Cover Rules

[ToddG]

As some of you may know from reading my website, the guys who run the KSTG matches have been struggling with our cover rule. It has a lot of flaws but so far we've been unable to come up with anything better.

Right now, our cover rule has four parts:

fault lines; no part of either foot can go over the fault line
crowding; muzzle must not protrude past the uprange edge of the point of cover being used
pieing; shooters must engage targets in the order they become visible around a corner (applies to vertical cover only)
ballet; both of shooter's feet must be in contact with the ground while shooting around cover (no silly IPSC 1-legged acrobatics)


I think we're pretty happy with #2 - #4.

The fault lines are weak, though. There are a number of problems with using fault lines:

shooter has to be looking at the ground and his feet as he comes up to a shooting position instead of looking downrange and thinking about the threat he's supposed to be engaging
in order to accommodate shooters of different sizes, ages, degrees of athleticism/flexibility, etc., the cover line has to be pretty generous... to the point where frequently a typical shooter is barely using cover at all
in order to accommodate an array of multiple targets, the cover line has to be generous enough to allow shooters to engage the "last" target they'll see around cover... meaning they're barely using cover at all for the earlier targets in the array
setting up flat, no-trip "fault lines" on grass, gravel, and other outdoor surfaces is difficult


The primary alternative to the fault line concept would be to use more of an IDPA-esque rule. The primary problem with the IDPA rule is that it is so subjective. Expecting an RO to solve moderately complex geometric equations by sight at speed for a moving object (the shooter) is asking too much. I've seen an awful lot of shooters on an awful lot of stages at an awful lot of major IDPA matches and no one could honestly tell you that the rule is applied consistently and fairly across the board. Even taking out the cases where an RO is being malicious (which I've witnessed), there are just too many variables in terms of view angle, etc.

The other alternative that people suggest is some kind of sensor downrange that will indicate if a shooter is too far from cover. While it sounds good in theory there are many problems with that approach: expense, added complication of setting it up for each target, figuring out a way to make it fair for the guy who is the size of a bus without making Caleb-sized people "cover free," etc. The same problems exist for the half-joking idea of mounting paintball guns downrange, plus the hopefully obvious issues related to sending speeding paintballs uprange.

There are some pretty innovative thinkers here at PF, so one of you solve this problem for us, will you?

[MDS]

I don't really know what I'm talking about, so in true gun-forum style, allow me to run my mouth here. ;)

If you put a colored lightbulb just barely down range of the cover to be used, could you position it so the shadow line is the fault line? Something like "only one shoulder can be lit up by the green light, until the targets are lit up by the shooter."

[BaiHu]

I'm in the same boat as mario, I don't know jack, but I do fancy myself as a problem solver, so here goes my 'concept' of solving the problem and it's pretty low tech.

Make your line with a long piece of cardboard and then sprinkle baby powder along the line cardboard edge and then remove the cardboard-voila! you have a line/edge. Wind might be a factor, but it shouldn't be too bad and you'll be able to tell if they 'kick' dirt onto the powder vs 'stepping' into the powder. If the person steps in the baby powder, you'll have a foot print. This makes the cost low and easily refreshed b/w rounds.

Alternatively, but a similar concept, if you've ever used a plumb line, it is a 'chalk' line that you snap onto a wall. Instead of snapping it onto the ground-which won't stay as, leave a colored plumb line tacked into the ground and if the line is kicked or stepped on, it should conceivably spread the powder along the line or leave the powder on the shooter's shoe.

The baby powder should work on any surface and is easy to sweep up in an indoor range.

The plumb line probably won't work at all in an indoor range, but could work on an outdoor.

Does the above make sense?

The last idea, that isn't my favorite, but relatively amusing: On an indoor range, bring some bubble wrap and put some double sided sticky tape on the bubble wrap and leave it at the 'cover' edge. If they step on it, 'pop', you'll see that some bubble wrap has been destroyed and the shooter gets a penalty.

[orionz06]

Not sure how effective it would be but what about a concentration penalty? Use a laser to activate a flash or strobe that is pointed at the shooter. Deduct point each time it goes off.

[JV_]

Make your line with a long piece of cardboard and then sprinkle baby powder along the line cardboard edge and then remove the cardboard-voila! you have a line/edge. Wind might be a factor, but it shouldn't be too bad and you'll be able to tell if they 'kick' dirt onto the powder vs 'stepping' into the powder. If the person steps in the baby powder, you'll have a foot print. This makes the cost low and easily refreshed b/w rounds.

It needs to be something that won't (potentially) get messed up with every shooter.

[Chris Rhines]

Do away with the cover requirement altogether.

[Corlissimo]

Another ignorant "know-it-all" here...

Going along with BaiHu's string idea, why not just use a light rope or string that is raised off the ground? It could have a bell hung from it to indicate contact with the shooter's leg. It could also be offset towards the uprange side to allow for the feet to pass under it while still keeping said feet in the proper location.

The only potential issue I see with this is multiple stakes protruding from the ground causing injury in a slip & fall. But if they can be set wide enough that might obviate the need for some type of "safety cover" over each one.

[Dropkick]

I don't really know what I'm talking about, so in true gun-forum style, allow me to run my mouth here. ;)

LOL. That makes me feel a little better about tossing out another "data point."

If the targets are farther away from the cover than the shooter, the targets will "see" the shooter first. I'd draw up some "science" in Paint, but to save time it's the concept from AMIS. So the shooter would need to be farther away from cover than the targets in order to see the targets before they "see" the shooter. You could setup a fault line parallel to the cover X+y feet behind the cover. (X = distance from target to cover. y = a few extra feet to insure the shooter see the targets first.) (And technically the fault line would be arc whose curve be based on the distance from cover, but that'd probably be a pain to setup.)

For outdoor fault lines, you could use athletic field paint. I don't have an ideas about how to get around fault lines all together though.

Also, how would an official tell if a shooter has stepped out farther than needed from cover? I think this could work, but would probably need to be refined some... If the official is couple feet behind the shooter and looking over the shooter's shoulder that is closer to cover, the official should not see any of the target in between the side of the cover and the side of the shooter's head. At any point the shooter steps out too far, the official should be able to see the target. Does that make any sense? I might have to take some photos and do some drawings.

[MikeyC]

Chalk line are a neat idea, but don't usually leave enough material down to remain visible often even on their intended item. You can pretty much forget trying to get one on grass or dry dirt. They could work inside well enough, but you'll be re-snapping them every time they get hit
I think fire would make an effective fault line, but it's going to play hell on insurance costs.

[ToddG]

Hopefully everyone understands that this is a professional, genuine discussion among peers. As such, I'm not going to waste a thousand words per response saying "you're a lovely little snowflake." Responses below are blunt...


If you put a colored lightbulb just barely down range of the cover to be used, could you position it so the shadow line is the fault line? Something like "only one shoulder can be lit up by the green light, until the targets are lit up by the shooter."

Four problems:

Not all ranges are equipped with electrical outlets everywhere you might want to hang a target.
Lightbulbs aren't bulletproof. Anything down range is going to get shot, and having frayed electrical wires + broken glass down range is a problem.
Light would have to be kitten strong to cast a shadow in bright sunlight.
To see whether the light was on the shooter's shoulder or not, the RO would have to be able to see the front of the shooter... putting the RO in a position not conducive to safety.



Make your line with a long piece of cardboard and then sprinkle baby powder along the line cardboard edge and then remove the cardboard-voila! you have a line/edge. Wind might be a factor, but it shouldn't be too bad and you'll be able to tell if they 'kick' dirt onto the powder vs 'stepping' into the powder. If the person steps in the baby powder, you'll have a foot print. This makes the cost low and easily refreshed b/w rounds.


How do you determine if someone stepped in a thin line of baby powder sprinkled on grass, or gravel?
What if it's raining?
Time to re-apply powder in exactly the same place/thickness/etc for each shooter (to keep things fair) would be monumental.
Every time someone accidentally steps on it to paste targets you'd have to re-apply.
For many stages, once a shooter has engaged the targets from cover he moves on to another position. Now stepping on the "fault" line forces you to determine whether it happened before or after he was supposed to leave cover.



Alternatively, but a similar concept, if you've ever used a plumb line, it is a 'chalk' line that you snap onto a wall. Instead of snapping it onto the ground-which won't stay as, leave a colored plumb line tacked into the ground and if the line is kicked or stepped on, it should conceivably spread the powder along the line or leave the powder on the shooter's shoe.


You say "plumb line" I say "tripwire." Trip hazards on a live fire stage are a very bad thing.



The last idea, that isn't my favorite, but relatively amusing: On an indoor range, bring some bubble wrap and put some double sided sticky tape on the bubble wrap and leave it at the 'cover' edge. If they step on it, 'pop', you'll see that some bubble wrap has been destroyed and the shooter gets a penalty.


Once Shooter-A has stepped on an area and popped all the bubbles there, what keeps Shooter-B from stepping on the same spot? Or do you double-tape fresh bubble wrap after each shooter?
As you said, the solution doesn't work outdoors.



Not sure how effective it would be but what about a concentration penalty? Use a laser to activate a flash or strobe that is pointed at the shooter. Deduct point each time it goes off.

Discussed in OP. To clarify:

Requires electricity down range.
Anything down range will get shot.
Most sensors aren't precise enough to cut a very specific go/no-go line.
Different people of different heights and sizes will not expose themselves around cover the same way.



Do away with the cover requirement altogether.


Go shoot IPSC.




Going along with BaiHu's string idea, why not just use a light rope or string that is raised off the ground? It could have a bell hung from it to indicate contact with the shooter's leg. It could also be offset towards the uprange side to allow for the feet to pass under it while still keeping said feet in the proper location.


As you said and as discussed above, trip hazard.




If the targets are farther away from the cover than the shooter, the targets will "see" the shooter first. I'd draw up some "science" in Paint, but to save time it's the concept from AMIS. So the shooter would need to be farther away from cover than the targets in order to see the targets before they "see" the shooter. You could setup a fault line parallel to the cover X+y feet behind the cover. (X = distance from target to cover. y = a few extra feet to insure the shooter see the targets first.) (And technically the fault line would be arc whose curve be based on the distance from cover, but that'd probably be a pain to setup.)


Math is hard.
The whole "seeing first" thing is fine for static threats lying in wait who know exactly where the opponent is coming from when the searcher is moving slowly and deliberately. "Slow & deliberate" is not the way people pie corners in games (or the scenarios the games tend to simulate).
Seeing first -- as demonstrated in AMIS -- is far from the only determiner of who shoots first and who hits first.




If the official is couple feet behind the shooter and looking over the shooter's shoulder that is closer to cover, the official should not see any of the target in between the side of the cover and the side of the shooter's head. At any point the shooter steps out too far, the official should be able to see the target. Does that make any sense? I might have to take some photos and do some drawings.


Shooters are constantly moving. The RO would need to be mirroring his movement perfectly which is not practical.
The RO may not be tall enough to see over the shooter's shoulder, or may be too tall to see a line from shooter's shoulder to the target unless RO squats.
It's basically just a variation of the (much simpler) IDPA "50%" rule which is subjective and therefore more prone to mistake and abuse.




I think fire would make an effective fault line, but it's going to play hell on insurance costs.

Winner!

[Drang]

I think fire would make an effective fault line, but it's going to play hell on insurance costs.
Think of the YouTube videos!

[MDS]

You put a kitten downrange (I know, TLG has probably already agreed to do it this way and isn't bothering to read the rest) so that good use of cover would keep it invisible to the shooter. You put a chihuahua on the shooter's head, trained to bark at kittens.

[LOKNLOD]

It certainly doable with technology -- I've used stuff like light curtains and SICK sensors in manufacturing to do basically the same thing, usually to trigger a shutdown or make something inoperable if something encroached into a certain space. The possibilities are out there but realistically, these are all way too expensive and permanent to use for something like a pistol match unless some billionaire wants to build and operate a dedicated range with a bunch of the things.

One idea that might be in the range of doable would be to use a webcam setup downrange with remote viewing back behind the line. Somebody would still have to watch it and call faults, but it could be recorded if someone wanted to challenge afterwards. I think in order to remove some of the subjectivity, you could put something like an adhesive reflective sticker in designated spots (X" from the centerline at nipple-heighth on each side or something) on the shooter that if are exposed around the cover that becomes a more objective way to say go/no-go.

I think Contour has one of the higher end models with remote view-finding via bluetooth on smartphone which might work for the purposes too...

[ToddG]

One idea that might be in the range of doable would be to use a webcam setup downrange with remote viewing back behind the line. Somebody would still have to watch it and call faults, but it could be recorded if someone wanted to challenge afterwards. I think in order to remove some of the subjectivity, you could put something like an adhesive reflective sticker in designated spots (X" from the centerline at nipple-heighth on each side or something) on the shooter that if are exposed around the cover that becomes a more objective way to say go/no-go.


What is nipple height for people from short girls to tall guys?
How far out do you put the indicator so its appropriate for wide and narrow people?
Who pays for all the cameras, transmitters, and monitors?

[LOKNLOD]

What is nipple height for people from short girls to tall guys?



Funny thing about nipple height is everybody comes with built-in index points, kind of like large print Braille. :p Really though, I was just trying to give an example of a reference point for consistency. Maybe the point is 3" below the clavicle notch.




How far out do you put the indicator so its appropriate for wide and narrow people?



Maybe it's halfway between the centerline and outside edge of shoulder.

Both of these questions point to the underlying problem with the whole discussion - how much cover is enough, how do you decide that, and is it the same for everyone? How do you measure it in a way that can be applied objectively to all shapes & sizes of people?





Who pays for all the cameras, transmitters, and monitors?



Well if could be done as simple as a webcam and a laptop I'd figure somebody in the group already has access to the bits and parts you'd need to make it work... Wireless webcam stuck downrange, somebody's phone acting as a hotspot, and somebody brings their laptop? Looks like you can pick up wi-fi webcams fairly cheap but I don't know if they'd meet the need. If you're looking at this from a sactioned club type setup, then the club would have to buy and keep it just like they do with steel targets and props and scoring programs and all the rest of the stuff....which maybe means somebody wants to play bad enough to pony up for it. Since this is about KSTG specifically, and it's a one off "labor of love" kind of deal, then I'd say you guys running it would have to supply that stuff.

[orionz06]

If none of the ideas won't work and what is in place now doesn't work well enough to prevent a thread why not just scrap it or design the cover in a way to force an off position?

[ToddG]

If none of the ideas won't work and what is in place now doesn't work well enough to prevent a thread why not just scrap it or design the cover in a way to force an off position?

The reason for the thread was specifically that we hoped someone would come up with a brilliant insight. That's how innovation happens. Maybe it won't happen here, maybe it will.

[BaiHu]

What if you used a colored laser set at 1 and 4 feet high, aiming down range behind the competitor, on a simple stake in the ground and one person could be a dedicated line judge and see if their body breaks the plane?

The 1 foot laser would cover a leg/foot lean and the 4 foot laser would cover any body lean, right?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[orionz06]

I'm lost as to why the cover needs to be different for Caleb than it is an ogre. Exposed is exposed.

[joshs]

I'm lost as to why the cover needs to be different for Caleb than it is an ogre. Exposed is exposed.

The distance from Caleb's eye to the point that extends the farthest past cover is much smaller than the same distance on an ogre. This is why IDPA expresses cover as a percentage of the shooter's body rather than some distance beyond cover.

[orionz06]

The distance from Caleb's eye to the point that extends the farthest past cover is much smaller than the same distance on an ogre. This is why IDPA expresses cover as a percentage of the shooter's body rather than some distance beyond cover.
So a difference of a few inches when comparing Caleb to ogre?

[jlw]

Just forget about cover and require ninja rolls...

[rudy99]

Since one of the goals is to prevent the shooter from looking at the ground, why not set a dowel rod about 3-4 feet off the ground, parallel to the ground. One side would be supported by the barricade and the other end would be supported by a stake in the ground or some other stand. If the shooter knocks off the stick then a penalty is imposed.

The rod would mimic the trajectory of a baddies bullet. I guess there is an issue with a loose cover garment hitting the stick, but it the best thing I can think of.

[JAD]

Just forget about cover and require ninja rolls...

I prefer spider rolls. And now you've made me hungry.

I've been watching people wrangle with this problem online since 1996. I have never seen anything really practical suggested. I /loathe/ shooting boxes, as trip hazards and as crutches (things that prevent competitors from having to think about cover). I think the best objective solution is the fault line, on the principle that it can be set generous so that any touch is a penalty. I am ok with the use of a separate line judge for this task -- with a well painted line their job is really easy. If you have to look at the line as a shooter, it's self-penalizing.

I SO'd the IDPA method from '97 to 2000, including at the national level. It's workable because of the warning rule, which actually results in very few penalties being assigned, which is a bad thing -- working cover properly is hard and should present a significant challenge. It didn't, in IDPA, and it was further an easily exploited generosity. I don't know how it's applied now.

I personally prefer called cover, but I prefer doing my scenario shooting as part of a subjective working group or organized training rather than competition.

[Dave J]

What if you used a colored laser set at 1 and 4 feet high, aiming down range behind the competitor, on a simple stake in the ground and one person could be a dedicated line judge and see if their body breaks the plane?

The 1 foot laser would cover a leg/foot lean and the 4 foot laser would cover any body lean, right?



On that theme, there are laser levels that are intended to illuminate on a horizontal plane. ($34.99 example from Sears here : http://www.sears.com/craftsman-laser-trac-153-level-with-carrying-case/p-00948251000P?prdNo=6&blockNo=6&blockType=G6)

Flip one of those on its side, so the beam plane is vertical, then position it like BaiHu described above. If correctly aligned, it should illuminate a line on the shooters back delineating exactly what is exposed to the threat.

I have one of those lasertrac levels around here somewhere. I'll try to find it and test the concept a little bit.

Dave

[jlw]

I prefer spider rolls. And now you've made me hungry.

I've been watching people wrangle with this problem online since 1996. I have never seen anything really practical suggested. I /loathe/ shooting boxes, as trip hazards and as crutches (things that prevent competitors from having to think about cover). I think the best objective solution is the fault line, on the principle that it can be set generous so that any touch is a penalty. I am ok with the use of a separate line judge for this task -- with a well painted line their job is really easy. If you have to look at the line as a shooter, it's self-penalizing.

I SO'd the IDPA method from '97 to 2000, including at the national level. It's workable because of the warning rule, which actually results in very few penalties being assigned, which is a bad thing -- working cover properly is hard and should present a significant challenge. It didn't, in IDPA, and it was further an easily exploited generosity. I don't know how it's applied now.

I personally prefer called cover, but I prefer doing my scenario shooting as part of a subjective working group or organized training rather than competition.


I am an IDPA SO, and it is my understanding that warnings are a courtesy but not required. I will double check the soon to be outdated rule book.

[Vinh]

Motion detector chime.

Limited range and arc means spectators will not have to stand too far away.

It will take some experimentation (about 5 minutes worth) to determine the exact dimensions of coverage. Once the sector is known, stages can be planned accordingly to prevent false positives. Arc is adjustable via electrical tape over the sensor.

Battery powered.

Inexpensive.

Portable.

Weather-resistant models available.

Every time a chime goes off during a stage, penalize accordingly.

However, I do not know whether the muzzle blast 2-3 feet in front of the gun would activate the sensor...

[BN]

I think fire would make an effective fault line

If your plastic pistol melts you get a penalty??? :)

[JAD]

I am an IDPA SO, and it is my understanding that warnings are a courtesy but not required. I will double check the soon to be outdated rule book.

That's the way I knew it. However, especially at larger matches, you needed a backpack for all the benefit of the doubt you needed to carry onto the range. An SO who is liberal with cover penalties was not welcomed by either the MD or the super squad. This was about the same time that round dumping was being legislated and the FTDR was being neutered, and we were generally exchanging the whole 'spirit of the game' thing for 'it's just a game.'

[ToddG]

Let's establish some parameters.

Environment: the solution needs to work indoors or out, in hot or cold, dry or wet

Cost: the solution needs to cost as little as possible. For a system that will be reusable for dozens of matches, a cost of about $20 per point of cover. For a system that needs to be bought anew each match, maybe $1 per point.

Durability: If the solution is at the price point for "reusable for dozens of matches," then it needs to be durable enough to last for dozens of matches. That takes into account things like, you know, getting shot.

Safety: The solution cannot create a trip hazard or block a shooter's movement when it comes time to pass through the line of cover to the next shooting position.

[ToddG]

That's the way I knew it. However, especially at larger matches, you needed a backpack for all the benefit of the doubt you needed to carry onto the range. An SO who is liberal with cover penalties was not welcomed by either the MD or the super squad. This was about the same time that round dumping was being legislated and the FTDR was being neutered, and we were generally exchanging the whole 'spirit of the game' thing for 'it's just a game.'

BTDT. I shot Nationals six or seven times. The cover rule was interpreted and applied differently each year, on each stage, and by each SO. It's why half of the stage walkthrough became shooters taking position and asking SOs "is this ok?"

FWIW, the original set of KSTG cover rules were:

50%; the competitor protecting at least 50% of his torso from any Threat target that has not yet been neutralized if cover is available (as measured from the center of the target)
crowding; muzzle must not protrude past the uprange edge of the point of cover being used
pieing; shooters must engage targets in the order they become visible around a corner (applies to vertical cover only)
feet; both of shooter's feet must be in contact with the ground while shooting around cover (no silly IPSC 1-legged acrobatics)


The rules specifically prohibited warnings.

At our "beta match" we had multiple USPSA/IDPA national champions and the #1 complaint was the cover rule. Because of the lack of warnings, shooters frequently stepped into a position that earned them a 5s penalty for every target in an array. After the fact there's really no way to adjudicate... if the RO says you were an inch farther around the corner than you say you were, that's that. And it led to some pretty heated discussions.

That's why we switched from the subjective judgment of the RO to an objective fault line. But as mentioned in the first post, that has proven to have its own weaknesses.

[JAD]

The fault lines are weak, though. There are a number of problems with using fault lines:

[1]shooter has to be looking at the ground and his feet as he comes up to a shooting position instead of looking downrange and thinking about the threat he's supposed to be engaging
[2]in order to accommodate shooters of different sizes, ages, degrees of athleticism/flexibility, etc., the cover line has to be pretty generous... to the point where frequently a typical shooter is barely using cover at all
[3]in order to accommodate an array of multiple targets, the cover line has to be generous enough to allow shooters to engage the "last" target they'll see around cover... meaning they're barely using cover at all for the earlier targets in the array
[4]setting up flat, no-trip "fault lines" on grass, gravel, and other outdoor surfaces is difficult


Thanks for the reminder to re-read the first post. I still don't think you're going to find something better than fault lines. To respond to each of your discontentitudes:
1) no, expressly, he doesn't. If the fault lines are where they should be, his feet will be behind them if he's using cover. If he has to look, he's cheating (himself).
2) this does suck.
3) there's no problem with progressive fault lines (T1 blue, T2 red, T3 green) since they're there for the line judge and not the shooter.
4) paint.

They're far from perfect, but I think that with the addition of a line judge and clarification to the shooters that if they're using cover they're behind the line, they're better than anything else.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[cclaxton]

After the fact there's really no way to adjudicate... if the RO says you were an inch farther around the corner than you say you were, that's that. And it led to some pretty heated discussions.

We need videotape replay.

With all the video cameras around these days, why not have a video camera follow behind the shooter?

Then, it is obvious to everyone.

CC

[ToddG]

1) no, expressly, he doesn't. If the fault lines are where they should be, his feet will be behind them if he's using cover. If he has to look, he's cheating (himself).

I agree with this in concept. As the other KSTG match officials can attest, this was precisely our viewpoint when we began: put the lines wide enough that anyone who violates the line has really done a poor job using cover. However, it's a game, and people see a limit and want to go right to the edge because it probably will, in fact, deliver a better score.


3) there's no problem with progressive fault lines (T1 blue, T2 red, T3 green) since they're there for the line judge and not the shooter.

In addition to the issue above, this also becomes a time/setup problem. Figuring out all those angles and laying down fault lines for each one is time consuming. If something has to change -- which happens pretty often during stage setup -- then you're stuck redrawing a lot of lines.


We need videotape replay.
With all the video cameras around these days, why not have a video camera follow behind the shooter?


The camera would have to be in the proper line from shooter to target for each target engaged. This essentially means the RO needs to be wearing it on his head. And that still won't work for instances in which there is a significant difference in height between the shooter and the RO, etc.
The image on a phone or even handheld video camera's screen is going to be tiny and much harder to judge than what the RO sees live in full scale.
Given how many cover penalties get awarded at a big match, on-demand instant replay would be a tremendous time sink. This might be overcome by some kind of risk: if you challenge the call and it's deemed to have been correct, you get an even bigger penalty. Though my guess is that would only really stop the serious competitors... the casual & "tactical" guys are still likely to freeze everything and demand a view of the stage every time.

[JAD]

. However, it's a game, and people see a limit and want to go right to the edge because it probably will, in fact, deliver a better score.

Ooo! I know! Infra red lines, and the line judge wears goggles!

I can't /imagine/ why I bailed on shooting competition.

[ToddG]

I can't /imagine/ why I bailed on shooting competition.

A topic for another thread, but fwiw I've seen competition motivate people to get better in ways that something silly like "life and death" rarely does.

[JAD]

A topic for another thread, but fwiw I've seen competition motivate people to get better in ways that something silly like "life and death" rarely does.
Split away -- I don't know if the forum really needs another thread on the validity of competition as part of a shootybetterment program -- but I absolutely enjoyed and profited from *participating* in competition. I wasn't very good, ever, but I shot a whole lot and got better, steadily. The problem was that outside of claybusting it's really hard for me to avidly shoot competition without participating in running the local matches, maintaining the local club, and SO'ing at higher levels. Which made me kittening crazy, because shooters, which made me bail.

[jetfire]

A topic for another thread, but fwiw I've seen competition motivate people to get better in ways that something silly like "life and death" rarely does.

Because people like winning. I'll probably never get into another self-defense situation in my life, but I will certainly have the chance to go out on the range and prove that I am better than x number of people. Increasing the value of "x" by getting better at shooting is a strong motivator.

[ford.304]

Eye beam sensors at knee/mid thigh height:

http://www.amazon.com/Aleko-Garage-Opener-Safety-Sensors/dp/B007TM32L6

I'm sure you can find them cheaper somewhere.

Should be pretty easy to make little stands for them, set them up so they break and turn on a light at the same spot you would set up a fault line.

