IPSC Rules?
- Thread starter MOBILE 1
- Start date
IPSIK said:
Quigley said:
OK...here is the official update from NROI Canada
"Since rule 5.2.2 is very clear on the position of the hammer, the answer to the question about the pistol in the holster with the slide locked back.
They must be in the holster and the hammer MUST be down or, in the holster with the striker de-cocked."
Rule 5.2.2 states
"Competitors carrying their handgun in a holster must have an empty magazine well, and the hammer or striker must be de-cocked. Violation will incur a warning for the first occurrence but will be subject to Section 10.6 for subsequent occurrences in the same match."
10.6 Match Disqualification – Unsportsmanlike Conduct
10.6.1 Competitors will be disqualified from a match for conduct which a Range Officer deems to be unsportsmanlike. Examples of unsportsmanlike conduct include, but are not limited to, cheating, dishonesty,
failing to comply with the reasonable directions of a Match Official, or any behavior likely to bring the sport into disrepute. The Range Master must be notified as soon as possible.
10.6.2 A competitor who is deemed by a Range Officer to have intentionally removed or caused the loss of eye or ear protection in order to gain a competitive advantage will be disqualified.
10.6.3 Other persons may be expelled from the range for conduct which a Range Officer deems to be unacceptable. Examples of unacceptable conduct include, but are not limited to, failing to comply with the reasonable
directions of a Match Official, interference with the operation of a course of fire and/or a competitor's attempt thereof, and any other behavior likely to bring the sport into disrepute.
Last edited:
John Nimmo said:
John glad to see you take a interest. Happy hour over ??? The only person to leave any body in a lurch was you. You DO NOT drive people to a three gun match in U.S and leave theme there to fend for them selfs for a ride home. So why don't you crawl back in to your little hole you have been hiding in for the last three and stay there.
Sorry back on topic
Why not run the B/B like they run the R/O course. Two day classroom then you must teach under a master instructor and pass under said instructor. I know other provinces do it that way.
MOBILE 1 said:
It's a bit different...the RO's are not training other RO's
We'll certainly consider any suggestions for improvement...but there are a few things that will not go away (requirement to be an RO)
Cheers
Last edited:
- Location
- S.W. Ontario
MOBILE 1 said:
Thanks for your advice.Coming from a genuine IPSC expert like you I will be sure to take it to heart.
P.S. There was no need to get ignorant.
WOW!!! can't we all just get along....It's true that current Ontario requirements are so cumbersome that most people who are interested in becoming a BB instructor will most likely choose not to follow through. I guess this is the idea behind making it so difficult that the process itself becomes the weeding out mechinism.
As it stands now If your not willing to put out the expense of travelling to the black badge course and assist for 80 hrs (which would mean multiple trips depending where you live) and receive a recomendation then you must not be a worthy candidate. I for one would be interested in becoming a BB instructor however it was always frowned upon in my neck of the woods so not to step on anyones toes. We had/have a BB instructor and from reading this thread I guess won't be holding any classes in the near future. So for interested people, like myself, would have to travel to London area at a minimum several times just to assist. If I was really motivated I'd travel even farther more often just to fullfill the 80hr requirement. Although this may demonstrate your commitment to becoming a BB instructor it also discourages those who may be just as dedicated however because of work constraints unable to make the numerous trips to just assist an instructor so as to possibly be considered a candidate. I work weekends midnights.... It would be costly for me to take time off of work to go assist several courses and then after fulfiling the 80hrs run the risk of not being allowed to proceed further. This to me is backwards.... There should be a standardized test to establish a minimum standard and this would also allow for acceptance into the BB instructor's training program. Once you accepted offer a course and require passing a test. Then make the assisting aspect and teaching x number of supervised courses as an instructor a requirement to become a full BB instructor. It also gives instructors a pool of assistants to draw from when putting on a course. Think of it as an apprentice program for BB instructors. my $0.02
Joe, Mike, John any other Windsorite.... it's been 3yrs let it go... Joe your right being an R.O as a minimum shouldn't be a requirement but a test of knowledge and other requirements should be imposed after you get into the program.
