For those not familiar, there are two rules in IDPA that are essentially in conflict:
- Vickers Count scoring says that you can fire as many rounds as you want during a course of fire, there is no limit (as opposed to the appropriately named Limited Vickers scoring).
- Getting a huge 20-second Failure To Do Right penalty for “round dumping” which is defined as firing an extra round so you will have a more convenient reload.
So you can shoot as many rounds as you want, unless you shoot more rounds than you had to. Wait, what?
Whenever possible, you’d like to reload while moving (so you’re doing two things at once) so it’s convenient to go dry before you have to move. Barring that, it’s better to reload between targets rather than reload in the middle of a target engagement (1, reload, 1 on the same target) because you have one fewer target-to-target transitions. The differences may seem small but over the course of a long match against talented competitors it adds up. When a rule gets made trying to prevent people from capitalizing on that benefit, we get Round Dumping.
This discussion has come to the fore recently because of two things. First, IDPA has taken the impressive step of creating “Tiger Teams” to reevaluate a number of aspects of the sport, including the rulebook. Second, IDPA used a video of a world champion shooter firing extra rounds that gave him a more convenient reload in a recent promotional effort. The obvious question is, did that world champion fire the rounds for the purpose of getting the better reload?
And unless you’re the unholy spawn of Mr. Spock and Professor X, the obvious answer is, we can’t know for sure.
At one of the first IDPA major championships, a well known and influential competitor within the sport engaged in the first “round dumping” scandal. While moving from one array of targets to another, he fired a round into the berm so that his gun would go dry and he could reload on the move. He literally fired a round into a part of the range where there were no targets. At the time, there was no rule against this. In response, IDPA created the “dumping” rule.
However, it took almost no time at all for match officials (Safety Officers, or “SOs” in IDPA parlance) to begin interpreting extra shots that hit a valid target as round dumping. This forces the SO to determine whether that extra shot was taken because it was needed; because the shooter thought it was needed when it wasn’t; because the shooter made a mistake; or, because the shooter was purposely trying to break a rule. Because remember, getting a FTDR 20-second penalty for round dumping requires intent. Of all those reasons listed, only the last one gets a penalty. All the others are legal.
What happened next was as predictable as it was disheartening. Competitors at all levels began creating excuses for needing to fire that extra shot that just happened to lead to a more convenient reload. Moving targets, far targets, obscured targets, targets shot from odd positions… all suddenly got an extra shot when it led to a better reload. Oddly enough, the number of moving targets in the middle of a course of fire that receive extra shots is far, far greater than the number of moving targets at the end of a course of fire receiving the same. Funny coincidence, no?
I was squadded with the first person ever to receive an FTDR for round dumping at an IDPA Nationals. It was back in ’05 or ’06. That shooter did absolutely nothing different than anyone else on the stage, which required shooting a half circle array of targets from a car. The SO who gave him the penalty even went so far as to say that part of his calculus in awarding the penalty was the way the same shooter had shot the previous stage. So you’re figuring out why he took an extra shot on stage 2 because of what you saw him do on stage 1… how is that fair?
At my first IDPA Nationals, I was squadded with Rob Leatham. After watching everyone in our squad dump a round so they could reload before going prone for the final targets, the SO on the stage warned Rob that he was too good to need an extra shot and therefore better not go empty before getting to the prone position. The SO decided, before Rob ever drew his gun, that Rob wouldn’t make an error or need to fire the same exact number of rounds as every other person in the squad so Rob had to do his reload lying face down in the dirt while everyone else did theirs on the run, upright… how is that fair?
And that’s the gist of the problem: it’s not fair. It’s a subjective call by a referee who literally has to ascribe a person’s thought process to asses the penalty. All too often, that assessment is made by people who cannot even shoot at the same level as the person getting the penalty. How is a Marksman-level shooter supposed to tell me what I did or didn’t see or feel like I needed when firing one shot out of a hundred or more at a match?
The whole rule is ridiculous. IDPA’s detailed reload rules are built around the core belief that people won’t count their rounds in a fight so they shouldn’t get the benefit of counting them in a match. But the dumping rule has the exact opposite effect, because you have to be careful to count just right or, if the SO thinks he saw the wrong color lightbulb flash inside your head, he’ll say you’re cheating.
IDPA is faced with a simple choice. It can either keep a rule that is unenforceable, gets broken all the time, and benefits only the people who cheat. Or, it can eliminate the rule and let folks play on an even field where the shooter decides how to shoot, not the SO.
Train hard & stay safe! ToddG, IDPA #1313
“Whenever possible, you’d like to reload while moving”
And (with very few exceptions) behind cover as per the rules.
I hope the “Tiger Teams” will finally get IDPA to scale back its bloated classifier to something that resembles a stage, rather than a match.
Hate to get political, but I feel like I’m among like minded individuals. This type of ‘rule-making’ is what I call the liberal or progressive mindset. It tries to legislate the un-legislatable and often unenforceable (many gun laws for example-especially in NJ).
Rules that try to prove what you were thinking and therefore how your thoughts fit in their narrow set of rules and therefore you must be punished is a ridiculous waste of time and ruins the ‘spirit of competition’. Everyone is trying to get an edge in competition and there will always be those who walk the gray line and/or fall into the ‘dark/evil/cheating’ zone. The more rules they make, the better they feel-they never realize that the more rules you make the more loopholes you create.
It reminds me of the minority report with Tom Cruise. That SO was telling Rob Leatham what he was going to do before he did it and therefore Rob was ‘stopped’ from performing like all of the other participants. I take this type of behavior and ‘social engineering’ as a personal affront to those trying to achieve in an otherwise ‘nerfed’ world.
The shortest rule that would solve all of this (I think although I don’t shoot IDPA) is a maximum number of rounds for any stage and if you miss it b/c you ran out of rounds, then that counts against you too-BUT you don’t get ‘extra points’ for having rounds left over.
I’ve asked a bunch of SOs about round dumping, and, almost universially, they’ve told me they wouldn’t call it, unless it was blatantly obvious–like firing five or more shots at a single target.
They all hate the rule and think it’s ridiculous.
Are there no tactical reloads in IDPA? Can one only reload when one is empty with the slide locked back?
You can tac load in IDPA, but only behind cover. Usually eating a tac load on the clock is a great way to add a couple of seconds to your stage time.
Ryan, yes there is, but a speed load is much faster since you don’t have to dick around behind cover trying to stow the partial magazine.
Leaving ammo on the ground is a horrible faux pas in IDPA, I know because at the local matches I do it all the time. I think they call me Mr. Procedural behind my back.
Ryan, the rule book also says:
NOTE: HQ urges course designers to draft scenario courses that
do not require tac-loads or reloads with retention to be performed
“on the clock”.
One clarification- *all* reloads must begin and end behind cover, if cover is available. Doesn’t matter if the gun is empty or not. What matters is that there is cover available on the stage. If you run dry out in the open while moving to cover, get to cover before starting your reload.
I have to say that I think it’s kind of silly to *make* people spend more time than they need to with an empty gun, but that’s how the reloading rules have been explained to me by IDPA HQ.
I’m with Kent. The only way I’d call it is if the shooter told me they intentionally dumped a round.
As a shooter, for a while I followed the rule, but when all of your competition does it and gets away with it, that gets pretty old.
Nice IDPA #!
I think BaiHu is dead on. Its impossible for an SO to analyze intent.
IDPA is supposed to be “practical shooting”. Statistically, “gunfights” as defined by two persons or more shooting at each other, the guns are emptied.
Get rid of the round dumping and have fun shooting in this sport. Perfect becomes the enemy of the good.
IDPA also needs to come up with a way the membership can make complaints about area coordinators, if a member is banned thier is no recourse and no arbitration available to that member. The Ban is set by the AC and Robert Ray and that is it….
IDPA is not a sport, it isa buisness run by an appointed board of directors and appointed area coordinators, the “membership” has no say in how the organization is run nor who represents an area, members barely have any input into the needed rule changes and god forbid if you ask for a clarification of the rules which can be given verbally, email or posted on various web pages depedning on where you live, ie: canadian rule clarification are not posted on IDPA website (correction, NO rule clarifications are posted on an IDpA owned website)
Seriously, round dumping is the least of thier worries…. frankly our club is dropping IDPA in favour of IPSC, at least there the membership has input into how/who and where the organization is headed.
