Many procedure-based rules are what you end up with if you want to prescribe shooter action to the point that you are enforcing your vision of tactics.
Simpler/less rules are the big way to avoid assaulting new shooters with surprising penalties. But then the enforced tactics go away along with the rules and penalties.
If people really just want to hang out with their friends, shoot carry guns, and don't care about the competition, then what do penalties matter?
Technical excellence supports tactical preparedness
Lord of the Food Court
http://www.gabewhitetraining.com
Because 'serious' SOs tend to yap about them when you shoot or competitors in the squad get all bent out of shape if your cover isn't perfect. I recall one SO years ago, screaming about an FTDR to me as I fired an extra shot, so has to get a better reload. Now that rule is gone. Or I once moved behind cover as reloading - BLAH, BLAH - now gone.
The rules should be oriented towards safety - adding a wave of 10 sec anal retentive penalties over the 3 sec - have them for the billboard dudes at the high end matches and chill out elsewhere. Never DQ'ed a bowler when someone crossed the fault line for recreational fun outings.
The tac sequence ban is just an example of stupid tactical nazis not realizing that the flow of a fight doesn't start with a beep and SO. Have car with four bad guys accost you - you are thinking of one shot each and then repeating as necessary.
It like the tax code - a rule for everything - maybe we need a flat tax analog. Shoot safe.
Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; 12-17-2016 at 04:02 PM.
here's your targets, start here, go.
oh...that's too much like someone else's party.
although i did note that in the discussion above that now you can shoot whatever you can see from wherever you are....that sounds familiar. give shooters options. risk/reward challenges. good shooter, no need to run so much. poor shooter, better move to another position.
so....if i manage to get six FPs in one day, do i get a timeout, a teddy bear, a donut, and a hug?
i'll still show up and shoot, but i'm thinking SOs aren't going to enjoy being the bad guy all day long. without SOs, you don't have much of a sport.
Bear in mind that most of the rule changes are simplifications. You can still shoot Tac Seq if your gunfighting coach says to, but the MD can't tell you to.
I see two losses.
The lack of Mobility Challenged will be hard on you old guys and unless they have an inclusive list of FPs it will be as bogus as round dumping and flat footed reloads.
Code Name: JET STREAM
I appreciate your perspectives, so thank you, and I hope this is not seen as arguing with your priorities - just trying to understand the whole thing better.
One issue that comes to mind with regard to the idea of one level of enforcement for local matches and another in big matches - if there is a similar pattern as in USPSA, then many of the serious competitors use local matches as preparation for the big ones. If the locals aren't run the same way as the big ones, that may not work out well from the perspective of making it a good competition, as far as that aspect goes. I only mention this because the main club where I shoot USPSA prides itself on setting up tough locals so when our shooters go to a major, we aren't saying "whoa I've never seen THIS before." Both in consistent application of the rules and also stage difficulty and design. It's a huge positive of this club from my perspective.Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
Technical excellence supports tactical preparedness
Lord of the Food Court
http://www.gabewhitetraining.com
Just read that there will be a new IDPA target, with a 4" circle down zero head instead of the whole 6" head box. 12.5" area instead of 36", for those bad at maths.
Last edited by HopetonBrown; 12-18-2016 at 04:01 AM.
If you guys have asshole SOs, that's something no rule change can fix. Not really fair to complain about the rules if the problem is elsewhere...
Sent from my Infernal Contraption using Tapatalk
IDPA SSP classification: Sharpshooter
F.A.S.T. classification: Intermediate
the more judgement calls that a sport requires someone to make, the more arguments and hurt feelings that will result.
was he behind cover? was the SO in the correct place to make that call?
did the shooter dump rounds or did he try to make up what he thought was a miss, or did he pull the trigger before he was fully on target?
did and newbie shooter really try to game the stage by shooting targets out of order, or did he just not fully understand the rules yet, but we're going to crush his aspirations to get better and saddle him with lots of penalties.
the new fault lines area good idea, take the judgement calls out of the game. either your are over the line or you are not. i've seen too many SOs who were in the wrong location to make a cover call, but made it anyway. and of course the shooter cannot see what the SO is doing, and with no replay available, you just have to stand there and take your penalty and smile.
It's a difficult problem, I grant you. I was thinking about the drift of IDPA to extreme competition as compared to its original goal of having a somewhat 'realistic' competition venue. Look at the gun selections in the nationals vs. the carry guns mentioned in the survey reported after the match. There's a disconnect even among the 'top' shooters and EDC.
Calling numerous penalties for 10 points at local matches - just don't get it from a 'fun' point of view. Here's a little bit about shooting at anything you can see. We had a turner and it was difficult to hit it twice - that's fine. But later in the COF, you could see it at an extreme angle. So folks took a shot at it. It led to an elongated hole. I suggested that there was an elongated hole rule but my concern was dismissed. So when up, I shot it in the Zero from the angle. Do we get more of this with the new rules.
Ah, so what - I will never be a major competitor - I'll just have fun and try to be safe. As I wrote up, I like Eric's short range paradigm which is be safe and solve the problem.
BTW, if we really want to use cover and pie - we should shoot the targets blind. But that's impractical. Having a walk through - that's realistic, isn't it?
sounds like somewhat poor stage design if you can take another whack at what was supposed to be a disappearing target.
i think i'll dream up some stages that give you a starting point, several points of cover, and you have to figure out how best to shoot it. no prescribed dance moves. something on the order of POC1 is a short step to get to but the shots are long, or POC2 is a longer walk, but you get shorter shots. risk/reward situation. rewards the really good shots, if they can make them, or if you think you need some help with accuracy, then move those feet and get a closer shot.
Reply With Quote
