IDPA and cover

[vetts1911]

The rule book states 50% of your body must be behind cover while engaging targets and if you are low cover your legs must completely be behind cover. App 3. IDPA rule book

No how many people have been nailed for a procedure because they reloaded from behind cover while moving to the next target after they have neutralized the targets in the first area? Or in a hall way to the next room that you have cleared and there is no threat?

Is this bad call, I would say yes and just because, they did it that way at the nationals dosen't make it right.

I think that the rule book is clear on the subject and we need to get our selves SO's and shooters together and address this.

I have been a SO for about 10 years now and I enjoy IDPA but, I do not like the "air rules" the place and time people just go and try improvise the rule book and make rules to be the way they think should be.

I think that when we answer this we should state our time in IDPA and maybe IDPA number because I am thinking of getting the member number together when I readdress IDPA HQ in my email.

Chris IDPA #A09035

 

[Sam1911]

Ha! Sounds like you might have gotten tagged on my stage at Nats this year! Our CSO did use a pretty strict definition of cover, but I though he was fair with it and spent a lot of time with every squad to make sure they understood what he would and wouldn't call.

I liked that he stated clearly that you were either shooting from cover or you weren't, and that if your cover position was sound for shooting then it was also a safe cover for reloading. No need to "duck back" further after shooting to do the reload.

Where he skirted the issue a bit was on foot position. He felt that on our course of fire if your leading foot was out from behind the barricades (not low cover, specifically) you weren't covered, regardless of upper body position. I don't exactly see how defensible that position is, but he did tell every shooter that he'd call it that way, so you had your warning.

The other question that is not answered as fully as it could be (in my mind at least) is the one you bring up about reloading after clearing a room or hall. Logically, if you've sliced the pie and hit every target in the room with at least one scoring hit (no FTNs) you face no more threats and should be able to move and reload because you are "covered" from further threats. That is not the way most of the MDs in my area call it, though.

The way I hear it called most is to a strict definition of a "position of cover." Meaning, say you've shot from a position of cover (A). All threats are neutralized. You could reload while moving to the next shooting point (B) as long as you do not expose yourself to another target. But you can't do that because the SO will give you a PE if you don't reload before you step out from behind "A." Of course, if you have one round left in the gun (and there will be NO threats visible to you en route to the next position of cover) you can move and then reload. But don't try and reload on the way! (Of course, if you do expose yourself to a target and shoot dry then you're screwed anyway, but that's an equipment management issue -- you should know better!)

On the one hand it's logically silly. On the other, it simplifies the SOs job a bit. And on the third hand, this is it's "gaming" at its finest (because in real life you wouldn't KNOW there were no more threats on the other side of cover). And on the fourth hand...well, that's a lot of hands!

-Sam
-A29119

 

[jmorris]

You can beat this dead horse if you want but the fact remains there are a lot of “questionable” rules in IDPA. Another fact is that unless you are “the” Bill Wilson you should just look for more of the same.

To be fair dumb rules are shared in all shooting sports not just IDPA.

 

[vetts1911]

I was not at the Nationals but, our local SO's made a call at our local match saying that is the way they did it at the nationals. Now if it is not in the rule book, I am sorry it don't work that way or we should just burn the rule book. That is making IDPA one very uneven playing field that goes right away from what it is meant to be.

It is charged to the SO to comply with the rule book not make his own rules on the fly and that is what makes the issue with IDPA.

At a USPSA match I can pull the book out and say okay you are correct.

To follow the issue from the nationals, came other SO's at another large sanctioned match building up on the rule that was made at the nationals that is not in the rule book. We could not clear a room and move to the other end of it just because they said so.

Chris IDPA #A09035

 

[Sam1911]

Actually, the "fair" question largely depends on how the club handles the SO assignments. In some local club matches the SO moves with one squad through the whole match so his/her interpretation of each stage's rules and cover calls will probably be different from the next SO's. That's why they're just club matches and you have to accept that "fairness" is only so critical. We're all having fun and getting in some good practice, right? How much money did you lose by coming in 2nd instead of 1st? Oh yeah, none, right?

At sanctioned matches and some club matches, the same SO (or SO team) will run every shooter through any given COF. If he's doing his job right, he'll tell you what the procedure is to be and where he/she will be strict on cover. That's about as "fair" as it gets. If the MD or course designer decides you can't move a certain way or a certain direction, that's part of their course design. The course description should say right clearly, "Shooters will engage T1-T4 from position of cover at P1 and then move..." or whatever. Just do what they say and you should be safe.

Now, the SO should give you some idea of how cover calls will be made, but if you see spots like the one you mentioned and the SO doesn't explain it, ASK! They'll tell you how they're calling it. If they're calling it the same for every shooter, that's about as level a playing field as you're going to get. It's not like we're all competing against each other on the same course of fire but at different clubs, all running different ways.

It sucks that certain questionable habits that slip through at a major match like Nationals become precident for (probably even more) questionable decisions/habits at other matches, but that's bound to happen. Everyone who participates in big-deal events learns a lot about course design, penalties, etc., etc., and takes that back home with them. Most of that education is going to be very beneficial. Perhaps some isn't. We should be modeling the best practices at these events, but mistakes happen and judgements can be flawed -- and there's no guarantee that the folks claiming to be doing it "like Nationals" really understood what they think happened, either.

"I saw them do it this way at Nationals!" The best response is as you suggest: "Really? Maybe you did, maybe you didn't. Let's stick to the book, ok?" If you feel like protesting it to the MD, that's your right. If he sticks by the call, the best thing you can say is, "Ok. Thanks for explaining it. I still had a great time today and thanks for all your work!"

Just my opinion, of course.

-Sam

 

[vetts1911]

"You can beat this dead horse if you want but the fact remains there are a lot of “questionable” rules in IDPA. Another fact is that unless you are “the” Bill Wilson you should just look for more of the same."

I guess jmorris said it all in that Quote.

SO's should shoot the course and try to get the bugs out of the stages. Yes some times it dosen't work that way and you can't find them. As far as course description. I am not going at that. The point would be this.

Back to the point

Let us not accept a rule made up on the fly and, I know it feels like treason to your staff but, if the SO is making a bad call don't back him up or make a rule on the fly to justify it.

2nd place who is the one not getting the bad calls to be in 1st.

I don't think this is about placing first or money. It would be about why we can't stay with the book and let bad habbits start. I put a good deal of new shooters in the sport and, they are the ones making it known to me.

 

[David E]

Here's the scenario:

You're behind a wall, centered between two windows. At signal, you draw and go to one window. Slicing the pie, you pick off the 3 targets with 2 shots each. You know there are 3 more targets to shoot from the other window, so you perform a tactical reload, while moving behind the solid wall (which is 100% cover) By the time you reach the window, your tac-load is complete, so you slice the pie at the second window for 6 more shots, completing the stage.

Is that a IDPA legal way to shoot that stage?

If not, why not?

.

 

[nwb01]

Welcome to IDPA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[vetts1911]

Reload as long as you are behind cover not, to expose yourself to the target (at least more than 50% of your body) I think that a stationary target is easy to hit as to a moving and reloading target looking for cover.

By the book reload under cover not more than 50% of the body exposed.

You are good per the rule book. We can cut and paste to show the fact if needed but, the point to be made here is why are people straying from the book.

Sam, to go with real world on the IDPA deal. We are not talking about that. It is why people can't understand or read the rule book. In real life I don't want to be a still target and why would I load my pistol to division capacity and not what the gun can hold and function with and still be reliable? Why would I move towards a threat and not away from it? Where is the full power ammo? The Chrono to check people’s ammo? Why do some competitors bullets stick in soft cover like shirts and others use factory and are scored the same? Why would I not check my back and only think forward? The game is IDPA and it does not think that way. Some time we retreat but, it has to be written that way. We could go on and on.

I just want to get our standards back on track and nothing else because, these new SO's will be teaching others.

David I would like to see how other people look at your post.

 

[David E]

Hell, they made you declare magazine capacity before there was a rule in the book that required it.

 

[Sam1911]

Is that a IDPA legal way to shoot that stage?

