Proposed 2017 IDPA Rules Changes

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

New rule book here...

 

http://www.idpa.com/misc/Rulebook%202017.pdf

 

Public comment (members only) from: Nov. 14, 2016 until: Dec. 3, 2016

 

 

Summary of changes (copied from another forum):

 

1) Visual Cover Lines (VCR) may be used if a MD desires.
2) Shooters may try out IDPA 3 times before being required to join IDPA.
3) New FP Flagrant Penalty 10 Seconds (requires MD approval)
4) New 72 round Classifier
5) Reload in the open and continue engaging targets if desired.
6) Any IDPA legal reload anywhere anytime as long as you are not exposed to unengaged targets.
7) One second per point.
8) No required tactical sequence
9) NEW Pistol Caliber Carbine division
10 Bug Revo 5 rounds
11) Intentionally firing rounds at something other than a target. (ie. dumping rounds in a berm)
12) May shoot from middle of port (near to far) 50% upper body exposed.
13) Total movement under own power = 20 yards
14) Re-engage a target anywhere it can safely be done.
15) Semi-auto classification transfers to all semi-auto divisions.
16) No mandating reloads. Reloads as necessary

17) BUG Semi weight reduced to 22 oz. w/heaviest magazine

 

Some good changes / some not so good.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[Krdshrk 3,877]

11) Intentionally firing rounds at something other than a target. (ie. dumping rounds in a berm)

 

Meh...

[mikeyjones 88]

Agree with some of the changes. Might bring me back to idpa.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ChrisJM981 924]

Why not just shoot USPSA if you're going to reload in the open and not have tactical sequence?

[Howard 538]

There are many many comments on the Facebook moderated group.  Some very lively discussions, with everyone being very respectful.

 

The visual cover lines is interesting, but they are only allowing it for standards stages, not scenario ones so it really does not solve the subjective issue of cover calls.

 

I think the concept of being able to re-engage target from any "safe" location is a good one, and actually ran a match on the one day they allowed that with the previous new rules before they quickly got rid of it.  The only problem with that rule is it makes it very difficult for match directors to design stages as you have to think ahead about any possible area where people might take reshoots to avoid shoot throughs and then hope and prey people don't do stupid stuff - especially in an indoor range.

 

Here were my comments to them on the changes for what they are worth:
================================================================

 

The change to one second per point down will not change much.  Those at the bottom will still be there, those at the top will still be there, those in the middle will move around a little.  What it will likely do is kill the IDPA.  There are many that already don’t shoot IDPA because they call it a slow old person’s game and this will just slow it down more.  This change will drive more younger people to USPSA and is a big mistake.

 

While I understand the thought process of 9.4.2 "Should a Match Director feel that a shooter should be shooting in a higher Classification level, the MD may require that the shooter shoot the Classifier again to reestablish a current Classification." In reality it is a stupid rule as worded and won't stop sandbagging. If someone is trying to be a sandbagger they will just shoot that "required" classifier badly, so why even have this in the rulebook?

 

5.2 Flagrant Penalty (FP) seems almost as difficult to apply as FTDR as it seems ripe for abuse or not use. How would one determine if something is flagrant versus just a brain fart? Take for example when the shooter shoots standing rather than on the move when required. Unless they stated they were going to do that, which would be an FTDR, how can you determine it was intentional versus just an error? I see this penalty either not being used or being ripe for major disputes. It should be  spelled out more precisely. I think it would be better to just make it a PE for each shot fired if a competitive advantage is obtained (like in USPSA) rather than have it only one PE per shooting position for the same infraction.

 

 

Here is another rule that still does not seem right:

4.2.2 Any extra shots in a string of fire will incur one Procedural Error penalty per string and for each extra shot one
(1) of the best scoring hits will be taped over before the score is calculated. When the shooter does not fire
enough rounds at a target, the unfired rounds are counted as misses, a Procedural Error penalty is assessed for
not following the CoF description, and other penalties may apply.

Let's take a very simple example of a limited string with two targets. If the shooter gets two down zeroes on the first target and then gets two down threes on the second and then takes an extra shot and gets a down one how would this be scored? I would assume the intent would be to take the down one off that target, but the way the words state the best per string it seems you must take off one of the down zeroes from the other target instead.  While the SO cannot always tell which target was being engaged that is a different story.  If there are three hits on one target and two on another I don’t see the rational in taking the better hit off the target with only two hits.  What you are suggesting only makes sense if there is an extra shot but not an extra hit.  Perhaps this should be reworded to make the distinction between these two cases.  I recall this was partly addressed in a clarification before, but does not seem to be done correctly here.

 

I don’t like the inclusion of PCC which seems to violate the premise of the sport to be based around concealed carry.  If such a division is allowed it would be more appropriate to have it a two gun division where you would only use the carbine for scenarios where you start in your home or maybe car.  Or are you suggesting people start wearing capes or trench coats to walk around town with concealed carbines?  Further carbine use in smaller indoor ranges is going to create a host of issues.  I would think having an SSP  or CCP optics division (like carry optics in USPSA) would make much more sense since more and more people are carrying guns with optics.

[Howard 538]

It is embedded in Facebook so I can't give a non-FB url, but here is the link to a guy demonstrating the new classifier stage:  https://www.facebook.com/readyaimrowdy/videos/651919061655116/

[Krdshrk 3,877]

That classifier definitely seems easier.