| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
redoubtman |
Hit on Non-Threat target |
Lead | |
|
I was going to post this in the Rules Question area, but it's not a question. It's a point of discussion so here goes. The rule book says no more than
one non-threat target per every three threat targets. The reasoning behind this is that IDPA HQ feels that discharging your gun in the direction of non-threats
is a big bad no-no and thus must be discouraged in IDPA. Well, that's nice, but pretty much unrealistic unless you live 100% of the time in your tarpaper
shack out in the middle of nowheresville. What I suggest, in the spirit of moving IDPA to more closely simulate the realistic use of a handgun in a defensive
role, is to allow unlimited number of non-threat targets and increase the penalty for a hit on a non-threat target to 20 seconds. Same as a Failure To Do Right
penalty. After all, if shooting some innocent bystander is NOT a FTDR, I don't know what is, eh? A 20 second penalty would really make people wake up and
THINK about absolutely making that life saving...or life ENDING!....shot. I just don't think that having shooters blast away, and "oops, got a
NoShoot...oh well!" is where IDPA should be at. Thanks.
Wyley A03820
|
|||
drizzico |
|||
|
At first glance what you say seems reasonable... However, this is a game. Lets face it. Any non-threat that is still next to a threat target two seconds
after the first shot is fired is either deaf, chained to the threat, or is in fact actually a threat target hiding in plain sight...
As to changing the value of the penalty for hitting a non-threat... The simple act of adding 5 seconds to a novice is inconsequential. That same five seconds to a master would make the difference in the match. With the exception of some of the Uber Gods of shooting like Scott Warren, Jerry Miculek, Bones etc... a single hit on a non threat would drop them several positions... For example this Weekend at the Carolina Cup. The SSP division was won by Gordon Carroll with an overall time of 197.2 (Zero hits on a non-threat.) If he had hit one non-threat and the next several had not. That simple hit would have dropped him from first to fourth. With that said I think the current system is fine... If we were trying to get closer to "real" life then by all means we need to raise the value. Then we would also want to require that all non-threats be on some form of moving system so that it would be more realistic... Now that gives me an evil idea for Ken's monorail... Dave |
|||
redoubtman |
|||
|
Yup, it's a game. But one that supposedly has it's focus on defensive use of a pistol in situations approximating those in real life. If we want more 5
second penalties, add a lot of hard cover to the target. But shooting a No Shoot should be a big deal. Even if we keep the numbers at one No Shoot per 3 Shoot
targets. And if you review videos of shooting in shopping malls and etc, you see an awful lot of "deer in the headlights" freeze of the bystanders.
Especially in "normally safe, things like that never happen here" locations. In Oakland, CA well sure, everybody hits the deck. Hey, I love the IDPA
game and play as often as I can. I even took the time to become an SO and work hard to help out at the matches and I continue to try to become a better SO. I
just want to see IDPA keep away from the "run and gun" pistol games.
Wyley A03820
|
|||
RobMoore |
|||
|
I thought the point of the non-threat ratio was to keep MDs from making ridiculously difficult courses of fire where the threat is hidden amongst a sea of
non-threats.
|
|||
drizzico |
|||
RobMoore wrote:I think it is, but it also limits the possibilities to simulate hostage situations. A friend of mine described an early Carolina Cup scenario that simulated a hijack scenario on a Jetliner. Because of the rule this scenario is no longer an option. In fact in a scenario I just designed to simulate a hostage situation I had to come up with a creative way to simulate the sea of hostages that would be in front of the bad guys. I would be in favor of relaxing the ratio at sanctioned match with the approval of the Area Coordinator on a case by case basis. Or maybe a rule that retains the ratio but make it for the whole match and not an individual scenario. That way if you want a stage with a sea of hostages you can have it as long as you are willing to forgo the non-threats on all your other stages. Dave |
|||
RobMoore |
|||
|
You can still have that scenario, just turn the non-threats that are over-limit into hard cover.
|
|||
TimmyBac |
|||
|
Perhaps a better solution would be to allow one stage in a match to exceed the target/non-threat ratio. This could also apply to the steel target restriction,
allow one stage a match to have up to 12 pieces of steel.
Tim |
|||
drizzico |
|||
|
That was one of the options I considered and eventually discarded. Hard cover only targets just don't get you that aw sh!@ moment. So what I eventually
decided to do was turn the non-threats horizontal and place them just below the neck line of the threat targets so that they covered as much of the combined
torso has possible. Basically imagine five threat targets with hard cover to simulate body armor and pushed together the two non-threats are placed horizontal
so that they hang just below the neck line covering all the targets at that level. (or as much as possible.) That way if you jerk the shot down you get a
present from the SO.
Dave |
|||
solaritx |
|||
|
I just don't think that the current NS to Shoot ratio is realistic at all. As indicated, how many No-shoot to shoot ratio do you have in a plane, on a bus,
when out eating? To make the point even more simple, you and a loved one go to your car in a parking lot and some threat jumps your loved one and hold them
with a weapon. Now you have one bad guy and one good guy. Realistic and "it could happen" scenario. Not by IDPA because for it to be legal, it
can't be one person, it has to be a small gang of 3.
People that make scenarios quickly figure out what their people want. If it becomes out of the realistic, then those that are paying to play the game will let the MD know and things will change. Also every scenario isn't always a perfect one, but allow the MD to use their minds and come up with scenarios that could happen, especially on the weekly or monthly match level. If IDPA wants to restrict at the Regional, State or National level, I think that would be fine. But not saying a one hostage to one threat is not realistic or IDPA legal is short sighted and hopefully will be corrected in the next rule book change Garry |
|||
Steve Koski |
|||
|
I've shot sanctioned match stages that violated this rule, and don't have a problem if MD's decide to break it occasionally.
Koski |
|||
wilinaz1911 |
|||
|
Set up multiple strings and load one of them up with NT's.
Bill |
|||