Everyone got FTDRs

[Duane Thomas]

Let's kind of cool it on referring to other people's work as "BS," folks.

[John Z Sr]

Those of us that have been shooting IDPA for awhile understand how subjective the enforcement of the rules can be. Wording in the rule book would fix many things and only benefit both IDPA and the people who shoot it for what it is........a GAME.

Thanks but I have been shooting it for some time and have seen a fair amount bad calls, and yes a clean up of the rules would be nice.

Mr. Bell, you have my vote as next Pres. of IDPA,,, short- to the point- no BS,,,, In my opinion that is what this GAME needs, now I must get my stuff ready to go to a match and earn at least 1 procedural for the day

[nwb01]

Those of us that have been shooting IDPA for awhile understand how subjective the enforcement of the rules can be. Wording in the rule book would fix many things and only benefit both IDPA and the people who shoot it for what it is........a GAME.

Thanks but I have been shooting it for some time and have seen a fair amount bad calls, and yes a clean up of the rules would be nice.

Mr. Bell, you have my vote as next Pres. of IDPA,,, short- to the point- no BS,,,, In my opinion that is what this GAME needs, now I must get my stuff ready to go to a match and earn at least 1 procedural for the day

So you don't feel the bad calls are due to a subjective interpretation of the rules ??

[Chris Christian]

Returning to the OP. I know it was not a IDPA legal stage. But, if it was a single COF with only those steel targets involved, with each competitor carrying the maximum amount of ammo for their gun division, and if the COF said steel must fall to score...and if competitor elected to stop shooting at the standing targets while they still had ammo from their basic starting supply available to them... then it could be concluded that they elected to stop firing because the points down per target would result in less time in penalties than they would have taken in reloading, shooting, and continuing to miss. I would consider that a FTDR... even if all targets had been engaged and the miimum round count per that COF had been fired. Paper targets are a totally different matter because they can't be scored until the range is clear and shooting has stopped. A shooter can only be expected to engage them with the minimum number of rounds recquired and let the scores fall where they may. Falling steel is different. It can be determined by the shooter while shooting.

As for a later poster noting "interpretation of the rules". I agree that clarity is needed in the rule book. I just returned from FL IDPA State, and shooters were given procedurals on one stage for reloading from an established shooting position that used cover correctly... and not dropping back fully behind cover to reload and move to the next shooting position, even though they had engaged all targets visible from that position, and were reloading from the same position that they just used to shoot them that did not result in a cover call. The rule book specifically states that a shooter may do so. Here, it was 3 seconds, based on a rule book passage that ignored the clarifying passage noted above.

Chris Christian

[RobMoore]

As you described, that isn't a failing of the rulebook, but of the SOs and MD (and of the competitor, if they didn't ask for a review). The rulebook has quite a few areas of ambiguity, but not having to duck back for extra cover during the reload isn't one of them.

[spanky]

Steve, the point is moot

I was wondering when someone would catch that.

[GForceLizard]

If you took at least 1 shot at each steel there is no failure to do right. The FTDR should be applied with the example where you don't engage the target. Going to slide lock and stopping without a single shot aimed at the steel is FTRD. If you take 1 shot at a small steel 35 yards out, go to slide lock and stop that's just being smart if you can't make the shot.

After the match we realized that the other squads were requiring their shooters to expend all available ammo before finishing.

If that's what they wanted it should have been in the course description.

Edited March 19, 2010 by GForceLizard

[Chris Christian]

If each target is engaged there is no FTDR, nor a PE for failing to fire the minimum number of rounds, or engage all the targets in the COF description. But, if the shooter stopped shooting ... in this example, on a distance steel target... with ammo left on their person from their basic starting load out... and stopped shooting/reloading because their time would be better than they could achieve by reloading and attempting to knock down the target... I might call a FTDR. IDPA Rules are different than USPSA... not necessarily better or worse... just different. With remaining ammo I might figure the shooter was attempting to "game" (this is one case where I think I can actually define that term) the COF. That's my thought FWIW.

Chris Christian

[Classic_jon]

Something I am surprised that no one has brought up is prop malfunctions. If the steel was so hard to knock down that a lot of people were hitting it and it was not falling, shouldn't that be taken into account by the MD's and SO's and corrected before continuing on with the match?

That being said, I do have to agree with some of the other posters that if he did not say in the course description "you must continue to engage the steel until it either falls or you are out of ammo." then I find an FTDR questionable. If the SO and shooters in the squad were not *intentionally* skirting the rules in this case then I would not have issued an FTDR as long as the steel had been engaged with the correct # of rounds/attempts.

Doesn't the rulebook say that the shooter gets benefit of the doubt?

Edited March 19, 2010 by Classic_jon

[COF]

If each target is engaged there is no FTDR, nor a PE for failing to fire the minimum number of rounds, or engage all the targets in the COF description. But, if the shooter stopped shooting ... in this example, on a distance steel target... with ammo left on their person from their basic starting load out... and stopped shooting/reloading because their time would be better than they could achieve by reloading and attempting to knock down the target... I might call a FTDR. IDPA Rules are different than USPSA... not necessarily better or worse... just different. With remaining ammo I might figure the shooter was attempting to "game" (this is one case where I think I can actually define that term) the COF. That's my thought FWIW.

Chris Christian

Once again, if the required minimum number of rounds have been fired and the competitor has engaged the target the only penalties are -5 points for the miss and -5 seconds for the failure to neutralize. There is no FTDR. While some may consider that gaming, they have completed the requirements of the course of fire. If the COF was written that the target had to be engaged until it fell and if the shooter stopped after one round simply to get a better time, then you MIGHT be able to make a case for more than a PE for failure to follow stage instructions.

Jerry

[Chris Christian]

The rule on FTDR is a subjective one. Several SOs watching the same chain of events might come to different conclusions as to whether or not to issue a FTDR. But, there is precedent (codified in the Rule Book) for issuing a FTDR to a shooter who has ammo remaining and chooses not to reload and engage the target because his/her score will be better if not done. Current Rule Book, Page 15.. "Examples (Non-inclusive List) #3 "Not reloading to fire one more round because your score will be better even with the miss". In the example given in previous posts.. distant steel target that has been engaged but not hit, with the shooter choosing not to reload and continue to engage it... I think you could make a case for issuing a FTDR based upon the above quoted #3 from page 15.

Chris Christian

[Chris Christian]

I'm somewhat surpised to see this thread ending so quickly. There were a great many "opinions" expressed... even from some veteran shooters/SOs... but once the pertinent section from the Rule Book was posted, the "opinions" seem to stop. Does this mean that many IDPA SOs don't read the Rule Book... understand the Rule Book... and keep a copy in their range bag for reference when they are officiating? I am a certified SO and do keep a copy in my shooting bag. I can refer to it. But, after five years of Sanctioned & club matches I've seen a number of SOs that may not. Maybe some of them are running on "muscle memory". I do note that in USPSA (I'm a crossover shooter and play both games although I'm not a USPSA RO) the ROs seem to know the rules.

Maybe this is worth a new thread... "Do IDPA SOs Actually Know The Rules?" Or, as my last Sanctioned Match (Feb 2010

IDPA FL State) might indicate, are there many that don't?

Chris Christian

Edited March 21, 2010 by Chris Christian

[Duane Thomas]

Closed.