IDPA and the foolishness

[Quag]

I'm just curious since I do not frequent USPSA forums. Do shooters on USPSA forums complain about their rules as much as former IDPA/USPSA shooters go on IDPA forums to complain. Or is USPSA so perfect there is no reason to complain. I tried to read the USPSA rule book when I joined USPSA and I found it pretty confusing campared to the IDPA rule book.

[racerba]

U seem very bitter. I will refund your membership if that will make you feel better

I'm not bitter...I'm being honest. There's a difference.

When I sent my membership card back to HQ...I told them to keep the money. If you're ACTUALLY from HQ, I'm certain you'd know that and I'm certain my 40 bucks was already spent on aviation fuel anyway...lol.

I'll just take my FTDR and carry on thank you.

Sorry chuck. You claimed non bitterness and refused my offer. Then upon reflection realized you had made a mistake and changed your mind. Day late and a ......

Two different Chuck/Charles D...from different part of the country...

[racerba]

I'm just curious since I do not frequent USPSA forums. Do shooters on USPSA forums complain about their rules as much as former IDPA/USPSA shooters go on IDPA forums to complain. Or is USPSA so perfect there is no reason to complain. I tried to read the USPSA rule book when I joined USPSA and I found it pretty confusing campared to the IDPA rule book.

99 post as of this post on this forum means you frequent enough...

Yes, there are complaints, but prob not as much. Yes, the rule book is thicker because USPSA tries not to leave the decisions to the RO (SO). IDPA seems to leave a lot of interpretations to the SO. I have been to matches where one SO says an action is OK while another SO on another stage says it's not. I think IDPA's rule discussion is more on the different interpretations by different SOs. USPSA rule discussion tends to be more of why something is legal or not legal.

[Chuck D]

U seem very bitter. I will refund your membership if that will make you feel better

I'm not bitter...I'm being honest. There's a difference.

When I sent my membership card back to HQ...I told them to keep the money. If you're ACTUALLY from HQ, I'm certain you'd know that and I'm certain my 40 bucks was already spent on aviation fuel anyway...lol.

I'll just take my FTDR and carry on thank you.

Sorry chuck. You claimed non bitterness and refused my offer. Then upon reflection realized you had made a mistake and changed your mind. Day late and a ......

Different Chuck D's.....the Chuck D. vs. Charles D. should have been your 1st clue....

Your money is safe...with me at least. Your generous offer should you honor your refund offer to Charles D will benefit the USPSA Junior Program nicely...thank you.

[Dkrad1935]

Haha. The offer wasn't made to him. And you are very welcome

[GOF]

+1 on the USPSA Rule Book. It may be lengthy, but it is written in clear and concise language that leaves little room for individual interpretation. It's either legal or it's not. Black & white. And, a competitor who feels they received a bad call has a clear & concise Rule Book to present for their argument.

The IDPA Rule Book seems to have been written by people who have no experience in technical writing. The use of the "etc." is IMHO, inexcusable in a Rule Book. That's not clarity.... that's folks gathering around to debate interpretation of the Rule and leave everyone confused. A Rule Book should not require "interpretation"... it's either legal or it's not.

Whether one agrees, or disagrees, with the new IDPA Rules is not an issue. The fact that the Rule Book can't clarify Rules is. IDPA gets a fail on technical writing skills. And, that's a shame because skilled technical writers were available... they just weren't utilized. The end result was not a quality Rule Book... it's merely a "suggestion' that" ya'll can gather around and try to figure the details out".

[Quag]

+1 on the USPSA Rule Book. It may be lengthy, but it is written in clear and concise language that leaves little room for individual interpretation. It's either legal or it's not. Black & white. And, a competitor who feels they received a bad call has a clear & concise Rule Book to present for their argument.

The IDPA Rule Book seems to have been written by people who have no experience in technical writing. The use of the "etc." is IMHO, inexcusable in a Rule Book. That's not clarity.... that's folks gathering around to debate interpretation of the Rule and leave everyone confused. A Rule Book should not require "interpretation"... it's either legal or it's not.

Whether one agrees, or disagrees, with the new IDPA Rules is not an issue. The fact that the Rule Book can't clarify Rules is. IDPA gets a fail on technical writing skills. And, that's a shame because skilled technical writers were available... they just weren't utilized. The end result was not a quality Rule Book... it's merely a "suggestion' that" ya'll can gather around and try to figure the details out".

Great post I will read both with this in mind. I was a youth hockey coach and referee which I came to hate due to the parents and bitching over rules they did not understand or even attempt to learn. I have held off becoming a formal IDPA SO where a lot of discretion is used to interpret rules. Been there done that. I do my hobbies for fun not to place myself in a position of unending verbal combat.

Edited June 17, 2014 by Quag

[Chuck D]

+1 on the USPSA Rule Book. It may be lengthy, but it is written in clear and concise language that leaves little room for individual interpretation. It's either legal or it's not. Black & white. And, a competitor who feels they received a bad call has a clear & concise Rule Book to present for their argument.

The IDPA Rule Book seems to have been written by people who have no experience in technical writing. The use of the "etc." is IMHO, inexcusable in a Rule Book. That's not clarity.... that's folks gathering around to debate interpretation of the Rule and leave everyone confused. A Rule Book should not require "interpretation"... it's either legal or it's not.

Whether one agrees, or disagrees, with the new IDPA Rules is not an issue. The fact that the Rule Book can't clarify Rules is. IDPA gets a fail on technical writing skills. And, that's a shame because skilled technical writers were available... they just weren't utilized. The end result was not a quality Rule Book... it's merely a "suggestion' that" ya'll can gather around and try to figure the details out".

Well spoken....

...and 100% on point.

[Chuck D]

Haha. The offer wasn't made to him. And you are very welcome

You thought we were the same person.....and you were SO excited to call me out on it. Sorry to disappoint .

I big FTDR penalty for you Sir.

[robport]

Crap, now I'm hooked into this discussion too..

So, if they fix the rulebook and make it specific/black and white (which seems to be at the root of the discussion), all will be right with the world?...or is there something deeper?

By the way, I'm a little uncomfortable with the word "etc" too.

[GOF]

A clear & concise Rule Book would be a good thing. How eager are you to travel to a big Sanctioned Match, by air or vehicle, across several states, pay a hotel for several days, eat all your meals in a restaurant, pay a significant match entry fee... add up all the expenses (over $500? Maybe $800?) and time invested --- and then have some newly-minted MM SO throw some calls on you ... based upon his "interpretation" of the Rules... that trashes your score (BTDT)?

This is the reason that the only Top Shooters who appear at the BIG IDPA matches are those that are under contract and paid to be there.

A concise and well-written Rule Book (along with SOs who know it thoroughly) would be a good thing.

[Quag]

and then have some newly-minted MM SO throw some calls on you ... based upon his "interpretation" of the Rules... that trashes your score (BTDT)?

Hey I resemble that remark, as three of my good friends used to say. I'm a MM and going to be a newly minted SO, however I'd rather be forced to sit quietly at a anti gun ralley than be a SO at a major or regional. I am becoming an SO to help out at local matches. Seriously before I would even begin to think about being an SO at a major I'd have to have at least 4-5 years experience as an SO and even then I might not do it,

[motosapiens]

Seriously before I would even begin to think about being an SO at a major I'd have to have at least 4-5 years experience as an SO and even then I might not do it,

I would encourage you to rethink that position, at least if IDPA majors are anywhere near as sensible as uspsa majors. Less experienced RO/SO's should work with more experienced ones, and the senior official makes the final call if necessary. Working a major event is a great way to learn a LOT about the sport and about the rules. You'll typically work only 1 stage the whole time, and you'd go over what to watch for and exactly how it will be called, and you'll see every possible variation of people not doing that stage correctly.

I worked uspsa nats 6 months after getting my RO cert and it was a really good experience.

[GOF]

Quag... being an SO to help out at local club matches is a very good thing... regardless of your classification. The pressure is less, the shooters not so focused on a $10 wood trophy, as they are about having a good time and learning. I was a SO since 2007, and a CSO at one club for not much less time, and I greatly enjoy helping new shooters. It's a different atmosphere from what I have seen when I shot the World Championship, several Nationals, and a bunch of State & Regionals.

I got the impression at those that the SOs figured that the more PEs they called, the better they were doing their job, even if they didn't know the Rule Book. Kinda like traffic cops with a quota. The club level atmosphere is SO MUCH MORE FUN. I enjoy it. I also feel a personal sense of satisfaction when I 'mentor' a regular club shooter and later see them do good at a big Sanctioned match. I'm currently classified as MA/SSP and EX/CDP& ESP,SSR. In the group that I shoot with, there are a half-dozen SOs, several are MA or EX, and a few SS. I do think that those more advanced classifications give them a better perspective on calling Rules in a competitive event. They know that the shooters should be left alone to shoot, instead of nit-picking them. But, do call the obvious Rules violations (and they all know the Rule Book well.... especially the weak point "etcs"}.

Common sense, and some competitive experience has to enter into SOing. The original Tiger Team stated goals was to have a shooter spend a certain amount of time in the sport and achieve a certain level of shooting classification before being considered as a SO.

When 30-40% of the existing SOs said "Screw this new computer re-classification stuff when I have to do it on your 15 day time line period... and you don't even have the full now Rule Book posted?"....and quit.... IDPA apparently said "Geez... We don't have enough SOs... train more now!" Then, in their corporate wisdom, the cut the number of SOIs by almost half.

IDPA, as an organizational structure is being to look like the Obama administration - except I don't know if anyone in Berryville plays golf. Or, could even add up a score sheet.

I'll continue to enjoy my time at small local clubs because of the friendships I have built over the years. Beyond that, I'm done spending $500-$900 to travel to a major match. BTDT. Done. The fact that I refused to bow to their SO recertification thing (my dial up computer was incapable of dealing with it anyway) and am no longer a certified SO makes no difference at local club matches. Certified SOs are not required. I'm still a defacto CSO, and welcome to SO at other local clubs.

Have fun, and enjoy the club level experience.

Edited June 17, 2014 by GOF

[Quag]

Seriously before I would even begin to think about being an SO at a major I'd have to have at least 4-5 years experience as an SO and even then I might not do it,

I would encourage you to rethink that position, at least if IDPA majors are anywhere near as sensible as uspsa majors. Less experienced RO/SO's should work with more experienced ones, and the senior official makes the final call if necessary. Working a major event is a great way to learn a LOT about the sport and about the rules. You'll typically work only 1 stage the whole time, and you'd go over what to watch for and exactly how it will be called, and you'll see every possible variation of people not doing that stage correctly.

I should have been clearer I have already worked a regional and 2 state championships as a ASO. I got to do all of the above. It was a great experience however its going to be awhile before I'm a lead SO or RO at a major. And I'm not sure I'll ever really aspire to that regardless if its IDPA or USPSA. However I've seen some great SOs and ROs at the club level bring new shooters along I'd be up for that

[ktm300]

Seriously before I would even begin to think about being an SO at a major I'd have to have at least 4-5 years experience as an SO and even then I might not do it,

I would encourage you to rethink that position, at least if IDPA majors are anywhere near as sensible as uspsa majors. Less experienced RO/SO's should work with more experienced ones, and the senior official makes the final call if necessary. Working a major event is a great way to learn a LOT about the sport and about the rules. You'll typically work only 1 stage the whole time, and you'd go over what to watch for and exactly how it will be called, and you'll see every possible variation of people not doing that stage correctly.

I worked uspsa nats 6 months after getting my RO cert and it was a really good experience.

OK something on this thread that makes sense. Get to be an SO / RO etc and go work bigger matches. As a shooter knowing the rules is an advantage. Getting to watch 300+ people shoot a stage is a great education in how to shoot. On top of all that you save the match fee.

[GOF]

Saving the match fee may sound good on the surface. But, if you have to be there two days early (two extra days in a hotel and two extra days of restaurant meals) the "saving the match fee" tends to not equal the math.

A sanctioned match SO does get to watch a lot of people shoot the stage. Unfortunately, the SOs shoot before everybody else, so that knowledge is of little use when the buzzer goes for your run. It would be nice for the SOs to shoot last, but that ain't the way it works.

[motosapiens]

OK something on this thread that makes sense. Get to be an SO / RO etc and go work bigger matches. As a shooter knowing the rules is an advantage. Getting to watch 300+ people shoot a stage is a great education in how to shoot. On top of all that you save the match fee.

I think it also leads to better RO's and more consistency at all matches. By getting newer RO's lots of work under the close supervision of the most experienced officials in the sport, everyone benefits.

[Dkrad1935]

I am a fairly new shooter and got certified as an so just cause I thought I could make the local matches run faster than they were currently bein administered. And I get to shoot for free!

I will disagree that even with technical writers you don't get perfect. I don't know uspsa rules , but am fairly familiar with the constitution which was written by a bunch of legal people ( I think almost 30 of the founding fathers were lawyers) and it is constantly debated in court by people who interpret it differently.

[GOF]

I will agree with Motosapiens that RO/SOs working a major match will gain good experience that will make them better at the club level. It is a good thing. But the RO/SOs are sanctioned matches aren't saving any money, even if they don't have to pay the match fee. That's a myth.

Dkrad1935. If you don't know the USPSA Rule Book, as you stated, you have no means to realistically compare it to the current IDPA Rule Book. Learn both, then speak.

Edited June 17, 2014 by GOF

[Chuck D]

The problem with the rulebook is it allows SO's to interject their personal beliefs and "theory" into rules interpretation.

Here's the "cut and dry" portion of the issue. Either an action by a shooter or a piece of equipment is legal or not. What the SO "thinks" about the matter is irrelevant. Take a good hard look at the new "flat footed reload" rule and tell me that the "pivoting of the foot" action isn't an action that's up to interpretation by the SO or not ? If IDPA wanted a flat footed reload, plant BOTH feet and reload before moving. If they were to allow movement with an empty pistol while behind cover...so be it but the way it's written virtually guarantees inaccurate and inconsistent rulings.

They've gone SO far so to create a gap between IDPA and USPSA policies that some of the new rules border the outer limits of understanding. As far as equipment rules and use of cover are concerned IDPA has it correct. Most of the other matters interject policy and "personal beliefs" in areas where concrete and clear rules are required.

[Dkrad1935]

GOF - I'll speak at will. This is an IDPA forum. There is no uspsa in my area so why learn the uspsa rule book. Just saying that here is no document that doesn't have interpretation issues. Legal or otherwise. Contracts are disputed all the time.

Perhaps the uspsa rule book is the exception. If so great. I don't really care about the uspsa rule book though.

[GOF]

+1 to Chuck D. And, IDPA now has a whole bunch of new, and inexperienced SOs who think their 'red hat' makes them skilled tactical trainers who can 'teach you to survive a gunfight'. Having been a trainer (military and private contractor), I have seen things so laughable from these MMs as to not even be worth comment. Yet, the brand new, Unclassified, shooter in their first or second, or even third match thinks this is gospel. I think IDPA's business plan is to live on these people for as long as they can. Most are gone after their first membership year ends. Not all want competition, and they now think they are "trained", so they don't have to stick around.

I would truly like to know what IDPA retention rates are. But, I don't expect I'll get accurate figures if I ask. I do know what I see in NE FL.... lots a newbies... for awhile... and experienced shooters heading elsewhere.

Dkrad 1935. You are certainly welcome to speak at will. The fact that you readily admit that you have no idea what the USPSA Rule book says, while trying to compare it to the IDPA Rule, simply presents your intellectual credentials for all to see. Please speak at will, even if you readily admit that you do not actually know about what you speak.

Edited June 17, 2014 by GOF

[Chuck D]

You'll never get a retention rate answer ...ever.

I try not to look down upon anyone who volunteers their time and effort to any organization but they need to have some form of experience before passing judgment especially in areas where "subjectivity" plays a factor. 2 of these people in my area are SOI's ...and they influence the new cadre of SO's.

As far as experience is concerned, I mean actual experience and watching Tac TV or DVD's from Rob Pincus won't cut it either.

Where is IDPA going ? As long as they can tap into the "newby" who just got his/her CCW license and the "tactical this and that" wave continues to exist they'll be fine. It's when the tactical gravy train finally comes to an end and the "newby" starts to question why things are the way they are and don't like being told "because it is" by Joyce Wilson you'll see the end result of a no membership retention policy come into effect.

I've been participating in the practical shooting sports since I was 17 years old...31 years in total. I've seen people come and go from USPSA for various reasons but the overwhelming majority of them eventually make it back to compete and even fewer of them relinquish their membership in the organization during periods of inactivity. In the 2.5 years I was involved in IDPA...it was the exact opposite. Once people left...rarely if ever did they go back and if they did it was on a one-two match basis as non-members.

Edited June 17, 2014 by Chuck D

[Dkrad1935]

GOF - I don't recall ever making a comparison to uspsa. Why do you feel the need to make it personal when someone disagrees with you.

This thread keeps luring me in. I'm not sure why. Mostly it just bugs me to hear grown men whine so much.

New shooters are good thing guys. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. The fact is that if we don't get more and more new shooters we risk a lot more than whatever your beef is with IDPA.

None of bathe new shooters I have encountered are learning tactics from IDPA. Hell I have recruited 9 or 10 guys from work to come out and shoot matches. Do you know why? Cause it's fun!