Chills1994 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 On second thought Ben, maybe your question was rhetorical. That is hard to tell via the internet. Maybe you knew that already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Does the rulebook infer or imply that a shooter should be penalized for breaking cover?Yeah, I think it does...see the above quoted sections as proof. If it's not in the Rule Book, or has not come down from IDPA HQ as a clarification, it's not a rule. Reading into the rules, adding to them what what we think they imply (not infer - the speaker implies, the listener infers - sorry, professional writer gene coming out there ) is how we get in trouble. I am all about clubs following the IDPA Rule Book and not adding into the mix their own rules to make things more "tactical". Having said that, some clubs do have extra rules simply because they have certain safety concerns. For instance IDPA does not have a 180 degree rule; my local IDPA club does and I can understand their concerns. But that's a very different thing than adding into the mix what we think the Rule Book "implies". And before anyone whips out the argument, I'm not convinced the Rule Book needs to be clarified. Then again, maybe it does, for folks who don't understand "If it's not a rule....it's not a rule." Now, if we do receive a clarification from IDPA HQ stating we may not, in fact, ever expose ourselves to unneutralized targets, then it will be a rule. If anyone really wants a definitive answer (beyond "If it's not a rule, it's not a rule"), why not ask Robert Ray at IDPA HQ instead of spinning our wheels here about what the Rule Book might "imply"? As a matter of fact, I'll do that right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Email away. It's a holiday 3-day weekend so give them some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lugnut Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 The very first page of the .pdf version of the rulebook says this:The International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) is the governing body of a shooting sport that simulates self-defense scenarios and real life encounters. ....... ^^^ That right there, friends, is the very first sentence in the whole IDPA rulebook. If I wanted to be a mall ninja and pretend to be Mr. Super Tacti-billy then, in the real world in some SHTF situation there are about only two reasons for me to leave the protection of cover: 1. to go defend ...err. ... someone who is defenseless 2. or I am about to receive incoming fire from some other direction that the cover doesn't protect me from ...i.e. I am being outflanked. Ahh- but this is a sport... a timed event and we are rewarded with speed and accuracy- always. This isn't always the case in a real defensive situation. But to your point about leaving cover... in a real life situation I can see leaving cover like the OP did easily... he engaged what he could see in tactical order... and jumped to a better tactical position at another cover. Maybe in a real life situation moving to the right gets him further away from the remaining threats and closer to a safer area. Besides... in a real life defensive scenario... you would likely have no idea how many bad guys there are and where they are! IDPA is an attempt at helping us become more proficient at gun handling in defensive situations... and I'm not really sure how good is for that anyway. And I fully suport Duane's position: "Reading into the rules, adding to them what what we think they imply (not infer - the speaker implies, the listener infers - sorry, professional writer gene coming out there ) is how we get in trouble." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Guys, let's cool the "real-life self-defense" talk. We are not going to go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg K Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Guys, let's cool the "real-life self-defense" talk. We are not going to go there. Thank you Duane! Every time I hear "well in real life", my head wants to explode. It's a game. Let's have fun with it and enjoy it for what it is. Each individual can get what they want to out of it. I am anxious to hear what HQ's response is to your email. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chills1994 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Doing a search for "real life" in the .pdf version of the rulebook yielded 10 results. Doing another search for "self-defense" yielded another 15 hits. Just an FYI.... Maybe in the next rulebook revision those two phrases could be eliminated. I wouldn't want your head exploding a total of 25 times at every perusal of the IDPA rulebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spd522 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Stage layouts like this dependent upon rules that obviously cannot be interpreted the same by all are reasons I gave up on IDPA. Geesh...... Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 I am temporarily closing this thread pending moderator discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 After moderator discussion, this thread is now reopened. Before anyone posts further in it, you need to read this: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...=91890&st=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eel Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 (edited) I shot this stage squaded with poster eel ...... I tanked it along with most everyone else. eel and I have been playing this game for a long time, and are MA/EX level shooters. The approval and inclusion of this stage for a championship match was extremely dissapointing and blemmished an otherwise excellent realistic set of shooting chalenges. Harold Hovey Harold, I'm assuming you didn't shoot last year's MI State Match, with the dreaded wall. More like a carnival shoot than an IDPA scenario. Anyway, I disagree with the extremely dissapointing part. That is a little harsh isn't it? Was it disappointing because you shot it poorly? Why is that the fault of the stage? Was it unsafe? Was it unfair? I for one, don't think so. But, this is why we debate. Dick Hi Dick. The stage was bad because it was unfair.. Inconsistent, unfair swinger and poor activator placement. I don't know how the swinger presented itself to you when you shot it but only one shooter in our group got clean hits on the swinging target. Most had cover procedurals and NT penalties. We only need to look at the loads of penalties and time many shooters took on that stage, that tells you and me it was bad. As I said before 11 great stages, one bad one that should have been thrown out. Dick it is hard when MD's, S0's and staff work hard for no pay then have to take criticism. Harold has been a (IPSC) MD for years, we both are now running CCRC IDPA. I have shot every MI state match, all 10 of them. This was a poorly designed stage. We made this assessment before we shot the stage. It was disappointing because that one stage was costly to so many shooters. Eric Line Edited September 11, 2009 by Singlestack To remove IPSC bashing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Moved to the new IDPA Match Discussions & Videos subforum. 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