Mark Perez Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Quote: from HighTechRedneck on 7:58 am on Feb. 1, 2003 There seems to be a lot of concern from some members about the FTDR being a detractor from IDPA. Most of the FTDR reasons are for safety and the ones that aren't would be impossible calls in my opinion, because the SO isn't telepathic and can't know a shooters reasons. I have re-read the FTDR section, and as a SO myself, I have a hard time believing I would actually give one out except for a gross safety violation and then I would probably DQ. In my SO training it was stressed to always give the shooter the benefit of the doubt. For example, I would score based on missed targets (if he ran out of ammo before the end) and or giving relevant procedurals. I have personally bungled the same thing on the same stage more than once, and it wasn't intentional either time. Could people please relate their experiences with the FTDR, either that they have given, been given or seen given? Thanks Seth 2. Any attempt to circumvent or compromise the spirit or rationale of any stage either by the use of inappropriate devices, equipment, or technique, will incur a twenty (20) second penalty (Vickers Count Stage) or a two hundred (200) point penalty (PAR Time Stage); this is the "FAILURE TO DO RIGHT RULE". I don't think I have ever seen a FTDR penalty issued in our matches,either for safety or technical violations. There are usually the regular wise-guys ,who during the stage "walk through" will asks ' can I do this..?' usually some method which is totally opposite of what the stage instructions call for. As an MD , I ALWAYS permit a shooter to do what ever he wants in a cof and if procedurals are warranted ,they will be applied iaw the rules . What many shooters fail to grasp is that IDPA is the adult version of 'Simon Says' . Do what the stage instructions call for - regardless of any actual tactical relevancy - and may the better man win. Stray from the instructions and accept the procedural penalty . What I would really like to see is a No-Whining clause added to the new version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larrys1911 Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Wow, I have been involved with IDPA for 5yrs now and I have seen EXACTLY "ONE" FTDR. A guy was using a Glock 34 w/ topped off hi Cap mag. They gave him a break the first 2 times. The third the MD came to three other SOs and asked our opinion. the guy got a FTDR and has neve set foot back on our range. Funny thing was the looked at the timer and he denied it. His Girlfriend was Video taping the stage and said " I have it on tape lets watch it" DOH! Cheater caught by his own GF! PRICELESS! Oh a speedload is one PE unless you argue then its two. If I hear you talking about how you can SL or whatever and take the PE and still be faster FTDR! Larry P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmaass Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Quote: from Larrys1911 on 11:10 pm on Feb. 5, 2003 Oh a speedload is one PE unless you argue then its two. If I hear you talking about how you can SL or whatever and take the PE and still be faster FTDR! So, it's not just a penalty for "FTDR", it's a penalty for "Talking About FTDR"? Thoughtcrime! "Thoughtcrime," the mere act of thinking about ideas like Freedom or Revolution, was punishable by torture and brainwashing.-George Orwell, 1984 Orwell would be proud! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larrys1911 Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Quote: from jmaass on 5:22 am on Feb. 6, 2003 Quote: from Larrys1911 on 11:10 pm on Feb. 5, 2003Oh a speedload is one PE unless you argue then its two. If I hear you talking about how you can SL or whatever and take the PE and still be faster FTDR! So, it's not just a penalty for "FTDR", it's a penalty for "Talking About FTDR"? Thoughtcrime! "Thoughtcrime," the mere act of thinking about ideas like Freedom or Revolution, was punishable by torture and brainwashing.-George Orwell, 1984 Orwell would be proud! Sorry for the misunderstanding. I assumed that everyone would read between the lines. If you talked about it and then DID it I would NAIL you. Talking about it not an offense. Talking about it and then doing it tells me that you meant to do it, it was not a Brain Fart. Course if I heard you, I would noitify you on the line that I would give you a FTDR if you carried through with it. Hope that clears that up! On another note I try to give as few PEs as possible. I warn up front on walk throughs where the problem areas are! One other thing, this may not be fair but I have seen it in IPSC and IDPA. At a local match A new shooter will "get away with" MUCH more than a regular or someone thats shot before. The way I see it they are doing very well to keep themselves safe and they are rarely in any danger of winning anything. I dont bust new guys chops most of the time. In some situations the new shooters will get HUGE breaks. When its a real sanctioned match - sorry bub HTH Larry P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFD Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 It would be an idea to go back and pick up the mag, but by the time I realize what I did, I'm 15 feet away and already engaging paper. In my case, there would be a pair of procedurals since I'd fire up an array, then speed load on the way to the next position. I wasn't clear on this in my first post, but the only time I speed load is in a field COF that apparently has an ISPC "feel" to it. My "auto-pilot" will occasionally take over in those instances. I won the stage the first time I did this. The single procedural I received wasn't