You can put one end of the sensor beyond cover (but close enough no one should be shooting at it), the other behind the shooter. That way, there is no visible guide for them to look off of, but if they keep to where they should be reasonably looking for cover, they wouldn't trip them. If you mount the sensors in a box with a roof, they will work in the rain and usually in bright sunlight (I know our autocross club uses them in all types of weather).

You can power them off batteries, so no need for power out on the range. Reusable for practically forever.

[jetfire]

People's knees and thighs are frequently in different places.

[orionz06]

People's knees and thighs are frequently in different places.

A downward angle can cover a broader range of heights but the idea has already been shot down.

[ToddG]

Another issue with all these sensors is that the RO may need to be in the path even if the shooter isn't, causing a false reading.

As for knees vs thighs, at least for KSTG we made the very conscious decision that feet and knees weren't the "target" we were most concerned with. This is a reflection of simple reality when you're talking about fast cover as opposed to slow/search cover.

[ford.304]

People's knees and thighs are frequently in different places.

True, but my thought was that even *your* waist isn't below my knee. Set it at the height of the knee of the shortest person in the match :)


Another issue with all these sensors is that the RO may need to be in the path even if the shooter isn't, causing a false reading.

I'm sort of curious under what circumstances we would expect this. If the RO is following the shooter, they would be moving in the same direction, and would only have to progress no farther along than the shooter. In any case, this is why I would still have it be the RO's prerogative to notice the light, and notice if they were the one who tripped the sensor :)

I would see the problem of the RO tripping over the far end of the cover sensor being a more likely problem :( But you could always set it next to something larger, like a barrel or another wall.

Could always go for UV painted fault lines or something that only the RO's can see ;-)

[jetfire]

I'm sort of curious under what circumstances we would expect this. If the RO is following the shooter, they would be moving in the same direction, and would only have to progress no farther along than the shooter. In any case, this is why I would still have it be the RO's prerogative to notice the light, and notice if they were the one who tripped the sensor :)

In IDPA, it's quite common for stages to flow laterally from left to right; on stages like that it's also frequently common for the RO to be further to the right on the stage than the shooter so they can effectively observe a right handed shooter's gunhand and manipulations.

Example: 1452

In the photo attached, courtesy of Yamil Sued, the wall represents the limit of the downrange movement available; thus the stage proceeds from the start position at the far left (relative to facing downrange) and ends on the far right. To be in the "best" position possible, the SO on this stage started to the right and back of the shooter so that when the shooter moved from the left to the right, the RO could be ahead of them and observe their muzzle direction and finger position while movement. If the light beam was in place, the RO would have set if off in multiple positions on this stage.

[ford.304]

In IDPA, it's quite common for stages to flow laterally from left to right; on stages like that it's also frequently common for the RO to be further to the right on the stage than the shooter so they can effectively observe a right handed shooter's gunhand and manipulations.

Example: 1452

In the photo attached, courtesy of Yamil Sued, the wall represents the limit of the downrange movement available; thus the stage proceeds from the start position at the far left (relative to facing downrange) and ends on the far right. To be in the "best" position possible, the SO on this stage started to the right and back of the shooter so that when the shooter moved from the left to the right, the RO could be ahead of them and observe their muzzle direction and finger position while movement. If the light beam was in place, the RO would have set if off in multiple positions on this stage.

Got you, makes sense. Most of the examples I'd seen in videos seemed to be much more of the "following behind" style, but that does give a much better view of whether the shooter is breaking the plane/reloading with the finger on the trigger.

[cclaxton]

The camera would have to be in the proper line from shooter to target for each target engaged. This essentially means the RO needs to be wearing it on his head. And that still won't work for instances in which there is a significant difference in height between the shooter and the RO, etc.
The image on a phone or even handheld video camera's screen is going to be tiny and much harder to judge than what the RO sees live in full scale.
Given how many cover penalties get awarded at a big match, on-demand instant replay would be a tremendous time sink. This might be overcome by some kind of risk: if you challenge the call and it's deemed to have been correct, you get an even bigger penalty. Though my guess is that would only really stop the serious competitors... the casual & "tactical" guys are still likely to freeze everything and demand a view of the stage every time.
[/LIST]

Well, maybe not "instant" replay, but when you get the call, you ask for the video to be reviewed by a "panel" and they do just like football: If it's obvious enough that the call "on the field" was bad, they overrule the SO, but if it was close, the call goes to the SO. And, more importantly, it doesn't stop the match from continuing. This may not solve the problem where cover calls are NOT made that should be made because the shooter is a master and moving too fast for the SO to react. Also, might be easier if there was a dedicated squad cameraman and they follow behind the SO at a safe distance and learn to shoot the camer at the proper angle. Even better: if you could position an overhead camera high enough to cover the entire shooter area, it would allow video to be fed back to a judging area and let a "panel" of judges assess the penalties rather than the SO. (Just testing the idea.)

Obviously, this is a bit of a pipe dream since most matches don't have money for this kind of technology, but it is all getting a lot cheaper and someday soon will be cheap enough.

CC

[ToddG]

Well, maybe not "instant" replay, but when you get the call, you ask for the video to be reviewed by a "panel" and they do just like football: If it's obvious enough that the call "on the field" was bad, they overrule the SO, but if it was close, the call goes to the SO. And, more importantly, it doesn't stop the match from continuing. This may not solve the problem where cover calls are NOT made that should be made because the shooter is a master and moving too fast for the SO to react. Also, might be easier if there was a dedicated squad cameraman and they follow behind the SO at a safe distance and learn to shoot the camer at the proper angle. Even better: if you could position an overhead camera high enough to cover the entire shooter area, it would allow video to be fed back to a judging area and let a "panel" of judges assess the penalties rather than the SO. (Just testing the idea.)


Cost aside (which you already mentioned) this also has a huge manpower requirement. A dedicated panel of judges, cameramen... most matches are hard pressed to find enough people to set up, RO, and tear down.
You also still have the problem of the shooter-to-target angle needing to be clear for the camera when it's quite possible the RO will need to be blocking that view in order to do his job maintaining safety.

[ToddG]

re: sensors, angles, etc.

You need to remember that people aren't spontaneously teleported to the point of cover. They need to approach it and so does the RO. They also sometimes need to leave it and move on toward another shooting position. As such, any system that gets tripped as the shooter moves into or out of position is giving a false positive. Before someone says "only count it if the shooter is already in position" now you're back to needing someone judge/time when the shooter is "in position."

As for the assertion that shooter size & shape shouldn't matter, that's great in theory but falls apart in competition. Let's suppose you make a truly objective point of cover that works just right for someone of average height and weight. Someone much smaller can essentially ignore cover because he'll "fit" into the space more easily. Someone who is a lot bigger than average might not be able to get into position to make the shot without violating your cover line. So unless you want a game that sometimes prevents body builders and fat dudes from shooting at targets that doesn't work. (fwiw, this is also an issue with fault lines)

[jetfire]

One of the big problems with the light/sensor idea is that it doesn't address the issue of the shooter who overruns cover and then realizes their issue without firing a shot. In IDPA at least, I can run out in the open and dance the Watusi if I want to as long as I don't fire a shot.

[Dr. No]

Here's my KISS thought :

Use 1x2" boards and designate cover lines for each individual target from the position they will be shot from. In my head these boards would form something like pizza slices. They would be somewhat of a trip hazard, however it would provide a physical index for the shooter to use and would be very black and white as to whether they are over the line or not. You could figure out whatever kind of angle you deem appropriate for engaging the target and then in the COF say something like "target 1 must be engaged behind cover line #1, target 2 from line 2" etc. Then the RO only really has to look for a foot fault and you accomplish your cover designation.

[JAD]

The shooter has a physical index -- the freaking cover. The fault lines (sensors, Cyclops' eye beam, what have you) are for the SO.

[MDS]

Watched a piece of Shaft yesterday, and the answer occurred to me: put a bead curtain up along the plane of acceptable cover.

We should do a KSTG Beta match, where each stage uses a different idea for measuring cover. I'd figure out a way to be there for that. :cool:

[orionz06]

Watched a piece of Shaft yesterday, and the answer occurred to me: put a bead curtain up along the plane of acceptable cover.

We should do a KSTG Beta match, where each stage uses a different idea for measuring cover. I'd figure out a way to be there for that. :cool:
This.

[ToddG]

We should do a KSTG Beta match, where each stage uses a different idea for measuring cover. I'd figure out a way to be there for that. :cool:

I'd be fine with that in principle but I don't think it would tell us much. We needed a year of regular matches to appreciate fully the problems with the current rule. Just because a system works well for one set of circumstances on one stage doesn't mean it will work adequately in all environments for all stages. That's the trick.

[Dropkick]

Just because a system works well for one set of circumstances on one stage doesn't mean it will work adequately in all environments for all stages. That's the trick.

Jeez, when you put it that way it sounds like a real Kobayashi Maru. :(

[ToddG]

Jeez, when you put it that way it sounds like a real Kobayashi Maru. :(

If it was simple we wouldn't be asking for ideas.