You Are The SO II

[omnia1911]

Omina

as a SO i would see if he got the hits on the no shoot if he got a FTN probabally not an FTDR just a pat on the back and let it be known he should not have done that. also if the COF stated to go down there (which if i were teh SO it would) it's a procedural too.

i would make this real simple, spray paint a circle on the ground and say from position 1 engage T1 behind nonthreat target from Position 2 engage remaineder of targets in tactical sequence/priority or whatever applies.

much of these little rule gripes you have can be removed by you standing there at the stage thining just like your doing now. GOOD match directors and RO's trouble shoot stages.

i would NOT change the course after it had been shot. dependant on what he said about it when ased he may or may not get an FTDR if it's the 3rd from last place finisher who can't see through his glasses i'll believe he couldn't see it. if its a master with perfect vision it's FTDR time. i like to give a complete heads up (there Might be a no-shoot back there)

GunGeek we do black hands all the time in WV and OH matches adn i've seen pictures of them elsewhere too. .... one really evil thing to do is one hand up a gun/knife in the other.

Steve

The scenario that I gave for this post was strictly fictional, and was used to put the LGB into context.

I'm just examining what is and what isn't in IDPA. Glad you could participate in the discussion.

[omnia1911]

As a MD I designed a number of stages where there were non-threats behind threats and vice versa. Why? Because that as they say, "simulates life". It's my way of forcing shooters to think, to move, to remember gun safety rule #4. If you just stand there and do not try to get a clear shot and shoot through the non threats or threats and hit the non-threats, you've earned the FTDR and all the associated penalties. This is not contradictory in the rule book. If that were so, then swingers and movers have no place in an IDPA.

You don't find these two statements in the LGB contradictory?

1. On shoot throughs of non-threat tagrets that also strike a shoot target, the contestant will ge thte penalty for the non-threat target hit, and will get credit for the scored hit on the shoot target. The reverse also applies when a round on a shoot target penetrates a non-threat behind it. Hence the rule: all shoot throughs count.

2. Non-threat targets shall not be located so that they will be hit when threat targets are struck.

[Mayonaise]

You don't find these two statements in the LGB contradictory?

1. On shoot throughs of non-threat tagrets that also strike a shoot target, the contestant will ge thte penalty for the non-threat target hit, and will get credit for the scored hit on the shoot target. The reverse also applies when a round on a shoot target penetrates a non-threat behind it. Hence the rule: all shoot throughs count.

2. Non-threat targets shall not be located so that they will be hit when threat targets are struck.

No

[kdmoore]

I'll chime in with an additional comment.

Stage would definitely been talked about with MD prior to shooting.

I give a FTDR, because if I'm the SO I've anticipated this "gaming" move and announced during my walkthru that:

Hitting the non threat in the COM without advancing to a better position will = a FTDR.

Of course, if I'm squadded up I'd talk with the SO's about doing this consistently. If they don't concur, then at the very least I'd pre announce that anyone I deemed trying to save time by shooting a non threat will get the FTDR.

I guess my point is this. When I anticipate a gamer move, I pre communicate it with the MD, SO's and shooters. I'm pretty up front about these things.

[John Forsyth]

omnia, I think you have missed the whole point of the statement.

2. Non-threat targets shall not be located so that they will be hit when threat targets are struck.

This was made so that someone could not literally put a non-threat on top of or behind a threat target. If you can move right or left, forwards or backwards, and engage the threat target without hitting the non-threat, then the rule has been met.

By following your literal interpretation, there would be no point in having non-threats. But as you are playing devil's advocate, you missed the point of the rule on purpose.

[omnia1911]

omnia, I think you have missed the whole point of the statement. 

2. Non-threat targets shall not be located so that they will be hit when threat targets are struck.

This was made so that someone could not literally put a non-threat on top of or behind a threat target.  If you can move right or left, forwards or backwards, and engage the threat target without hitting the non-threat, then the rule has been met.

By following your literal interpretation, there would be no point in having non-threats. But as you are playing devil's advocate, you missed the point of the rule on purpose.

.....

[Robert Carr]

"That makes the statement in the LGB, Non-threat targets shall not be located so that they will be hit when threat targets are struck, even more of a brain twister. "

I think the rule was "clarified" to eliminate the shooter traps that some clubs began using of "stacking" the NT either directly behind or in front of the threat target, so there was no possibility of avoiding the NT. Given a few inches of separation, and by stepping off-line, it should be possible to engage the threat target and avoid the NT.

[scandog]

I see the fun never ends.

Don't let snokid hear about this, but I have to for the most part agree with Mayonaise. Shooting through a threat target on purpose to hit a threat target and eliminate movement is a FTDR. You can tell who is doing it on purpose most of the time. If it was a new shooter who didn't understand the course description, I might just give the Non-Threat and PE, but most of the guys I shoot with would get a FTDR.

I don't agree with the placement of not-Threats behind threat targets though. I have never done it and I hove only seen it done once. There is a reason you don't do this. The hands are not always visible on non-threats when placed behind threat targets. It is a shooter trap to place them that way. USPSA uses a different color target to identify non-threats, because IDPA uses the same color, you have to have this rule.

I also don't think this is a bad stage as described. The use of non-threat targets to force movement is encouraged in the LGB. I do this all the time. I wish we could use more non-threats and the penalty was increased. I think 10 seconds rather than 5 and score each hit. If you shoot it 2 times, you get 20 seconds. It would force shooter to make their shot. We have a few that can actualy out shoot the penalty.

Stepping off soap box now.

[Scooter]

I don't see anywhere in the rule where you can't stick multiple no-shoot targets behind each other. That would be one way to get more penalty points out of no shoots.