If hearing protection is loss during the COF the RO should and would stop the shooter....if done intentionally he goes home early......you shouldn't wait until he finish, I least I wouldn't. Safety is and should be the primary concern for the RO....this is for the safety of the shooter hearing.
IPSC Rule question.
- Thread starter IPSCSouthpaw
- Start date
beltfed said:
If they fell off...the RO would just give a re-shoot. I wouldn;t expect the RO to be able to spy some of those tiny little plugs while on the move...so he would stop him immediatly. The RO has better things to look at then the inside of someones ear. - No DQ
If he purposly removed them...that happens for 1 of 2 reasons
...wanted a reshoot (which is obvioulsy not the reason in this case...seems like a good guy), or
...did it for a competative advantage...got closer to the ground...or to a wall or whatever...
Both of those are no no's...and both are DQ's
I will pose a formal question to NROI...but this seems pretty clear to me (according to the rule book)...but I have been wrong before
Last edited:
beltfed said:
Well is the cup full or half empty?
Fell off, removed......same thing just the result would be different for the shooter......fell off reshoot, removed DQ
Looking forward to the interpretation......even if the rules are pretty clear on the subject.
From the original post this was only a question......I wasn't there but most likely from a BB student.
Actually, it wasn't a black badge student that asked it, it was myself while assisting a black badge class. My first in fact. While we were going over the test on Sunday, the question just sort of popped into my head. Since none of the students asked, I thought I would. We didn't have the time to spend going back and forth on the issue, so we moved on and I made a point of posting the question on Gun Nutz. Obviously the rule book will never answer all the "what ifs" we will run into as RO's, and this is why it seems that much of the rules are left to interpretation. Thanks for all the responses. See you in PoCo.
IPSCSouthpaw
IPSCSouthpaw
beltfed said:
Absolutly not.. if the RO was unsure, he should have yelled STOP immediatly. Safety is the #1 concern, and shooting without hearing protection is unsafe. An RO can't expect to know if a person is double plugged or not.. if he see them fall/pulled off he has to assume there are no other plugs. (unless he can see them. ) Not all plugs are very visable once put in.
if he was wrong, they at least it was done safely, and the shooter can reshoot.
CKC123 is bag on. Same as a squib. Better to call and be wrong and have them get a free reshoot then to not call and have someone get hurt. No hearing protection Hurts.
This was a big issue on my range at Nat'l this year. I had the little mouse holes on the elevated deck. (No I did not design them. (Fat guys do not design things to have them lay flat on the ground.) Because on the port being so low to ground allot of shooters were losing their ear defenders.
Ruling made at that time by RM was regardless of double plugging the intentinal removing of hearing protection was DQ offence. If they fell we stopped you. If we saw you doing during the walk through we made it clear. Also a box of plugs was available for those who wished to use them. No one DQ’d for it as I recall.
This was a big issue on my range at Nat'l this year. I had the little mouse holes on the elevated deck. (No I did not design them. (Fat guys do not design things to have them lay flat on the ground.) Because on the port being so low to ground allot of shooters were losing their ear defenders.
Ruling made at that time by RM was regardless of double plugging the intentinal removing of hearing protection was DQ offence. If they fell we stopped you. If we saw you doing during the walk through we made it clear. Also a box of plugs was available for those who wished to use them. No one DQ’d for it as I recall.
ok So I start the day wearing big puffy hearing protection, get to a stage where I know I am going to go prone to shoot through a port, and know I can get a better position with in the ear plugs. So I use them instead, now what?
really? but if we can't change our mag setups each stage, and we are now to assume our hearing protection is allied equipment, then I would expect to not be able to change our glasses or hearing protection every stage.
ckc123 said:
Yes, I agree, and I understand the reasoning behind the rules.... however.
Individual chooses to run the stage without muffs, just plugs -all is good.
Individual runs stage with just muffs, muffs fall off, R.O. stops stage -re-shoot -all is good... or is it? how do you discern muffs being accidentally bumped, or ones that are intentionally jarred off but made to look like an accident?
Individual runs muffs & plugs, decides (for whatever reason) muffs are a detriment, and intentionally removes them. Certainly R.O.s don't think people are silly enough to shoot without hearing protection? Where is the advantage in taking a couple of seconds to discard the muffs & keep shooting?
If the muffs are intentionally removed, do you as an R.O. imediately stop the stage, or do you wait out on the further actions of the shooter?
I don't want to beat a dead horse here, I'm just interested in what people think, as I'm guessing there would be likely more that a few different reactions from different R.O.s
Slavex said:
Huh
You're reading way too much into this
It doesn't state that ear/eye protection is allied equipment...but there are rules regarding removing them during the course of fire...
No need to make it anymore complicated than it needs to be
beltfed said:
or run up the side of a berm to shoot over the the walls, or shoot through the back side of a target cause they can see it.. or shoot at stage props seeing if they can cause a range malfunction cause they hit a N.S. We like to give the benefit of the doubt, but it does happen People will push the rules as far as they can. In this case the outcome has already been determined, the R.O just have to decide if it was intentional or not.
