ddc Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 1 hour ago, MHicks said: If they're calling a procedural for a foot past an imaginary line as in the diagram, they are defeating the purpose of having faultlines. Back to subjective calls. You'd need to put a back faultline down essentially making a shooting box. Yeah, either that or revert to the way it was in the previous rulebook. It certainly isn't obvious to me why this change was considered necessary. If it ain't broke... sigh...IDPA... sigh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zincwarrior Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 2 hours ago, Racinready300ex said: And to help clarify, the dashed line would be a imaginary line, not a physical barrier. Interesting. We played it in two clubs where the right foot matters in this scenario. The left foot would not have engendered a penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njl Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 24 minutes ago, ddc said: Yeah, either that or revert to the way it was in the previous rulebook. It certainly isn't obvious to me why this change was considered necessary. If it ain't broke... sigh...IDPA... sigh... Consider a stage where the farthest downrange targets have a POC with fault lines: T5 | | | | | _________ | / POC \ T1 T2 T3 T4 ___SP___ I don't know if this is going to "work" for varying fonts, but suppose you start out "in the open", where you have a few targets to engage. Under the old rules, that downrange wall with fault lines means you're technically behind cover at SP, and will remain behind cover unless you were to stray far enough to either side to cross the imaginary infinite fault lines. That changes things like the order in which T1-T4 can be engaged. You'd likely want to shoot T1-T4 in a sweeping motion either in order from T1->T4 or the other way around...but as you're technically behind cover, you'd have to slice the pie. I'm guessing this is the sort of scenario they were trying to fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Watson Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 MD (AC) told a shooter Saturday that if the toe of the back foot was within the physical fault line (and the heel within the projection of the fault) line he was OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RePete Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 1 hour ago, ddc said: Yeah, either that or revert to the way it was in the previous rulebook. It certainly isn't obvious to me why this change was considered necessary. If it ain't broke... sigh...IDPA... sigh... IMO no fault lines, even though being subjective, was way better. It is broke sad to say, they keep making a rulebook and keep f'ing up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddc Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 18 minutes ago, RePete said: IMO no fault lines, even though being subjective, was way better. It is broke sad to say, they keep making a rulebook and keep f'ing up. I have this image in my mind of a bunch of people sitting around, patting each other on the back, telling each other what a good job they are doing. Meanwhile the peasants are restless... "let them eat cake" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RePete Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 4 minutes ago, ddc said: I have this image in my mind of a bunch of people sitting around, patting each other on the back, telling each other what a good job they are doing. Meanwhile the peasants are restless... "let them eat cake" A good friend of mine, now deceased, was on the Tiger Team and was the first one to walk away from it because nothing was getting done and it was the "good ole boys" sitting around (tele conference) telling war stories about their matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racinready300ex Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 1 hour ago, Jim Watson said: MD (AC) told a shooter Saturday that if the toe of the back foot was within the physical fault line (and the heel within the projection of the fault) line he was OK. This would make complete sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H Posted April 27, 2022 Share Posted April 27, 2022 On 4/25/2022 at 1:20 PM, njl said: Consider a stage where the farthest downrange targets have a POC with fault lines: T5 | | | | | _________ | / POC \ T1 T2 T3 T4 ___SP___ I don't know if this is going to "work" for varying fonts, but suppose you start out "in the open", where you have a few targets to engage. Under the old rules, that downrange wall with fault lines means you're technically behind cover at SP, and will remain behind cover unless you were to stray far enough to either side to cross the imaginary infinite fault lines. That changes things like the order in which T1-T4 can be engaged. You'd likely want to shoot T1-T4 in a sweeping motion either in order from T1->T4 or the other way around...but as you're technically behind cover, you'd have to slice the pie. I'm guessing this is the sort of scenario they were trying to fix. At SP, you are not behind cover for T1 through T4. You are for T5, but that's a completely different thing. Old rules or new rules, either way, it doesn't change anything for T1 through T4, if I am understanding your disgram correctly. You do not need to "slice the pie" for T1 through T4. (Nor could you, since there is no cover there.