Rant Over… support a sport, not a buisness.
Recently Larry Vickers had a episode on Tac tv ,where he and Ken hackathorn explored the many problems they would fix if they had a say in IDPA ,with scoring and putting more of reality type scenario’s.They say it would be more beneficial to concealed carry holders and operator’s.
Why don’t you guys just jump to a real shooting sport like USPSA?
Sorry, had to. 🙂
I SO’d a stage at a sactioned match in TN. The course of fire had the shooter engage two target, 2 rounds each, then a popper. The popper activated two drop turners, then went on to several more targets.
The first ESR shooter asked if he could shoot three rounds in to each of the first two targets, do his reload, then go to the popper.
I said sure, he should not be handicapped for a poor course design. If he said I’m going to dump two into the berm, I’m not so sure that would have flown with me.
In fact all the revolver shooters shot the stage the same way and the match director was fine with it.
If they want to limit the rounds, use Virginia count. That way the reload would be forced to happen where they want. No one would take the procedural just to get a move convenient reload. Maybe Virginia count isn’t available in IDPA, I’ve never shot that game, just USPSA.
mark — USPSA has a lot going for it, especially in Production where everyone shoots as Minor power factor. But it also has its issues, like crazily unrealistic field courses and a scoring scheme that literally rewards you for shooting too fast to get (good) hits.
Gerry — As I understand the rules, allowing competitors to shoot extra shots, preplanned, for the purpose of getting a better reload is an FTDR regardless of stage design problems. Your example highlights exactly why the rule needs to go.
Todd I don’t disagree at all.
“a scoring scheme that literally rewards you for shooting too fast to get (good) hits.”
That’s only true up to a point. It may seem that way, but the best kept secret in the game at the moment is that you need good points to win. If you look at the snazzy new stats that USPSA has for the top 5 at this year’s Production Nationals, you’ll see that Ben Stoeger had the second slowest total time, but the best total points. Sevigny was faster by 18 seconds but came in 3rd. Speed might win local matches and maybe even an Area match or two, but points win championships.
Donovan — Run the numbers for Limited that way and get back to me.
Silly as it sounds, if I shot USPSA I’d shoot from appendix (which I cannot even do in IDPA) which means I’d be shooting Minor Limited.
My favorite topic: Round Dumping!!! That and the SO’s that have the “home team” mentality that will not hesitate to call a “penality” on a visitor that may shoot better then one of the “home team superstars”. I’ve seen it happen first hand and it disgusts me. Of course then they show up at another club and shoot so poorly then take their scorecard with them and don’t have the guts to turn it in! Get rid of the stupid round dumping rule and let us shoot at our ability level.
Lots of contention on the “round dumping” rule. Just load max without +1 and it’s resolved. No need for the rule.
As for the USPSA scoring, it DEFINITELY favors speed over accuracy. If you calculate the scores, it shows that speed with less accuracy gets a better score than slow and accurate. BUT the best (ie – pros) are both fast AND accurate.
I remember a shooting program segment a couple years ago where Rob Leatham and Phil Strader(?) compared speed vs. accuracy in USPSA scoring. RESULT: speed scored better.
A USPSA friend and I (IDPA shooter) have been attending each other’s matches. My friend is faster than I, but I am more accurate. I beat him in IDPA matches, but he beats me at USPSA matches. (We use the same manufacturer and model of pistol.)
All this to say that USPSA scoring favors speed! Of course, there is a threshold where the score flip-flops in both USPSA and IDPA: accuracy beats speed and vice versa. (I’m going to work out the numbers to find out what they are.)
Bottom line: it’s a game. As long as it is competitive people will find ways around the rules.
We had a local guy that proved you can shoot IDPA fast enough to not have to worry too much about accuracy but he was fast. Also USPSA tends to favor accuracy under a 4.0 HF and speed above that but when’s the last time you had a stage that was that slow.