As it stands now If your not willing to put out the expense of travelling to the black badge course and assist for 80 hrs (which would mean multiple trips depending where you live) and receive a recomendation then you must not be a worthy candidate. I for one would be interested in becoming a BB instructor however it was always frowned upon in my neck of the woods so not to step on anyones toes. We had/have a BB instructor and from reading this thread I guess won't be holding any classes in the near future. So for interested people, like myself, would have to travel to London area at a minimum several times just to assist. If I was really motivated I'd travel even farther more often just to fullfill the 80hr requirement. Although this may demonstrate your commitment to becoming a BB instructor it also discourages those who may be just as dedicated however because of work constraints unable to make the numerous trips to just assist an instructor so as to possibly be considered a candidate. I work weekends midnights.... It would be costly for me to take time off of work to go assist several courses and then after fulfiling the 80hrs run the risk of not being allowed to proceed further. This to me is backwards.... There should be a standardized test to establish a minimum standard and this would also allow for acceptance into the BB instructor's training program. Once you accepted offer a course and require passing a test. Then make the assisting aspect and teaching x number of supervised courses as an instructor a requirement to become a full BB instructor. It also gives instructors a pool of assistants to draw from when putting on a course. Think of it as an apprentice program for BB instructors. my $0.02
Joe, Mike, John any other Windsorite.... it's been 3yrs let it go... Joe your right being an R.O as a minimum shouldn't be a requirement but a test of knowledge and other requirements should be imposed after you get into the program.
maxpig said:
Hhmmm...could you PM me a few more details on that?
Regarding the Instructor Qualification program...it is currently under review and is on the agenda for our upcoming Board Meeting. It obvioulsy works...we have great Instructors...but we can always do better.
Regards
Craig Stoklosar
IPSC ONtario
BB program working well????
Wading into dangerous waters a little late in the game! I will now throw my grenade. As one who has witnessed first hand BB courses in progress, and as one who also gets regular debriefs second hand from a friend who assists on them, and more importantly as one who sees new shooters shooting their first and more rarely their second match on a regular basis, you would have to have your head completely stuck in the sand to say the program is working well. Quigley, you attempted to attack the problem yourself with the "mentoring program".
PART of the reason we loose so many members after the first match or even after the course is due to the woefully inadequate way they are prepared to shoot a match, AND the experience they take home from the BB course. Let's face reality: We are training more and more people who have bought their first handgun FOR the BB course. No prior shooting experience. The BB course in essence is not broken, but it has to reflect this new reality and it could use some modernizing, but it's the instructors that flesh it out and make it what it is: good or bad. In all my years I've seen some good, and a lot of bad. We all remember our BB course and our first match. They have a profound effect on who we become as competitors. It's THE most important step in the recruitment process.
Let's face it, requirements to be a BB instructor are too low and just not selective enough. We've all seen RO's who have been active at small and large matches for a few years and still have no clue what they are doing holding the timer. The system allows these people to become BB instructors as they meet the requiements. Not Good!! So, I understand exactly what mobile 1 is trying to say here. Seems to me that the emphasis for SOME instructors is influence and ego, instead of the real objective: Correct safety and technique to prepare new competitors
for IPSC competition. That's what's important here. An unpleasant experience at the BB course and you doom that shooter's chances of sticking around. Someone who doesn't have the competitive experience cannot correctly impart this on their students in a real world fashion. Also goes for Ro's here too. They go hand in hand. To be a better RO, you need to shoot more, and to be a better shooter, you also need to RO. I speak from experience on this one. Having shot on 4 continents and counting, the best RO's and instructors anywhere in the world and here as well are also able competitiors. I believe to begin to fix the non-returning newbies problem, we have to raise the quality of our BB instructors and RO's. Re-certification for everyone?? Re-train the trainers?? Filter out egomaniacs?? Tough stuff, but it IS a problem. Ignoring it won't make it go away.
Wading into dangerous waters a little late in the game! I will now throw my grenade. As one who has witnessed first hand BB courses in progress, and as one who also gets regular debriefs second hand from a friend who assists on them, and more importantly as one who sees new shooters shooting their first and more rarely their second match on a regular basis, you would have to have your head completely stuck in the sand to say the program is working well. Quigley, you attempted to attack the problem yourself with the "mentoring program".
