New IDPA Rules Clarifications are out!

[Tamara]

Or how about "IDPA: Because you suck. And we hate you."

That's pretty tactical right there.

[cclaxton]

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.

Actually, there were major changes to the initial public version related to SO liability and club liability. There was language that could have been used against the club and the SO in a lawsuit. All of that was removed. Also, being close to one of the staff, I happen to know there was quite a bit of debate about these new rules and a lot of thought actually did go into them. But, when rules are made by committee...well...they will look like they were made by committee. So, when it came to making final decisions, they relied on the feedback from the IDPA veterans with decades of experience.

This is not a lot different than a Jury: Everybody may disagree about the verdict, but they weren't in the jury room when the decisions were made. I try not to Monday-morning quarterback. I will enforce the rules as they are today, and advocate for changes when they make sense. That is the best we can do. In the meantime, I will enjoy the sport and the glass is half full.
CC

[Tamara]

...they relied on the feedback from the IDPA veterans with decades of experience.

It'll be another three years before anybody can even have "decades" of IDPA experience.

[cclaxton]

It'll be another three years before anybody can even have "decades" of IDPA experience.

Just to be clear: I did not mean to infer they have decades of IDPA experience, but simply decades of experience with pistol shooting, and in some cases combat and law enforcement experience.
CC

[ToddG]

I've explained in the past why I understand the motivation behind the "don't advance while reloading" rule both from an anti-gamer standpoint -- especially after ditching the godawful "dumping" rule -- and from a logical tactical standpoint: people don't run toward the next fight before their gun is topped off, or at least they generally shouldn't.

The problem is how does one regulate and enforce? My first thought was to say you cannot move more than one yard in any direction while reloading. That would make for a lot of flexibility for the shooter but still keep him more or less rooted in place. But how do you measure those 36 inches? Perhaps change the rule to "no more than two steps" during a reload. That would pretty much allow both feet to move once into whatever position the shooter wanted to set himself in. Of course, then you'd have folks game it by taking two giant strides toward the next shooting position while they reloaded.

I get where they're trying to go with the Basketball Rule but (a) that's still far from realistic and (b) how many basketball players, even pros, cheat on that a bit? It just becomes another subjective standard and now the RO needs to be deciding whether regaining my balance or setting up for my next move was too egregious during a "flat footed reload."

I was OK with the rule when it first came out mostly because all the "it's not tactical!" whiners annoyed me with their thinly veiled complaints because what was really happening was they were losing a gamer advantage over people who were flat footed during reloads. I absolutely see the spirit behind the rule and it does make sense. But if enforcing the rule creates more problems than it solves it needs to go. It took IDPA forever to realize that about the "dumping" rule and it's one of the things that cost them some big-name competitor involvement.

[cclaxton]

I've explained in the past why I understand the motivation behind the "don't advance while reloading" rule both from an anti-gamer standpoint -- especially after ditching the godawful "dumping" rule -- and from a logical tactical standpoint: people don't run toward the next fight before their gun is topped off, or at least they generally shouldn't.

The problem is how does one regulate and enforce? My first thought was to say you cannot move more than one yard in any direction while reloading. That would make for a lot of flexibility for the shooter but still keep him more or less rooted in place. But how do you measure those 36 inches? Perhaps change the rule to "no more than two steps" during a reload. That would pretty much allow both feet to move once into whatever position the shooter wanted to set himself in. Of course, then you'd have folks game it by taking two giant strides toward the next shooting position while they reloaded.

I get where they're trying to go with the Basketball Rule but (a) that's still far from realistic and (b) how many basketball players, even pros, cheat on that a bit? It just becomes another subjective standard and now the RO needs to be deciding whether regaining my balance or setting up for my next move was too egregious during a "flat footed reload."

I was OK with the rule when it first came out mostly because all the "it's not tactical!" whiners annoyed me with their thinly veiled complaints because what was really happening was they were losing a gamer advantage over people who were flat footed during reloads. I absolutely see the spirit behind the rule and it does make sense. But if enforcing the rule creates more problems than it solves it needs to go. It took IDPA forever to realize that about the "dumping" rule and it's one of the things that cost them some big-name competitor involvement.

I plan on using my 4th and 5th eyeballs to watch their feet for fouls. (Keeping safety glasses on them is a challenge, tho)

Lately I have been telling the Scorekeeper that he/she has to watch for cover and foot fouls...I am watching the gun and watching for safety (muzzle, finger, etc.), and trying to stay within arms reach of the shooter, and that can be challenging when he/she is moving fast. When the scorekeeper does that job, it works really well.

CC

[jetfire]

I plan on using my 4th and 5th eyeballs to watch their feet for fouls. (Keeping safety glasses on them is a challenge, tho)

Lately I have been telling the Scorekeeper that he/she has to watch for cover and foot fouls...I am watching the gun and watching for safety (muzzle, finger, etc.), and trying to stay within arms reach of the shooter, and that can be challenging when he/she is moving fast. When the scorekeeper does that job, it works really well.

CC

Please don't stay within arm's reach of the shooter. There are few things more dangerous than an SO who thinks it is his or her job to physically stop a shooter from doing something unsafe.

[PPGMD]

So, when it came to making final decisions, they relied on the feedback from the IDPA veterans with decades of experience.

And there is the issue, if you are outside of the select group they don't listen to you. IMO the flat foot reload is going to be the round dumping of the current rule book. How many years will it stay on the book before the IDPA comes to it's senses?

IMO IDPA needs to make a leadership change. The unelected board can still retain final authority, but IMO the BOD selected "Tiger Teams" should be disbanded. And they should be replaced with elected group similar to USPSA. Who they are should be public not secret like the Tiger Teams, and there should be lines of communication other than a form to no where. And by electing them we ensure that we have people that will listen to their local membership and present the issues that matter to the people in their area.

[TR675]

That's pretty tactical right there.

Don't you mean "über tactical?"

[cclaxton]

And there is the issue, if you are outside of the select group they don't listen to you. IMO the flat foot reload is going to be the round dumping of the current rule book. How many years will it stay on the book before the IDPA comes to it's senses?

IMO IDPA needs to make a leadership change. The unelected board can still retain final authority, but IMO the BOD selected "Tiger Teams" should be disbanded. And they should be replaced with elected group similar to USPSA. Who they are should be public not secret like the Tiger Teams, and there should be lines of communication other than a form to no where. And by electing them we ensure that we have people that will listen to their local membership and present the issues that matter to the people in their area.

Again, I am the glass half full kind of guy. So I am okay with the current leadership. IDPA is not a democracy and it is not a membership-owned non-profit. This has good and bad attributes. I am kinda torn between making it a membership-owned non-profit and leaving it as a for-profit that has a membership. Committees often get into "analysis-paralysis" mode and often politics and personalities drive them. I have been there, done that.

By taking the input of members, but then allowing a smaller group to debate those suggestions and have it reviewed by a board and master-level "consultants," it allows decisions to made easier and without a lot of drama. If we would have used a committee approach to the rulebook, we would still be caught up in the drama and the paralysis IMHO.

This all comes under the category of: "Making sausage is messy."

Just one man's humble opinion.
CC