How Does Your Club Define Cover?

[midvalleyshooter]

I am pretty sure this has been discussed before. But I want to help determine what the current call is for this at clubs across IDPA. I want to then suggest to the Club President of my home club how we should make this call. I have seen stages with long walls parallel to the shooting line that you could move across and do a RWR. Does the direction of travel matter? What if the wall goes down range? How do we/you define cover? What if there are targets veiwable from where you are that have been "neutralized" but otherwise you have walls around you, is this cover? For example, say you are in a long hallway with targets at the end that you have engaged ("neutralized") The only targets visible are the ones you have engaged, can you now move down the hallway doing a RWR? How do you as an SO make this call? Does your club try to standardize this sort of call? If possible direct me to the page or pages in the rule book that defines this.

Thanks,

Keith

[Glock3422]

I have seen stages with long walls parallel to the shooting line that you could move across and do a RWR. Does the direction of travel matter? What if the wall goes down range? How do we/you define cover? What if there are targets veiwable from where you are that have been "neutralized" but otherwise you have walls around you, is this cover?

Recently, more often than not, if the visible targets have been engaged, you can move and do anything. If you would not receive a procedural for being exposed to a target, you can reload. YMMV.

Unfortunately, the very restrictive interpretations of the last couple years have caused confusion and placed competitors from different parts of the country at a disadvantage in other areas.

Finally, the current book did little to clarify the areas that needed it and created new areas requiring interpretation. It really comes down to the individual stage and asking what the SO wants.

[Jaxshooter]

You bring up a good point. The main reason I quit shooting IDPA (I now drive 140 miles to shoot a USPSA match the same weekend as our local IDPA match) because the rules are interprited one way this month and a totally different way next month. It is also different from one shooter to the next with the same SO.

[Jim Taylor]

You bring up a good point. The main reason I quit shooting IDPA (I now drive 140 miles to shoot a USPSA match the same weekend as our local IDPA match) because the rules are interprited one way this month and a totally different way next month. It is also different from one shooter to the next with the same SO.

It is a shame that you have to spend all that time and money on gas because of the way cover calls are made.

We do our best in course design to take the pressure off the SOs for making cover calls. It is a fact that most club level SOs have not been through official IDPA SO training and many are not up to date on the rules.

Over the last few years, we have developed a strong group of IDPA certified safety officers and are constantly on the lookout for type of individual that would make a good safety officer and scorekeeper. We work them in slowly and train them thoroughly. Note that I can't remember the last time we have had a controversial cover call.

About a week before the match, we issue by email a proposed course of fire. The SOs respond with suggestions and comments. Please understand that our purpose here is two-fold. First to make sure all safety aspects of running this match are covered. Second, the SOs are in fact seeing the course of fire in advance and are familiar with it. Our match is 9-12 stages with sometimes more than 200 rounds although we are mostly around 100 rounds.

About 3 or 4 days before the match we publish the final course of fire for all shooters to look at. This gives each shooter the opportunity to at least know what he will be up against come the 2nd Saturday of the month. The gamers mark up their sheets in color, etc., but what do we care? Once again, familiarity helps cut down on the chance for the shooter to make procedural errors.

On the day of the match, we have a safety officers briefing where we go over the course of fire in detail, and discuss and agree where the potential for having to make procedural calls may exist. Since we shoot in squads, this meeting is absolutely critical to insure consistently fair enforcement of the rules. After that, we have the Shooters' Safety Briefing where we identify the areas to which the shooters ought to pay special attention. We find that by being transparent, we actually help the shooter instead of trapping him.

We like to have stages where there are options on how to shoot a stage, difficult shots, movement, manipulation, etc. We want to challenge the Master and Expert shooters with stimulating stages, while developing the skill level of our Sharpshooters and Marksmen, and engaging the Novice.

We ran the 2006 Virginia State IDPA Championships with this crew without a single complaint over procedural calls. It was due to training, engagement, course design and teamwork. Our Safety Officers are there to make the shooting experience memorable and to make the shooter want to come back and shoot with us again. We want our shooters to come up and tell what a great time they had, not post on this forum that we are a bunch of a**holes.

