How do you replace the FTDR in IDPA

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

FROM THE LGB

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".

This is an off shoot of Mark's excellent topic. With the obvious concensus of thos that posted the the FTDR be eliminated, how do you propose to penalize a severe infraction of the rules or blatant disregard of course design?

Here is my example of the only FTDR I have ever given in 4 years as an IDPA SO:

(This was only one string but this is where the violation ocurred.)

==================================================

At signal shooter is to engage T1 T2 & T3 with one round each. Shooter is to perform any IDPA approved reload and re-engage T1 T2 & T3 with 2 rounds each.

Shooter A shooting SSP has 11 rounds to start stage. He/she steps to the line, shoots 1 each then 2 each with no reload.

=====================================================

My view on this particular incident:

Without a FTDR, shooter gets a 3 second penalty. With the FTDR shooter gets a 20 second penalty.

Without the FTDR, many will take the three seconds rather than perform the reload.

This is the only time I have seen a FTDR penalty given. If IDPA had a one procedural per shot after the infraction rule, the FTDR would not have been needed. They don't so I feel it was.

Any other ideas?

Regards,

[Sac Law Man]

If its a questionable call, you have to give the shooter the benifit of the doubt (in which case a procedural would suffice). If it is a blatant violation, then DQ them...

We have one shooter who consistently has brain farts. He would shoot a stage as you described above. He is not intending to circumvent the course descrp, he just doesnt think. In his case the FTDR would not be appropriate.

Personally, I have never given a FTDR, or ever saw one given at my club. Its a fairly severe punishment..

[rmills]

The "Failure To Do Right" Penalty should stay. It keeps the sport a shooting competition and not a "let's figure out a way to circumvent the stage description to save time and win" fiasco.

At a major USPSA match 5-6 years ago, a COF description stated that targets X, Y, and Z needed to be engaged only thru doorway A. It stated all rounds must pass thru the doorway. One female shooter while shooting the stage ran thru the doorway all the way up to the targets and hosed. She was able to "range lawyer" her way out of a bunch of penalties by stating, "all of my rounds did pass thru the doorway, they were on me when I went thru". To everyone's disgust, no penalties were given. The clear intent of the stage description was that shooters would shoot thru the doorway and then move on to the next targets.

This is a perfect example of why the FTDR rule is needed.

Don't attempt to fix that which is not broken.

[jhgtyre]

The question at hand is NOT "do you think we should get rid of the FTDR?" The question at hand is "what do we do IF we get rid of it?" Keep all posts in that vein.

-ld

[vincent]

There is no need for the FTDR penalty to make up for poor course design.

Forcing shooters to perform whatever the course designer thinks is "correct" is not the way to go. I'm so tired of being forced to perform actions that go against everything I think to be correct just because some guy saw it in a movie and he wants you to do it just like "the script".

The better idea is to let the shooters complete the course of fire while obeying the rules of the game. If the shooters isn't breaking a rule then what is the problem? I just don't understand the reasoning behind the idea of "well that's not what I hand in mind when I setup the stage". So what! I just don't see the problem.

If a course designer just has to have something specific happen then use props, cover, fault lines, etc to "enforce" the desired behavior. Otherwise there are too many ways for the shooter to not understand the course designer's "intent". What is clear to some may not be clear to others. A course designer should NOT put his rules into the course design. We already have a rulebook.

[vincent]

I hear the same arguement about 3 seconds not being enough to cover a reload for lower level shooters, so taking the penalty will work out in their favor. This gets back onto dangerous ground - what was the shooters "intent".

It would be simpler to just up the procedural penalty up to 5 seconds and a non-threat hit to 10 seconds.

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

There is no need for the FTDR penalty to make up for poor course design.

I have posted what the book says the FTDR is. What happens if it goes away is the question.

Course design is a different topic also covered by rules.

In my example, there was no course design flaw. It was a skills stage where the design was not followed. The shooter was experienced.

Many have said do away with the FTDR. If there were no FTDR in the rule book, what would you suggest takes it's place in a case like this?

Regards,

[dajarrel]

IF the FTDR penalty was removed it would have to be replaced by some procedural penalty(s) similar to those mentioned by vincent.

FWIW

dj

[vincent]

I hit send before answering the question. Please see my second post above.

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

I hit send before answering the question. Please see my second post above.

Done.

I agree with this as a possibility. I feel the FTDR could be a good tool if it were explained better. I have heard of it being used in the design problems you mention, but I have never seen it.

Most matches I attend have their catches and design flaws but not to that extent.

As far as no shoots, I couldn't agree with you more.

Regards,

[Nik Habicht]

It would be simpler to just up the procedural penalty up to 5 seconds and a non-threat hit to 10 seconds.

...or to allow for penalties per shot fired on limited vickers "standard exercise" type stages like the one described by Round Gun Shooter in his opening post. Fire four rounds before the reload on that stage, get one procedural. Fire six, get three......

This approach doesn't screw up the shooter who had momentary brain fade, but does penalize the guy who shoots all nine rounds......

For field courses I'm in favor of Vincent's ideas --- either bulletproof the stage design and build, or be willing to learn other approaches to solving the problem. I used to shoot regularly with a trained professional. He treated the field courses like training exercises --- his times weren't the fastest, but he utilized cover and shot almost all -0 hits. I learned a lot from his approach......

[Mark Perez]

I think Vincent's on to something with increasing the raw value of the PE .

You could also adopt a PE per shot or target - but again , there are to many resemblances to the other game .

DQ would be to heavy a PE for the scenario you descibed - imo .

As far as making the stage scripted - it's what IDPA has evolved into ..

Back in '98 - a club in Prescott had a PE for a NS of +150 , apparently with IDPA's blessing.

Good topic Round Gun .

Mark

[vincent]

I agree with this as a possibility. I feel the FTDR could be a good tool if it were explained better. I have heard of it being used in the design problems you mention, but I have never seen it.

FTDR's are given out in the Houston pretty often and there is talk of them all the time. At this years Texas Spring Regionals about 12 FTDR's were given on the standards stage for not reloading as you described. Again with the rational being that a 3 second penalty wasn't enough. You can be sure that those who received the penalty for their brain-fade thought that 20 seconds was too much.

Everyone involved said there needed to be something in between. That is why I think an increase in the procedural penalty makes the most sense to me.

[BigDave]

Make procedurals worth 7 seconds. My thought is that the penalty has to cost more in time than if the shooter were to perform the activity as per the scenario description. No reload? 7 seconds. Dump a loaded mag? 7 seconds.

[MikeyG23]

The FTDR is the most bullsh*t penalty in IDPA. It has no objective criteria, it's all subjective and, therefore, open to individual interpretation and potential abuse. (Rant mode OFF)

[John Dunn]

Too many resemblances to the other game?

So the goal isn't to make IDPA better. It is to remain different from IPSC, even if it means tolerating goofy rules. SO you can't have knee pads, you can't shoot from a squat, can't do a speed reload, must follow the SO's whim in lockstep or get a FTDR.

And you can't increase the procedurals and eliminate the FTDR because it would be too much like IPSC?

Wow.

These two threads have been enlightening. I guess it solidifies my position that if you like shooting fast, and a lot...lean towards IPSC. If you like to hide behind stuff and do slow reloads, shoot IDPA. I'm in it for the fun, my military days are long over, so the lack of tacticality in IPSC doesn't bother me much.

I think I'll keep my IDPA membership, and shoot the occasional match, but I feel a few Ron Ankeny moments coming on!

[shred]

This is kinda funny because way, way, way back when Comstock scoring was just getting going, the best IPSC El Presidente scores were being shot by shooters who blew off the reload and took the -10 proceedural penalty. This offended the high gurus of the sport, so a solution was found ... the penalty-per-shot-fired.

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

The FTDR is the most bullsh*t penalty in IDPA. It has no objective criteria, it's all subjective and, therefore, open to individual interpretation and potential abuse. (Rant mode OFF)

So what would you propose in place of it?

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

FTDR's are given out in the Houston pretty often and there is talk of them all the time.

With this example, that is not a problem with the rule, it is a problem with the SO and Match Director. The rule is definitely not clear but as you say, there needs to be something else.

For that many FTDR penalties to be given out, someone just likes to give them. They need to re-read the book and realize the duties of a SO.

I started this mess and I see no real answer.

I disagree with the answer of making a procedural a higher value. For newer shooters, it will become very discouraging and drive them away from the sport.

I would be more inclined to support a rule similar to IPSC that if the violation gives the shooter a Significant advantage, they are assessed one procedural for each shot in the string after the violation occurred. The term Significant needs to be defined if that takes place.

The unfortunate thing is what I think carries no weight with IDPA so this is just an exercise.

Thanks for participating.

[dirtypool40]

The answer really is simple, it just takes a little change in attitude and a little more effort.

OBJECTIVITY & COURSE DESIGN.

Granted IPSC / USPSA has plenty of learning still to do but in general the benefit of experience in USPSA turns out far superior courses. For crying out loud the IDPA website still lists a course where the shooter has to verbally justify why they shot a target AFTER the course is over. What is that crap?!?!?!

When a GOOD IPSC course designer thinks he is done with a course, he steps back and thinks "ok, what am I trying to test and how are they going to want to run this?". He doesn't take it personally, and it's not an insult to his masculinity if someone thinks of a better way.

The IDPA designer saw something in a Chuck Taylor article and thinks he has a good course when he can chuckle and tell his friends about the trap he has laid. I have actually had an SO smirking as he gave me the unload & show clear commands, thirlled that I didn't find the target he hid on the 180 (+) on a surprise stage.

IDPA is so hung up on scenarios and FORCING you to do it the way they saw it in the movies, they lose sight of the fact that each stage is supposed to be a shooting test. Think about what you are trying to test, and how to accomplish that. Quit obsessing over how Wesley Snipes did it in BLADE, let's just shoot.

The FTDR is BAD because it's subjective. It's a great example of IDPA being in such a hurry to punish and be different that they didn't learn from those that came before. You hear comments on here about IDPA "becoming USPSA jr." Well that's what it is, the small pond where they have plenty of learning to do. IDPA should have been presented as a work in progress, a draft of a new idea. Instead the rules were handed down as the new stone tablets, to beat shooters over the head with if they showed any signs of dissent. So itstead of a nice smooth evolution towards something fun and fair we have a lot of unhappy people that will be hard to win back. Yes, disspite propoganda to the contrary, this includes a lot of new shooters.

OK, rant mode off, time for a constructive example; At the 2001 SSC at PASA there was a neat stage that should have been what IDPA strove for. They put shooting box in the center of a doorway. There were movers, a field of no shoots, and a target that fell out from behind a no-shoot when you hit the popper "leg" holding it up.

The lesson for IDPA was how they got you to use cover; You could shoot from either side of the doorway, but not in that box. See??? OBJECTIVE, fair and still using cover. IDPA needs to take a hard look at itself and quit cutting off it's own nose to spite it's face. Objectivity is good, USPSA took years to figure out how to apply it fairly. What's so wrong with IDPA learning from their experience?

Some IDPA guy is going to shriek "we fear boxes and fault lines!". But what's wrong with them? They are OBJECTIVE. Right now the cover rules (like so much else) are not OBJECTIVE. I have actually had some goof ball at a local IDPA match award me a proceedural for standing on a SPRAY PAINTED line on the ground during the classifer. I guess it was tactical spray paint.

I would love to have a place to shoot my carry gun, from a carry holster, but since we are keeping score I want a fair, objective contest and IDPA ain't it.

[Ted Murphy]

I have actually had some goof ball at a local IDPA match award me a proceedural for standing on a SPRAY PAINTED line on the ground during the classifer. I guess it was tactical spray paint. 

FWIW, there are fault lines allowed in IDPA, only for non scenario stages though. The most prominent of which is the fault line on the barricade of the classifier. It's in the book. Is this the one you ran into? Depending how they paint the line standing on it means you are outside of the permitted area. That might have been what you ran into. Odds are that SO wasn't the goofball you say he was.

FWIW, the FTDR is not an original idea on the part of IDPA, they borrowed it from another organization.

