IDPA Final Rulebook

[MikeyG23]

Forgive me, but I've got to put on my "tactical tool" hat for a minute...

there we go.

OK, so, in this most "real-world" of all shooting sports, you get a FTN penalty for 2 -3s. I'd buy that in the periphreal areas of the target, but what about that big, thick -3 portion right below the -1 area? Even Ayoob's advocated the pelvic shot as being a viable one shot stopper, if not more of one than the Mozambique because of the difficulty in landing the head shot. And if I recall right, the zipper drill is taught these days as much in law enforcement as the Mozambique is. 'Course, these folk have to be about as practical as it gets.....

WHEW! I got that hat pulled off just in time. I almost had a sudden urge to go buy a matching 5.11 ensemble. Forget that ever happened...

Looks like it almost encourages round dumping which was last years procedural of choice.

[firewalker]

I can live with the new rule Book now, Many thanks to Bill W and Joyce, Dru and staff for the hard work and listening to suggestions. See you folks on the range. (time to quit whinning and practice....practice....practice)

Frederick Haring

[Ted Murphy]

Can anyone tell me what kind of speedloader carrier the new rule book is showing as OK? It is the one holding the comp 3 speedloaders.

Thanks,

Paul

It's a blade-tech holder.

Ted

[freeidaho]

A couple out-of-the-blue changes:

- it looks like the Failure-to-Neutralize penalty has been completely changed.  Now, any target without at least one -1 zone hit is going to score FTN. That's -1 zone or better, I assume...if you take it literally you can't have two -0 hits and get away from the FTN...who proofreads this stuff!?

GRD, Everyone;

I suspect you are right it is unfortunate wording. FTN has always been for targets with only one hole in the target, and that hole was in the -3 area (2 points). One hole in the -1 area or better (4 points or 5 points), or two holes anywhere have always been neutralized targets (4 points up to 10 points).

So I suspect what the rule is saying, without using a points reference, is that if the target does not have a score of a -1 hit, or a better score, then it is a FTN. Another way to say it, is if the target has no holes, or only one hole and that hole is in the -3 region, it is not neutralized.

Nothing to panic over. Same FTN as before, reworded to eliminate any reference to points. Which is a good thing. Trying to teach new shooters about IDPA, always gets them wound around the axle with confusion about points and points down. Thie elimination of points will eliminate that confusion, and I for am glad it is gone.

A wise Merchant Marine once told me to "Listen to what they are saying, not how they are saying it."

Ken Reed

"You are what you do."

[freeidaho]

- You can assign a shooter a PE for failing to use cover even if you didn't get the warning out and never had a chance to yell 'cover' during the stage.

GRD, Everyone;

This has been a rule for some time, since the 2002 Nationals. Many MDs at sanctioned matches would yell "COVER" in the shooters briefing, and let the shooters know that was their warning.

Cover violations are earned, and only noted by the SO. If you are good enough to go so fast that "COVER" can not be uttered before you are gone from that shooting position, then you are good enough to use cover well, at speed. Either you are using cover properly when the shot breaks, or you are not. This clarification does not change that. This is the way the rule should have been written in the beginning. If you don't use cover properly, then penalty. That simple.

If you actually have an issue with an SO that you don't trust or that makes a bad call then fix that issue, not complain about a rule that makes perfect sense.

Or maybe all you light speed guys will just have to have your performance on video, slowed down in slow motion for the mere mortals that are volunteering their time to run the match.

Ken Reed

"You are what you do."

[GRD]

So I suspect what the rule is saying,

And therein lies a big part of the problem. Yes, we understand what they probably meant, the problem is, that's not what they said.

And re: cover, it may be the way they did it at Nats, but it has not 'been a rule for some time'. It's not in my LGB, which is the rules we use to run our matches. Nobody ever got in touch with me to let me know how we were supposed to 'interpret' this in the past. So we ran it by the book, the only way we knew how.

It drives me absolutely batty when people justify all this rulebook nonsense with "well, you know nobody ever really did it that way" or "you know what they really mean is..." or "I'm sure what is meant by that is..." I want a rulebook that is precise, accurate, free of ambiguity, readable, rational and thoughful.

Is that so much to ask?

How is a guy supposed to run a club like this?

- Gabe

PS:

Or maybe all you light speed guys will just have to have your performance on video, slowed down in slow motion for the mere mortals that are volunteering their time to run the match.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this? Is that some kind of slam at those who try to win this increasingly frustrating game?

PPS:

A wise Merchant Marine once told me to "Listen to what they are saying, not how they are saying it."

How are you supposed to run a scored sport like that? You'll have as many different 'interpretations' of the 'meaning' of this and that as you will have clubs running the game. If it's going to be a rule, put it in print precisely as it is intended.

[freeidaho]

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this?  Is that some kind of slam at those who try to win this increasingly frustrating game?

GRD, It was in reference to this:

Let me be the first to predict that this will be used to "penalize" those who are too fast for some people.

Ken Reed

"You are what you do."

[GRD]

Roger.

I need to relax. Deep breaths....

- Gabe

[tightloop]

[Ted Murphy]

From the new rulebook:

PP 3. Failure-to-Neutralize (FTN):

A. Will add five (5) seconds per infraction. This penalty applies to any target that does not have at least one (1) four zone (minus 1) hit. See Appendix NINE-Target-Scoring Zones for further clarification. Failure to neutralize penalties ONLY applies when standard Vickers Count scoring is used and the target(s) do not completely disappear.

B. Does NOT apply to Limited Vickers scoring or to permanently disappearing targets.

Seems clear enough. if there isn't a -1 hit, it's an FTN. Even if their is two or more -3 hits.

Seems they raised the bar for accuracy some.

Ted

[GRD]

<whispering to himself> "shooting is fun.....shooting is fun......running a shooting club is fun......it's all fun.........weeeeee"

[GRD]

I'm fine with the raising of the FTN standard, it's the fact that the way it's written you have to have a -1 hit on the target. I don't, obviously, seriously think that's what they meant, but there it is...in black and white.

It's just an example of confusing and inaccurate writing that leaves us saying "Yeah, I know that's what it says, but we know they meant..."

- Gabe

[Ted Murphy]

I'm fine with the raising of the FTN standard, it's the fact that the way it's written you have to have a -1 hit on the target. I don't, obviously, seriously think that's what they meant

Actually I think that is exactly what they meant.

Ted

[rhino]

So ... two hits in "down zero" incurs a failure to neutralize.

[freeidaho]

Actually I think that is exactly what they meant.

Cool, I'm fine with that. Just imagine how much carboard we can save now, completely cutting off all the -3 zone.

Ken Reed

[Ted Murphy]

Cool, I'm fine with that. Just imagine how much carboard we can save now, completely cutting off all the -3 zone.

You'll still need it.

Ted

[Mayonaise]

So ... two hits in "down zero" incurs a failure to neutralize.

This penalty applies to any target that does not have at least one (1) four zone (minus 1) hit.

I think LEAST covers your 5 point zone, err -0 zone.

[GRD]

I think LEAST covers your 5 point zone, err -0 zone.

I think we're talking past each other. I'm confident that the rule means you have to have a single -1 zone hit or better to avoid the FTN. But if you read the rule, literally, as it is written, you would need to have at least one -1 zone hit on the target, even if you had other better hits. Which is just silly, and obviously not what they meant...but that was my original point. It may not be what they meant, but it's what they wrote. And Uncle Bill's tirade about 'doesn't anyone have any common sense anymore?!' in that insulting letter he wrote is, hysterically, showing that they do get the problem, they just don't think it's a problem. Precision does not seem to be all that high up on the list of qualities they are looking for in the rules for this sport.

- Gabe

[rhino]

What puzzles me is why the handful of people who are creating these rules think they can make significant changes in a week's time and expect it to be "right."

[tightloop]

OK, Good People....you know the answer to that one yourself....it appears that they procrastinated to the point that the troops were ready to revolt and leave their post, then they make the changes quickly to placate most of the followers and confuse the rest... Now they will sit back and see what the outcome will be...

[Ted Murphy]

I'm confident that the rule means you have to have a single -1 zone hit or better to avoid the FTN. But if you read the rule, literally, as it is written, you would need to have at least one -1 zone hit on the target, even if you had other better hits.

PP 3. Failure-to-Neutralize (FTN):

A. Will add five (5) seconds per infraction. This penalty applies to any target that does not have at least one (1) four zone (minus 1) hit.

at least means -1 at a minimum, so -0 would be okay too.

I know you are trying to be the grammar king but it is spelled out well enough.

[roundgunner]

I think the new book is done right.

I was real upset when the first (draft ) came out with the wrong weight limits on ESR guns. The 6-7-8 round difference in ESR was a new problem I could get used to until I could save enough pennies to buy one.

I have only looked at the problems that affected me but they all seem to be corrected.

As the owner of a small business I know how it is to make a decision without putting every effort into it. Sometimes you are doing 4-5 major things and skim read/think thru a new change, do what you think is right and it bites you real hard.

Oops.

We don’t know what all was going on in his business or personal life and I for one will be happy with the effort put forth to fix this mistake that 12,000 of us have had time to dissect and criticize. If and probably when one of them makes another mistake I will not hesitate to let them know, just like my customers do for me. And yes his letter was insulting but not ment for everyone, if you dont fit in that group let it go, if you had to insult him learn to take it.

Thank you Bill & Joyce and if you come to Smith & Wesson Winter Championships I will be the guy smiling like the cat who ate the canary.

Warren A Baker

Former local IDPA chairman, State championships MD, RO, SO, and happy again.

[redmist10]

<listens for the whistling sound of the moderator hammer - 'cause it is going to fall pretty quick on this thread at the rate it's going....>

A couple of well placed comments from Bones and we can close this puppy out too

[tightloop]

No matter what anyone does, it won't please all the folks..

[GRD]

It's not correct, Ted. The way it reads you have to have 'at least one (1) four zone (minus 1) hit.' It doesn't take a 'grammar king' to see that the 'at least' refers to the 'hit' and not the number of points. It's not just silly grammar sniping to expect the damn rulebook to be written in precise language. I don't feel I'm being unreasonable to expect a minimum standard of quality out of this. I'm not interested in 'well enough'. What happened to getting it right? This is edit #3 for crying out loud.

The point being, this is just an example (and maybe a nit-picky one at that). But it drives me up the wall that we can't have a rulebook that makes any sense.

I've said my piece. I don't like it, but I'll live with it. In the grand scheme of things, it's not that big a deal. I help run an IDPA club and we'll continue to run it by the book, like we always have. I'm not backing away from this because we have shooters that want to shoot and without this game, we wouldn't have a practical pistol game up here.

I like shooting better than not shooting so I'll put up with it. Like Wild Bill in Deadwood putting up with Jack McCall's mouth so he can keep playing poker.

I just hope I don't get shot in the back of the head for it.

- Gabe