If you ever get into the Richmond Virginia area on the 2nd Saturday, come to Black Creek for one of our matches. It is an awesome experience, like shooting a state match every month. Contact me offline and I'll send you some of our Courses of Fire.

Best regards,

Jim Taylor

Assistant Match Director

Black Creek IDPA

PS: Some of our SOs frequent this forum and can give you their perspective of how we make this match happen.

[RickB]

We call out the cover positions in the stage description. Some walls might be vision barriers only, so to prevent (hope to avoid) confusion, we'll spell out exact what is cover. Why leave the shooter, or SO, guessing?

If a SO can't consistently make calls, someone should take the timer from him. The rule book is specific enough that shooters shouldn't be left to wonder about cover calls. Either it's cover, or it's not. Either the shooter is using cover, or he's not. Every SO working our club matches is certified ( we have 15-20 certified SOs), and we don't let anyone else hold a timer.

[Jim Watson]

Around here, a broad barricade is usually considered Cover all the way across and you may reload as you cross from side to side or end to end; it being usual to place targets so you have to shoot from both sides to see them all.

Around here, it is not usually permitted to reload in view of supposedly neutralized targets.

Around here, somebody will always pipe up and ask where he may reload. That takes care of most variations in interpretation. Consistency is everything.

[Singlestack Wonder]

Around here, a broad barricade is usually considered Cover all the way across and you may reload as you cross from side to side or end to end; it being usual to place targets so you have to shoot from both sides to see them all.

Around here, it is not usually permitted to reload in view of supposedly neutralized targets.

Exactly! +2

[Joe4d]

And hence the major problem with IDPA The "Around heres ", the shoulds, the HQ strongly encourages.

[FTDR]

parameters should be explained, or when in doubt ask, but as a general rule you cannot assume a target has been neutralized "ever", what if one shooter assumed this, then the target was missed, should they receive a pe after they are done? NO, it should never be done

midvalleyshooter, i have seen your described scenario done with allowing the reload, but it was a poor design if done by the rules so it was allowed because there was no proper way to reload, but it was described in the walk through

[midvalleyshooter]

parameters should be explained, or when in doubt ask, but as a general rule you cannot assume a target has been neutralized "ever", what if one shooter assumed this, then the target was missed, should they receive a pe after they are done? NO, it should never be done

midvalleyshooter, i have seen your described scenario done with allowing the reload, but it was a poor design if done by the rules so it was allowed because there was no proper way to reload, but it was described in the walk through

Just to be clear, the Match Director who designs the stages at our club does a great job. First class props and stages all the way. Its me returning to IDPA after a 4 year hiatus as a cowboy action shooter, then acting as a SO in IDPA that is having issues making the calls. Add in that I am an old school IPSC shooter and I can get the rules mixed up in my little brain in a hurry. I am posting here and over on the IDPA forum so that I can be the best SO I can be and be able to answer questions from shooters.

I see two distinct lines of thought on this subject. One is that if the targets are neutralized enough to pie out further and expose myself they should be neutralized enough to move out while still behind cover but visible to the neutralized targets and do a RWR along the way. The second is to only reload behind cover defined in the COF or the walk through. Although the competitor part of me wants to agree with the first, I believe the second makes the most sense as an all around rule to run matches by.

Thanks for all the input,

Keith

[Glock3422]

parameters should be explained, or when in doubt ask, but as a general rule you cannot assume a target has been neutralized "ever", what if one shooter assumed this, then the target was missed, should they receive a pe after they are done? NO, it should never be done

Which is why the correct standard is "Engaged." Depending on the distance, caliber and eye sight, it gets way too argumentative. They are only neutralized if they are knocked down. A down 6 or more and an FTN is enough of a penalty without stacking a PE.

[kdmoore]

Either the shooter is using cover, or he's not.

