Bumps to Open - Magazine from Table

[Gary Stevens]

20 minutes ago, Southpaw said:

 

I don't get it. You're saying an Open shooter can carry mags in a holster since there's no rule against it. So then why can't a SS shooter do the same since holster is behind his hip bone? 5.2.4 applies to all divisions it would seem. (Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand your ruling)

 

20 minutes ago, Southpaw said:

 

I don't get it. You're saying an Open shooter can carry mags in a holster since there's no rule against it. So then why can't a SS shooter do the same since holster is behind his hip bone? 5.2.4 applies to all divisions it would seem. (Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand your ruling)

 

You may be right, but I need DNROI to tell me I am wrong. With all due respect to this forum or any other forum, he is the only voice that matters. I didn't uphold this call operating in a vacuum. Despite statements here to the contrary, I'm not looking for ways to punish shooters, but I will enforce the rules as I understand them, until told otherwise by DNROI.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Gary Stevens

[Southpaw]

Thanks Gary. I certainly don't think you're out to get anyone. All I have to go by is the wording in the rulebook, which had me confused with the situations described in this thread. 

[Gary Stevens]

15 minutes ago, Southpaw said:

Thanks Gary. I certainly don't think you're out to get anyone. All I have to go by is the wording in the rulebook, which had me confused with the situations described in this thread. 

 

USPSA is most often a constant state of confusion.

[DKorn]

43 minutes ago, Gary Stevens said:

 

USPSA is most often a constant state of confusion.

 

And this is why i started this thread - because I was confused by exactly how the rules supported these two calls and wanted to see what other people thought. 

[Gary Stevens]

15 minutes ago, DKorn said:

 

And this is why i started this thread - because I was confused by exactly how the rules supported these two calls and wanted to see what other people thought. 

That's ok. That's why I get paid the big bucks......wait a minute.

[motosapiens]

5 hours ago, Gary Stevens said:

 

Despite statements here to the contrary, I'm not looking for ways to punish shooters, 

I'm only busting on Sarge when I say stuff like that, lol.  I have the greatest respect for you and your contributions to the sport and I appreciate your willingness to share your experience in these discussions. It just goes to show you that even the most experienced and knowledgeable people can still come to differing conclusions based on the same data and the same rules.

 

One good takeaway from this is to ask the RO if it's ok to put mags in your holster (or wherever else you have in mind). Just don't even do stuff that you don't *know* is within the rules.

Edited September 14, 2019 by motosapiens

[DKorn]

3 hours ago, Gary Stevens said:

That's ok. That's why I get paid the big bucks......wait a minute.

 

You get paid triple what I do, right?

 

ROs are volunteers. CROs get double that, and RMs get triple. At least that’s how I’ve heard it works.

[pjb45]

48 minutes ago, DKorn said:

 

You get paid triple what I do, right?

 

ROs are volunteers. CROs get double that, and RMs get triple. At least that’s how I’ve heard it works.

Correct. I make twice as much as Gary.  The multiplication property of zero unconfuses USPSA.  

[IL-SIG]

On 9/12/2019 at 11:25 AM, Gary Stevens said:

5.2.4.1 allows these shooters to also carry a load magazine or unload magazine in the front pocket as long as it is used for specific purposes.

 

 

The rule you cite describes an example of when it’s permissible to store a magazine outside of the requirement in the appendix. However, e.g., means for example. It does not mean it is the only permissible act. The rule never says that the magazine can ONLY be used for specific purposes. The rule provides an example, but a singular example should not be considered to the exclusion of any other situations. 

 

More specifically, the rule explicitly permits carrying magazines in a forward pocket as long as it is not removed, which as far as I understand, the shooter did not do. 

 

As I read the rule, which I believe is very straight forward in plain language, storing the mag, which is not removed during the COF, is absolutely a permissible act and should not have had any actions against the shooter because the shooter violated no rule. 

