Should the use of the FTDR be restricted,

[Nik Habicht]

Duane Thomas had this to say in another thread:

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.

So, in the vein of some other recent threads, concerning themselves with improving IDPA, how would you restrict the use of the FTDR penalty to avoid its arbitrary use? In what specific instances would you like to see it remain? Constructive replies please, preferably with articulated reasons. Thanks,

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

I am going to work on a list but I think I will approach it from a different angle.

The FTDR will NOT be used to:

1. Penalize shooters where no other procedural error can be found.

2. Correct faulty course of fire design or walk through instructions. (ie: That is not what I meant)

3. imply a shooter deliberatly deviated from course design to gain an advantage unless there is a flagrant provable violation of the rules of IDPA. Using the "Spirit" will not be allowed as it is totally based on opinion.

That is my start.

Regards,

[jhgtyre]

I am going to work on a list but I think I will approach it from a different angle.

The FTDR will NOT be used to:

1. Penalize shooters where no other procedural error can be found.

2. Correct faulty course of fire design or walk through instructions. (ie: That is not what I meant)

3. imply a shooter deliberatly deviated from course design to gain an advantage unless there is a flagrant provable violation of the rules of IDPA. Using the "Spirit" will not be allowed as it is totally based on opinion.

That is my start.

Regards,

That sounds like an excellent start.

-ld