Tactical Sequence And "engagement"

[Morphire]

We shot a COF last night that made me think of a question to ask the MD. It caused a bit of discussion amongst our grup so I thought I'd ask it of the forum to see what other people's interpretations were.

COF was three targets T1 center at about 3y, T2 left at about 5y and T3 right at about 10y. Two head shots required for each target in tactical sequence with Vickers Count scoring. So I asked (newbie again) if my understanding was correct that it meant T1 for one head shot, T2 for 1 head shot, than T3 for two head shots and T1 and T2 for their last head shots respectively. Given the affirmative, I shot the COF and scored 0 down with 6 shots fired.

Another shooter shot the same way but hit -1 on T2 his first shot on that target and made it up with a head shot on his second shot. He then moved on to T3 and back to T1 and T2 as above. He completed the COF with 0 down with 7 shots fired.

Still a third shooter misssed T2 entirely with his first shot on that target and moved on to T3 for two head shots, then T1 for it's second hit, and then finished T2 with two successive head shots. He completed the COF with 0 down with 7 shots fired.

The question was then broached by me if there was a procedural in a COF when Tactical Sequence was required and a miss on a target isn't made up before moving on (ie. the third shooter in this example). The trick being that, the miss was on a target that was "engaged" but just simply missed (entirely or objectively as in a head shot requirement). Everyone seemed to agree that ignoring a target (not attempting to shoot it at all) and moving on to another target out of tactical sequence was a procedural, but there was a split as to whether or not tactical sequence meant a required neutralization of a target objective before moving on or just an attempt at a proper neutralization. Recall that this is unlimited standard Vickers Count. We seemed to agree that Limited Vickers would have settled the issue through limited round counts.

The stick seems to be over the IDPA definition of "engage" and "engagement". Does it mean a successful attempt at the target objective (ie. successfully meeting the target objective in the case of a tactical sequence requirement) or does it mean an attempt to at the target objective (ie. shot but fail to satisfy the target objective in the case of a tactical sequence requirement).

I hope this was a little clearer than mud so that everyone understands through the veil of my noobosity. LOL

Kevin

[kdmoore]

My understanding is that it has nothing to do with bullet holes. Shoot at a target, it's been engaged. Period.

Also, you can get around shoot thru's by requiring target engagement. i.e. Shooter tries to avoid a shot with a two fer. He lines two targets up and gets a twofer. IMO, he's engaged the first, but not the second (even tho it has a hole in it) Don't see it much as most won't design a course with shoot thru's (it's either a mistake or ???)

If you require hits/nuetralization, then you are requiring a SO to be watching targets and not your muzzle and finger. Could be done on some stages, and safely. But can't be done on all stages.

ETA Didn't mean to be rude, meant to start off with "HI! welcome to the sport!"

Also, in full disclosure, I serve as a MD on a small local match when needed, and SO most of the rest of the time. Others may know better.

Edited April 28, 2006 by kdmoore

[Jim Watson]

As I said on the other board, in my area - home of the AC - "engagement" is taken to mean firing at least the number of scored shots AT a paper target. To require that it actually be "neutralized" (= at least one -0 or -1 hit) would require that the shooter peer at the target to score it on the fly. A bad idea, whether technique or tactic.

On the other hand, it is usually required here that a reactive target be knocked down before continuing on to the next target in Tactical Priority; which is a definite slowdown. Some of those things drop as slow as the guy falling off the saloon roof in the B western.

[Morphire]

My understanding is that it has nothing to do with bullet holes. Shoot at a target, it's been engaged. Period.

I tend to think in this manner too. What happens if the stage is low light and the bullet holes can't be discerned until later during scoring? Focus on engagement and don't penalize a person for being less than a Master as far as accuracy goes, right? The sport is supposed to be helping us all improve as we shoot it. At least that's what I'm hoping to get ou tof it along with the fun and fellowship.

If you require hits/nuetralization, then you are requiring a SO to be watching targets and not your muzzle and finger. Could be done on some stages, and safely. But can't be done on all stages.

Good point on safety but this is what part of the rub was for this COF. Head shots were the required targets and anything other was scored as a miss with a possibility of a FTN penalty if no heads shots were landed. Head shots by definition neutralize the target so we had to distance ourselves from the FTN argument and separate it from the engagement question. FTN was an issue for scoring the target and the tactical sequence was a quesiton of issuing a procedural.

ETA Didn't mean to be rude, meant to start off with "HI! welcome to the sport!"

Not rude at all! I'm having a blast. I've been shooting about a month and have been fortunate enough to already shoot my classifier. It's not official yet but it looks like I'm going to be shooting SSP (glock 34) as a Sharpshooter. My three year IDPA membership is in processing now. There are a great bunch of guys here in Atlanta to shoot with. I'm being very well welcomed and taught the finer arts of being a noob. LOL

Kevin

On the other hand, it is usually required here that a reactive target be knocked down before continuing on to the next target in Tactical Priority; which is a definite slowdown. Some of those things drop as slow as the guy falling off the saloon roof in the B western.

Real good point. Is it SOP to have reactive targets "react" before you move on in tactical sequence? By that I mean is it required by thte IDPA rules? I didn't recall that.

Kevin

Edited April 29, 2006 by Morphire

[RickB]

After long and thoughtful debate, we've decided at our club that "engage" means to appear to shoot at a target, at least once. What really got us talking about it was a stage with three targets, to be engaged from cover, in tactical priority. The middle target was a pepper popper. A shooter fired twice, slightly repositioned himself at the cover, fired once, another reposition, fired twice. He had engaged the three targets, in tactical priority. Trouble was, the steel target was still standing. I argued for a procedural, since the steel target had, in my mind been bypassed, and therefore the requirement of tactical sequence had not been fulfilled. Another SO pointed out that the guy may have missed with every shot, but why should I apply the rule differently to steel than to paper? I argued, because I can. I can see that he missed the steel, so he should not expose himself to it in order to go to the next target. We decided it should really be handled in course design, with the steel target placed where it can't be engaged but bypassed if left standing.

I was envisioning a hypothetical situation in which a shooter could fire a round, with no real expectation of hitting anything, but fulfilling "engagement", then later exposing themself to the traget, then knocking it down later still. We allow shooters to expose themselves to paper targets that have been engaged, assuming that they are neutralized and no longer a threat; if a shooter shoots at a steel target, should he then be allowed to expose himself to this "engaged" target that is still standing?

[Morphire]

What really got us talking about it was a stage with three targets, to be engaged from cover, in tactical priority. The middle target was a pepper popper. A shooter fired twice, slightly repositioned himself at the cover, fired once, another reposition, fired twice. He had engaged the three targets, in tactical priority. Trouble was, the steel target was still standing. I argued for a procedural, since the steel target had, in my mind been bypassed, and therefore the requirement of tactical sequence had not been fulfilled. Another SO pointed out that the guy may have missed with every shot, but why should I apply the rule differently to steel than to paper? I argued, because I can. I can see that he missed the steel, so he should not expose himself to it in order to go to the next target.

There is also the argument that the shooter could have repositioned himself to the other side of the cover to engage T3 and still maintain cover for a non-neutralized T2, and then come back to T2. Confusing, but I can definitely see your argument re. steel vs. paper engagement. There is the counter argument that the SO should be worrying about FINGER and MUZZLE violations rather than scoring the CoF. The SO has to wear two hats if my undersanding is correct though. Safety first and score procedurals second.

We decided it should really be handled in course design, with the steel target placed where it can't be engaged but bypassed if left standing.

Great for an ideal world, but still leaves open the question of what will happen at an away match where the MD and course designers haven't thought that situation through to the same degree. It would be good to have a definitive answer from HQ on the definition of "eangement" for both paper and steel. It'd put things to rest.

Kevin

[kdmoore]

It would be good to have a definitive answer from HQ on the definition of "eangement" for both paper and steel. It'd put things to rest.

Several reasons I do not think Engage = nuetralize, hit or hit multiple times.

First the meaning of the word.

Main Entry: engage

Part of Speech: verb

Definition: attack

Synonyms: assail, assault, combat, encounter, face, fall on, fight, launch, meet, strike, take on

Antonyms: elude, evade, surrender, yield

Second: if the true intent was to nuetralize or strike, that's what would have been stated.

Third: the way that it's used in the rulebook. Gun never out of the holster until engaging targets, finger out of trigger guard unless engaging targets, re-engaging targets require limited vickers, .... the term is used 40 times, and each time it's obvious (in my mind) that he's talking about shooting AT the target, nothing to do with results.

Maybe try this, take the rule book and do a global replacement of the word engage with the word shoot (at). Probably reads as well that way. Next, replace it with nuetralizes, or hits with a bullet or ???. Will read ok in some cases, othertimes it clear that's not the definition the author had in mind.

[RickB]

Not very grammatical, but for what it's worth:

"At every IDPA match I have shot at that had steel or reactive targets, including 4 Nationals, the shooter had to engage (shoot at but not necessarily hit) the paper targets, but the reactive targets had to be hit and knocked down before exposing himself to them to shoot other targets in the stage without receiving a procedural penalty."

IDPA Nationals has always been considered the de facto "right way" to interpret rules that need interpreting, and according to this, steel must be dropped, to be considered "engaged".

Edited May 9, 2006 by RickB

[jkelly]

IDPA Nationals has always been considered the de facto "right way" to interpret rules that need interpreting...

I don't have my rule book handy. Does the rule book say that the Nationals are to be considered the de facto "right way" to interpret rules?

Respectfully,

jdkelly

[Crusher]

IDPA Nationals has always been considered the de facto "right way" to interpret rules that need interpreting, and according to this, steel must be dropped, to be considered "engaged

So steel does not follow the rules as far as "enganment criteria" for paper, additionally steel is required to be "neutalized" where paper does not, and can paper be penalized for(FTN) but steel can not because it must be netralized befor continuing or a PE will be called.

Can someone point me to the page/section in the rulebook that states this?

If so directed by the "WRITTEN STAGE PROCEDURE" I would not argue this decision but if this is some "tacti-cartel" decision based on a non-existant rule (in the rulebook) I would take issue with this, for it could not be validated by the rulebook.

It ain't rocket science why make it so?

Engage= shoot at.

Paper, steel, it's all the same unless otherwise directed by a WRITTEN STAGE PROCEDURE.

[Jim Watson]

I have found that it is best not to get my bowels in an uproar over stuff like this. Best to be suspicious and ASK. Ask the SO how he wants it shot and then do it that way.

Unless I just want to argue the minutae for fun.

Remember, IDPA HQ is in Arkansas and they define words differently there.

[andrewcolglazier]

Any hits on a target not in the head, where head shots only are required, are misses.

Misses may be made up by a successive shot, unless the stage is limited. If the shooter hits the head but thinks he has missed and shoots the head again immediately, a procedural should be assessed because it goes against the stage requirements to shoot the head twice in order, whether it is a mistake or not.

Generally, if a shooter wishes to avoid the possibility of a procedural on such a stage, he should wait to re-engage the target to make up hits until his second time through.

If the stage designer wants to prevent a shooter from shooting more than one shot at a target until every target has been engaged, he should make the stage limited.

Andy C.

[kdmoore]

"At every IDPA match I have shot at that had steel or reactive targets, including 4 Nationals, the shooter had to engage (shoot at but not necessarily hit) the paper targets, but the reactive targets had to be hit and knocked down before exposing himself to them to shoot other targets in the stage without receiving a procedural penalty."

Good insights here. Did the course state this, or was it something that was learned "the hard way". If it was in the CD, then it really doesn't speak to rules, but might speak more about "intent" of the rulebook?

Lots of steel take FOREVER to fall, at least when you are on the clock it seems that way. To require the steel to be all the way down before proceeding seems hard to administer and unneccessary (your going to loose time by needing to reengage 99% of the time.)

I do agree the safest way is to ask. At least that's the way to avoid surprises.

[Crusher]

To require the steel to be all the way down before proceeding...

Is silly, but the stage designers will do as the may (within the confines of the rulebook)

HINT: for those shooting minor (125 PF) a box of "Hot" loads are allways good to have for engaging steel that needs to drop quickly (target activators). Place those "hot" rounds stratigically in your mag(s) and don't miss.

[p99shooter]

At our club, we have a shooter using Winchester "white box" 9mm put a center hit on a popper to see if it falls before the start of the match. But it has to hit in the sweet spot; hits at the bottom shouldn't knock it down.

[RickB]

IDPA Nationals has always been considered the de facto "right way" to interpret rules that need interpreting...

I don't have my rule book handy. Does the rule book say that the Nationals are to be considered the de facto "right way" to interpret rules?

Respectfully,

jdkelly

Would I have phrased it that way, if it was in the rule book? The rule book doesn't tell us to look to Hackathorn's column for rule clarifications, but it, too, has been accepted that when Ken addresses a rule in his column, his published "opinions", if you want to call them that, are THE WAY.

[jkelly]

Would I have phrased it that way, if it was in the rule book? ---RickB

Yes, I suppose you could if you wanted to. I asked because I wanted to understand if you were abiding by the rules or making up your own rule(s).

Dinging someone with a procedural for a rule interpreted at a single match, held perhaps 1500 miles away and for only a few hundred shooters of whom an unknown number are SOs seems unfair.

Personally, for myself, I generally don’t mind when IDPA SOs create their own rules as long as they state the deviation from the Rule Book upfront.

Respectfully,

jkelly

[Crusher]

Personally, for myself, I generally don’t mind when IDPA SOs create their own rules as long as they state the deviation from the Rule Book upfront.

I also don't mind deviations as long as it is known from the written stage briefing, it's the SUPRISE stuff that tweeks my mellons.

[blackdragon]

Got to love the IDPA "Rubber Chicken!" You guys remember the old " Need for speed" Classifier?

Ivan

[RickB]

Would I have phrased it that way, if it was in the rule book? ---RickB

Yes, I suppose you could if you wanted to. I asked because I wanted to understand if you were abiding by the rules or making up your own rule(s).

Dinging someone with a procedural for a rule interpreted at a single match, held perhaps 1500 miles away and for only a few hundred shooters of whom an unknown number are SOs seems unfair.

Respectfully,

jkelly

It would appear, despite dictionary definitions of "engage" to the contrary, that for the purposes of the IDPA national championship, steel must be neutralized to be considered "engaged". If I, or you, follow that example, are we abiding by the rules, or making them up? If the interpretation of "engage", requiring neutralization of steel, is used uniformly at nationals, on all stages, would you accept that as a definitive, if contradictory, interpretation of "engage"? I don't have a dog in this hunt, but it would benefit everyone if we had a single, guiding definition, and there seems to be some conflict between what the book says, and how the rule is interpreted at the highest level.

[jkelly]

…but it would benefit everyone if we had a single, guiding definition, and there seems to be some conflict between what the book says, and how the rule is interpreted at the highest level...RickB

Exactly, but without publishing the “definition” where it can be referenced by the general members there is no single guiding definition. There is only a group of SOs (and perhaps a small group at that) who have had the “definition” explained to them, if indeed there was an explanation given at all.

I can’t think a worse way to disseminate rules information to a large membership then by word of mouth, or perhaps only by observation, to a small section of that membership.

Back on topic I’d say yes, if the rule can’t be justified by the “book” then I'd think you are making up rules. But then again, I don’t care what rule you make up as long as you tell me upfront.

Respectfully,

jkelly

[crday]

I'm a new member to this forum, so pardon if this point has been made before...

This issue came up at a local match and we phoned IDPA headquarters for a clarification. Here's what they said...and the news ain't good....

If a target is fired at and missed, then first of all there are points down. Assuming the target required two shots, that's 10 points down, 5 seconds. Plus, a Failure to Neutralize, another five second penalty. Then, a 3 second procedural for exposure to an un-neutralized target.

So, the single missed target would add 13 seconds to total time.

Last weekend, one of our stages finished with three targets at 25 yards. One shooter missed 5 of the 6 required shots on those three targets. 38 seconds of dropped points and penalties on 3 targets. Needless to say, her score wasn't pretty.

The procedural for exposure would not always apply, of course, only when the shooter was actualy exposed to the un-engaged target. This places a fairly serious judgment call on the SO, but hey, I guess that's why they pay us the big bucks.

Harsh? Yes.

crday

[bruce282]

SNIP

If a target is fired at and missed, then first of all there are points down. Assuming the target required two shots, that's 10 points down, 5 seconds. Plus, a Failure to Neutralize, another five second penalty. Then, a 3 second procedural for exposure to an un-neutralized target.

SNIP

Shooter starts behind a barrcade, and on the start signal engages 3 targets placed at 20 yards, two rounds each, slice the pie from either side. I miss both shots on target 1, get a Mike and a down 3 hit on target 2, and I'm down 0 on target 3.

Do I get any procedural's ?

Bruce

[andrewcolglazier]

Shooter starts behind a barrcade, and on the start signal engages 3 targets placed at 20 yards, two rounds each, slice the pie from either side. I miss both shots on target 1, get a Mike and a down 3 hit on target 2, and I'm down 0 on target 3.

Do I get any procedural's ?

Bruce

No. Only the points down.

Andy C.

[crday]

I fear I'm opening a can of worms here...

On the scenario just described, in order to engage T2, you'd have to (at least likely) slice the pie enough to expose yourself to T1. Since T1 has not been hit, that's a procedural for exposure to an un-neutralized target. Likewise on T2. A miss and a -3 is a Failure to Neutralize, so there's a second procedural for exposure to T2. Oh, there's also the FTN on T1. So, for the stage, you'd be down 18 points, 2 FTN's, and 2 procedurals. 25 seconds of dropped points/penalties on a stage that probably took 6 seconds (or less) to shoot.

This seems WAY too harsh to me, but those are 'rules' as described to me by IDPA Headquarters within the last two weeks.

Now, whether the SO is obligated to yell 'Cover' before giving the first procedural is another debate...The 'book' specifically states that if the SO has time to yell 'cover', he should do so, but that if the shooter is too fast for the SO to yell, the shooter gets the procedural. I view that as grossly unfair, but that's what the book says.

Frankly, in it's effort to minimize the number of rules, IDPA has created a nightmare of opinions and variations based on the whims of the MD and even stage SO. At a recent major match, the Stage One SO gave us a lecture on the absence of fault lines in IDPA, making sure we understood that "...this is NOT IPSC...". On Stage Four (I think it was four), there was a big black line painted in the gravel and it was adamantly described as a 'fault line'... Go figure.