Feel sorry guys calling themselves as ROs and giving verdicts through vedio footage. You must be a 3rd umpire in cricket. Not in IPSC. For some no 180 violation, therefor no DQ. For others he fell, therefor no DQ. But for sensible people who watched this, there could have been sweeping. Yes, he swept his gun across both his knees. For those who cant visualize this DQ, plz remember thats why the rule book says vedio footage is not an evidence for arbitration. RO in situ is the best judge.
3) It was SO clearly a DQ ! All the comments below that say they could not see it are blind ! It's obvious. Slow it down and look at the position of both his arms.
It's an unacceptable breach of safety. Sorry, but the rules stand. This was clearly a DQ.
based on what i see in the video, application of IPSC rules does not cover this fall under a DQ. the gun did not touch the ground, no sweeping..no 180 degree violation. i suggest, that IPSC consider a fall a DQ since it is difficult to judge whether the safety condition under this case was a controlled one or it just happened. obviously whenever there is a fall, safety is compromised due to out of balance.
While I don't see either a 180 or a sweep I'll rarely second guess a RO. I've officiated in enough other sports to know that it is a tough, thankless job by and large and you do the best you can.
Not that it matters on video afterwards, but it is also impossible to say for sure just from this video. It could have been sweeping, or broke the sector upwards.
Sad to see a good shooter get DQ, but rather err on the safe side with these. IPSC has 30 years of history of zero accidents because it is so strict.
I didn't see any violation either, excepty -maybe- he swept himself, but it was hard to tell from the video even after viewing it a dozen or so times.
Master... algo de destacar de tu parte es la enteresa con la que aceptastes el fallo de los oficiales de campo... el resto no importa.. esto es lo que hace grande al tiro practic.. personas como vos...
It must have been clearer from the Front R.O's point of view, coz he only reacted after 0:33 and the Scorer R.O. confirmed it right away without hesitations.
Breaking 180 upwards, at 0:33.and yes, video footage is NOT accepted as evidence on arbitration.I saw him shoot in some stages and this dude is very good.Sorry for ur DQ bro.
Un DQ siempre duele y más si ha sido por una caída "tonta". En el video no se aprecia si te apuntaste a la pierna pero supongo que el arbitro y tu lo habéis visto mejor que nosotros. Suerte para la próxima
Swept his left hand when he went to stand up
wroberts 5 months ago
Yes, he is a very good shooter. But rules apply for all equally. DQ is a DQ.
jpathiratne 7 months ago
Feel sorry guys calling themselves as ROs and giving verdicts through vedio footage. You must be a 3rd umpire in cricket. Not in IPSC. For some no 180 violation, therefor no DQ. For others he fell, therefor no DQ. But for sensible people who watched this, there could have been sweeping. Yes, he swept his gun across both his knees. For those who cant visualize this DQ, plz remember thats why the rule book says vedio footage is not an evidence for arbitration. RO in situ is the best judge.
jpathiratne 7 months ago
i"ve been r.o for 3years but for me that is not D.Q, you have to fight for it & as the range master.
88junyap 7 months ago
1) I would NEVER have started this guy, because he IS NOT RELAXED.....
He is tense.
Sorry to all those RO's out there who don't care, but I DO !!!
I will not start someone who is not relaxed.
Anyway, the guy fell and the RO was right to DQ him.
ihaveairlockers 1 year ago
1) It was an unfortunate fall. I'm sorry.
2) You are DQ'ed.
3) It was SO clearly a DQ ! All the comments below that say they could not see it are blind ! It's obvious. Slow it down and look at the position of both his arms.
It's an unacceptable breach of safety. Sorry, but the rules stand. This was clearly a DQ.
ihaveairlockers 1 year ago
uhh that really didnt look like a DQ to me but im just wondering how in the hell he managed to trip himself like that
FieldBoy111 1 year ago
based on what i see in the video, application of IPSC rules does not cover this fall under a DQ. the gun did not touch the ground, no sweeping..no 180 degree violation. i suggest, that IPSC consider a fall a DQ since it is difficult to judge whether the safety condition under this case was a controlled one or it just happened. obviously whenever there is a fall, safety is compromised due to out of balance.
MrKapay 2 years ago
why stopped it ? the gun was facing down range all the time .
40calfmj 2 years ago
oh to bad.... it was fast....bad day for you...
aewer666 2 years ago
no dq no dq no dq no dq no dq no dq no dq no dq
jkatz44 2 years ago
oh! bad time for you
pongler 2 years ago
I would have not stopped him .. I see no sweep..
kdiver58 3 years ago
While I don't see either a 180 or a sweep I'll rarely second guess a RO. I've officiated in enough other sports to know that it is a tough, thankless job by and large and you do the best you can.
Neomet010 3 years ago
and that cant be 180 cuz the gun is not straight up, its a fair call for me
atotreyes 3 years ago
yup im pretty sure its sweaping. he pointed it on his arm.
atotreyes 3 years ago
Gran deportista Iván, a mi tampoco me parece un DQ pero es lo que hay. Suerte para la proxima y muchos alfas!
00dawidh00 3 years ago
looks like the barrel pointed up when he was down.
mohepworth 3 years ago
He was DQ'ed for sweeping himself with the loaded gun, not for breaking 180.
Ro's don't DQ people, Shooters DQ themselves.
blownhemi 3 years ago
even he drop to the ground, his gun still point at the safty direction, i have no idea why the RO DQ him at that moment.
joelauipsc 3 years ago
Not that it matters on video afterwards, but it is also impossible to say for sure just from this video. It could have been sweeping, or broke the sector upwards.
Sad to see a good shooter get DQ, but rather err on the safe side with these. IPSC has 30 years of history of zero accidents because it is so strict.
Glocktologist 3 years ago
I didn't see any violation either, excepty -maybe- he swept himself, but it was hard to tell from the video even after viewing it a dozen or so times.
Valkyrie0307 3 years ago
Master... algo de destacar de tu parte es la enteresa con la que aceptastes el fallo de los oficiales de campo... el resto no importa.. esto es lo que hace grande al tiro practic.. personas como vos...
un saludos desde argentina...
tanfogliocombat 3 years ago
Dont see any violation
kiddvc3 3 years ago
sweepin!
andyvruonhs 3 years ago
He doesn´t broke the 180..
DQ the RO instead:-(
kiic 3 years ago
Que lastima, un DQ siempre duele, pero no parace que te hubieras apuntado a los pies, pero la ultima palabra la tiene el oficial.
Un saludo desde Uruguay, siempre se aprende de los errores, lastima que haya sido en el mundial.
joaquinyandres 3 years ago
Una pena!, el tipo se ve muy pulcro en su tecnica, las canchas anteriores las tiró muy bién.
Saludos a Iván, realmente una lastima.
empaladoraguilar 3 years ago
It must have been clearer from the Front R.O's point of view, coz he only reacted after 0:33 and the Scorer R.O. confirmed it right away without hesitations.
ronaldmb 3 years ago
Breaking 180 upwards, at 0:33.and yes, video footage is NOT accepted as evidence on arbitration.I saw him shoot in some stages and this dude is very good.Sorry for ur DQ bro.
ronaldmb 3 years ago
Un DQ siempre duele y más si ha sido por una caída "tonta". En el video no se aprecia si te apuntaste a la pierna pero supongo que el arbitro y tu lo habéis visto mejor que nosotros. Suerte para la próxima
escovar 3 years ago
I agree. I do not see where he broke the 180.
aaronnonaka 3 years ago
there was no i80.. im sorry that you were disqualified...
noorhma 3 years ago
Did not look like a 180 violation to me
awlazs 3 years ago
whoaaaa
lengsky 3 years ago