IPSC Rule question.

I

IPSCSouthpaw

Member
EE Expired
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
Winnipeg
I don't have the rule book in front of me, but I know it's a match DQ if a competitor removes his glasses or hearing protection during a course of fire to gain an advantage. For example, a really low port and the ear muffs are stopping them from getting low enough. My question is, what happens if a competitor removes his ear muffs in this situation, the RO stops him, and the competitor shows the RO that he had inner ear plugs(Some of those things are really in there and hard to see) under his muffs, is it a re-shoot or a match DQ because the competitor started the course of fire with them on, and then removed them for advantage?



IPSCSouthpaw
 
The rule has to do with the fact that the RO must stop a competitor whose ear or eye protection get accidentally torn off, the shooter then gets a reshoot...it is a DQ if the shooter is having a bad stage and then causes his ear or eye protection to come off on purpose to get the reshoot.
 
Ask yourself.. How's the RO to know he has the inner ear, before he yells "stop" cause he saw then get knocked off.??? Safety first..

If it was accidental then give a reshoot.. if intentional, then DQ.
 
It appears the question is a little difficult to answer because it is not in the rule book. That is why I believe it comes down to the RO's opinion of advantage gained. The problem is, most of the penalties given for advantage gained, say by faulting a line to get a better visual of a target, end up being procedural penalties, and not DQ's. Now, I understand this is quite different, but it was a good question brought up at a Black Badge course this weekend.






IPSCSouthpaw
 
IPSCSouthpaw said:
but it was a good question brought up at a Black Badge course this weekend.
IPSCSouthpaw
Click to expand...

And let me just add that it was a great course this weekend. Big thanks to all who helped put it on. (please excuse the potential thread highjack).
 
Reshoot

IPSCSouthpaw said:
... a really low port and the ear muffs are stopping them from getting low enough. My question is, what happens if a competitor removes his ear muffs in this situation, the RO stops him, and the competitor shows the RO that he had inner ear plugs(Some of those things are really in there and hard to see) under his muffs, is it a re-shoot or a match DQ because the competitor started the course of fire with them on, and then removed them for advantage?
Click to expand...

A DQ is issued for safety violations and other unacceptable conduct. In the circumstances described the competitor knows he is double-plugged and presumably intends to continue the stage, so although he has removed part of his ear protection he has not caused the loss of it because the inner plugs remain in place.

The competitor could have obtained equal or (likely) greater advantage by not wearing the ear muffs in the first place.

It would be difficult for the RO to know that the competitor removed the ear muffs to obtain a reshoot.

So there doesn't seem to be a safety issue, and while it may be a little gamey I doubt a DQ would be appropriate – it seems more like an error on the part of the RO for not realizing the competitor was using inner plugs.

5.4.3 If a Range Official notices that a competitor has lost or displaced their eye or ear protection during a course
of fire, or has commenced a course of fire without them, the Range Official must immediately stop the
competitor who will be required to reshoot the course of fire after the protective devices have been restored.

5.4.4 A competitor who inadvertently loses eye or ear protection during a course of fire, or commences a course of
fire without them, is entitled to stop, point their firearm in a safe direction and indicate the problem to the
Range Official, in which case the provisions of the previous rule will apply.

5.4.5 Any attempt to gain a competitive advantage by removing eye and/or ear protection during a course of fire
will be considered unsportsmanlike conduct (see Rule 10.6.2).

10.6.2 A competitor who is deemed by a Range Officer to have intentionally removed or caused the loss of eye or
ear protection in order to gain a competitive advantage will be disqualified.​

Snapshot
 
Snapshot said:
A DQ is issued for safety violations and other unacceptable conduct. In the circumstances described the competitor knows he is double-plugged and presumably intends to continue the stage, so although he has removed part of his ear protection he has not caused the loss of it because the inner plugs remain in place.

The competitor could have obtained equal or (likely) greater advantage by not wearing the ear muffs in the first place.

It would be difficult for the RO to know that the competitor removed the ear muffs to obtain a reshoot.

So there doesn't seem to be a safety issue, and while it may be a little gamey I doubt a DQ would be appropriate – it seems more like an error on the part of the RO for not realizing the competitor was using inner plugs.

5.4.3 If a Range Official notices that a competitor has lost or displaced their eye or ear protection during a course
of fire, or has commenced a course of fire without them, the Range Official must immediately stop the
competitor who will be required to reshoot the course of fire after the protective devices have been restored.

5.4.4 A competitor who inadvertently loses eye or ear protection during a course of fire, or commences a course of
fire without them, is entitled to stop, point their firearm in a safe direction and indicate the problem to the
Range Official, in which case the provisions of the previous rule will apply.

5.4.5 Any attempt to gain a competitive advantage by removing eye and/or ear protection during a course of fire
will be considered unsportsmanlike conduct (see Rule 10.6.2).

10.6.2 A competitor who is deemed by a Range Officer to have intentionally removed or caused the loss of eye or
ear protection in order to gain a competitive advantage will be disqualified.​

Snapshot
Click to expand...

Actually...it's a DQ no matter what (double plugged or not) There's a fine line between 5.4.5 and 10.6.2...but the effect is the same....the competitor equipment was intentionally removed.

It would be no different than removing a couple of mag pouches for a stage where you start lying down...it's an unfair advantage...it's a DQ
 
Last edited:
Quigley said:
Actually...it's a DQ no matter what (double plugged or not) There's a fine line between 5.4.5 and 10.6.2...but the effect is the same....the competitor equipment was intentionally removed.
Click to expand...

The operative word is intentionally.

He removed it, that's a DQ, and I'm not talking ice cream at the Dairy Queen.
 
You needed to remove muffs to shoot through a port?
I don't have my rule book handy either, but isn't there a rule about stage design making the course of fire accesible to all?

If he was double plugged, he technically didn't remove his ear protection.:confused:
 
It would be no different than removing a couple of mag pouches for a stage where you start lying down...it's an unfair advantage...it's a DQ
Click to expand...

Quigley, Please quote the rule that supports this conclusion.

So if a mag pouch broke and fell during the stage it would be a DQ? or a procedural? or nothing but a broken mag pouch?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigley
Actually...it's a DQ no matter what (double plugged or not) There's a fine line between 5.4.5 and 10.6.2...but the effect is the same....the competitor equipment was intentionally removed.

If there was a stage so stupid that you could not shoot through the port with you earmuffs on,....and you were double plugged so you removed the muffs....and the RO stopped you..which he might....and they tried to make the DQ stick.....then you are shooting at a match run by very stupid people...just run away.

People who do not understand the rule will attempt to apply it blindly where it does not apply.

IF YOU ARE DOUBLE PLUGGED you have not removed your ear protection. What next, you can't remove your hat to shoot a stage with a cooper tunnel.
 
Ipsik said:
Quigley, Please quote the rule that supports this conclusion.

So if a mag pouch broke and fell during the stage it would be a DQ? or a procedural? or nothing but a broken mag pouch?
Click to expand...


Removing a Mag pouch prior to the stage:

"5.2.5.3 Unless specified in the written stage briefing, or unless required by a Range Officer, the position of holsters and allied equipment must not be moved or changed by a competitor during a match. If a retaining strap is attached to a holster, it must be applied or closed prior to issuance of the "Standby" command (see Rule 8.3.3).

So you can imagine the scenrio...RO tells you to put the mag pouch back on...you say no...we all know what happens next.

An actual broken mag pouch

Obvioulsy not a problem...of course a good RO would verify

A convenient or make believe broken mag pouch

...that's a problem (and unsportsman like conduct) Good thing the smart shooters know better than to attrack that kind of attention during the match...who needs the additional stress


Cheers
 
Last edited:
Ipsik said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigley
Actually...it's a DQ no matter what (double plugged or not) There's a fine line between 5.4.5 and 10.6.2...but the effect is the same....the competitor equipment was intentionally removed.

If there was a stage so stupid that you could not shoot through the port with you earmuffs on,....and you were double plugged so you removed the muffs....and the RO stopped you..which he might....and they tried to make the DQ stick.....then you are shooting at a match run by very stupid people...just run away.

People who do not understand the rule will attempt to apply it blindly where it does not apply.

IF YOU ARE DOUBLE PLUGGED you have not removed your ear protection. What next, you can't remove your hat to shoot a stage with a cooper tunnel.
Click to expand...

You can choose to start the stage without the muffs (and just use plugs) but you can't remove them during the course of fire...

There's alway a third option (and what I did during that stage)

Step 1 - think long and hard about...should i double plug or not
Step 2 - make sure that I can;t just remove them (ask the RM)
Step 3 - after clarification from the RM that if I start with muffs...I better end with muffs...decide if I can go it with plugs alone (damn open guns are loud)...think , think, think
Step 4 - decide to play it safe...I'll use the plugs and the muffs
Step 5 - load and and ready...and leave the damn muffs on the side of my head (read...forget to actually put them on my ears)
Step 6 - shoot the stage with the muffs so high on my head...it's even harder the shoot the low port
Step 7 (final step) - try and make the ringing stop...:runaway:

regarding the hat...well that's not "equipment"
 
since when is hearing protection "allied equipment"? if a person is double protected and wants to remove the outer ears, I can't interpret a rule that prevents him from doing so. just like they could remove their jock strap if they wanted to.
 
Slavex...

Removal of hearing protection is pretty clear - double plugged or not (see rule 5.4.3 - 5.4.5 and 10.6.2) - Allowing the removeal of the outer ears...is just inviting a slew of arbitrations for those that were looking for a re-shoot and got caught.

Removal of equipment is covered under rule 5.2.5.3

It seems pretty clear to me...no need to interpret anything.
 
Slavex said:
since when is hearing protection "allied equipment"? if a person is double protected and wants to remove the outer ears, I can't interpret a rule that prevents him from doing so. just like they could remove their jock strap if they wanted to.
Click to expand...

I agree safety equipment does not equal allied equipment.... allied equipment cannot be altered after you start the match but you can choose to double plug or not at anytime during the match or change lenses on safety glasses during the match if lighting conditions change thus not the same and those rules don't apply...however Quigley is right that removing outer hearing protection while doubled plugged on purpose during a COF would be a D.Q. but not because of allied equipment rule but unsportsmanlike conduct 5.4.5 which kicks in 10.6.2. I would further suggest that the onus would be on R.O. to prove it was intentionally done for purpose of re-shoot.... so it really needs to be obvious...

new starting commands coming soon...

are you doubled plugged???
Do you plan on removing the muffs??
Load and make ready...
Last chance to tell me now if your gonna do anything weird...
RU ready??
Stand by

seriously gaming is one thing.... and accidents are another.... unsportsmanlike like conduct I feel is an automatic D.Q.... no reason for it...
 
Last edited:
maxpig said:
new starting commands coming soon...

are you doubled plugged???
Do you plan on removing the muffs??
Load and make ready...
Last chance to tell me now if your gonna do anything weird...
RU ready??
Stand by
Click to expand...

Now that's funny :D

...but let's not give the rule book committe any ideas :cool:
 
Maybe the problem is in interpreting the phrase "hearing protection". I suspect that the rule is not considering the possibilty of "double plugs" and perhaps should be reworded to be something like:

10.6.2 A competitor who is deemed by a Range Officer to have intentionally removed or caused the loss of ALL eye or ALL ear protection in order to gain a competitive advantage will be disqualified.
Click to expand...

Of course, this means that it is possible for a shooter to "give himself" a reshoot by removing a set of earmuffs and waiting for the RO to stop him. Potentially open to abuse, but no more than the days of the shooter backing up into the RO to try and make contact and get a reshoot.
 
Ah but if the shooter removed his protection waiting for an R.O. to do his job would this not be to gain a competitive advantage.

I shoot ####ty so I will pull my ears and wait "Oh Reshoot , Lucky me, What do you mean DQ"
 
hungrybeagle said:
Maybe the problem is in interpreting the phrase "hearing protection". I suspect that the rule is not considering the possibilty of "double plugs" and perhaps should be reworded to be something like:



Of course, this means that it is possible for a shooter to "give himself" a reshoot by removing a set of earmuffs and waiting for the RO to stop him. Potentially open to abuse, but no more than the days of the shooter backing up into the RO to try and make contact and get a reshoot.
Click to expand...

I believe there is nothing wrong with the original wording, it doesn't say 'some' of the hearing protection, so it doesn't need to say 'all'.
The problem lies in people's interpretation.
Removing muffs in this case did not warrant a DQ, and nothing in the rules indicate that it did. If the RO was unsure, he simply could have waited until the shooter was finished to confirm that ear protection was or was not in place. He jumped the gun and stopped the shooter. The shooter should have received a re-shoot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom