Loves2Shoot

This is a game. It has rules. The game rules suspend reality. You can't mix reality and rules reality. It's one way or the other. The target was not shot at because the target can't be seen. 2 mikes, 1 FTE/FTSA. Well, I tried to point out that at level 1, you can't engage movers before or after they are done moving and they say engage, and that is apparently the most twisting of words some people have ever seen. But since that would seem to say not all targets that you see are always available, there is a camp of thought that say, that example doesn't matter because those targets aren't available to be engaged (shot at) during those circumstances. All that matter is "shot at" regardless of be it a shot that has zero chance of scoring a hit by rule. Saying that targets you can not see or "invisible or never appearing target" per rule" are not ruled similarly as "disappearing" (in that they can only be engaged when they can be seen from a position where they can be shot at with scoring hit) is a huge perversion of the rules, even thought the words used are engage, and it actually makes more sense to most folks that you can't engage targets you can't shot at per rule or hit with legally scoring hits. I see your point, there are circumstances where that what you said is true, but this case, that doesn't hold, because per the NROI consensus agrees that you can't take shots back and FTE uses "shot at" at the requirement. The fact that you can't hit target through a wall will not stop them from ruling you can try if you do not DQ first. Reality apparently has no impact on rule.

Shot at through a wall, and NROI consensus is that is ok if no DQ applies (per Troy.) Since they have decide you can engage (shoot at) targets through walls but the hits will not score and no FTE, do not score the stage, FA, restate you can't shoot through the wall, hide the target physically be it solid wall, partial wall, snow fence, windscreen, ect., reshoot.

2.2.3.3, 9.1.6, 9.1.6.1 and the part of 1.1.5 you leave out However, conditions may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to compel a competitor into shooting positions, locations or stances. We'll agree to disagree as I think all walls are equal and you don't.

I tried that logic, and was point out I am an idiot for that type of thinking. 500 posts and still clear as mud.

Aztec, It doesn't say they must be visible from the position you fire the shots... Yea, BIG can of worms.

So are the folks putting on the match. We need both of them to be on the same page for this to work -- and I believe most of the time they are..... And we need a way to deal with problems discovered during the match. At that point it's already a bad situation, but the choices are either to fix it and attempt to save the stage, or to toss the stage.... Either course of action has the potential to affect the match outcome. Nobody involved in the match, from RM and MD down to the newest competitor wants these situations to occur, but sometimes despite best efforts, they do.... If you don't want to admit the "ruling" is problematic, OK. The rules say the walls are legal, the presentation is legal, the shooter made the shots. I'm accountable for my shots and MY WALK THROUGH. I don't blame match staff or stage designers for my mistakes. That probably is why I don't agree that if the presentation was legal, even if bad, I should get a reshoot, even if the FA can be used outside of safety and loopholes. Blowing a hole into into a stage is no loophole in my tiny brain. The ONLY solution I see to cure this type of issue, is to back to real walls if NROI says you can shoot at targets behind hard cover. Heck, there are targets at Area 1 that you could have forced a FA/reshoot using the rulings presented here, and they were dang fine stages. I hope everyone who uses a car in their stage says you can't shoot though the windows, because you can see the targets through them.

Consider the other case: if a wall are as tall as built (unless otherwise specified in a WSB) and a shooter sticks his strong hand over a wall and "shoots at" a target on the other side of the wall. If it's a solid wall he can't even see the target. Will you give the shooter an FTSA penalty if he completely misses that target? I don't think there is a requirement that one has to see the target to shoot at it. FA, reshoot, no FTE, and build the wall taller in the future so no one else can get confused in the heat of the stage and do that.

I guess that's why we never see Glocks in ESP. LOL, I was razzing IDPA for making an illogical classification by function. I only compare my "real" performance by adding SSP and ESP together.

Yes, but the question is why isn't the M&P classified ESP since it is mechanically similar to the XD in the way the sear releases the striker? IDPA can do what they want. It is a private venture. My guess is they find the XD far superior to the M&P and Glock I do find it interesting though.

Yes. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm an idiot when it comes to the rules, but I know better than to shoot targets through walls (or try to under them.) The competitor is responsible for knowing the rules and following them. My last rulebook post in this thread (I hope I don't screw this one up also.) 8. Practical competition is free-style. In essence, the competitive problem is posed in general and the participant is permitted the freedom to solve it in the manner he considers best within the limitations of the competitive situation as provided.

I couldn't find that rule. If competitors don't know how partial walls work, then they get educated, not screwed. We don't give shooters a reshoot and FA if they shoot weakhand and support it do we? I'd lay money that the guys who originally said you can't engage moving targets before they start or after they stop knew we would remove solid walls and replace them with partials, see through, and snow fence, they would have added that you can't engage targets behind the transparent/invisible part of a wall. I guess I'm stupid for thinking that if they wanted you to engage moving targets when they were in action that that would translate to engaging targets when they are visible AND the shots could hit the target by rule. I guess I read to much into that specific language. I'm done too, if FA covers bad, but legal stage design, we all now know what to do I just wish the rule book said that specifically. Sorry for wasting anyone's time. It appears a few other folks were a bit confused also. Call the RM and be done with it is my call now if I'm the RO. If I'm a good CRO, I check the stage before anyone shoots it. I don't know if NROI is glad or scared that people got out the rulebook and debated this.

SA (Safe Action) mistook for single action-like? OK, but my is the M&P not the same classification? USPSA, IPSC, and NRA don't classify the XD single action, ONLY IDPA. Mechanically, they both pivot a sear that move the striker rearward a tiny bit, then release it, essential the same action. Hmmm, guess away.

ATF doesn't classify action past semiauto. USPSA, IPSC, NRA Action all classify it properly...

If you want to twist your brain a little, figure out why the M&P is SSP not ESP, since it doesn't "cock" the pistol any more than the XD does when you pull the trigger. The trigger bar just slides under the front of the sear, pivoting the rear of the sear down. I like Joe's idea, but have no delusion it would happen.

Show me that rule, please. Troy Disappearing target . . . . . .A target which when activated and after completing its movement is no longer available for engagement. Sort of says to me that targets can not always be engaged even if they are seen just because you fire a shot at them. Reading every other rule that contains engage or engagement paints a picture of how the word is used in the book that says I can determine if it was not able to be engaged = FTE. This is clearly the ruling of the type of target you compared this situation to to draw your opinion. 1. I had no disagreement it is bad stage design, but I didn't see FA apply that per the previous poster Morphire either. 2. If you declare FA he gets an advantage due to his mistake, regardless of poor stage design. This is not fair to his competitors since you said it is a legal presentation, but a scoring nightmare. He made the shots, the wall was not small and he had to shoot under it. 2.2.3.3. Again the FA just will repeat the rules in place. Scoring nightmare, I don't know, word travels fast on a range, down 40 makes people pay attention, DQ even more so. Stage designers are always trying to trick shooters, that one could trick a GM with a target behind a wall was a feat. 3. I have always understood that if they can't see it they won't shooting it, but you are still saying you can treat the target presented behind a partial wall differently than a wall that hides it. That is problematic, but I understand why you wouldn't treat them the same from a match administration standpoint. In reading the FA rule, I didn't see match administration nightmare as a reason to issue it. That is why I prodded you to reply since you said you were "out." 4. "...shooting through an opaque wall at a target could certainly be done, but keep in mind that there are possibly other, more severe consequences for doing so." Well I'd like to see the rule that makes ruling through a solid a wall different than under the visible part of a partial wall, and that was why it appears you are saying that you can score/rule differently on partial walls than you would on real walls. If he is a GM, odd are pretty good he was moving too, but that is speculation and was left out of the OP. Thanks again, and I for one am going shooting this weekend. Without RO', CRO's, RM's and the rest, we don't have a sport, so thanks to all who do donate you time, energies and money to allow folks like me to play the best game in the world

Yea, but take Taran, Matt and Phil and they are about the same skill level, and guess what, their times are the same. Dave is on a whole other level right now. I've yet to have any empirical proof the faster time for ESP is warranted, given the scores at the major matches or that they should be a huge division. Having ESP does create more winners and does reinforce the notion you can buy skill through a fancy gun though. I could shoot any gun I want (I'm lucky that way), but I shoot simple basic, under 1K guns in IDPA just to prove it isn't the arrow, since I get called a "gamer" anyway.

Santa in the big brown van arrived today, we are fully stocked up

Duh, of course slide lock reload, going between books the terms get messed up as I type. I don't assume folks would do a illegal reload at IDPA nats Since the top 10 SSP shooters crushed the top 10 ESP shooter at last years nationals, I still don't think it makes much a difference, being the SSP guys were handicapped with light guns, no mag wells, bad triggers and 10 round magazines. They averaged 16.7 seconds faster per shooter

and the year before that, and the year before that............ And I rest my case again, rarely if ever a disadvantage, and usually an advantage, and every year or so this discussion comes up and every year or so the nationals round count get posted and it is always the same. The best people can say is if you miss a bunch your hosed, well if you miss a bunch your hosed anyways. So, do most of those 13 stages everyone to a speed load before the last target or rwr before the last array.

Good info.

Oh, I know that, just I never heard that half of them are 12 rounds and we are such odd balls Generally they are very short, standards or field courses with 14-18 rounds. I was mistaken though, we did have a 12 rounder the last match, but it required a RWR before the last 6. Maybe that is why I've never considered running a 9 round mag.

I reviewed our last 4 IDPA matches, and not one 12 round COF 28 stages, maybe the designer is making it 10 round friendly, no he shoots CDP, hmmm. I got some figurin' to do.

That is legal, but I doubt it makes a difference anywhere except in their imagination.

If they use 9 round mags, they can not use 10 round magazines in the match, so I don't get that since you don't know which would be better until you walk every stage and have a plan.

There are many types of shooting competitions, and I shot some incredible groups with it. For action shooting competition, most people request the thinner sights.