Hard cover?

[dmshozer1]

If a target has a knife or gun painted across the down zero or anywhere on the target, are they considered hard cover?

If hit are they scored as a miss?

[Thomas H]

Not any more, no.  Rule 4.7.5.

 

(Used to be, but not anymore.)

 

 

[biglou13]

?

 

[SACase]

11 hours ago, dmshozer1 said:

If a target has a knife or gun painted across the down zero or anywhere on the target, are they considered hard cover?

If hit are they scored as a miss?

That threat designation was never considered "hard cover". Then or now. 

[dmshozer1]

1 hour ago, SACase said:

That threat designation was never considered "hard cover". Then or now. 

Can you quote me a rule that states that then and now?

[SACase]

3 hours ago, dmshozer1 said:

Can you quote me a rule that states that then and now?

rom 2017.2

4.8 Threat and Non-Threat Target Designation

4.8.1 Non-threat targets must be designated by displaying a pair of normal sized open hands of contrasting color, at least one of which must be visible from all shooting positions where the target may be engaged.

4.8.2 Threat targets may be designated by displaying a normal sized threat indicator (like a firearm or knife) that is visible from all shooting positions where the target may be engaged.

4.8.3 Targets must be easily identified as threat or non-threat.

4.8.4 Threat indicators of different kinds all have equal threat value and do not change target engagement priority. For example, a knife is equal in threat to a shotgun, rifle, or other firearms.

4.8.5 Threat and non-threat indicators may be painted or marked on the targets or covering clothing, or may be clipped or stapled to the target.

 

From 2015

4.11 Threat and Non-Threat Target Designation

4.11.1 Non-threat targets must be designated by displaying a pair of normal sized open hands of contrasting color, at least one of which must be visible from all shooting positions where the target may be shot.

4.11.2 Threat targets may be designated by displaying a normal sized threat indicator, like a firearm or knife that is visible from all shooting positions where the target may be shot. Threat target designation is not mandatory, but is highly recommended. In no case should a threat indicator and a hand be positioned on the same target. Threats indicators cannot look similar to non-threat hands. Targets must be easily identified as threat or non-threat.

4.11.3 Threats indicators of different kinds all have equal threat value and do not change target engagement priority. That is, a knife is equal in threat to a shotgun, rifle, or other firearms.

4.11.4 Threat and non-threat indicators may be painted or marked on the targets or covering clothing, or may be clipped or stapled to the target.

 

Nothing stating that the threat indicator is hard cover.

Were you given a miss for hitting a threat indicator?

[dmshozer1]

7 hours ago, SACase said:

rom 2017.2

4.8 Threat and Non-Threat Target Designation

4.8.1 Non-threat targets must be designated by displaying a pair of normal sized open hands of contrasting color, at least one of which must be visible from all shooting positions where the target may be engaged.

4.8.2 Threat targets may be designated by displaying a normal sized threat indicator (like a firearm or knife) that is visible from all shooting positions where the target may be engaged.

4.8.3 Targets must be easily identified as threat or non-threat.

4.8.4 Threat indicators of different kinds all have equal threat value and do not change target engagement priority. For example, a knife is equal in threat to a shotgun, rifle, or other firearms.

4.8.5 Threat and non-threat indicators may be painted or marked on the targets or covering clothing, or may be clipped or stapled to the target.

 

From 2015

4.11 Threat and Non-Threat Target Designation

4.11.1 Non-threat targets must be designated by displaying a pair of normal sized open hands of contrasting color, at least one of which must be visible from all shooting positions where the target may be shot.

4.11.2 Threat targets may be designated by displaying a normal sized threat indicator, like a firearm or knife that is visible from all shooting positions where the target may be shot. Threat target designation is not mandatory, but is highly recommended. In no case should a threat indicator and a hand be positioned on the same target. Threats indicators cannot look similar to non-threat hands. Targets must be easily identified as threat or non-threat.

4.11.3 Threats indicators of different kinds all have equal threat value and do not change target engagement priority. That is, a knife is equal in threat to a shotgun, rifle, or other firearms.

4.11.4 Threat and non-threat indicators may be painted or marked on the targets or covering clothing, or may be clipped or stapled to the target.

