How do you replace the FTDR in IDPA

[tightloop]

Jhgtyre's comments fall in with my own on this topic...because I happen to think that if you can find a loop hole or a better mouse trap, you should be allowed to use it.

I don't think that threatening any shooter with a completely subjective thing like the FTDR is conducive to the overall well being of the sport...it is used as a tool to keep the older experienced shooters from trying to find the better mouse trap or the loop hole in the rules, and at the same time to inculcate fear into the mind of the novice or beginning shooter so they NEVER take the same approach as the experienced shooter might when looking over the stage design and how to shoot it.. The aggrivation comes into play when a shooter wants to use all parts of the sport to improve their standing within a match....and the existing rules are certainly part of any match... and to change those existing mile markers on the fly is just wrong.

From a personal stand point, I would feel glad to have someone find a better way to shoot a stage I had designed..it makes you a better designer down the road...and it should not be taken as a personal affront by the AC or the MD that someone found that little extra something..but it usually does...and instead of letting the competitor use what they found, it is turned into a confrontational and usually punitive situation in which there are no winners...the shooter is not happy, the MD or the AC has to wear the black hat, and it makes for an overall poor shooting experience..

I don;t have a problem with the sport having a severe penalty, but the rules need to fully and completely explain every single example of what brings that penalty into play...there needs to be NO subjectivity in rules interpretation. There needs to be an understanding among all shooters nationwide that the rules are cast in stone and the attitude of shooters or the people administering the rules should not matter...read the rule and either the shooter broke it or not...

The existing officials within the sport, from the top down must understand that they cannot bully or threaten experienced shooters into obeying blatantly subjective rules like they can and do with the novice or less experienced shooters....some of us have been shooting these type of matches longer than most of the shooters have been alive...and to have someone tell me the rules can be subject to interpretation on the fly has gone beyond that laughable stage, especially when the FTDR is avaliable in the wings for the MD or the AC to hammer the shooter back into line, because it is now used at the whim of those officials without any definitive examples of why it should be used at all..

So either define why someone gets the famed FTDR and stick to it or drop it entirely..

I mioght feel differently if HQ was making an attempt to clarify these things and make some positive adjustments to the rules and the sport, but it seems that they either don't care or are unable to administrate the needed changes...

It is a mindset thing...HQ seems to think the shooters in the field can read their minds w/o setting those thoughts down within the guidelines of the rules....the MD and the AC cannot hoist the LGB as the definitive authority and they need to be able to do that. Subsequently they try to interpret the rules as they think HQ would want them to do...and all this leaves the shooters, frustrated, angry, bitching, and puts both the shooters and officials in a loose/loose situation.

1. Rewrite the LGB

2. Update it every two yrs

3. If it ain't in the book shooters can use it w/o penalty till it appears in the book.

4. Take the subjectivity out of the rules, by defining all situations that are questionable.

5. Get past the Jr. IPSC tag and use what works in matches regardless..

6. Remove confrontational and Range Nazi officials, MD's and SO's..

7. Provide real leadership to help the sport evolve, and if you can't do that personally, then find someone who can...

8. Use challenges to the sport and the LGB as a tool to make the sport better, not just an excuse to get mad and rant on this forum.

[Caspian_45]

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

jhgtyre I cannot agree more.

I have been threatened with a FTDR and proceduals many times because I used the rule book and out thought the course designer. Proper course design and well written walk throughs will do more for IDPA than getting rid of certian rules.

[dirtypool40]

I forgot to mention this, but the comments above lead to it nicely.

The Range Nazi mentality is endemic. It has to come down from holy HQ that this is a fun sport.

For example, I used to run a club and then a decent sized big match, the FL SSC. Actually that was my first attempt at an "olive branch" between IDPA and IPSC, fun but OBJECTIVE, but I digress. Anyway, I started my staff meeting with something to the effect of "We are here to have fun, and so are the shooters. Many have traveled quite a distance to be with us, please make sure they enjoy themselves, we are their hosts. All "Ties" go to the runner."

I designed several and ran one stage at a major IDPA match earlier in 04'. The staff meeting had a very different flavor. It was very clearly MEANT to be "US" vs. "THEM". The whole meeting was about what newest pet peeves of the MD there were to watch for and how we were going to deal with them and "keep control of this match".

The examples sited were always some big name IPSC guy who "they taught a lesson". It really was pretty sad to have things start off on that foot.

On the other hand I gave a clear, thorough course description, and awarded a total of ONE proceedural for the whole match.

Dave Sevigny asked so many questions to clarify, I had to calm him down with "Relax Dave, I am not out to get you, I am an IPSC RO".

[rhino]

The FTDR is unnecessary and does nothing positive.

I would "replace" it with the use of procedural errors where warranted.

[Nik Habicht]

Now that Rhino has returned us from thread drift, we're still looking for ideas on what to replace the FTDR penalty with ---- or how to modify it's application to be less subjective.

[vincent]

I still think that increasing the procedural penalty to 5 seconds and the non-threat hit to 10 seconds is a workable solution.

Another solution is to allow the application of multiple 3 second procedurals. To use some familiar wording:

A competitor who fails to comply with a procedure specified in the written stage briefing will incur 1 procedural penalty for each occurrence. However, if a competitor has gained a significant advantage during non-compliance, the competitor may be assessed 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired, instead of a single penalty. Where multiple penalties are assessed in the above cases, they must not exceed the maximum number of scoring hits that can be attained by the competitor. A competitor who fails to comply with a mandatory reload will incur 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired after the point where the reload was required until a reload is performed.

The problem I see in this wording is the definition of "significant advantage". Thoughts?

[MikeyG23]

I still think that increasing the procedural penalty to 5 seconds and the non-threat hit to 10 seconds is a workable solution.

Another solution is to allow the application of multiple 3 second procedurals. To use some familiar wording:

A competitor who fails to comply with a procedure specified in the written stage briefing will incur 1 procedural penalty for each occurrence. However, if a competitor has gained a significant advantage during non-compliance, the competitor may be assessed 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired, instead of a single penalty. Where multiple penalties are assessed in the above cases, they must not exceed the maximum number of scoring hits that can be attained by the competitor. A competitor who fails to comply with a mandatory reload will incur 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired after the point where the reload was required until a reload is performed.

The problem I see in this wording is the definition of "significant advantage". Thoughts?

The only problem I see with this approach is how do you define "significant competitive advantage" ? It leaves too much subjectivity to the SO and / or MD. Other than that it looks workable.

I'm not trying to be difficult or confrontational. I write procedures and proposals for a living and I know that anything that is left to interpretation can be, and often is, interpreted wrong irregardless of what the original intent was.

[MikeyG23]

OOPS ! I should have read a little further down as Vincent has the same reservation that I do.

Do away with the "significant advantage" verbage and allow multiple procedurals for the same infraction, maintain the procedural at 3 seconds since multiples are allowed, and go with it.

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

Do away with the "significant advantage" verbage and allow multiple procedurals for the same infraction, maintain the procedural at 3 seconds since multiples are allowed, and go with it.

I like that Now how do we get IDPA to listen?

[rhino]

I like that Now how do we get IDPA to listen?

Rub a lamp?

[Caspian_45]

I like that   Now how do we get IDPA to listen?

Rub a lamp?

Rhino, you not only have a huge heart........you funny too.

[Ted Murphy]

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.

If it's on stage 2, then it was a goofball thing to do.

Ted

[Ted Murphy]

FWIW, while I have had shooters totally trash a stage I made by doing it different than I had wanted it shot, I have never even considered an FTDR as a penalty for that. It should be considered a learning experience by the stage designer. Doesn't mean I'm not happy, but there it is.

This year I had a guy trash a standards by finding a sweet spot where he could see the targets even though I had I explained in pretty good detail that the shooter was required to move across the range while shooting. I chose to throw the stage out rather than do the FTDR as I felt the fault lied with the SO who should have been telling the shooter to move while shooting and he let one other shooter do it before I saw what was going on. YMMV.

There is however a difference between finding a way that makes the path faster in shooting a stage-and

*not engaging a target as it would take more time to engage than a -10 & FTN would get you or

*downloading magazines,etc, or

*being a real tool to the SO's and staff

*ghost load maybe

That is a good place for the FTDR.

I guess if IDPA did away with the FTDR the above infractions would most likely end up as a match DQ for gross unsportsmanlike conduct, so maybe the FTDR is better. In that light it is a second chance for folks who otherwise would get a trip home.

I do believe the FTDR is a valid penalty and should remain. While it may make people feel stifled it has its uses to prevent cheating and such. You folks have a valid point that cheating is in the eye of the MD but IDPA's philosophy is that the MD is pretty much the Alpha and Omega when it comes to these things. Frankly I do not see them removing that empowerment from the MD's job descrption anytime soon, but perhaps that is the cause of your ills and not the FTDR.

