Idpa Rulebook

[GmanCdp]

i'm going to incorporate the southern chrono at our state match next month..

for CDP and ESR divisions,the results will be taken at 15 yards rather then at the normal 10 ft...

for SSP,SSR and ESP the chron will be setup at 5yds....rather then 10 ft....

the southern chrono for CDP and ESR 165 pf will consist of a full can if RC cola and shooting thru a moon pie......

for SSP,SSR and ESP...125 pf...i'll just use an empty RC cola can.....

if you bust a can or even knock the empty can over ...then your good to go ...

[JFD]

BW's early anti-IPSC remarks in his rulebook created most of the issues that make at least 1 IDPAer want a "protected forum". Very unprofessional and I was very surprised when I saw the first copy. Only time will heal that wound. It didn't stop me from shooting IDPA since Bill Wilson doesn't shoot at my club and I doubt there's much personal profit involved.

As only an occasional IDPAer (does my opinion count?) the biggest issue I see when USPSA and IDPA shooters get together is we tend to rib each other on a regular basis, just like we do with folks in our own particular sport. What is typed on forums like this doesn't represent real life in my experience.

Anyone who doesn't realize this forum is the most polite on the web really need to get out more.

Speaking of retaining empty mags, I shot an outlaw match once where we were told we had to retain every empty mag regardless if the gun locked back or not. When pressed, it was explained that the mag was "evidence" or could be "stolen". I almost fell over laughing. I started to appreciate the IDPA rules a lot more after that.

[Mayonaise]

As only an occasional IDPAer (does my opinion count?) the biggest issue I see when USPSA and IDPA shooters get together is we tend to rib each other on a regular basis, just like we do with folks in our own particular sport. What is typed on forums like this doesn't represent real life in my experience.

JFD,

Well said. Pretty much sums up my experience. I think I get along just fine with my local friends that shoot USPSA. There's some ribbing but that's about it. I'll admit that I've allowed myself to get sucked into some of these "debates" and kick myself to doing so afterwards.

If you're a gun person, your my brother/sister. I just don't like being treated like the bastard stepchild.

Mark

Edited October 13, 2006 by Mayonaise

[austinkroe]

I think the sad thing about IDPA is that there is no published descions about questions and clarifications to the ruls. It would be like if our country did not publish or recognise judicial opinions. If this were the case then there would be no consistancy because every judge would be unrestrained in his interpretation of the law. This is similar to the current situation in IDPA. More power to Bill Wilson for IDPA and I am more than happy to play by his rules and allow him to be the IDPA king, tzar, monarch, emperor, dictator, or whatever. I just wish we would have some rule clarifications. I like my lines to be clearly drawn. That being said I will continue to shoot IDPA cause it is fun and none of the rules bother me that much.

I enjoy shooting IDPA but I do not enjoy the round dumping idea. I am fine with punishing blatant offenders but those who are smart enough to dump the sneeky way cannot be as easily detected and SO can read minds so they shouldnt punish what they cannot prove. It seems like a way to punish good shooters for something a bad shooter would not get punished for. The trouble here is that the SOs only punish percieved intent where there might be no intent at all. I have had a situation occur that might clarify my point.

Say I am on the last target of an array and I will have to move after I am finished shooting that target. I have 3 bullets left in my gun and the target requires two shots. My first shot is in the -3 zone and I then fire 2 in the -0. I reload and move.

So, if I intended to shoot the first shoot in the -3 just so I could have the make up shot to reload in the right spot. On the other hand I might have just broken the shot too early in the transition and been forced to mae up a bad shot. in this situation the judgment is left up to the SO.

What if I was a master class shooter?

What if it was the tenth stage of the day and up til then I had not missed a shot yet?

What if I was the fastest person there?

What if you didnt like the things I said?

The SO has the ability to make such a close call without any real proof of intent. I feel that at the point of this call more things factor into the descion than are actually facts regarding the call.

Like I said I like my lines drawn clearly. This rule has too much ambuguity and interpretation built in. I like penalties that are easy to see and easy to call.

All of that being said, if this situation were to ever happen all the SO would have to do is ask me. I have round dumped before and would have taken the penalty if the SO would have called it. However I have done what might have appeared to have been dumping when it was not. If dumping were called on me then I would have had a fit. I am an honest guy and I a more than welling to admit to the things that I have done. All I have to say is that maybe there should be a rule that says to take the word of the shooter in all close calls such as the one I discribed earlier.

I will admit to being a range lawyer and a gamer. Those titles are fine with me I feel I can coexist with the purists in IDPA. I just dont like those that always have a finger to point. if you dont like the game then leave. Everyone is entiled to an opinion but I am entitled to ignore as many opinions as I like.

When it boils down to it I know that this is Wilson's game and that my opinion on the rules doesnt matter to him. I am fine with that.

If you dont like a rule I am more than happy to listen to a thoeretical discussion about the mechanics of any given rule. However, if all you can do is complain that you dont like something and have no reasoning behind your comments than I dont want to hear you speak. Discussion is constructive, whining is deconstructive.

[Joe D]

I just can't take this anymore! I can't live in the closet forever. I am stepping out of the closet and admitting on a public forum that I have dumped a round.

I am ready to have the buttons stripped from my gamer vest, my multiple projectile bullets ground into the dirt, the "fire on tan" sights crushed with a hammer and my spring loaded shoes ripped from my feet.

[Duane Thomas]

But you'll never do it again because you realize it's wrong. Right?

[austinkroe]

Joe,

I forgive you. You can have your buttons back along with your spring loaded shoes. However, I am keeping your fire on tan sights and multiple projeile bullets. I need them more than you do. Besides if you have them you know where to get more of these magical items.

Everyone,

There are some unforgivable IDPA cheats. Like the phantom reload and the purposeful breaking of equipment rules.

Play the game for fun. Just dont get mad when you purposfully cheat and get caught. The only thing worse than a whiner is a liar.

[Jim Watson]

Fire on tan. Now why didn't I think of that? I bet I can reprogram the fire on black sights off my old metallic silhouette gun.

But I am bringing back your gamer magazines, Joe, there are some things that just can't be endured.

[Joe D]

Duane, I promised myself I would not dump another round - well there was this stage in Saturday's IDPA match. You know the rest.

Is there a Twelve Step Program for round dumpers?

[et45]

There is no such thing as "dumping a round".You were trying to shoot a perfect 0 down stage

[Duane Thomas]

Is there a Twelve Step Program for round dumpers?

The first step, or so I've been told, is admitting to yourself that you're out of control, and submitting yourself to a higher power.

[GmanCdp]

Is there a Twelve Step Program for round dumpers?

The first step, or so I've been told, is admitting to yourself that you're out of control, and submitting yourself to a higher power.

Duane...please be carefull in using the phrase " higher power".....Joe shoots a Glock...

but maybe he needs to switch for a while the single action gun would slow him down some..

Edited October 16, 2006 by GmanCdp

[Joe D]

I do hear voices in my head.

[RickB]

I think the sad thing about IDPA is that there is no published descions about questions and clarifications to the ruls.

I enjoy shooting IDPA but I do not enjoy the round dumping idea. I am fine with punishing blatant offenders but those who are smart enough to dump the sneeky way cannot be as easily detected and SO can read minds so they shouldnt punish what they cannot prove.

Say I am on the last target of an array and I will have to move after I am finished shooting that target. I have 3 bullets left in my gun and the target requires two shots. My first shot is in the -3 zone and I then fire 2 in the -0. I reload and move.

The SO has the ability to make such a close call without any real proof of intent. I feel that at the point of this call more things factor into the descion than are actually facts regarding the call.

Like I said I like my lines drawn clearly. This rule has too much ambuguity and interpretation built in. I like penalties that are easy to see and easy to call.

I will admit to being a range lawyer and a gamer. Those titles are fine with me I feel I can coexist with the purists in IDPA. I just dont like those that always have a finger to point. if you dont like the game then leave. Everyone is entiled to an opinion but I am entitled to ignore as many opinions as I like.

When it boils down to it I know that this is Wilson's game and that my opinion on the rules doesnt matter to him. I am fine with that.

If you dont like a rule I am more than happy to listen to a thoeretical discussion about the mechanics of any given rule. However, if all you can do is complain that you dont like something and have no reasoning behind your comments than I dont want to hear you speak. Discussion is constructive, whining is deconstructive.

If all SO's would read the rule book, and take it to heart, there wouldn't be a lot of complaints like these. Also, Ken Hackathorn's "comments" in the Tac Journal served the same purpose as Amidon's column in Front Sight; that's where rules were clarified, but you couldn't always count on everyone having read every TJ. I hear more complaining (on this forum, but never on the range, in six years of competition) about "mind reading" SO's, but I see it only as a hypothetical issue. The only time I've ever seen "round dumping" called, the rule was improperly applied; SO's can't read minds, and since one of the rules that guides SO behavior is to give the benefit of a doubt to the shooter, dumping should rarely, if ever, be called. In any case where it was clear-cut, I can't see the shooter actually getting an advantage, so calling it would be counter-productive. Intentionally putting a round in the -3 zone, followed by two better hits, to facilitate a slidelock reload, is hardly what I would consider dumping; the rules say that you can shoot until you are satisfied, if it's a Vickers stage, and making-up a -3 hit is certainly not dumping. Any SO who thinks it is, needs a refresher on the rules. As it is, there is no requirement for SO's to maintain their rules knowledge, as there is in USPSA, but that day will come. Of course, it is also a ridiculous conceit among a lot of USPSA shooters that all USPSA rules are universally understood and identically enforced; not a match goes by, in my Section, without questions about whether a certain stage is legal, or if a rule was properly interpreted. Why do you think Amidon's writings fill two or three pages in each Front Sight? IDPA is moving toward a universal SO class syllabus, and I'm sure they will institute annual testing, to help ensure that all SO's are up to speed.

[PJONES5]

I think the sad thing about IDPA is that there is no published descions about questions and clarifications to the ruls.

I enjoy shooting IDPA but I do not enjoy the round dumping idea. I am fine with punishing blatant offenders but those who are smart enough to dump the sneeky way cannot be as easily detected and SO can read minds so they shouldnt punish what they cannot prove.

Say I am on the last target of an array and I will have to move after I am finished shooting that target. I have 3 bullets left in my gun and the target requires two shots. My first shot is in the -3 zone and I then fire 2 in the -0. I reload and move.

The SO has the ability to make such a close call without any real proof of intent. I feel that at the point of this call more things factor into the descion than are actually facts regarding the call.

Like I said I like my lines drawn clearly. This rule has too much ambuguity and interpretation built in. I like penalties that are easy to see and easy to call.

I will admit to being a range lawyer and a gamer. Those titles are fine with me I feel I can coexist with the purists in IDPA. I just dont like those that always have a finger to point. if you dont like the game then leave. Everyone is entiled to an opinion but I am entitled to ignore as many opinions as I like.

When it boils down to it I know that this is Wilson's game and that my opinion on the rules doesnt matter to him. I am fine with that.

If you dont like a rule I am more than happy to listen to a thoeretical discussion about the mechanics of any given rule. However, if all you can do is complain that you dont like something and have no reasoning behind your comments than I dont want to hear you speak. Discussion is constructive, whining is deconstructive.