 

Nothing stating that the threat indicator is hard cover.

Were you given a miss for hitting a threat indicator?

Thanks,

I also read that in the rules.

Problem as usual with IDPA is that it does not address the problem. Is not a gun, knife or shotgun true hard cover? Different SO's, Match Directors interpret it

both ways.

Myself and others at different matches were scored misses.

[Brooke]

14 minutes ago, dmshozer1 said:

Thanks,

I also read that in the rules.

Problem as usual with IDPA is that it does not address the problem. Is not a gun, knife or shotgun true hard cover? Different SO's, Match Directors interpret it

both ways.

Myself and others at different matches were scored misses.

 

You gotta' be kidding!!

[Beef15]

52 minutes ago, dmshozer1 said:

Thanks,

I also read that in the rules.

Problem as usual with IDPA is that it does not address the problem. Is not a gun, knife or shotgun true hard cover? Different SO's, Match Directors interpret it

both ways.

Myself and others at different matches were scored misses.

Might read the rule book again, or at least the rule Thomas H referenced. It is specifically addressed, with no room for interpretation.

 

4.7.5 Simulated Threat and Non-Threat indicators painted or marked, regardless of color are not hard cover.

[dmshozer1]

53 minutes ago, Beef15 said:

Might read the rule book again, or at least the rule Thomas H referenced. It is specifically addressed, with no room for interpretation.

 

4.7.5 Simulated Threat and Non-Threat indicators painted or marked, regardless of color are not hard cover.

Thanks,

4.7.5 is not in the above rule set so I did not see it.

[Thomas H]

4 hours ago, dmshozer1 said:

Thanks,

4.7.5 is not in the above rule set so I did not see it.

 

Well, I did specifically list it in my post.

 

As for "before" -- the prior rules did NOT say that threat identifiers (often painted in black on targets) were not hard cover.

 

As such, since they were painted in black (which was the defining requirement of hardcover) some MDs would say that the threat indicators were indeed hard cover.  There was no rule stating it definitely was, but there was also no rule saying it wasn't.  And there WAS a rule saying (4.9.2, old rulebook) that "black" meant "hardcover."

As such, no one could argue against it if the MD wanted it under the old rules.  Not all did it.

 

But as I said before---the new rules specifically say, in 4.7.5, that threat indicators are NOT hard cover.  If an MD penalizes for it (after Jan 1, 2017), then they are wrong.

[dmshozer1]

1 hour ago, Thomas H said:

 

Well, I did specifically list it in my post.

 

As for "before" -- the prior rules did NOT say that threat identifiers (often painted in black on targets) were not hard cover.

 

As such, since they were painted in black (which was the defining requirement of hardcover) some MDs would say that the threat indicators were indeed hard cover.  There was no rule stating it definitely was, but there was also no rule saying it wasn't.  And there WAS a rule saying (4.9.2, old rulebook) that "black" meant "hardcover."

As such, no one could argue against it if the MD wanted it under the old rules.  Not all did it.

 

But as I said before---the new rules specifically say, in 4.7.5, that threat indicators are NOT hard cover.  If an MD penalizes for it (after Jan 1, 2017), then they are wrong.

Glad they addressed the problem,

Thanks

[rowdyb]

Using that moronic logic the hands painted on all non-threats throughout idpa time would be hard cover. No reasonable person ever thought that, so saying "all black paint is hard cover" is beyond stupid when applying it to threat/non threat indicators. 2017, 2015, 2013, 2012 or 2005 rules.

[v1911]

^^^ +1

 

Where's the like button for this post?

[Thomas H]

On 3/6/2017 at 0:11 PM, rowdyb said:

Using that moronic logic the hands painted on all non-threats throughout idpa time would be hard cover. No reasonable person ever thought that, so saying "all black paint is hard cover" is beyond stupid when applying it to threat/non threat indicators. 2017, 2015, 2013, 2012 or 2005 rules.

 

I agree.  Which is why I'm glad the new rules preclude it.  (I went to one match in which the black painted threat indicators were considered hard cover.  I argued.  It didn't work.)