ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 175
Sep 24 12 5:46 AM
Posts: 1197
Sep 24 12 10:28 AM
Posts: 2265
Sep 24 12 10:53 AM
Steve Koski wrote: I'm not sure what the other 11 were for. Joyce said they were mostly safety issues.
Posts: 225
Sep 24 12 11:30 AM
Steve Koski wrote: 350 ish shooters 15 DQ's - Four (in Cindy & my bay) for sweeping the week hand/arm when opening a door. When discussing it with Frank, he said "Don't do that." Short and sweet. I'm not sure what the other 11 were for. Joyce said they were mostly safety issues. 2 FTDR's - Both for choosing not to reload and firing the final required shot. Ouch. Guess it pays to read the rule book.
Posts: 22
Sep 24 12 2:22 PM
Posts: 7697
Sep 24 12 2:45 PM
Posts: 407
Sep 25 12 10:16 AM
Steve Koski wrote:The cover calls were sometimes painful too. Cindy, Travis, and I agreed ahead of time to not award PE's for a couple inches out of cover, but half of your foot - yes. This sounds easy to manage, but what about 1/3 of someone's foot? Damn. We did our best to call it the same for everyone, but I'm sure there was a little slop where someone got away with something that was essentially the same as what someone else got dinged for.
Posts: 9119
Sep 25 12 10:26 AM
Sep 25 12 11:35 AM
Posts: 60
Sep 25 12 12:57 PM
Sep 25 12 2:22 PM
M1911 wrote:Ken:I think it is effectively the same issue (though perhaps of a different magnitude) -- inconsistent cover calls. And competitors rightly hate it.
Posts: 728
Sep 25 12 7:00 PM
Posts: 518
Sep 25 12 7:11 PM
Posts: 31
Sep 26 12 1:22 PM
Steve Koski wrote:Mark,Cindy, Travis, and I gave the FTDR's, Frank backed us up. We should have actually given out a third to a revolver shooter who had a dud on the standards stage and didn't reload and take his 6th shot. But I failed to think of this until it the situation was over. I hate inconsistent officiating, especially by me! The cover calls were sometimes painful too. Cindy, Travis, and I agreed ahead of time to not award PE's for a couple inches out of cover, but half of your foot - yes. This sounds easy to manage, but what about 1/3 of someone's foot? Damn. We did our best to call it the same for everyone, but I'm sure there was a little slop where someone got away with something that was essentially the same as what someone else got dinged for.I was pretty disgusted with myself one afternoon when I found myself watching a shooter SHOOT, instead of watching his feet in the doorway that I was supposed to be monitoring. That guy might have been 16" out of cover but I just flat wasn't paying attention to his legs/feet. Fail.But I know for sure that if you were 100% behind cover you did not get a PE from me. So this is easy to manage if you want to avoid a PE, just use cover! Funny story: The super squad got 0 or 1 PE's for cover. I heard later that they were warned about our stage ahead of time, so they just plain used cover properly. Isn't that great? God I love not having to give out a PE for cover. Warms my heart.Koski
Posts: 2758
Sep 26 12 2:16 PM
The Rules on the use of cover while the shooter is engaging targets are some of the most clear, and concise, Rules in the current book. I wish all the current Rules were that well written.For Vertical cover a shooter must have 100% of their lower body below the torso behind cover and concealed from the target they are engaging, and from all other yet to be engaged targets. For the upper torso, above the waist, 50% must be covered. For Horizontal cover (low cover) 50% of the upper torso must be behind cover.That's clear. Is there some degree of subjective opinion as to what constitutes 50% of body, as opposed to 49% body? Yes. But, if you have to have a Rule on the use of cover while engaging a target, I can't think of a way to write this Rule more clearly. I think some of the 'subjective enforcement' comes from the collection of Novice and new MM SOs, who lack experience in the IDPA game. Maybe that will change when the TTs get to SO qualifications, and re-certification. I think this is not a problem with the actual Rule... just a problem with individual SO interpretation of it.... which seems to be a continuing problem with many Rules, as currently written.I'm sure the TTs will fix that .
Sep 26 12 2:29 PM
GOF wrote:The Rules on the use of cover while the shooter is engaging targets are some of the most clear, and concise, Rules in the current book. I wish all the current Rules were that well written.For Vertical cover a shooter must have 100% of their lower body below the torso behind cover and concealed from the target they are engaging, and from all other yet to be engaged targets. For the upper torso, above the waist, 50% must be covered. For Horizontal cover (low cover) 50% of the upper torso must be behind cover.That's clear. Is there some degree of subjective opinion as to what constitutes 50% of body, as opposed to 49% body? Yes. But, if you have to have a Rule on the use of cover while engaging a target, I can't think of a way to write this Rule more clearly. I think some of the 'subjective enforcement' comes from the collection of Novice and new MM SOs, who lack experience in the IDPA game. Maybe that will change when the TTs get to SO qualifications, and re-certification. I think this is not a problem with the actual Rule... just a problem with individual SO interpretation of it.... which seems to be a continuing problem with many Rules, as currently written.I'm sure the TTs will fix that .
Posts: 157
Sep 26 12 2:47 PM
Sep 26 12 3:00 PM
Cody Ray wrote: 4.4% of the shooters getting DQ'ed is excessive. Maybe someone should rethink stage design next time around. Cody
Posts: 422
Sep 26 12 3:02 PM
Nick Y - A24313
Sep 26 12 3:04 PM
Share This