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H Posted April 27, 2022 Share Posted April 27, 2022 On 4/25/2022 at 1:09 PM, Zincwarrior said: Interesting. We played it in two clubs where the right foot matters in this scenario. The left foot would not have engendered a penalty. And it doesn't. If a club is somehow coming up with a penalty for that, they are literally just looking for more ways to PE people. The entire point of cover is to stay on one SIDE of it. The point of how far back/front you are doesn't really matter. The new rule doesn't really have anything to do with use of cover, it is an attempt to stop people from gaming stages (which is weird, because if people were within cover, what exactly was the problem, I wonder? Other than poor stage design?) by making them at least be near the cover line. Giving people PE for having that left foot placement is....incorrect, and isn't supported by the rulebook at all, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45 Raven Posted April 28, 2022 Share Posted April 28, 2022 (edited) 10 hours ago, Thomas H said: The new rule doesn't really have anything to do with use of cover, it is an attempt to stop people from gaming stages (which is weird, because if people were within cover, what exactly was the problem, I wonder? Other than poor stage design? Edited April 28, 2022 by 45 Raven Add comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njl Posted April 28, 2022 Share Posted April 28, 2022 21 hours ago, Thomas H said: At SP, you are not behind cover for T1 through T4. You are for T5, but that's a completely different thing. Old rules or new rules, either way, it doesn't change anything for T1 through T4, if I am understanding your disgram correctly. You do not need to "slice the pie" for T1 through T4. (Nor could you, since there is no cover there.) What, in the old rule book, would determine that SP is not behind cover (since it is behind a POC and within that POC’s fault lines which, according to 6.3E, extend to the stage boundary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H Posted April 28, 2022 Share Posted April 28, 2022 2 hours ago, njl said: What, in the old rule book, would determine that SP is not behind cover (since it is behind a POC and within that POC’s fault lines which, according to 6.3E, extend to the stage boundary? That position of cover is related to specific targets. If you are behind the cover lines, you are covered from specific threats, not all possible threats. T1 through T4 are not those threats. "Cover" is not "cover for everything on the stage" and we have never treated it that way. (Look at any stage and you'll see situations in which later positions of cover are in view from earlier targets.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njl Posted May 1, 2022 Share Posted May 1, 2022 On 4/28/2022 at 10:28 AM, Thomas H said: That position of cover is related to specific targets. If you are behind the cover lines, you are covered from specific threats, not all possible threats. T1 through T4 are not those threats. "Cover" is not "cover for everything on the stage" and we have never treated it that way. (Look at any stage and you'll see situations in which later positions of cover are in view from earlier targets.) You're applying logic rather than the rule book to support your position. What if the stage were: T1 T2 T3 _________ / POC \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ ___SP___ At SP, you're not exposed to any of the targets, but if you wander just a bit to either side, you can be exposed to / get a clear shot at least at T1 and T3 while still remaining inside the POC fault lines, which have been exaggerated to demonstrate the "extends to the stage boundary" old rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzdraw Posted May 1, 2022 Share Posted May 1, 2022 Under Rule 3.6.6 a MD may mark the terminal end of a fault line using various means. We will be using a 2-4 ft length of the same dimensional lumber (1 x 2" in our case). That piece of wood will be at a 90 degree angle to the primary line. The intent is to make the terminus of the line both visible and tactile so that shooter can keep both feet not touching ground forward of the fault line. If shooters faults the line while engaging targets he gains a PE. Simple and clear-cut for both shooter and SO crew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddc Posted May 1, 2022 Share Posted May 1, 2022 53 minutes ago, Buzzdraw said: Under Rule 3.6.6 a MD may mark the terminal end of a fault line using various means. We will be using a 2-4 ft length of the same dimensional lumber (1 x 2" in our case). That piece of wood will be at a 90 degree angle to the primary line. The intent is to make the terminus of the line both visible and tactile so that shooter can keep both feet not touching ground forward of the fault line. If shooters faults the line while engaging targets he gains a PE. Simple and clear-cut for both shooter and SO crew. I think that makes a lot of sense given the new fault line requirements. The thought occurs to me that if a match should implement that refinement of marking the terminal end of fault lines then the USPSA concept of a shooting area comes to mind. It's just a couple more fault lines... lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHicks Posted May 1, 2022 Share Posted May 1, 2022 That makes more sense then an imaginary rear faultline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H Posted May 2, 2022 Share Posted May 2, 2022 21 hours ago, njl said: You're applying logic rather than the rule book to support your position. What if the stage were: T1 T2 T3 _________ / POC \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ ___SP___ At SP, you're not exposed to any of the targets, but if you wander just a bit to either side, you can be exposed to / get a clear shot at least at T1 and T3 while still remaining inside the POC fault lines, which have been exaggerated to demonstrate the "extends to the stage boundary" old rule. If the stage was like that, under the old rules, it would be perfectly fine to move to the side and attempt to engage them from back there. What's the problem with that? And I literally used the rulebook to support my earlier comments. No where in the rulebook has it ever said that cover was "from everything on the stage". Many, many stages had points of cover that nonetheless exposed you to targets you engaged earlier. (Remember how we literally can re-shoot targets from a later position that you originally engaged from a position of cover?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddc Posted May 2, 2022 Share Posted May 2, 2022 On 4/27/2022 at 8:25 AM, Thomas H said: At SP, you are not behind cover for T1 through T4. You are for T5, but that's a completely different thing. Old rules or new rules, either way, it doesn't change anything for T1 through T4, if I am understanding your disgram correctly. You do not need to "slice the pie" for T1 through T4. (Nor could you, since there is no cover there.) That's the way I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddc Posted May 2, 2022 Share Posted May 2, 2022 22 hours ago, njl said: You're applying logic rather than the rule book to support your position. What if the stage were: T1 T2 T3 _________ / POC \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ ___SP___ At SP, you're not exposed to any of the targets, but if you wander just a bit to either side, you can be exposed to / get a clear shot at least at T1 and T3 while still remaining inside the POC fault lines, which have been exaggerated to demonstrate the "extends to the stage boundary" old rule. I don't get what you are trying to say. Your diagram is not an uncommon stage design as far as I can tell. You have to move to one side or the other of the wall to get into position to shoot the targets under either rule book. Let's say that the first set of diagonal lines next to the POC wall are the physical fault lines and are 3 feet long. The other diagonals are the imaginary extensions and each one is also 3 feet long. Under the old rule book you could "wander" directly left or right from the SP and as long as you were within the imaginary extensions were free to engage. Under the new rule book you have to move down range until you are "within" the range of cover defined by the diagonals closest to the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzdraw Posted May 4, 2022 Share Posted May 4, 2022 On 5/2/2022 at 10:54 AM, ddc said: Under the old rule book you could "wander" directly left or right from the SP and as long as you were within the imaginary extensions were free to engage. And you can still do that under RB 2022. All the new RB does is to replace the imaginary extensions (which were sometimes a shooter/SO PE calling issue) with a concrete fault line. As long as the shooter does not support weight on the ground on the other side of the line there is no penalty; this is as before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njl Posted May 4, 2022 Share Posted May 4, 2022 On 5/2/2022 at 11:54 AM, ddc said: I don't get what you are trying to say. Your diagram is not an uncommon stage design as far as I can tell. You have to move to one side or the other of the wall to get into position to shoot the targets under either rule book. Let's say that the first set of diagonal lines next to the POC wall are the physical fault lines and are 3 feet long. The other diagonals are the imaginary extensions and each one is also 3 feet long. Under the old rule book you could "wander" directly left or right from the SP and as long as you were within the imaginary extensions were free to engage. Under the new rule book you have to move down range until you are "within" the range of cover defined by the diagonals closest to the wall. I think you just agreed with my earlier speculation as to why the rule about fault lines extending to the stage boundary was changed. Under the old rules: "3.5.2 When cover is available it must be used, while engaging targets, unless the shooter is “in the open” and must engage targets “in the open.” Shooters may not cross or enter any openings (doorways, open spaces, etc.) without first engaging targets visible from those locations." Under the old rules, SP is technically behind cover. Under the new rules, it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddc Posted May 4, 2022 Share Posted May 4, 2022 (edited) 10 hours ago, Buzzdraw said: And you can still do that under RB 2022. All the new RB does is to replace the imaginary extensions (which were sometimes a shooter/SO PE calling issue) with a concrete fault line. As long as the shooter does not support weight on the ground on the other side of the line there is no penalty; this is as before. Not if you are as far up range as that example diagram indicates. In that diagram you are far up range of any fault line terminator however we choose to define it. In the new RB you are not in cover. That is the whole point of the new rule. Edited to add: Perhaps I am totally misunderstanding the point you are trying to make? Edited May 4, 2022 by ddc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzdraw Posted May 4, 2022 Share Posted May 4, 2022 2 hours ago, ddc said: In the new RB you are not in cover. That is the whole point of the new rule. Nowhere in the discipline's name is "Tactical" used. For some time now, IDPA hasn't been concerned with the competitor utilizing true cover to engage targets. IDPA is concerned with the order of engagement (pie or distance), which will vary due to the "cover" situation. If the competitor chooses to apply true tactical sense to an IDPA stage, they may do so as long as they stay within the Rules. Never forget; IDPA is a game with rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddc Posted May 4, 2022 Share Posted May 4, 2022 28 minutes ago, Buzzdraw said: Nowhere in the discipline's name is "Tactical" used. For some time now, IDPA hasn't been concerned with the competitor utilizing true cover to engage targets. IDPA is concerned with the order of engagement (pie or distance), which will vary due to the "cover" situation. If the competitor chooses to apply true tactical sense to an IDPA stage, they may do so as long as they stay within the Rules. Never forget; IDPA is a game with rules. I give up. I don't have a clue what the point is you are trying to make. At what point did I say anything about "tactical"? We are trying to define differences in how the NRB sees things and how the ORB sees things and how that affects the stage diagram previously presented. Your feelings about the pros and cons about IDPA's rules are distracting from the discussion. It's not about your feelings. It's about the rules. Let's move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now