John Dunn Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 I wasn't going to renew my IDPA membership, but now I might. So I can shoot a stage the way I want, and laugh as they pile on the procedurals/FTDRs. I feel I deserve a FTDR for my thoughts alone. Maybe two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 John, I like your "spirit" of the game. Sounds good to me. Now, if we can get everybody to FTDR at the IDPA matches. Wouldn't it be fun to watch the faces of the hardcore IDPAers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
short_round Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 By setting up a shoot-through you are very clearly using a technique that is outside the design intent of the stage to gain competitive advantage. I just don't buy the 'legitimate tactic' nonsense. Find me a trainier (anyone, anywhere) who would advocate such a move and I'll concede the point. Technically, when engaging multiple targets you want to line them up. That way you can engage them one at a time. The last thing you want to be is surrounded. If that first target where not paper, it would not have been there after two shots to the "upper scoring zone" freeing you to engage the target you setup behind it. just a thought ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Not that this has anything to do with the "gaming or not/shoot-through" question, but I've always felt, when facing multiple opponents armed with guns, if you could maneuver yourself so you could engage one target at a time - i.e. use the bod(y/ies) of the other hostiles to block them from shooting you while you're firing up BG #1 (then #2, etc.) that was a very good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 We do not allow people to 'set up' shoot-throughs at our club. It clearly violates the 'spirit of the stage'. While we don't typically give out FTDR's to new shooters, we will tell them that what they did is not kosher and explain why. Experienced shooters would be courting FTDR's.By setting up a shoot-through you are very clearly using a technique that is outside the design intent of the stage to gain competitive advantage. I just don't buy the 'legitimate tactic' nonsense. Find me a trainier (anyone, anywhere) who would advocate such a move and I'll concede the point. - Gabe You always want to line them up so you only have to deal with one at a time. Good tactics whether you are dealing unarmed against multiple attackers or armed against multiple attackers. The first historical reference of which I am aware would be the Spartans v. Persians at Thermopylae. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Moneypenny Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Yes, it's gaming... is it effective gaming is teh question, you could surely transition faster than you could have moved, could you see them all before you moved? no penalties since you fired 4.... if you had fired 2 thats another story good "real life tactic" yes, but this is a game lets not even mention real life here..... for the sake of the children Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
short_round Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 good "real life tactic" yes, but this is a game lets not even mention real life here..... [007 voiceover - James Bond Collection (the box set) playing in background] "the spirit" my dear Moneypenny ... let's not forget the spirit. [/007 voiceover - James Bond Collection (the box set) playing in background] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogmaDog Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Well, looks like Shorty, Aiki, and Duane see where I'm coming from with respect to "tactics". In machine gunnery this is called "enfilade fire"--shooting along the long axis of your enemy's formation. But how about this approach: Suppose an IDPA stage is set up in which no-shoots are set up behind one or more targets, requiring the shooter to move in order to engage without getting a shoot-through no-shoot penalty. Is this "keeping with the spirit of the game? Surely it emphasizes the "always be sure of your target and what is behind" rule, and concerns with overpenitration in a self-defense shooting situation. I would think it was a plausible scenario, and a good test. If that scenario is in keeping with the spirit of IDPA, (and it is within the rules of IDPA, for sure), then why not the "twofer" situation introduced at the beginning of this thread, especially when addressed by firing enough shots for every target to get two? DD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhgtyre Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Well, looks like Shorty, Aiki, and Duane see where I'm coming from with respect to "tactics". In machine gunnery this is called "enfilade fire"--shooting along the long axis of your enemy's formation. But how about this approach:Suppose an IDPA stage is set up in which no-shoots are set up behind one or more targets, requiring the shooter to move in order to engage without getting a shoot-through no-shoot penalty. Is this "keeping with the spirit of the game? Surely it emphasizes the "always be sure of your target and what is behind" rule, and concerns with overpenitration in a self-defense shooting situation. I would think it was a plausible scenario, and a good test. If that scenario is in keeping with the spirit of IDPA, (and it is within the rules of IDPA, for sure), then why not the "twofer" situation introduced at the beginning of this thread, especially when addressed by firing enough shots for every target to get two? DD That kind of thinking outside the box is definitely against the "spirit of the game." -ld Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Practical Use Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 In "real life" when you "angle" the targets (which I agree is a good idea) would you assume that a shoot through would count - I don't think so........ Take them in order and shoot each one!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin c Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Technically, when engaging multiple targets you want to line them up. That way you can engage them one at a time. The last thing you want to be is surrounded And as SR should know, this is also accepted technique in one-on-several-opponent scenarios in all the martial arts I know where projectile weapons are not a factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremiah Posted October 23, 2004 Author Share Posted October 23, 2004 Moneypenny: Is this effective gaming? I didn't have to take a step. So, I'd say it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omnia1911 Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Since you didn't give much information about the course description and its exact wording, I'm going to assume, based on your information, that it was Limited Vickers, you had to start with 6 rounds in the gun, perform a slide lock reload (you mentioned a forced reload), and had to neutralize 3 paper and one steel target by firing a maximum of 7 rounds. Did it say that you had to engage each "y" target with 2 rounds each, or did it say neutralize each target with a maximum of 7 rounds? Did you have to fire all 7 rounds? In other words, was 7 rounds also the minimum? The rulebook says that Limited Vickers should only be used to score Standard Exercises courses and is not suitable for Scenario stages (LGB page 24, 28). Your course sounded like a scenario stage. What did you use for cover while shooting and doing the reload? Sounds like you were exposed to several threat targets while firing. It also sounded like you would have had to advance on the 3rd paper target in order to get a good view of it. Defensive course design should have the shooter retreating or moving laterally during the COF. What was the PE penalty for? Was it a "mini" FTDR? I don't know if this has been addressed in IDPA, but this incident has presented a problem unique to IDPA. Since all pass throughs count, they are scored as good hits on threat targets. Logically you would think that Limited Vickers is supposed to limit the number of hits, but the rulebook says that the number of shots are limited. As we see in this incident it is possible to have the required number of shots fired and also exceed the number of scored hits. In this case, there were 9 scored hits. IPSC penalizes this in Virginia Count , but IDPA doesn't seem to have a mechanism for penalizing extra hits in Limited Vickers in general, only extra hits that are the result of extra shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scandog Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 No penalty. The only reason you got one was you outsmarted the stage designer. The Match director should have looked over the stages prior to the match. If they sis not want any shoot throughs, it is there responsability to make sure they don't exist. Will you get penalties for this in the future? Sure, because there are too many SOs that think they should be able to read new meaning into the rule book. Next time, just ask the SO. I have set up stages where you could do this. I intended for the shooter to be able to do it. If IDPA states shoot throughs count, how can you give a penalty for it? That just doesn't makes any sense. The shooter doesn't know what the Stage designer was thinking any more than the SO knows what the shooter is thinking. If you don't want a shoot through to count, you need to state it in the course description. Daryl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremiah Posted November 24, 2004 Author Share Posted November 24, 2004 This thread looks like it made a U-turn. The first half kinda think that it was gaming, and it deserved the penalty, but then the last half kinda thought that it was a good idea and good thinking. I think this thread sums up two of the biggest problems in IDPA, interpretation and opinion. I shot my second match this past weekend. I had a ball. Heck, I even won the overall. I'm happy, eventhough there was only ten guys there. I'll be back to shoot it again next month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Perez Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 jeremiah , You never answered my question - so I'll ask again : On the other 2 choices , were the same conditions of shoot thru's present ? Or did the advantage go only to those who drew a "Y" ? Looking forward to your reply , Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scandog Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Mark, I am not sure what the difference is. There was a shoot through that should have been taken care of when the stage was set up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Well, I've read this entire thread and I don't agree with everyone's posts. For those of you I don't agree with, I am charging each of you with one FTDR for each post that I disagree with! For the rest of you, with whom I did not disagree, carry on! Jeremiah, as to your original question.....I'm not really sure. So I'm waiting for an official ruling from HQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scandog Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Sam, are you turning blue yet? Did you leave instruction for someone to wake you up when the ruling is posted? Sorry, they don't post for everyone to see, you will have to ask for it for yourself. Daryl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremiah Posted November 25, 2004 Author Share Posted November 25, 2004 I can't honestly say that the letter that I shot at was the only possibility of counting shoot throughs or not. I'm not sure if any of the other two lined up like the 'y' did for me. Sam, did you send a question to IDPA headquarters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Heck no Jeremiah, I was just cuttin' up! (Seem's like the rules are a little arbitrary at times.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremiah Posted November 26, 2004 Author Share Posted November 26, 2004 ha ha ha.... I agree. 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