Tactical Sequence And "engagement"

[andrewcolglazier]

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.

Shooters very often suffer FTNs on distant targets, usually because they can't see their hits from that distance. I have never assessed a penalty for exposure to a target under such circumstances. The points down and FTN penalties are plenty enough.

Andy C.

[bruce282]

That's really why I asked the question. The rule book says:

CoF 5. Avoid designing courses of fire that will substantially

disadvantage senior and mobility-challenged shooters.

While most folks take this to mean going prone or kneeling or lots of movement, eye sight comes into to. I can't see the bullet holes at 10 yards outdoors much less 20 yards inside.

Bruce

[COF]

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

I'd be curious who gave that reading since it goes against the rules as written. Engaging targets is engaging targets, whether they are paper or steel. The rulebook does not say targets have to be neutralized, only engaged. On the other hand, if the course of fire states the steel must be nuetralized before moving on, that's within the stage description parameters.

I like the example of doing a global replacement of engage with "shoot at or shot at" - it fits perfectly, but if you try to replace with nuetralize it doesn't work.

Jerry

[Genghis]

I've seen many IDPA stages where you have to expose yourself to one target in order to engage another.

[revchuck]

I've seen many IDPA stages where you have to expose yourself to one target in order to engage another.

If you had to expose yourself to a target you've already engaged, no problem. If the CoF requires you to expose yourself to an unengaged target while shooting another one, the CoF wasn't thought through. The best revenge is to think up a better CoF and have it in the next month's match.

[AikiDale]

Talk about an epiphany, after reading this thread I just realized I'm no where near smart enough to shoot IDPA.

[John K]

My understanding is that if the target is missed completely, the misses count as does a penalty for failure to neutralize.

John

[kend]

Talk about an epiphany, after reading this thread I just realized I'm no where near smart enough to shoot IDPA. sad.gif

If you had to expose yourself to a target you've already engaged, no problem.

But...but...you can't reload when crossing a doorway after engaging all targets in the room because you shouldn't be exposed to targets with a unloaded gun? There may be others not smart enough also......