Engaging steel targets

[Lofty]

Rule 2.15 provides that steel targets must be engaged from 10yds or more....

I recently completed the Candidate SO test in which I was asked the question whether a steel popper could be engaged at a distance of 7 yds when the Cof stated that target to be engaged fro P1 (10 yds ) what penalty was to apply...

I gave a PE !!!!!.....the answer came back DQ ???

I still have not found the rule which requires that

Can anyone help..

[The_Vigilante]

The only thing I can think of is that this would be a safety violation. Shooting a steel target at 7 yards could cause a ricochet which could hit another shooter, oneself, SO, or a non-shooter watching.

[Lofty]

Thanks V.....that was also my impression....given that the reference to the steel targets is in the safety section...

other references to DQ are very specific....LOL

[hkguy]

The only thing I can think of is that this would be a safety violation. Shooting a steel target at 7 yards could cause a ricochet which could hit another shooter, oneself, SO, or a non-shooter watching.

I have been hit by shrapnel from steel poppers and plates that was a good 30 yards away.

[sperman]

I don't know how you can come to the conclusion that the shooter is to be DQ'd.

2.15. Steel targets must be engaged from ten yards (9.1 meters) or more

This is the only thing I can find in the 2013 rulebook. This isn't in 2.2, which deals with unsafe gun handling. No penalty is listed if the shooter engages steel closer than 10 yards.

[The_Vigilante]

One reason: Because the IDPA stated that a DQ was the correct answer. The rulebook cannot cover all situations that could ever come up. I think you would agree that this would be a safety violation since it very well could result in someone getting hit by a richochet.

Edited September 16, 2013 by The_Vigilante

[Bones]

I agree that no rulebook can list all possible unsafe situations.

However, the engagement of steel at distances shorter than 10 yd was specifically and explicitly identified by the authors. Confusion might result in that other explicitly stated safety violations - such as fingers in the trigger guard when not engaging targets - incur 3.0 second penalties for their first occurrence. DQs are incurred after a specified number of occurrences (Section 2.6, 2.6.1 and 2.6.2)

It is easy to understand how a rational, experienced Action pistol competitor would seek clarity for consistencies sake, esp. given: 1) the seriousness of the potential penalty (DQ) and 2) that other, similar sports have shorter minimum steel engagement distances (where the consequences are clearly defined). SOs who also compete and work in other sports could legitimately not consider 10 yd an unsafe distance, and therefore may not consider engagement from 9 yd a DQ’able offense, but rather a non-conformance (3.0 second) penalty – esp. on its first occurrence using the stated logic and rational derived from Section 2.6.

It would be clearer to explicitly define the consequences to the explicitly identified act.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Bones

[The_Vigilante]

I heartily agree-take it up with IDPA HQ's. I would also point out that the rule regarding shooting steel targets at 10-yards is in the "Safety" section of the new rule book and any violation of a safety rule is supposed to result in a DQ

Edited September 17, 2013 by The_Vigilante

[Cd662]

"It would be clearer to explicitly define the consequences to the explicitly identified act."

Quoted for truth.

[fiftyyrds]

I've shot a considerable amount of steel over a concrete floor. I can tell you for sure that pistol round will come back 15 yards.

[GARD72977]

I don't mean this to sound like it comes out but why would you want to engage a steel target that close. Was the course set up in a way that made you go back to hit the popper? It seems like the course should be set to keep this from happening

[Craig N]

The only time I have seen this come up is with people shooting a popper later than is available by going sticking to one side of a "hall". It was a state match and we were told in the walk through about the safety issue and what would happen if we shot it past the marked point on the ground (spray paint).

Quoted

whether a steel popper could be engaged at a distance of 7 yds when the Cof stated that target to be engaged fro P1 (10 yds ) what penalty was to apply...

If that is the actual way the question is worded it is "poorly worded". It needs a "must" in there somewhere. Distance Estimation isn't something a shooter should be required to do at speed for application of a safety rule. Lord knows I'm the worse at it!

[sjz]

Rule 2.15 provides that steel targets must be engaged from 10yds or more....

I recently completed the Candidate SO test in which I was asked the question whether a steel popper could be engaged at a distance of 7 yds when the Cof stated that target to be engaged fro P1 (10 yds ) what penalty was to apply...