Slavex said:
What a silly argument. If you broke a mag you'd get another. If you broke a gun part you'd get another. If you lost your glassess you'd get another pair. What's the difficulty with this "allied equipment" stuff? Man, it doesn't get any simpler than this.
So in summary,
Muffs/hat's/clothing are not Allied equipment, that's stuff on your gun belt. I can change stuff that's not 'equipment' during a stage EXECEPT changing hearing protection to gain a competive advantage, because there is a specific rule that says I can't take my muffs off to gain an advantage during a stage.
I can start a stage using any combination of plug/muffs/excessive earwax buildup I want to protect my hearing. Just as I can have a different outfit for every stage if I want to. (Well that might be a bit excessive but a good example in knee pads, just coz I wear them on one stage I don't have to wear them for the whole match).
So if I get halfway through a stage and discover my 'rave disco-fairy wings' are preventing me from getting down to that tricky port I can take them off. If in doing so I accidentally dislodge my muffs I get a reshoot.
However if I "accidentally" whack my muffs on a stage prop to dislodge them just because I hit the no-shoot that was 4 feet away from any other targets on a particular stage I get DQ'd.
Wow, glad we cleared that up...........oh wait a minute........
The rules say I cannot take my hearing protection off the gain a 'competitive advantage' BUT if I got halfway through a stage and just decided to go from plugs to muff's or vice versa because I'm a royal pain-in-the-behind kind of guy there's no rule against that, there would be no competitive advantage in doing so and therefore no DQ.
Sorry Quigley just had to bring that scenario up!
Muffs/hat's/clothing are not Allied equipment, that's stuff on your gun belt. I can change stuff that's not 'equipment' during a stage EXECEPT changing hearing protection to gain a competive advantage, because there is a specific rule that says I can't take my muffs off to gain an advantage during a stage.
I can start a stage using any combination of plug/muffs/excessive earwax buildup I want to protect my hearing. Just as I can have a different outfit for every stage if I want to. (Well that might be a bit excessive but a good example in knee pads, just coz I wear them on one stage I don't have to wear them for the whole match).
So if I get halfway through a stage and discover my 'rave disco-fairy wings' are preventing me from getting down to that tricky port I can take them off.
If in doing so I accidentally dislodge my muffs I get a reshoot.However if I "accidentally" whack my muffs on a stage prop to dislodge them just because I hit the no-shoot that was 4 feet away from any other targets on a particular stage I get DQ'd.
Wow, glad we cleared that up...........oh wait a minute........
The rules say I cannot take my hearing protection off the gain a 'competitive advantage' BUT if I got halfway through a stage and just decided to go from plugs to muff's or vice versa because I'm a royal pain-in-the-behind kind of guy there's no rule against that, there would be no competitive advantage in doing so and therefore no DQ.
Sorry Quigley just had to bring that scenario up!
not reading too much into it. If a competitor has both plugs and muffs on, and he removes the muffs during a COF, in essence he isn't removing his hearing protection. True it would cause confusion, but I would think he'd win in arbitration, unless there is a specific rule that addresses extra hearing protection and it's removal.
However if the worry is about a competitive advantage, why does it only apply during a COF, why not for the whole day? if you start wearing them, you have to finish the day with them, no swapping out as the COF designs call for. I think perhaps the rule should be more clearly written to avoid any arbitrations on the matter. it would be a simple rewrite.
However if the worry is about a competitive advantage, why does it only apply during a COF, why not for the whole day? if you start wearing them, you have to finish the day with them, no swapping out as the COF designs call for. I think perhaps the rule should be more clearly written to avoid any arbitrations on the matter. it would be a simple rewrite.
In actually removing the outer hearing protection during a COF in itself isn't gaining a competitive advantage... it is however at face value affording you a re shoot because you freaked out the R.O. and if s/he did their job right would have stopped you. It is that re shoot that can be determined to be the competitive advantage.Slavex said:
for example you realized you could have shot that stage differently or make up mikes...etc.... So if you do that on purpose for a re-shoot then it is a D.Q. ...
Safety equipment is not Allied Equipment.... it is just that... Safety Equipment... It can be removed, changed or worn in different combinations it is however required to be worn during COF.... And because it's required to be worn they came up with this rule ..one.. for the protection of the shooter and secondly... because it's mandatory equipment there exists an inherent avenue for abuse... All this does is prevent shooters from ripping off their glasses or muffs turn to R.O. and say... oooops sorry my muffs came off I'll re-shoot this again thanks...
If you are at a stage and see that a low port or a narrow opening will make you slow down because of Ur muffs then you can wear just inner ear protection and discard the muffs for the stage No Problems.... if you only have muffs then you need to take care of where your Head is ( and Ur firearm)
it's simple... Arguing that it's allied Equipment is way off.... and no You wouldn't win in arbitration...
Seriously let petition IPSC for new starting commands ....
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
Problem solved....
Last edited:
