ben b. Posted June 2, 2010 Author Share Posted June 2, 2010 The sticking point for my SOs (which I have inherited in this debacle, I guess) is the wording and intent of "When no specific type of reload is specified, any approved reload may be done at the shooter’s discretion." when combined with the emphasis in caps and boldface given to TACTICAL LOAD in the classifier COF. The rule book says "Tactical Reloads and Reloads with Retention are interchangeable." It very well may mean "that if the course description says "tac-load" you may do either" (per Duane), but that is not what it says. That is what I expect it means. That is NOT what it says. The rule book does NOT say TR & RWR "are interchangeable at all times" (per Koski). The rule book does NOT say "there are only TWO types of reloads in IDPA- slidelock reload, and reload with retention." (per WellArmedSheep's mind). In fact, the rulebook does specifically say there are 3 kinds of reloads. I posted on the IDPA forum that there are 2 rules at play from this perspective. Rule 1: A & B are interchangeable Rule 2: Unless specified otherwise, Rule 1 applies. Case X: Apparently otherwise specifed Ben's SOs: Looks like it is otherwise specified. Rule 1 doesn't apply. Sorry Ben. Ben to Board: Hey, these 2 rules look like they conflict. Board: Rule 1! Ben: What about Rule 2, it's in the same paragraph as Rule 1... Board: Rule 1! Ben: Ok, but what does Rule 2 mean? This case looks like it is specific and emphasizes this part... Board: Rule 1! Sarcasm! Cheap Points! Stupid SOs! Monty Python! Rule 1! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 Ben, I saw over on the IDPAforum that your Area Coordinator sent you a PM. Did that not resolve this for you? Even in our legal system, decisions based on case law and precedence don't mean that the original law gets rewritten. The wording of the IDPA rule book is imperfect, but we have a precedence that is used all over the world and by IDPA itself. Just deal with it and get on board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Koski Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 Keep it alive Ben! Keep the dream going! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben b. Posted June 2, 2010 Author Share Posted June 2, 2010 Ben, I saw over on the IDPAforum that your Area Coordinator sent you a PM. Did that not resolve this for you? Steve, it was the same, Sandy quoted Rule 1. I sent back a reply and asked for explanation of rule 2 and how that affects things, but no return reply as yet from Sandy. I shared it with the SOs. Even in our legal system, decisions based on case law and precedence don't mean that the original law gets rewritten. The wording of the IDPA rule book is imperfect, but we have a precedence that is used all over the world and by IDPA itself. Just deal with it and get on board. I'm thinking that this is correct. I'm already on board, BTW. This is not a Trojan horse for my personal beliefs, although I don't see that the rules as written are clear in this. I made Master in SSP for the first time this past Sunday, shooting it the way the SOs told me to do it (tac-load). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 Ben, I saw over on the IDPAforum that your Area Coordinator sent you a PM. Did that not resolve this for you? Steve, it was the same, Sandy quoted Rule 1. I sent back a reply and asked for explanation of rule 2 and how that affects things, but no return reply as yet from Sandy. I shared it with the SOs. Buddy, it's not going to get any better than that. Do they want to hear from Robert Ray or perhaps directly from Bill Wilson? Don't hold your breath. I'm glad you made master in SSP. My best classifier in CDP is 96-97 seconds. If I had to fumble with two mags in the same hand, I guarantee I might not even have an expert classifier, although I would have had a major match bump long ago. What does that tell you? One technique over the other is not an important skill. That is why it has never been part of the classifer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MemphisMechanic Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 I've never seen a person do an actual tactical reload in stage 3, string 1. And I've run at least 200 people through the classifier in the past few years. If I came and shot it at your range, and you gave me a PE for doing so, I'm going to demand a refund for the ammo I just wasted because you can't read the rulebook, or scratch that little hashmark off my sheet on the way to turn it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben b. Posted June 4, 2010 Author Share Posted June 4, 2010 Reading the actual words in the rule book is what led to their decision. A failure to shut up, quit thinking about it, and just do what everyone else is doing was what was lacking. No shame there, IMO. You are welcome to shoot at our range, if you are out this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Koski Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 You mean like this simple phrase? Tactical Reloads and Reloads with Retention are interchangeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 Actually that's not a phrase, it's a complete sentence. At this point I believe the question has been answered so I'm going to close this one down. If anyone has anything useful to add, please PM me and I'll consider reopening it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts