tactical sequence

[Ontarget]

If you miss a target in tactical sequence, it is legal to shoot at that same target again rather than go on to the next target? Thank you.

[HoMiE]

BASED ON DEFINITION FROM RULE BOOK...

Tactical Sequence: A method of target engagement. For Tactical

Sequence, all targets are engaged with one round each before being

engaged again. In the case of three (3) targets requiring two (2)

rounds each, all targets would be engaged with one round to each

target BEFORE reengaging the targets with another round in any

order (1-1-2-1-1).

I would say you have to engage each target first, then go back and make up shots. Engagement is not dependant on hitting target. Now having said, if you shot a target and called your shot and know you missed and made it up, continue in tactical sequence and when you get back to having to engage that target again...as long as you shot at it again I would not give a PE. If you got to that target and you could see you had to hits and didn't shot at it, I would give shooter a PE.

[sirveyr]

Ask the SO what his definition of "engaged" is. "Engaged" is not defined in the IDPA rule pamphlet. As you can see by HoMIE's reply, he managed to put his own spin on the poorly defined rule and other SO's will do the same.

[HoMiE]

Reading my intitial response, I think if you were going to try to follow the letter of the law, each target would have to be engaged with one round each before you do any make up shots. Since there isn't a definition in rule book, I am going off of common dictionary definition that engage means to bring into conflict; enter into conflict with, and we do that by shooting at targets. Whether or not we hit or miss whatever we are engaging is not important for the purpose of tactical sequence. Scoring penalties are procedurals aare handle under different section of rules. What every I did or how I handled the call, I would make sure I was consistent in my use of issuing PE or not.

[hkguy]

Ask the SO what his definition of "engaged" is. "Engaged" is not defined in the IDPA rule pamphlet. As you can see by HoMIE's reply, he managed to put his own spin on the poorly defined rule and other SO's will do the same.

I don't see how HoMIE's put his own spin on a rule interpretation. If you push your first shot and missed target 1 of 3 in a tac secquence array, you have engaged it by firing one shot at it regardless of if it is a hit or miss. By definition you have to move onto target 2 and 3 or incur a PE for making up a shot on target 1 with out engaging the remaining 2 targets in the array. Once all target (1-3) have been engaged once you can make up any missed shots, in this case the one that was pushed on target 1. In this example the shots would look like 1-1-2-1-2 instead of 1-1-2-1-1. Simply each target must be shot at one time before any can be shot at twice. As i like to say, every one at the table has to be served once before anyone can have seconds.

[Jane]

You can also read the penultimate paragraph in this post from Robert Ray:

http://idpaforum.yuku.com/topic/4587/attempting-to-correct-a-speed-load-by-racking-the-slide

[sirveyr]

Ask the SO what his definition of "engaged" is. "Engaged" is not defined in the IDPA rule pamphlet. As you can see by HoMIE's reply, he managed to put his own spin on the poorly defined rule and other SO's will do the same.

I don't see how HoMIE's put his own spin on a rule interpretation. If you push your first shot and missed target 1 of 3 in a tac secquence array, you have engaged it by firing one shot at it regardless of if it is a hit or miss. By definition you have to move onto target 2 and 3 or incur a PE for making up a shot on target 1 with out engaging the remaining 2 targets in the array. Once all target (1-3) have been engaged once you can make up any missed shots, in this case the one that was pushed on target 1. In this example the shots would look like 1-1-2-1-2 instead of 1-1-2-1-1. Simply each target must be shot at one time before any can be shot at twice. As i like to say, every one at the table has to be served once before anyone can have seconds.

Some define engaged as "to shoot at", while others define it as " to hit". There is a huge difference. I was referring to the second part of his paragraph where he discusses "calling a miss and making it up before moving on". There is already way too much subjectivity in IDPA. We don't need "did he call his shot" as well as "did he dump a round" to the SO's list of judgement calls.

[Steve Koski]

You can also read the penultimate paragraph in this post from Robert Ray:

http://idpaforum.yuku.com/topic/4587/attempting-to-correct-a-speed-load-by-racking-the-slide

Penultimate... Nice!

[lugnut]

Ask the SO what his definition of "engaged" is. "Engaged" is not defined in the IDPA rule pamphlet. As you can see by HoMIE's reply, he managed to put his own spin on the poorly defined rule and other SO's will do the same.

I don't see how HoMIE's put his own spin on a rule interpretation. If you push your first shot and missed target 1 of 3 in a tac secquence array, you have engaged it by firing one shot at it regardless of if it is a hit or miss. By definition you have to move onto target 2 and 3 or incur a PE for making up a shot on target 1 with out engaging the remaining 2 targets in the array. Once all target (1-3) have been engaged once you can make up any missed shots, in this case the one that was pushed on target 1. In this example the shots would look like 1-1-2-1-2 instead of 1-1-2-1-1. Simply each target must be shot at one time before any can be shot at twice. As i like to say, every one at the table has to be served once before anyone can have seconds.

Some define engaged as "to shoot at", while others define it as " to hit". There is a huge difference. I was referring to the second part of his paragraph where he discusses "calling a miss and making it up before moving on". There is already way too much subjectivity in IDPA. We don't need "did he call his shot" as well as "did he dump a round" to the SO's list of judgement calls.

Of all the definitions of engage I've read, none of them mention anything about "hitting" anything.... It shouldn't be required to hit anything to be considered "engaged"... that's just silly imo.

[HoMiE]

You can't shoot your way out of a procedural, so I have to change what I would do.

[Ty Hamby]

I have seen SO's ding both ways. Just be sure to know what engage means to the MD.

1) T1 miss, T1 hit, T2 Hit T3 Hit x2 T2 hit, T1 hit.....PE

2) T1 hit, T2 Miss, T3 hit x2, T2 hit x2, T1 hit....PE

I am sure the TT will fix this.

Also remember if ANY clarification is not posted in the IDPA Clarification repository, rule book, or addendum does it even exist at all? Some SO's may not give much weight about your letter from RR.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Ty Hamby

[Rob Tompkins]

I have seen SO's ding both ways. Just be sure to know what engage means to the MD.

1) T1 miss, T1 hit, T2 Hit T3 Hit x2 T2 hit, T1 hit.....PE

2) T1 hit, T2 Miss, T3 hit x2, T2 hit x2, T1 hit....PE

I am sure the TT will fix this.

Also remember if ANY clarification is not posted in the IDPA Clarification repository, rule book, or addendum does it even exist at all? Some SO's may not give much weight about your letter from RR.

#1 is a PE, no quesition.

#2 is not a PE, no debate. After the first 1/2 of the sequence there is no limitation on order or quanity of shots.

[Ty Hamby]

I have seen SO's ding both ways. Just be sure to know what engage means to the MD.

1) T1 miss, T1 hit, T2 Hit T3 Hit x2 T2 hit, T1 hit.....PE

2) T1 hit, T2 Miss, T3 hit x2, T2 hit x2, T1 hit....PE

I am sure the TT will fix this.

Also remember if ANY clarification is not posted in the IDPA Clarification repository, rule book, or addendum does it even exist at all? Some SO's may not give much weight about your letter from RR.

#1 is a PE, no quesition.

#2 is not a PE, no debate. After the first 1/2 of the sequence there is no limitation on order or quanity of shots.

If the MD defines engage as, you must touch the target with a bullet - then #2 is a PE. Clearly you are defining engage as throw one down range; hit or miss I won’t ding you. You are also assumeing that the round sent downrange is a miss on T2 and not a failed pair on T1.

I concur with you No PE for #2.

This reminds me of my buddy that got DQ-ed last year at a State Match. The MD defined fit in the box to mean gun must not touch lid at all. My buddy got a DQ that later turned out to be legal per Robert Ray's interpretation. It turned out a ruleing was made later that allows slight downward pressure on the lid. In conclusion don't assume that every MD is as perfect as you. We need "engage" defined as we still officially need "fit in the box" defined. I still dont understand why everyone doesnt see it all my way. Until then we just need an accurate rule book.

[Rob Tompkins]

I have seen SO's ding both ways. Just be sure to know what engage means to the MD.

1) T1 miss, T1 hit, T2 Hit T3 Hit x2 T2 hit, T1 hit.....PE

2) T1 hit, T2 Miss, T3 hit x2, T2 hit x2, T1 hit....PE

I am sure the TT will fix this.

Also remember if ANY clarification is not posted in the IDPA Clarification repository, rule book, or addendum does it even exist at all? Some SO's may not give much weight about your letter from RR.

#1 is a PE, no question.

#2 is not a PE, no debate. After the first 1/2 of the sequence there is no limitation on order or quaint of shots.

If the MD defines engage as, you must touch the target with a bullet - then #2 is a PE. Clearly you are defining engage as throw one down range; hit or miss I won't ding you. You are also assuming that the round sent downrange is a miss on T2 and not a failed pair on T1.

I concur with you No PE for #2.

This reminds me of my buddy that got DQ-ed last year at a State Match. The MD defined fit in the box to mean gun must not touch lid at all. My buddy got a DQ that later turned out to be legal per Robert Ray's interpretation. It turned out a ruling was made later that allows slight downward pressure on the lid. In conclusion don't assume that every MD is as perfect as you. We need "engage" defined as we still officially need "fit in the box" defined. I still don't understand why everyone doesn't see it all my way. Until then we just need an accurate rule book.

Yes I do think engage means to shoot at. Can someone really think an SO can and should be watching for hits on a target instead of watching the shooters safe handling of the firearm let alone thinking an SO could call hits on cardboard consistently, accurately, and fast enough to call PE's for a miss in real time? Besides, If the rule book intended for engage to mean "hit" then it would be written as "hit".

Yes an official definition in the rule book would stop these debates / discussions.

As to your point about the second shot being a miss on the second tgt vs a failed double, if the SO can't determine which tgt the shooter was aiming at, how are the expected to call hits in real time?

BTW, I'm the MD for our local monthly club matches and while I'm far from perfect (many people freely tell me so), I do feel I have a right to have some expectation for competency from an MD.

[Ty Hamby]

I have seen SO's ding both ways. Just be sure to know what engage means to the MD.

1) T1 miss, T1 hit, T2 Hit T3 Hit x2 T2 hit, T1 hit.....PE

2) T1 hit, T2 Miss, T3 hit x2, T2 hit x2, T1 hit....PE

I am sure the TT will fix this.

Also remember if ANY clarification is not posted in the IDPA Clarification repository, rule book, or addendum does it even exist at all? Some SO's may not give much weight about your letter from RR.

#1 is a PE, no question.

#2 is not a PE, no debate. After the first 1/2 of the sequence there is no limitation on order or quaint of shots.

If the MD defines engage as, you must touch the target with a bullet - then #2 is a PE. Clearly you are defining engage as throw one down range; hit or miss I won't ding you. You are also assuming that the round sent downrange is a miss on T2 and not a failed pair on T1.

I concur with you No PE for #2.

This reminds me of my buddy that got DQ-ed last year at a State Match. The MD defined fit in the box to mean gun must not touch lid at all. My buddy got a DQ that later turned out to be legal per Robert Ray's interpretation. It turned out a ruling was made later that allows slight downward pressure on the lid. In conclusion don't assume that every MD is as perfect as you. We need "engage" defined as we still officially need "fit in the box" defined. I still don't understand why everyone doesn't see it all my way. Until then we just need an accurate rule book.

Yes I do think engage means to shoot at. Can someone really think an SO can and should be watching for hits on a target instead of watching the shooters safe handling of the firearm let alone thinking an SO could call hits on cardboard consistently, accurately, and fast enough to call PE's for a miss in real time? Besides, If the rule book intended for engage to mean "hit" then it would be written as "hit".

Yes an official definition in the rule book would stop these debates / discussions.

As to your point about the second shot being a miss on the second tgt vs a failed double, if the SO can't determine which tgt the shooter was aiming at, how are the expected to call hits in real time?

BTW, I'm the MD for our local monthly club matches and while I'm far from perfect (many people freely tell me so), I do feel I have a right to have some expectation for competency from an MD.

What? you can't telepathically extract the shooters intent? How in the heck do you determine the first action to a shooters reload?

I will withold any more on this subject till the next rule book is released. Seems like a moot issue at this time.

[Jim Watson]

I thought HQ had defined "engaged" to mean "fired the minimum number of shots AT." Hits not required.

There was an MD hereabouts who required steel to be knocked down to be considered engaged but that was a good while ago.

[steel1212]

Take the stage and move it out to 25 yards. Now tell me before you go down range that the shooter hit the targets? Engaged is just simply shot at. Shooting at something fullfills the requirement. If your requiring hits on target every miss is a procedural.

[John Z Sr]

Ask the SO what his definition of "engaged" is. "Engaged" is not defined in the IDPA rule pamphlet. As you can see by HoMIE's reply, he managed to put his own spin on the poorly defined rule and other SO's will do the same.

Good point, one of the many problems with the "rule book" more like a vauge guideline subject to poor interpretation by those that think they know, just my opinion

[Drachen27]

Instead of moving out to 25 yards (Which is a good criteria) let's say you missed again, and maybe again. The intent of tactical sequence is that you give every target one shot so that they don't have time to shoot AT YOU while you're engaging other targets.

So whether you hit or miss, spending too much time on one target before going to the next is the wrong thing to do. Hence the procedural for shooting twice (whether you hit or not) before engaging the rest of the targets

[kevin c]

Instead of moving out to 25 yards (Which is a good criteria) let's say you missed again, and maybe again. The intent of tactical sequence is that you give every target one shot so that they don't have time to shoot AT YOU while you're engaging other targets.

So whether you hit or miss, spending too much time on one target before going to the next is the wrong thing to do. Hence the procedural for shooting twice (whether you hit or not) before engaging the rest of the targets

My understanding is that the practical intent of tactical sequence is to HIT each target so that the target struck is physically not able to engage you until recovery, which gives you time to engage the next targets with reduced threat from the ones hit. From that perspective, if you know you missed, it's not unreasonable to immediately reengage the missed target and hit it before moving on.

From an IDPA rules persepctive, though, to avoid gaming ("I reengaged each target because I though I missed" excuse for going 2-2-2-1-1 on three targets, where the last couple shots are done rapid fire regardless of hits, and of emptying the gun for a justified speed reload), I can see where requiring 1-mike-2 and then reengage might be needed.

Edited November 1, 2012 by kevin c

[COF]

My understanding is that the practical intent of tactical sequence is to HIT each target so that the target struck is physically not able to engage you until recovery, which gives you time to engage the next targets with reduced threat from the ones hit. From that perspective, if you know you missed, it's not unreasonable to immediately reengage the missed target and hit it before moving on.

From an IDPA rules persepctive, though, to avoid gaming ("I reengaged each target because I though I missed" excuse for going 2-2-2-1-1 on three targets, where the last couple shots are done rapid fire regardless of hits, and of emptying the gun for a justified speed reload), I can see where requiring 1-mike-2 and then reengage might be needed.

Shooting more than once at any target in the first leg of a tactical sequence stage is a PE. You have "engaged" the target by shooting at it even if you missed. This is the way the rule has been read from the beginning.

The practical application is to engage each of the threats as quickly as possible to prevent them from returning fire, or as a minimum, interrupting their OODA Loop so they have to regroup to shoot at you. Unlike the movies, where everyone just stands and shoots at each other without flinching, when you are shot at - you move because a close miss may not be that next time.

Bottom line, we need to minimize the range lawyering and use common sense in applying the rules as written. Does it work 100% of the time? NO but it does 99% of the time so lets go from there.

[DMark]

I would still like to see a single, documented, real world example of a "tactical sequence" engagement ever being employed in an actual shooting.

Edited January 21, 2013 by DMark

[Steve Koski]

Usually there is no info on shooting order given in crime report articles. Details are few and often suspect. Would you have to catch it on video?

[Jane]

Unfortunately, the video is no longer there.

But some time back, I posted an example on idpaforum: http://idpaforum.yuku.com/sreply/42320/Tactical-Sequence-Shooting

The video was by a TV reporter interviewing a guy who'd shot his way out of a home invasion. He instinctively fired one round at each guy before going back for a second round on anyone.