David, that's legal. Moving laterally (or close to laterally) behind cover is fine. In essence you're moving to shoot around opposite sides of the same cover position.

Put that wall on a 45 deg. angle so that one window is somewhat up-range of the other and I don't know the right answer anymore. In my humble opinion it is the same situation, but if you keep rotating it around, eventually someone's going to say you're advancing. I don't really have the right answer, but I feel it depends on the positions of the threat targets.

I've been told to avoid designing courses of fire that force the SO to make decisions like that, too. Maybe good advice.

And Chris, I'm not arguing that it should be just like real life. I get it, it's a game. That's fine. I shouldn't have mentioned the real world -- it's getting us off topic. I can't argue that people shouldn't read and follow the rule book, either. Of course they should! But we can come up with an infinite variety of courses of fire and some of those are going to present opportunities for well-meaning folks to take opposing views on the application of a rule. (See the above question -- how big can one position of cover be for the purposes of completing a reload while moving behind it?)

If we were standing on the range walking through a COF together, I kind of suspect we'd be in complete agreement on how to call it. It's just hard to "armchair referee" the call in text on a forum.

-Sam

 

[Jenrick]

David E: I'm not an IDPA competitor, but you're description sounds logical and reasonable to me as far as being a legitimate way to clear that COF. If I had a weapon that wasn't capable of holding 12 rounds, that's how I'd do it. Well actually I'd probably drop the mag (ie no retention), but I know thats a no-no.

-Jenrick

 

[jmorris]

I have competed in IDPA matches in at least five states and have seen quite a difference in interpretation of the rules.

Some of the more notable and in some cases subjective that I’ve seen receive procedurals…


Sticking your pistol through a “window”

Moving “too” slow while retreating or advancing

Reloading behind cover but not within contact distance of said cover

Shooting to the side of a barrel but not below the top

Reloading from the exact spot you shot from (not ducking completely behind cover). I like this one. You were “behind cover” when shooting but then they say your not behind cover to reload!? Yet another example that crack doesn’t smoke itself.


None of that crap is in the rule book, but I’ve seen them all at matches.

 

[vetts1911]

That is what I was looking for.

I guess we all need to keep the rule book in our bags ( I started this a couple of years ago when I had too many that can't be right )

I have seen some very odd stuff in the book also light running Limited Vickers with steel in the course. Makes you say that just aint right. In USPSA it is not but, there is nothing about it in the IDPA book.

I would like to thank you all for the great points you have made. I hope that at the min we can get more SO's and MD's thinking about the calls made. I have have been a SO since 99 and the way things are going I just feel we need to get a hold of our sport and keep the good rules enforced.

I have just heard too many times lately that all SO's are not perfect and that is just the way things are. No no one is perfect but, we need to learn and correct our issues as we find them.

 

[David E]

By the book reload under cover not more than 50% of the body exposed.

You are good per the rule book. We can cut and paste to show the fact if needed but, the point to be made here is why are people straying from the book.

According to Walt Rauch, the answer is NO, you cannot leave the first firing position before your reload is completed.

It's not in the rulebook, but the Founders themselves stray. (ok, they pull some stuff outta their butts!) Anyone that read that Handguns article in May of 2005 (IIRC) would assess the penalty to all those that DIDN'T read Walt's article.

Walt attempted to justify why it was 'prudent' and 'obvious' why the reload should be completed before leaving the first position, but for every reason he can give me, I can give two why not.

This is part of the frustration with idpa.

.

 

[eerw]

IDPA has always seemed to me one where you need to ask the SO how do you want me to shoot the stage.

 

[jmorris]

IDPA has always seemed to me one where you need to ask the SO how do you want me to shoot the stage.

Sad but true. If what you plan has not been done before your up tell the RO your plan or risk tacking 3 seconds on to your time.

 

[pwrtool45]

IDPA has always seemed to me one where you need to ask the SO how do you want me to shoot the stage.

I agree. I'm just not so sure I'd call it "sad" though. The mission statement itself:

The main goal is to test the skill and ability of the individual, not equipment or gamesmanship

There's a lot of IPSC/USPSA history that came with IDPA. In IPSC, the idea was something like: "The shooter is presented with a problem. Solve the problem." Along with marksmanship, reloading, etc, there was an element of strategy. Your ability to look at a CoF and determine the most efficient way to shoot it weighed heavily on your score. (Personally, I like this. The strategic element makes for a better game.)

IDPA, in contrast, is measuring your ability to resolve a CoF in a specific way. It might not be the "best" way, or the way you would prefer to handle it, but your problem solving skills aren't what's being measured. It's your ability to navigate that particular CoF in a particular way. Your marksmanship, reloading skills, etc are being tested. That's it. Not your strategic skills.

The trick is that people get too caught up in the "well, I wouldn't solve it that way" mentality. When that's really a moot point. The issue isn't how you, as a shooter, would resolve a CoF if you had to do it "for real." The issue is how well you resolve the CoF (as defined by the SO) given to you. I suppose part of the idea is that IDPA is purely testing your shooting/reloading/etc, and that having the element of strategy dilutes the stage's ability to just measure those things.

At least, that's how I look at it. Everyone acknowledges that they're different games. Yet so many people are overlooking that part of the difference. They're measuring different things.

The short version: IDPA says "Do this, exactly like this, and let's see who shot faster/reloaded faster/was more accurate." IPSC says "solve this problem; you can score better than faster/more accurate shooters if you're really crafty." Different games, as everyone says.

(None of the above was written or intended as aggressive or hostile. If it helps, hear the above as though it's being read aloud by Alf or Daffy Duck. Should take a bit of the edge off. )

 

[pwrtool45]

Walt attempted to justify why it was 'prudent' and 'obvious' why the reload should be completed before leaving the first position, but for every reason he can give me, I can give two why not.

This is part of the frustration with idpa.

As sort of an addendum to my above post, I think this is a prime example. I completely understand your frustration, but it's an issue of perspective. You don't shoot the CoF like that because it's the appropriate, tactical, or "right" way to do it. (Even if the SO says it is. ) You shoot the CoF like that because that's the CoF. Everybody shoots it like that so that the scores actually mean something.

If you throw in the strategic/planning element, then it's no longer about who shoots faster or more accurately. Maybe that crafty bit of stage planning, in practical application, would work out swimmingly well. Maybe it would have tragic results. There's just no objective, quantitative way to tell, so having it as part of the scoring just muddies the water. If you have a crafty plan, submit it as a different stage completely, and have everybody run it that way. I'd like to see more of this, actually. Especially with shorter stages. Maybe done as separate string. Shoot it one way for String 1. Shoot it the other way for String 2. That might be interesting.

(Again, as with my last post, I'm not trying to start an argument. I'm more or less just thinking out loud.)

 

[vetts1911]

I think that I will try another phone call email to ask the big boys to please update the rule book. No matter how you look at it it is a game with rules that need to be clear. I think the book is very clear and easy to understand. The "air rules and on fly rules" is all this thread is about.

I am just glad that we can look at this and try and make our sport better.

 

[vetts1911]

If you all are good with this I would like to let IDPA HQ know about this thread and how most of feel about the rule book issues and things are being run from the shooters out there by letting know about this post.

If you all don't mind please leave you IDPA member with your post so they know you are an active member.

Thanks

 

[David E]

As sort of an addendum to my above post, I think this is a prime example. I completely understand your frustration, but it's an issue of perspective. You don't shoot the CoF like that because it's the appropriate, tactical, or "right" way to do it. (Even if the SO says it is. ) You shoot the CoF like that because that's the CoF. Everybody shoots it like that so that the scores actually mean something.

First, understand this was Walt's hypothetical stage.

Second, if the CoF dictated reloading at the first window before moving from it, grreat! Let's all do it that way.

But if the CoF reads like this: Shooter will begin with feet on the marks (exactly between the two windows) Gun is loaded and holstered. At signal, shooter will move to either window, slice the pie and shoot each hostile target a minimum of 2 shots each. Shooter will then go to the other winder and again slice the pie, shooting all hostiles with a minimum of two shots each. Reload as needed, using cover."

No mention is made requiring a reload before leaving the first position, so if you're the 10th shooter of the stage, but the first to do a tac-load while moving behind cover, please point out in the rulebook or CoF description where that is prohibited.

Is there a rule I've missed that reads: "If you are the first one to do something different, even if it's allowed, it is a penalty."

I recently shot a local IDPA match and was about the 12th shooter. Before I shot, I asked the SO: "I notice everyone is shooting over the top of the barrel at the last position, not around the side as required. Did you change the requirement, or are they being assessed penalties I'm not hearing?"

He looked at me and said, "THEY aren't Master class shooters like you are...."

So I shot around the side of the barrel as was required in the original CoF. One of 2-3 out of 25 to do so. NO ONE got a penalty for it. But _I_ sure would have!

 

[pwrtool45]

Second, if the CoF dictated reloading at the first window before moving from it, grreat! Let's all do it that way.

But if the CoF reads like this: Shooter will begin with feet on the marks (exactly between the two windows) Gun is loaded and holstered. At signal, shooter will move to either window, slice the pie and shoot each hostile target a minimum of 2 shots each. Shooter will then go to the other winder and again slice the pie, shooting all hostiles with a minimum of two shots each. Reload as needed, using cover."

No mention is made requiring a reload before leaving the first position, so if you're the 10th shooter of the stage, but the first to do a tac-load while moving behind cover, please point out in the rulebook or CoF description where that is prohibited.

Is there a rule I've missed that reads: "If you are the first one to do something different, even if it's allowed, it is a penalty."

I believe they define that on page 83, after "weighted magazine," somewhere around "what we do to creatve folks".

But yeah, I see what you're saying. Sometimes a stage designer has a very specific idea of what they want the stage to present, but don't fully specify what that is in the description. You deviate from that expectation, but remain within the bounds of the rules. You're assessed a penalty not for violating the rules, per se, but for deviating from the SO's expectation. While those expectations may be drawn from seeing how the situation was called at a larger sanctioned match, I agree that this is still wrong.

I guess I'm just not seeing it as some increasing trend that caused the OP to start this thread. I can see how this could be a problem, though. I can also kind of understand that people take calls made at the Nats to be some sort of de facto extension of the Rules. If I'm not mistaken a new book is in the works, maybe they'll start to publish official annual clarifications or appendices that take into account things like this. Maybe an annual list of the more highly contested penalties along with stage descriptions and final rulings. I wonder if this would satisfy the OP?

 

[Sam1911]

He looked at me and said, "THEY aren't Master class shooters like you are...."

Translation: "Whoops. I just realized that I've not been enforcing one of the COF requirements and gave a lot of shooters an advantage. And an experienced, accomplished shooter just pointed out my mistake. I'll laugh it off with an "it's-just-a-club-match" and make a weak joke that might fluff his ego. Boy, I'm a doofus."

He had a learning moment about the importance of enforcing the COF directions. Maybe next time he won't forget.

It happens. Sucks, but the shooters aren't the only ones learning and practicing a skill. SOs are learning their jobs on the fly, too. How else do they learn but through mistakes and the gentle correction of their peers? That one hour SO class didn't exactly drum every conceivable pitfall into my memory. Did yours?



-Sam (A29119)

 

[vetts1911]

My SO class was a bit longer than 1 hour and we did a practical range test as our final. Frank Glover did our class and it was very good. I would say we spent the better part of 6 hours and he stuck around for any other questions after the class.

Have they changed the class it has been a long time since I went.

A good fix for this would be shoot IDPA for a year before you can be a SO. That way you have time to read the rule book and fully understand it before you are charged with helping the new shooter understand the COF and help them safely shoot the COF. I know that people like to take the SO course because it gives them a better understanding of IDPA.

I would say that a proper way to continue with the match is let every one else shoot it the same same way and not change that rule dead in the middle of the match, local, state or what the nature of the match.

Sam you are good to go. I am not trying to argue any part. I feel you are helping out to broaden the subject here. I think that a great deal of credit should go to MD's and SO's that they never get but, most of us are not known for grabbing any the match high lights unless it is bad. I think that there is a lot of work getting the stages together, digging a sponsor up (and who doesn't want a fat goodie bag from the match) I hear that your match was very challenging. BZ on that.