How Does Your Club Define Cover?

[rubberneck]

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.

It's debates like this that remind me of the strike zone in baseball. It is never applied exactly as it is written in the rulebook, but as long as the umpire applies it evenly through the course of the game than the competitors can live with it.

For instance, if during the walk through the SO tells you what is and isn't considered appropriate cover for the stage and calls it evenly I can live with it. It's when one guy gets dinged while others don't, or when the SO starts to play gotcha that it crosses the line.

[Joe D]

I agree. As long as the rules are applied with consistency. 99% of the IDPA matches I shoot have the rules applied the same for all. I am certain there have been exceptions - just like in any other shooting game.

I really don't have any major issues with the IDPA rules. There are some I don't like, but can live with. There is one IDPA rule that I ignore. Can anyone guess which one?

[Flexmoney]

There is one IDPA rule that I ignore. Can anyone guess which one?

I don't think anybody cares enough...to drift the thread any further...and get it closed.

Enough with the trolling. We have a hard enough time keeping the IDPA section of this forum half-way decent.

Ya follow?

[/heavy-handed moderator mode off]

[Bill Rosenthal]

Worst shortfall in officiating IDPA matches. Even posing the question shows this to be a problem and bone of contention. At a recent state championship this made for some hard feelings. Barry needs to clean this one up!

Bill

[rubberneck]

Worst shortfall in officiating IDPA matches. Even posing the question shows this to be a problem and bone of contention. At a recent state championship this made for some hard feelings. Barry needs to clean this one up!

Bill

Bill, my long lost twin brother, you wouldn't be talking about the stage that we SO'd together a week and a half ago.

Pete

[Joe D]

I think in many instances poor stage design can lead to rule issues. A strategically placed barrel or two can make cover problems go away.

I tend to shoot USPSA matches like I would an IDPA match. I slice the pie and reload from cover if there is any available. It would help my score a lot if I did not do this, but I use IPSC matches as practice for IDPA.

[Buzzdraw]

I think in many instances poor stage design can lead to rule issues. A strategically placed barrel or two can make cover problems go away.

. . .

Exactly the fix in many instances. The course designer must take cover positions into account. It becomes a potential safety hazard for a shooter to back peddle 10 yards to available cover (as required) in event of a reload/malf. Inexperienced shooters can whip the muzzle around toward the SO/gallery in this instance. The SO is subject to being run over by sudden travel change or so out of position that control of shooter's gun upper arm isn't possible. A barrel in a forward but off to side location makes this less likely.

In the event the course designer recognizes that no cover is available, the COF should clearly state this.

Good COF averts many DQ's and SO traps.

[Punkin Chunker]

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.

See, that makes no sense. Wall = cover. Reload permitted, even on the move. ". . . at my club . . ." shouldn't even be part of the equation.

Here's another twist:

Stage with a long wall extending downrange. COF requires engaging 4 targets from behind cover, then moving to corner of wall to pie around for a second set of targets. I RWRed on the way, but was dinged for leaving cover without a charged weapon, the reason being that I was exposed to the targets I had just neutralized.

The twist was that to stop at the corner of the wall and pie around for the second set of targets left the shooter completely exposed to the first set anyway. So the first set of targets were threats if the shooter was moving, but not if the shooter was stopped?

[midvalleyshooter]

It's debates like this that remind me of the strike zone in baseball. It is never applied exactly as it is written in the rulebook, but as long as the umpire applies it evenly through the course of the game than the competitors can live with it.

For instance, if during the walk through the SO tells you what is and isn't considered appropriate cover for the stage and calls it evenly I can live with it. It's when one guy gets dinged while others don't, or when the SO starts to play gotcha that it crosses the line.

I like this approach. As long as the challenge is the same for everyone, we all should be

Thanks again everyone for sharing your input,

Keith