2022 Rulebook Released

[matteekay]

Coincidence? Sure, let's go with that.

 

https://www.idpa.com/fault-line-communication/

 

Short version: the rules didn't appreciably change from 2017 to 2022. They rewrote them to solve a problem that I can't imagine happened very often (read the article and you'll see).

 

The problem: the clarification is being delivered in an article that's external to the rulebook, meaning you'll need to have read both to understand the intention of the rules. I honestly appreciate the update from HQ but they need to revise the rulebook so that a correct interpretation is not dependent on reading an article on a WordPress site. Otherwise, it's effectively the same thing as the "gentlemen's agreements" we've seen in the past.

[matteekay]

Also, I feel like adding rule 3.6.7 solved the problem they describe and they didn't need to change anything else about the fault line rules...

[Racinready300ex]

Yeah, they fixed a problem I've never seen happen on the ground. Probably because locally we just don't build stages where you could do something like that. 

 

I asked this same question back in April on facebook and posted a picture vary similar the one they are saying is incorrect way to call it. Just not as fancy. There was a lot of discussion, and then our AC told us to do what this new article says. We've been doing it that way since. 

[deerslayer]

So I thought the purpose of limiting fault lines to 8’ was to eliminate “distant cover.”  Obviously, it wasn’t.  I’m glad they wrote this clarification, but I’m not sure why the change in fault line length was even needed.  

Edited August 24, 2022 by deerslayer

[matteekay]

44 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

Yeah, they fixed a problem I've never seen happen on the ground. Probably because locally we just don't build stages where you could do something like that. 

 

I asked this same question back in April on facebook and posted a picture vary similar the one they are saying is incorrect way to call it. Just not as fancy. There was a lot of discussion, and then our AC told us to do what this new article says. We've been doing it that way since. 

 

What's really funny is removing the "fault lines extend to stage boundaries" rule has literally ZERO bearing on the example they gave. Sigh.

 

If only we could figure out why people may have been confused.

 

[deerslayer]

4 minutes ago, matteekay said:

 

What's really funny is removing the "fault lines extend to stage boundaries" rule has literally ZERO bearing on the example they gave. Sigh.

 

If only we could figure out why people may have been confused.

 

maybe should have been “fault lines no longer extend to a point where the next array is visible” ?

[matteekay]

1 hour ago, deerslayer said:

maybe should have been “fault lines no longer extend to a point where the next array is visible” ?

 

Definitely would have been better. Better still would have been to change nothing else and let the addition of 3.6.7 handle the scenario they outlined.

 

"3.6.7 Nested / Overlapping Fault Lines: Shooters shall not advance across fault lines in a way that exposes them to unengaged targets. Fault lines are not cover themselves. They restrict movement beyond a shooting position for unengaged targets which are exposed to the shooter."

 

Like... that's it. Problem solved. No other rules needed to be changed.

[ddc]

So "Fault lines don't extend to stage boundary"

but deep or distant cover is ok...

 

I don't see what the difference is.

[Buzzdraw]

I'm going to cut to the chase.  I feel that the peculiar interpretation in the recent Down Zero Blog does not match what is written in the Rulebook.  It appeared to me that the 2022 RB fault line rules gave the SO something that was clear and workable by and large.  Now the SO is going to have to attempt to mentally extend physical fault lines to meet "deep cover", a concept that is not specifically allowed in the RB.  The SO must also be judging if the competitor has entered into visibility of unengaged targets of a different array while doing the "deep cover" thing.  It is a mistake and bad for the sport IMO.

 

[usmc1974]

11 hours ago, ddc said:

So "Fault lines don't extend to stage boundary"

but deep or distant cover is ok...

 

I don't see what the difference is.

This is the first time I even heard the term "deep cover". Not sure I really understand what it means.

[matteekay]

56 minutes ago, usmc1974 said:

This is the first time I even heard the term "deep cover". Not sure I really understand what it means.

 

Effectively, fault lines extend to infinity just like they used to in the 2017 rulebook. Except the 2022 rulebook says they don't. But IDPA now says they do. 

 

I'm trying really, really hard to make the best stages/match I can while following the rules... but things like this don't make it easy.

[Zincwarrior]

9 hours ago, Buzzdraw said:

I'm going to cut to the chase.  I feel that the peculiar interpretation in the recent Down Zero Blog does not match what is written in the Rulebook.  It appeared to me that the 2022 RB fault line rules gave the SO something that was clear and workable by and large.  Now the SO is going to have to attempt to mentally extend physical fault lines to meet "deep cover", a concept that is not specifically allowed in the RB.  The SO must also be judging if the competitor has entered into visibility of unengaged targets of a different array while doing the "deep cover" thing.  It is a mistake and bad for the sport IMO.

 

As an SO I agree. A simple rule is called for and easily done. "No feet may be touching across the fault line when shooting. In addition, at least one foot must be within the length of the fault line when shooting."

[deerslayer]

50 minutes ago, Zincwarrior said:

As an SO I agree. A simple rule is called for and easily done. "No feet may be touching across the fault line when shooting. In addition, at least one foot must be within the length of the fault line when shooting."

This is a simple and straightforward version of what I thought was the intent of the 2022 rulebook authors (who apparently need to hire some technical writers).  I was very surprised to see the clarification about how to correctly use “distant cover” and the 3-8’ fault lines now seem pointless.  So now we know (maybe?) what they meant, but have to quote two different sources when making our case against the inevitable PE for faulting but not really faulting cover.  

