kirbinster Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 You never really know what was in someone's mind. I was the SO at a match this weekend where I screwed up a stage. The stage was kind of strange in that it had three targets that you had to hit with two shots each in tactical sequence while retreating. You started at about one yard away and ALL shots had to be fired from retention. A buddy of mine did the stage firing 1-1-1 from retention but as he got further away he extended his arm. I obviously awarded him a PE. I shot about four shooters later, and did the same thing. I guess someone could have said I did this intentionally to gain an advantage, but the truth was I just screwed up. It just was so unnatural for me to shoot from retention once I was further away that my arm just naturally extended. I immediately knew I screwed up after the first non-retention shot, but at that point it was too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sac Law Man Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) I am having a hard time picturing this scenario.. If the targets are shot near to far, why cant he shoot them all left to right as long as he doesn't shoot a further target out of order.. Given you description, I see the targets as such. X X X X X X X X X P1 Were the targets staggered like this? X X X X X X X X X P1 If so were they more then 2 yards apart distance? If the targets are within 2 yards they are equal threats.. If they were staggered, its a tough call, but FTDR could be the correct call. Edited April 15, 2015 by Sac Law Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ES13Raven Posted April 15, 2015 Author Share Posted April 15, 2015 I am having a hard time picturing this scenario.. If the targets are shot near to far, why cant he shoot them all left to right as long as he doesn't shoot a further target out of order.. Given you description, I see the targets as such. X X X X X X X X X P1 If so were they more then 2 yards apart distance? If the targets are within 2 yards they are equal threats.. If they were staggered, its a tough call, but FTDR could be the correct call. Like this, front 4 targets are 2 yards in front of the next 4, back middle target is 2 yards behind that. Barrels are obstructing view of some targets. Shooter has to lean out left & right to see them and engage in correct priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sac Law Man Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 Ok, so if the COF says near to far, he can shoot them left to right or vice versa.. You cant require both.. The shooter can shoot them like this.. 9 7 8 3 4 5 6 1 2 If he shot 1,3,7 and 9,, that would be a PE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chb119 Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 Scenario: Standards type stage, where the shooter does not move and shoots all targets from the same position. There are 9 targets that the shooter has to engage in tactical priority (near to far), and they are setup in arrays like this: 2, 4, 2 1. Correct engagement would have the shooter switching back and forth from right to left (or vice versa), to shoot them near to far. An experienced shooter gets to the line, and decides he can shoot it faster by engaging all targets left to right and taking the PE. FTDR worthy? If you ask the question "PE or FTDR?" It is a PE. For an FTDR it must be a "deliberate attempts."(5.5.) Can you as the SO make a 100% case to the MD, that his act was delibrate and not a shooter mistake. The SO must prove intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cd662 Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 "Try this on for size if it is too much to let go: "I am sorry to inform you that you have been disqualified for violation of the shooter's code of conduct, rule 3.19.7. Please refer any questions to the CSO and MD and have a safe day." I have the authority to do that on the spot and it doesn't take me away from the stage. He willfully broke the rule so I have grounds to DQ. It shifts the burden of time and legwork to the shooter completely as he is now trying to get back into the match and I am free to run my stage. If it bounces back from them, it will likely end up a FTDR, but you have made the offending shooter do the legwork and thoroughly offset any competitive advantage gained. " If you DQ a shooter that you suspect has "gamed" a stage, you are a terrible safety officer and you are the problem behind IDPA's generally terrible and inconsistent levels of "officiating". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brooke Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Seems to me that a lot of folks are arguing that using the FTDR (or DQ) is impossible unless the shooter calls them on himself. The SO is completely unable to prove anything so the guy gets a pass for gaining an advantage on all the honest people who shot the stage. The rules are at fault here. If every target that was shot out of order got a PE the SO would just be able to penalize without making a value judgement. In my opinion, stages that might be subject to saving more than 3 sec by ignoring the COF should be spelled out on the stage description as requiring a PE per target. Too many people argue the case for a cheater and ignore the guys who did it right. Do not care if it was intentional or stupid, the shooter is responsible to get it right and should be penalized accordingly. Those of you who seem to want no rules can just go down to the range and hose targets to your hearts content. No harm done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Halley Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 If you DQ a shooter that you suspect has "gamed" a stage, you are a terrible safety officer and you are the problem behind IDPA's generally terrible and inconsistent levels of "officiating".I'm not suggesting a DQ for a gamer. A gamer is finding the fastest and most efficient way to solve the problem within the rules. I am suggesting that the most efficient way to deal with someone circumventing the "spirit of the game" is simply to DQ them. You have the authority to do that under the rules. You do not have the singular authority to award FTDR penalties. So stop the progression of the stage and delay all the honest shooters in the squad while you go and find the MD and make your case OR you DQ him for breach of shooters code of conduct and have him go and find the MD for you while you keep running the honest shooters through the stage? I vote option two, but I am a terrible SO ? and don't believe in delaying the match on the account of...essentially a cheater according to the rules. IF I had said, "I can't do it that fast so he must be cheating," THEN I would be part of the overly subjective, inconsistent, and generally terrible officiating in IDPA. ? The match must be run as a business and shooters treated as customers if you want your match to thrive. You can't expect twenty people to wait around for the bad apple to be brought in front of Mommy Dearest on the charge of Flagrant Things Done wRong. Most matches I attend don't have the extra hands to play this game. So you'd be, "a terrible SO," (insert melodramatic shudder) to waste that much time at a match.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Halley Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 Seems to me that a lot of folks are arguing that using the FTDR (or DQ) is impossible unless the shooter calls them on himself. The SO is completely unable to prove anything so the guy gets a pass for gaining an advantage on all the honest people who shot the stage. The rules are at fault here. If every target that was shot out of order got a PE the SO would just be able to penalize without making a value judgement. In my opinion, stages that might be subject to saving more than 3 sec by ignoring the COF should be spelled out on the stage description as requiring a PE per target. Too many people argue the case for a cheater and ignore the guys who did it right. Do not care if it was intentional or stupid, the shooter is responsible to get it right and should be penalized accordingly. Those of you who seem to want no rules can just go down to the range and hose targets to your hearts content. No harm done. If you look at the way the FTDR penalty authority has been stripped away from the SO in the newest rules you'd see how difficult the situation has gotten. They did away with the stupidity of the round dumping rule which was impossible to prove due to the fact that the rule was being circumvented to the highest level of the sport by now DM's. You have hit upon the keystone flaw in IDPA rules: giving consideration to the shooter's intentions in establishing the severity of penalties. Enter subjectivism, favoritism, and even how this call could affect my match placement. Loopholes and human interpretation curse the rulebook. The puzzle is laid out step by step for the shooter in IDPA, it is a beginner's shooting sport. Unfortunately your PE per target is not supported by the rules in IDPA as it would then mimic USPSA too much. They have PE per shot over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig N Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Really? Slip up and say something FTDR worthy? Chances are that if he knew what he was doing was basically an FTDR do you honestly think he would "slip up" and say something FTDR worthy? At the end of the day its still a game he didn't do anything unsafe and the advantage gained was probably still minimal; but not the right thing to do if it was purpose. Really. You have to weigh the options here. 1. Can you prove and enunciate clearly that he gained a competitive advantage? 2. Is the time taken to delay the match and stick it to the offending shooter worthy of the infraction? 3. Are you going to be supported on the higher level and is it worthy of their time spent? You would be surprised at how smart and how stupid cheaters can be. For example a young man from NC made GM in open at 2009 VA/MD SECTIONAL(USPSA) because his uncle cheated on his behalf and pasted a target downrange before it could be scored. 95% of TJ because he got a reshoot on a stage that he had a clearly visible (to the spectators) hard cover miss on. With electronic hearing protection you can usually pick up fools planning loudly, but sometimes you get lucky with an arrogant shooter saying, "Who cares it was worth it," after a stage. The rules for giving the FTDR leave two big problems however: It should not be assessed for inadvertent shooter errors, or in cases where it is obvious that the shooter gained no competitive advantage by their actions. In these cases, the shooter should be assessed a PE rather than an FTDR.<----Shooter says, "Eww shoot sorry, did not mean to do that." And then walks away after burning down the stage ➕ three seconds. All FTDRs must be approved by the MD.<---Now I have to stop my stage to go plead my case to give this jackwagon a penalty and leave the other twenty shooters in the squad sun tanning? Try this on for size if it is too much to let go: "I am sorry to inform you that you have been disqualified for violation of the shooter's code of conduct, rule 3.19.7. Please refer any questions to the CSO and MD and have a safe day." I have the authority to do that on the spot and it doesn't take me away from the stage. He willfully broke the rule so I have grounds to DQ. It shifts the burden of time and legwork to the shooter completely as he is now trying to get back into the match and I am free to run my stage. If it bounces back from them, it will likely end up a FTDR, but you have made the offending shooter do the legwork and thoroughly offset any competitive advantage gained. Don't you still have to inform the shooter as to HOW he violated the COC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1911 Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I am having a hard time picturing this scenario.. If the targets are shot near to far, why cant he shoot them all left to right as long as he doesn't shoot a further target out of order.. Given you description, I see the targets as such. X X X X X X X X X P1 If so were they more then 2 yards apart distance? If the targets are within 2 yards they are equal threats.. If they were staggered, its a tough call, but FTDR could be the correct call. Like this, front 4 targets are 2 yards in front of the next 4, back middle target is 2 yards behind that. Barrels are obstructing view of some targets. Shooter has to lean out left & right to see them and engage in correct priority. I'm really confused. If the shooter is taking cover behind a barrel, the only possible priority is slicing the pie, not near to far. You can't force the shooter to shoot the near targets on the left side of the barrel, then the near targets on the right side of the barrel, then the far targets on the left side of the barrel, then the far targets on the right side of the barrel. It sounds to me that the problem was with the COF being illegal, not the way the shooter shot the COF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Halley Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Don't you still have to inform the shooter as to HOW he violated the COC? The numbers....if you look it up comes down to a DQ for violation of shooter's code of conduct. (Rule 5.6.4) and then you tell him he violated 3.22.7 (not 3.19.7 as previously stated in error) which is, "I will adhere to the IDPA purpose and principles and will not willfully break any IDPA rule." By intentionally shooting the stage in a way that gained an unfair advantage he has failed to adhere to the purpose and principles of IDPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glock3422 Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 I have tried to read through all this but I have a question. Is the shooter behind cover? Is the shooter using two sides of a barricade? If there is cover, near to far doesn't apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sac Law Man Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 M1911, I a glad you get my point.. cant believe this is being discussed and no one is picking up on the problem.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1911 Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 M1911, I a glad you get my point.. cant believe this is being discussed and no one is picking up on the problem.. Exactly. The problem isn't the shooter or the shooter's conduct. The problem is the illegal course of fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1911 Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 (edited) I have tried to read through all this but I have a question. Is the shooter behind cover? Is the shooter using two sides of a barricade? If there is cover, near to far doesn't apply. My reading of the thread was that yes, the shooter was behind cover, yes, the shooter was using two sides of a barricade, and, I agree, if using cover, near to far doesn't apply. So the entire premise of this thread is faulty, near as I can tell. Edited May 22, 2015 by M1911 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ES13Raven Posted May 22, 2015 Author Share Posted May 22, 2015 I have tried to read through all this but I have a question. Is the shooter behind cover? Is the shooter using two sides of a barricade? If there is cover, near to far doesn't apply. No, the shooter is in the open at P1 (box) and does not leave P1 but can lean left & right. The barrels are vision barriers for the targets. You have to lean to be able to shoot around them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1911 Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 (edited) I have tried to read through all this but I have a question. Is the shooter behind cover? Is the shooter using two sides of a barricade? If there is cover, near to far doesn't apply. No, the shooter is in the open at P1 (box) and does not leave P1 but can lean left & right. The barrels are vision barriers for the targets. You have to lean to be able to shoot around them. If they are blocking the appearance of targets, then you can't force the shooter to shoot near to far. Instead, they have to slice the pie. And when slicing the pie, near to far does come into play. The whole "it's a vision barrier not cover" bushwa is weak sauce. As I said previously, the problem here wasn't the shooter. The problem was the illegal course of fire. Edited May 22, 2015 by M1911 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ES13Raven Posted May 22, 2015 Author Share Posted May 22, 2015 The barrels only partially cover the targets. You can see them, so you know the priority - but you have to lean out to get good hits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1911 Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 (edited) The barrels only partially cover the targets. You can see them, so you know the priority - but you have to lean out to get good hits. Maybe I'm not getting it, but it seems to me that if you have to lean out, then you have to shoot them slicing the pie. You can not combine slicing the pie with near to far. If you want to create a course of fire that requires someone to engage targets near to far, then have them out in the open, with no vision barriers or cover. And don't think you can require them to shoot the targets within an array in any particular order. Equal threat means equal threat -- the shooter can choose his order of engagement. Edited May 22, 2015 by M1911 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Halley Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 This is a USPSA stage in IDPA. You've made a shooting box flexibility exercise with vests and no speed loading. I see now that it isn't the shooter's fault for shooting it in a non ridiculous manner. So no penalty. The stage is likely illegal on minimum visible scoring areas and definitely on conflicting engagement orders. This is a hokified standard with an overdose of blue barrel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Halley Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 (edited) Hammer follow. Edited May 23, 2015 by Forrest Halley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glock3422 Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 I just realized, this is the Cali version of IDPA. Nothing to see here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gryff Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 I just realized, this is the Cali version of IDPA. Please explain what that means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ES13Raven Posted June 8, 2015 Author Share Posted June 8, 2015 You can not combine slicing the pie with near to far. You can if you can see half of every target from P1. Like I said, you have to lean out a little to ensure -0 hits. 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