Yuku free message boards

There is a big difference between putting a round through a "prop car" and putting a round through someone's personal vehicle that is being used as a prop. A prop car is expected to get hit from time to time. I've done a number of COFs where you are directed to shoot through a door to hit a target. No big deal. I think if you'll look at most of the COF where a DQ was issued for shooting the vehicle, it was due to issues with rounds skipping out of the range or it was someone's personal vehicle. The comment about "in any clubs I've shot at recently, shooting the car is a DQ" is a great example of seeing something a couple of times and then it being assumed to be a rule. Not always the case. Typically something like that is a local issue that some then tend to interpret as an IDPA rule. This is one of the main reasons I feel that CSOs at a regional, state or national match should have experience working/shooting matches outside their own area. Again, that's a personal opinion; not an IDPA rule.

As to using a non-threat as cover? There is nothing in the rule book to define what IS cover... just how to define if someone is behind it. So any comment I could make is a "personal opinion". I can't say that I would ever concede a non-threat is ever cover. If I get a penalty for putting a round into a non-threat, then a threat putting a round in one should be just as bad. ANd using a non-thret as cover is inviting that to happen. Yes, I know it's just a game. But it's a game that is suppose to be based on SOME form of reality. And I can see any form of reality where it would be advisable to use an innocent as MY cover. Yes, we use non-threats as hostages all the time that the bad guys use. But we as the good guys should never willingly put a non-threat into danger.

Let me put it another way....... If Mike (as the MD for a match where I am a CSO working for him) were to design a COF with a non-threat as cover, you'd hear me yelling at him for stupid COF design all the way to Dallas. I've never been accused of being shy and reserved.

This is where we are going to disagree Mr TNtoy. (since I can't call you by name) There are a number of shooting sports that are as you say 100% fun. And while per the definition in the Tactical Journal & Rule book state IDPA is not tactical training, it IS based on the premise of defensive shooting and concealed carry; also by definition in the rule book. To play IDPA, we start with a premise that it is a confrontation that is appearing before you, not rehearsed. That you do not know what may or may not be around the next corner. That's the basis for our game. Other sports don't have that premise. And they can be about 100% fun. I certainly shoot them that way. However, in our rule book it states... this should be a scenario that COULD happen. I can not see any scenario where using a non-threat COULD be how we should solve a concealed carry problem.

The match director and COF said you could do it. You did it. No problem. It was asked of the forum what SHOULD have been done. I answered to how the stage could/should have been shot to IDPA rules.

This is where we could fall into a heated gamer vs IDPA theorist debate. No need to go there. You established your position very clearly. As have I. For the record, I've been accused of being one of the gamiest folks around. I completely see your position. But as an IDPA SOI, I can not support this was a valid IDPA stage because I can not see anytime an innocent bystander should be used as cover.