Is a RWR on Stage 3 of Classifier actually legal?

[ben b.]

From the IDPA rulebook, p. 41, I present Exhibit One:

Appendix TWO - Approved IDPA Reloads

Failure to do an IDPA approved reload will result in a three (3)

second procedural penalty per infraction. Failure to do the reload

specified by the CoF will result in a three (3) second procedural

penalty or an FTDR. Failure to properly stow a partial magazine

or live ammunition after a Tactical Reload or Reload with

Retention prior to firing the first shot after the reload, will incur a

procedural penalty. Tactical Reloads and Reloads with Retention

are interchangeable. See glossary for further details. When no

specific type of reload is specified, any approved reload may be

done at the shooter’s discretion. [emphasis added]

And now from p. 68, I present Exhibit Two:

C. Stage Three.

....Draw and fire 2 shots at each T1 - T3

from either side of the barricade,

TACTICAL LOAD and fire 2 shots at

each T1 - T3 from the opposite side of

barricade.

...Draw and fire 2 shots at each T1 - T3

from either side of the barricade,

TACTICAL LOAD and advance to

Position #5...

My Question: Does the classifier language indicate that a "specific type of reload is specified", namely the TACTICAL LOAD, and thereby nullify the "Tactical Reloads and Reloads with Retention are interchangeable" part that would allow me to RWR on String 1 of Stage 3?

If there is an HQ ruling/clarification, I have been unable to find it. The only place the term "TACTICAL LOAD" is used is in the classifier, other places it is Tactical Reload/Tac-Load. If the classifier said "IDPA approved reload," there'd be no question that either RWR or tac load is OK.

Thanks,

Ben

Edited May 31, 2010 by ben b.

[IdahoShooter]

Tactical Reloads and Reloads with Retention

are interchangeable.

I believe the rulebook clarifies your question, as you posted it... RWR and Tac-load are interchangeable.

If not, we've got a whole lot of people doing it the wrong way, on video for the world to see, and no one has commented on it yet, that I am aware of.

[ben b.]

The point is that the classifier language says "TACTICAL LOAD", not "a legal IDPA reload", or "RWR/Tac Load". There is a conflict.

The SO I shot the classifier with made the point that the classifier has TACTICAL LOAD in bold and caps, which does indicate a degree of specificity. When no specific type of reload is specified, any approved reload may be done at the shooter’s discretion. [emphasis added]

Edited May 31, 2010 by ben b.

[Duane Thomas]

When the Rule Book says, "Tactical Reloads and Reloads With Retention are interchangeable," it means that if the course description says "tac-load" you may do either. Watch any video of a top-level shooter - or, well, anyone actually - shooting the classifier. They all RWR on String 1. Whether it's more advantageous to RWR or tac-load on String 2 is something we could debate. Whether or not either is legal for the entire stage is not debatable. The SO is wrong.

[Joe4d]

Why dont we throw,

"HQ urges course designers to draft scenario courses that do not require tac-loads or reloads with retention to be performed "on the clock"

The classifier, what a great way to lead by example.

[CrankyCrash]

Why dont we throw,

"HQ urges course designers to draft scenario courses that do not require tac-loads or reloads with retention to be performed "on the clock"

The classifier, what a great way to lead by example.

No doubt, the IDPA rulebook is full of ambiguity and issues. It's not perfect.

Go to the IDPA Forum, post your issue/question and perhaps Robert Ray will consider it for discussion prior to the next issue.

I did and one of my questions/issues is scheduled to be added to the next release of the rulebook. So, it does work, from my experience.

FYI, I still have issues about the rules as well. However, it is a game that I like to play so I have to abide by the rules while I work to get them changed.

Safe shooting and remember to post your question on the IDPA Forum.

[Jane]

It's unfortunate when SOs don't keep up with rule changes.

Going back into the dim past of prior IDPA rule books..

The little red book and little green book do include the language

If the course of fire specifies a Tac-Load, a magazine change with

retention is not acceptable and will incur a procedural penalty. If a magazine change

with retention is specified by the course of fire, either method is acceptable.

But then, the CoF drawing for the Classifier in the LGB (page 7) specifically says "TACTICAL LOAD or MAGAZINE CHANGE WITH RETENTION" for stage 3.

With the new "interchangeable" sentence in the 2005 rule book, the CoF description now only says "tactical load".

Sounds as if Ben's SO is combining the rule from the old rule book with the CoF description from the new one.

[ben b.]

My SO is saying that the Classifier COF specifies a Tactical Reload, and that it is plain for all to see that it is so specified because it says TACTICAL LOAD, nullifying the optional use of other reloads. I have naught but conflicting language in the 2005 rulebook and IntraWeb assurances that everyone else is doin' it to back me up.

[Steve J]

The rule book is clear that "tactical reloads" and "reloads with retention" are interchangable, so no COF can require one or the other technique, just the generic RWR which includes the TR. Your SO is wrong.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Steve J

[Chris Christian]

I am not bashing the Rule Book although, as others have noted, some clarity would be appreciated. I will, however, bash SOs (I've been one for 5 years) who are living well into the past.... have their minds set... and refuse to review new rule clarifications. SOs should remember that they are the Ambassadors of the sport, and not allow inflexible thinking to interfere with their interaction with shooters. IMHO, if you are charged with enforcing the Rules, you should know them. +1 to Duane... that SO was wrong. The Rule Book clearly states that Tacical Reloads and Reloads With Retention are interchangeable on the COF. I shoot four gun divisions, so I have shot (and run) the Classifier many times... never had a problem (with multiple SOs) on using a RWR on Stage 3.

Chris Christian

[ben b.]

The rule book also indicates that reload types may be specified. Jane helpfully notes that past rules distinguished between what was allowed and what was not in a RWR vs Tac Load, not RWR = Tac Load manner. The classifier COF says TACTICAL LOAD. Tell me how to read the rules such that the sentence of reload specificity can be squared with the term TACTICAL LOAD in the COF. I know that in other cases RWR = Tac Load.

[Steve Koski]

Ben,

Tac load & RWR are interchangeable at all times. The rule book says it, and that's how everybody but your SO does it. Can he operate a computer? Does he have a library card so he can get on the internet?

Koski

[CatsEye]

The rule book also indicates that reload types may be specified.

This part applies when a stage can require a reload at a specific point in the shooting. For example: A stage this weekend has us downloaded to 6 in first mag. We shot 3 targets, slide-lock reload, shot same targets, tac-load/RWR, shot same targets. It means nothing more than that.

[Duane Thomas]

And so he, alone of all SOs, has managed to figure out what the rules REALLY mean.

Oy.

[ben b.]

I'd like to avoid further displays of sarcasm. My question is not sarcastic nor intended as a provocation. I think there is a legitimate niggling detail point here that is being glossed over. The core issue in my view is the wording and intent of "When no specific type of reload is specified, any approved reload may be done at the shooters discretion." when combined with the emphasis in caps and boldface given to TACTICAL LOAD in the classifier COF.

I further note that in the classifier COF, "reload from slidelock" is not in caps nor is it boldfaced. Other stress appears in the classifier COF in things like "...Load 6 rounds MAX. in pistol...", "...Draw and fire 2 shots at each T1 - T3 STRONG hand only.", and "...fire one (1) shot at each T1-T3. WEAK HAND ONLY..." These appear meaningful and specific.

If there has been a ruling/clarification from HQ that says something like, "RWR and TL are always interchangeable. No one, not even the classifier, can specify one or the other." or "The intention of specifying a reload style applies only to slide lock versus RWR/TL." I would be grateful if someone could link me to it.

I stipulate that most everyone is doing it as totally interchangeable, especially on the classifier.

Edited June 1, 2010 by ben b.

[Steve Koski]

Ben,

I'd like to have lower taxes and Fridays off, but that's not going to happen any time soon either. So don't hold your breath on eliminating sarcasm.

You and your SO are arguing a point that everyone else sees very clearly. Get over it already.

Koski

[astephenson]

In my mind there are only TWO types of reloads in IDPA- slidelock reload, and reload with retention. Since the rulebook CLEARLY STATES that the reload with retention and the tac-load are interchangeable, and since the RWR is faster (for me, anyway), I have removed the term "tac-load" and any semblance of the technique from my mind.

This discussion reminds me of a cartoon I saw years ago. It showed a marching band with every member except one marching on the same foot. The caption read, "Look...little Johnny is the only one in step!"

[Steve J]

Under the old rule book when a true "tactical" reload could be required, I would have been shitoutofluck. I don't have large enough paws with enough dexterity to fumble with two mags in the same hand.

In my mind, it's a dumb method fraught with peril. I'm glad the new rule book made it illegal to specify a technique when reloading with retension.

[Paul Burtchell]

Under the old rule book when a true "tactical" reload could be required, I would have been shitoutofluck. I don't have large enough paws with enough dexterity to fumble with two mags in the same hand.

In my mind, it's a dumb method fraught with peril. I'm glad the new rule book made it illegal to specify a technique when reloading with retension.

[freeidaho]

Under the old rule book when a true "tactical" reload could be required, I would have been shitoutofluck. I don't have large enough paws with enough dexterity to fumble with two mags in the same hand.

Steve,

As Jane so astutely pointed out above, in the old rulebooks before the "interchangable" rule the rule book said "TACTICAL LOAD or MAGAZINE CHANGE WITH RETENTION" for stage 3 of the Classifier.

kr

[Steve Koski]

Yeah, but was TACTICAL LOAD bolded?

(Note the non-antagonistic use of sarcasm.)

Edited June 1, 2010 by Steve Koski

[nashvillebill]

The relevant part starts at 1:25.

Edited June 1, 2010 by nashvillebill

[Duane Thomas]

As Jane so astutely pointed out above, in the old rulebooks before the "interchangable" rule the rule book said "TACTICAL LOAD or MAGAZINE CHANGE WITH RETENTION" for stage 3 of the Classifier.

And then, having told people in the new Rule Book that tactical reload and RWR were interchangeable techniques, they obviously assumed, when they said "tactical reload" in the classifier verbiage, that people would realize that tactical reload and RWR are interchangeable techniques - so why restate what they'd already told them elsewhere?

[Duane Thomas]

I'd like to avoid further displays of sarcasm.

I am not, in general, a fan of sarcasm when answering a person's questions, myself. But I can understand why people are being sarcastic here - not in a nasty way, more along the lines of "C'mon dude, you've gotta be kidding me" - because you are just making this WAY more complicated than it actually is. No offense intended. And I mean that sincerely.

If there has been a ruling/clarification from HQ that says something like, "RWR and TL are always interchangeable. No one, not even the classifier, can specify one or the other." or "The intention of specifying a reload style applies only to slide lock versus RWR/TL." I would be grateful if someone could link me to it.

Well, good luck with that. In my experience IDPA HQ tends not to waste its time issuing "clarifications" of things that are already stated, in unambiguous terms, within the Rule Book. But maybe it's happened.

[GmanCdp]

Ben B., if i were you i would print this whole topic off and set down with the SO and Md and just dicuss it..

Maybe he would understand it better. For a long time in this area,SO's would still hold to the old rule book and would not accept any rule changes at all..