Copy. Appreciate the info.Originally Posted by PPGMD
t
Copy. Appreciate the info.
t
I noticed that yesterday and admit it's an odd rule. Has anyone from IDPA HQ actually said "equipment race" in regard to that decision? I don't think of lanyards as being particularly cutting edge.
The other odd flashlight rule is that it's not a penalty if you drop your light without picking it back up. That's bizarre to me. If your light has served the purpose why keep it in your hand? At the WV state match years ago they actually had a stage where you went from a lighted indoor area to a dark indoor area to a (bright) outdoor area fairly quickly. Now, I was a moron and did keep the light in my hand after I went outside but it certainly would have been smarter and "tactically sound" to dump it rather than let it muddle my shooting, reloads, etc.
"A dropped flashlight does not incur a penalty as long as the shooter retrieves the flashlight prior to
firing the next shot in the string of fire."
Sounds like it's a penalty if you drop the light and fire another shot. Of course, the rulebook doesn't spell this out. This takes away the common gamer tactic of setting the light somewhere that it illuminates the stage and then shooting freestyle.
The comment attached to the rule mentions not wanting an equipment race.
If something is tactically sound (like lanyards, rings, and ring lights), and gamers all want it because it make it easier to win a stage, to quote Pat Rogers "In the police business we call that a clue."
The entire "equipment race" mantra went right out of the window when they made SSP and ESP virtually the same times on the classifier.
I think I skipped a lot of the comments, candidly. Crazy to think that lanyards are somehow an equipment race. Having been privy to some of the IDPA rule-building process in the past I'm skeptical we're hearing the whole story.
While I'd certainly have no problem if IDPA chose to combine them (just look at the KSTG rules), I do appreciate the motivation behind keeping them separate. Classifier scores aside, one division is for folks who want to compete with sort of stock guns and many of them will feel put upon, rightly or wrongly, if forced to go head to head with guys who've done crazy stuff like stippled their grips or added an aftermarket slide plate.
Oh I am sure, but honestly this is turning into a pattern. IDPA has turned into the old curmudgeon, you know who I mean, the guy that is set in his ways and thinks that everything else is stupid techniques.
A perfect example is Jeff Cooper is his later years, he wouldn't acknowledge modern iso even when he was giving the Coopers Cup to someone that won it using modern iso. That is what the IDPA has become, they won't consider anything new because you know, it might kick the butt of everything else out there.
In my opinion the IDPA won't change until the leadership becomes elected by the membership. As long as the leadership is decided by the current leadership it is unlikely that they will appoint anyone that is outside their sphere of influence.
+1. Its as though IDPA is saying that a Limited gun from that other organization is on the same level as a Production gun in the same caliber. Seems pointless to have both SSP & ESP if they are both scored essentially the same.
IDPA was never touted as being the testbed for new technology. Believe me, I went through this same heartache with them more than a decade ago over the Lasergrip thing. I'd even got Crimson Trace to commit to provide a free set of Lasergrips to every contestant at a major match where we were going to allow Lasergrips and IDPA HQ squashed it.
At the end of the day, just as there have been people who really do have lasers on their carry guns, or really do use compensated guns, there are people who really do use MRDS or whatever. Why do they use it? Because they believe it gives them an advantage. If they're right, then allowing it in IDPA really does create an equipment race and makes the start up cost for a new shooter unreachable.
Why do you think USPSA created Production? It wasn't because the BOD loves stock guns. It's because the organization saw its membership slowing while IDPA grew at a rapid rate. New shooters, casual shooters, and people who wanted to feel competitive with "their real carry gun" looked at Limited and Open and often ran away scared.
I don't think IDPA wants to change that much and I don't think most IDPA members want it to follow in the footsteps of the other big shooting sport that saw member elections turn it into the madcap shootfest it's become. In '96 when the first rulebook was being discussed the issue of BOD control vs. membership control was debated. And we all looked at what USPSA had turned into and most of us agreed that the BOD's plan was the smarter one. I think the Tiger Team idea was an attempt to bridge the gap between stagnation and running amok. It just appears that the people selected for the teams were, on balance, pretty conservative. Which cases the question: were people expecting a whole new game? The idea behind the TTs was to correct problems. In fairness, a lot of the glaring issues we used to complain about have been fixed. The draft definitely has some other new issues, admittedly.In my opinion the IDPA won't change until the leadership becomes elected by the membership. As long as the leadership is decided by the current leadership it is unlikely that they will appoint anyone that is outside their sphere of influence.
Plus, just look at how many ridiculous rules come out of the omnipotent NROI. No paint in the magwell? Magazines in your front pocket kicking you into Open? Come on...
I disagree, IDPA has a history of being obstructionist to anything that upsets their opinion of the way that things work. They could easily create a carry optics division, and keep them there. Instead they use the equipment race like a club to prevent things from moving forward.
I honestly only see two issues fixed, namely round dumping, and the reloading while outside cover. USPSA maybe a shootfest, but they adapt change to the membership, that is why production and single stack are fairly conservative, but limited and open are practically anything goes.I don't think IDPA wants to change that much and I don't think most IDPA members want it to follow in the footsteps of the other big shooting sport that saw member elections turn it into the madcap shootfest it's become. In '96 when the first rulebook was being discussed the issue of BOD control vs. membership control was debated. And we all looked at what USPSA had turned into and most of us agreed that the BOD's plan was the smarter one. I think the Tiger Team idea was an attempt to bridge the gap between stagnation and running amok. It just appears that the people selected for the teams were, on balance, pretty conservative. Which cases the question: were people expecting a whole new game? The idea behind the TTs was to correct problems. In fairness, a lot of the glaring issues we used to complain about have been fixed. The draft definitely has some other new issues, admittedly.
The magazine issue was fixed due to up roar from the members. The paint in the magwell is annoying, but there isn't enough uproar to overturn that yet.Plus, just look at how many ridiculous rules come out of the omnipotent NROI. No paint in the magwell? Magazines in your front pocket kicking you into Open? Come on...
Reply With Quote