Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

IDPA and the foolishness


dezz

Recommended Posts

^^^

So I'm curious?

What would you have done?

You are from Arizona imagine in July 110degrees and you have 2 or 3 guys that refuse to reset or paste is that fair to everyone else?

If it was me and they were told and just said nope not helping I would have DQ'ed them for Conduct in IDPA or USPA

And I'm not meaning to pick ANY FIGHTS just wondering

Nope, it's not fair. Around here the peer pressure would adjust their attitude and actions. Personally, I would've made sure they knew that their behavior is not acceptable and the club would prefer that they didn't return. Taping and picking up brass are "unwritten rules" as far as I know, so you can't really give out penalties meant for shooting violations. It's the polite, ethical thing to do, but you can't really dictate manners.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 417
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Regarding Chuck's point on movement I have always got a kick out of watching the pace of mandatory forwards or backwards shooting on the move in some IDPA stages versus what shooting on the move in a well designed stage that doesn't require shooting on the move but remaining competitive from a time perspective would strongly encourage it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to name the match or the people involved without their permission. I am of the belief they frequent this forum and if they want to step forward and offer additional info then that's their decision.

I don't support the action taken but it wasn't applied to me so I have no "horse" in this race. You asked for an example, I provided you with one. Believe it or don't believe it, it matters not to me.

In my experiences in dealing with HQ, they couldn't care less what goes on at the local club level. I've been "adversely effected" before by subjective rulings and SO's who in my belief incorrectly applied the rules and when I spoke with HQ on the phone about these issues....I was "shined on." My experiences are not limited to the one I offered and I won't elaborate on other personal examples due to the fact that I am not trying to "bash" the organization as it is a violation of the forum rules. I could write "volumes" regarding trying to register for the Indoor Nationals for example...feel free to PM me if you're truly interested in the unabashed edition of my experiences...

As far as to what I would do...I would follow the rulebook which states CLEARLY that an FTDR penalty is not applicable in the instance I offered as an example. Here in lies the romp...the application of the FTDR rule in the above example was and is an excellent example of what's wrong with IDPA and its rules structure. The rules are subject to "home rule" and "individual interpretation" and that's counter productive to offering a fair and equitable shooting experience. If I'm a newbie..I simply don't know any better but if I've been around the block a time or two...I certainly know better.

Not all SO's are guilty of this type of action and the vast majority of them would never apply the FTDR penalty is such a fashion. With that CLEARLY stated, I place the blame on IDPA and their rules creation structure for allowing the "subjective" criteria to exist in the first place. If the infrastructure wasn't already created and well entrenched in the sport, examples like I stated here wouldn't exist.

The first step one needs to take to solve a problem is admit a problem exists in the first place...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shooting on the move, either to increase distance from the threat (moving to cover for example) or moving towards the threat as a way to "close the gap" or "fight your way out of a cornered situation" (albeit not the desired action but a necessary one if that is the ONLY option) are not adverse conditions to include in a course of fire.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as to what I would do...I would follow the rulebook which states CLEARLY that an FTDR penalty is not applicable in the instance I offered as an example. Here in lies the romp...the application of the FTDR rule in the above example was and is an excellent example of what's wrong with IDPA and its rules structure. The rules are subject to "home rule" and "individual interpretation" and that's counter productive to offering a fair and equitable shooting experience. If I'm a newbie..I simply don't know any better but if I've been around the block a time or two...I certainly know better.

Not all SO's are guilty of this type of action and the vast majority of them would never apply the FTDR penalty is such a fashion. With that CLEARLY stated, I place the blame on IDPA and their rules creation structure for allowing the "subjective" criteria to exist in the first place. If the infrastructure wasn't already created and well entrenched in the sport, examples like I stated here wouldn't exist.

I'm really trying to understand your point. On one hand, you admit that rules CLEARLY don't indicate an FTDR for this instance, yet you somehow claim that the rulebook is ambiguous and vague. It would seem that the rulebook is quite clear on this, and the penalties came from over zealous SOs instead of a vague rulebook. I'm not sure how you would ever prevent someone from applying a penalty out of context. This could happen with any sport or activity that has human judges. Is the rulebook really the problem, or is it being incorrectly applied or enforced? Again, in this instance I'm quite certain that HQ would've overruled the SO if in fact an FTDR was given for not picking up brass.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're correct, it could happen in ANY shooting sport but how often does it happen in other shooting sports ? We are talking about IDPA here so that's what I'm addressing.