There are a lot of shooters who feel the subjective nature of officating and IDPA match (cover calls, etc) is a very bad thing. But do not forget there are a lot of people who feel that folks crying over the sport's lack of objectivity are full of soup. The desire to rid the sport of the ftdr could not be called a mandate. You are unfortunately not going to make all the shooters happy. There are people who belive the FTDR is a horrid thing to have a rulebook. There are people who believe the FTDR is just the thing to punish people who cheat and/or circumvent the rulebook. Some feel the very threat of the FTDR has kept certain people on their toes, and has prevented them from trying to cheat things out- and others feel the threat of an FTDR is a weight on their shoulder they should not have to bear.

What makes IDPA different is their attempt to try to make an enviroment where things like use of cover and a slighly more realistic approach to ammunition management are attempted to be defined and worked within a competitive enviroment. It is not a very perfect model to be sure, but most shooters seem to like it. I suppose that you could use fault lines but that would blow away any attempt to try to stay true to IDPA's ideas of use of cover. I suppose IDPA could alter the rules to suit the tastes of those wanting fault lines, but I would have to say the greater numbers prefer the use of cover rules as they currently are. With USPSA finally adopting a solid production division and revolver division there is a solid forum for people to use real world guns and gear in a purely objective competitive enviroment. I submit a better solution for now is to let both sports stay their respective courses and see which one the shooters gravitate to. That would solve the argument, wouldn't it?

*Re: the classifier: " 2. All shots fired from the barricade and barrel on stage 3 must be fired from cover. Your feet must stay within the outer borders of the barricade and 50% of your torso must be behind both the barricade and barrel while firing. " Justification for a procdeural there can be found under examples of procedurals, "1. The competitor’s foot touches the ground outside the shooting box at the barricade on Stage 3 of the Classifier. One procedural penalty is assessed regardless of the number of shots fired." And rules governing the use of fault lines can be found under the COF rationale, "No foot fault lines may be used on any scenario stage. "

[MBaneACP]

Got no problem with the FTDR penalty when it is used as an "unsportsmanlike conduct" penalty. In the old days, I threatened to DQ people from an IPSC match for unsportsmanlike conduct (on a provided gun stage, intentionally jamming the provided gun to get a second run) and stood behind one of my ROs when he'd DQ'ed a competitor for unsportsmanlike conduct in another regional match.

I think that's the intent of the rule.

When it's used to shore up crappy stage design or to force some nitwit "tactical" insti-rule from an accountant with delusions of grandeur, it suxs.

mb

[MikeyG23]

The FTDR is the most bullsh*t penalty in IDPA. It has no objective criteria, it's all subjective and, therefore, open to individual interpretation and potential abuse. (Rant mode OFF) 

So what would you propose in place of it?

Drop it, forget about it, let it go.

Procedurals are sufficient. If a shooter gets dinged enough times they will either quit doing whatever it is that gets them dinged or move on. If they are cheating to gain a competitive advantage enough PE's will eventually eliminate whatever real or perceived competitive advantage they are hoping to gain.

[jhgtyre]

Out thinking the course designer is not cheating. Finding loopholes in the rules is not cheating. Only actually breaking the rules is cheating. If it makes a course designer or the writer of a rulebook uncomfortable to ponder the notion that someone else has out smarted them then they have no place writing a rule book or designing a course of fire. The FTDR is the rule book writers and designers way of cheating the thinking competitor out of his justly earned score.

-ld

[dirtypool40]

Ted, actually the spray painted line was on stage #2, the shooting while moving strings. Start here, back up fire six. I come to rest AFTER firing all six, with my right heel on the SPRAY PAINTED line.....very not tactical.

I have to disagree, I still think he's a goofball. I know you are just defending your chosen sport and I respect that, but If I have to look down and behind me for SPRAY PAINT how well thought out are the rules?

As to fault lines and scenarios......that's where you NEED them. Set up shooting areas and define cover objectively, it can be done. I even provided examples of how. Good shooters often shoot too fast for SUBJECTIVE evaluations of their stance and foot placement by someone three levels below them. If you put a fault line onthe ground and make them lean around, it gets real easy, have the SCOREKEEPER look at the foot while the RO does his job and makes sure the gun is safe at all times.

This is another case of IDPA seeing something that worked and breaking it.

If I want to shoot a SUBJECTIVE sport, judge politically like the ribbon twirl at the Olympics (sp?) I"ll show up early to the NTI and make sure to buy the judges dinner and a case of their favorite.