Tac Priority Vs Tac Sequence

[Larrys1911]

Just a point of fact here.

I keep seeing references to shooting stages (here and in other forums) that IMPLY you must shoot Tac Seq if you are in the open or exposed to more than one tgt at once.

SO, I would like to point out that Tactical SEQUENCE (everyone gets firsts before they get seconds IE 1,1,2,1,1 ) is NOT required by the rules in ANY senario without it being directly required by the SO and/or CoF (IE if the SO tells you, you must shoot TS and it doesnt say it on the CoF.... or Visa Versa, YOU BETTER DO IT)

I have heard people say if you shoot OVER a car you MUST engage TS, if you shoot around a car you MUST shoot TP. Fine if its in the CoF, If it says you may engage around or over and nothing else and the SO doesnt tell you different.... TS is NOT required no matter how you shoot it!

Just wanted to Clear that up for everyone.

Larry P

[vincent]

Agreed!

[omnia1911]

Just a point of fact here.

I keep seeing references to shooting stages (here and in other forums) that IMPLY you must shoot Tac Seq if you are in the open or exposed to more than one tgt at once.

SO, I would like to point out that Tactical SEQUENCE (everyone gets firsts before they get seconds IE 1,1,2,1,1 ) is NOT required by the rules in ANY senario without it being directly required by the SO and/or CoF  (IE if the SO tells you, you must shoot TS and it doesnt say it on the CoF.... or Visa Versa, YOU BETTER DO IT)

I have heard people say if you shoot OVER a car you MUST engage TS, if you shoot around a car you MUST shoot TP. Fine if its in the CoF, If it says you may engage around or over and nothing else and the SO doesnt tell you different.... TS is NOT required no matter how you shoot it!

Just wanted to Clear that up for everyone.

Larry P

I never IMPLYIED that tactical sequence or tactical priority was required.

If one can neutralize (at least 4 points scoring on the target) the threat targets through tactical sequence while out in the open, I would be more forgiving in assessing a penalty for being exposed.

Since making calls as an IDPA SO is so subjective, I would take into consideration as many factors that I can before handing out penalties. Being fair to the competitor is my first priority.

[Mark Perez]

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “TACTICAL PRIORITY” AND “TACTICAL SEQUENCE” TARGET ENGAGEMENT? “Tactical priority” refers to the targets being engaged in order of the threat posed. Basically this is either near to far if the targets are all visible at the same time and are more than 2 yards distant from each other. In IDPA competition, targets within 2 yards of each other are considered equal threat and no tactical priority should be required. Tactical priority is also used when you lean out from cover to engage targets (slicing the pie); targets are considered priority based on their order of visibility to the shooter (shoot them as you see them). Tactical sequence is totally different. “Tactical sequence” refers to a method of target engagement, specifically engaging all targets with one round BEFORE you engage with an additional round or rounds. Say you have 3 threat targets to engage: you would shoot them 1 – 1 – 2 – 1 – 1 or shoot one round at each, then come back in ANY sequence and put an additional round or rounds on each target.

from the FAQ section in the LGB

"(IE if the SO tells you, you must shoot TS and it doesnt say it on the CoF.... or Visa Versa, YOU BETTER DO IT)"

Larrys1911

If it isn't in writing in the stage instructions , an SO cannot penalize you for disobeying his verbal instruction.

For the sake of the game , a competitor can always default to Tactical Priority and stay within the rules - unless directed otherwise.

Mark

[Gun Geek]

Mark, I see that being more possible in IPSC than in IDPA.

You default to what the SO said, forget about trying to read the CoF or rulebook to an SO.

I've had both Burkett and Langdon tell me to forget about what's in the CoF and the LGB and ask the SO. Both say they have lost points ( via procedurals) by doing what is written, not what is said - just as Larry said.

[Mark Perez]

Mark, I see that being more possible in IPSC than in IDPA.

You default to what the SO said, forget about trying to read the CoF or rulebook to an SO.

I've had both Burkett and Langdon tell me to forget about what's in the CoF and the LGB and ask the SO.  Both say they have lost points ( via procedurals) by doing what is written, not what is said - just as Larry said.

Then those guys were screwed because the SO failed his job.

The reason we have a scenario and directions is to avoid that kind of pattern .

Otherwise , why even bother writing down directions?

Just throw a bunch of targets out there and have the shooter do what he wants .

The SO position does not grant any power of royalty to overwrite the stage designers intent , that could be reserved for the MD - but he has to put any corrections to the posted directions.

If the directions say "Engage T1 , T2 and T3 in tactical priority (near to far)" and the SO says 'you must engage them in TAC-Sequence' - there is going to be a little lesson in remedial reading when I get to the line .

Until that day,

mark

p.s. there is a similar thread on PE's at the 1911 forum

[JasonK]

If it isn't in writing in the stage instructions , an SO cannot penalize you for disobeying his verbal instruction.

Mark at a state match in your neck of the woods I was give a PE for not following a verbal only instruction. It was on a very simple, straight-foward stage and I was the second shooter in the squad. As I was loading my mags and the stage was so clearly laid out in the COF book I wasn't paying close enough attention to the SO walkthrough. He said that you have to stand up completely out of the chair before turning around and taking cover behind it to engage the first target. The SO said that he had been giving that instruction to all squads. I allowed myself to be talked out of protesting that PE by several of my squad mates who all said they heard that instruction. So far it is the only procedural that I don't feel I've earned. On the other hand there was that memory game. (screw or bolt)

JK

[Mark Perez]

JasonK,

Do you remember which stage it was ?

I'll look it up when I get home - if I still have the stage book. There was so much silliness in that match , I elected to just work the thing (stage 5) instead of shoot it.

mark

[geezer-lock]

In what passes for my mind I am certain that the “requirements of the COF” take precedence over verbal instructions. Changes to the COF can only be made by the MD. If the COF does not specify, for instance, “stand up before taking cover” then the shooter should be able to use other means to get to cover. The LGB specifies what procedurals an SO can issue. Number 6 is “Not following other COF rules as required”. If it is not specified then the SO should allow any SAFE interpretation.

I know of an instance where an experienced Master was given a procedural because the SO said the violation was “an unwritten rule in IDPA”! God help us if that attitude gets passed along.

Be safe, have fun...where possible

geezer

[vincent]

JasonK,

The same thing happened to the first shooter in our squad on that stage. It was only a verbal instruction (not in the matchbook) and in our walkthrough it wasn't emphasized. After the first shooter got the penalty the SO reiterated the instruction but it was too late for the first guy.

-----

I tell IDPA shooters to always listen to the verbal description and ask the SO if they need clarification. The match book is often useless and a course description with any last minute updates is rarely posted at the stage. Heck your lucky to even see a sign telling you the scenario name/number.

[Larrys1911]

"(IE if the SO tells you, you must shoot TS and it doesnt say it on the CoF.... or Visa Versa, YOU BETTER DO IT)"

Larrys1911

If it isn't in writing in the stage instructions , an SO cannot penalize you for disobeying his verbal instruction.

For the sake of the game , a competitor can always default to Tactical Priority and stay within the rules - unless directed otherwise.

Mark

Mark,

I agree with you in theory/principle but in reality if the SO gives you instructions that are contrary to the CoF description its best to ask, easier on everyone.

Larry P

Edited: There may be safety reasons or something else that have caused things to change too. and maybe teh CoF hasnt been changed to reflect that yet...its in the works or something or maybe foregotten.

Just better to ask and follow what the SO Says. Just like Matt says ask the SO what he wants you to do and then do it!

If you dont do what everyone else has been told to do and done then the SO/MD has two options..

1 let it go and let you have a possible advantage. Thereby ruining it for everyone

2 Give you a penalty and tell you well you should have listened to me.

Guess which one will normally get done!

LP

[Larrys1911]

If one can neutralize (at least 4 points scoring on the target) the threat targets through tactical sequence while out in the open, I would be more forgiving in assessing a penalty for being exposed.

Thats the point, if it doesnt CALL for TS then it has no bearing on the CoF,

None, your idea of it being "tactically correct" or "what should be done" doesnt matter!

Larry P

[Mark Perez]

I agree with you in theory/principle but in reality if the SO gives you instructions that are contrary to the CoF description its best to ask, easier on everyone.

Larry P

I understand your point (and the safety issues) - but how long should we as customers condone that sort of activity?

If an RO at an IPSC match tried some of the stuff we see SO's doing - do you think he would be allowed any leniency?

just a thought ,

Mark

[Scooter]

Anytime someone gives out a verbal only instruction, we tell them to put it in the course description posted at the stage. It takes what 30 seconds to do that.

[omnia1911]

If one can neutralize (at least 4 points scoring on the target) the threat targets through tactical sequence while out in the open, I would be more forgiving in assessing a penalty for being exposed.

Thats the point, if it doesnt CALL for TS then it has no bearing on the CoF,

None, your idea of it being "tactically correct" or "what should be done" doesnt matter!

Larry P

I think you are missing the point Larry. I never used the words "tactically correct" in my statement.

As the SO, I wouldn't be judging whether the shooter was being tactically correct. I would be evaluating whether he was moving to cover sufficiently enough, while engaging the targets, to avoid a penalty for exposure to the threat targets.

I don't know how I can make this any clearer to you.

[Larrys1911]

Anytime someone gives out a verbal only instruction, we tell them to put it in the course description posted at the stage. It takes what 30 seconds to do that.

Normally thats done at our range. Always for sanctioned matches.

In reality I think this is a non issue at most sanctioned matches.

Mark, I agree but thats life too!

Larry P

[Larrys1911]

If one can neutralize (at least 4 points scoring on the target) the threat targets through tactical sequence while out in the open, I would be more forgiving in assessing a penalty for being exposed.

This is my disconnect with you..

If the CoF says move to cover and engage, you have no "forgiveness" available for shooting in TS while on the move any more than for shooting TP on the move!

If they dont follow the CoF and shoot behind cover TS wont (shouldnt) matter. 3 seconds..... DING!

Maybe I dont understand what you are saying above!

LP

[omnia1911]

If one can neutralize (at least 4 points scoring on the target) the threat targets through tactical sequence while out in the open, I would be more forgiving in assessing a penalty for being exposed.

This is my disconnect with you..

If the CoF says move to cover and engage, you have no "forgiveness" available for shooting in TS while on the move any more than for shooting TP on the move!

If they dont follow the CoF and shoot behind cover TS wont (shouldnt) matter. 3 seconds..... DING!

Maybe I dont understand what you are saying above!

LP

My posts on this subject were all in reference to Phara's snenario that he gave and how he shot it. He said that the course description only said that you were to shoot the targets as they become visible. There was no instruction that all the tagrets had to be shot from cover only. The rule book doesn't say that targets can only be shot from cover. It says that if cover is available it must be used. He did that. He engaged the steel from cover, reloaded from cover, and engaged targets from the second shooting position from cover. I saw nothing in the course descrition that said T1-T3 had to be shot from the cover of the 1st position. Therefore, I would not have given him a FTDR. The course designer may have intended the shooters to shoot them from cover, but he needs to do a better job of writting down what he means, rather than expecting others to read his mind. If a shooter chooses to shoot T1-T3 while on the move and out in the open, I would expect him to definitely be moving and neutralizing targets, or I may assess a procedural penalty, just as I would if the course designer had specifically required in the course description that those 3 targets had to be shot on the move.

Also, 3 targets can be neutralized faster in TS than they can in TP, provided that your one shot on each is at least worth 4 points. Once a target is neutralized, it is no longer a threat, even though it is still going to require a second round for scoring purposes, and to avoid a miss penalty.

[JasonK]

JasonK,

Do you remember which stage it was ?

I'll look it up when I get home - if I still have the stage book. There was so much silliness in that match , I elected to just work the thing (stage 5) instead of shoot it.

mark

I believe it was stage 13. The name was The Window or The Wall.

[Mark Perez]

JasonK,

Do you remember which stage it was ?

I'll look it up when I get home - if I still have the stage book. There was so much silliness in that match , I elected to just work the thing (stage 5) instead of shoot it.

mark

I believe it was stage 13. The name was The Window or The Wall.

JasonK ,

Don't have the match book - must have tossed it.

IIRC, that was in the small narrow bay?

Sounds like it could have been a safety issue ?

Still , it should have had a special notice in the write-up.

If I have anything to do with next years match - it will

until that day,

Mark

[Larrys1911]

If one can neutralize (at least 4 points scoring on the target) the threat targets through tactical sequence while out in the open, I would be more forgiving in assessing a penalty for being exposed.

This is my disconnect with you..

If the CoF says move to cover and engage, you have no "forgiveness" available for shooting in TS while on the move any more than for shooting TP on the move!

If they dont follow the CoF and shoot behind cover TS wont (shouldnt) matter. 3 seconds..... DING!

Maybe I dont understand what you are saying above!

LP

My posts on this subject were all in reference to Phara's snenario that he gave and how he shot it. He said that the course description only said that you were to shoot the targets as they become visible. There was no instruction that all the tagrets had to be shot from cover only. The rule book doesn't say that targets can only be shot from cover. It says that if cover is available it must be used. He did that. He engaged the steel from cover, reloaded from cover, and engaged targets from the second shooting position from cover. I saw nothing in the course descrition that said T1-T3 had to be shot from the cover of the 1st position. Therefore, I would not have given him a FTDR. The course designer may have intended the shooters to shoot them from cover, but he needs to do a better job of writting down what he means, rather than expecting others to read his mind. If a shooter chooses to shoot T1-T3 while on the move and out in the open, I would expect him to definitely be moving and neutralizing targets, or I may assess a procedural penalty, just as I would if the course designer had specifically required in the course description that those 3 targets had to be shot on the move.

Also, 3 targets can be neutralized faster in TS than they can in TP, provided that your one shot on each is at least worth 4 points. Once a target is neutralized, it is no longer a threat, even though it is still going to require a second round for scoring purposes, and to avoid a miss penalty.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I understood you to be saying that if the shooter had engaged in the open using TS that would be OK but you would PE the guy if he used TO, when the CoF wasnt written that way!

Larry P