The rulebook is clear regarding what constitutes a FTDR penalty...of that we can agree but the "home rule" condition I speak of still permeates the sport. Problem is that we're talking about applying "tactical theory" to stage design, and the manner in which the participant applies such theory when shooting a stage. In IPSC for example, there is no tactical component involved and the sole objective is to gather as many points as possible in the shortest period of time. IDPA applies tactical/self defense theory and acceptable practices to its formula and these theories and formulas are subject to individual interpretations. This isn't a shortcoming or adverse condition of IDPA participation in and of itself but it does create a unique condition as to how to support and protect the principles that the sport was founded versus the individual beliefs of the SO who makes the ultimate decision on the spot while he/she runs the stage if you're in violation or not of those theories and practices.

The rules have to be clear enough to give sound, predictable guidelines as to what is acceptable and not acceptable and also allow for innovation and changing/evolving techniques. There is a disconnect between parts of the rulebook and how its applied. For the benefit of better understanding...I will break my own rule about sharing my personal experiences.

At a major championship in 2013, my holster position was checked for legality. The rulebook is clear as to where my holster need be placed and I was in compliance with those rules. The SO on the 1st stage of the match told me that my holster position was illegal. I stated it wasn't and I produced the rulebook and verified via the book that I was compliant with the rules. I was told flat out...I make the decisions here and I say your holster position is illegal. To make a long story short, in a 10 or so stage match, SO's on 6 stages made me change my holster position 6 times based on their interpretation of the rulebook NOT based on the rulebook itself. Needless to say,...that was the swan song for me shooting IDPA. I've been a member of USPSA since 1986 and have competed in matches both in the US under USPSA rules and Canada under IPSC rules and in 28 years I've NEVER experiences anything like what I experienced at this one particular IDPA match and before you suggest that I speak with the MD and IDPA HQ rest assured I did and was told that the SO's rulings were final and I could pony up cash and file an arbitration that I would mostly likely lose if I chose to "make my point."

I'm not interested in beating a dead horse on this issue although I do appreciate your willingness to attempt to understand my point of view.

By the time HQ heard about this and "overruled" the decision it would be too late. The damage has already been done.

Edited by Chuck D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chuck- please don't take offense to this, as it's certainly not my intention.

If six SOs in a single 10-stage match said something to you about your holster, I have to think there was either something wrong with the position or you were "riding the ragged edge" of legality. Something must've looked out of the ordinary for that many people to take notice.

I agree with you about the tactical nature or theory of IDPA. I still think however that the rulebook is normally pretty clear on what's expected in shooting a COF, and that many disagreements occur when the shooters have a different opinion on what is tactically correct. It's not mine nor any other SO's job to enforce their own opinions on what is "tactical". Our job as SOs is to fairly enforce the rulebook as written. It frankly makes no difference if I happen to think an action is tactical or not, so I try very hard not to engage in any debates on the subject while I'm SOing a match. If the rulebook is honestly unclear and open to interpretation on a subject, I usually refer the question to the MD. Contrary to what I read here in the forum, this is a very rare occurrence. I've only had it happen once at a sanctioned match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense taken Bill...rest assured.

By the time the match in question was over...I was drawing literally from my kidney area. The holster position was legal, of this I was certain. It's funny how some SO's confirmed my holster position as legal...while others did not.

Water under the bridge at this point but you did ask for examples.

Maybe the differences in experiences are geography based but I can assure you...these things happened and continue to happen and the ambiguity of the rulebook provides the mechanism for these conditions to exist. You can't seek clarity whenever a "theory" is involved and rules interpretation is dependent upon the SO's personal belief system for enforcement.

USPSA and IPSC have specific holster position rules for Production, Single Stack/Classic, and Standard Divisions. How many times have you read or heard about someone having to adjust their holster position multiple times during a major tournament ? In my 28 years I've NEVER experienced it in USPSA or IPSC competition. IDPA was another story. As far as "riding the edge of legality" is concerned, thank you for making my point for me. Rules are cut and dry, black or white, legal or illegal. "Riding the edge of legality" is a JUDGEMENT call, not a legal or illegal one. Either the holster position is legal or it isn't...simple as that and herein lies another example of "subjectivity" that IDPA simply can not admit exists nor will they admit is applied to some but not others.

Need I (or others) carry a straight edge with them in the shooting bag as a reference point to PROVE the holster position is or isn't legal ?

Edited by Chuck D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since coming back to IDPA and shooting a number of local matches, I've seen or heard of few FTDR being issued. The name of the rule (Failure to do Right) has an esoteric sound to it I pay it little mind as I do my best to ask questions at the walk through to address any number of concerns. My questions have resulted in anything from no actions needed to adjusting the stage description to the complete elimination of one or more targets. For purposes of fairness, I include rule 5.5 FTDR in its entierty.

If we are shooting, we are learning about shooting. If we aren't shooting, we aren't learning about shooting. Shooting is good be it IDPA, USPSA, ICORE, Public range 1 sec cadence shooting. or (if you have such good fortune) going out to your back yard and shooting legally.

5.5

. Failure To Do Right (FTDR)

Adds twenty (20) seconds to total score and is assessed for use of inappropriate devices and unfair actions. Note: The FTDR is intended to be used solely as a penalty for deliberate attempts on the part of the shooter to circumvent or violate the competition rules to gain a competitive advantage. It should not be assessed for inadvertent shooter errors, or in cases where it is obvious that the shooter gained no competitive advantage by their actions. In these cases, the shooter should be assessed a PE rather than an FTDR. All FTDRs must be approved by the MD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the differences in experiences are geography based but I can assure you...these things happened and continue to happen and the ambiguity of the rulebook provides the mechanism for these conditions to exist. You can't seek clarity whenever a "theory" is involved and rules interpretation is dependent upon the SO's personal belief system for enforcement.

USPSA and IPSC have specific holster position rules for Production, Single Stack/Classic, and Standard Divisions. How many times have you read or heard about someone having to adjust their holster position multiple times during a major tournament ? In my 28 years I've NEVER experienced it in USPSA or IPSC competition. IDPA was another story. As far as "riding the edge of legality" is concerned, thank you for making my point for me. Rules are cut and dry, black or white, legal or illegal. "Riding the edge of legality" is a JUDGEMENT call, not a legal or illegal one. Either the holster position is legal or it isn't...simple as that and herein lies another example of "subjectivity" that IDPA simply can not admit exists nor will they admit is applied to some but not others.

Need I (or others) carry a straight edge with them in the shooting bag as a reference point to PROVE the holster position is or isn't legal ?

IDPA also has clear rules on holsters and their position. Section 8.5 is dedicated to holsters and includes several photos to show the correct positions. There should be no ambiguity or interpretation needed. When/if the SOs are not following the rulebook, that still doesn't mean the rulebook is lacking or vague. It simply means the SOs are making up their own rules. The issue is again with the SOs and not the rulebook.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since coming back to IDPA and shooting a number of local matches, I've seen or heard of few FTDR being issued. The name of the rule (Failure to do Right) has an esoteric sound to it I pay it little mind as I do my best to ask questions at the walk through to address any number of concerns. My questions have resulted in anything from no actions needed to adjusting the stage description to the complete elimination of one or more targets. For purposes of fairness, I include rule 5.5 FTDR in its entierty.

If we are shooting, we are learning about shooting. If we aren't shooting, we aren't learning about shooting. Shooting is good be it IDPA, USPSA, ICORE, Public range 1 sec cadence shooting. or (if you have such good fortune) going out to your back yard and shooting legally.

5.5

. Failure To Do Right (FTDR)

Adds twenty (20) seconds to total score and is assessed for use of inappropriate devices and unfair actions. Note: The FTDR is intended to be used solely as a penalty for deliberate attempts on the part of the shooter to circumvent or violate the competition rules to gain a competitive advantage. It should not be assessed for inadvertent shooter errors, or in cases where it is obvious that the shooter gained no competitive advantage by their actions. In these cases, the shooter should be assessed a PE rather than an FTDR. All FTDRs must be approved by the MD.