[Gary Stevens]

4 hours ago, IL-SIG said:

 

The rule you cite describes an example of when it’s permissible to store a magazine outside of the requirement in the appendix. However, e.g., means for example. It does not mean it is the only permissible act. The rule never says that the magazine can ONLY be used for specific purposes. The rule provides an example, but a singular example should not be considered to the exclusion of any other situations. 

 

More specifically, the rule explicitly permits carrying magazines in a forward pocket as long as it is not removed, which as far as I understand, the shooter did not do. 

 

As I read the rule, which I believe is very straight forward in plain language, storing the mag, which is not removed during the COF, is absolutely a permissible act and should not have had any actions against the shooter because the shooter violated no rule. 

Dan not trying to be cute, but if you were DNROI this would be a done deal. However, he is the only voice that counts.

[Nevadazielmeister]

On 9/12/2019 at 3:48 PM, MikeBurgess said:

This is one of those stupid (most likely) untended consequences that got "fixed" by making more rules that are even dumber for no reason. Yes per the rules the way they got written the bumps were correct, but I bet that nobody involved in writing them ever thought about these outcomes.

 

 

On 9/12/2019 at 3:51 PM, Gary Stevens said:

 

I totally agree and advocated for exactly that. It was not accepted though. To me it is part of freestyle.

 

I wanted to just say something coming from a very unregulated shooting competition, Precision Rifle Series. There, the rules (if any) are applied based on who knows who and there is very limited recourse for a novice or even intermediate shooter. I can cite many instances in which gamers were allowed certain procedures where others were not (rest rifle here, carry this here, shoot from there, etc.). I became very frustrated with the completely unleveled playing field and left the sport. "Gamers" (I call them "cheaters") HATE rules. Gamers therefore have not descended on this fine sport and I am happy for it. Sure, there will be weird rules, but I for one love them. They may get applied wrong in certain situations, but really, very few people are actually getting paid here. It is so wonderful there are Range Officers and higher ups who volunteer so much time to this sport. 

 

For that, I say thank you. Let's keep these questions coming. They are helping me learn the rules as I just recently obtained my certification 4 months ago.  

[IL-SIG]

2 hours ago, Gary Stevens said:

Dan not trying to be cute, but if you were DNROI this would be a done deal. However, he is the only voice that counts.

 

Gary - I understand and was only pitching in my $.02.  

 

To your point, I agree and think it’s very important that we get a clear answer from DNROI so that we can all apply the rules in a fair an equitable manner.  Due to the fact that there are so many opinions floating around, a clear response in the very near future would be helpful for future matches that are on the schedule.

 

I truly believe that all range officials at all levels want to be fair and apply the rules in a fair way that is consistent across the board.  

[broadside72]

 
I wanted to just say something coming from a very unregulated shooting competition, Precision Rifle Series. There, the rules (if any) are applied based on who knows who and there is very limited recourse for a novice or even intermediate shooter. I can cite many instances in which gamers were allowed certain procedures where others were not (rest rifle here, carry this here, shoot from there, etc.). I became very frustrated with the completely unleveled playing field and left the sport. "Gamers" (I call them "cheaters") HATE rules. Gamers therefore have not descended on this fine sport and I am happy for it. Sure, there will be weird rules, but I for one love them. They may get applied wrong in certain situations, but really, very few people are actually getting paid here. It is so wonderful there are Range Officers and higher ups who volunteer so much time to this sport. 
 
For that, I say thank you. Let's keep these questions coming. They are helping me learn the rules as I just recently obtained my certification 4 months ago.  

I'll jump in on this one as I think gamers are not cheaters and cheaters are just that, cheaters. Gamers "game" the rules but work within then as the edges, trying to eek out every advantage but stay legal.

[Sdlrodeo]

51 minutes ago, broadside72 said:

6 hours ago, Nevadazielmeister said:

 
I wanted to just say something coming from a very unregulated shooting competition, Precision Rifle Series. There, the rules (if any) are applied based on who knows who and there is very limited recourse for a novice or even intermediate shooter. I can cite many instances in which gamers were allowed certain procedures where others were not (rest rifle here, carry this here, shoot from there, etc.). I became very frustrated with the completely unleveled playing field and left the sport. "Gamers" (I call them "cheaters") HATE rules. Gamers therefore have not descended on this fine sport and I am happy for it. Sure, there will be weird rules, but I for one love them. They may get applied wrong in certain situations, but really, very few people are actually getting paid here. It is so wonderful there are Range Officers and higher ups who volunteer so much time to this sport. 
 
For that, I say thank you. Let's keep these questions coming. They are helping me learn the rules as I just recently obtained my certification 4 months ago.  

I'll jump in on this one as I think gamers are not cheaters and cheaters are just that, cheaters. Gamers "game" the rules but work within then as the edges, trying to eek out every advantage but stay legal.

 

Truth. 

 

Remember folks, USPSA happens to be a Game. 

[IL-SIG]

Did we ever get a final decision on this from DNROI?  

 

Sorry if I missed it elsewhere. 

[Gary Stevens]

Don't know if anyone asked.

 

However, since inquiring minds want to know, including myself, i will send an e-mail today.

 

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Gary Stevens

[1time]

On 9/14/2019 at 3:45 PM, Gary Stevens said:

Dan not trying to be cute, but if you were DNROI this would be a done deal. However, he is the only voice that counts.

I'm not trying to be cute, just learn something. Are you saying you can't fix it without being told to by DNROI since the match is over or are you saying you won't fix a bad call until a complaint is made and DNROI tells you to fix it, or you still don't think it was a bad call?

[Sarge]

17 hours ago, IL-SIG said:

Did we ever get a final decision on this from DNROI?  

 

Sorry if I missed it elsewhere. 

Nope, my email went unanswered.

[Gary Stevens]

1 hour ago, 1time said:

I'm not trying to be cute, just learn something. Are you saying you can't fix it without being told to by DNROI since the match is over or are you saying you won't fix a bad call until a complaint is made and DNROI tells you to fix it, or you still don't think it was a bad call?

 

I cant fix what has already been done. All I can do is search for whatever DNROI says is the correct call. Then I can use that for future matches. We had a wealth of senior RM and RMI knowledge at the match. Not all agreed, so we need clarification from someone who is authorized to make that decision.

[1time]

You seem to have this twisted up for the production shooter. The first line of 5.2.4 states " 5.2.4During the course of fire, after the start signal" so it makes no difference where the equipment is before the start signal, only after.

 

Then 5.2.4.1 states" Should the division restrict the location of the magazines or speed loading devices, carrying them in apparel pocket(s) forward of the restriction point will be allowed providing they are not removed from the apparel pocket(s) between the “standby” command and the command “if clear, hammer down and holster" . It does not say anything about "for a specific purpose". It says e.g which is an abbreviation of latin exempli gratia, which  means "for example". It then lists 2 examples of why a shooter may have a magazine in the front pocket but no where does it state they have to have a specific purpose. If he didn't remove the magazine before the "if clear hammer down" command, he did nothing wrong.

 

I have shot more 3 gun than anything else and this year have spent more time shooting PRS style 22 matches. They both made me realize how much I like all of the rules in USPSA. The book is pretty darn good and covers almost everything that can happen at a match. This isn't something that needs to be sent to DNROI, this simply requires a thorough read of the rule book and an apology to the shooter that was punished for doing something explicitly allowed in the rule book. This kind of crap is why people get pissed at "all of the rules". It is not the rules, it is the people that can't bother to understand them before enforcing them.

 

And waiting for DNORI to say you are wrong is a cop out. The guy got bounced into open because several people that should know better did not.

 

[Gary Stevens]

15 minutes ago, 1time said:

You seem to have this twisted up for the production shooter. The first line of 5.2.4 states " 5.2.4During the course of fire, after the start signal" so it makes no difference where the equipment is before the start signal, only after.

 

Then 5.2.4.1 states" Should the division restrict the location of the magazines or speed loading devices, carrying them in apparel pocket(s) forward of the restriction point will be allowed providing they are not removed from the apparel pocket(s) between the “standby” command and the command “if clear, hammer down and holster" . It does not say anything about "for a specific purpose". It says e.g which is an abbreviation of latin exempli gratia, which  means "for example". It then lists 2 examples of why a shooter may have a magazine in the front pocket but no where does it state they have to have a specific purpose. If he didn't remove the magazine before the "if clear hammer down" command, he did nothing wrong.

 

I have shot more 3 gun than anything else and this year have spent more time shooting PRS style 22 matches. They both made me realize how much I like all of the rules in USPSA. The book is pretty darn good and covers almost everything that can happen at a match. This isn't something that needs to be sent to DNROI, this simply requires a thorough read of the rule book and an apology to the shooter that was punished for doing something explicitly allowed in the rule book. This kind of crap is why people get pissed at "all of the rules". It is not the rules, it is the people that can't bother to understand them before enforcing them.

 

And waiting for DNORI to say you are wrong is a cop out. The guy got bounced into open because several people that should know better did not.

 

When I have a split between 3 of out instructors (2-1) agreeing with me, and  4 other RM's agreeing with me I have a problem with this situation.

 

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion that's all it is. Only one person speaks with finality on rule matters and that is the DNROI. I'll wait for his answer.

[1time]

1 minute ago, Gary Stevens said:

When I have a split between 3 of out instructors (2-1) agreeing with me, and  4 other RM's agreeing with me I have a problem with this situation.

 

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion that's all it is. Only one person speaks with finality on rule matters and that is the DNROI. I'll wait for his answer.

What are you seeing in the rules that could possibly be a bump to open?

[Gary Stevens]

23 minutes ago, 1time said:

What are you seeing in the rules that could possibly be a bump to open?

This has been discussed and explained previously. I don't see any reason to do it again. If I find out from DNROI I was wrong I'll gladly own up to it. Then you can fire all the "see I told you so" arrows you wish and I will receive them and move n.

[1time]

2 hours ago, Gary Stevens said:

This has been discussed and explained previously. I don't see any reason to do it again. If I find out from DNROI I was wrong I'll gladly own up to it. Then you can fire all the "see I told you so" arrows you wish and I will receive them and move n.

How many times should DNROI rule on it. It was questioned years ago. They ruled on it and then they added to the rule book. Now with it written in black and white you still don't get it. I am not offering an opinion. I am telling you what was already ruled on. You are being stubborn and sticking to your guns despite several people pointing out that you are wrong. Maybe you guys are remembering a rule set from 2011. It sounds like all but 1 of your RM/RMI need retraining. This isn't the first time you ignored rule changes/clarification. You did the same thing after the ruling that sticks don't exist and you ruled a mike because "sticks are hard cover". This was done to a new shooter that didn't know to appeal your incorrect decision.  You are the Area 5 director charged with being a RM at the Area 5 match. You owe the shooters better than this. I know you do a hard job for no pay but no one is forcing you to do it. If you lack the desire to stay current, pass the torch.

[Gary Stevens]

9 hours ago, 1time said:

How many times should DNROI rule on it. It was questioned years ago. They ruled on it and then they added to the rule book. Now with it written in black and white you still don't get it. I am not offering an opinion. I am telling you what was already ruled on. You are being stubborn and sticking to your guns despite several people pointing out that you are wrong. Maybe you guys are remembering a rule set from 2011. It sounds like all but 1 of your RM/RMI need retraining. This isn't the first time you ignored rule changes/clarification. You did the same thing after the ruling that sticks don't exist and you ruled a mike because "sticks are hard cover". This was done to a new shooter that didn't know to appeal your incorrect decision.  You are the Area 5 director charged with being a RM at the Area 5 match. You owe the shooters better than this. I know you do a hard job for no pay but no one is forcing you to do it. If you lack the desire to stay current, pass the torch.

You know not of which you speak.