I'm fairly certain that was a rule in the last book, too.Originally Posted by LHS
The level of complication regarding the exact placement, movement, and angle of feet before and during reloads is going to become so bogged down as to be nonsensical. Just say "feet cannot move during reload" and be done with it. Or get rid of the rule altogether. But having multiple levels of complex yeas and nays for how your support pinky toe can be pivoted during certain phases of the Moon on Tuesdays...
This is so stupid. I about kitten when they said "like in basket ball" WTF do I know about basket ball!?! I'm a 5'8" white boy for God's sake!
Last edited by ToddG; 12-03-2013 at 05:23 PM. Reason: profanity
Dude, I totally agree... It is like the "fun police" showed up.
The worst part about it is that in the monthly newsletter they show a picture of some girl dropping to her knees behind a barricade while reloading... The rule is so out there that IDPA can't even really figure out if it is allowable or not... Just bad rule-making on the whole...
Well, last time I checked, white guys play basketball too. I actually think the basketball reference explains exactly what they want the rule to be. My issue is the exceptions and the general restriction that you can't move while reloading. I just plain don't care for that rule. But, even USPSA has some strange rules, and I just learn to live by them and enforce them as an SO. I wish someone would write a book explaining the justification/history of these rules. I understand many of them came from people like Vickers and other experienced shooters. It would be good to hear the justifications, only so when I am SOing, I have the answer as to why, no matter how weird.
CC
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;
Fo' rill?
You know, come to think of it I think the last basket ball game I watched Bill Laimbeer was still playing for the Pistons.
If the rule is so vague or not easily enough understood so that you have to start comparing it to basket ball the rule probably needs to go.I actually think the basketball reference explains exactly what they want the rule to be. My issue is the exceptions and the general restriction that you can't move while reloading. I just plain don't care for that rule. But, even USPSA has some strange rules, and I just learn to live by them and enforce them as an SO. I wish someone would write a book explaining the justification/history of these rules. I understand many of them came from people like Vickers and other experienced shooters. It would be good to hear the justifications, only so when I am SOing, I have the answer as to why, no matter how weird.
CC
Then again I don't see 3.9.1 & 3.9.2 needing that much extra clarification... but gamers gonna game and as well they should as it is a game.
All I know is that its going to make it harder to SO in a consistent manner and gives us more stuff to try and watch for. There's enough stuff going on during a shooter's run without having to worry about if he's flat footed during a reload or if that was a pivot or something else.
The comment above about the fun police showing up rings pretty true to my ears.
There's enough tactically stupid things that probably deserve more attention than forcing flat footed reloads while behind cover with no "threat" in sight.
Sent via Tapatalk and still using real words.
This is exactly my reason to support revoking the rule. But, I like the sport, and I like to shoot USPSA and 3-Gun as well, and as a certified SO I try my best to be a good ambassador for IDPA. Even basketball has it's rule controversies. I just wish people would see the glass half full here. It's one thing to suggest that a particular rule/policy should be changed. But too often people use these small problems to indict the entire sport or become overly harsh. IDPA has shown a lot of international growth because people wanted an alternative to USPSA/IPSC.
When USPSA was the only action pistol sport, people complained that it wasn't realistic or tactical enough and cost of entry was high. So, IDPA was invented to address those very complaints, and a new action pistol sport was born. Now people complain that IDPA isn't sufficiently tactical or improperly tactical or has too many rules or *gasp* encourages vest-wearing,, etc. etc. !!!
I am all for improving the sport in a respectful manner, and I have found that HQ does listen to those. But those decisions involve Board Members and leading industry people and prominent shooters. Just because WE think a particular rule should change doesn't mean THEY think it should change.
CC
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;
Like a lot of the new rules I think this clarification is just tightening things up to discourage 'gaming'. If it's not clear then shooters will argue for their dumbass tactic/plan and push the limits (and waste the match directors time).
In stages where mags start on a table or such, I've had guys ask if they could stow them in their mouth while engaging targets... to save the time of putting the mag or retrieving it from a pocket or pouch. Now the answer is clearly 'NO, dumbass'
Other than stage design rules, the rules in USPSA are rather simple when you are shooting, stay within the fault lines when you are shooting and don't do anything unsafe.
As far as hearing the explanation for the rules from IDPA, I honestly don't think they even know what they are doing things. I look at the IDPA rule book and see contradictory arguments for each rule switching between "It is tactical" and "It is a game" within the same rule.
But the real measure of an organization stems with how they respond to a stupid rule. For the most part USPSA has been pretty good about stamping stupid rules, and listening to members about proposed rule changes. IDPA OTOH took thousands upon thousands of comments and listened to almost none of them in the last six months. In fact the only major change I've seen since the new rule book was published for comment was to do deal with the humanoid vision barriers issue.
Heh. You could probably sell that on t-shirts.
Or how about "IDPA: Because you suck. And we hate you."Heh. You could probably sell that on t-shirts.
Reply With Quote