2005 Idpa Nationals DQ discussion

[TDean]

Hi Mark,

Page 4

"IDPA shooting events require use of practical

handguns and holsters that are truly suitable

for self-defense. No “competition only”

equipment is permitted in IDPA matches since

the main goal is to test the skill and ability of

the individual, not equipment or

gamesmanship."

I think the line is clearly drawn with this statement.

Folks who shoot with "competition gear" aren't really testing their skill or ability, they are only testing their equipment and gamesmenship skills.

Maybe I'm making this whole thing up....

[David]

I will tell you this.  My other friends in IDPA are always amazed I spend time on this forum.  Because whenever they read or post here  they always feel targeted by certain members of this forum and the mods don't seem to care about the IDPA forum as much as the USPSA rules forum. 

And it was not a cheap shot, just a statement of my opinion.  I would think I'm allowed to do as much since others get to spew crud out of theirs. 

Ted

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have been allowed to spew crud out of your mouth, just like the others, so just what are you complaining about here? What exactly do you think needs moderatin' ? The blatant bashing of one of our hosts friends? The people defending him? Or the remarks from people that don't feel a DQ after the fact is justified?

[Crusher]

From the IDPA rulebook reguarding a match DQ:

PC 2. Disqualification (DQ):

A. Results from unsportsmanlike conduct, unfair actions,

or the use of illegal equipment, which, in the opinion of the

MD, tends to make a travesty of the defensive shooting

sport will result in an FTDR or DQ from the entire match

at the discretion of the match director. The shooter may

not continue in any part of that day(s) match, may not reenter

in another division, and may not shoot any side

matches. Repeated offenses reported to the AC or HQ can

result in having membership revoked.

The underlined section implies that concerns about a competitor's actions/behavior/conduct are addressed at the time of the incedent(s) OR within a reasonable expectation regarding the amount of time to do so (at the time of stage completion) , with at the very least FTDR penalaties accessed on a "per occurance" basis.

To access ANY penalty after the competitor has completed a match and has had their final scores posted is wrong, the time to make those decisions (penalty accessment) is during the occurance(s) not hours later after a "sharing of information".

[Mark Perez]

Hi Mark,

Page 4

"IDPA shooting events require use of practical

handguns and holsters that are truly suitable

for self-defense. No “competition only”

equipment is permitted in IDPA matches since

the main goal is to test the skill and ability of

the individual, not equipment or

gamesmanship."

I think the line is clearly drawn with this statement.

Folks who shoot with "competition gear" aren't really testing their skill or ability, they are only testing their equipment and gamesmenship skills.

Maybe I'm making this whole thing up....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mr. Dean ,

As far as "IPSC bashing" , that is quite the stretch imo. Granted , there are definite attacks in the prior rule book (LGB) but that is behind us now. I always considered that poor form on IDPA's account to put those into print.

As far as Ted Murphy's concerns regarding the tone on this forum regarding IDPA - I am in complete agreement, which is why I spend more time here than on other IDPA related forums. It's always good to get opposing viewpoints as long as they offer constructive criticism , imnsho.

"Gentlemen can disagree and remain gentlemen"

until that day,

Mark

Edited September 28, 2005 by Mark Perez

[TDean]

I'm good with that Mark.

Tom

(as opposed to the stuffy "Mr. Dean" alternate saying).

[MBaneACP]

Shred dude...

You do an awesome moderation job, but I think you're way off-base on this one. Here's the problem from my standpoint...it's amazingly easy to find "patterns of behavior" after the fact. Things that seem very clear in hindsight often either weren't very clear at all at the time or were, in fact, not a "pattern of behavior" at all. On a hugely macro scale, look at the investigations into 9-11. I've occasionally spent time as a business consultant, and one of the challenges to to keep people from finding ex-post-facto "patterns" and putting in place programs to combat non-existant problems.

That's why penalties, especially mega-penalties like FTDR, MUST be applied at the time of the infraction. The minute we step away from the line, start discussing the incident with other SOs, or our friends, or anyone, the nature of the iincident begins to change. If we get together with our fellow SOs AFTER the match, we have had a whole day to "brood," so to speak, over whatever incidences happened in the first place. "Group-think" is a very real, measurable and accepted phenomenon...I have shown in meetings how the moderator can shape the entire direction of the meeting by just announcing a subject line..."Let's discuss whether Mr. Butler was in violation of IDPA rules all day...now, who's got specifics?"

Perhaps more importantly, "Gross Unsportsmanlike Conduct" is a weasel way of saying "that man is a cheater," a man of questionable integrity. John May and his CSOs made the decision to brand Mr. Butler a cheater, a man of questionable integrity, after an after-the-match meeting in which Mr. Butler had no input. I know Taran Butler to say hi to him at matches, but no better. But I know he's going to carry that brand around with him for a long time.

Ted (I think) stated the MD "wanted" to talk to Mr. Butler, but didn't. Yet he acted anyway, ostensibly to "take back the sport." My question is, "From whom?"

There is within IDPA an almost obsessive undercurrent to "punish the cheaters." Without going drastically in that direction, it's hard for me to see Mr. May's actions as acts of integrity. I have been in his position, and, as an MD, I have DQ'ed for unsportsmanlike conduction (in a USPSA match, no less). But I did it to the man's face, at the match, and I gave him his say.

Ted, you know I respect your opinion. But I've had discussions recently with lots of people who are worried about the overall state of practical competition. IDPA is clearly flagging nationally; USPSA is growing, but at a snail's pace; Cowboy is dead flat. The only bright spot seems to be 3-gun. I hate to see anything that damages one of the sports, and it's hard for me to see this as anything but.

We are often our own worst enemies, and I think that is the case here.

Michael B

[rubberneck]

From the IDPA rulebook reguarding a match DQ:

PC 2. Disqualification (DQ):

A. Results from unsportsmanlike conduct, unfair actions,

or the use of illegal equipment, which, in the opinion of the

MD, tends to make a travesty of the defensive shooting

sport will result in an FTDR or DQ from the entire match

at the discretion of the match director. The shooter may

not continue in any part of that day(s) match, may not reenter

in another division, and may not shoot any side

matches. Repeated offenses reported to the AC or HQ can

result in having membership revoked.

The underlined section implies that concerns about a competitor's actions/behavior/conduct are addressed at the time of the incedent(s) OR within a reasonable expectation regarding the  amount of time to do so (at the time of stage completion) , with at the very least FTDR penalaties accessed on a "per occurance" basis.

To access ANY penalty after the competitor has completed a match and has had their final scores posted is wrong, the time to make those decisions (penalty accessment) is during the occurance(s) not hours later after a "sharing of information".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am not sure that I am tracking you here. No where in the rule book does it say that the DQ must occur at the time of the infraction. From what I have read in this thread by those who were actually there that there was a series of acts that occured that when taken in total was enough to cause a match DQ.

What happens in the case where a shooter knowingly uses illegal equipment that happens to slip past the equipment inspection. Should the shooter bar spared from a match DQ if it is found out after the last stage and not during the match? It isn't much different than golf where a player can be DQ'd after the match for a rules infraction. In this case it was not possible for the MD make a decision while the shooter was still shooting. The timing of the DQ is irrelevant.

Also it is quite clear that the MD has the right to either DQ the shooter or assign a FTDR. In this case he felt the match DQ was appropriate. Since neither you nor I were at the match what makes you think you are qualified to challenge his decision? There are several SO's that have posted in this thread and not one has expressed any sort of disapproval of his decision.

[reneet]

All I have to add to this discussion is that if I'm being DQ'd, I'd like it done to my face.

[rubberneck]

All I have to add to this discussion is that if I'm being DQ'd, I'd like it done to my face.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That goes without saying but if you aren't available then what is the MD to do?

[reneet]

All I have to add to this discussion is that if I'm being DQ'd, I'd like it done to my face.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That goes without saying but if you aren't available then what is the MD to do?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm saying that an infraction that would sustain a match DQ should be handled then and there or not at all.

[rubberneck]

All I have to add to this discussion is that if I'm being DQ'd, I'd like it done to my face.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That goes without saying but if you aren't available then what is the MD to do?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm saying that an infraction that would sustain a match DQ should be handled then and there or not at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't agree with that statement but it is you right to feel that way.

[shred]

Sorry Mr Bane. I see where you're coming from, but my point, murky as it may have been, was only supposed to be that a large amount or chronic history of documented and verifiable small infractions could in fact add up to a larger one after the fact only because there is no good real-time communication channel between SO's besides a wandering RM or two. Fix that and the problem is fixed too.

Say 'accidentally' taping a target before it's scored. Do it once when a guy has a bad run and it could be a mistake. Do it on seven separate stages every time a certain competitor has a bad run and it's unquestionably unsportsmanlike conduct, but who kept track?

I liked the plan wherin a travelling assistant-RO was assigned to the super squad (I think the Steel Challenge does this too). His job is to make sure the match rules are applied not only fairly to the competitors, but across the stages as well. Keeps down the 'special treatment' complaints..

I have no idea if any of this applies in this particular case.

[Sgtsvi]

Why couldnt John May call Taran and discuss his displeasure with his actions during the match and tell him that if he continues to conduct himself in the manner deemed unacceptable, he will not be allowed to compete in next years nationals. I dont think it was appropriate to DQ a shooter after a match. I agree that it should have been done on the spot or not at all. I dont imagine Taran will come back next year and that is a shame. There may not be any shooters from team Infinity competing next year at all because of the treatment Taran received.

Dave

[Mark Perez]

Does anyone here have contact info for Taran? Maybe let him know this thread is active??

I would like to hear his side of the story..

[John Dunn]

Take back the sport?

Take it. Keep it. Too much fun in other disciplines to sweat this stuff.

[reneet]

Does anyone here have contact info for Taran? Maybe let him know this thread is active??

I would like to hear his side of the story..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I feel pretty sure that Taran is aware of this discussion but don't think that it would be constructive to have him post here. The problem is the haphazard way in which rules are applied after the fact. This is not the 1st time and surely will not be the last that this type of thing happens until application of the rules are made consistently and on the spot.

[ima45dv8]

In an effort to be fair, I'll state up front that I wasn't there and have no first-hand knowledge of the events, and I'm pretty sure the MD thought he was doing the right thing by acting on what must have seemed like a body of evidence provided by the various stage officials.

What seems to be stirring up a lot of folks is the idea that those same stage officials either didn't have the training, the experience or the intestinal fortitude to take action when the alleged offences occurred.

If you're holding a timer or a clipboard and know in your bones, with water-tight, iron-clad, bullet-proof, 100% certainty that you've witnessed an act deserving of a penalty or DQ, and don't act upon that knowledge, you need to be doing something else. If you do not have that level of certainty, advise the shooter of the suspected infraction and give them a gentle but firm warning to be especially careful in the future. Then drop it.

Regardless of the name of the organization hosting the event, do your obligated duty swiftly and fairly, or leave it to those who will. There's a hell of a lot more at stake than getting a break on the match fee.

Don't leave it to the MD to do your heavy lifting after the fact.

[MBaneACP]

Mr. Shred...

I TOTALLY agree with you on the "Traveling Super RO" technique as used at the Steel Challenge. It is an excellent idea and one that I believe should be put into effect whenever there is one or more super squads regardless of the sport. BTW, didn't you do REALLY good at the Challenge this year? Congrats!

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the ex-post-facto DQ. There is no circumstance that I, acting as MD, would DQ after the fact, specifically for the reason Rene stated. I believe a DQ needs to be done on the spot and to the competitor's face (and, yes, I have been DQ'ed myself from a USPSA Nationals; Arnie Christenson looked me in the eye when he did it, too).

In the case of a series of "small, non-called violations," I like the idea presented on this thread of calling or meeting with the competitor after the fact, reading him or her the Riot Act (unless it was Rene, in which case we'd have to go out for dinner and drinks first!), and even banning that competitor from the NEXT year's championships if I felt the accumulated problems were that huge.

But I absolutely positively unequivocally believe that judgement calls ALWAYS go to the shooter's favor! Were I MD in this situation, I'd be flailing my CSOs for their failure to make the proper calls on the spot and not calling the siutation to my attentiuon WHILE THE MATCH WAS RUNNING. Since it was not called to my attention for action before the competitor finished the match and left the field, that makes it a judgement call, which goes to the shooter.

Respectfully (especially since you shoot so much better than me!),

Michael B

[banjobart]

There is a principle of fair play that exists in our civilized society that dates back to the time of the Magna Carta and English common law. Our entire legal system is based on this principle. The principle is that one has the right to face his accusers, be given time to prepare a defense and to call witnesses to testify in his behalf. Anything less is unacceptable.

Edited for inflammatory comments.

Edited September 28, 2005 by Nik Habicht

[Nik Habicht]

I know that on BE.Com there is a general loathing of things IDPA and while the mods would lay the smack down on such negative talk if it were USPSA related, I have noticed that IDPA's forum is moderated more loosely.  Ted

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ted ---- and any other active posters in this forum,

I've been an IDPA shooter since 1999, approximately 18 months before I started shooting in USPSA. I've been a moderator in this particualr forum since it's inception. My personal moderating style is pretty loose ---- I always figure that a person's true personality will reveal itself in the totality of their posts.

If you think the forum is moderated too loosely ---- lay the blame for that on my shoulders --- not Brian's. Brian hands out guidance in concepts of what he'd like to achieve here, then pretty much lets us implement the specifics as we see fit. He doesn't dictate how this or any other forum should be moderated --- except in isolated cases. If anyone's made a mistake here it's me.

That said, I'm not seeing much general IDPA bashing in this thread ---- I'm seeing any number of people who are voicing their objections to the way that Mr. Butler was disqualified. If I've missed something major, feel free to point it out. I have some errands to run, but I'll reread the entire thread tonight, with a fresh eye.

Last but not least, my name appears on the forum --- if you see something posted here, that you think might require moderation, feel free to pm me a link anytime. While we (moderators) try mightily, most of us can't read every thread or post on the forums. Even when we do, our perception may be different than yours. If you stew silently, we can't address your concerns; if you send us a pm, we may --- or at least we'll discuss the situation with you.

[Mark Perez]

I know that on BE.Com there is a general loathing of things IDPA and while the mods would lay the smack down on such negative talk if it were USPSA related, I have noticed that IDPA's forum is moderated more loosely.   Ted

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ted ---- and any other active posters in this forum,

(cut)...

...

Last but not least, my name appears on the forum --- if you see something posted here, that you think might require moderation, feel free to pm me a link anytime. While we (moderators) try mightily, most of us can't read every thread or post on the forums. Even when we do, our perception may be different than yours. If you stew silently, we can't address your concerns; if you send us a pm, we may --- or at least we'll discuss the situation with you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not Ted , but that seems fair and reasonable to me . Thank you , both for the offer and the work that you do here.

Mark

[Nik Habicht]

For the record --- since I'm getting PMs, I'm not ticked at Ted or anyone else. I simply wanted to set the record straight, in case anyone was unclear on how and why things here work the way they do. I'm almost always up for discussion.....

[freeidaho]

Interesting thread,

Lets recap what we know from this thread.

No, he was not DQ'd after the match. Everyone seems to love to type that, but it ain't so. He was DQ'd before the awards ceremony, hence during the match. Isn't the end of the protest period the end of the match?

Yes he was DQ'd after he finished shooting the match. But the match doesn't stop just because someone finishes shooting. Isn't it a 3 or 4 day match?

Yes, BE IDPA forum is the most hostile toward IDPA of all the internet forums and groups. Some people I know won't post here because of it. It seems lots of non-IDPA shooters hang out here that just love to hate IDPA. I don't think it is about moderation though, except in some few cases, there are just lots of never-were or ex-IDPA shooters here that have a very dull axe. It is to the point that when one sees a persons alias, you know what they are going to type. It seems some aliases have never posted a positive post about IDPA.

If he had not been DQ'd and had been warned about being banned from next years Nats, then y'all that are suggesting that course of action, would clamoring to point out that is not in the rulebook. And how dare anyone do something not in the rulebook.

Yes, a behavour that is let slide by an individual SO, when variations of same are repeated, can add up to a penalty. At least I think it should. Any single SO may give the shooter the benefit of the doubt, and I loved the example about "accidently" taping unscored targets. But many SOs giving the benefit of the doubt, not knowing about the previous warnings, can only be caught by getting all the SOs together.

And lets be clear, it should be caught ! ! !

Getting by with something, is not the same as being legal or ethical. Stationary SOs officiate one stage better than an SO with a squad. But an SO with a squad catches on pretty quickly to someone pushing outside the envelope.

Yes there were other shooters complaining about this shooter, as noted in an earlier post.

I think we need a new rule however. Give the SOs and MD the benefit of the doubt. You suppose they deserve it for the days, weeks and months it takes to put on a sanctioned match. I do.

Ken Reed

"You are what you do, everything else is just talk."

[38supPat]

I liked the plan wherin a travelling assistant-RO was assigned to the super squad (I think the Steel Challenge does this too).  His job is to make sure the match rules are applied not only fairly to the competitors, but across the stages as well.  Keeps down the 'special treatment' complaints..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is there a 'super Ro' assigned to EVERY squad or is it just assumed that the 'Super Squad' is the only one that needs supervision?

If it's not applied equally across the entire match population, then it isn't ensuring the rules are applied fairly.

[reneet]

IT's a game. It has rules. The rules should be enforced immediately and consistently. When I'm done shooting, the match is over for me. If I have not been DQ'd as of that point, I don't expect to be DQ'd or additionaly penalized. I've never even shot an IDPA match but that is irrelevant. This applies to ALL games.