"deliberate attempts on the part of the shooter to circumvent or violate the competition rules to gain a competitive advantage"

If it's already a specific rule being violated then why not use the established punishment for violating that specific role?

In my mind FTDR is a catch all that an SO can pull out of his or her back pocket when they feel like someone just figured out a better or more effective way to shoot a stage. It's the penalty that is given out for "gaming" while playing a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since coming back to IDPA and shooting a number of local matches, I've seen or heard of few FTDR being issued. The name of the rule (Failure to do Right) has an esoteric sound to it I pay it little mind as I do my best to ask questions at the walk through to address any number of concerns. My questions have resulted in anything from no actions needed to adjusting the stage description to the complete elimination of one or more targets. For purposes of fairness, I include rule 5.5 FTDR in its entierty.

If we are shooting, we are learning about shooting. If we aren't shooting, we aren't learning about shooting. Shooting is good be it IDPA, USPSA, ICORE, Public range 1 sec cadence shooting. or (if you have such good fortune) going out to your back yard and shooting legally.

5.5

. Failure To Do Right (FTDR)

Adds twenty (20) seconds to total score and is assessed for use of inappropriate devices and unfair actions. Note: The FTDR is intended to be used solely as a penalty for deliberate attempts on the part of the shooter to circumvent or violate the competition rules to gain a competitive advantage. It should not be assessed for inadvertent shooter errors, or in cases where it is obvious that the shooter gained no competitive advantage by their actions. In these cases, the shooter should be assessed a PE rather than an FTDR. All FTDRs must be approved by the MD.

"deliberate attempts on the part of the shooter to circumvent or violate the competition rules to gain a competitive advantage"

If it's already a specific rule being violated then why not use the established punishment for violating that specific role?

In my mind FTDR is a catch all that an SO can pull out of his or her back pocket when they feel like someone just figured out a better or more effective way to shoot a stage. It's the penalty that is given out for "gaming" while playing a game.

Exactly....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since coming back to IDPA and shooting a number of local matches, I've seen or heard of few FTDR being issued. The name of the rule (Failure to do Right) has an esoteric sound to it I pay it little mind as I do my best to ask questions at the walk through to address any number of concerns. My questions have resulted in anything from no actions needed to adjusting the stage description to the complete elimination of one or more targets. For purposes of fairness, I include rule 5.5 FTDR in its entierty.

If we are shooting, we are learning about shooting. If we aren't shooting, we aren't learning about shooting. Shooting is good be it IDPA, USPSA, ICORE, Public range 1 sec cadence shooting. or (if you have such good fortune) going out to your back yard and shooting legally.

5.5. Failure To Do Right (FTDR)

Adds twenty (20) seconds to total score and is assessed for use of inappropriate devices and unfair actions. Note: The FTDR is intended to be used solely as a penalty for deliberate attempts on the part of the shooter to circumvent or violate the competition rules to gain a competitive advantage. It should not be assessed for inadvertent shooter errors, or in cases where it is obvious that the shooter gained no competitive advantage by their actions. In these cases, the shooter should be assessed a PE rather than an FTDR. All FTDRs must be approved by the MD.

"deliberate attempts on the part of the shooter to circumvent or violate the competition rules to gain a competitive advantage"

If it's already a specific rule being violated then why not use the established punishment for violating that specific role?

In my mind FTDR is a catch all that an SO can pull out of his or her back pocket when they feel like someone just figured out a better or more effective way to shoot a stage. It's the penalty that is given out for "gaming" while playing a game.

Here's an example...a shooter intentionally loads 12 rounds in a mag to shoot a section of a stage to gain a more advantageous reload. For the first offense, they're given the benefit of the doubt and a PE. If it happens again, then they're obviously trying to circumvent the rules of the game. That earns an FTDR.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the differences in experiences are geography based but I can assure you...these things happened and continue to happen and the ambiguity of the rulebook provides the mechanism for these conditions to exist. You can't seek clarity whenever a "theory" is involved and rules interpretation is dependent upon the SO's personal belief system for enforcement.