I wish it were that simple, but I've heard responses to this (on the idpa board iirc) saying thay you need to be behind cover, and that this means close to cover. Just saying that even when something looks like there's only one way to read things, someone else will show you another way. IOW, behind cover could mean either cover is between you and the targets, or also require you to be "close" to cover.

...as a general rule you cannot assume a target has been neutralized "ever", what if one shooter assumed this, then the target was missed, should they receive a pe after they are done?

So, do you allow shooters to pie the corner? Is a procedural issued if a threat isn't nuetralized?

[FTDR]

...as a general rule you cannot assume a target has been neutralized "ever", what if one shooter assumed this, then the target was missed, should they receive a pe after they are done?

that was taken out of text, i answered that with a NO!

...as a general rule you cannot assume a target has been neutralized "ever", what if one shooter assumed this, then the target was missed, should they receive a pe after they are done? NO!

the question was

I have seen stages with long walls parallel to the shooting line that you could move across and do a RWR. Does the direction of travel matter? What if the wall goes down range? How do we/you define cover? What if there are targets veiwable from where you are that have been "neutralized" but otherwise you have walls around you, is this cover? For example, say you are in a long hallway with targets at the end that you have engaged ("neutralized") The only targets visible are the ones you have engaged, can you now move down the hallway doing a RWR? How do you as an SO make this call?

that was the question i answered, but to answer your question

So, do you allow shooters to pie the corner? Is a procedural issued if a threat isn't nuetralized?

of course slicing the pie, but again NO procedural!, just points, and a ftn if aplicable

[RickB]

Either the shooter is using cover, or he's not.

I wish it were that simple, but I've heard responses to this (on the idpa board iirc) saying thay you need to be behind cover, and that this means close to cover. Just saying that even when something looks like there's only one way to read things, someone else will show you another way. IOW, behind cover could mean either cover is between you and the targets, or also require you to be "close" to cover.

Actually, it is that simple, if we're talking how to define "use of cover". The rule book is very specific. It is not always possible to be absolutely certain if someone is complying, but there shouldn't be any doubt as to the standard. As a SO, my "favorite" is when a shooter is twenty feet uprange of the cover, and is pieing around at a target that is just beyond the cover. I'd say the target is using cover, and the shooter is out in the open, but there's nothing in the rules about how close the shooter has to be to cover, and the farther away, the tougher the call.

[rubberneck]

IMHO, the problem isn't so much with the rulebook but the way some of the COF's are set up. I have shot stages where you are exposed to threat targets at all times even when behind "cover". In those cases behind cover becomes very subjective very quickly. 99% of the BS can easily be avoided when the COF is set up.

[FTDR]

IMHO, the problem isn't so much with the rulebook but the way some of the COF's are set up. I have shot stages where you are exposed to threat targets at all times even when behind "cover". In those cases behind cover becomes very subjective very quickly. 99% of the BS can easily be avoided when the COF is set up.

+1

i think some confuse standards with scenarios

[Singlestack Wonder]

This has been covered so many times. It makes no difference if targets in the open field of view have been neutralized or not. If cover is available, reloads must be from behind cover period. From the rulebook:

"All reloads must be executed from cover (if cover is available) and

must be completed before leaving cover."

No ambiguity here.

[Duane Thomas]

The ambiguity is whether or not a long wall between you and the targets, that completely screens you from them, comprises cover, and thus you can move while reloading behind it. When first viewing this situation, my sense of things said yes, but at my club the answer is no. Fair enough as long as I go into the stage knowing that.

[Jim Taylor]

The ambiguity is whether or not a long wall between you and the targets, that completely screens you from them, comprises cover, and thus you can move while reloading behind it. When first viewing this situation, my sense of things said yes, but at my club the answer is no. Fair enough as long as I go into the stage knowing that.

Duane

If you are not exposed to targets, you are behind cover. If you are behind cover, you may reload on the move as long as you do not break cover in doing so.

If you club enforces this some other way, they are wrong and need re-training.

