RickB Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 My Area Coordinator wrote, or conceived of, anyway, both of the rules being discussed. We conducted a SO class about a week after the addendum was published, so we spent plenty of time discussing the new rules. Despite what the rules may appear to say, the intent of the shooting-on-the-move rule is that no shots be fired while moving between cover positions; if there's cover here, and cover there, engage from cover. The port/window/open-ground rule requires that any threats visible from one side of the port/window must be engaged before crossing. The wording of that rule is terrible, but that's the intent. I'm not a fan of the first rule, as it severely limits stage design. A bread-and-butter stage for many years at our club was, "shoot to cover, then engage from cover, then engage while moving to the next cover postion, then engage from cover." A hundred variations on that theme have been done, but apparently, no more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glock3422 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Did you help your AC draft the rule? Just askin. I don't know what kind of problem you are trying to fix, but it can't be as bad as the problem you have created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickB Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Did you help your AC draft the rule? Just askin. I don't know what kind of problem you are trying to fix, but it can't be as bad as the problem you have created. I won't take "you" personally. I had no input on any of the rules (or, more accurately, none of my 10-15 suggestions was acted upon). The problem, is the lack of "realism" in shooters taking baby steps and shuffling along as they try to get good hits out in the open, when the "smart" thing to do would be to hussle to cover before you get shot. The two rules work hand in hand; you have to engage visible threats before leaving cover, and if the targets appear after leaving, you keep moving to the next cover position to engage. Just as the slidelock reload is the "normal" IDPA reload, engaging from cover will be the "normal" IDPA engagement. If you really want to "get around" the rule, you could use pop-ups or drop-turners that are visible only while out in the open, and so not engageable from cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 If we can manage to keep this away from "real world shooting" on the one hand and "let's insult the way the Rule Book/addendum is written" on the other, I'll be able to leave this thread open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lugnut Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Duane- I think the point of this thread is that the addendum was supposed to clarify the use of cover- most of us understand the intent- I think. However in IDPA's attempt to clarify things- they did the opposite IMO. I don't consider that insulting- but more of an observation. I think we even included possible better ways to write the intent. This is not unique to IDPA as we know. And like many on this thread I also run lots of local matches and am working on a major sanctioned match- these things will haunt us unless what is written it perfectly clear. High level shooters challenge the SOs all the time so clarity is king for these matches IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Dave - In general that is true. I'm referring to posts containing things like: 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. or 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. that (1) really serve no useful purpose, (2) violate the rules for posting in the IDPA forum. Just a pointer for the membership: any time you feel tempted to voice your opinion in this forum on how IDPA matches and/or rules relate to real-world self-defense, or your long-term dissatisfaction with the Rule Book....don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Closed pending moderator discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts