Skywalker Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 NEXT YEAR?: If the COF requires an unloaded (empty chamber, empty magwell) start, and the optional command "MR" is given, why would we suddenly start DQing competitors for inserting a magazine? The thrust & intent of Rule 10.5.13 is to DQ competitors who insert a loaded mag into their gun without the express permission of an RO, regardless of the nature or wording of the command. Vince, I'm with you on the intent of the rules and in arguing that loading the gun for an unloaded start should not end with a DQ, but if I read the rules by the word, they say (10.3.15) "Having a loaded firearm other than when specifically ordered to by the Range Officer", and MR doesn't specifically say "Load". Moreover, I think you're contradicting yourself when you say "The thrust & intent of Rule 10.5.13 is to DQ competitors who insert a loaded mag into their gun without the express permission of an RO, regardless of the nature or wording of the command." The rules call for "express permission" but you say that this is "regardless of the nature or wording of the command", now how can you get express permission, without actually saying it? I asked for a rule to support the common sense interpretation (that I agree with by heart), but up to now nobody pointed out any. Flex, thanks for summing up, clarifying and interpreting my comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I really don't see a problem here. There are certain assumptions that are reasonable to make. Rule 10.5.13 doesn't point to a DQ because a competitor hasn't received a command "to load". It only says when specifically ordered to by the RO. Assumptions have always been made that during a C of F the competitor can possess a loaded firearm. Besides "Make Ready" doesn't say you can't load. It's just that up to now we have added "Load" as well. However, please consider a HG stage at present that starts unloaded. If we really want to be pedantic: The competitor is given the LAMR command. He then immmediately fails to carry out the direct command of an RO by failing to comply with "load". He then stands around for awhile before getting the start. He then loads and now isn't strictly under the direct command of the RO to load. He broke off or "ignored" that sequence. If I really stretch the point what if he runs the gun dry during a stage where is the direct command to load (reload). But commonsense prevails and a number of assumptions are made about acceptable practice within a COF. I'm comfortable that "Make Ready" is sufficient authority to avoid conflict with 10.5.13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Buff Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I asked for a rule to support the common sense interpretation (that I agree with by heart), but up to now nobody pointed out any. The problem with that, I was reminded of in another thread, is that its open to misinterpretation....which is what MIGHT happen here. I like the idea of the "MR" as addition to "LAMR" - just don't DQ me if I have, what I will hence call, a Nik Mind Slip (I have 'em often... ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 21, 2004 Author Share Posted October 21, 2004 Skywalker, Today the Rule 8.3.1 command is "LAMR", and the rule also specifically states that the competitor must "prepare the handgun in accordance with the written stage briefing". Now say the written stage briefing requires an unloaded gun, and the competitor inserts a magazine. Do you DQ him? Do you give him a Procedural Penalty? I certainly hope not. The way I see it, limiting ourselves to "LAMR" creates a conflict. The RO verbally says "Load" but the COF requires "Unloaded". Offering an optional additional command does not change the body of the rule, or the requirement to comply with the written stage briefing - it's effectively an aide-memoire to the competitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I think we are all on the same page...with the same goal. However...10.5.13 says...specifically ordered... Thrust and intent don't even come close to trumping those words. Change one...better change them both. (8.3.1 & 10.5.13) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I'm not playing the devil's advocate here. As I repeatedly stated, I agree with the introduction of the MR command, and I feel a competitor shouldn't be DQed for screwing up the MR command and loading instead. But I'm a RO here in Italy. I know "old-timers" ROs here in Italy. I know they screwed up the rules by reading them by the word or by interpreting them the fancy way (Vince, do you remeber the request I sent you about gun and holster minimum height above the belt? The RM interpretation and request to competitors really upset some 200 people, and had another 400 worried for the incoming EC... ). For this reason, I'd like to have it clearly written, and not left to common sense or good interpretation of the rules. And, Flex nailed my thoughts perfectly. "Specifically ordered" say the RO has to "specifically" say Load, not imply it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 21, 2004 Author Share Posted October 21, 2004 My hair hurts ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I think we are all on the same page...with the same goal.However...10.5.13 says...specifically ordered... Thrust and intent don't even come close to trumping those words. Change one...better change them both. (8.3.1 & 10.5.13) Flex I actually don't have a problem with tweaking 10.5.13 for clarity but as I have tried to get across in my earlier post I really don't see a contradiction even at present. However, clearer is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Buff Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 My hair hurts ............ Feed your comb 2 aspirin and take a long gulp from the bottle in the bottom right drawer of your desk... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 21, 2004 Author Share Posted October 21, 2004 10.5.13 Having a loaded firearm other than during a course of fire or when specifically ordered to by the Range Officer. A loaded firearm is defined as a firearm having a live round in the chamber or having a live round in a magazine inserted in the firearm. (God I love this job) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 And, Flex nailed my thoughts perfectly. "Specifically ordered" say the RO has to "specifically" say Load, not imply it. Luca It is absolutely NOT necessary to have to say "load". The authority to have a loaded gun comes from the rules. As a wildly extreme example if we were to say "Apples and Bananas" instead in 8.3.1 and then change the rule to read that on the command "Apples and Bananas" the competitor can load if required and make ready, then this would absolutely conform to 10.5.13. As I said earlier 10.5.13 does not specifically say that the word "load" HAS to be uttered. You're focusing too much on the comfortable word "load". "Make ready" can also be interpreted as the authority being given by the RO. But like I said in my reply to Flex I don't mind making the statements clearer. And then we as a committe will end up being accused of changing loads of rules! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 10.5.13 Having a loaded firearm other than during a course of fire or when specifically ordered to by the Range Officer. snip Great, that's exactly the clarification/exemption I was looking for in the rulebook to explicitly say that screwing up the MR command is not to be intended as grounds for DQing anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Buff Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I also like Vinces second proposal...clears up all Q's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 (God I love this job) We know you do ---- 'cause you're a sadomasochist at heart who really likes it when his hair hurts...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 21, 2004 Author Share Posted October 21, 2004 We know you do ---- 'cause you're a sadomasochist at heart who really likes it when his hair hurts...... Whip me, whip me ................. yeeee-haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Buff Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Vince...THE BOTTLE!!!! -------------------------- Slight drift... I have not found too may problems with the new rules. Yet some nitty gritties keep popping up (proving that I haven't read the book enough ). Is it possible to sort all of them out in one go? Or can we just leave the book as is (with the last few changes) for ...say...5 years at least...or until caseless or magnetic propelled bullets become part of the game.... Please do not kick too hard...I'm feeling sensitive today... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 21, 2004 Author Share Posted October 21, 2004 Is it possible to sort all of them out in one go? Or can we just leave the book as is (with the last few changes) for ...say...5 years at least...or until caseless or magnetic propelled bullets become part of the game.... The rulebooks are "living documents", which means they're constantly being improved, as when new issues, errors or oversights come to light. However we're also well aware that it would be downright silly (and bloody expensive) to reprint the hard copy versions every year, especially when we consider the number of foreign language rulebooks in existence (a Spanish version is currently available for download from the Rules page of the IPSC website). This is why Rule 11.8.3 allows us to issue Rule Interpretations - the first set for Handgun was published on the IPSC website on 6 August 2004. There is another set for Shotgun (with a second set due shortly), and Rifle will follow suit sooner or later. With these interpretations, officials & competitors just need to download them, print them out, and place them loosely in the rear of their hard copy rulebooks as an "addendum" - a cheap & simple solution. Looking forward, I have quite a number of Handgun revisions which I intend to propose to the Rules Committee. If they are adopted, this will probably result in a second set of Handgun Rules Interpretations later this year or early next year, but I do not expect we'll see a completely reprinted rulebook until January 2006, which is two years after the current book was published. The good news is that, unlike the major rewrite and restructuring witnessed in the January 2004 Edition, future editions are most likely to contain minor (but important) tweaks, where a few words are added here and there for clarity, much like the example in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Buff Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 OK, that cool...missed part of that before... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now