IDPA Stage Design

[ajblack]

5 minutes ago, MHicks said:

"Also if targets are close to the same distance they are equal... rulebook even says that as well."

 

Yes but if they are just barely far enough apart to require tactical priority sometimes they need to identify if they are equal threats or not.  If they are placed to make it obvious ok, if not define what they require for the shooter.

There will always be stage designers that think they need to prove a point by setting things up like this.  Just like some people like set up DQ traps (in all action pistol not just IDPA).  The only thing you can really do s identify scenarios like this and ask questions of the SO's.  I agree that the sport would be better without these intentional traps but it is part of the discipline.

[Jim Watson]

22 minutes ago, MHicks said:

"Also if targets are close to the same distance they are equal... rulebook even says that as well."

 

Yes but if they are just barely far enough apart to require tactical priority sometimes they need to identify if they are equal threats or not.  If they are placed to make it obvious ok, if not define what they require for the shooter.

 

Places I shoot, they will tell you if targets visible at the same time are equidistant or far enough apart to require "priority" engagement.  I don't know but one course writer who does gotcha stages.  When I get to one of his, I apply Rule Zero; ask the SO what he wants me to do and then do it as fast as I can. 

[MemphisMechanic]

5 minutes ago, Jim Watson said:

 ask the SO what he wants me to do and then do it as fast as I can. 

 

I enjoy really well thought out IDPA stages a lot. Particularly when they have cleverly thought out options.

 

On the other hand, guys like that make me really enjoy shooting USPSA the majority of the time. The SO’s who have a mindset of forcing every shooter to execute the stage in exactly the way they envisioned - and their intent isn’t immediately clear when looking at the sceanrio.

 

Edited January 17, 2019 by MemphisMechanic

[ajblack]

31 minutes ago, MemphisMechanic said:

 

I enjoy really well thought out IDPA stages a lot. Particularly when they have cleverly thought out options.

 

On the other hand, guys like that make me really enjoy shooting USPSA the majority of the time. The SO’s who have a mindset of forcing every shooter to execute the stage in exactly the way they envisioned - and their intent isn’t immediately clear when looking at the sceanrio.

 

99% of the time the SO on the stage didn't have anything to do with the stage design and doesn't have any pride on the line regarding how crappy the stage design is.  So asking "Hey, are you going to give me a PE if I shoot this array left to right?" is usually just a good way to avoid a PE.  Most SO's aren't trying to dish out PE's so they'd rather clarify as well.  Of course there's always a minority that would rather hand out PE's, but that's few and far between.

[Buzzdraw]

I for one, as an IDPA MD, will continue to do my best to follow the course design criteria in the 2017.3 Rulebook and whatever most current Match Admin guide comes down the pike.   In the rulebook, Sec. 1.2.3, there is a discussion of CoF principles.  Many of the actions banned in M-9.1.1 were in contravention of these principles.  

 

A few of the actions banned taught competitors potentially usable skills, such as how to shoot one handed while holding an object.  On the other hand, carrying a glass full of water while moving and not loosing water from it while shooting is not a skill for which  I see any real utility. 

 

In 1.1 it is encouraged to test the skills of shooters that could be used to survive life threatening encounters.   There can be a lot of testing packed into a 12-18 round CoF, more than in a CoF of lesser round count.   I am in agreement with the max allowed distance of 20 yards to target allowed in scenario stages.  Also with the rule that 75% of all shots required must be not greater than 15 yards.

 

M-9.1.1 is going to make MD's and set-up crews work a bit harder to keep CoF legal as well as relevant and fun.  It can be done.

 

Maybe removing all the potentially controversial possibilities from IDPA is necessary.  Many SO's prefer to call "cover" from a shooter's use of a fault line.  Same for not having to judge "movement".   Makes it easier to focus on safety.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2019 by Buzzdraw

[rowdyb]

6 hours ago, Joe4d said:

Sounds like IDPA still has a big problem with people, including match officials and AC's reading and following the rule book

So true! And for two main reason I've encountered. 1. They don't like the rules so they willfully choose to ignore certain ones. 2. Their knowledge of them is incomplete or worse incorrect.

 

Build illegal stages and I will never return to your match.

[MHicks]

10 hours ago, MemphisMechanic said:

 

I enjoy really well thought out IDPA stages a lot. Particularly when they have cleverly thought out options.

 

On the other hand, guys like that make me really enjoy shooting USPSA the majority of the time. The SO’s who have a mindset of forcing every shooter to execute the stage in exactly the way they envisioned - and their intent isn’t immediately clear when looking at the sceanrio.

 

I shoot a lot more USPSA now. Some IDPA because it's whats available.  With the shooter being allowed to ask for clarification on points that aren't clear I don't  consider a lot of these problems to be "traps". 

[Joe4d]

thats the problem,,, shouldnt be any unclear points to ask about. MD's need to read the dang rule book and actually follow it. Would eliminate alot of problems... I quit IDPA in late 90's, but as mentioned all thats available. Hopefully I dont have to deal with this stuff. 
Although,, do have to say I walked away from a couple USPSA matches due to horrible stages and lack of following rules. 

[RePete]

That article was written by a man who had most of the stages at a State match  illegal and now he is the AC's AC.

 

IDPA is dumbing down the game 1 rule at a time.  That tends to PO a lot of people.  As Rowdy said you will only get the lowest shooters,

 

The rulebook will not change for 5 years.  (Remember that?)  The first change was within the first week.

[MarilynMonbro]

there's nothing wrong with a fast, low-round-count stage, as that prob mimics real life hd/sd scenarios, but run a couple of strings for that stage to bump the round count up (two hands, strong hand, weak hand, r to l, l to r, going forwards, going backwards, etc)

For a $10 local match I'd be fine with an occasional fast low round count match but for a tier 2+ ($110 usually) I wouldn't. But if that was the case then I'm sure the match fee would be less so I guess it would balance out

 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk