Draft Rule Book Poll

[ktm300]

I didn't expect there to be too many changes suggested by the Tigger Team process because of the individuals that were selected to provide input. Please do not take this as a condemnation of the team members but instead an awareness of their predilection of maintaining the status quo. If you ask people who are comfortable and committed to the current rule set to suggest changes you aren't going to see much because they aren't going to see much that needs improvement. I am surprised that the process took sooooooo long, but I suppose this was to give the membership a feeling that everything was looked at closely. I keep hoping that there is another set of suggestion coming but I doubt it.

To me this is the best comment on the rule book I have seen. Some members want to bury their heads in the sand and say that all the comments, posts, and polls are not significant. You get to decide if a poll of shooters on one of the most active shooting forums where 200 shooters voiced their opinion where only 4% said the new rule book was a vast improvement and 28% said it was a little better is significant.

I am waiting for HQ to process the 1100+ comments on the new rules to see if HQ knows how to listen to the membership.

[Rob Tompkins]

True, only a small fraction of the membership is responding to polls, logging comments, discussing ad nauseam.

Thing is, only a small fraction of the membership carries the operation.

Does 10% of the membership MD or SO large matches?

Does 10% of the membership travel a significant distance to shoot or work?

I doubt it is much if any more.

If the minority of the membership that supports the casual shooters should get alienated, then the organization is headed downhill.

Jim is correct. Yes it may be true, the 200 or so respondents on this poll are a small % of total membership and the few hundred commenters (subitting 1100+ comments, several each) to IDPA on the rules are also a small % of membership. However, they propbably represent HUGE fraction of the membership that makes IDPA run. These are the people that serve as SO's and MD's, participate and staff major matches, etc. Out of the last years worth of local IDPA matches (in North AL) I've run or attended, there are were about 200 unique individuals. Out ot that number the regulars that help out as MD's, SO's, score keepers, stage designers, etc. total maybe 20 - 30 shooters. These are the people that took the time to read the draft rules and think about their impact. I personally would pay more attenttion to them and their comments than think that the lack of comment form the other 90%+ of membership is a glowing endoresment. Most them have never read the rules in the first palce and only do what someone tells them to do - or they learn the rules one PE at a time.

[Rob Tompkins]

.....

I am waiting for HQ to process the 1100+ comments on the new rules to see if HQ knows how to listen to the membership.

This!

[dcloudy777]

on one of the most active shooting forums where 200 shooters voiced their opinion where only 4% said the new rule book was a vast improvement and 28% said it was a little better is significant.

I am waiting for HQ to process the 1100+ comments on the new rules to see if HQ knows how to listen to the membership.

I wouldn't hold your breath. There was a pretty big outcry for the 2005 changes too, and we basically got told to pound sand.

[ktm300]

on one of the most active shooting forums where 200 shooters voiced their opinion where only 4% said the new rule book was a vast improvement and 28% said it was a little better is significant.

I am waiting for HQ to process the 1100+ comments on the new rules to see if HQ knows how to listen to the membership.

I wouldn't hold your breath. There was a pretty big outcry for the 2005 changes too, and we basically got told to pound sand.

I am breathing normally and not expecting much. I would so love to be surprised, but I don't expect it. My guess is the "comfortable and committed" will rule the day.

[BillR1]

on one of the most active shooting forums where 200 shooters voiced their opinion where only 4% said the new rule book was a vast improvement and 28% said it was a little better is significant.

I am waiting for HQ to process the 1100+ comments on the new rules to see if HQ knows how to listen to the membership.

I wouldn't hold your breath. There was a pretty big outcry for the 2005 changes too, and we basically got told to pound sand.

NO rule change is going to please everyone. The TTs did what they think is best for the organization and the principles of the sport. Most shooters will simply comply with any new rules without excessive whining, just like they did in 2005. I think they did a nice job; others will disagree. That's the way it works.

[Glock3422]

My membership expired late last year. I have been waiting for the new rulebook to decide if I would renew.

I used to shoot five or six sanctioned matches a year including Nationals, the Carolina Cup and S&W. That number has decreased to zero this year.

I started shooting IDPA in 2002 and became an SO in 2008. I will not recertify as an SO. They have a chance at my money, but they will not waste my time. IDPA doesn't care to hear from anyone who doesn't agree with Berryville on everything.

There are a couple improvements in the rules and quite a few problems.

You can be penalized for pointing near a muzzle safe point. Not past it. Near it.

SOs will physically stop a shooter by grabbing them. Not me.

Duty Gear is clarified. I am tired of seeing LEOs shooting IDPA without concealment while using competition gear.

Low Cover is the same as vertical cover. No more shooting over the top of "cover." Cover now depends on how tall you are.

Flat footed reloads. Tac loads are now officially dead.

No shots over 25 yards. Why?

A series 80 lever can not be removed to improve trigger performance, but a magazine safety can. Oh, unless you buy a series 70 frame or slide for your series 80.

No knee pads. My left knee is about done.

Flashlight rules. Really? Flashlight rules. Because there are innovative and effective designs for flashlights, those designs are banned.

Artificial stiffeners in concealment is banned. Must be effective or someone invested in laundry starch. The only time I have ever seen someone drop a gun was a bad draw with the concealment wrapped around the gun.

Appeals process. This is one part of USPSA that IDPA certainly doesn't need. Oh, and all those matches outside the US will require US currency to appeal. Get out of Arkansas much?

English is the official language for IDPA and air traffic control.

Mandated equipment checks and chrono. Some matches don't have the staff to do it in terms of numbers or knowledge.

Mandatory stage previews. This will never work at S&W.

Finally, for now.

Match Directors may not speak ill of IDPA under threat of banishment. Second Amendment good. First Amendment not good.

I can't wait to read the final version. I'll bet it looks pretty close to the draft.

From the poll, it looks like only six people own XDs.

[ktm300]

From the poll, it looks like only six people own XDs.

I think that is one of the reasons you have 42 (27%) people that said it was a little better, me being one of them.

[Chuck D]

I'm not in the habit of wishing big chunks of time to pass but I so look forward to returning to this issue 9-12 months down the road to see if the new rulebook adversely effects membership numbers.

I'd bet the last 5 dollars in my wallet it doesn't.

"Comfortable and committed" as I am...

[freeidaho]

I think the poll is a bit unclear.

There are too many issues balled up in the question.

Here are some of the main ones:

-Did the new rulebook do a better job of describing the rules?

-Is it better organized and is it easy to find what you are looking for?

-Did they keep the rules that you personally liked?

-Did the rules change is a way that you personally liked?

I think that many are saying the new rulebook is a poor simply because they didn't get their pet rule change.

Personally I expect it will get better due to the suggestions made on IDPA.com during the review period.

kr

[motosapiens]

The poll is bound to be biased because this site leans pretty heavily towards uspsa. I think most of the folks I see at IDPA matches don't even have internet, lol. Freeidaho is of course the notable exception.

I also am biased towards uspsa, but i think if they clean up some of the language in the rules to make the intent clear, everything will be fine.

Edited June 12, 2013 by motosapiens

[Paul-the new guy]

I think most of the folks I see at IDPA matches don't even have internet, lol. Freeidaho is of course the notable exception.

I also am biased towards uspsa, but i think if they clean up some of the language in the rules to make the intent clear, everything will be fine.

I don't think that is true at all. I see IDPA as kind of a gateway to the shooting sports. I also see the new people hungrily search for information about their new hobby. They stumble onto the IDPA forums and make a few posts there, get a dose of the chronies that hang out there and decide it just isn't worth it... Then they get more active and migrate to USPSA. I think for most the life span of their shooting hobby is 3 years. After about 3 years they move on to the next hobby...

I don't think I have ever been to an IDPA match where there was not some kind of argument about the rules and or how they are interpreted. That is why I thought after 18 months there would be a HUGE improvement not a minor tweak.

[motosapiens]

I think most of the folks I see at IDPA matches don't even have internet, lol. Freeidaho is of course the notable exception.

I also am biased towards uspsa, but i think if they clean up some of the language in the rules to make the intent clear, everything will be fine.

I don't think that is true at all. I see IDPA as kind of a gateway to the shooting sports. I also see the new people hungrily search for information about their new hobby. They stumble onto the IDPA forums and make a few posts there, get a dose of the chronies that hang out there and decide it just isn't worth it... Then they get more active and migrate to USPSA. I think for most the life span of their shooting hobby is 3 years. After about 3 years they move on to the next hobby...

I don't think I have ever been to an IDPA match where there was not some kind of argument about the rules and or how they are interpreted. That is why I thought after 18 months there would be a HUGE improvement not a minor tweak.

Have you been to a uspsa match where there not some kind of argument about the rules? I sure haven't. I haven't played a game of soccer that didn't have argument about the rules either. That's the nature of competition.

[ktm300]

I think that many are saying the new rulebook is a poor simply because they didn't get their pet rule change.

The poll question says nothing the rule book being poor, just if the update was a vast improvement, a little better, or not much better at all. Very different question.

As to pet rule changes, that would be another set of polls on the popular and unpopular changes.

[Paul-the new guy]

I think most of the folks I see at IDPA matches don't even have internet, lol. Freeidaho is of course the notable exception.

I also am biased towards uspsa, but i think if they clean up some of the language in the rules to make the intent clear, everything will be fine.

I don't think that is true at all. I see IDPA as kind of a gateway to the shooting sports. I also see the new people hungrily search for information about their new hobby. They stumble onto the IDPA forums and make a few posts there, get a dose of the chronies that hang out there and decide it just isn't worth it... Then they get more active and migrate to USPSA. I think for most the life span of their shooting hobby is 3 years. After about 3 years they move on to the next hobby...

I don't think I have ever been to an IDPA match where there was not some kind of argument about the rules and or how they are interpreted. That is why I thought after 18 months there would be a HUGE improvement not a minor tweak.

Have you been to a uspsa match where there not some kind of argument about the rules? I sure haven't. I haven't played a game of soccer that didn't have argument about the rules either. That's the nature of competition.

Yes I have. I rarely see an argument about the rules at a uspsa match. I have been to a lot of soccer games and have not seen any argument about the rules either. A bad call maybe but not the rules.

[Chuck D]

I think the poll is a bit unclear.

There are too many issues balled up in the question.

Here are some of the main ones:

-Did the new rulebook do a better job of describing the rules?

-Is it better organized and is it easy to find what you are looking for?

-Did they keep the rules that you personally liked?

-Did the rules change is a way that you personally liked?

I think that many are saying the new rulebook is a poor simply because they didn't get their pet rule change.

Personally I expect it will get better due to the suggestions made on IDPA.com during the review period.

kr

Well put from another IDPA guy who actually DOES have access to the internet (lol).

Edited June 12, 2013 by Chuck D

[jcc7x7]

I'm a shooter who likes both sports. I enjoy the running and gunning even though my 300 lb body doesn't run very fast any more! I like the folks in IDPA they seem a little less intense in my area any way. I keep dropping my mags on the ground and I've decided to stop trying to pick them up!

I've always liked revolvers so I'm gonna shoot a 625 next year in IDPA and Auto's in USPSA. I figured out that once you figure out the rules go for it and stop whinning. DA rules is the DA rules!!! LOL

To answer the question I don't see alot of changes and 18 months was way to long. But is was a COMMITTEE and we all know how that goes.

Just go shoot as best you can and remember most of us don't make a living at this.

[jwayne]

Just can't stop myself,,,,,,,,,,,,having been a IDPA SO for 9 years now, I see nothing in the changes that will make it better for the shooters or the SO's,,,,,what was unclear is still unclear and they actually muddied it up some more!!!

[BillR1]

Just can't stop myself,,,,,,,,,,,,having been a IDPA SO for 9 years now, I see nothing in the changes that will make it better for the shooters or the SO's,,,,,what was unclear is still unclear and they actually muddied it up some more!!!

Just the fact that round dumping rule is gone makes it easier for both shooters and SOs...no?

[Bob DuBois]

Think we'll see some outlaw matches using the old rules. The only thing I liked was being able to shoot an out of the box XD in SSP.

I don't shoot an XD but never thought it was fair to place them in a class with tuned 9mm 1911's and Glock 34's with all the goodies.

Been through the SO class twice and I'm not about to grab a shooter. A loud stop has always worked in the past. This rule alone opens a can or worms that could easily get in the SO's pocket.

I've enjoyed IDPA and the people I've met most that I've spoke with are not happy with the new rules several of them shoot on a National level.

[Jim Watson]

Think we'll see some outlaw matches using the old rules.

I agree. Maybe even mine, I don't know if the guy who took over from me will be willing to recertify on the new rules.

Then there will be format drift as different reactionary clubs pick and choose which old and which new rules they want to go by, then an increase in "tribal rules."

There is already one match in the area that is pretty much IPSC for the Innumerate. Run n Gun but Time Plus scoring.

It will be tough to routinely shoot Acme Defensive Pistol then go to a sanctioned match under IDPA 2013.

[22 shooter]

Just can't stop myself,,,,,,,,,,,,having been a IDPA SO for 9 years now, I see nothing in the changes that will make it better for the shooters or the SO's,,,,,what was unclear is still unclear and they actually muddied it up some more!!!

Just the fact that round dumping rule is gone makes it easier for both shooters and SOs...no?

I don't think the droping of round dumping did anything. I have never once seen round dumping called because no one could prove that it was round dumping.

[Racinready300ex]

Just can't stop myself,,,,,,,,,,,,having been a IDPA SO for 9 years now, I see nothing in the changes that will make it better for the shooters or the SO's,,,,,what was unclear is still unclear and they actually muddied it up some more!!!

Just the fact that round dumping rule is gone makes it easier for both shooters and SOs...no?

I don't think the droping of round dumping did anything. I have never once seen round dumping called because no one could prove that it was round dumping.

I was called on round dumping last year at a sanctioned match. The SO only gave me a PE,(not FTDR). So I didn't argue, took my PE and went on my way. I knew what I was doing when I did it.

[motosapiens]

It will be tough to routinely shoot Acme Defensive Pistol then go to a sanctioned match under IDPA 2013.

I dunno. Seems like IDPA is already called so arbitrarily and subjectively. Example: One match (or one SO) defines 'low cover' as gun below the top of the barrel, another doesn't. I've gotten in the habit of just asking beforehand how a particular rule or action will be enforced, and then doing it the way they want.

[Pete Whyte]

I don't think membership will change to much. There will be new shooters joining, while others dropping out in favor of other games, such as ICORE & USPSA. where members have control over how things will go. There is no vote in IDPA.