Shooting on the move

[Jane]

On the now official idpaforum, the Area Coordinator for Canada has posted an observation that one of the new clarification wordings makes it sound as if shooting on-the-move may only be done at the beginning of a stage while the shooter moves toward cover.

After that, all targets must be engaged from behind cover, if there is any cover available on the stage - i.e., cannot leave a position of cover and shoot targets on the way to a different position of cover.

When cover is available, it MUST be used when shooting unless

the competitor starts in the open and must engage targets while

on the way to cover. If cover is available anywhere in the COF it

must be used for reloading. Competitors may NOT cross any

opening (doorways, windows, open spaces, etc) without

engaging targets.

I personally hope that interpretation doesn't stand, but it's something people who design courses of fire may not have noticed.

[lugnut]

Many IDPA rules seem unclear- to me at least. The first sentence seems very clear. Then in the last sentence the way I interpret it means that I CAN cross a door, etc if I AM engaging targets. If the first sentence was the real intent the last sentence should say "Competitors may NOT cross any opening (doorways, windows, open spaces, etc) unless all targets visible from cover had been engaged."... or something like that.

[Steve J]

I can handle it. I already did stages for next month with all the movement at the beginning of the stages, but I did like the occasional popper or two on the move between positions of cover. But I can also live without it. It caused a lot of unrealistic shooting where they had to be taken "on the move", so the not-so-lucky or good would have to back up, move forward again, back up, and so on. Very artificial.

[Steve J]

Many IDPA rules seem unclear- to me at least. The first sentence seems very clear. Then in the last sentence the way I interpret it means that I CAN cross a door, etc if I AM engaging targets. If the first sentence was the real intent the last sentence should say "Competitors may NOT cross any opening (doorways, windows, open spaces, etc) unless all targets visible from cover had been engaged."... or something like that.

It means you have to stop at the opening and shoot targets from cover in tactical priority from the side of the opening you first come to. If you cross to the other side to shoot them or shoot them while crossing, you've broken cover and earned a procedural. I don't think that's something new. It just needed to be emphasized to get everyone to do it correctly.

[lugnut]

Many IDPA rules seem unclear- to me at least. The first sentence seems very clear. Then in the last sentence the way I interpret it means that I CAN cross a door, etc if I AM engaging targets. If the first sentence was the real intent the last sentence should say "Competitors may NOT cross any opening (doorways, windows, open spaces, etc) unless all targets visible from cover had been engaged."... or something like that.

It means you have to stop at the opening and shoot targets from cover in tactical priority from the side of the opening you first come to. If you cross to the other side to shoot them or shoot them while crossing, you've broken cover and earned a procedural. I don't think that's something new. It just needed to be emphasized to get everyone to do it correctly.

Steve- that's the way I've always interpreted it as well. My point is I think the "clarification" didn't work. Reread the last sentence of the new rules- it doesn't say "engageD" it says "engagING". I personally think it's not the best way to explain.

[GmanCdp]

so is a stage like this gone now??

or this link stage 11 2010 texas state.at 5.30 mins to 5.55 mins. shooting on the move..

[rvb]

in the last sentence the way I interpret it means that I CAN cross a door, etc if I AM engaging targets.

That was how I read the update, too...

My first thought was "COOL, options on how to shoot stages!" I figured it might force some decisions on when to reload vs leaving cover while engaging, etc. Then I did some reading at idpaforum and see I'm way off how most of the ACs and HQ interpret that rule.

I can't fathom showing up at a major right now. I read the rules and the updates. I was sure I understoond them. I'm now sure I'm wrong. I have no idea what the cover rules are anymore.

-rvb

Edited July 21, 2010 by rvb

[Steve J]

That would be a change to having to shoot from cover and not exposing yourself to unengaged targets. That would be a BIG departure from the status quo, and I do not believe that is what was meant. "Competitors may not cross any opening without engaging targets." You're trying to read in "while moving across the opening" when it would be much more logical to read it as "without engaging targets first" Do we really need a clarification of something this basic to IDPA shooting? I think not.

When cover is available, it MUST be used when shooting unless

the competitor starts in the open and must engage targets while

on the way to cover. If cover is available anywhere in the COF it

must be used for reloading. Competitors may NOT cross any

opening (doorways, windows, open spaces, etc) without

engaging targets.

ETA: The last sentence has to be a further emphasis of the first sentence - "when cover is available, it MUST be used when shooting". You're trying to make the last sentence contradict the first sentence with emphasis on MUST. You're reading it wrong.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Steve J

[John Z Sr]

There is no real way to interpret the rules, by design?, just do what I do and ask before load and make ready, and shoot it the way the SO says, then hope the other SO's call things the same way

[rvb]

That would be a change ... a BIG departure from the status quo, and I do not believe that is what was meant. .... Do we really need a clarification of something this basic to IDPA shooting? I think not.

I was not reading this with pre-conceived interpretations, status-quo or otherwise. I thought this WAS the clarification.

You're trying to read in X when it would be much more logical to read it as Y"

I'm just reading what's there and trying to understand it; not assuming any other words are there.

You're trying to make the last sentence contradict the first sentence with emphasis on MUST. You're reading it wrong.

The writers of the rule added the contradiction, not me... that's why I can't figure it out on my own, w/o searching out third party interpretations.

You're reading it wrong.

That much I've figured out. haha.

-rvb

ps

And I still don't see how to differentiate what interpretations on idpaforum are "official." No one's answered that for me yet. It's a discussion forum, but just for "discussing rules" according to the announcement. So who's interpretation is right, officially? They missed a great opportunity to define an official rule-clarification repository, imo.

-rvb

Edited July 21, 2010 by rvb

[Chris Christian]

Everytime HQ "clarifies" the rules they just seem to muddy the waters more and leave more for "creative interpretation". I love IDPA. Just wish they'd clarify a bit better.

Chris Christian

[Steve J]

And I still don't see how to differentiate what interpretations on idpaforum are "official." No one's answered that for me yet. It's a discussion forum, but just for "discussing rules" according to the announcement. So who's interpretation is right, officially? They missed a great opportunity to define an official rule-clarification repository, imo.

-rvb

There is one specific forum called Rule Clarifications. That has always been a place to post clarifications received from HQ. The forum owner told me that HQ now has control of that section to post clarifications they believe are necessary. The rest of the forum is just a discussion area.

[ben b.]

Competitors may NOT cross any opening (doorways, windows, open spaces, etc) without engaging targets.

I agree. As written, it means you can't cross an opening unless engaging targets. It doesn't say "engaging targets first/having engaged targets visible from the opening" or anything else. It is left open to interpretation. And that is bad.

[Chris Christian]

Just a stray thought... but any time rules require a great deal of "interpretation" from a number of learned parties, it would seem to me that said rules are not written with a great deal of thought regarding circumstance, nor clarity regarding consistent results.

Chris Christian

[ben b.]

I assume the clarification means "without first engaging targets", based on my experience with and understanding of IDPA. But the clarifcation does not sy that and there is a problem in assuming "scholarly familiarity with IDPA", and that anyone reading the rules is in tune with the IDPA tradition and history and internet tribal knowledge. Any written rules should be plainly written and clear, without needing to be interpreted with fidelity to that history.

I can envision a "real" stage where you are hauling ass to get to the room from whence emit the screams of your loved one, and fire a few thru the door/window at a visible miscreant in your backyard without stopping to take cover or evaluate hits. Particularly since most invading hordes of garden-variety mongrels vacate when the gunfire starts.

[ben b.]

...But I can also live without it. It caused a lot of unrealistic shooting where they had to be taken "on the move", so the not-so-lucky or good would have to back up, move forward again, back up, and so on. Very artificial.

I hate when that happens. I'd rather they shoot while moving (as intended), and re-engage once reaching cover. I make my stages do that. I usually say "engage T1-T3 while moving to cover. Can reengage T1-T3 after reaching cover." If they want to hose a few on the way to cover and then take careful aim to clean up, fine. If they want to baby-step while getting their hits and then run, fine. If they want to move quickly and get scorable hits, righteousness is theirs.

[Steve J]

For all of you who think the rule is not written particularly clearly, it's like the Second Amendment. The opening phrase is open to misinterpretation, but the main clause is crystal clear. "What part of the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed don't you understand."

It's the same here. What part of when cover is available, it MUST be used when shooting unless

the competitor starts in the open and must engage targets while on the way to cover don't you understand?

That part is crystal clear and any attempt to misinterpret the last sentence should be set aside as with the Second Amendment.

Just a thought.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Steve J

[ben b.]

It is the 2nd half of the 2nd Amendmemnt that is the crystal clear part: "..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What of moving past a window where only head, arms and gun are exposed, with torso etc covered by structure? This would constitute cover if leaning out from a Bianchi.

Edited July 22, 2010 by ben b.

[Steve J]

It is the 2nd half of the 2nd Amendmemnt that is the crystal clear part: "..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What of moving past a window where only head, arms and gun are exposed, with torso etc covered by structure? This would constitute cover if leaning out from a Bianchi.

Senior moment. You saw before I caught it.

Windows and ports are to be treated just like a door or edge of a wall.

Competitors may NOT cross any opening (doorways, windows, open spaces, etc)

You know. I think MUST and NOT are in caps in this addendum for a reason. You MUST shoot from cover and you may NOT cross any opening (read: without having shot from cover first).

That's enough I think. On to another thread.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Steve J

[rvb]

and you may NOT cross any opening (read: without having shot from cover first).

You're right, it does seem really obvious [when you leave out part of the rule and replace it with your own words].

As for the 2A relation, well, the 2A clauses clarify, not contradict. Maybe if the 2A said "... shall NOT be infringed. Private arms may not be confiscated unless during the occurrence of a National emergency." See how I put NOT in all caps? See how it doesn't matter?

Steve, I agree with you. Im not trying to be arguementative. I'm sure that's what is "intended." I'm sure that's how I'd have to shoot it at a match. My beef isn't with how people are interpreting it, because, well, that's how IDPA works. I just wish HQ put 2 minutes into proofreading stuff they publish, and maybe get some 3rd party input (ie from people who don't know their intent).

Had I not expected the application to be different than the true words and sought out internet chatter on it, I'd have gone to some major and eaten a pile of PEs after crossing an opening while engaging targets. That's wrong.

-rvb

Edited July 22, 2010 by rvb

[rvb]

The forum owner told me that ...

So if people ask me as an SO why I rule a certain way, I say "Some guy on the internet [steve] told me that some guy on a forum [Ted] said that it's an official interpretation...."

I would just like IDPA to assign a job title or board title to make rulings official, and have rulings in an official place, and publish in the rules where that is... make it seem just a shade professional. They were oh so close to doing that in their announcement. Currently, the only thing official is the online rulebook...

"NOTE: The rulebook posted on the IDPA website

(www.idpa.com) will be the most current issue."

-rvb

[Glock3422]

Of all the rule "clarifications" this one seems to have caused the most confusion. Even people to seem to have had input, don't understand the wording.

The rule book was very clear in regard to the use of cover. If there was cover available, it had to be used for shooting and reloading.

The additional words are contrary to the existing rule, and unclear as to intent.

I know what has been said on the unofficial/official forum, but it is unofficial opinion expressed by people who seem to have a firm point of view.

I could not be more confused by the clarification if it was in Chinese.

IDPA has outsourced responsibility at their peril.

The "official" rule clarification board is outdated and in conflict with current views. It really needs to be cleaned up.

The commonly expressed view of what was intended effectively prevents a course designer from utilizing any scenario that requires a competitor to enter a doorway or venture down a hall. If true, IDPA is about to become very boring.

I expect if this view is ultimately ratified, we will be shooting an odd version of PPC.

I wouldn't want to be a Match Director with a major event coming up.

[lugnut]

There is no real way to interpret the rules, by design?, just do what I do and ask before load and make ready, and shoot it the way the SO says, then hope the other SO's call things the same way

That is the best advice for new and not so new shooters- sometimes we have to "adapt" to what some SOs want.

[Merlin Orr]

The forum owner told me that ...

So if people ask me as an SO why I rule a certain way, I say "Some guy on the internet [steve] told me that some guy on a forum [Ted] said that it's an official interpretation...."

I would just like IDPA to assign a job title or board title to make rulings official, and have rulings in an official place, and publish in the rules where that is... make it seem just a shade professional. They were oh so close to doing that in their announcement. Currently, the only thing official is the online rulebook...

"NOTE: The rulebook posted on the IDPA website

(www.idpa.com) will be the most current issue."

-rvb

Is the lack of clearly written rules done so to prevent people from reading the rulebook and somehow gaming out thinking those who wrote the rules.?

To Me - A lot of the time it seems to be design of IDPA to allow every person with a timer to individually decide what is legal based upon their particular interpretation of intent or what they feel should be enforced at their match. Unfortunately it seems that even those who shoot a Lot of IDPA have widely varying opinions about what the same rules says and means. Also just as unfortunate is the "its clear to me and if you don't agree your an idiot" position that some appointed and self appointed IDPA RuleMeisters seem to display....

Denying there is a problem does not actually mean there is no problem.

[Greg Bell]

Merlin,

You nailed it with that last sentence.

I consider myself to be fairly astute but I apparently didn't understand this whole "opening" thing. I read what was written without trying to divine some hidden meaning.

edit for typo

Edited July 22, 2010 by Greg Bell