I gave a PE !!!!!.....the answer came back DQ ???

I still have not found the rule which requires that

Can anyone help..

The text book answer is that the rules say that a safety violation is a DQ. Shooting at steel is unsafe per the safety section 2.

The rule book, in the unsafe gun handling section should be amended to specifically indicate shootong at steel <10 yds is a DQ. USPSA has it worded this way, ironically the USPSA distance is approx 7 yds..

[motosapiens]

There is no real excuse for not explicitly

One reason: Because the IDPA stated that a DQ was the correct answer. The rulebook cannot cover all situations that could ever come up. I think you would agree that this would be a safety violation since it very well could result in someone getting hit by a richochet.

Well, I have a rulebook for another sport that appears to do a much clearer job of covering DQ's, in particular the minimum distance to steel. If the course of fire is set up so that a reasonable person *could* engage steel from closer than the minimum distance, I would say that is a failure on the part of the stage designer or setup crew.

[BillR1]

I missed that question on the test also, but it makes perfect sense to me. Shooting steel closer than 10 yards IS a safety issue/violation, and those result in a DQ.

[GOF]

I missed that question on the test also, but it makes perfect sense to me. Shooting steel closer than 10 yards IS a safety issue/violation, and those result in a DQ.

I think the heart of the issue, as noted previously by Bones, is the vauge manner in which the various & different sections of the RB refer to this issue.

If there is an offense of any type that will result in a DQ... it should be listed clearly in a section entltled "Offenses Resuling In A Disqualification From The Match."... or some other wording that clearly define the issue.

There is no logical reason why a MD/SO should have to look at different sections of the RB and interpret what they might, or might not mean. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case with many issues addressed in the new RB.

There is nothing wrong with rules written in a clear & concise manner that leave no room for individual interpretation, or 'Tribal Rules'. Unfortunately, the new RB seems to be lacking in that area.

[BillR1]

I missed that question on the test also, but it makes perfect sense to me. Shooting steel closer than 10 yards IS a safety issue/violation, and those result in a DQ.

I think the heart of the issue, as noted previously by Bones, is the vauge manner in which the various & different sections of the RB refer to this issue.

If there is an offense of any type that will result in a DQ... it should be listed clearly in a section entltled "Offenses Resuling In A Disqualification From The Match."... or some other wording that clearly define the issue.

There is no logical reason why a MD/SO should have to look at different sections of the RB and interpret what they might, or might not mean. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case with many issues addressed in the new RB.

There is nothing wrong with rules written in a clear & concise manner that leave no room for individual interpretation, or 'Tribal Rules'. Unfortunately, the new RB seems to be lacking in that area.

I disagree. I thought the intention was very clear after reading it. The rule about engaging steel targets is listed under the Safety section and not under the Shooting or Scoring sections. This means that engaging steel closer than 10 yards is a Safety violation, which means a DQ. Pretty simple IMO...

[sperman]

If that is the case, why are there several items outlined in the safety section that specifically call for a DQ?

2.2 specifically states that unsafe firearm handling will result in a DQ

2.3 states dropping a firearm will result in a DQ

Many other items listed in section 2 don't result in a DQ. (Unless your going to DQ an SO for not using official range commands.)

Why can't 2.15 say that engaging steel closer than 10 yards is a DQ?

[BillR1]

If that is the case, why are there several items outlined in the safety section that specifically call for a DQ?

2.2 specifically states that unsafe firearm handling will result in a DQ

2.3 states dropping a firearm will result in a DQ

Many other items listed in section 2 don't result in a DQ. (Unless your going to DQ an SO for not using official range commands.)

Why can't 2.15 say that engaging steel closer than 10 yards is a DQ?

It probably could've been stated more specifically, but I certainly don't think it's vague enough to misunderstand the intent at all.

[GOF]

I missed that question on the test also, but it makes perfect sense to me. Shooting steel closer than 10 yards IS a safety issue/violation, and those result in a DQ.

I think the heart of the issue, as noted previously by Bones, is the vauge manner in which the various & different sections of the RB refer to this issue.

If there is an offense of any type that will result in a DQ... it should be listed clearly in a section entltled "Offenses Resuling In A Disqualification From The Match."... or some other wording that clearly define the issue.

There is no logical reason why a MD/SO should have to look at different sections of the RB and interpret what they might, or might not mean. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case with many issues addressed in the new RB.

There is nothing wrong with rules written in a clear & concise manner that leave no room for individual interpretation, or 'Tribal Rules'. Unfortunately, the new RB seems to be lacking in that area.

I disagree. I thought the intention was very clear after reading it. The rule about engaging steel targets is listed under the Safety section and not under the Shooting or Scoring sections. This means that engaging steel closer than 10 yards is a Safety violation, which means a DQ. Pretty simple IMO...

Bill, the fact that you missed the correct answer to this specific question on your first go around on the SO test, and then had to read... and re-interpret... the Rule as it relates to the test question... should be proof enough that there is a distinct lack of clarity in the wording of the rule.

The fact that you note "I thought the intention was very clear after reading it." (even though you missed the correct answer on the test) ... shows that you are dealing with 'interpetation and your perception of 'intention'... which may not be the same for every other SO.

This has been the major problem with the poorly worded IDPA Rule Book... one SO sees one intent... another sees something different. And, the poor shooter who travaled 500+ miles and spent $500+ $$ to compete in a major sanctioned match now has his scoring determination placed in the hands of various SOs who see different 'interpretions' of the rules that the shooter thought he knew before he made the trip.

BTDT... that's why I no longer shoot IDPA sanctioned matches. A more clearly & conscisely written RB would go a long way towards solving that.

Maybe the Tiger Teams will fix that! (insert Smiley here)

[chirpy]

Craig N, in the description it states the pp should be shot from P1! P1 was set up by the crew to be 10 yds. away from the pp. The shooter does not have to gage distance because that has been done for him. Actually it is a procedural to shoot the pp from any other location than P1 and a shooter would incur that penalty if shooting paper.

Richard

[BillR1]

I missed that question on the test also, but it makes perfect sense to me. Shooting steel closer than 10 yards IS a safety issue/violation, and those result in a DQ.

I think the heart of the issue, as noted previously by Bones, is the vauge manner in which the various & different sections of the RB refer to this issue.

If there is an offense of any type that will result in a DQ... it should be listed clearly in a section entltled "Offenses Resuling In A Disqualification From The Match."... or some other wording that clearly define the issue.

There is no logical reason why a MD/SO should have to look at different sections of the RB and interpret what they might, or might not mean. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case with many issues addressed in the new RB.

There is nothing wrong with rules written in a clear & concise manner that leave no room for individual interpretation, or 'Tribal Rules'. Unfortunately, the new RB seems to be lacking in that area.

I disagree. I thought the intention was very clear after reading it. The rule about engaging steel targets is listed under the Safety section and not under the Shooting or Scoring sections. This means that engaging steel closer than 10 yards is a Safety violation, which means a DQ. Pretty simple IMO...

Bill, the fact that you missed the correct answer to this specific question on your first go around on the SO test, and then had to read... and re-interpret... the Rule as it relates to the test question... should be proof enough that there is a distinct lack of clarity in the wording of the rule.

The fact that you note "I thought the intention was very clear after reading it." (even though you missed the correct answer on the test) ... shows that you are dealing with 'interpetation and your perception of 'intention'... which may not be the same for every other SO.

This has been the major problem with the poorly worded IDPA Rule Book... one SO sees one intent... another sees something different. And, the poor shooter who travaled 500+ miles and spent $500+ $$ to compete in a major sanctioned match now has his scoring determination placed in the hands of various SOs who see different 'interpretions' of the rules that the shooter thought he knew before he made the trip.

I missed 2 other questions also. (Only got 95%) I'm pretty sure the missed questions had a lot more to do with me not taking my time with an OPEN BOOK test than it did with a "poorly worded" rulebook.

[Bill Nesbitt]

Bill, the fact that you missed the correct answer to this specific question on your first go around on the SO test, and then had to read... and re-interpret... the Rule as it relates to the test question... should be proof enough that there is a distinct lack of clarity in the wording of the rule.

I also missed that question. I ended up with a score of 98. I suppose that says something.

[Steve Koski]

10 yards? I've shot a considerable amount of steel as close as 6 yards, commonly 7 yards. So long as the target is in good condition and the design is decent, there is no splash back to shooter or bystanders.

I wish that was worded better myself. I also wish it wasn't 10 yards.