A good example of movement behind cover is the Classsifer, Stage 3, String 1. I set up left in the Bianchi barricade box and make small shuffle to the right as I execute a RWR. I have not exposed myself to cover, I have moved (though not very much). And even the most untrained or careless SO couldn't make a cover call as my feet never leave the Bianchi barricade box.

Best regards,

Jim Taylor

[Duane Thomas]

Duane

If you are not exposed to targets, you are behind cover. If you are behind cover, you may reload on the move as long as you do not break cover in doing so.

If you club enforces this some other way, they are wrong and need re-training.

Well, that was my thought, but obviously the SOs and powers-that-are know best.

[Joe D]

Talk about the mountain and mole hill thing. I have SO'd more local matches and sanctioned matches than I can count. I don't recall cover ever being difficult to define. Just SO'd the Alabama match. There was a window in a wall that had an array of targets to engage. During the walk through I instructed the shooters that they could not cross the window opening with an empty gun. Doing so would incur a Procedural. Did not matter if all targets were neutralized.

This is not a difficult issue to understand.

I hear folks say they don't shoot IDPA because it has too many rules. Has anyone compared the IDPA rulebook to the USPSA book? Can you guess which one looks like it was written by lawyers?

Edited May 1, 2007 by Joe D

[JFD]

I hear folks say they don't shoot IDPA because it has too many rules. Has anyone compared the IDPA rulebook to the USPSA book? Can you guess which one looks like it was written by lawyers?

That's amusing. I could shoot at 50+ different USPSA clubs across the nation and not once have to worry about how any of the ROs or MDs are going to "interpret" the rules. Can you guess which rulebook is is 100% better?

[Hot Brass]

That's amusing. I could shoot at 50+ different USPSA clubs across the nation and not once have to worry about how any of the ROs or MDs are going to "interpret" the rules. Can you guess which rulebook is is 100% better?

JFD, I'm going to differ with you here. There is a local USPSA club here, where the MD recently quit because of people waiving a rule book at him. He was busting his but trying to help the shooters have a good time and they were picking him to pieces with the rule book. It is so complex that it takes years of RO/MD match experience to learn the USPSA rule book inside and out.

The IDPA rule book has its grey areas, but to call the USPSA rule book 100% better is a stretch. How to define cover comes up at every single IDPA match where the stage requires movement. The MD has some flexibility and I'm ok with that. What is most important is consistency -- every shooter at the match should be informed on how the call will be made and the SO(s) should call it the same for everyone. There is nothing difficult or complex about this.

[COF]

I hear folks say they don't shoot IDPA because it has too many rules. Has anyone compared the IDPA rulebook to the USPSA book? Can you guess which one looks like it was written by lawyers?

That's amusing. I could shoot at 50+ different USPSA clubs across the nation and not once have to worry about how any of the ROs or MDs are going to "interpret" the rules. Can you guess which rulebook is is 100% better?

100% better? I doubt that seriously. The primary difference is the 30 years of evolution IPSC/USPSA has gone through having to create more and more rules to counter shooters looking for ways to cut corners and bend the corners off the rules - and it's still evolving. IDPA on the other hand has been around a little over 10 years and the goal is to keep the rules simple without going to a lawyerized manifesto. As a certified USPSA RO and as an IDPA SOI, I can tell you flat out that the IDPA rulebook is simpler and easier to follow. The primary flaw is in various and sundry rule interpretations. We just need to standardize the rule interpretations whiling keeping it simple.

Jerry

A02786

TY34377

Edited May 1, 2007 by COF

[ima45dv8]

Folks, this one is starting to drift far from the intended topic, and well into areas not allowed per forum guidelines:

"Policy or political debates of any kind are not welcome.

Specifically including (but not limited to):

USPSA vs IPSC

IPSC vs IDPA

STI vs SVI

Limited 10 vs Limited Class

This Division vs That Division

This Government vs That Government"

Let's try to keep this on track and productive lest it be Closed.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation....