| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
freeidaho |
What about this reload? |
Lead | |
|
+-+ E-Mail: freeidaho at yahoo dot com
|--\ |---| Personal web site to display ideas: /----\ <http://www.parmarng.org/freeidaho/default.html> |*----/\ |Idaho-| My rifle, pistol, shotgun, and IDPA club: +------+ <http://www.parmarng.org> |
|||
Gregg Kratochvil |
|||
|
Well what about their use of cover? The IPSC squat used on one of the first targets left the left leg totaly exposed.
All reloads begin and end behind cover? I guess they thought that it was ok to advance and use the non threat as cover. Unless the COF said that it was ok I would have to give 2 procedurals on this run, one for cover and one for the reload. |
|||
jmitchell135 |
|||
|
If I'm not mistaken, in any clubs I've shot at recently, shooting the car is a DQ.
Jerome
|
|||
Gregg Kratochvil |
|||
jmitchell135 wrote: CASA is secluded enough that they are not as concerned about bullets leaving the range that glance of vehicles. There have been a LOT of bullets put into cars at the CASA range. |
|||
Matt M |
|||
|
The MD stated the non-threat could be used as cover meaning that reload began and ended behind cover, shooting cars at casa is not a problem.... the left leg
was hanging out though
Matt McArthur
|
|||
jmitchell135 |
|||
|
Well then in that case.... Id have probably took advantage of the situation myself..
Jerome
|
|||
figmobohica |
|||
|
Changing rules from club to club is not a good idea. What you are use to doing at your home club could get you asked to leave a range at another club or earn
you lots of procedurals. Follow the rules and you will make all shooter happy.
Loren
"All skill is in vain when an Angel pisses in the flintlock of your musket.".
First time the Devil made me do it; Second time I did it on my own. |
|||
Mark Mayo |
|||
|
Nothing legal either reload IMO. Since when is a non-threat cover? Not to mention that they didn't even start the reloads until they left cover.
|
|||
Jim Watson |
|||
|
Never heard of a NT being counted as cover.
Out of cover in view of previously shot targets is still out of cover for purposes of reloading, hereabouts. |
|||
Radome |
|||
|
Sounds like a strange stage design using an 'innocent' as cover. Stand here while I shoot behind you.
I mean, I know people who I would like to use as cover to shoot behind but it doesnt seem like that fits the spirit of the rule. And, I have taken my share of dings for leaning out from cover even though my feet are not out on the move so my vote is Procedural. I am,,, RICK |
|||
Diesel doc |
|||
|
Its interesting how so many people can read the same rule book and come up with so many different answers. I vote with Gregg 2 procedurals, one for cover, and
one for the reload.
Herb
If you don't know your rights, you don't have any! |
|||
geofs |
RE: Reload | ||
Gregg Kratochvil wrote: I shot this match and had a great time. I thought it was a little hokey to use the non-threats as cover, but it is a game. Also, as to shooting the car,
my advise is to not put anything down range that you don't want shot. If a bullet can bounce off of a prop and do damage to anything nearby, don't use
it. Disqualifying someone for shooting a car in this instance would be pretty poor on the part of the match directors. Plastic barrels are used a lot in
this game and they can really do funny things to the path of a bullet. Do you recommend disqualification for hitting a barrel also?
|
|||
TNToy |
|||
|
Well, since that's me shooting that car, I suppose I should reply...
The no-shoot was specified as cover during the walkthrough, and the SO's specifically mentioned that a tac-load approaching the vehicle was legal. So I did it, and so did Tad (in the green vest). Watch stage 9. The no-shoot in the first array was specified as cover during the walkthrough for that stage as well. As you probably noticed during the video, the headshot (#3) through the hood was an intentional make-up through the hood of the vehicle. I understand DQ'ing shooters for hitting vehicles in other ranges, when they're against/inside of them, or when rounds can glance off the hood and go over the berm into a subdivision. But I have no problem with a stage like this, where the angle will allow FMJ to punch clean through the sheetmetal. Can't really defend his use of cover on T2. That should have been called, but this match was generally very loose with the cover procedurals. Personally, I don't mind if a match is extremely loose OR extremely strict with their definition of cover, as long as they are consistent. Granted, the rules are clear, but I *hate* having a cover-nazi in between two bays where they let shooters expose 98% of their body. Stage 6. No-Shoot as cover, target positioned in front of vehicle Stage 9. No-Shoot as cover from middle target, in first array. CASA loves to put holes in vehicles. Happened when they held the Nats out there a couple years back, and no one had a problem with it then.
Evan
Last Edited By: TNToy
06/17/08 23:08:30.
Edited 4 times.
|
|||
Bubba |
|||
|
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.
Bubba
http://www.dbl-tap.com |
|||
jmitchell135 |
|||
|
I would have done it the gamiest way possible. So if the COF was what it was, no complaints. It just looks hokie without explination.
Jerome
|
|||
deerslayer |
|||
|
That was me in the green vest. What were we to do--run back behind the barrel and reload, or simply refuse to shoot the stage in protest? The CoF said the
non-threats were cover, and we shot the stages accordingly. A procedural for my leg may have been appropriate, however.
Tad
Last Edited By: deerslayer
06/18/08 21:45:44.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
Bubba |
|||
|
Actually, the answer per the rules would have been to do a tac-reload BEFORE leaving the barrel and heading to the car. At the point of the barrel, the
shooters would have used from 6-8 rounds depending on how many extra shots had been taken. As per rule CoF 9. When cover is available, it MUST be used both when shooting and reloading. The shooter is at cover at the
barrel. So cover IS available at that point. Nothing is forcing the shooter to leave cover. A tac-reload can be done at
this point. The only reason to leave cover and use a non-threat as cover is to run the stage faster. I can see no tactical reason to leave cover with only 1-3
rounds left in the gun when I don't know what threats I might be facing. I would want all the BBs I could get if I don't know what is coming next.
I stand by the statement of poor COF design..... to IDPA rules. For other shooting sport rules.. it was fine. But for IDPA rules, it was setup to violate those rules by using a hokie definition of cover by calling a non-threat cover. What should you have done? Shoot the stage by IDPA rules regardless of COF description. I would have done a tac-reload at the barrel. I would have made up the time by moving faster to the next point of engagement. In the FWIW department... We did have a situation like this popup recently at a regional. I was the CSO on the stage and I DID complain loud and long. I did NOT want to give out a bunch of procedurals for setting people up to reload in the open. We added a tac-load to the COF description before the shooter left cover.
Bubba
http://www.dbl-tap.com |
|||
freeidaho |
|||
deerslayer wrote: Tad,
My intent in posting the video was to point out the situation, not to make light of the shooters. I think we as an IDPA community can learn a lot about what to do, and what not to do as far as COF design, by simply discussing what has happened in the past, and videos are an excellent record of that. In my little club, to make us better SOs, I find internet videos of IDPA and pass them along and say "You are the SO, what did you see?" Our SOs are getting more observant, and are doing a better job, partly because of this effort. Many of the IDPA videos on the internet show great CsOF and excellent shooting. Unfortunately some of them show lack of knowledge of the rules, or lack or enforcement of the rules, and sometimes some very clever gaming. None-the-less I think we can learn from them. Which was my intent. Bubba, You and I are on the same page. I just shoot the CsOF per the rulebook, because I know better. I need to drive home with a clean conscience much more than a piece of paper or wood. Karma has a way of coming back around. Thanks to all that have responded! Ken Reed "You are what you do, everything else is just talk."
+-+ E-Mail: freeidaho at yahoo dot com
|--\ |---| Personal web site to display ideas: /----\ <http://www.parmarng.org/freeidaho/default.html> |*----/\ |Idaho-| My rifle, pistol, shotgun, and IDPA club: +------+ <http://www.parmarng.org> |
|||
TNToy |
|||
Bubba wrote:Of course you know what's coming next. You had a walkthrough. This is a game, and I'm going to shoot a stage the fastest way possible, every single time, that won't get me penalized. Is the use of a no-shoot a grey area rules-wise? Maybe. But they said it was OK, so I'd be a fool not to do it. IDPA = 100% fun, 0% tactical training. If I saw any equivalence to a real life situation here, I wouldn't load at all. I'd have 8-10 rounds left in my carry weapon. And 12-14 left in the one that defends the house. So I'm definitely not going to take a weapon out of commission to top it off when they could pop around the corner at any time. I slept just fine that night. I loathe sandbagging (bumped myself to expert the weekend before a Sanctioned match with a classifier) and I get really annoyed with guys who try to bend the rules to win any way they can. But if they say you can reload from A to B instead of standing still, I'm going to do so.
Evan
Last Edited By: TNToy
06/19/08 17:30:54.
Edited 2 times.
|
|||
Bubba |
|||
|
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.
Bubba
http://www.dbl-tap.com |
|||
Jim Watson |
|||
|
I don't think my reflexes would have allowed me to use a NT as cover, no matter what the CoF allowed.
I did once set up a novelty stage in which you were to "wound" a threat with a -3 and use "him" for cover. |
|||