enough to make up for the time savings over the guys who performed a tac-load at the specified position as the stage description dictated. It was an empty stage victory to say the least. Seems like I should have had at least 2, maybe 3 procedurals for that stage, depending on what the situation would have been for not TLing as indicated by the stage description. I shoot IDPA for fun only, so being covered up with deserved procedurals is not something I lose sleep over. It's a pretty poor assumption to think because a situation is discussed here it hasn't also been discussed with the people directly involved, or a higher authority if necessary. (Edited by JFD at 10:27 am on Feb. 6, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Murphy Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 If I had a guy cheat then brag about it or tell folks he was going to cheat, then do it, I would certainly earn a FTDR. (Edited by Ted Murphy at 11:17 pm on Feb. 6, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Murphy Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Quote: from jmaass on 6:22 am on Feb. 6, 2003 Quote: from Larrys1911 on 11:10 pm on Feb. 5, 2003Oh a speedload is one PE unless you argue then its two. If I hear you talking about how you can SL or whatever and take the PE and still be faster FTDR! So, it's not just a penalty for "FTDR", it's a penalty for "Talking About FTDR"? Thoughtcrime! "Thoughtcrime," the mere act of thinking about ideas like Freedom or Revolution, was punishable by torture and brainwashing.-George Orwell, 1984 Orwell would be proud! Jeff, You are quite obsessed with IDPA's failings, real or perceived. If you loved the sport I would respect that, but I suspect you do it for less noble reasons. That is all well and good, your actions certainly do not cause harm to anyone. But I do recommend you take some time and actually analyze yourself, your motives, and your need to down shooting sports you so obviously loathe. Certainly it cannot be healthy. (Edited by Ted Murphy at 11:17 pm on Feb. 6, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmaass Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Quote: from Ted Murphy on 8:15 pm on Feb. 6, 2003Quote: from jmaass on 6:22 am on Feb. 6, 2003 Quote: from Larrys1911 on 11:10 pm on Feb. 5, 2003Oh a speedload is one PE unless you argue then its two. If I hear you talking about how you can SL or whatever and take the PE and still be faster FTDR! So, it's not just a penalty for "FTDR", it's a penalty for "Talking About FTDR"? Thoughtcrime! "Thoughtcrime," the mere act of thinking about ideas like Freedom or Revolution, was punishable by torture and brainwashing.-George Orwell, 1984 Orwell would be proud! Jeff, You are quite obsessed with IDPA's failings, real or perceived. If you loved the sport I would respect that, but I suspect you do it for less noble reasons. That is all well and good, your actions certainly do not cause harm to anyone. But I do recommend you take some time and actually analyze yourself, your motives, and your need to down shooting sports you so obviously loathe. Certainly it cannot be healthy. Ted: I would have to care or be concerned far more about IDPA, and have far more free time to apply to the subject to be described as "obsessed". Just an interested bystander. I simply observe, read, contemplate, and comment on what I see as a festering boil on the ass of IDPA: the FTDR rule. In the quoted case above, Larrys1911 suggested that he would issue an FTDR for someone **talking** about shooting a course of fire in a way that might be a potential violation of the procedure. He immediately responded to my comment, quite correctly I think, saying he mispoke himself. He would only penalize if the procedure were actually violated. Do you disagee? FTDR is carte blanche for an SO to apply whatever concept of "the sport" that particular individual has formed. He can apply it with whatever biases he has, with impunity, unrestrained by the application a specific rule in the rulebook for the violation other than reciting the incantation "FTDR". It's as if the police were given the authority to make up their own crimes to charge offenders with, based on whatever each individual cop felt was in the "best interest of society". To the extent that shooters say they don't see FTDR applied much at their local matches, it is of little consequence. The potential for abuse is there, however, built into the IDPA rules. All IMHO, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Jeff great post, a boil...what a visual picture. As I said in a prior post, they just won't admit that the FTDR was a bad concept and now they don't see how they can rescind it without getting egg on their face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Murphy Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Quote: from jmaass on 2:28 am on Feb. 7, 2003 In the quoted case above, Larrys1911 suggested that he would issue an FTDR for someone **talking** about shooting a course of fire in a way that might be a potential violation of the procedure. He immediately responded to my comment, quite correctly I think, saying he mispoke himself. He would only penalize if the procedure were actually violated. Do you disagee? I agree that you misunderstood the context of what Larry said and spared no time slamming him on it. Funny part is, Larry is generally considered to be one of the most hard core self tytled gamers (in the noble sense, he does follow the rule book to the letter, within the spirit of the sport) in the sport and is one hell of a fair Safety Officer. For him to be considered as such an Orwellian Nange bad guy caused me to giggle and spray diet soda over the keyboard. I do appreciate the entertainment value of your rant if nothing else. Ted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Murphy Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Quote: from tightloop on 10:47 am on Feb. 7, 2003 As I said in a prior post, they just won't admit that the FTDR was a bad concept and now they don't see how they can rescind it without getting egg on their face. You are quite wrong tightloop. I spend enough time in both shooting and social situations with one of the founders. And in many conversations with him on the subject, I know that not only is the FTDR something he still believes in, but something he considers still to be both necessary and critical to the sport. As I said before, it is a fundamential aspect of the sport, not a stopgap measure. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, and I respect that. But for you to shout to the world that you can read the mind of IDPA's BOD and its founders is something silly indeed. Ted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larrys1911 Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Funny part is, Larry is generally considered to be one of the most hard core self tytled gamers (in the noble sense, he does follow the rule book to the letter, within the spirit of the sport) in the sport and is one hell of a fair Safety Officer. For him to be considered as such an Orwellian Nange bad guy caused me to giggle and spray diet soda over the keyboard. I do appreciate the entertainment value of your rant if nothing else. Ted Ted, Thanks.... I think You need some baby wipes? They clean keyboards pretty well! Larry P The Gamer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Ted I could more readily accept the idea of a DQ instead of the FDTR. If they DQ you, it has to be for a specific reason, but if they give you the Dudley Doright penalty; it can be subjective, and anytime you are penalized, it should be for something specific, something tangible within a frame work of written rules, and something referenceable if questioned. Within the spirit is way too broad to suit me. I do not expect to sway you or change your opinion on this issue, but it is my opinion that the rules need to be comprehensive, complete, not open to interpretation by either the shooter or the MD. If the rules all these points, there would be no need for the FTDR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Murphy Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Quote: from tightloop on 12:50 pm on Feb. 7, 2003 T<SNIP> but it is my opinion that the rules need to be comprehensive, complete, not open to interpretation by either the shooter or the MD. If the rules all these points, there would be no need for the FTDR. That's certainly a defensible opinion. Thing I was trying to say is the vagueness and lack of specifics in the rulebook is an overt act. They meant to keep it simple. If you don't like IDPA now you should try and scare up rulebook v1.0 . It would totally drive you mad. Ted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 I shot a few matches under the first published book, and while it was vague, logic prevailed if there was a question. You know that the longer something goes on, the more knowledgable the competitors get. that is where the thing is now, the shooters want it spelled out so there are no questions, and HQ won't do it, so there are crusty, fussy old guys like me who won't shoot till they can iron out the problems. Call it growing pains, or whatever you want to call it. You cannot dispute that the discord with the rules is hurting the sport, and I don't see HQ taking any definitive steps to resolve the issue or even let the folks who shoot the sport know that they recognize the problem and are in the process of fixing it. In fact that is one of the main problems, there is no info flow from the HQ to the shooters. The Coordinators were supposed to remedy that, but it has not worked out that way. You should move to NW Arkansas and fill that slot they are advertising for in the back of the TJ. You seem to have the energy and the passion to do the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larrys1911 Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Quote: from tightloop on 1:53 pm on Feb. 7, 2003 I shot a few matches under the first published book, and while it was vague, logic prevailed if there was a question. You know that the longer something goes on, the more knowledgable the competitors get. that is where the thing is now, the shooters want it spelled out so there are no questions, and HQ won't do it, so there are crusty, fussy old guys like me who won't shoot till they can iron out the problems. Call it growing pains, or whatever you want to call it. You cannot dispute that the discord with the rules is hurting the sport, and I don't see HQ taking any definitive steps to resolve the issue or even let the folks who shoot the sport know that they recognize the problem and are in the process of fixing it. In fact that is one of the main problems, there is no info flow from the HQ to the shooters. The Coordinators were supposed to remedy that, but it has not worked out that way. Tightloop, Interesting, so logic no longer prevails but the membership is growing so fast that they cant keep up sending membership stuff out. 5 yrs and over 10K members, the vast majority in the last two years. Doesn't sound like there is that much concern to me!!!!! I think your absolutely wrong, the problem with the rules hurting IDPA is that the rule book contradicts itself, is unorganized and not written well. I have GOOD info that the LGB will be TOTALLY different when we see it next. As to the FTDR It has never been a problem in any match I have attended. In 5 years of shooting and being an SO I have NEVER given one. There has only been ONE given at my Club and to my knowledge thats the only one thats been given in this area (3 clubs) . That includes SOing and shooting quite a few sanctioned matches and SOing two nationals. I have heard stories of people getting them on a regular basis for things like unsportsmanlike conduct. I heard of one being given for changing of a Score sheet I think, at a LOCAL match even. I know there are SOs that are A-holes but I have yet to run into one that was "out to get me". When I SO the last thing on my mind is "I'm gonna get such N such" I don't have time for that. The clubs with the bad SOs that supposedly give them out like candy at Halloween will not last long because people will quit going. If you are Getting them right and left at different clubs, you might want to analyze your shooting practices, maybe its not the SOs! The FTDR is RARELY a factor in IDPA at all, I have come much closer to DQing people for unsafe gun handling than I have FTDRing anyone. Thats MO FWIW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayonaise Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 FTDR's are harder to issue than a match DQ. Safety violations are serious and deserving of match DQ's. At least if your busted for cheating you can take a FTDR and continue the match. Unless of course you get popped again then I firmly believe that a DQ is in order. Similar to the story you earlier described. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Let's just say the bloom is off the rose for lots of shooters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Murphy Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Quote: from tightloop on 10:22 pm on Feb. 7, 2003 Let's just say the bloom is off the rose for lots of shooters. What the hell does that mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Ted I think the quote goes something like this: "now that the bloom is off the rose, all you are left with is a thorny bush." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Murphy Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Like Shakespeare, I guess it's best in the Original Klingon. We'll see how it goes with IDPA. There is tremendous growth in the sport right now. Like everything from Badmitton to Polo there are always players unhappy with the way things go. I suppose if the unhappy campers begin to grow in numbers then there is something needing doing. Till then I suppose they/we will carry on with the FTDR and our happy, not fully documented ways. I remember 3 years ago this shooter coming up to Walt Rauch. (let's say is name is Bob, for the sake of the story) This guy really let Walt have it; he had this whole schpeil about the problems of IDPA and what the solutions should be. It was, a radical departure from where IDPA was going. Walt took it all in, did his little look and wrinkle of the brow when he is contemplating something, and then said, "why don't you go start Bob-DPA?" That is of course tightloop, always an option. Ted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 I understand, sometimes it is hard for the gardner to see the thorns, even after the rose is gone. (Edited by tightloop at 10:23 pm on Feb. 8, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larrys1911 Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 In this case there are many, many, new visitors to the garden that arent seeing that the rose is gone either! Maybe its just a few that dont like the way the roses are not the same as the ones they are used to seeing! Different game, different rules. How many FTDRs have you had tightloop? Larry P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 None. It is kind of like Income Tax, I don't like it but I abide by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayonaise Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Quote: from Ted Murphy on 8:05 pm on Feb. 8, 2003Walt took it all in, did his little look and wrinkle of the brow when he is contemplating something, and then said, "why don't you go start Bob-DPA?" That is definitely a Walt statement. I love it. I think we'd all like to see some minor changes made. Hopefully they will be. 2003 should be interesting with two key BoD members "retiring". I still haven't heard who the replacements are but I'm pretty sure they've already been chosen. I took over a popular club a year ago and I've probably signed up about 50 new shooters in that time if not more. Naturally there's some shake out as with anything else... Though I still have more shooters showing up each week than I'd like because of time and space restrictions for weeknight matches. The good thing is that there is also a weekly USPSA match that usually draws most of the gamers away from our matches since we seriously strive to follow the spirit of IDPA. They want more rounds. I want more thought provoking stages and standards. Frankly I don't care if IDPA grows much larger. In fact I kinda hope it doesn't. "If you're interested in being involved in a shooting sport that mandates the use of serious equipment, practical courses of fire and promotes fellowship among like minded shooters, then Defensive Pistol is for you. We welcome you and any constructive comment and suggestions you may have." - Bill Wilson "If you came here to win you probably won't have much fun. If you came here to have fun, you probably will." Ken Hackathorn 2002 Nationals Two quotes that pretty much sum up IDPA for me. Mark (Edited by Mayonaise at 11:22 pm on Feb. 13, 2003) (Edited by Mayonaise at 11:24 pm on Feb. 13, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now