Is This Legal

[EEH]

Shot idpa this weekend--stage--three walls six ft.x eight ft.all side by side,four targets behind each wall,cof--SO- puts hats on the targets he wants you to shoot-9- shots total--no one looks he changes hats on targets for every shooter--so no shooter shot the same COF --except for 9 shot total--none of the targets were marked good guy's,,some did have part of the target painted,,only one shot in each target-down -O - or down -1- is this OK?????????????????????/

[MichiganShootist]

The rule book carefully defines how non-threat targets are to be painted... this apparently wasn't the case.....

But at local club matches I have seen much much worse.

[Steve Koski]

They goofed a bit. Non-threats MUST have hand or hands.

They should have made some "hands" cardboard hangers and hung them on the non-threat targets. This way you can move the non-threats around, and still be 100% compliant with the rules. You can also move around gun/knife hangers if you want, but it's not required.

Page 47

Threat targets may be designated by the painting of a gun or

clipping the cutout of a gun on the target. This target designation

is not mandatory, but is highly recommended. In no case should a

gun and an open hand be positioned on the same target. Targets

should be clearly designated as threat or non-threat.

Non-threat targets MUST be designated by the painting of an open

hand or hands on the target or, in the case of a target

[DeweyH]

A few years ago they had a stage similar to this at the Nationals. Basically there were 5-6 targets behind a wall with a port with a door on it. When the buzzer went off you opened the port and shot 3 targets that had hats or guns and the targets changed for each shooter. So it may very well be legal. It is not the same test for each competitor. Some shooters will get easy targets and others may be a little harder. In my opinion that is not very fair.

[Shibby]

They goofed a bit. Non-threats MUST have hand or hands.

They should have made some "hands" cardboard hangers and hung them on the non-threat targets. This way you can move the non-threats around, and still be 100% compliant with the rules. You can also move around gun/knife hangers if you want, but it's not required.

This and since there are fewer non threats than threats on any given stage it is easier to move the non threats than threats.

If it was a sanctioned match I wouldn't really like the described stage, but at a local match it seems like good fun.

[Steve Koski]

As far as "fair" goes, if one shooter has to shoot a target mostly covered in black paint (hard cover) and the next guy doesn't have any hard cover on his targets, that's not quite fair.

Things don't have to be EXACTLY the same for each shooter, but the course designer should make sure that things are reasonably similar.

Koski

[Nuke8401]

CoF 21. After the match has started, all course design changes

are final. CoF cannot be changed unless all competitors that

have previously completed the stage get to re-shoot it.

Sounds like a change to the COF to me. So in my book, not a legal stage.

Like others have said, I have seen much worse.

[freeidaho]

COF has way too many non-threats too.

kr

[astephenson]

CoF 21. After the match has started, all course design changes

are final. CoF cannot be changed unless all competitors that

have previously completed the stage get to re-shoot it.

Sounds like a change to the COF to me. So in my book, not a legal stage.

Like others have said, I have seen much worse.

This isn't a course design change.

[Nuke8401]

This isn't a course design change.

Swapping a threat target with a non-threat target is not a course design change????????

WellArmedSheep,

You’re just kidding right? Just shinning me on right?

Trying to get me to violate the forum rules for sarcasm?

Do I know you?

You can't be serious!

Dave E.

[astephenson]

I'm just saying that this particular course of fire was designed to be different for every shooter, and each shooter knew that the threat/non-threats would change between shooters. The "course design" has not changed, only the layout (for lack of a better word).

I'm not saying that the stage is legal, I'm just saying that the illegality is not due to the threat/non-threats changing.

How they're designated, on the other hand isn't legit.

Edited September 21, 2010 by WellArmedSheep

[Forrest Halley]

1. Was this a sanctioned match?

2. I have shot a couple matches in IDPA format where they made you think on the fly by painting two targets out of four red and two black and threats were designated by the color of the last card drawn from a shuffled deck. Looking back upon this I think it was a good move and the experience was equally disrupting for everyone. So you couldn't game it out ahead of time...oh well. If you're playing the game enjoy it. If you're trying to use it as training it works all the better. How else do you illustrate a developing threat?

[Chuckie45]

The non-threat marking maybe dismissed if they're not truely non-threats(i.e. no penalty for shooting them). Was there a penalty for shooting the non-hat targets?

I have shot stages where half the target were maked green and half were red. You found out which ones you were shooting after the buzzer. There was no penalty if you shot the wrong color, just points down for what you were supposed to shoot.