having on glasses, now put them on."



#29 waktasz

waktasz

    Admin

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,090 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 01:58 PM

He stayed around all day because someone else was his ride.



#30 Will

Will

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,430 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 03:08 PM


  • MEISTERB likes this

#31 (Sh)ItJustGotReal

(Sh)ItJustGotReal

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 922 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 03:45 PM

Every range I've ever been to, (at least 20+ different ones) has the rule requiring eye protection.  So it's fair to say that I can start DQ'ing motherfuckers for taking off their eye pro.

 

I don't care who you are.  I will DQ Max for this shit he pulls at :25.  

 

 

 

https://youtu.be/NRy_FVIvc_M?t=27s


  • Mistadobalina likes this

#32 Will

Will

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,430 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 04:12 PM

Don't you think that's an extreme position for what he did at .25?

I'd argue it would be unsafe to not allow him to wipe sweat going into his eyes while he's operating a pistol.

Life is not black or white...

#33 (Sh)ItJustGotReal

(Sh)ItJustGotReal

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 922 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 04:28 PM

Don't you think that's an extreme position for what he did at .25?

I'd argue it would be unsafe to not allow him to wipe sweat going into his eyes while he's operating a pistol.

Life is not black or white...

 

The precedent has been set.  



#34 slink

slink

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,271 posts
  • LocationWA

Posted 20 October 2017 - 04:43 PM

I only remove my glasses in the portajohn dryfire cubicle
  • aceinyerface likes this

#35 Peally

Peally

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 20 October 2017 - 05:49 PM

I take my shit off all the time in my squad's bay. When it's 90 degrees out fuck wearing that stuff for 9 hours straight.
  • Cajun cracker likes this

#36 not that bryan

not that bryan

    Fuckstick

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,876 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 05:52 PM

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.

It seems to me that "failure to follow reasonable direction of a match official" seems to be the way to enforce local rules instead of playing by the USPSA rules.

If local rules are not enforceable, but a match official stating the same thing is somehow enforceable, then there is no longer a prohibition against local rules.
  • Yard Sale, (Sh)ItJustGotReal and McFuckPants like this

#37 (Sh)ItJustGotReal

(Sh)ItJustGotReal

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 922 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 06:10 PM

It seems to me that "failure to follow reasonable direction of a match official" seems to be the way to enforce local rules instead of playing by the USPSA rules.

If local rules are not enforceable, but a match official stating the same thing is somehow enforceable, then there is no longer a prohibition against local rules.

 

Exactly.  I don't see why a club can't say that shooters aren't allowed to let their muzzle go over the berm or whatever "safety" rule they deem important to the range.

 

The entire point of this ordeal is that there is a rule in place that states clubs must obtain approval from USPSA Prez in these types of matters.  

 

Troy saying that this isn't the case anymore sets the precedent that clubs can instate whatever local rules they want, without USPSA approval, because safety.



#38 not that bryan

not that bryan

    Fuckstick

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,876 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 06:16 PM

Exactly. I don't see why a club can't say that shooters aren't allowed to let their muzzle go over the berm or whatever "safety" rule they deem important to the range.

The entire point of this ordeal is that there is a rule in place that states clubs must obtain approval from USPSA Prez in these types of matters.

Troy saying that this isn't the case anymore sets the precedent that clubs can instate whatever local rules they want, without USPSA approval, because safety.


Exactly

#39 waktasz

waktasz

    Admin

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,090 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 06:30 PM

It seems to me that "failure to follow reasonable direction of a match official" seems to be the way to enforce local rules instead of playing by the USPSA rules.

If local rules are not enforceable, but a match official stating the same thing is somehow enforceable, then there is no longer a prohibition against local rules.

 

If only the match official had said "hey dickhead, glasses on , NOW", but no, the match briefing now contains official range commands that must be followed.

 

Is attendance of the match brief required by the rulebook?

 



#40 (Sh)ItJustGotReal

(Sh)ItJustGotReal

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 922 posts

Posted 20 October 2017 - 06:42 PM

If only the match official had said "hey dickhead, glasses on , NOW", but no, the match briefing now contains official range commands that must be followed.

 

Is attendance of the match brief required by the rulebook?

 

 

As long as I explicitly point out whatever local safety rule I want in the shooter's meeting, I can DQ people right?  All without getting USPSA approval.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users