Dennis Sherman Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 As much as Bill Wilson has worked and re-worked the rulebook for IDPA, there still remains some grey area's which often lead to problems. One area in particular is the use of cover. I have seen many times where shooters were clearly not using cover properly and were not given a procedural. In the same squad, others were. The way the rules are currently written, it boils down to a call from the RO and the scorekeeper. This does not assure a level playing field, but the use of fault lines would in this instance. While we like to say that this is supposed to reflect real life situations and we do not want to "Box" anyone in, its a game. As long as the shooters feet were within the fault line, he would be good to go. And no, I am not going to stop shooting IDPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubberneck Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 IDPA doesn't need fault lines. What IDPA needs IMHO is a better training program for SO's. I'm sorry but a 45 minute video and a read through of the rule book just doesn't cut it. I am all for a live practical exam to see how much they absorbed and a mandatory refresher course every two or three years. There is no excuse for an SO who barely knows the rules. Some guys get fixated on watching the shooters target instead of the shooters gun and where he is coverwise. Another thing that can be improved is for MD's making sure that each scorer is an SO and empowers them to call procedurals if the SO missed it. All to often they defer to the SO and the result is uneven officiating. This isn't needless SO bashing as I am an SO and make every effort to get better at doing the job. Some guys couldn't care less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COF Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 I don't know who is training SO's by watching a 45 minute video and a read through the rulebook. My SO class is 9 hrs including a practical and written exam. I agree that the scorekeeper should be trained as well because their job is to make the cover and engagement calls. One of the simplest ways to make cover calls is to line up the cover the shooter has to shoot around and the targets being engaged. Look at the shooters outside leg. If you can see daylight between the leg and the cover, yell cover. It gives the shooter a lot of leeway but it does make it an objective call instead of subjective. I used this method at the Nationals the last two years and it seems to work well. One of the biggest topics on the AC/SOI group has been standardizing the training to make sure we get consistent calls. We haven't got there yet but it's in the works. Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Wonder Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 (edited) don't know who is training SO's by watching a 45 minute video and a read through the rulebook. My SO class is 9 hrs including a practical and written exam. +1 My class was also very in depth and included training on the range. In my opinion, much more thorough than the USPSA RO class I took years ago. Edited October 1, 2006 by Singlestack Wonder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Sherman Posted October 1, 2006 Author Share Posted October 1, 2006 While we are talking about this, can we agree that there needs to be more standards. One guys class is a video and another is 9 hrs in length. There are no requirnments set in place. I don't know who is training SO's by watching a 45 minute video and a read through the rulebook. My SO class is 9 hrs including a practical and written exam. I agree that the scorekeeper should be trained as well because their job is to make the cover and engagement calls. One of the simplest ways to make cover calls is to line up the cover the shooter has to shoot around and the targets being engaged. Look at the shooters outside leg. If you can see daylight between the leg and the cover, yell cover. It gives the shooter a lot of leeway but it does make it an objective call instead of subjective. I used this method at the Nationals the last two years and it seems to work well. One of the biggest topics on the AC/SOI group has been standardizing the training to make sure we get consistent calls. We haven't got there yet but it's in the works. Jerry Did you follow up with all the USPSA RO classes? The initial class was 2 days when I took it in 2005. The training of the IDPA RO is questionable without an in depth rule book to use for guidence, rather than subjective calls on a case by case basis. I had my SO training from Harry Simonsen at S&W to work thier winter nationals in 00,01,02. I also went further to take the required class from IDPA in 01 taught by the same. I would say I am well versed in the rules of the sport and have taken hours of classes. It still does not prepare me to look for daylight. don't know who is training SO's by watching a 45 minute video and a read through the rulebook. My SO class is 9 hrs including a practical and written exam. +1 My class was also very in depth and included training on the range. In my opinion, much more thorough than the USPSA RO class I took years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtypool40 Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 (edited) I have made it a point to stay out of these discussions for a long while now, but this one is spot on. I have had an IDPA scorekeeper call a foul on me for stepping