sperman Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 I think those of us on the "apply a penalty" side of things believe that the rules state a penalty should be applied. The rulebook doesn't clearly state what the penalty is, so we have to use (dare I say it) common sense to decide what the most appropriate penalty should be. To me that makes more sense than "The rulebook says a penalty should be applied, but since it isn't clear, the penalty will be nothing." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Sadly it is this type of arguing that drives people away from USPSA. It is a penalty. Why BECAUSE the rule says it is. Not really that confusing is it? What is the penalty, It would be a procedural. How many? One. Now about the only case that could be made would be a procedural per magazine. Would I argue that? not likely. Advantage gained? hard to argue that a mag in your pocket is an advantage over a mag in a carrier. So One Procedural. If there was not to be a penalty the rules wouldn't mention it. It is this type of inane argument that got us to a rule book as thick as it is and sadly we'll probably have to add pages and rules after this issue is another year or so old. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Sadly it is this type of arguing that drives people away from USPSA. What we are doing here is discussing a topic. Just because people have different views doesn't mean it's an argument. If you see it as such...maybe change your glasses. Many of these discussions end up leading us to clarity. They certainly get RO's looking a bit closer at the rules than they might otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Sadly it is this type of arguing that drives people away from USPSA. What we are doing here is discussing a topic. Just because people have different views doesn't mean it's an argument. If you see it as such...maybe change your glasses. Many of these discussions end up leading us to clarity. They certainly get RO's looking a bit closer at the rules than they might otherwise. I couldn't have said it any better. These discussions bring a lot to the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztecdriver Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) Sadly it is this type of arguing that drives people away from USPSA. What we are doing here is discussing a topic. Just because people have different views doesn't mean it's an argument. If you see it as such...maybe change your glasses. Many of these discussions end up leading us to clarity. They certainly get RO's looking a bit closer at the rules than they might otherwise. I couldn't have said it any better. These discussions bring a lot to the table. Arguing at a match, in front of shooters new and old, drives people away from the sport. Getting it out of the way and on the table in front of the likes of SS, Flex, 45dv8, Nik, et al - that's worth it's weight in Gold for new ROs. I'm winning by participating in this discussion. And - I'm still right!!! 1 procedural per occurrence. PS. I want to see Boz reach in his backside for mags again, considering we were within .02 match points of each other on Tuesday, I need the work and challenge as well. Unfortunately, the other duties are calling - but Cherokee sounds like a good idea. Edited October 31, 2009 by aztecdriver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgnoyes Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) So your contention is that a penalty exists... If you draw one from the pocket before using up your primary magazines, yes. that the R.O. must apply it (no discretion) I should think so. The rule says you do this, you get a penalty. What part of that is unclear? It's a rulebook, not a list of suggestions. and that it's a single (as opposed to per mag used, per shot fired, per mag remaining on the belt) procedural? No, I didn't say that. If you draw a pocket magazine while still having one or more primary mags available, that's one penalty for reloading with the wrong magazine. (It's not per shot fired because you haven't gained a competitive advantage. Hell, if you're burning time fishing magazines out of your pocket, you're penalizing yourself!) If you reload again and you once again get a pocket magazine instead of your available primary magazine(s), you get another penalty. Sorry I wasn't clear enough there. You all know what? Stuff like this is why I more and more sympathize with our volunteer match directors and stage designers who selflessly give of themselves to drive this sport, and less so with the hopefully very small subset of competitors (I'm confident none of which are here on this forum) who are so desparate to weasel their way out of a clear cut infraction that they will even try hammering on imagined grammatical idosyncracies in a rulebook which was not, after all, submitted to and vetted by the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Edited November 1, 2009 by wgnoyes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmca Posted October 31, 2009 Author Share Posted October 31, 2009 Holy smoke...I didn't mean to start a firestorm. I thought I was just asking a simple question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Holy smoke...I didn't mean to start a firestorm. I thought I was just asking a simple question. You didn't. Most of us enjoy these conversations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boz1911 Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Holy smoke...I didn't mean to start a firestorm. I thought I was just asking a simple question. You didn't. Most of us enjoy these conversations. Yes we do. The cool thing is that a ruling from NROI and/or clarification of any penalties will be imminent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Perhaps a stern talking to would be used instead of penalty? 8.3.1.1 Once the “Make Ready” command has been given, the competitormust not move away from the start location prior to issuance of the “Start Signal” without the prior approval, and under the direct supervision, of the Range Officer. No penalty is specified, so I'm not sure what 'official' penalty would be allowed (other than having to listen to me give a lecture to the shooter). I'm not sure if that is the instance I was recalling, but in that thread we have an instance of a shooter "must" do something. Troy provides some insight there worth reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Maybe I should have said, "There is no penalty mentioned...." One is mentioned in 5.2.4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Perhaps I should have been clearer. Discussions here are fine. We learn, but at the match site, especially with a new shooter at a level one, are not good. And I still feel that what is said in the rules, i.e., that using a mag from other than your primary mag carriers is punishable by a one procedural penalty per occurrence. the rule is quite clear. I see no need for this discussion. It stats that the shooter MAY use the additional mags that he is specifically allowed to carry AFTER he has used or lost his primary mags. Prior to exhausting these mags he is subject to penalty. 5.2.4 During the course of fire, after the start signal, unless stipulated otherwise in the stage procedure, spare ammunition, magazines and speed loading devices shall be carried in retention devices attached to the competitor’s belt and specifically designed for that purpose. A competitor may also carry additional magazines or speed loading devices in his pockets and retrieve and use them without penalty once having dropped or exhausted his primary magazines. 10.2 Procedural Penalties – Specific Examples ex·am·ple (eg zam′pəl, ig-; -zäm-) noun 1. something selected to show the nature or character of the rest; single part or unit used as a sample; typical instance So 5.2.4 tells us that there is a penalty, 10.2 gives us EXAMPLES OF and as defined by Webster this is not exclusive, it is as spelled out above. If Rule 10.2 said to the effect that the penalties described were a specific and closed list that would be both different and at odds with rule 5.2.4 which would necessitate the re-writing of either 5.2.4 to eliminate mention of a penalty or of 10.2 to include the specific penalty. And this would further require that each and every potential possibility be covered in the rules. This is not only unlikely, but probably impossible. No matter what is written someone will come up with a definition or an interpretation that will require a new writing of the rulebook. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Hayden Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Just trying to follow the arguments: Are people saying that there's NO penalty, or that since the penalty isn't specified, you can't access one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Some are suggesting that penalties that aren't listed in Chapter 10 may not be legal. I'm mostly confused. The rules states that you can do something (pull mags from pockets) without penalty if certain conditions are met (if mag carriers are empty). The rule does not state specifically how many penalties to apply (one per occurrence, one per mag remaining on the belt, one per shot fired from the pocket mag.) There are other sections of the rule book that describe situations that incur penalties. Those sections are specific in the number of penalties required and the manner in which they are assessed (Mandatory or RO Discretion.) I understand --- and could go along with either argument. (Setting the rules aside for a moment --- this is stupid. I can think of no good reason to dig in a pocket for a mag, if I still have a mag on my belt. It takes longer....) Mark has sent a query of to DNROI --- so hopefully we'll get an answer (and an official interpretation) so we can all make the call the same way..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Maybe I should have said, "There is no penalty mentioned...."One is mentioned in 5.2.4. Are you sure about that? What is says is a penalty will NOT be issued for a specific circumstance. You have to infer that a penalty is issued for something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigar Guy Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 I think it would be helpful to consider why reloading from a pocket would even be considered a procedural, and why it was likely added to the rule book. As many have pointed out, it is considerably slower for most to get a magazine from a pocket. It is not a competitive advantage in most cases. It is a way of dealing with the practice of pocketing a magazine with near squib loads in an attempt to gain a reshoot if things don't go well in a course of fire. Consider this situation. Shooter whacks a no shoot or two, and then dumps an almost full big stick, reaching into his rear pocket for a magazine. Miraculously, Mr. Unlucky has a squib with the second round fired after the reload, and is hoping the RO will stop him and he will get a reshoot because the bullet has barely exited his barrel. Suppose instead that the RO merely raises a single finger and allows the shooter to continue, indicating a procedural for reloading out of the pocket. The RO might also send the shooter to the chrono with that magazine if it is being run at that match, or could potentially DQ Mr. Unlucky for unsportsmanlike conduct. Which of those three options will most likely be used? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 That can't be the reason for the rule? If it is, it's poorly done. I run 5 mag pouches on my belt (and seldom use but 3 of them). It would be easy enough to run an extra mag pouch on the belt for such a cheater mag for a "near" squib. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgnoyes Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Previous post edited without prompting for sake of clarification. And I have a question in to John Amidon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Believe it or not. I saw this happen today. I laughed till it hurt. Unloaded start, shooter pulled first mag out of back pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztecdriver Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Believe it or not. I saw this happen today. I laughed till it hurt. Unloaded start, shooter pulled first mag out of back pocket. Who was running them - did they ding them? Just curious... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Believe it or not. I saw this happen today. I laughed till it hurt. Unloaded start, shooter pulled first mag out of back pocket. Who was running them - did they ding them? Just curious... I was too busy laughing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I was too busy laughing. Well then...you must have earned a "procedural" for interference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boz1911 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Believe it or not. I saw this happen today. I laughed till it hurt. Unloaded start, shooter pulled first mag out of back pocket. Who was running them - did they ding them? Just curious... I was and wasn't even about to open that can of worms.. I had two mods on the squad with opposing views and two more on the squad with opposing views. I saw NOTHING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgnoyes Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I was too busy laughing. Well then...you must have earned a "procedural" for interference? Hey, he had the timer and was laughing hysterically as the wheels came off two other competitor's wagons during runs on other stages such that I solicited the two shooters to engage the Firm's services to "get the reshoot they were entitled to"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I was too busy laughing. Well then...you must have earned a "procedural" for interference? What made it even funnier was when I suggested the shooter actually had gained an advantage due to the fact that the next mag was in a pouch. 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