@Todd – Hey, I thought you were only talking Production! 😀
I checked the numbers on Limited however and it’s near to the same story. Out of the top 5, the winner this year – Shannon Smith – was the slowest out of all of them by as much as 11 seconds, but shot the best points. Not a single penalty to his score, either. Outstanding.
Upon further examination it appears that every single division champion this year shot around 94% of the points available. That’s rewarding good hits in my book. YMMV.
Emanuel — When Dave Sevigny started winning at IDPA, he too was blazingly more fast than everyone else even though his accuracy wasn’t on par with his peers. But as other top IDPA competitors learned to push their speed on the non-shooting stuff (movement, setups) Dave was getting better and better at shooting and stayed on top not by being the fastest but by being fast and very accurate.
Donovan — That’s really interesting, thanks!
Donovan, where are these stats of which you speak?
Reloading behind cover is sensible when not doing so would exposed you to targets. However, it is interpreted almost everywhere that one cannot advance from behind (ok I’ll accept that) or even to cover from a fully open position on the move(one has to retreat!!) when there are no targets visible during the advancement. That is such nonsense and one of the reasons that I try to shoot IDPA as little as possible. I now get procedurals for advancing from the open on the move when I go dry; I then tell the SO that the “rule” is tactical nonsense and he can do whatever he needs to do and I’ll do what I need to do not to teach myself completely dumb habits.
Another cover issue that is nonsense is what the “top” shooters get away with in IDPA matches–namely shooting/moving so fast around cover that in the real world there is no way you would not get shot. Basically they move almost as fast as USPSA but fly around corners hosing bullets under the assumption that with 2 shots in .33 seconds the target is “neutralized” and can therefore expose themselves to that target. If you are not one of the “top” shooters you get called for “cover” for identical behavior.
One of the many reasons why I go to USPSA matches lately and avoid IDPA.
One of the tenants of the IDPA scoring / officiating mindset is that any doubt goes to the shooter.
As an SO, unless a shooter tells me they are round dumping, I have no way of knowing that they weren’t making up a shot they doubted. Thus, no call.
It’s a silly rule, IMHO (and not alone in the IDPA rulebook. The idea that you cannot drop an empty mag while moving to cover is even sillier).
IDPA is a game, not a simulation of real-world defensive shooting. If it were, a match would consist of a single two or three round stage followed by a mock interrogation by the ‘police’….
Caleb,
Just pull up the results for something like Area 5 (http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-display-match-results-detail.php?action=summary&indx=1826&compid=378)
You’ll see the winner’s percentage score (and the total points, total percentages)
Manny shot very clean. Not as clean at Ben, though…
http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-display-match-results-detail.php?action=summary&indx=1826&compid=245
Personally, I really like that IDPA gives an award for accuracy, but, honestly, the shooting in USPSA isn’t nearly as easy as most folks make it out to be, claiming that you can just “run’n’gun” your way through dropping shots. Simply isn’t true.
“At my first IDPA Nationals, I was squadded with Rob Leatham. After watching everyone in our squad dump a round so they could reload before going prone for the final targets, the SO on the stage warned Rob that he was too good to need an extra shot and therefore better not go empty before getting to the prone position.”
This attitude among other things was always amusing to me when I competed in defensive pistol. At the 2007 IDPA Nationals I intentionally did NOT make up a shot that I wanted to because I knew the SO would “think” I was dumping to reload in a better place. Ultimately, it cost me 2.5 seconds because I needed that extra shot. I suppose that was better than another 17.5 sec on top that an FTDR would bring. And like Leatham, I’ve been warned by SO’s about shooting extra, and criticized later from the arm chair QB’s who felt I did not need a make up shot. Every stage I shot in IDPA soon became “Limited Vickers”, whether it was specified “Vickers” or not, to avoid speculation and accusations of dumping. Guess what? I “dump” all the time in Steel Challenge, Pro-Am and USPSA when I need to make up a bad shot.
Gotta love those left handed compliments.
To the topic of scoring, if one favors speed, why not shoot faster if you want to win? If your shooting for other reasons then winning(to work with your carry set up) , why worry?