Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 56

Thread: Cover Rules

  1. #41
    Member orionz06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by caleb View Post
    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.
    Think for yourself. Question authority.

  2. #42
    We are diminished
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    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.

  3. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by caleb View Post
    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 ;-)

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by ford.304 View Post
    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: Attachment 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.

  5. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by caleb View Post
    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: Attachment 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.

  6. #46
    Member cclaxton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vienna, Va
    Quote Originally Posted by ToddG View Post
    [*]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
    That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;

  7. #47
    We are diminished
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Quote Originally Posted by cclaxton View Post
    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.

  8. #48
    We are diminished
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    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)

  9. #49
    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.

  10. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    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.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •