IDPA and the foolishness

[GOF]

The 'cattle call' concept can work at the club level where getting people to help can sometimes... although not at the several clubs I shoot at... be a problem.

The problem occurs when a competitor pays a hefty Sanctioned Match fee, then adds driving (time & gas) or airline travel, then spends several days in a hotel, eats for several days in restaurants, maybe with a rental vehicle (have done all of the above in the past flying to nationals in AR & PA, and driving to outside state championships and regionals) and winds up spending upwards of a $grand... only to get dinged by a MM cattle call SO who is overly impressed with their new red hat.

There was a proposal to the Tiger Teams to require some time in the sport and a certain level of Classification before one could be a SO. That didn't go anywhere. It's a shame, especially since so many experienced SOs didn't bother to play the computer re-certification game and, basically, left the SO pool.

[rowdyb]

It is pretty much the definition of selfishness, but I'll never become a SO unless I get something out of it. All the clubs I shoot at give you zero break on the entry fee for being a SO. Unless I can shoot local matches for free or greatly reduced, I'll never become a SO.

Do I do it at our local matches, yes. I run people probably 40% of the day but I'd prefer not to.

[GOF]

Rowdy, that's an odd situation. In FL if you sign up to SO you don't pay an entry fee. At a Sanctioned Match you don't pay for lunch. Seem like the folks in Southern CA figure shooters will pay, and then work their butts off.

Maybe you should just tell them " I paid to be a competitor - and that's what I want to be." I would. Maybe they'll get the message at some point in time when shooters who paid to shoot the match decide they "paid to shoot the match and not run it."

Edited August 10, 2014 by GOF

[v1911]

From what I've witnessed with sanctioned matches here in N. Texas, all staff are comp'd their match fee.

I've been pressured to sign up to become an SO at my club. I keep brushing it off and politely explaining that I don't want to deal with the responsibility. I know that I wouldn't enjoy myself as much if I was required to run people. I do help score keep from time to time but not very often.

[Jim Watson]

Hereabouts club shoot SOs shoot free.

Sanctioned match crew gets - or got, it has been a while since I worked one - lunch and motel as well.

[rowdyb]

Club matches here the SO gets dehydtrated and little time to be on deck. I understand i sign up to help tape, set steel and such. But I'm not gonna burn up a precious sunday driving the 2 hours one way to the only SO course near me then come back and set stages, run shooters, help tear down, shoot my own match and then pay the full fee everyone else does. In an all volunteer sport, some volunteers are more equal than others. To paraphrase Animal Farm.

[Steve H]

I recently got back into shooting IDPA after about a 5 year break......I have been a USPSA shooter since 1988, and got in to IDPA shortly after it started.....I really like the idea of IDPA and most of the rules that is has....my biggest problem with a few of the rules are the subjectivity of them......I have seen SO's at state level matches make several "cover" procedural calls when some were, and others were not.....

I run a large USPSA single stack match every year, and have found that I get a large turnout for several reasons.....a few being that the match has integrity and credibility........With IDPA I see too many inconsistent calls, and not giving procedure penalty when appropriate.....just today at a local match, the stage was an illegal stage, but it wasn't fixed (which is not a problem at a weekend club level match, IMO), but when one shooting position was to be shot prone, and a shooter shot it kneeling, he said going in he was not going to go prone.....what sort of penalty should he have received...? I would think a FTDR.....

Credibility within the rules (or should I say .....enforcement of them) should be more important that it seems to be......let's get rid of the "cover" issue once and for all...put fault lines out to create shooting from within the area of cover that the course designer wants the shooter to use.....it would make it a lot easier on all involved.

[robport]

I recently got back into shooting IDPA after about a 5 year break......I have been a USPSA shooter since 1988, and got in to IDPA shortly after it started.....I really like the idea of IDPA and most of the rules that is has....my biggest problem with a few of the rules are the subjectivity of them......I have seen SO's at state level matches make several "cover" procedural calls when some were, and others were not.....

I run a large USPSA single stack match every year, and have found that I get a large turnout for several reasons.....a few being that the match has integrity and credibility........With IDPA I see too many inconsistent calls, and not giving procedure penalty when appropriate.....just today at a local match, the stage was an illegal stage, but it wasn't fixed (which is not a problem at a weekend club level match, IMO), but when one shooting position was to be shot prone, and a shooter shot it kneeling, he said going in he was not going to go prone.....what sort of penalty should he have received...? I would think a FTDR.....

Credibility within the rules (or should I say .....enforcement of them) should be more important that it seems to be......let's get rid of the "cover" issue once and for all...put fault lines out to create shooting from within the area of cover that the course designer wants the shooter to use.....it would make it a lot easier on all involved.

While being somewhat of a novice at this, I would think it would depend on why the shooter didn't go prone. From my understanding of the rules, the sport is not supposed to be exclusionary, so if it was because of some physical limitation, you should look at it differently. If they did it for an advantage, then the FTDR may be appropriate.

When we have seen this sort of thing, it's always been a physical limitation...maybe we just don't take is seriously enough

1.3.3.2. A CoF should test a competitors shooting skills. Allowances will be made for physically challenged or disabled shooters. Match Directors should always attempt to make the CoF accessible for all shooters.

7.1. Permanently physically disabled shooters who choose not to, or are unable to perform an action required by the CoF (kneeling, prone, etc.) will receive one (1) PE penalty per action not performed. If the shots cannot be taken safely or the targets cannot be acquired from their position of ability, they will receive one (1) additional PE penalty per target. No points down or FTNs will be assessed.

We shot a local stage that started us out on both knees, then grabbing a gun from a briefcase, then scrambling about three yards to a one knee shooting position. Several started standing, bent over to get the gun, then sauntered up to the shooting position and went down on one knee. They accepted a procedural happily (hip problem and a knee problem). I did it as intended and probably saved a second or two over the way they did it, but I considered taking the procedural too, since I'm not exactly a kid any more either.

Edited August 11, 2014 by robport

[IHAVEGAS]

From what I've witnessed with sanctioned matches here in N. Texas, all staff are comp'd their match fee.

I've been pressured to sign up to become an SO at my club. I keep brushing it off and politely explaining that I don't want to deal with the responsibility. I know that I wouldn't enjoy myself as much if I was required to run people. I do help score keep from time to time but not very often.

S.O's & R.O.'s get discounted fees in my local area (midwest), but it is well below minimum wage all things considered, so it works out to be a nice gesture more than a financial boon. Still, it is the principle of the thing & it is appreciated.

I feel the same way as noted above about doing the jobs, but, somebody has to do them. If few people step up then the jobs are much more like work than like fun. If several folks are willing to do their fair share & you end up with 2 or better yet 3 s.o.'s/r.o.'s per squad, then the jobs are not really jobs & everyone can have a fun match.

Shot a local match yesterday, it was hot and muggy, 4 folks in total shared the scorekeeper & s.o. (actually r.o., it was a uspsa match) duties & the rest of the folks were master class pasters. At the end of the day everyone had had a fun match & had been allowed sufficient time for the fun stuff that brings us all to matches. Take away some of that support & you would have ended the day with a couple folks that had a miserable match & maybe too much time in the heat.

[BillR1]

I recently got back into shooting IDPA after about a 5 year break......I have been a USPSA shooter since 1988, and got in to IDPA shortly after it started.....I really like the idea of IDPA and most of the rules that is has....my biggest problem with a few of the rules are the subjectivity of them......I have seen SO's at state level matches make several "cover" procedural calls when some were, and others were not.....

I run a large USPSA single stack match every year, and have found that I get a large turnout for several reasons.....a few being that the match has integrity and credibility........With IDPA I see too many inconsistent calls, and not giving procedure penalty when appropriate.....just today at a local match, the stage was an illegal stage, but it wasn't fixed (which is not a problem at a weekend club level match, IMO), but when one shooting position was to be shot prone, and a shooter shot it kneeling, he said going in he was not going to go prone.....what sort of penalty should he have received...? I would think a FTDR.....

Credibility within the rules (or should I say .....enforcement of them) should be more important that it seems to be......let's get rid of the "cover" issue once and for all...put fault lines out to create shooting from within the area of cover that the course designer wants the shooter to use.....it would make it a lot easier on all involved.

I was at that match yesterday also. It WAS an illegal stage, and the score for that stage was tossed from the final tally as it should've been.

IMO, it's difficult to expect shooters to follow IDPA rules when the COF designer obviously didn't.

[ihocky2]

I'm not understanding the issue here. MOST sports have human officials that may/may not be in exactly the correct position to make calls. Baseball umpires come in different sizes so their view of the strike zone could be different. The human officials do the best they can. Will they get every call correct? Nope. That's life.

This is true for other sports where the same person does the same thing for the entire game. In baseball, the plate umpire is the same all game long and in the same spot all game long, using their same strike zone all game long. Both teams see the same thing for the duration of that game. The next night they get someone different and have to start all over again, but the new umpire has no bearing on what they did the night before. IDPA is more like if they changed the plate umpire every inning.

In IDPA you have an SO, or usually two or three, travelling with every squad. Now not all competitors get the same look, and unless it is one SO to the squad even every person in the squad doesn't get the same look. But all shooters at the match are ranked together for scoring. So an SO that is more lax on one squad gives easier cover calls than another does. This creates disparity. Even with the same SO, if the shooter outruns them too bad they are not in the same position to make the call they did for another shooter. This is more like being in the right place for a play at second base, but that is why the field umpires move to a different position, to be in the best spot to make the call ahead of the runner. That would require an SO already in position to make the calls.

Sanctioned matches tend to be better since they can have people stationed to make certain calls all day long. But a downrange position always requires someone to move behind the shooter, allowing for the use of judgement.

[BillR1]

I'm not understanding the issue here. MOST sports have human officials that may/may not be in exactly the correct position to make calls. Baseball umpires come in different sizes so their view of the strike zone could be different. The human officials do the best they can. Will they get every call correct? Nope. That's life.

