Discuss: Safety

[BaiHu]

We can circle jerk all of this to death, but in the first 3 chapters of USPSA Rule Book I see mention of safety in:

1.1.1: Safety – USPSA matches must be designed, constructed and conducted with due consideration to safety.

And 2.1.1: Physical Construction – Safety considerations in the design, physical construction and stated requirements for any course of fire are the responsibility of the host organization subject to the approval of the Range Master. Reasonable effort must be made to prevent injury to competitors, officials and spectators during the match. Course design should prevent inadvertent unsafe actions wherever possible. Consideration must be given to the operation of any course of fire to provide suitable access for officials supervising the competitors.

And 3.1: The competitor is always responsible to safely fulfill the requirements of a course of fire but can only reasonably be expected to do so after verbally or physically receiving the written stage briefing, which must adequately explain the requirements to the competitors. Course information can be broadly divided into the following types:

So the question remains: is the sport adequately pushing safety in a sport that makes safety a primary, secondary and tertiary concern?

[PPGMD]

Perhaps this is making Todd's point: That gaming rules allow unsafe practices to develop. With IDPA you get one warning. I would like to see that in USPSA. The typical reaction is to talk to the shooter afterwards and informally tell him to watch it. That just doesn't seem like the right approach when it comes to safety.

I disagree, I hate it when I am RO'd by IDPA SOs in USPSA, and they yell that stupid shit at me.

If I am getting close to the 180 to engage a target, it is probably because there was no better plan that didn't involve me doing that. Believe me, I hate shooting close to the 180 degree line, as there it is too fraught with chance to hit DQ for a Blizzard. But if I am doing it the last thing I need is someone yelling muzzle at me.

[GJM]

Proponents of the press out seem to think that having sights on the target while working the trigger somehow inoculates them against shooting the wrong thing. Of course sights on target does nothing to prevent problems with trigger control. Consider what percentage of handgun shots are missed because of sight alignment and what percentage because of trigger control issues.

If I am the hostage down range, I could care less about whether the "good guy" saving me does an index draw, press out or some combination. I just don't want the shooter saving me to work the trigger until the gun has stopped, and he has aimed. Period.

[cclaxton]

Actually IDPA rules allow bad habits to develop, because you get a warning before getting the DQ. In USPSA there is no leeway. If you see that as an RO, and you are sure, it's a trip home.

Remember when IDPA gave 3 warnings before issuing the DQ? I'd like to think my "IDPA doesn't care about safety" thread on IDPA forum had a lot to do with that rule being immediately retracted.

The problem with the USPSA rule is that no RO wants to send a shooter home for the 1st, or sometimes even 2nd infraction, so they "counsel" them after they shoot a stage. IDPA has more new shooters than USPSA, and I like the rule that you get one warning. It makes it official and you don't go home automatically after one.
Cody

[joshs]

Do admins censor things often here?

Only when members fail to abide by the Code of Conduct. Please read it.

[Ben B]

The problem with the USPSA rule is that no RO wants to send a shooter home for the 1st, or sometimes even 2nd infraction, so they "counsel" them after they shoot a stage. IDPA has more new shooters than USPSA, and I like the rule that you get one warning. It makes it official and you don't go home automatically after one.
Cody

In practice, IDPA SOs don't want to DQ someone for a warnable offense. Since this rule became effective, SOs warn people less because they know a second warning will mandate a DQ (or they just ignore the rule).

[Alpha Sierra]

So the question remains: is the sport adequately pushing safety in a sport that makes safety a primary, secondary and tertiary concern?

The sport's safety record speaks for itself, and it does so favorably.

[BaiHu]

The sport's safety record speaks for itself, and it does so favorably.

I agree, but complacency and falling back on past performances is never a way to look/go forward or improve.

[cclaxton]

In practice, IDPA SOs don't want to DQ someone for a warnable offense. Since this rule became effective, SOs warn people less because they know a second warning will mandate a DQ (or they just ignore the rule).

Ben, This probably varies by region and by club. I am Match Director at three clubs (Peacemaker, Thurmont, and NRA IDPA), and I manage about 20 Safety Officers across all these clubs. I also attend at least six sanctioned matches a year and a number of other USPSA matches in-between. I can tell you that my Safety Officers will call FINGER and will DQ, per the rule. Each SO may be more or less lenient/diligent, but they know the expectation I set for the matches where I am MD. There are a few sanctioned matches that I would like to see more finger calls on, but I don't run them, so I won't out them. I don't want to start any kind of USPSA verus IDPA debate, as I shoot them both, and this is not to disparage USPSA, but in my experience I have seen more RO's be lenient with the finger rule at USPSA matches. That may be anecdotal since I only shoot three USPSA clubs in the area.
Cody

[Alpha Sierra]

I agree, but complacency and falling back on past performances is never a way to look/go forward or improve.

What is there to improve? At some point things are good enough.

I'm a dues paying USPSA member and do not want any more verbiage added to the rule book. It is large enough and it is doing its job.