If all SO's would read the rule book, and take it to heart, there wouldn't be a lot of complaints like these. Also, Ken Hackathorn's "comments" in the Tac Journal served the same purpose as Amidon's column in Front Sight; that's where rules were clarified, but you couldn't always count on everyone having read every TJ. I hear more complaining (on this forum, but never on the range, in six years of competition) about "mind reading" SO's, but I see it only as a hypothetical issue. The only time I've ever seen "round dumping" called, the rule was improperly applied; SO's can't read minds, and since one of the rules that guides SO behavior is to give the benefit of a doubt to the shooter, dumping should rarely, if ever, be called. In any case where it was clear-cut, I can't see the shooter actually getting an advantage, so calling it would be counter-productive. Intentionally putting a round in the -3 zone, followed by two better hits, to facilitate a slidelock reload, is hardly what I would consider dumping; the rules say that you can shoot until you are satisfied, if it's a Vickers stage, and making-up a -3 hit is certainly not dumping. Any SO who thinks it is, needs a refresher on the rules. As it is, there is no requirement for SO's to maintain their rules knowledge, as there is in USPSA, but that day will come. Of course, it is also a ridiculous conceit among a lot of USPSA shooters that all USPSA rules are universally understood and identically enforced; not a match goes by, in my Section, without questions about whether a certain stage is legal, or if a rule was properly interpreted. Why do you think Amidon's writings fill two or three pages in each Front Sight? IDPA is moving toward a universal SO class syllabus, and I'm sure they will institute annual testing, to help ensure that all SO's are up to speed.

Best post I have read in a long time.

pat

[GmanCdp]

+1 ........

[kdmoore]

RickB, I agree with everything you said, including experience with SO's. Lots of the problems raised here are "hypothetical" in my experience.

[Duane Thomas]

Rick, you silver-tongued devil, you.

Have you ever considered moonlighting as a writer? (I know you had that article in the Tactical Journal, I mean for MONEY.)

[XAFSP]

I do hear voices in my head.

Do you do as they tell you, like I do

Tim

[Dennis Sherman]

All I can say is I was glad when Mr. Wilson put those full moon clip guns in thier own division. I wrote at least 3 letters to the original BOD of IDPA about it. Yes, the sport has its problems here and there, but in the many, 18-20, State level matches and 7 years worth of local monthly matches, I felt I was always treated more than fair. Most of the time, if there is a gray area, it works to the shooters advantage. I don't care if Bill WIslon puts the renewal money in his pocket. The people out there running IDPA do a great job and I am glad they are so I get to enjoy it when I can.

[Hot Brass]

Blacknight, I'd be willing to wager that Joe is better versed in the rules than his current AC.

Mark

Mark, would you like the job?

[Mayonaise]

I'm obviously not connected.

Edited November 5, 2006 by Mayonaise

[omnia1911]

Why not come at the issue from a different direction?

Rather than penalize someone for dumping rounds or for leaving mags on the ground, why not award bonus points to the shooter who is conserving ammo (sliding scale based on how close the shooter comes to the minimum number of rounds scored in a stage) and is retaining mags after reloads. Give the shooter the incentive to adopt the kind of "tactics" IDPA is trying to encourage in its "game". The specifics shouldn't be too hard to work out.

No mind reading by the SO would be required.

[kdmoore]

Why not come at the issue from a different direction?

Rather than penalize someone for dumping rounds or for leaving mags on the ground, why not award bonus points to the shooter who is conserving ammo (sliding scale based on how close the shooter comes to the minimum number of rounds scored in a stage) and is retaining mags after reloads. Give the shooter the incentive to adopt the kind of "tactics" IDPA is trying to encourage in its "game". The specifics shouldn't be too hard to work out.

No mind reading by the SO would be required.

Hmmm, interesting idea. Could get a little sticky to enforce. Everyone starts with differing number of rounds, need to count rounds at end of stages, shot timers with round counters can be bumped and inaccurate, etc.

But the idea carries merit IMO. I'd want to make sure that conservation wasn't overly emphasized, just enough to slow any "gaming" down. There's not much to be gained by dumping a round as is, so a small penalty could make it unadvised.