ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 2758
Sep 26 12 3:04 PM
testosterone wrote: 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 .So, where does " 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?" A foot being half out of cover would seem to lead to not 100% of lower body being behind cover? I think Steve does not fall under the category of Novice SO right? Hopefully fixed in new rules because this is a case study in broken.
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 .
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: 31
Sep 26 12 3:26 PM
GOF wrote:testosterone wrote: 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 .So, where does " 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?" A foot being half out of cover would seem to lead to not 100% of lower body being behind cover? I think Steve does not fall under the category of Novice SO right? Hopefully fixed in new rules because this is a case study in broken.Steve & Cindy are both experienced SOs (both of them ran me at the SO Worlds on different stages, and did it very well). With that said, their decision to 'go easy' on cover calls does not negate the Cover Rules, as written. The Rule is still clearly written. Maybe they are too restrictive? Maybe individual SO opinions affect the way the Rule is called? You don't have to be a MM SO to inject personal opinion, as opposed to written Rule. These two are very experienced, and very competent SOs. I have no idea why they decided to call things the way they did (I didn't shoot the 2012 Nationals, so I wasn't there) . But, they did. Maybe the Cover Rules could be re-written, maybe not. But, they seem pretty clear as currently written. Their interrpretation was their's at the time, and that's how it was called. They were the SOs, and that was their call.
Posts: 422
Sep 26 12 4:10 PM
Nick Y - A24313
Posts: 191
Sep 26 12 4:13 PM
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.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.
Posts: 407
Sep 26 12 4:27 PM
GOF wrote:I think some of the 'subjective enforcement' comes from the collection of Novice and new MM SOs, who lack experience in the IDPA game.
I think some of the 'subjective enforcement' comes from the collection of Novice and new MM SOs, who lack experience in the IDPA game.
Posts: 3032
Sep 26 12 5:56 PM
Posts: 9119
Sep 26 12 7:10 PM
Posts: 59
Sep 26 12 7:18 PM
Posts: 518
Sep 26 12 8:15 PM
Posts: 7697
Sep 26 12 9:09 PM
Posts: 728
Sep 26 12 11:04 PM
Finally, you are supposed to be watching the shooter shoot. Your focus is on the gun, not feet. I have never seen a foot shoot someone. If this sport becomes one where an SO's job is to stare at people's feet then something has gone horribly wrong.
Mr Koski, I just measured my size 10 shoes. They are 4.75 inches wide at the widest point. That would make half of my foot 2.375 inches. You stated that 2 inches was OK but half the foot was a procedural. That is a difference of 0.375 inches. You can make that determination in a dynamic event such as IDPA?
Sep 27 12 12:58 AM
Posts: 157
Sep 27 12 7:32 AM
ny32182 wrote:I'd argue that someone shooting a "national championship" shouldn't be at their first rodeo and should be able to control their muzzle.
Posts: 1650
Sep 27 12 8:09 AM
Sep 27 12 8:17 AM
Sep 27 12 8:20 AM
Sep 27 12 8:58 AM
You would be wrong......I know of at lease one shooter that this was her 1st rodeo.....You made my point, "they" (our peers) should be able to control their muzzle. The question remains: why were their so many that didn't??? 4.4%...The numbers don't lie...there had to be a contributing factor to cause the very high number of DQs. Just saying.
Sep 27 12 9:29 AM
Sep 27 12 9:39 AM
Sirveyr wrote:Are we really b!tching about cover NOT being called tight enough? Personally, I like it when an SO allows some wiggle room on cover.
Sep 27 12 9:52 AM
Truly amazing....you blame 4.4% for of the shooters,
Yes... I blame whatever percentage of shooters did not pay attention to the walkthroughs that clearly outlined the muzzle safe points for the stage.
Share This