+1
thats what I was trying to say.
Printable View
Those competing at the top level of IDPA are using every single advantage they can gain and not violate the rules. There is nothing wrong with gaming...I think it's a compliment...it means you are taking this seriously as a competitive game. It's certainly not cheating, although there are those who try to cheat, but they eventually get found out. There were 13 DQ's at the Carolina Cup and some were due to low-powered ammo and illegal modifications.
Besides, who wants to win knowing that they cheated?...not much self-satisfaction in that.
My only issue is when rules cannot be applied fairly to all contestants or judgement calls are just too difficult to make. That is the reason that the round-dumping rule should go.
If we wanted to change the rules related to points and penalties, it will change the play-action of the game. If the penalties for non-threats are too high, then the action will slow down to avoid that mistake. So, the real question is whether IDPA contestants are too careless with their shots near non-threats. I don't think so, and I have been shooting an IDPA match every weekend except for vacation week since March 2012. 5 Seconds is still 5 seconds of time I cannot afford to add to my score and be competitive.
Just my humble opinion...not asking anyone to agree.
CC
Funny you should say that VolGrad. I got called out a few weeks back at Cherokee while reholstering (IWB, right side, in a Milt Sparks VM2 so it's got a 15degree cant or something like that). Anyways, I show clear, go to reholster and I slightly pivoted my right hip and foot forward (downrange) so that as I reholstered I would be keeping the muzzle downrange and away from the SO and the people behind me.... got a quick verbal "what are you doing!?"
AIWB in IDPA would be great. But it won't happen, just too much liability for most clubs I'd guess.
Nobody else has an issue with the cover rules? 50% torso over a car hood is OK but a toe sticking out is not?
I want to use a shoulder holster too! :)
No. In fact, in the beginning IDPA only penalized shooters 0.3 seconds per point down.
As far as scoring issues are concerned, you need to keep in mind that this is a game. If you make a hit on a no-shoot a 100 second penalty, the disaster factor becomes ridiculous. That one mistake is essentially destroying any chance someone has of placing in a match, while plenty of other mistakes are barely a blip on the radar.
I'd like to see the 1-second-per-point penalty, and removal of the ammo dumping prohibition. I'd also like to see some kind of rule that discourages 'shoot me' vests in favor of more normal types of garments.
Lastly, I would like to see WMLs, lasers, and eventually red dot optics. IPSC was envisioned as a testing ground for new defensive technologies, and IDPA was envisioned to get back to IPSC's original mission. I understand the founders' desire to avoid the kind of NASCAR-ization via equipment race that IPSC saw, but total technological stagnation is not the answer. When they switched from an inclusive holster list to an exclusive one, that was progress. Let's keep it going in that direction.
How about applying 1-sec per point rule to those who shoot gun-mounted lasers and non-lasered shooters get .5sec per point?
Also, some clubs are already allowing gun mounted lights for dark stages...nice thing about local clubs doing IDPA is they don't have to follow every rule required by a sanctioned match.
I would like to see IDPA find a way to do shoothouse stages with par-times and target identification penalties. One club I shoot at has a shoothouse with pictures pasted on the IDPA targets of guns or saws or coke bottles or LE badges. Seeing a gun doesn't mean shoot if its got an LE badge on it. They shoot a 100 second par time and usually 8-10 threat targets and just as mean non-threats. Perfect score is 100s down zero. You could adjust the par-time based on the classification of the shooter, with higher classes getting less time to shoot it.
CC
Making the -1 a full second penalty would be good for two reasons:
It would make the math of scoring easier.
It would put more of a premium on accuracy.