Possible cure to round dumping?

[benny hill]

If you want to rd. dump, do it on the longest target as I do. This game & the many others I shoot do not mirror real life shoot outs. I have talked in lenght to several multi- shoot out people & they all told me the same. It is a GAME with scorecards. Treat it as such & get rid of the silly rd. dumping rule & let's all have fun.

[Jake Di Vita]

It doesn't work well for all parties but not many people care about revolver shooters. The above would have you shoot 6 reload shoot one and then RWR. This is part of the problem with designing stages that prevent round dumping, you have 6,8,9,10 and 11 round guns to design around, there is always going to be some that it won't work for.

This is only one hypothetical example in which there were 7 shots required. Seeing how in IDPA there is a 6 shot max per array (IIRC), you don't need to worry about it.

Ken made a good point about when the SO moves with the squad, it becomes real apparent you the dumpers are after watching a few stages. I recently viewed a video of master shooter at a sanctioned match and after watching it I thought about the SO's that may have had concerns about calling round dumping on a single stage because of trying to give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter but if you viewed the whole match, there was no doubt about what was going on. I have no idea as to what the fix is and don't intend to argue about it. It does happen and I'm not sure that there is a good solution.

"Real apparent" is not conclusive. But for the third time, if people want to dish out 20 second penalties on what they think the shooter's intent was, go for it. Expect to lose some shooters though.

[RobMoore]

[.5 second penalties] penalize novices no more than the current -1, -3, -5 scoring system we have today.

Well, the novices/marksman, in general, shouldn't be making up -1s, and only close -3s, because they tend to shoot too slow to do it anyway. Just because they make the decision to do so now, to the detriment of their score, I don't think is a good justification for your proposed rule.

Speaking only for me, I don't wish IDPA to become IPSC. I just don't like being held back by the founder's ideas of "tactics" that they wished to reinforce with the rulebook, when those ideas aren't the "gospel" of what is out there. It would take some finese to allow the currently banned speed load (which is what ALL these round dumping/RWR/Tac discussions all form from) without killing the dry/emergency reload, but it could be done, and without dictating a questionable method (RWR). The speed load has a place in defensive pistol. It isn't "competition only".

I hope I don't get my pee-pee slapped for the use of the words "tactic" and "real". I didn't use them with the intent of dipping into the forbidden topic, and only mentioned them because of the stated intent of the rules from the book itself. In that sense, I think they are relevant.

[Gregg K]

How do SSR revo shooters currently do a RWR ? Just pocket the empties and live rounds ?

That's pretty much it. I normally load weak hand but for an RWR I do a strong hand reload and dump the whole mess in my hand and then a pocket. For a moon clip gun I can catch the ejected moon with either hand and stuff it in a pocket or drop it in the holster. I don't worry about COFs that don't work out real well for revolvers, I just deal with whatever happens and make it work. Most of the match directors around here just laugh when it doesn't work out well for revolvers and just say something like "dude, you brought the thing, you brought a round thing to a square game". It's ok.

[GmanCdp]

I was thinking this has been rehashed several times before,when i did a search,it looks as if the old topics are gone now..but from the idpa forum,i cliped this post for a read..

http://idpaforum.yuku.com/topic/5070/t/SO-ing-Pre-deciding-calls.html

Regarding cover calls, the time keeper should be watching the shooter, their target engagement and proper use of cover. {That is a weak area of the rule book.} Don't get carried away. If a shooter is leaning, they are using cover. If they are not leaning, they are not using cover. Cover warnings will handle most situations. Do remember that if they are behind cover to shoot, they are good to reload. I hate it when SOs start yelling cover as soon as someone goes to slide lock. Read the damn rule book. There is nothing wrong with advising shooters that cover is an issue on the stage, if it really is.

Round dumping-There is no such thing.

1-Each round fired requires an amount of time to aim and fire.

2-Vickers count stages permit a shooter to shoot until they are happy.

3-The first shot of a position, the first shot after reloading, and long shots each may deserve some insurance.

4-Since the last rule book revision, the price of not having a down 1 or better has gotten tougher - five seconds. The old rule permitted less accurate hits.

5-The SO class does not include a section on mind reading.

6-Some people have not acquired the skill to accurately call their shots.

7-Proper use of cover or otherwise difficult shooting positions will have an impact on accuracy and confidence.

8-A PE for "round dumping" is disproportionate to the benefit gained, if any. An FTDR for round dumping should never happen.

9-There is a place in tactical shooter for supressive fire.

10-The benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter. The benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter.

Remember, if you can't score the target without getting closer, you can't expect the shooter to be able to see and read hits.

Good luck and don't forget, the shooters having a good time is what it is about. This ain't for food or money. It is the entertainment business.

I have seen FTDRs and none of them involved "round dumping."

Bob

[Steve Koski]

Yes.

Revo shooters should bone up and realize that stages will commonly require them to reload once or twice more on the clock.

Another solution to the revo-whining is to just multiply their final scores by .7 so they feel like they're competing fairly with the autos.

[nwb01]

The only cure is to get rid of the rule. Unless the new rule book (whenever that may happen) comes with a crystal ball.

dead horse.bmp

[Glock3422]

I disagree with the 1/2 second "vickers but not" penalty. -1s would never be made up. -3s would only be made up if you could do it in less than 1 second, and then only if you can be sure of a -0 the second time around. You may as well make all stages limited.

In the military, one of the good rules of leadership was "Never give an order than you can't enforce".

Erase the round-dumping rule, and the problem is solved. Of all the ways our sport does not mirror real life, this one area to cling to is doing us more harm than good.

That said, I know in my heart that this proposal falls on the deaf ears of most here. Which will never be satisfied with IDPA until it is morfed into another shooting sport entirely. We should just use the rules of another shooting sport, but with vests. But then vests would be made optional in short order.

Serously though, I am so thankful that the members do not get to vote on the rules. The founders were very wise in that regard, or we would have already morfed into another shooting sport.

kr

Actually the members, potential members and former members do get a vote. They do it when they join, renew, show up, or don't.

The SOs get a vote when they consistently refuse to elevate round dumping over benefit of the doubt.

That other sport already exists and in fact pre-existed IDPA. We all know what it is, where it is, and how to get there. I enjoy both, but I only belong to IDPA.

The rule book has been changed, what, four times? There are frequent "semi-official clarifications."

The rules were not handed down on stone tablets. Just because a rule is, doesn't mean it should continue to be. Even the Constitution can be changed. The founders (board members) now number two. Neither seem to be particularly active in the sport.

Just because a change seems to be popular, doesn't mean it isn't a good idea.

Straw man arguments are popular, but not particularly effective. The basis of the sport is concealed carry, not shot limits.

There would be no quicker way to kill a popular sport than to institute a penalty for extra shots on a Vickers stage. We would have Limited Vickers, and Penalized Vickers.

[Dragoon]

Speaking only for me, I don't wish IDPA to become IPSC. I just don't like being held back by the founder's ideas of "tactics" that they wished to reinforce with the rulebook, when those ideas aren't the "gospel" of what is out there. It would take some finese to allow the currently banned speed load (which is what ALL these round dumping/RWR/Tac discussions all form from) without killing the dry/emergency reload, but it could be done, and without dictating a questionable method (RWR). The speed load has a place in defensive pistol. It isn't "competition only".

I, like Rob, also "don't wish IDPA to become IPSC". And I also think that, as Rob does, that the speed reload isn't "competition only".

Here's an excellent article on the subject: http://www.handgunsmag.com/tactics_training/treload_061604/index.html

(and I'm sure Bones will enjoy the 'IM' reference in the article)

[rvb]

Ryan,

With due respect, the proposal is a serious attempt to put an end to the round dumping issue forever. You have been wanting that... Yes? Isn't that what this thread is about?

Not at the expense of throwing out vicker's scoring.... that's the proverbial tossing the baby with the bathwater....

taking an extra shot already has a time penalty... the time it takes to make an extra shot. let people dump who want to dump. It doesn't bother me. get rid of the dumping rule, not the scoring system. That's like buying a new house because the faucet drips.

-rvb

Edited March 12, 2010 by rvb

[rvb]

No it isn't. But rules get changed all the time in other sports when they are flawed. It's blatantly obvious that this rule cannot be enforced 100% of the time. As such it quite simply is unfair to other competitors. How do you disagree with this?!?!?

I agree with this. Am I correct to assume that you would just rather do away with the dumping penalty ? (I tried to read back in your pother posts but couldnt find a definitive answer.)

What about doing away with the dumping penalty, doing away with the mandatory retention if you are not at slide lock. Then if the COF designer wants to mandate a RWR, then the COF rules need to say so and where.

ex. Competitor is to engage t1-t3 and popper 1, Then RWR, engage T4-T7.

How about that ?

From the rule book pg 42:

Reload with Retention (RWR) ...

NOTE: HQ urges course designers to draft scenario courses that

do not require tac-loads or reloads with retention to be performed

“on the clock”.

Two ways of reading that... either you shouldn't be designing stages where RWRs are necessary, or they shouldn't be required in the course description. .

As I said before, if you want a RWR (assuming the later interpretation above), stage design is the answer. a big barricade w/ 6 on one side and 6 on the other usually does it, for example. Drop the dumping rule, keep all other rules in place, mix in some good stage design, and problem solved.

"Stand here, reload after this target, etc," is called a "standard" course, not a scenario course.

-rvb

Edited March 12, 2010 by rvb

[rvb]

That said, I know in my heart that this proposal falls on the deaf ears of most here. Which will never be satisfied with IDPA until it is morfed into another shooting sport entirely. We should just use the rules of another shooting sport, but with vests.

kr

that's hardly fair to say of those who disagree with you. I've seen similar discussion on the idpa forum, too, and at many matches by shooters who never shoot anything but idpa. It's a very contentious rule, and not just here. please keep the discussion about the rule... I think this is the longest a thread of this type has gone w/o getting locked, so don't start w/ the us v them nonsense, especially when many here are both "us" AND "them."

-rvb

[freeidaho]

Ryan,

I don't care if anyone agrees with me. I personally shoot several disciplines and believe none of them are perfect. Just noting that the only solutions ever proposed here or that are acceptable here come from one place. It seems no one ever thinks out of that one box. It is but an observation, not maligning anyone or anything, just an observation, like wow, there sure are a lot of 511 vests in use. Not a enditement, just an observation. Either way, I said I was going to read more and type less, and I am.

Have a good day sir,

kr

Edited March 13, 2010 by freeidaho

[Joe D]

You will never see me ding a shooter for dumping a round. Well maybe Gman. He is a well known "Round Dumper".

[Jane]

Just noting that the only solutions ever proposed here or that are acceptable here come from one place. It seems no one ever thinks out of that one box.

kr

Ken,

I'm one of those who in this thread has urged the dropping of the round-dumping rule, with reasoning that I happen to think survives Bones' dismissal (the boy's logic approaches blondeness ).

I'm not sure I understand into which "one place" that makes me fit.

You and I have worked several Nationals matches together. I hope that you and I personally have enough mutual respect that you can at least concede the legitimacy of my opinion.

Jane

[Steve Koski]

Dump it baby!

[Glshooter]

I have a solution for round dumping. How about people show some integrity and stop doing it? What satisfaction do people get knowing they had to cheat to win?

[Steve Koski]

I don't know, but they do it.

[GmanCdp]

You will never see me ding a shooter for dumping a round. Well maybe Gman. He is a well known "Round Dumper".

i always lean something while shooting in Alabama...Remember at last years state match and you gave me a finger for a make up shot on your stage??? wait....that was for not following the COF,dang it,the extra shot still cost me 3 sec.. was that round dumping?

[Jake Di Vita]

I have a solution for round dumping. How about people show some integrity and stop doing it? What satisfaction do people get knowing they had to cheat to win?

Since this is merely a game, and practically everyone (upwards of 75% I'm sure) is (whether they should be or not) doing it, I don't view it quite as black and white as cheating or not cheating in this particular case.

[Glshooter]

Since it clearly states in the rule book that it is illegal, it is black and white as cheating. Because other people do it doesn't make it OK. Is it OK for pro athletes to take performance enhancing drugs since other players did it? There are a lot of us out there who don't round dump. As long as you are knowingly breaking a rule to beat us, you are a cheater.

[Jake Di Vita]

Since it clearly states in the rule book that it is illegal, it is black and white as cheating. Because other people do it doesn't make it OK. Is it OK for pro athletes to take performance enhancing drugs since other players did it? There are a lot of us out there who don't round dump. As long as you are knowingly breaking a rule to beat us, you are a cheater.

Actually, I'm not that against professional athletes using steroids. If I was in their place, and I was approaching the end of my career, I'd consider doing it for an extra 80 million dollars. Most pro athletes use, most just don't get caught. They know the risks, and they do it anyway. I am against teenagers and college kids juicing though.

Whether you berate people who round dump or not, won't make people stop. I realize you are trying to take the moral high ground...cool, good on ya. That isn't going to change the fact that most shooters do it or have done it.

Now since it obviously can't be caught 100% of the time, is it fair to you who legitimately doesn't round dump?

[Merlin Orr]

If you knowingly violate a rule to gain advantage you are a cheater/gamer/whatever.

If you roll a stop sign out in the middle of nowhere, speed up on a yellow light, run 1 mph over the posted speed limit, fudge on your income tax or your expense account, do part of your kid's homework, tell the waitress you kid is 11 instead of 12, arrive at work late and not doc your time and yada yada yada... You are also a cheater.

IMO - If you do any of these things and call others cheaters... you are a cheater/gamer/whatever .... and a hypocrite to go along with it.

I prefer to be called a "gamer" myself....

[GmanCdp]

just a thought i'd like to share....when a shooter comes off the line after a COF and has a huge "smile" and 3 empty mags and is "all shookup excitied"from the COF,is that round dumping?? naw..it's just a guy who paid money to shoot a large match and to have a fun and great time..

sometimes a stage design will "intimidate" a shooter to shoot extra rounds..recently at a large match,there was a great very unique and clever,3 position,18 rnd stage that had 1 popup diapperaing target and 2 moving towards the shooter targets at each position..alot of shooters were intimidated by the popups and movers,actually empitied a mag at each position..i saw this at several,several times in 2days,without a thought from the SO giving out a PE...

Stages with T'shirts are another example where the shooters who has never seen this type of stage,will put extra rounds into a target,because they cannot see their "hits",especially if the COF requires the shooter to be moving in the "open" while shooting...

and JoeD was just joking about me being a "round dumper",he was actually refering to my "physique"...

[Bones]

Another solution to the revo-whining is to just multiply their final scores by .7 so they feel like they're competing fairly with the autos.

Gravity and mortality aside, there are very few rules which are universally obeyed by humans.

Who's whining? I see a lot of semi-auto shooters bemoaning the rule here, not revolver shooters.

Your second favorite blond (next to Jane of course),

Craig