PART of the reason we loose so many members after the first match or even after the course is due to the woefully inadequate way they are prepared to shoot a match, AND the experience they take home from the BB course. Let's face reality: We are training more and more people who have bought their first handgun FOR the BB course. No prior shooting experience. The BB course in essence is not broken, but it has to reflect this new reality and it could use some modernizing, but it's the instructors that flesh it out and make it what it is: good or bad. In all my years I've seen some good, and a lot of bad. We all remember our BB course and our first match. They have a profound effect on who we become as competitors. It's THE most important step in the recruitment process.
Let's face it, requirements to be a BB instructor are too low and just not selective enough. We've all seen RO's who have been active at small and large matches for a few years and still have no clue what they are doing holding the timer. The system allows these people to become BB instructors as they meet the requiements. Not Good!! So, I understand exactly what mobile 1 is trying to say here. Seems to me that the emphasis for SOME instructors is influence and ego, instead of the real objective: Correct safety and technique to prepare new competitors
for IPSC competition. That's what's important here. An unpleasant experience at the BB course and you doom that shooter's chances of sticking around. Someone who doesn't have the competitive experience cannot correctly impart this on their students in a real world fashion. Also goes for Ro's here too. They go hand in hand. To be a better RO, you need to shoot more, and to be a better shooter, you also need to RO. I speak from experience on this one. Having shot on 4 continents and counting, the best RO's and instructors anywhere in the world and here as well are also able competitiors. I believe to begin to fix the non-returning newbies problem, we have to raise the quality of our BB instructors and RO's. Re-certification for everyone?? Re-train the trainers?? Filter out egomaniacs?? Tough stuff, but it IS a problem. Ignoring it won't make it go away.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lots of good points in the thread...but remember...being an RO is not the only requirement...it just a requirement. Considering how well the Instructor must know the rules...it's not a bad starting point.
I agree that being a good RO does not guarentee you will be good Instructor...any more than being a good shooter will guarentee that you will be a good Instructor. This is the point that I would normally insert an "Earl Joke" but alas, he is a good shooter...a good RO...and a good Instructor (so the jokes on me)
Here's something to chew on...
Some people (maybe most) seem to think that the training ends as soon as you pass he BB Course. I don't think that's the case. Therse's allot that we don't teach on the course (as outlined in Alexs' post) but unless we make it a 4 week-end couse...we just can't fit it in.
In my humble opionion...the BB course just gets you in the game...the real "training" starts at your first match. In essence...the BB Instructor hands them over to us (the general membership) ...it's what we do with them that has the biggest influence on their level of comfort and enjoyment.
That being said...I am seeing some top shooters getting involved (mentoring, training, setting up matches, etc) and that can only help the situation.
My .02
I agree that being a good RO does not guarentee you will be good Instructor...any more than being a good shooter will guarentee that you will be a good Instructor. This is the point that I would normally insert an "Earl Joke" but alas, he is a good shooter...a good RO...and a good Instructor (so the jokes on me)
Here's something to chew on...
Some people (maybe most) seem to think that the training ends as soon as you pass he BB Course. I don't think that's the case. Therse's allot that we don't teach on the course (as outlined in Alexs' post) but unless we make it a 4 week-end couse...we just can't fit it in.
In my humble opionion...the BB course just gets you in the game...the real "training" starts at your first match. In essence...the BB Instructor hands them over to us (the general membership) ...it's what we do with them that has the biggest influence on their level of comfort and enjoyment.
That being said...I am seeing some top shooters getting involved (mentoring, training, setting up matches, etc) and that can only help the situation.
My .02
Bb Course........
Well, you are of course right as well Mr. Quigley. However, as anyone who has taken the Grauffel level 1 & 2 course can tell you, covering all the basic techniques and safety to a much higher level than most shooters in Canada could imagine, takes only two days of 7 hours including 1 hour for lunch.
Yes it's a starting point, but it had better be good. Pre-screening candidates for basic proficiency with their handgun is also something overlooked and would weed out people with not enough experience who just slow down a course for the others in it. For sure not an easy fix, but in two days with proper instructors, you can do 2 times or more than what's being taught now.Time is not an excuse.
The key, of course, is having the right people teaching. No easy answers to a thorny problem, for sure. One thing for certain, though. It is in our power to solve this and increase the number of fist-timers staying with us!
Someone has to take the bull by the horns..... Anyone?????
Well, you are of course right as well Mr. Quigley. However, as anyone who has taken the Grauffel level 1 & 2 course can tell you, covering all the basic techniques and safety to a much higher level than most shooters in Canada could imagine, takes only two days of 7 hours including 1 hour for lunch.
Yes it's a starting point, but it had better be good. Pre-screening candidates for basic proficiency with their handgun is also something overlooked and would weed out people with not enough experience who just slow down a course for the others in it. For sure not an easy fix, but in two days with proper instructors, you can do 2 times or more than what's being taught now.Time is not an excuse.
The key, of course, is having the right people teaching. No easy answers to a thorny problem, for sure. One thing for certain, though. It is in our power to solve this and increase the number of fist-timers staying with us!
Someone has to take the bull by the horns..... Anyone?????
This is one reason why I run my S&D nights out here, the BB course is just a look through the door, and sometimes the light isn't even on. When I setup courses for BB instructors (I am not one, but I organize them), I try to make sure the students going in have had a significant amount of time shooting, and learning the basics. It's not a requirement, but I like to try. As a result a fair number of the people I've sent through the course stick around. Not all, but more than I've heard (second hand of course) from others. Problem is, some people just don't want to train more than they have to. We've all seen it, competitors who complain about their performance, but won't spend the coin to take classes. They will however spend thousands on new equipment and still won't be happy. Eventually leaving the sport, frustrated and upset at their ability to perform as well as they think they should.
I don't think the BB course is out of whack, but perhaps this mentoring idea is something that could be looked at a little more. I know I personally enjoy taking new shooters through courses of fire and coaching them (errr did I say that?) to help them out. I do it at all the matches I attend if asked, and I ask the same of more experienced shooters than me, whenever possible.
I don't think the BB course is out of whack, but perhaps this mentoring idea is something that could be looked at a little more. I know I personally enjoy taking new shooters through courses of fire and coaching them (errr did I say that?) to help them out. I do it at all the matches I attend if asked, and I ask the same of more experienced shooters than me, whenever possible.
Hmm... which way to go... hmmm...
One main point, which isn't an attempt to contradict anyone, just a point which I want to make, is that the BB course is more about safety than about competition. it's not really meant to get anyone ready for competition, it's meant to get someone ready to shoot an IPSC match safely. Small distinction, but a real one.
This is very similar to the safety course we put all of our new members through, at hart house - I tell them right off the start, this is about safety, once you know how to be safe, we can teach you how to shoot 'well' later.
I'm not much worried about inability of people to score highly after a BB course; the course is intended to make sure they have the basic shooting stills to hit what they aim at, and remain safe when put under time pressure and stress. That's all. I think the format of the BB course is pretty good, for that.
Re instructors - maybe my experience has been really sheltered, I only work with 2-3 intructors myself, and they are all first rate - maybe they don't represent the avg. Personally, I've had dozens of new/recent shooters whom I've worked with ask me why I'm not an instructor, and I just tell them that there is too much politics and too much other 'crap' associated with getting to be one and being one - I'm happy just getting new people 85% of the way there, and letting Dr. Dave or Kent take them the rest of the way through the course, plugging up the holes in my 'teaching'. I always go out of my way to explain that the BB course is not a competition course... There are lots of those available later, from really good shooters...
So, I donno... Looking at the instructors I work with, the system is working just great... if they don't represent the avg reality, and things are bad elsewhere, I guess it needs to be re-evaluated, but I can't comment on that, since it's not something I've seen myself...
One main point, which isn't an attempt to contradict anyone, just a point which I want to make, is that the BB course is more about safety than about competition. it's not really meant to get anyone ready for competition, it's meant to get someone ready to shoot an IPSC match safely. Small distinction, but a real one.
This is very similar to the safety course we put all of our new members through, at hart house - I tell them right off the start, this is about safety, once you know how to be safe, we can teach you how to shoot 'well' later.
I'm not much worried about inability of people to score highly after a BB course; the course is intended to make sure they have the basic shooting stills to hit what they aim at, and remain safe when put under time pressure and stress. That's all. I think the format of the BB course is pretty good, for that.
Re instructors - maybe my experience has been really sheltered, I only work with 2-3 intructors myself, and they are all first rate - maybe they don't represent the avg. Personally, I've had dozens of new/recent shooters whom I've worked with ask me why I'm not an instructor, and I just tell them that there is too much politics and too much other 'crap' associated with getting to be one and being one - I'm happy just getting new people 85% of the way there, and letting Dr. Dave or Kent take them the rest of the way through the course, plugging up the holes in my 'teaching'. I always go out of my way to explain that the BB course is not a competition course... There are lots of those available later, from really good shooters...
So, I donno... Looking at the instructors I work with, the system is working just great... if they don't represent the avg reality, and things are bad elsewhere, I guess it needs to be re-evaluated, but I can't comment on that, since it's not something I've seen myself...
AlexS said:
I'm sorry, I have to disagree; you're starting with people who are already qualified IPSC shooters, they have all the safety training and the basic ability, even if you choose to do a quick review at the start. The BB course, as you pointed out earlier, is getting to be, more and more often, an intro to pistol shooting, as well as intro to IPSC shooting. Comparing Eric's course to a BB course is apples and oranges...
BB course
I used the Grauffel course as an example of the amount of new concepts it is possible to teach people in one week-end. Not what was taught to whom, but the quantity of new ideas in two days. They were all new ideas to me and I'm sure to you too at the time. Quigley was saying a week-end is not enough to do what I think needs to be done, but I say it is!
Yes, I agree with you 100%. The BB course is only about the shooter being safe on the range, and not how fast or how many alphas he shoots after he's qualified. So why do we have strict time and hit requirements on the course if that's really not imprtant?? Why do we make them shoot so many A's in this or that time then??
The answer is simple:
1) We presume before taking the course they are already know the basic range commands, are comfortable on the range, and are at least somewhat proficient with their handgun. The time and hit requirement was intended to simulate the stress of actual competition. I can tell you this
for a fact because I discussed it with the fellow who originaly wrote the course and taught the first BB courses in Canada. Up till about the mid 90's, you had to have a reasonable amount of shooting experience before you could take the BB course. Well, not any more. Not everyone has the luxury of getting prepped by someone like Omen before they take their BB. These people are probably more ready for the course than someone shooting bullseye or silhouette for a few years!!
Remember:The BB course was written
for shooters in mind, not newbies to firearms.
2) If the new shooter has a pleasant experience at the first few matches, you hugely increase the odds of him or her staying with the sport. What do we define as pleasant? Being treated with respect by his fellow shooters?
Not witnessing any disruptive or generally "bad" behaviour by others?
Being offered help and understanding by the RO's and other more experienced shooters? Completing a match with at least a little confidence and not being unsafe? Absolutley. But there is one thing more. After the shooter goes home, and gets the results, where do you think he wants to see his name?? As high as possible, of course. Not last or on the DQ list. This is what keeps most people coming back to the next match, including myself: to see if I can get my name a little higher!!
Remember: The BB course was intended to give new shooters their best possible result by simulating competition, where points and time also matter, not just safety.
Why can't we equip new shooters with a few more skills to they can enjoy themselves more?? Half of the skills and techniques new shooters need to complete today's courses of fire in a safe manner are not even in the course material. And with the faint increase in skill level needed for stages lately seen around here, (thank God!) it's time to re-examine the BB system.
Safety and correct technique are indivisible!
omen said:
I used the Grauffel course as an example of the amount of new concepts it is possible to teach people in one week-end. Not what was taught to whom, but the quantity of new ideas in two days. They were all new ideas to me and I'm sure to you too at the time. Quigley was saying a week-end is not enough to do what I think needs to be done, but I say it is!