USPSA and IPSC have specific holster position rules for Production, Single Stack/Classic, and Standard Divisions. How many times have you read or heard about someone having to adjust their holster position multiple times during a major tournament ? In my 28 years I've NEVER experienced it in USPSA or IPSC competition. IDPA was another story. As far as "riding the edge of legality" is concerned, thank you for making my point for me. Rules are cut and dry, black or white, legal or illegal. "Riding the edge of legality" is a JUDGEMENT call, not a legal or illegal one. Either the holster position is legal or it isn't...simple as that and herein lies another example of "subjectivity" that IDPA simply can not admit exists nor will they admit is applied to some but not others.

Need I (or others) carry a straight edge with them in the shooting bag as a reference point to PROVE the holster position is or isn't legal ?

IDPA also has clear rules on holsters and their position. Section 8.5 is dedicated to holsters and includes several photos to show the correct positions. There should be no ambiguity or interpretation needed. When/if the SOs are not following the rulebook, that still doesn't mean the rulebook is lacking or vague. It simply means the SOs are making up their own rules. The issue is again with the SOs and not the rulebook.

I agree to a point....

Each sanctioning body trains and certifies its R/O and SO's and utilizes their respective rule book to do so correct ?

If it's all on the SO's and in my opinon the SO's are responsible for fair and correct application of the rules then why is it that the claims of "selective application of the rules" is associated with IDPA and not the other shooting sports ?

The rulebook is not as "clear cut" as you would have me believe and there is significant areas within its pages for "creativity." If I were to apply your reasoning which has some merit to it that a portion of the SO's are to blame for "home rule" and "creative application" of IDPA's clear cut rulebook then just what purpose do the SOI's have in this ?

Am I to believe that the rulebook is correct in its scope and application and 100% of the failures with regards to the rules are the fault of the SO's and those that certify them ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the differences in experiences are geography based but I can assure you...these things happened and continue to happen and the ambiguity of the rulebook provides the mechanism for these conditions to exist. You can't seek clarity whenever a "theory" is involved and rules interpretation is dependent upon the SO's personal belief system for enforcement.

USPSA and IPSC have specific holster position rules for Production, Single Stack/Classic, and Standard Divisions. How many times have you read or heard about someone having to adjust their holster position multiple times during a major tournament ? In my 28 years I've NEVER experienced it in USPSA or IPSC competition. IDPA was another story. As far as "riding the edge of legality" is concerned, thank you for making my point for me. Rules are cut and dry, black or white, legal or illegal. "Riding the edge of legality" is a JUDGEMENT call, not a legal or illegal one. Either the holster position is legal or it isn't...simple as that and herein lies another example of "subjectivity" that IDPA simply can not admit exists nor will they admit is applied to some but not others.

Need I (or others) carry a straight edge with them in the shooting bag as a reference point to PROVE the holster position is or isn't legal ?

IDPA also has clear rules on holsters and their position. Section 8.5 is dedicated to holsters and includes several photos to show the correct positions. There should be no ambiguity or interpretation needed. When/if the SOs are not following the rulebook, that still doesn't mean the rulebook is lacking or vague. It simply means the SOs are making up their own rules. The issue is again with the SOs and not the rulebook.

I agree to a point....

Each sanctioning body trains and certifies its R/O and SO's and utilizes their respective rule book to do so correct ?

If it's all on the SO's and in my opinon the SO's are responsible for fair and correct application of the rules then why is it that the claims of "selective application of the rules" is associated with IDPA and not the other shooting sports ?

The rulebook is not as "clear cut" as you would have me believe and there is significant areas within its pages for "creativity." If I were to apply your reasoning which has some merit to it that a portion of the SO's are to blame for "home rule" and "creative application" of IDPA's clear cut rulebook then just what purpose do the SOI's have in this ?

Am I to believe that the rulebook is correct in its scope and application and 100% of the failures with regards to the rules are the fault of the SO's and those that certify them ?

I think the answer to your question lies in the sheer number of rules in IDPA compared to the other game. Watching a USPSA match would lead some to believe that the game is almost devoid of rules. I know that's not quite the case, but it certainly is more free-wheeling than IDPA. This is partially due to IDPA's more tactical nature.

