Could this have been a FTDR

[DWFAN]

Shooting last night at the IDPA club match. Ran across this stage I wanted to ask about.

Engage retreating target1 from X1, move to X2 kneeling behind barrel and engage T2-4. All targets get three shots.

I engage first target, move to barrel engage T2 and T3 with 3 shots each from rt side of the barrel. Unload, show clear, slide hammer.. etc.

I know Im done because my first 3 on T2, shot through to T4. I saved a reload and 3 shots on the stage. One of the RO's said in a more formal match it may have been a FTDR because I gamed the stage.

Could it have been ? I think it was just bad stage design, and not my fault if you can shoot it like that.

(pardon the crude Paint drawing)

I went 0,3,0,0 down on the stage.

Edited March 3, 2010 by DWFAN

[nwb01]

Shoot throughs count !! However, I say a FTDR to the stage designer for not positioning the targets to prevent that from happening.

[Ahab]

That just looks like a poorly designed stage to me, and you shouldn't be given an FTDR because the stage designer didn't think it through. I have always felt that it's incumbent upon stage designers to build COFs that are challenging and innovative without deliberately making them "procedural traps". Going hand in hand with that a good stage should be designed to prevent shooters from doing what happened on this stage.

[DWFAN]

I wasnt given one, it was just the conversation I had later in the night with another guy who said it could have been. I wasnt sure how accurate his assessment was.

[salilus]

the only thing I can think of would be a PE for not firing the required number of rounds... Not FTDR.

[Chris Christian]

A definite PE for "failing to engage" each target with the required number of rounds specified in the COF. Shoot throughs do count for score, but counting on shoot throughs to "score" two targets without specifically engaging the second target would be 3 secs if I was SOing that squad. As for FTDR... a subjective call. If the shooter finished the COF and then bragged about his frugalness, and how he intended to not have to fire rounds at the second target to save time... I might issue one. I agree it is not a well thought out COF... obvious shoot throughs should be avoided.

Chris Christian

[Shibby]

No procedural or FTDR. IMO it's a bad stage design and wouldn't make it in a major match.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Shibby

[Classic_jon]

My answer is yes to both. At a higher level match it is a possible FTDR if you intentionally did not at least attempt to take the other necessary shots *AS WELL AS* a bad stage design.

I do agree with what some others have said that you should not be penalized by a "trapped stage" where you can not help but get some shoot throughs unless you attempt to purposefully circumvent the intent of the rules/game and number of shots required.

We had something similar happen at a club level with a stage design and everyone there agreed that the best thing to do was for everyone to still take the number of shots required for the stage and just take the best two shots on the two targets that were getting shoot throughs rather than have everyone have to re-shoot it with the targets moved.

[Gregg K]

It is a bad stage design but it is also an FTDR. Purposely not firing the specified number of rounds to gain an advantage is pretty much the definition of an FTDR.

[Steve Koski]

I would definitely not try that at a sanctioned match. Might get the 20 second hammer.

[CatsEye]

In my opinion if you didn't even try to engage the last target I would call it a FTDR.

[Glshooter]

How can it be not engaged if there were three holes in it?

[Glock3422]

How can it be not engaged if there were three holes in it?

IDPA does not have a failure to engage however, it would be a procedural error for not firing the required number of rounds in the

COF.

FTDR? No.

[DeweyH]

This is the rule from the IDPA Rulebook.

CoF 8. No threat target shall be located so that it can be hit by

shooting through another threat target.

The stage is illegal. If the Match Director allowed an illegal stage to be used how can any IDPA rule be applied to that stage?

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.

Tactical Priority according to the drawing would be slicing the pie. Target 3 then 2 which would cause shoot throughs on 4.

CoF 1. All CoF must either simulate a possible real life

scenario or test skills that might reasonably be used in a real

life self-defense confrontation. If you cannot honestly say “that

could happen,” it probably won’t make a good IDPA stage.

If this were a real life scenario and you shot threat #2 and also shot threat #4 as well, what would the Police and DA do if you went ahead and shot threat #2 twice more after already neutralizing him? You would probably get a 20 year FTDR penalty.

I don't think there should be a procedural penalty either. The FTDR rule covers not shooting all shots to gain an advantage.

[Bill Nesbitt]

It's a bad stage, but you still get a FTDR. You didn't reload to finish the stage.

[DWFAN]

The COF didnt specify a reload, nor specifically a certain amount of shots. Only that everyone gets 3. Everyone got 3.

He even said that tactical priority was near to far, since some of the really tall older guys would not be able to kneel and get below the top of the barrel. So, T3 T4 were equal threats.

If this were a real life scenario and you shot threat #2 and also shot threat #4 as well, what would the Police and DA do if you went ahead and shot threat #2 twice more after already neutralizing him? You would probably get a 20 year FTDR penalty

Thats my thinking..

I'll admit in a major match if something like this stage were to sneak through that it would be a good idea to engage T3 separately, or shoot 3 more through T2 to satisfy the # of shots fired.

[Chris Christian]

This may be putting too fine a point on it, but if the COF description said the shooter will engage each target with a minimum or three rounds (Vickers) or three rounds only (Limited) then "engaging" T-2 and counting on rounds to shoot through and hit T-4... without specifically aiming at and engaging T-4... would be a procedural at the least... because T-4 was not specifically engaged. Another way to look at it is in failing to fire the minimum number of rounds required by the COF description. Subjectively, that could also be a FTDR. In any case, it would draw a penalty.

Chris Christian

Edited March 4, 2010 by Chris Christian

[steel1212]

Ok I'm still confused. You shot T1, done. You run to the table, take a knee and slice the pie right? If while slicing the pie you have to shoot T3 first, then T2. By shooting T2 you shoot through to T4. If the COF only says 3 on each not 12 rounds how can you fault the shooter? T4 was engaged, it just happened to be through T2. Now if they had good COF like our club has it has the total rounds to finish the stage on the upper right of the stage briefing.

Something similar happened on the postal match, there was a shoot through on one of the stages. I chose not to do so and I think it killed my time as I think a lot of clubs allowed shooters to shoot through and stop.

I love the shoot through rule as it makes you think about where your rounds are going. At the same time if there is a shoot through on a shoot target it has been engaged, there is the required number of rounds on target and your done. This is my opinion an because its my opinion and it doesn't go along with several people posting is why I still ask SOs before I shoot a stage how I can shoot it.

[Steve Koski]

Good idea to ask the SO ahead of time if you can do the shoot throughs and not get a penalty. This clears it right up.

[Fireant]

Good idea to ask the SO ahead of time if you can do the shoot throughs and not get a penalty. This clears it right up.

OMG, that's a good one. I say that because I shot a sanctioned match where I asked the SO if I could do something and he said "No" that afternoon I watched him shoot the same stage and he did it the way he told me I could not. So, after that I just do it and if they want to give a PE then they have to show me in the rules where it was earned.

[sigfla]

Could it have been, YES. Was it for sure? That is somewhat subjective. You clearly did it to gain a competitive advantage. If you did not fire the required number of shots then you for sure draw a PE. Drawing a PE on purpose to better your score is ground for a FTDR. If the stage was set up so that shoot thru was occuring for everyone (I doubt this), then the stage would clearly be illegal and in principle should be thrown out along with your PE penalty incurred. Whether or not that includes you FTDR penalty is again subject to the MD's discretion but at that point I would say both parties messed up and lets start fresh on the next stage.....

In order to shoot thru I would expect you leaned out a good bit from P2, maybe breaking cover to do so. If a shooter made that effort to clearly hit the shoot thru then I would give you the PE for shooting less than the required number of shots, maybe the PE for breaking cover, and the FTDR for drawing a penalty in order to better your score along with circumventing the spirit of the stage.

[sfinney]

"engage T2 and T3 with 3 shots each"

So it said engage each with 3 SHOTS EACH, not 3 HITS each? If so, you did not shoot 3 SHOTS at the last target, thus you would get a penalty.

Key words being ENGAGE and SHOTS. Getting hits on a target is not necesarily the same thing as "engaging", or firing "3 shots each".

[sigfla]

I am curious to know how many others hit T4 with a shoot thru. That would really dictate the penalty for me. I believe a pronounced lean out from cover was probably necessary for the shooter to do what he did. Every COF I have ever been on that had a shoot thru was called out right away and usually adjusted. I gotta think this one required a little "extra" movement to hit despite the posted drawing.

[DWFAN]

Im not sure how many others did it intentionally (I'll know when they post scores, I expect mine to be 5-6 seconds less than most others), but If you knelt down and leaned to the right of the barrel, it was pretty easy to shoot through(3 shots just under the -0 zone, hit the -0zone on T4). Most of the guys just shot from the top of the barrel and the shoot through wasnt clearly available that way.

[Steve Koski]

Good idea to ask the SO ahead of time if you can do the shoot throughs and not get a penalty. This clears it right up.

OMG, that's a good one. I say that because I shot a sanctioned match where I asked the SO if I could do something and he said "No" that afternoon I watched him shoot the same stage and he did it the way he told me I could not. So, after that I just do it and if they want to give a PE then they have to show me in the rules where it was earned.

Wow. What a snake!