2022 Rulebook Released

[Johnny_Chimpo]

8 hours ago, RePete said:

The US is one of the few countries that doesn't use metric measurements.

 

[RePete]

On 7/1/2022 at 4:40 PM, Johnny_Chimpo said:

 

What's that got to do with anything.  It could have been done in metric too.

 

You haven't proved a thing!

[Johnny_Chimpo]

3 hours ago, RePete said:

It could have been done in metric too.

 

A metric country tried.  And failed big.

 

The point is that the metric system isn't superior.  Just different.

[Jim Watson]

The French System has been legal for trade in the USA since 1866.  

So we get 9mm pistols and 750ml wine bottles.

 

I remember the metric road signs.  Where are they now?

 

I worked a 1982 engineering project with government mandated "dual dimensioning."  What that amounted to was blueprint dimensions duplicated in millimeters.  Yes, millimeters; a plant bay might be 11' 6" wide, but it would also be shown as 3502.2 mm.

 

Thomas Jefferson got us decimal coinage but his decimal system of weights and measures did not catch on.  It was based on a one-second rod pendulum defined as 5 feet long.  That foot was 11 3/4 English inches but 10 Jefferson inches, etc.  

Edited July 4, 2022 by Jim Watson

[Sarge]

5 hours ago, Jim Watson said:

I remember the metric road signs.  Where are they now?

 

It’s been a few years but there were still a few on I-70 in Ohio.

[deerslayer]

On 3/14/2022 at 7:06 PM, leadaddict said:

Fault lines don’t extend to the stage boundaries. I’m trying to understand exactly what that means in practice. Does it mean you can’t engage 9 feet away from the poc? Maybe some can help me understand this change. 

 

Did this make it into the 2022 rulebook?  I can't find it.  

[matteekay]

3 hours ago, deerslayer said:

 

Did this make it into the 2022 rulebook?  I can't find it.  

 

They struck 6.3.E, which was the rule that extended fault lines to the stage boundaries. So, addition by omission.

[deerslayer]

20 minutes ago, matteekay said:

 

They struck 6.3.E, which was the rule that extended fault lines to the stage boundaries. So, addition by omission.

I wish they had clarified where one's feet now have to be when properly using cover.  

[matteekay]

3 hours ago, deerslayer said:

I wish they had clarified where one's feet now have to be when properly using cover.  

 

Agreed. Our local MD's got together and made a ruling that both feet have to be forward of the rear of the fault line to be "in cover". Some of us are marking it with a horizontal tape line... and most of us are now using 6' faults, lol.

 

I'm curious to see how it's handled at Nationals next month.

[deerslayer]

3 hours ago, matteekay said:

 

Agreed. Our local MD's got together and made a ruling that both feet have to be forward of the rear of the fault line to be "in cover". Some of us are marking it with a horizontal tape line... and most of us are now using 6' faults, lol.

 

I'm curious to see how it's handled at Nationals next month.

I don’t understand why the inside foot matters as long as the outside foot is even with or forward of the end of the fault line (which is our local ruling).  IDPA didn’t make that clear, but maybe the 2025 update will clarify that.  

[ddc]

4 hours ago, matteekay said:

 

Agreed. Our local MD's got together and made a ruling that both feet have to be forward of the rear of the fault line to be "in cover". Some of us are marking it with a horizontal tape line... and most of us are now using 6' faults, lol.

 

I'm curious to see how it's handled at Nationals next month.

 

I thought getting direction from your AC was the way to get clarification.

 

Having a group of "local MD's getting together" ... how does that promote anything other than the localization of the rules?

Which is one of IDPA's most glaring problems...

 

Just curious how you guys came to that conclusion. Is your AC not responsive? 

Edited August 22, 2022 by ddc
changed AD to AC before someone had a heart attack.

[matteekay]

14 minutes ago, ddc said:

 

I thought getting direction from your AC was the way to get clarification.

 

Having a group of "local MD's getting together" ... how does that promote anything other than the localization of the rules?

Which is one of IDPA's most glaring problems...

 

Just curious how you guys came to that conclusion. Is your AC not responsive? 

 

Odd to think he wasn't involved. And/or that the AC has any more information than the rest of us. They can run it up the chain, but we still need to run matches in the meantime.

[ddc]

23 minutes ago, matteekay said:

 

Odd to think he wasn't involved. And/or that the AC has any more information than the rest of us. They can run it up the chain, but we still need to run matches in the meantime.

 

Not so odd at all. You implied it was a local decision. What else does stating and I quote "Our local MD's got together" supposed to imply?

 

Don't worry about it. Not a big deal. Glad you figured out a course of action in the absence of any national leadership.

You are basically forced to do so. Good on ya..

[Zincwarrior]

11 hours ago, deerslayer said:

I don’t understand why the inside foot matters as long as the outside foot is even with or forward of the end of the fault line (which is our local ruling).  IDPA didn’t make that clear, but maybe the 2025 update will clarify that.  

Yes, I don't see how the inside foot is involved at all. As an example, if its a wall with a right side foot fault. If we had a shooter with their right foot only on the ground (or even just go with they only have one foot), that would be the only thing that matters. 

[ddc]

15 hours ago, matteekay said:

 

Agreed. Our local MD's got together and made a ruling that both feet have to be forward of the rear of the fault line to be "in cover". Some of us are marking it with a horizontal tape line... and most of us are now using 6' faults, lol.

 

I'm curious to see how it's handled at Nationals next month.

 

also:

 

This seems to be in conflict with the concept of deep cover.

 

Here is a direct quote from my AC:

 

Deep Cover or distance engagement is engaging targets from a position of cover beyond the length of the fault line.  An example would be engaging targets 10 feet from the wall when the fault line is 8 feet long.  A competitor can use deep cover or distance engagement as long as they are not faulting the extension of the fault line and are not exposed to other engaged targets from a different position of cover.

 

From another forum:

 

Here is the guidance from our AC.

if you are past the 3-8’ line and are not exposed to other targets intended to be from another FL there is no PE. 
 

Edited August 22, 2022 by ddc
additional info

[Joe4d]

44 minutes ago, ddc said:

 

also:

 

This seems to be in conflict with the concept of deep cover.

 

Here is a direct quote from my AC:

 

Deep Cover or distance engagement is engaging targets from a position of cover beyond the length of the fault line.  An example would be engaging targets 10 feet from the wall when the fault line is 8 feet long.  A competitor can use deep cover or distance engagement as long as they are not faulting the extension of the fault line and are not exposed to other engaged targets from a different position of cover.

 

From another forum:

 

Here is the guidance from our AC.

if you are past the 3-8’ line and are not exposed to other targets intended to be from another FL there is no PE. 
 

sounds like more garbage to me, Something IDPA has been doing from the beginning. A  suggestion book, vs a rule book and not being followed by the org.
THE whole point of a fault line is to eliminate subjective scoring that ruined many a match.. 2 guys could do exact same thing and get different scores.
With those 2 AC statements,,, good grief, right back to BS calls with imaginary moveable lines.

 

[matteekay]

1 hour ago, ddc said:

 

also:

 

This seems to be in conflict with the concept of deep cover.

 

Here is a direct quote from my AC:

 

Deep Cover or distance engagement is engaging targets from a position of cover beyond the length of the fault line.  An example would be engaging targets 10 feet from the wall when the fault line is 8 feet long.  A competitor can use deep cover or distance engagement as long as they are not faulting the extension of the fault line and are not exposed to other engaged targets from a different position of cover.

 

From another forum:

 

Here is the guidance from our AC.

if you are past the 3-8’ line and are not exposed to other targets intended to be from another FL there is no PE. 
 

 

You, or the AC, is going to have to quote a rule. The term "deep cover" does not appear in the 2022 rulebook. What does appear is 3.5.8:

 

3.5.8 For vertical cover when shooting, a shooter must remain within the fault lines.

 

What rule are you/they using to overrule that?

 

 

Edit: Hell, they even say that you must use the fault line to determine if the shooter is in or out of cover:

 

3.6.4.4 Other measurement methods for determining cover must not be employed.

 

Again, there used to be a specific rule that stated "fault lines extend back to infinity", which would support the "deep cover" concept. That rule has been completely removed from this iteration of the rulebook.

Edited August 22, 2022 by matteekay

[Racinready300ex]

Just now, matteekay said:

 

You, or the AC, is going to have to quote a rule. The term "deep cover" does not appear in the 2022 rulebook. What does appear is 3.5.8:

 

3.5.8 For vertical cover when shooting, a shooter must remain within the fault lines.

 

What rule are you/they using to overrule that?

 

 

 

I think, they just realized clubs using 3' fault lines it was going to be completely impractical to require shooters to be with in 3' of cover. So they just made something up to fix it. 

 

The AC in my area is saying the same thing.

 

There was a big debate on this on facebook a while back, and I think there is some talk about it on the idpa forum. 

[matteekay]

2 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

 

I think, they just realized clubs using 3' fault lines it was going to be completely impractical to require shooters to be with in 3' of cover. So they just made something up to fix it. 

 

The AC in my area is saying the same thing.

 

There was a big debate on this on facebook a while back, and I think there is some talk about it on the idpa forum. 

 

I extended all my faults to 6' and now I don't have to worry about it. Coming up with local rules (that seem to directly oppose the new rulebook) is literally the opposite of what an AC is supposed to do.

[Racinready300ex]

3 minutes ago, matteekay said:

 

I extended all my faults to 6' and now I don't have to worry about it. Coming up with local rules (that seem to directly oppose the new rulebook) is literally the opposite of what an AC is supposed to do.

 

I don't disagree. I figured the new rule book would mean it would be a good idea to have a variety of length fault lines to tailor them to what you want as a stage designer. Of course I also figured my club would just make you crowd cover. But I they talked to the AC and now it doesn't matter. 

 

As a competitor it makes it hard for me to want to travel outside of this area because who knows that the rules are going to be when I get there. But, this has always been a concern with IDPA. 

[matteekay]

1 minute ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I don't disagree. I figured the new rule book would mean it would be a good idea to have a variety of length fault lines to tailor them to what you want as a stage designer. Of course I also figured my club would just make you crowd cover. But I they talked to the AC and now it doesn't matter. 

 

As a competitor it makes it hard for me to want to travel outside of this area because who knows that the rules are going to be when I get there. But, this has always been a concern with IDPA. 

 

Spot on. What's worse is it could have been solved in one sentence:

 

"The shooter is considered 'in cover' when both feet are on the correct side of the fault line and at least one foot is wholly within the fault line's length (front-to-back)."

 

Probably could use some wordsmithing but at least it defines a set rule. As it stands, I'll be asking EVERY Safety Officer at Nationals how they rule cover faults.

[ddc]

1 hour ago, matteekay said:

 

You, or the AC, is going to have to quote a rule. The term "deep cover" does not appear in the 2022 rulebook. What does appear is 3.5.8:

 

3.5.8 For vertical cover when shooting, a shooter must remain within the fault lines.

 

What rule are you/they using to overrule that?

 

 

Edit: Hell, they even say that you must use the fault line to determine if the shooter is in or out of cover:

 

3.6.4.4 Other measurement methods for determining cover must not be employed.

 

Again, there used to be a specific rule that stated "fault lines extend back to infinity", which would support the "deep cover" concept. That rule has been completely removed from this iteration of the rulebook.

 

 

I do not disagree with you. I am only quoting the feedback my AC gave me.

 

I agree that there is an apparent inconsistency between the rule book and the concept of deep cover and I do think it needs to be addressed given there seems to be varying interpretations of the new rules.

 

In fact when I wrote my AC I pointed out the lack of a definition.

 

I will quote the exact question I asked him:

"...In the online IDPA forum there is discussion of the concept of "deep cover". That term does not appear in the rulebook. Can you please enlighten me as to what that terminology refers to? Thanks,..."

 

He then responded as previously quoted: "Deep Cover or distance engagement is engaging targets from a position of cover beyond the length of the fault line.  An example would be engaging targets 10 feet from the wall when the fault line is 8 feet long.  A competitor can use deep cover or distance engagement as long as they are not faulting the extension of the fault line and are not exposed to other engaged targets from a different position of cover."

 

My only goal here is to point out that the previous concept of deep cover is apparently alive and well in parallel with the new rulebook and that seems very odd to me.

Edited August 22, 2022 by ddc

[matteekay]

2 hours ago, ddc said:

My only goal here is to point out that the previous concept of deep cover is apparently alive and well in parallel with the new rulebook and that seems very odd to me.

 

I think calling it "odd" is kind. I'd call it "straight-up wrong".

 

There's only one official rulebook. Referencing something that's from a previous version makes no sense, especially when the rule in question was explicitly excised in the new iteration. Hopefully your AC isn't tagged with a foot fault whenever engaging targets out of a fault line - it's pretty hard to argue against a penalty by citing an imaginary concept. 

[deerslayer]

5 hours ago, matteekay said:

 

Spot on. What's worse is it could have been solved in one sentence:

 

"The shooter is considered 'in cover' when both feet are on the correct side of the fault line and at least one foot is wholly within the fault line's length (front-to-back)."

A sentence like that would have eliminated some inevitable bogus PEs, although I would have worded it something like “when both feet are on the correct side of the fault line and the outside foot is touching any part of it.”  I sincerely believe HQ meant for this to be the intent, but we are once again stuck with trying to interpret yet another poorly worded rulebook.  Meanwhile, some range nazi is going to claim both feet have to be within the length of the fault line (which is harder to determine anyway) and start passing out PEs.  
 

I wonder what the reason was for even changing the fault line wording. 

Edited August 22, 2022 by deerslayer

[RePete]

The big picture is a poorly written rulebook - again!

 

What was intent and what is written is the cause of all of the rulebook debates.  

 

They say that the AC's talk to each other, I truly doubt that, but there would be some but certainly not all.