As for the problems being due to the SOs vs the rulebook, I think the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. I DO think the new rulebook clarifies more than a few issues. I honestly don't feel that the new rulebook is vague or ambiguous. There's no way it can/should address every situation, but it gives clear guidelines for the most part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here it is in a nutshell. There is no "tactical component" to USPSA. It's a clear cut activity with the rules pertaining to firearms, associated gear, course design, membership requirements, classification, and safety matters. IDPA is exactly the same until you get to the "spirit" of the game which allows for creative license to be taken to protect teh brand and its founding principles. It is HERE in those rules and their individual application of them that IDPA falls short.

Like I said earlier...IDPA has to admit it has a problem before it can solve that problem and at this juncture that isn't going to happen. When membership numbers begin to decrease (and they will just like membership in any activity driven sport/hobby eventually experiences) then maybe they'll correct the matter. Until then...things will go on as they are.

It's no surprise to me that once I put forth the individual and collective roles of the SO's and SOI's that the conversation takes a turn away from the issue at hand. The rulebook is what it is...people are supposedly instructing new SO's on these rules (the SOI's) and if I am to accept the premise that the rulebook is "clear cut" and it's NOT the source of the "home rule" and "creative application of the rules" problem then it must rest solely on the SO and the SOI's.

The use of a FTDR penalty in an unauthorized and illegal manner must be someones fault isn't it ? The rule itself is a "catch all" punitive measure that is used to teach a lesson versus addressing a drastic measure that circumvents the rules for a competitive advantage. The FTDR rule along with several other rules in teh rulenook are designed specifically to protect the brand and are written in such a fashion to allow application of punative measures as the SO and MD sees fit.

We will agree to disagree Bill...no ill will intended and I respect your viewpoint although I strongly disagree with it based solely on first hand experiences which obviously differ from what you've experienced.

Edited by Chuck D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Agree to disagree" is a good spot to leave it. Your experiences have obviously differed from mine. I have experienced no such "home rules" or interpretations of the rules, in spite of having shot sanctioned matches in several different states. The local clubs I shoot at try very had to stick to the rulebook, and I had an outstanding SOI in my certification class who stressed fair application of the rules.

Thanks for an educational, civil discussion. I appreciate it!

Bill Ragan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line is that IDPA is a sport and like all other sports the rules change. I shoot to have fun but I am compeditave and want to do my best, therefore I read and follow the rules to the best of my ability.

Remember the old adage "ignorance if the law is no excuse." Same goes for playing the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Ignorance OF the law is no excuse."

No one questions that rules change. Some question as to the CORRECT APPLICATION of those rules.

...and it appears (I believe this to be true) experiences differ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a response to some even dumber things. People intentionally running their gun dry, in a defensive context, is dumb. Leaving a cover position with an empty gun, reloading as you run across open ground, is dumb. Running down a hallway, toward known threats, often with an empty gun, is dumb.

but running down a hallway towards known cardboard targets while reloading is a reasonable idea if you are playing a game whose object is to shoot stuff fast.

They are both games. One of them has NO rules about boring tactical crap and the other one has dangerous and idiotic and unrealistic rules about boring tactical crap.

From the IDPA rulebook:

1.1.5. Provide shooters with practical and realistic courses of fire, and test skills that could be required to survive life-threatening encounters.

1.3.2.4. At its core, IDPA is a self-defense scenario based sport.

There's the difference between the games. Many of us ENJOY the "boring tactical crap".

Fine with me. I have no quibble with boring tactical crap. It's the dangerous and unrealistic part that turns me off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious...why are you posting on an IDPA forum if you don't shoot it or even like it? I've never understood that concept, and I see it quite a bit.

There are a ton of reasons why I don't shoot USPSA, but I'm somehow able to refrain from going on the USPSA forums and criticizing that sport.

Live and let live maybe?

I know you are asking someone else, but I'll also respond. I started by shooting IDPA, and I really enjoyed it, especially the fairly sane version implemented near where I live. I think the focus on actual carryable everyday handguns is great. I love competing with a normal service weapon, and concealable holster. I even enjoy the silly scenarios.

However I think the attempt to codify real-world tactical behavior through a set of game rules is doomed to fail. I think the sport would be a lot better off to simply focus on concealable equipment, reasonable round counts (goes hand in hand with concealable equipment) and fast accurate shooting. The scripted behavior where everyone has to do the same thing isn't realistic or fun or good practice for any kind of real world situation. Learning *NO* tactical habits is imho much better than learning *BAD* tactical habits. Whereas learning to shoot faster and more accurately with an everyday service gun will be quite beneficial to anyone who ever needs to shoot in the real world. If they are interested in boring tactical crap (real tactical crap, not fake pretend lame tactical crap), then there are non-game situations in which you can learn it.

However, I think it is totally awesome to give an FTDR for not taping and resetting. That is something that every shooting sport should adopt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious...why are you posting on an IDPA forum if you don't shoot it or even like it? I've never understood that concept, and I see it quite a bit.

There are a ton of reasons why I don't shoot USPSA, but I'm somehow able to refrain from going on the USPSA forums and criticizing that sport.

Live and let live maybe?

I know you are asking someone else, but I'll also respond. I started by shooting IDPA, and I really enjoyed it, especially the fairly sane version implemented near where I live. I think the focus on actual carryable everyday handguns is great. I love competing with a normal service weapon, and concealable holster. I even enjoy the silly scenarios.

However I think the attempt to codify real-world tactical behavior through a set of game rules is doomed to fail. I think the sport would be a lot better off to simply focus on concealable equipment, reasonable round counts (goes hand in hand with concealable equipment) and fast accurate shooting. The scripted behavior where everyone has to do the same thing isn't realistic or fun or good practice for any kind of real world situation. Learning *NO* tactical habits is imho much better than learning *BAD* tactical habits. Whereas learning to shoot faster and more accurately with an everyday service gun will be quite beneficial to anyone who ever needs to shoot in the real world. If they are interested in boring tactical crap (real tactical crap, not fake pretend lame tactical crap), then there are non-game situations in which you can learn it.

However, I think it is totally awesome to give an FTDR for not taping and resetting. That is something that every shooting sport should adopt.

There are a ton of opinions on what constitutes "bad tactical habits" or "tactical behavior". I sure don't think of an IDPA match as real training other than gun manipulation and shooting practice, although at least one well-known practical trainer heartily endorses IDPA shooting.

IDPA's methods and rules are not agreeable with everyone, but they are there to insure safety and consistency. I've also seen many, many COFs where there was more than one correct way to shoot it, so some latitude is given to solve the issue at hand. I'm not real sure where the "scripted" reputation comes from, other than maybe USPSA shooters who are used to far fewer rules when they shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every IDPA match I've attended ...EVERY ONE...was scripted. Start here...move here...shoot here...ect...

Anytine you throw in tactical sequence or tactical priority the "freestyle" element of stage completion is eliminated...completely. Slicing the pie around props such as walls or vehicles dictated the ORDER in which you engage targets.

IDPA by it's very design is a "scripted" game...to make statements that it isn't takes "creativity" and the scripted component DOESN'T just come from USPSA guys/gals.

That being said...IDPA has to be a scripted game due to the cover rule requirements along with the application of tac prioroty and tac sequence into course design and there is NOTHING wrong with that. Why run from and why try to avoid the obvious ? IDPA course design stifles creativity and when someone actually thinks "outside the box" out comes the PE hammer as a form of punishment caused by straying too far from someone elses idea of "tactical correctness."

Call things what they are and stop being SO defensive of the brand. If the application has merit embrace it DON'T run from it or pretend it doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we certainly have had some different experiences! At the recent AZ state championships, there were at least 3 stages with multiple possible ways to shoot the COF. The cover positions were usually dictated, but the targets could be (and were) engaged in any legal order. Since cover also extends to infinity, that leaves a lot of room for creativity. There was frequently a most efficient way to shoot the COF but you had options. To pretend that IDPA is a completely scripted dance that MUST be done exactly the same by every shooter is disingenuous. That's simply not the case.

Edited by BillR1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...