Is this gaming?

[Jeremiah]

Picture this:

You are on an airplane. You are standing in the middle isle looking at the other passengers. A guy stands up in the back in the center isle and pulls a gun on you. You pull your gun and shoot him. After you shoot him, his buddies start for there guns, after seeing this, you finish them off.

This was done by a knock over steel plate in the back. The plate gets knocked over and shows a letter on the stand. The letter gets changed everything shooter, so you don't know what letter you get until you knock over the steel. Well, every passenger has a letter on his head. There are nine passengers, with only three letters, so there are three of each letter. You need to double tap each of the bad guys. The stage said that you had to shoot 7 times max.

Ok, here is my question. I drew, shot the steel and out comes a "y". Well, I shoot the first passenger labeled "y" in the first row, and then see that the other two y's are perfecting lined up in my vision of site. So, I crouch a little and shoot four shots into the A of the one in front and they go threw him because he's soft cover and into the other "y".

I shot the required number of rounds, 7. I also neutralized every target.

Was Shooting the back target through the target in front of it gaiming? You bet I done it on purpose, I thought it was pretty slick.

How would of you scored it?

I'm really new to IDPA, so if this is a 'no-brainer', sorry for wasting your time.

By the way, I took what they gave me and didn't complain about it, and marked it up as a lesson learned.

[JD45]

All I can say is where I shoot they say,"If you can shoot through it's not hard cover."

[Ron Ankeny]

I would say it's just poor course design. Anyhow, the course needs to be scored as per the requirements, Vickers, Limited Vickers, etc. If the shooter is specifically required to engage each target with only two rounds, you racked up a bunch of problems.

[mcoliver]

Does the IDPA rule specifically state all targets are not shoot-throughs? Or can the designer state them to be shoot-through targets?

[Mark Perez]

Scoring Issues:

On shoot throughs of non-threat targets that also strike a shoot target, the contestant will get the 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.

I guess it’s safe to say that a round that goes thru a shoot target and hits another shoot target counts .

Your solution while acceptable in regards to scoring issues – borders on a FTDR.

Refer to Competition Rule 2.

2. Any attempt to circumvent or compromise the spirit or rationale of any stage either by the use of inappropriate devices, equipment, or technique, will incur a twenty (20) second penalty (Vickers Count Stage) or a two hundred (200) point penalty (PAR Time Stage); this is the "FAILURE TO DO RIGHT RULE".

From what you are describing ,you purposely aligned the the second and third targets so as not to have to reposition a shot(s) on “Y3”. This is in contradiction with the stated Pupose and Principles of IDPA.

Fwiw – I would have just given you a PE - if that , since it was the duty of the stage designer to prevent this type of thing.

How did it rule out in the end??

Mark

[Jake Di Vita]

Shouldn't even be a procedural. If it doesn't say you can't, and it says in the rule book shoot throughs count. How can you justify giving a procedural?

[Mark Perez]

Shouldn't even be a procedural. If it doesn't say you can't, and it says in the rule book shoot throughs count. How can you justify giving a procedural?

The shoot thru's are not considered for a PE - it is the way in which he got them that I question. re: the FTDR.

Since I wasn't there to witness the stage , other shooters or the actions of the poster , it's difficult to offer a clear concise answer - that's why I said "...I would have just given you a PE - if that " .

It is clear that whoever the SO was at the time did think a PE was warranted by Jeremiah's last sentence ..

By the way, I took what they gave me and didn't complain about it, and marked it up as a lesson learned.

Hope that makes sense ,

Mark

[Jake Di Vita]

I respectfully disagree. If the targets were set up in a way that a legal position allows you to get a shoot through, it is no fault of the shooter.

I just don't believe someone should be penalized on the design of a stage. If we aren't supposed to be able to hit 2 targets with only 2 rounds, don't position them in a way that we can.

[JFD]

The rules + bad stage design makes this perfectly legal. I wouldn't have blinked an eye at your solution. You still had to fire 4 accurate shots, and can't be blamed for the poor stage design. You managed to skip a transition, but the crouch may have killed that time savings if the targets are as close as they sound. Had to be there to know for sure.

Now if you tried to only fire 5 shots, using the 2 hits on the front target to also count as 2 hits on the rear target, I would say that was gaming the COF. I still wouldn't have given you a penalty based on the "7 rounds max", which in theory gives you leeway on the "min"side, plus the fact that targets are treated as soft cover, but even for a die-hard USPSA shooter this would have to be considered a violation of the "spirit" of the game and would leave you wide open for a penalty of some sort, depending on how charitable the SO was feeling. I'm guessing the average SO wouldn't feel too charitable at that solution.

[Mark Perez]

I respectfully disagree. If the targets were set up in a way that a legal position allows you to get a shoot through, it is no fault of the shooter.

I just don't believe someone should be penalized on the design of a stage. If we aren't supposed to be able to hit 2 targets with only 2 rounds, don't position them in a way that we can.

Exactly , which is why I would be be more inclined to go with a lesser penalty - again , if any - than something as harsh as a FTDR.

Question ,

On the other 2 choices , were the same conditions of shoot thru's present ?

Or did the advantage go only to those who drew a "Y" ?

Mark

[Mark Perez]

to answer the original question :

is this gaming?

Yes , it is.

Mark

[Scooter]

I would give you 1 procedural for crouching. Usually shoot throughs are really hard to set up for and you end up wasting more time.

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

I think the procedural would come if the course description stated "Engage each threat target with 2 rounds" If it was not stated this way, there would be no PE. If it was there would be as you engaged one of the threats with four that just happened to strike another.

Is is gaming? If you had to ask, you knew it was

Regards,

[Jeremiah]

"Is is gaming? If you had to ask, you knew it was."

You betcha.....

But, I didn't think I actually broke any rules. I shot the required number of times, I neutralized all the targets, and I didn't come out of the area that you had to stay in to shoot.

The only rules that you can say I broke was "not following the intention of the stage," or gaming.

I got a PE, but that was after they talked about a FTDR.

Heck, at the end of the day, I ended up losing CDP by 3.5 seconds. So, that's another lesson learned, PE's are not good, I actually had three of them on the day. The other two were not using cover and stopping to shoot a guy that I was supposed to be moving while shooting. Those were two no brainers.

[Ron Ankeny]

I think you guys need to remember it's IDPA not IPSC. The more gamey and obnoxious a shooter gets by waving the rulebook around, the more likely he/she is to receive a generic wrist slapping in the form of a FTDR. Afterall, part of the intent of discretionary power by the SO in such areas as FTDR is to eliminate gaming.

Face it, you lined two targets up on purpose to gain an advantage and that flies right in the face of the spirit of IDPA. The SO would be perfectly within bounds to issue a FTDR.

There comes a time when each shooter needs to decide if they want to come on board and be a part of what IDPA is all about, or continue to bitch and holler about the roots of the sport and the rules. If you want to game it and take a risk, be prepared to pay the price.

[Jeremiah]

Well, lets get back on track here. I said in my first post that I didn't complain, I just wanted an explanation. I also said that I'm a rookie IDPA'er and I just wanted to know how other clubs would of handled the same situation.

I've admitted doing this to take a competitive advantage a few different times in these posts that I've made. I'm not moaning and groaning or anything of the like.

I was just curious. I took my PE and I'll be back next month.

[Flexmoney]

Jeremiah,

While I can't speak for Ron, I don't think he meant you were whining. I think what he was saying was that he thought there were two options...

- Get in step...or

- go against the grain and expect penalties

[DogmaDog]

Man...here's my take:

Crouching behind one bad guy so that you have cover from another is tactically sound.

If bullets go through all targets and can strike other targets, then you are just as susceptible to shoot throughs on no-shoots as you are to scoring two hits for one shot on shoot targets. This works the same for every shooter, so lining up shoot throughs should be fair game. If the stage setup was such that shooters who got X and Z didn't have the same opportunity, then the stage should be thrown out.

Only thing you should have done differently is fire only 2 shots on the second Y target, and score 4 hits for them.

You saw a clever solution to the problem you were presented with, and you implemented it. It's unfortunate that that gets penalized in IDPA. It's also true that SOs could probably assess a PE (or two) or an FTDR and get it to stick at almost any IDPA club.

DogmaDog

[Jeremiah]

Dog, I think the description of the course of fire said that you had to shoot all 7 shots. (To require a reload) That's why I shot four times at the second target.

We have zero IPSC around here, so I'm going to "fly right" and try to get good at IDPA. I'm from a archery slash metallic silhouette background (very slow, deliberate, extremely accurate type of shooting), so shooting fast is really new to me. Heck, in an IBO tournament, you have a whole two minutes to take a single shot, in a NFAA tournament, you have 4 minutes to take five shots, and in an IHMSA match, you have two and a half minutes to make five shots. So, everything fast is entirely new and exciting and fun.

[Ron Ankeny]

Jeremiah:

Flex spoke well for me. My comments weren't directed at you at all. I have noticed that people do a lot of questioning (sometimes complainig) about IDPA and what appears to be silly rules, range nazis, and too much authority bestowed upon the SO. All I am saying, is IDPA has as a fundamental premise "no gaming". In IPSC, we have the rule book. In IDPA, we have the rulebook and the "spirit of the game".

[Practical Use]

Gaming - sure.

Within the spirit of IDPA - no.

Poor course design - yes.

Had I been the S.O. it would have been a FTDR.

In IPSC, we have the rule book. In IDPA, we have the rulebook and the "spirit of the game".

- yup!!!

Ed

[John Dunn]

My reply would violate forum guidelines, so I'll post this frowny face.

[Ron Ankeny]

John:

You know I would have shot right through the near target and into the far one don't you?

[rhino]

This makes me want to put a line of five or six targets right in front of the shooter. It would be interesting to see who just blazes two shots into the front and who starts running to the side to shoot each individually.

[GRD]

We do not allow people to 'set up' shoot-throughs at our club. It clearly violates the 'spirit of the stage'. While we don't typically give out FTDR's to new shooters, we will tell them that what they did is not kosher and explain why. Experienced shooters would be courting FTDR's.

By setting up a shoot-through you are very clearly using a technique that is outside the design intent of the stage to gain competitive advantage. I just don't buy the 'legitimate tactic' nonsense. Find me a trainier (anyone, anywhere) who would advocate such a move and I'll concede the point.

- Gabe