Bill Posted March 29, 2002 Share Posted March 29, 2002 I am one of the Safety Officer trainers for IDPA. To get ready I have spent a lot of time with the Green Book. It is a lot thicker than the first Red Book I got back in 1997. I don't think we would have needed a bigger rule book if we had just used the FTDR correctly. How many of you have ever seen someone get an FTDR? Have you ever given one yourself? Have you ever gotten one yourself? Have you seen someone that should have gotten one and they didn't? What are your thoughts? Bill Nesbitt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 29, 2002 Share Posted March 29, 2002 BILL, I'll play devil's advocate... Why is it even needed? What rules could be changed to make it a non-issue? (Don't flame me...I am just sparking conversation.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted March 29, 2002 Share Posted March 29, 2002 Good question Flex. I was thinking the same thing. FTDR seems to be way too subjective. Personally, I don't think it should be needed if the rules are clear, the COF description is good and the stages are designed well. Yes, I've heard of several cases of FTDR's being issued and seen a few. In most of those cases, the shooter was penalized for something that was really poor course design. I think the FTDR should often go to the course designer, not the shooter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted March 29, 2002 Author Share Posted March 29, 2002 Flex, The original intent for IDPA was to have a bare minimum of rules, just enough to point shooters in the correct direction. Hopefully everyone would "Do The Right Thing" The FTDR was for the very few times when people cheated. Too many people tried to push the envelope. Now we have more rules. Storm, I agree they should give FTDR's for some stage design. Makes you wonder what were those people thinking??? Bill Nesbitt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delmont Posted March 29, 2002 Share Posted March 29, 2002 Quote: from BILL on 6:38 am on Mar. 29, 2002 The FTDR was for the very few times when people cheated. Too many people tried to push the envelope. Now we have more rules. For some reason, the pursuit of shooting skill is deemed as "cheating" by certain folks within the IDPA community. If something isn't shot "tactically" and is shot too fast, then the shooter must be a cheater and should get an FTDR. If you disagree with their interpretation of the word "cheater", then you don't "get it" and you should just go shoot IPSC like all the other cheaters. I've heard this so many times over the past few years, it makes me sick. It seems that the intent to win an IDPA match is grounds for banishment in the eyes of some. Pushing the envelope is how skills evolve and improve. When too many people try to improve, then we need to start punishing them? To "do the right thing" is a pretty subjective concept, is it not? The green rulebook is just fine. Rules are a good thing, especially if they are well thought out and well written. If it weren't for the rules, IDPA would devolve into a bunch a clubs that do their own thing, based on the club member's ideas of "doing the right thing". Imagine traveling across a few states to shoot a big match, only to get an FTDR because your idea of "the right thing" doesn't mesh with the ideas of the MD, and both of your ideas fall within the rules. That being said, I don't really agree with the FTDR. If a shooter is breaking the rules, then multiple PEs should be easy to assign and will serve the same purpose. If multiple PEs can't be assigned, then the shooter isn't breaking the rules or the COF design is really vague in its intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midvalleyshooter Posted March 30, 2002 Share Posted March 30, 2002 I have never seen a FTDR given. But I look at it this way. A FTDR is a wild card a SO or match director has in their kit. If some one is blatantly making procedural errors to cheat and gain a competitve advantage then a FTDR could be used. WARNING: Severe sarcastic mode on, do not read on if you are easily offended. By the way here is some advice on those crappy stages folks are designing. Instead of WHIMPERING about their stages, design some good ones yourself, then do it every month for a couple of years Then all the stages will be wonderful, because they have been designed by an expert like you Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted March 30, 2002 Share Posted March 30, 2002 MVS, I don't whimper about bad stages. I shoot them and get on with life. So far, I haven't designed any IDPA stages. For one thing, the IDPA matches I've attended around here were run at an indoor range. The folks who own the range design the stages. You're left with what they give you. Designing your own stages is not an option. I have designed and run a ton of IPSC stages though. I don't whimper and whine when a shooter finds a creative way of shooting it. If IPSC had a FTDR, I wouldn't use it to penalize someone who gamed my stage. But, it does happen in IDPA. The "tactical" folks use it to penalize the "gamers" who find holes in their stage design. My point is, the FTDR is way too subjective. There's no way to ensure it is given out appropriately. With clear rules, there is not a need for an FTDR. Delmont's right: The green rulebook is just fine. Rules are a good thing, especially if they are well thought out and well written. If it weren't for the rules, IDPA would devolve into a bunch a clubs that do their own thing, based on the club member's ideas of "doing the right thing". Imagine traveling across a few states to shoot a big match, only to get an FTDR because your idea of "the right thing" doesn't mesh with the ideas of the MD, and both of your ideas fall within the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Moneypenny Posted March 30, 2002 Share Posted March 30, 2002 Haven't seen one given, haven't heard one given, haven't given one, might have deserved one once :-) i am wiser now, it was like my second match. have seen people that needed them very little, but once in a while one pops up. I feel in this case ( of course bill being the guy who taught the class i too, i am thinking like him) the FTDR is used with GROSS and WANTON circumvention of fair play. not because someone "games" a stage. not because they don't use cover properly, that we just give procedural, after procedural for. its not a FTDR its a FDTSMT ( failure to do the smart thing) now if this person looks back and says "i don't want to use cover" then thats an FTDR enforcable penalty. examples of FTDR offenses. shooter comes to the line with a SSP pistol and full capacity mags. fires his 11, drops an empty mag on the ground and keeps shooting ( aka ghost reload) shooter comes to the line with gun, loads 10 rounds <note stages designed by this shooter and by the nesbitt's stage " load pistol to IDPA maximum in course design"> then shooter being well informed and aware of the rules still refuses to top off. I agree sometimes a course designer should be given a FTDR because he intentionally traps the shooter, has a course thats just stupid. or designs an unsafe COF as for the sarcastic comment... i think it should be taken seriously. MORE people with MORE creativity equals MORE stages to shoot MORE challenges and MORE shooting... everyone knows we can't have too much of a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idpassr Posted April 2, 2002 Share Posted April 2, 2002 I think cheating and gaming are 2 entirely different things. You cheat when you break the rules, for example, changing your mags from 8 rounds to 7 to get a slidelock reload at a more opportune time. Gaming is not asking "what is prone?", gaming is thinking 2 or 3 steps into the CoF. It's looking at angles of the CoF while you are taping. It's watching the shooters ahead of you shoot and see what they do. Gaming means you are thinking about what to do and seeing what is working or not working. It's not cheating, it's adapting. GB who thinks life is a blind CoF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted April 3, 2002 Author Share Posted April 3, 2002 Perhaps I should explain myself better. When I said "push the envelope" I was talking about cheating pure & simple not gaming. In my opinion gaming is a good thing. We can use it to find better ways to shoot a stage and, just maybe, we can find a better way to stay alive on the street. Bill Nesbitt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemeanie Posted April 11, 2002 Share Posted April 11, 2002 As a shooter, not an SO, I can buy into the rationale for the FTDR. I have never seen one administered, though I have seen situations where it should have been. If you unthinkingly dump rounds to get to slide lock out of habit, the quick fix is to retain your mag anyway (assuming the required reload is a tac or mag ch/w retention) and get on with it. A good faith effort will avoid a penalty. My failure to call my shots could have earned me an FTDR a time or two. I just couldn't beleive I made my hit! 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