This is true for other sports where the same person does the same thing for the entire game. In baseball, the plate umpire is the same all game long and in the same spot all game long, using their same strike zone all game long. Both teams see the same thing for the duration of that game. The next night they get someone different and have to start all over again, but the new umpire has no bearing on what they did the night before. IDPA is more like if they changed the plate umpire every inning.

In IDPA you have an SO, or usually two or three, travelling with every squad. Now not all competitors get the same look, and unless it is one SO to the squad even every person in the squad doesn't get the same look. But all shooters at the match are ranked together for scoring. So an SO that is more lax on one squad gives easier cover calls than another does. This creates disparity. Even with the same SO, if the shooter outruns them too bad they are not in the same position to make the call they did for another shooter. This is more like being in the right place for a play at second base, but that is why the field umpires move to a different position, to be in the best spot to make the call ahead of the runner. That would require an SO already in position to make the calls.

Sanctioned matches tend to be better since they can have people stationed to make certain calls all day long. But a downrange position always requires someone to move behind the shooter, allowing for the use of judgement.

At sanctioned matches, the SOs stay with the stage so everyone gets the same officiating and hopefully the same calls. At a local club match, anything can happen.

[v1911]

As far as sanctioned matched, my experience mirrors what BillR1 stated. SOs stay at the stages so that they get the most consistent calls. Also, during the walk through, the SOs make it very clear as to what they will be looking for with cover calls. That goes for every shot position. There aren't any surprises.

As at as there being fault lines in IDPA, I don't see how you can. When engaging targets in barricade order, your position can shift from the 1st target to the last. Fault lines are a guide for your feet, that doesn't stop you from extending your upper body in a way that would expose you to a threat. Just my opinion.

[jmorris]

Reloading on the move while FULLY behind cover is another skill set that has its benefits in my opinion. To "ban" it and replace it with the "pivoting foot" criteria doesn't make sense to me.

It does have its benefits but not to the new and average shooter and although they took that out of the non printed current rule book, the flat foot rule has the intent to stop everyone despite skills.

Instead of getting new guys to learn a new skill, just elimate it altogether.

[RickB]

Steve H, on 10 Aug 2014 - 8:00 PM, said:

I recently got back into shooting IDPA after about a 5 year break......I have been a USPSA shooter since 1988, and got in to IDPA shortly after it started.....I really like the idea of IDPA and most of the rules that is has....my biggest problem with a few of the rules are the subjectivity of them......I have seen SO's at state level matches make several "cover" procedural calls when some were, and others were not.....

I was watching a Major League baseball game last night; some of the strikes called were strikes, and some were not. It's the nature of calls made by humans in every sport. I've never played or officiated a sport that was any other way; have you?

[motosapiens]

Steve H, on 10 Aug 2014 - 8:00 PM, said:

I recently got back into shooting IDPA after about a 5 year break......I have been a USPSA shooter since 1988, and got in to IDPA shortly after it started.....I really like the idea of IDPA and most of the rules that is has....my biggest problem with a few of the rules are the subjectivity of them......I have seen SO's at state level matches make several "cover" procedural calls when some were, and others were not.....

I was watching a Major League baseball game last night; some of the strikes called were strikes, and some were not. It's the nature of calls made by humans in every sport. I've never played or officiated a sport that was any other way; have you?

If you are trying to argue that IDPA is like baseball, I agree with you. That is not a good thing for any sport, however.

[racerba]

Steve H, on 10 Aug 2014 - 8:00 PM, said:

I recently got back into shooting IDPA after about a 5 year break......I have been a USPSA shooter since 1988, and got in to IDPA shortly after it started.....I really like the idea of IDPA and most of the rules that is has....my biggest problem with a few of the rules are the subjectivity of them......I have seen SO's at state level matches make several "cover" procedural calls when some were, and others were not.....

I was watching a Major League baseball game last night; some of the strikes called were strikes, and some were not. It's the nature of calls made by humans in every sport. I've never played or officiated a sport that was any other way; have you?

At least in MLB, you have one umpire calling strikes and balls. Whether it's a strike or not, it is consistent for that one game - same margin of errors with only 1 umpire. I IDPA, you have however many number of stages, that number of SOs making the calls. X number of inconsistent multiplied by the same X number of margin of error in one match. I do realize human errors, but trying to reduce the human error should be the goal of any game to be consistent.

[M1911]

but when one shooting position was to be shot prone, and a shooter shot it kneeling, he said going in he was not going to go prone.....what sort of penalty should he have received...? I would think a FTDR.....

If he didn't go prone because of physical limitation, then it is a PE. From the rule book:

7.1. Permanently physically disabled shooters who choose not to, or are unable to perform an action required

by the CoF (kneeling, prone, etc.) will receive one (1) PE penalty per action not performed. If the shots

cannot be taken safely or the targets cannot be acquired from their position of ability, they will receive one

(1) additional PE penalty per target. No points down or FTNs will be assessed.