Yes, I agree with you 100%. The BB course is only about the shooter being safe on the range, and not how fast or how many alphas he shoots after he's qualified. So why do we have strict time and hit requirements on the course if that's really not imprtant?? Why do we make them shoot so many A's in this or that time then??
The answer is simple:
1) We presume before taking the course they are already know the basic range commands, are comfortable on the range, and are at least somewhat proficient with their handgun. The time and hit requirement was intended to simulate the stress of actual competition. I can tell you this
for a fact because I discussed it with the fellow who originaly wrote the course and taught the first BB courses in Canada. Up till about the mid 90's, you had to have a reasonable amount of shooting experience before you could take the BB course. Well, not any more. Not everyone has the luxury of getting prepped by someone like Omen before they take their BB. These people are probably more ready for the course than someone shooting bullseye or silhouette for a few years!!
Remember:The BB course was written
for shooters in mind, not newbies to firearms.
2) If the new shooter has a pleasant experience at the first few matches, you hugely increase the odds of him or her staying with the sport. What do we define as pleasant? Being treated with respect by his fellow shooters?
Not witnessing any disruptive or generally "bad" behaviour by others?
Being offered help and understanding by the RO's and other more experienced shooters? Completing a match with at least a little confidence and not being unsafe? Absolutley. But there is one thing more. After the shooter goes home, and gets the results, where do you think he wants to see his name?? As high as possible, of course. Not last or on the DQ list. This is what keeps most people coming back to the next match, including myself: to see if I can get my name a little higher!!
Remember: The BB course was intended to give new shooters their best possible result by simulating competition, where points and time also matter, not just safety.
Why can't we equip new shooters with a few more skills to they can enjoy themselves more?? Half of the skills and techniques new shooters need to complete today's courses of fire in a safe manner are not even in the course material. And with the faint increase in skill level needed for stages lately seen around here, (thank God!) it's time to re-examine the BB system.
Safety and correct technique are indivisible!
Last edited by a moderator:
Looking back at my Black Badge course in 1992, I am surprised at how I turned out.
When I took my BB course I had fired less than 100 round through a handgun in my life.
But I credit where I am today to the camaraderie, companionship, and knowledge of my fellow competitors down here in Windsor.
Overall though, you learn more... with the more matches you shoot. The more you can travel... the more you can gain an insight to how this game is played.
Even though I shot a lousy match in Ecuador... had to use "replacement ammunition"... it was the one match that taught me more about myself as a shooter and as a person than any other match.
Those of you that really know me, know that I do not take this sport from a very competitive point of veiw. This is a social escape for me.
I have been asked to consider being a BB instructor, but for me, I could only consider it if I felt that I could contribute to the students with all my heart and attention. I am not there yet. Too give them any less would not be fair to the students.
Does the BB Instructors critiria need an overhaul??? I am not sure. But I think that IPSC Canada / Ontario should have a say in who is instructing their students. Let's face it, the IPSC Ontario board members know us (the shooters and potential instructors), know how active we are in this sport, know how knowledgeble we are with the rules, and know our personalities enough to judge how well we are suited to become an instructor. They should have some say.
$.02
When I took my BB course I had fired less than 100 round through a handgun in my life.
But I credit where I am today to the camaraderie, companionship, and knowledge of my fellow competitors down here in Windsor.
Overall though, you learn more... with the more matches you shoot. The more you can travel... the more you can gain an insight to how this game is played.
Even though I shot a lousy match in Ecuador... had to use "replacement ammunition"... it was the one match that taught me more about myself as a shooter and as a person than any other match.
Those of you that really know me, know that I do not take this sport from a very competitive point of veiw. This is a social escape for me.
I have been asked to consider being a BB instructor, but for me, I could only consider it if I felt that I could contribute to the students with all my heart and attention. I am not there yet. Too give them any less would not be fair to the students.
Does the BB Instructors critiria need an overhaul??? I am not sure. But I think that IPSC Canada / Ontario should have a say in who is instructing their students. Let's face it, the IPSC Ontario board members know us (the shooters and potential instructors), know how active we are in this sport, know how knowledgeble we are with the rules, and know our personalities enough to judge how well we are suited to become an instructor. They should have some say.
$.02