Ted

[Mayonaise]

Leave the FTDR. I've never seen one given that wasn't earned. I haven't seen many in 5+ years. What does a 5 sec procedural do for multiple cheating violations that the FTDR doesn't do except reduce the "cost" of cheating or unsportsmanlike conduct.

I like the 10 second procedural for HTN's. Either that or leave it at 5 and penalize multiple HTN's. Another option might be 10 sec for 5 point "kill" zone hits and 5 seconds for 4 and 3 point zone HTN's.

I'll stop there.

[Chris Rhines]

I'm one of the defenders of the FTDR - it makes perfect sense considering the stated intention of IDPA as a competition. Where the FTDR rule seems to break down is when the RO applies it in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Problem is, if the RO is bound and determined to be a dick, taking away the FTDR won't do any good - there are still plenty of ways for him to spoil your day.

Anyhow, if the FTDR went away...

- Allowing multiple procedurals for the same violation is a good idea, and doing this means you don't have to kick up the procedural penalty. I'm ambivelant about the idea of increasing the penalty for hitting a no-shoot.

- Expand the list of match DQs for unsportsmanlike conduct to include round dumping, ghost loading, and the like.

- Kind of off to one side, but I would eliminate the per-target FTN penaly and add a single 20sec penalty for leaving an FTN on the stage.

- Chris

[jhgtyre]

Leave the FTDR. I've never seen one given that wasn't earned. I haven't seen many in 5+ years. What does a 5 sec procedural do for multiple cheating violations that the FTDR doesn't do except reduce the "cost" of cheating or unsportsmanlike conduct.

I like the 10 second procedural for HTN's. Either that or leave it at 5 and penalize multiple HTN's. Another option might be 10 sec for 5 point "kill" zone hits and 5 seconds for 4 and 3 point zone HTN's.

I'll stop there.

So you maintain that being creative and intelligent in the application of one's skills is cheating?

-ld

[MikeyG23]

Do away with the "significant advantage" verbage and allow multiple procedurals for the same infraction, maintain the procedural at 3 seconds since multiples are allowed, and go with it.

I like that Now how do we get IDPA to listen?

I think Rhino may be onto something with the lamp idea

IDPA has become less than responsive to the shooters. To me that is a sad situation and short of a total reorganization or as was suggested in another thread form a new organization I don't know how to get it back on track. I personally am waiting (as I'm sure everyone else is) on the new rule book before I decide if I want to continue with IDPA or go exclusively USPSA. I've been an IDPA member since mid 1997 and would hate to leave the sport but I can't abide the subjectivity of the rules and the inconsistencies in rule interpretation and enforcement.

[geezer-lock]

I don’t think there is a snowball’s chance in hell that the FTDR will ever go away. It was adopted as a deliberately punitive measure and is pointed squarely at IPSC/USPSA shooters. This is what Ken wrote in the “Tactical Journal” (I have added emphasis in bold).

"Decades ago, Frank Glover's crew down in North Carolina had come up with the 'Failure to do Right' rule for their Three-Gun Tactical Matches. This FTDR was worth 20 seconds in penalties…which pretty well knocked you out of the competition on the stage you were shooting if you tried to "beat the system". We adopted the 'FTDR' Rule in IDPA as a means of keeping everyone in line. It seems to be rarely ever used. This may be because the threat of twenty seconds added to your score is enough to keep most contestants honest…or there may also be a reluctance to use it because it can be so severe as to knock any major competitor out of the race. My view is that it needs to be used more often. I see too many people, who know better, try to circumvent the Rules, equipment requirements, and argue a procedural penalty that deserve a FTDR. IDPA defines a 'FTDR' as: "Any attempt to circumvent or compromise the spirit or rationale of any stage either by use of inappropriate devices, equipment, or techniques".

If you have a background in IPSC and bring your competition habits to IDPA and get penalties, don't be surprised. In much of IPSC/USPSA, the concept of arguing with the RO with the hope of winning or gaming your way out of a penalty may result in an FTDR in IDPA…just a warning folks."

geezer

[rmills]

I don’t think there is a snowball’s chance in hell that the FTDR will ever go away. It was adopted as a deliberately punitive measure and is pointed squarely at IPSC/USPSA shooters. This is what Ken wrote in the “Tactical Journal” (I have added emphasis in bold).

