Cover Procedural or Not - Video Evidence

[wsimpso1]

I guy I know shot in a match, and crossed an open space from one piece of cover to another with his loaded gun in his hands. Penalty or not? The folks involved don't seem to remember an admonishment during the walk through not to cross the open space...

Here is the video -

How would you call it? And why?

Billski

[Glshooter]

Can't see all the targets but looks like a procedural to me. He crossed an open space and exposed himself to targets that had not been engaged yet. Doesn't matter if the gun was loaded or empty, he broke cover.

[PHolsted]

This would/should have been addressed in the CoF. That being said if the shooter was moving from the card to the store could he have gone to the right side or was he mandated to go to the left side.

[GmanCdp]

I would like to see the COF description...but looks as if to me he crossed the opening the without engaging the swinger 1st ,at the 26 to 27 sec part ,looks like he started to engage the swinger,stopped,then it was covered up,then he moved across and got the finger....i'd say no finger if he would have engaged the swinger,then moved..but yet it all depends on how the COF was wrote..got any other vids on how anybody shot it??

Edited September 2, 2009 by GmanCdp

[Pittbug]

Without looking at the COF, it looks like a definite PE. He activated the swinger, shot the disappearing target, then moved to the other side of the opening. No-shoots aren't cover and by moving to the other side of the opening, he probably exposed himself to the target we can't see on the left.

[nwb01]

I can provide some info since I also shot the same stage

Cof Reads:

"At signal, turn, draw and engage T1 - T3 with two shots each. Then proceed to the front of the gas station. Stepping on the pressure pad, engage T4 and T7 as they become visible, while using available cover."

Note: You may engage T5-T7 from either side of the doorway.

You were allowed to skip the swinger/no shoot target and engage the far left static if the swinging target did not present itself. Yes, you could shoot from the left or the right side of the door way.

Crossing the doorway is clearly a cover violation to the target yet not engaged. Crossing an open space while exposing yourself to threat targets is usually a procedural whether you have a loaded gun or not.

Edited September 2, 2009 by nwb01

[Steve Koski]

Just wait a gall durn minute.

The rule book says you have to ENGAGE TARGETS from cover and RELOAD from cover. It does not say ANYTHING about not exposing yourself to unengaged targets. So it is up to the COF designer to specify "Do not expose yourself to unengaged targets" if that is what he wants.

Page 12:

CoF 9. When cover is available, it MUST be used both when

shooting and reloading.

Page 43:

More than 50% of the shooter’s upper torso must be behind cover

while engaging threat targets and/or reloading. For low cover, one

knee must be on the ground and for vertical cover such as a

wall/barricade, 100% of the shooter’s legs and feet must be behind

cover.

Page 76:

Cover: 1) More than 50% of the shooter’s upper torso must be

behind cover while engaging threat targets and/or reloading. For

low cover, one knee must be on the ground and for vertical cover

such as a wall/barricade, 100% of the shooter’s legs and feet must

be behind cover.

[nwb01]

so you are saying you can move across an opening, exposing yourself to threat targets and it shouldn't be a procedural ??

[Gregg K]

Heck, if you want to talk about cover, where was the cover for the first three targets. The entire top part of the shooters torso is exposed for the first three targets. I would of had my finger up for the first shot. Did the COF say to forget the rulebook for the first three targets?

[sirveyr]

Oh Christ...here we go.

The shooter clearly earned a PE.

[lneel]

PE, no doubt.....I did the same thing at 2006 IDPA Nationals. I did it, earned it, took it and moved on.

Lee

[RobMoore]

Bad COF

"Use cover here, but you don't have to use it here, even though it is available"

Still a +3 for the shooter though.

[Steve Koski]

so you are saying you can move across an opening, exposing yourself to threat targets and it shouldn't be a procedural ??

You got a rule book? Or are you just making stuff up?

[nwb01]

Yes, I have a book, but I wouldn't call it a rule book. Rule books have clearly defined rules in them and the book in question doesn't do that.

I completely understand what the "rule book" says about shooting and reloading behind cover.

In the incident in question, the shooter was doing neither, we can clearly see that. However, the SO gave him a procedural. Was it clearly state in the CoF that you couldn't cross the opening ? No, it was not. Much like the "rule book" the CoF did not explicitly explain where you could incur a penalty. It has been in my IDPA experience that if you cross an opening like the subject in question you earn a procedural. Do I agree with it ?? HELL NO! But one has to remember that most IDPA rules are open to interpretation as to what WE "think" the intent is of said rule. Obviously, the SO running the CoF in question interpreted the "rule" differently than you do.

[sirveyr]

so you are saying you can move across an opening, exposing yourself to threat targets and it shouldn't be a procedural ??

You got a rule book? Or are you just making stuff up?

I'm sure that Mr. nwb01 has a rule book. It is probably identical to yours and mine.

From one of your previous posts:

The rule book says you have to ENGAGE TARGETS from cover and RELOAD from cover. It does not say ANYTHING about not exposing yourself to unengaged targets. So it is up to the COF designer to specify "Do not expose yourself to unengaged targets" if that is what he wants.

Using your logic, a shooter doesn't need to "slice the pie", correct? I'm pretty sure that the "slicing the pie rule" is the backbone of IDPA. If you come and shoot at my club, I'll be sure to let you know that slicing the pie will be expected of you.

[Greg Bell]

I also shot this stage. It was clear from the COF description and walk through what was expected.

[wsimpso1]

More info on the COF:

The walk through included the requirement for the shooters to engage the first three targets from the starting spot between the pumps and the car. I suspect that they did not want a shooter skipping a round off sheetmetal or glass and out of the range (an event I have witnessed). So, yeah, nobody used the car for cover on the first three targets, which was tactically wrong;

The COF did not specify that the shooter had to select one side of the opening and stay put.

Those of you that think he earned a PE, please cite rules from the rulebook that he violated... Really, convince us by using the rules.

Billski

[Sac Law Man]

Clearly a PE, crossing the open space exposed him to the last remaining target.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Sac Law Man

[Steve Koski]

Using your logic, a shooter doesn't need to "slice the pie", correct? I'm pretty sure that the "slicing the pie rule" is the backbone of IDPA. If you come and shoot at my club, I'll be sure to let you know that slicing the pie will be expected of you.

Slicing the pie happens to be in the rule book. "Don't expose yourself to unengaged targets" doesn't appear in the rule book.

Page 82:

Tactical Priority: A method of target engagement. For Tactical

Priority, targets are engaged by order of threat. If all targets are

visible, targets are engaged from near to far, as long as targets are

more than two (2) yards from each other. If targets are hidden by a

barricade, targets are engaged as they are seen (slicing the pie).

Page 12:

CoF 10. Targets must be engaged in tactical priority unless

tactical sequence is specified. Targets within two (2) yards of

each other relative to the distance from the shooter are

considered to be equal in threat.

I can see how a reading of these two rules could be used to award a PE for not "slicing the pie." But it requires a fair ammount of interpretation. In a major match, I would expect the COF description to be clear.

[Steve Koski]

I also shot this stage. It was clear from the COF description and walk through what was expected.

"At signal, turn, draw and engage T1 - T3 with two shots each. Then proceed to the front of the gas station. Stepping on the pressure pad, engage T4 and T7 as they become visible, while using available cover."

Note: You may engage T5-T7 from either side of the doorway.

It was clear in your mind. But not everybody thinks alike. We have the written description, and it isn't clear at all that you weren't allowed to switch sides.

The description says that you can engage T5-T7 from either side. If you can engage them from the far side, then you have to pass in front of the door to get to the other side. How is that any different from firing a few shots on one side, then switching sides?

If the shooter fired all shots from cover (and it's not clear that he used cover properly from the camera angle), then I don't see any grounds for a PE UNLESS he was prohibited from switching sides in the walk through.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Steve Koski

[Steve Koski]

Yes, I have a book, but I wouldn't call it a rule book. Rule books have clearly defined rules in them and the book in question doesn't do that.

I completely understand what the "rule book" says about shooting and reloading behind cover.

In the incident in question, the shooter was doing neither, we can clearly see that. However, the SO gave him a procedural. Was it clearly state in the CoF that you couldn't cross the opening ? No, it was not. Much like the "rule book" the CoF did not explicitly explain where you could incur a penalty. It has been in my IDPA experience that if you cross an opening like the subject in question you earn a procedural. Do I agree with it ?? HELL NO! But one has to remember that most IDPA rules are open to interpretation as to what WE "think" the intent is of said rule. Obviously, the SO running the CoF in question interpreted the "rule" differently than you do.

Well said.

[Glshooter]

Page 82:

Tactical Priority: A method of target engagement. For Tactical

Priority, targets are engaged by order of threat. If all targets are

visible, targets are engaged from near to far, as long as targets are

more than two (2) yards from each other. If targets are hidden by a

barricade, targets are engaged as they are seen (slicing the pie).

You just showed that targets must be shot from around a barricade by slicing the pie. He clearly did not do that. Not much interpretation needed.

[lugnut]

Oh man... don't know where to start. Only thing I'll add is why is the activator in the open/door way? Seemed like to activate that moving target on the right you are forced to expose yourself away from cover. It's just not fun designing IDPA stages sometimes. The swinger with the NS in front of the threat looked evil.

[Greg Bell]

It was clear in your mind. But not everybody thinks alike. We have the written description, and it isn't clear at all that you weren't allowed to switch sides.

Steve,

A little time has passed so I do not remember the exact things said during the walk through. But I recall that we were to pick a side as we moved up. Anyway it is a good discussion, forces us to write better stages.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Greg Bell

[GmanCdp]

I also shot this stage. It was clear from the COF description and walk through what was expected.

It was clear in your mind. But not everybody thinks alike. We have the written description, and it isn't clear at all that you weren't allowed to switch sides.

Steve,

A little time has passed so I do not remember the exact things said during the walk through. But I recall that we were to pick a side as we moved up. Anyway it is a good discussion, forces us to write better stages.

Greg,shooting from the left side as showed in the video,did anybody just put 2 in the NT,and then just moved on to the other T's,rather then waiting another 5 to 10 seconds ??