BillR1 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) I honestly believe that IDPA couldn't care less if you or I or anyone else for that matter disagree with them. As long as they have the CCW market cornered, have sufficient levels of industry support, and a positive cash flow on the ledger sheet it will be business as usual and those who disagree can in Joyce's words "find a more suitable activity."Chuck, I thought the purpose of the TTs was to listen to comments from th membership and provide feedback. Listening doesn't always mean changes are made. Let's take the flat footed reload for example. I'm pretty sure Joyce and/or RR didn't just decide one day that's the way it was going to be. They probably listened to tactical trainers (from the 70s as you put it?) and others. Then the TTs were tasked with listening to feedback from the members. I agree with you that the decision to implement the FFRs was likely not ever really open for discussion or debate; they were simply getting feedback from the members to see if there was some overriding reason they hadn't considered when the decision was made. I have to say that I truly believe Joyce's "stance" is the correct one. The rule book is not and frankly should not be something to be voted on. There are going to be rules that not everyone will agree with in any process like this. Her stance is simply that the rulebook is final, and that if someone truly has a huge issue with large parts of it then maybe they should move on. You stated earlier that it wasn't so much the rules, but rather the inconsistent implementation. I agree that consistency is a big issue, and I really think one reason is the relative ease in which someone becomes a certified SO. Edited June 22, 2014 by BillR1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 .....if youre not going to make changes based on membership feedback then why solicit it in the first place. I believe it was solicited to give the impression that member input mattered to them when in fact it didnt ever matter. The FFR rule was instituted for one real reason only...to further limit a shooters ability to gain a competitive advantage aka the gaming of a stage . Its protectionism sold as sound defensive tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 As distasteful as that rule is for some, it's thankfully one that doesn't need much in the way of interpretation by the SO. It's not real difficult (IMO) to tell if both feet moved while you're doing the reload. Other rules are a bit more challenging for SOs to call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 ...so the "foot pivot" component of the FFR rule isnt another example of a rule that can be applied subjectively ? The SO doesnt need to make a judgement call on if the foot was "pivoted" and by how much ? Wdnt all..subjectivity be eliminated by either allowing the old rule to remain or dictating ZERO movement of the feet when reloading ? How many clear cut examples and reasoning will you require before you step away from your stance of brand protection and admit that IDPA botched up a prior rule based on a perceived need to curtail gaming of stages because thats what USPSA guys and gals do ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) This rule is really pretty easy to call. It doesn't matter how much ONE foot moves. If the other foot leaves the ground or does anything but pivot, the PE is earned. This one doesn't take any subjectivity to get right. The only part that makes it tough is the scorekeeper needs to be in the right spot since they should be making the call. If I'm running the timer, I'm watching the muzzle like I should be. Edited June 22, 2014 by BillR1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alma Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 This rule is really pretty easy to call. It doesn't matter how much ONE foot moves. If the other foot leaves the ground or does anything but pivot, the PE is earned. This one doesn't take any subjectivity to get right. The only part that makes it tough is the scorekeeper needs to be in the right spot since they should be making the call. If I'm running the timer, I'm watching the muzzle like I should be. So I can be moving when I reload as long as the reload is completed in one step? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 This rule is really pretty easy to call. It doesn't matter how much ONE foot moves. If the other foot leaves the ground or does anything but pivot, the PE is earned. This one doesn't take any subjectivity to get right. The only part that makes it tough is the scorekeeper needs to be in the right spot since they should be making the call. If I'm running the timer, I'm watching the muzzle like I should be. So I can be moving when I reload as long as the reload is completed in one step? You can move one foot while reloading, but the other one can't do anything other than pivot. If it leaves the ground or shuffles, the finger comes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 ....interesting. The plethora of procedural penalites I received at the tail end of 2013 when this rule was implemented says differently. Major and club matches as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 " if the scorekeeper is in the right spot".... hmmmmmmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOF Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) BillR1, the way the pivot rule is written one foot must remain stationary... and not pivot or move from its position. The other foot may "pivot"... and how that may be interpreted by "Tribal Rules" has caused some level of discussion among even the veteran SOs/MDs in my area. It is poorly written. Like many of the new rules. Subjective interpretation was supposed to be removed from the Rule Book by the TTs. They failed. Take a look at all the "etcs." in the book. How do you completely and totally objectively... the same call every time anywhere in the World...interpret an "etc." Edited June 22, 2014 by GOF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I shot in one of the first sanctioned matches after the new rule book came out, and the rule was described just as it is in the current comments. One foot can lift and move, and the other can pivot like a basketball move, but can not lift or shuffle. It's really not that tough to call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) " if the scorekeeper is in the right spot".... hmmmmmmmm.The scorekeeper needs to move so he CAN see the shooter's feet. Many times the SO running the timer can get in the way. The SOs need to work together.Chuck, this isn't brain surgery. Your hatred of all things IDPA is making you look a bit petulant and petty. You're out of the sport now...relax a little. Edited June 22, 2014 by BillR1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 ....you are truly blind to the rulebooks shortcomings and you refuse to recognize even the most common sense questioning of what is SO cut and dry AND have been experienced by others its mind boggling and on the verge of cult status. Those of us who know better have an OBLIGATION to call it what it actually is and NOT fall prey to propaganda. You are beyond the ability to reason with . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 GOF....thanks for clarifying the actual rule as it is written. Of course those that protect the brand at all costs...even at the expense of the WRITTEN rule refuse to admit the shortcomings of adding "ect..." to what should and must be clearly explained understood and applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOF Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) BillR1... your one sanctioned match is just that. Try shooting a half-dozen others scattered across the country and then tell us 'how uniformally " the pivot rule is being called... along with a number of others. It's easy to sit in one small bubble, in one small part of the world, and then tell the rest of the world how things are going. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work like that in Real Life, and your lack of experience is showing. Edited June 22, 2014 by GOF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 ....you are truly blind to the rulebooks shortcomings and you refuse to recognize even the most common sense questioning of what is SO cut and dry AND have been experienced by others its mind boggling and on the verge of cult status. Those of us who know better have an OBLIGATION to call it what it actually is and NOT fall prey to propaganda. You are beyond the ability to reason with .As usual, the rantings of someone that can't see ANY good in an organization that "slighted" you...funny, but sad.I fully admitted yesterday that IDPA was not perfect and has some serious shortcomings in the rule implementation. I firmly believe that in most cases, the shortcomings stem from inexperienced or rouge SOs and not from the rulebook itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOF Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Bill R!... Your one sanctioned match is just that - one match in your part of the world. Try shooting a half dozen other matches scattered across the country and then tell us how uniformally the "pivot rule" is being applied. It's easy to sit in a small bubble, in one small part of the world, and then tell the rest of the world how things are going. Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that in Real Life, and your lack of experience is showing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) BillR1... your one sanctioned match is just that. Try shooting a half-dozen others scattered across the country and then tell us 'how uniformally " the pivot rule is being called... along with a number of others. It's easy to sit in one small bubble, in one small part of the world, and then tell the rest of the world how things are going. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work like that in Real Life, and your lack of experience is showing. I have shot sanctioned matches in 3 different locations and different states since the rulebook came out, and I've never seen it called any OTHER way. The rule was also discussed and clarified in our SO certification class. Again, same interpretation. Edited June 22, 2014 by BillR1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) The rule is also again clarified in the addendum of 2/17/14, and the clarification is exactly as I described. It's not unclear at all IMO. http://www.idpa.com/misc/RC/IDPARulesClarification-v2014-02-17.pdf Edited June 22, 2014 by BillR1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alma Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 So I can reload on the move a long as I complete the reload on my first step? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 No...one foot remains stationary i.e. can not move period and you are allows to "pivot" the other foot and the foot that pivots can NOT leave the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 No...one foot remains stationary i.e. can not move period and you are allows to "pivot" the other foot and the foot that pivots can NOT leave the ground. Incorrect...read the rulebook addendum...I posted a link for you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alma Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Looks like it says the non pivot foot can move. So... Can I reload on the move as long as I finish my reload in one step? For example I step to my left foot which becomes my pivot foot and then initiate and complete a reload as my right foot moves forward to take a step. The way I read this is that this would be a legal action as long as the reload has been competed before my left door comes off the ground. Is this correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 no BillR1 thats not how its called "around these parts" ....sans the subjectability of a rule that once was clear but now is subject to "home rule." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Once you're empty, you can only move ONE foot until the reload is complete. You can't run dry and THEN step to your left and begin the reload. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now