on a spray painted fault line. How tacti-cool am I, if I am looking at the ground for a painted line instead of at "the threat". IPSC dealt with this years ago and made it something you can feel, and therefore, objective, fair, and "black and white". If / When the IDPA honchos decide to make their game objective and fair, they will have to adopt some common sense "black and white" rules like fault lines. This would also mean taking back, or at least softening, some of the "great failure" rhetoric, and I doubt they are up for that. Edited October 1, 2006 by dirtypool40 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubberneck Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 I don't know who is training SO's by watching a 45 minute video and a read through the rulebook. My SO class is 9 hrs including a practical and written exam. I agree that the scorekeeper should be trained as well because their job is to make the cover and engagement calls. One of the simplest ways to make cover calls is to line up the cover the shooter has to shoot around and the targets being engaged. Look at the shooters outside leg. If you can see daylight between the leg and the cover, yell cover. It gives the shooter a lot of leeway but it does make it an objective call instead of subjective. I used this method at the Nationals the last two years and it seems to work well. One of the biggest topics on the AC/SOI group has been standardizing the training to make sure we get consistent calls. We haven't got there yet but it's in the works. Jerry Jerry I took the class two years ago and we watched the IDPA video on how to run a match and then went through the rule book and several what ifs. All in all it was about 6 hours in length, no practical and certianly no written exam. There was 20+ guys in my class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusher Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 My class was also very in depth and included training on the range. In my opinion, much more thorough than the USPSA RO class I took years ago. Must have been before NROI was established and that was before my time. IDPA has a LONG way to go before they have anything even CLOSE to the thoroughness of the NROI program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Murphy Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 Ought to point out that you need not be a certified SO to work a local match, watching said 45 minute video is considered adaquate. That is what the one poster is referring to. Also, Fault lines are legal in certain stages in IDPA. Ted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 Ought to point out that you need not be a certified SO to work a local match, watching said 45 minute video is considered adaquate. That is what the one poster is referring to. Ted, as I read the current rule book (item 12 on page 64)... even for a sanctioned match, "SOs working the match must have previously worked club matches and seen the video "How to run a match." Only the MD needs to have taken the SO course. Also, Fault lines are legal in certain stages in IDPA. But only standards-type stages, I think ? (CoF 20 on page 13). Jane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 A detailed SO training program would be a big step forward for IDPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Sherman Posted October 1, 2006 Author Share Posted October 1, 2006 A detailed SO training program would be a big step forward for IDPA. This is what I am talking about. I am not bashing IDPA, quite the contrary. I want to see it improve in a few area's, like the grey area's. There is certainly no way to compare the NROI to what is a pretty much a non existant program for IDPA RO's. What I do not understand is why the membership of IDPA are not able to get together and make the needed changes. One reason I suspect is that Bill Wilson is the "Owner" of IDPA and it is a Corperation. There is no longer a Board of Directors as there was in the early years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubberneck Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 A detailed SO training program would be a big step forward for IDPA. What I do not understand is why the membership of IDPA are not able to get together and make the needed changes. One reason I suspect is that Bill Wilson is the "Owner" of IDPA and it is a Corperation. Bingo. What Bill wants Bill gets. I love IDPA but I think it could be a much better sport with a little effort in a couple areas. Sadly, I think Bill won't change anything if it means adopting ideas from USPSA no matter how much sense it makes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Sherman Posted October 1, 2006 Author Share Posted October 1, 2006 A detailed SO training program would be a big step forward for IDPA. What I do not understand is why the membership of IDPA are not able to get together and make the needed changes. One reason I suspect is that Bill Wilson is the "Owner" of IDPA and it is a Corperation. Bingo. What Bill wants Bill gets. I love IDPA but I think it could be a much better sport with a little effort in a couple areas. Sadly, I think Bill won't change anything if it means adopting ideas from USPSA no matter how much sense it makes. Well if thats the case, thats pretty sad. I mean, he was one of the founding members of UPSA. Well, we will have to follow along and see how it goes along. I like IDPA as much as anyone, but I see it going away, at least it has here where I live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
et45 Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 My SO class was about 3 hrs class room and run 1 shooter on the range.It barely skimmed the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Wonder Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 How tacti-cool am I Another huge misunderstanding about IDPA. IDPA is a sport based on concealed carry scenario's, not tactical threat assessment and engagement. Also, Bill does not make decisions based on "If USPSA does it, we need to take the opposite position". Come on, stop the anti-IDPA rant. Bill Wilson created a sport where everyone could compete with what they had, stable rules (only two rule books in 10 years), and the philosophy that everyone who comes to a match should enjoy themselves. If you want to shoot 30 round field courses, there are other sports that offer them. Andy Holler (spelling?) former president of USPSA stated many times that short, difficult, stages offer a much better indicator of an individual's shooting ability. If you wish to measure shooting ability along with athletic ability, then USPSA is the place to compete. As it’s been so eloquently stated before, the purpose of IDPA is not to crown national champions but to have an atmosphere where everyone has a great time. Again, USPSA and IDPA are both great fun sports with different rules and philosophies, enjoy both. Don't get caught up in trying to tear one or the other down because you shoot the other one. As far as fault lines go, yes they have a place in certain standard courses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusher Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 only two rule books in 10 years Yes but there have been 3 revisions (2 and a final) for the newest rulebook which shook the world. I have all 3 in .PDF files Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Sherman Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share Posted October 2, 2006 only two rule books in 10 years Yes but there have been 3 revisions (2 and a final) for the newest rulebook which shook the world. I have all 3 in .PDF files Well, in support of IPSC, they update their rules as often as needed to maintain a "Level Playing Field". For me, this is not about IDPA vs USPSA. I am trying to find out why while on the range I hear what I hear, and there are no changes to reflect the feelings and concerns of the IDPA shooters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike P Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 only two rule books in 10 years Yes but there have been 3 revisions (2 and a final) for the newest rulebook which shook the world. I have all 3 in .PDF files Well, in support of IPSC, they update their rules as often as needed to maintain a "Level Playing Field". For me, this is not about IDPA vs USPSA. I am trying to find out why while on the range I hear what I hear, and there are no changes to reflect the feelings and concerns of the IDPA shooters. What are you hearing? I shoot both idpa and uspsa and I hear as much dis-satisfaction with one as the other and in both cases from people who are primarily shooters of the the one that they are not bitching about. Both games have their "purpose" clause, and in my opinion, idpa sticks to theirs where uspsa/ipsc does not. You don't have to agree with the rules, of either, but you do have to know them and play by them if you are going to play. How hard is that? We've all gotten questionable calls over the years, it happens in any "sport". If you are getting more than your share in idpa then read the purposes section of the rule book and see if your intent is in line with theirs. Could be just a "failure to communicate". No matter which game you are in you need to "git your mind right". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdmoore Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Some guys get fixated on watching the shooters target instead of the shooters gun and where he is coverwise. Sometimes I'll give the unload and show clear, and the shooter will make some comment about his hits ("you think I missed T3", "hope I broke the line on that headshot nick", etc) and I'll tell them I hadn't seen any hits yet ... Depends on the course and conditions, but primary focus is muzzle and finger In response to the need for a fault line ... every course I SO has them already. They are in my head, I usually line up the outside target with the barricade, and mentally make note. I like to get where I can watch that imaginary line. If you are over it, I'll yell cover (if there's enough time). But that's just me ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjobart Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 I had a red rule book in 1999, then a green rule book and now a rule book with a photo on the cover, that makes three IDPA rule books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 The rules are fine as they are...they just need to enforce them consistently, match to match, club to club,state to state...they don;t do that, and it is a HUGE problem... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJONES5 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 The rules are fine as they are...they just need to enforce them consistently, match to match, club to club,state to state...they don;t do that, and it is a HUGE problem... +1 PAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now