http://members.idpa.com/Content/Rules/024rkapr.nst.pdf
Only a few changes were really incorporated in the final document. Including the not for score division. But for the most part major issues like the flat footed reload remain.
Bye bye IDPA, I will be letting my membership expire.
I'm disappointed by the new rules as well--but not surprised. In an offline discussion with OrigamiAK I suggested that we may see more progress in IDPA (and USPSA) rules as younger and more modern shooters transition into leadership roles. I do enjoy IDPA (even though the rules are lame), and plan to keep shooting their matches--but their philosophy seems to be to minimize risk and downplay leading edge equipment, tactics, and physical performance so "older" and less fit shooters can win matches and not get hurt.
The "not for score" option is a step in the right direction at least.
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
I can understand the angst as among other things, replacing a stupid reloading rule with yet another stupid reloading rule leaves people flat after such a build-up.
They could have done all of this without "Tiger Teams".
Disagree.Originally Posted by Clusterfrack
IDPA from the beginning was supposed to be:
- focused more on shooting than athleticism, and
- approachable by shooters of low and moderate skill level.
If you want a game where having a great VO2 Max is more important than being able to shoot down zero to be competitive at a mid-tier level, there's a game for that. It's called USPSA.
If you want a game where you spend seven seconds of a 9-second stage doing things other than shooting, there's a game for that. It's called USPSA.
If you want a game where developing a stage strategy in advance plays a significant role in your score, there's a game for that. Coincidentally enough, it's also called USPSA.
I've got absolutely nothing at all against USPSA. It's a different game with different rules and a different focus. People who lament that IDPA isn't more like USPSA should try to understand that.
While I may not necessarily agree with it, I completely understand the flat footed reload rule. First, especially with the elimination of the round dumping rule, it mitigates against the gaminess of timing/planning reloads... again taking the strategy/gamer option off the table per IDPA's original intent.
Second, while plenty of people -- most of them with little or no tactical experience or even training, from what I've seen -- are crying "it's not tactical to stand still during a reload!" I think they're missing a big point. It's not tactical to run toward known trouble while fidgeting with your partially- or un-loaded gun. LE/mil have been teaching people forever don't leave cover until you've topped off your gun. Same concept here. Unless I'm misunderstanding the rule, it doesn't prevent you from moving while reloading when you're exposed to threats. But if you're behind cover and "safe," you're supposed to top off the gun before charging forward. If I've misread the rules, please correct me.
With the flat footed reloads required people that can sprint will be the ones that win the stage. IMO this hurts the non-athletic shooters more than it helps.
Besides which the entire thing is a game to begin with. I think IDPA needs to get out of the mindset that it is "tactical" because it isn't. If you can't use every advantage available it isn't freaking tactical. The light lanyards, weapon lights, and Tomahawk style lights being banned are an excellent example of this. They claim they don't want to make it an equipment race, but if something is practical for "tactical usage" and yet competitors flock to it because it improves their scores that should be a freaking clue.
IDPA has the same mindset that Gunsite had. They are being run by people that are stuck in the past. Does every change need to be embraced? No, but they shouldn't be so reactionary that they ban everything that upsets the norm.
If this were the sum total of the rule, then I'd be in full agreement with it.
The rule as written assigns a procedural if you take a step while reloading, even if you remain completely behind cover. This is dumb.
-C
My blog: The Way of the Multigun
That is a very excellent point.
Having spoken to every single founding BOD member, they were all aware it was a game. It was -- and is still trying to be -- a game that sets its rules based on some considerations that are important to certain shooters and not others. Same could be said of USPSA, Bianchi, Steel Challenge, etc.Besides which the entire thing is a game to begin with. I think IDPA needs to get out of the mindset that it is "tactical" because it isn't.
I remain baffled about the lanyards even though I don't use or like them myself.The light lanyards, weapon lights, and Tomahawk style lights being banned are an excellent example of this. They claim they don't want to make it an equipment race, but if something is practical for "tactical usage" and yet competitors flock to it because it improves their scores that should be a freaking clue.
Weapon lights I totally understand. If you don't think creating an advantage for people who shell out the hundreds of dollars for the light, holster, etc. is an "equipment race" we'll have to agree to disagree.
The Tomahawk style lights (as well as the new Surefire wrist light thingy) are along the same lines. Are they practical? Perhaps so. But if you allow them, it creates a huge competitive advantage over folks who have to hold a light in one hand. So either you allow them -- which in practical terms means requiring them -- or you don't.
Personally, I'd be fine with either way. Allow WMLs or don't; allow body-mounted lights or don't. But (a) I'm not shooting IDPA regularly and (b) I can afford to go out and buy $500 of specialized equipment if I want to... I even get to write it off my taxes. IDPA has always been about accessibility for people who wanted to show up with a cheap gun and cheap holster and still be competitive against other guys at the NO/MM/SS level.
I'm not sure I can agree with that. The new rulebook certainly recognized modern tech in terms of SFA guns, for example. They got rid of the dumping rule. Just because they aren't having an Open division doesn't mean they're unwilling to look at new tech. As I've said before, I banged my head against this same wall a decade ago over Lasergrips. I don't like their decision but I understand it. Same is true for WMLs and other equipment.IDPA has the same mindset that Gunsite had. They are being run by people that are stuck in the past. Does every change need to be embraced? No, but they shouldn't be so reactionary that they ban everything that upsets the norm.
IDPA has to draw the line somewhere and whether one agrees with or not, it's hard to argue that there's logic behind where they've drawn it.
No, it is not. It will hurt the gamers who've mastered the art of the tucked-in-my-shirt RWR and that's about it.
Imagine the following scenario. You're moving down a hallway. You get to a doorway and shoot a few guys. Your gun has only a few bullets left in it. Do you:
- reload while running towards the sound of more bad guys in the next doorway, or
- stay as far away from the other bad guys until your gun is topped off and as ready as it can be, then put your full attention on aggressing towards the next fight?
Todd,
I don't have an issue with not leaving a position of cover without a loaded weapon.
The rule states that you can initiate an emergency reload while in the open and on the move but that you can't engage threats until reaching cover. So, you can reload, but you can't shoot at the guys trying to kill you.
That is just as screwy as having to run to cover in order to initiate a reload.
3.8. All reloads must be performed behind cover; however, a shooter, who runs the firearm empty while in the open, may initiate an Emergency Reload while advancing to the next position of cover. The shooter must continue moving while performing the Emergency Reload and may not engage any remaining targets until behind cover, if cover is available.
Except those sports don't have to completely rewrite their rule book every few years.
Then perhaps we should rename IDPA to Action Shooting Lite.Personally, I'd be fine with either way. Allow WMLs or don't; allow body-mounted lights or don't. But (a) I'm not shooting IDPA regularly and (b) I can afford to go out and buy $500 of specialized equipment if I want to... I even get to write it off my taxes. IDPA has always been about accessibility for people who wanted to show up with a cheap gun and cheap holster and still be competitive against other guys at the NO/MM/SS level.
Again if they are so much faster that in order to win the match you need them (just like you need a flashlight period to even compete in a low light stage), perhaps that is a clue that having a way to retain the light while doing gun handling tasks (be it a lanyard, special light, or WML) is something you need to be "defensive."
IMO it is either something based on defensive shooting or it isn't. If their goal is a sport that any man can get into, do away with low light stages, do away with every divisions except a 1911 division and an IPSC based Production division (basically no modifications). But if their goal is to be a defensive game, they need to embrace some of the changes that the defensive shooting industry has made in the last decade.
Reply With Quote