When is the next rulebook due?

Edited August 25, 2022 by deerslayer

[RePete]

16 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

This is a simple and straightforward version of what I thought was the intent of the 2022 rulebook authors (who apparently need to hire some technical writers).  

Which is what I have been saying for over 6 years.

16 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

 

When is the next rulebook due?

The end of the year.

[Racinready300ex]

11 hours ago, Buzzdraw said:

 Now the SO is going to have to attempt to mentally extend physical fault lines to meet "deep cover", 

 

 

This isn't really new, this is how it's been working for years. It seems as if they just worded the new rule wrong and messed up what they were going for. 

[ddc]

8 hours ago, matteekay said:

 

Effectively, fault lines extend to infinity just like they used to in the 2017 rulebook. Except the 2022 rulebook says they don't. But IDPA now says they do. 

 

I'm trying really, really hard to make the best stages/match I can while following the rules... but things like this don't make it easy.

 

I agree 1000%. Unfortunately this seems to be business as usual. 

 

I think they should consider releasing draft versions of a proposed new rulebook and allowing a couple months or thereabouts for comments to filter back.

 

That might avoid a lot of the confusion that seems to follow each new release. That confusion results in "clarifications" that seem to be in conflict with what was perceived to be the apparent intent of the new rule.

 

 

 

[Jim Watson]

12 hours ago, Buzzdraw said:

I'm going to cut to the chase.  I feel that the peculiar interpretation in the recent Down Zero Blog does not match what is written in the Rulebook.  It appeared to me that the 2022 RB fault line rules gave the SO something that was clear and workable by and large.  Now the SO is going to have to attempt to mentally extend physical fault lines to meet "deep cover", a concept that is not specifically allowed in the RB.  The SO must also be judging if the competitor has entered into visibility of unengaged targets of a different array while doing the "deep cover" thing.  It is a mistake and bad for the sport IMO.

 

 

Agree, they wrote a clear provision and are now adding back subjectivity.  A friend was told at SO class that the only real purpose was to make PCCs shoot from the same place as PCPs and not lay back and snipe with their superior accuracy and high magazine capacity.  

[Racinready300ex]

6 minutes ago, Jim Watson said:

 

Agree, they wrote a clear provision and are now adding back subjectivity.  A friend was told at SO class that the only real purpose was to make PCCs shoot from the same place as PCPs and not lay back and snipe with their superior accuracy and high magazine capacity.  

 

Stage design would be a better fix for that. 

 

That and maybe if PS did away with HOA since it's not a thing. Then people might stop worrying about loosing to a different division. 

[Zincwarrior]

54 minutes ago, ddc said:

 

I agree 1000%. Unfortunately this seems to be business as usual. 

 

I think they should consider releasing draft versions of a proposed new rulebook and allowing a couple months or thereabouts for comments to filter back.

 

That might avoid a lot of the confusion that seems to follow each new release. That confusion results in "clarifications" that seem to be in conflict with what was perceived to be the apparent intent of the new rule.

 

 

 

Yes, Beta testing as it were. Then get feedback and implement. Wasn't that the Tiger Team concept though, which rumor had, inputs had been heavily ignored. 

[deerslayer]

1 hour ago, Jim Watson said:

 

Agree, they wrote a clear provision and are now adding back subjectivity.  

Except it wasn’t very clear where shooters could put their feet.  

[matteekay]

10 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

Except it wasn’t very clear where shooters could put their feet.  

 

I think Jim's right in that the intention was clear (even if the rule was poorly phrased) but now they're overruling... themselves. Without updating the rulebook.

 

I don't get why we have to wait years for monolithic updates. Hell, even ICORE has gone to a "living" rulebook that's stored online like USPSA. 

[deerslayer]

30 minutes ago, matteekay said:

 

I think Jim's right in that the intention was clear (even if the rule was poorly phrased) but now they're overruling... themselves. Without updating the rulebook.

At this point, who knows what their intention was.  

[RePete]

1 hour ago, Zincwarrior said:

 Wasn't that the Tiger Team concept though, which rumor had, inputs had been heavily ignored. 

 

That was the biggest cluster F of all.  A friend was on the TT and he was the first one to quit because all they talked about was each of their experiences and nothing of the job at hand.

[erwos]

I have what I assume is a dumb question, but can't figure it out: are heavy/coned barrels now universally good to go in 2022?

 

In the 2017 rulebook, 8.1.8.C specifically prohibits them in all divisions (with exceptions): "Heavy and/or cone style barrels without a barrel bushing except as allowed in ESP, CCP, BUG and CDP divisions with length restrictions."

 

In the 2022 rulebook, section 8.1.7 has eliminated this line entirely, and nothing seems to have replaced it.

 

The 2022 equipment appendix has only a single reference in section A.3.3.20, permitting "Heavy or cone style barrels on firearms with barrel lengths of 4.25” or less." This has the implication that they're prohibited elsewhere, but no such rule actually states this that I can find.

 

What am I missing here? I'd like to use my SAS II in CDP, but it has a bull barrel.

Edited September 8, 2022 by erwos

[Racinready300ex]

I think it's basically fit box make weight for ESP and CDP now.