"Decades ago, Frank Glover's crew down in North Carolina had come up with the 'Failure to do Right' rule for their Three-Gun Tactical Matches. This FTDR was worth 20 seconds in penalties…which pretty well knocked you out of the competition on the stage you were shooting if you tried to "beat the system". We adopted the 'FTDR' Rule in IDPA as a means of keeping everyone in line. It seems to be rarely ever used. This may be because the threat of twenty seconds added to your score is enough to keep most contestants honest…or there may also be a reluctance to use it because it can be so severe as to knock any major competitor out of the race. My view is that it needs to be used more often. I see too many people, who know better, try to circumvent the Rules, equipment requirements, and argue a procedural penalty that deserve a FTDR. IDPA defines a 'FTDR' as: "Any attempt to circumvent or compromise the spirit or rationale of any stage either by use of inappropriate devices, equipment, or techniques".

If you have a background in IPSC and bring your competition habits to IDPA and get penalties, don't be surprised. In much of IPSC/USPSA, the concept of arguing with the RO with the hope of winning or gaming your way out of a penalty may result in an FTDR in IDPA…just a warning folks."

geezer

No, it's not aimed at only IPSC/USPSA shooters, it's aimed at any and all who attempt to circumvent the rules or proceedures to gain an unfair advantage.

[melman_1]

Since at most IDPA matches (especially sanctioned matches) the stage has to be shot the way the SO says be it within the rulebook or not. Replace the FTDR with the Failure to listen to RO's instructions. That doesn't do much for uniformity in IDPA so that it is the same everywhere but it isn't that way now. But on that particular stage it lets you know what you can and can't do so you aren't hit with that 20 second penalty for gaming.

[jhgtyre]

Or you could just give up the overwhelming need to control every shooters every action and let them play the game.

-ld

[Mayonaise]

Leave the FTDR.  I've never seen one given that wasn't earned.  I haven't seen many in 5+ years.  What does a 5 sec procedural do for multiple cheating violations that the FTDR doesn't do except reduce the "cost" of cheating or unsportsmanlike conduct.

I like the 10 second procedural for HTN's.  Either that or leave it at 5 and penalize multiple HTN's.  Another option might be 10 sec for 5 point "kill" zone hits and 5 seconds for 4 and 3 point zone HTN's.

I'll stop there.

So you maintain that being creative and intelligent in the application of one's skills is cheating?

-ld

How do you draw that conclusion? You must shoot with JoeD.

[jhgtyre]

Leave the FTDR.  I've never seen one given that wasn't earned.  I haven't seen many in 5+ years.  What does a 5 sec procedural do for multiple cheating violations that the FTDR doesn't do except reduce the "cost" of cheating or unsportsmanlike conduct.

I like the 10 second procedural for HTN's.  Either that or leave it at 5 and penalize multiple HTN's.  Another option might be 10 sec for 5 point "kill" zone hits and 5 seconds for 4 and 3 point zone HTN's.

I'll stop there.

So you maintain that being creative and intelligent in the application of one's skills is cheating?

-ld

How do you draw that conclusion? You must shoot with JoeD.

I don't know JoeD but it seems that the best defense that anyone can come up with for the existance of the FTDR is that someone might out think the rule book writers or the stage designer. That isn't cheating yet the application of the FTDR treats it as such. Nor is thinking and being creative unsportsmanlike. Arguing with match official isn't either unless the competitor goes too far. The organization has got to get rid of the "its my way or the highway" mentality.

-ld

[Merlin Orr]

I don't know JoeD but it seems that the best defense that anyone can come up with for the existance of the FTDR is that someone might out think the rule book writers or the stage designer.  That isn't cheating yet the application of the FTDR treats it as such.  Nor is thinking and being creative unsportsmanlike.  Arguing with match official isn't either unless the competitor goes too far.  The organization has got to get rid of the "its my way or the highway" mentality.

-ld

Boss - Merlin, your work on this project has shown initiative, creativity, ingenuity and the ability to think outside the box.

Merlin - Thank you, Sir.

Boss - Don't ever let it happen again! .... ..... ..... or I will apply the FTD.

[Duane Thomas]

I wouldn't do away with the FTDR. I believe it's a useful concept. I would provide a list of what constitutes an FTDR infraction. If it's on the list, you can be FTDRed for it. If it's not, you can't. I believe this would (1) go a long way toward eliminating complaints about the "subjective" nature of this rule, (2) motivate SOs to actually levy the penalty since it's very cut-and-dried whether or not it's applicable, i.e. it's no longer a judgment call on their parts.