Ftn On Head Shot

[et45]

I shot the TN IDPA match this past weekend.On 2 stages you were hit with a FTN if the target did not have one shot in the head.The first stage had you retreat to cover while shooting and once behind cover you reshot each target once in the head.The other stage had 1 target that you shot 2 body shots and 1 head.I have shot several stages that require 2 body and 1 head and you get a miss penalty for the head if you don't make it. The rule book states that if it is a Vickers stage that the target must have at least one -1 or higher hit or you get the FTN.So did the match director or stage designer make a mistake or did I miss something?.And yes I did get hit with this on one stage (I know,be aware..see the sights,screw it I was hoseing and got burned )

[tightloop]

[austinkroe]

Poor stage design. I think the idea was that since you had to re-engage from cover for the head shot it was as if it was a second target and a miss=ftn. Not right if you already engaged with two to the body. I say foul! The call was wrong. If you have a -1 on on a target then no ftn. The only exception to this rule is when it is a required head shot only; only shots in the head count and therefore if nothing in head...ftn. This is probably what the SO was thinking but the rule was missapplied in this case. However, if it was applied to everyone at the match then I guess they could say it was fair. Although, I see it as an unfair extra penalty. Sorry to hear about this.

[Jim Watson]

I was there.

It is a common requirement in matches I have been to.

It is a "failure drill", it being simulated in the scenario that the Threat is wearing armor or is so methed up that body shots are ineffective. But you have to make the body shots to "learn" that.

The rule book is for minimum requirements, nothing against the CoF setting higher standards.

[Steve J]

I was there.

It is a common requirement in matches I have been to.

It is a "failure drill", it being simulated in the scenario that the Threat is wearing armor or is so methed up that body shots are ineffective. But you have to make the body shots to "learn" that.

The rule book is for minimum requirements, nothing against the CoF setting higher standards.

Jim's response is spot on. Another one I've seen is where only a head shot is available behind a no-shoot. The CoF states that you have to take the hostage taker (T-1) with your first shot. If you miss he (T-1) will kill the hostage and the shooter gets an automatic hit on a no-shoot. That's whether the shooter's round hits the no-shoot or not. If he misses the head shot he get's the hit on the no-shoot. It's a great stages. Remember not every scenario can be covered by the rule book. Again, Jim said it best "The rule book is for minimum requirements, nothing against the CoF setting higher standards."

[Mayonaise]

Sorry to disagree with you Jim but this sounds like a carry over from Alabama 3 years ago. Same deal where they enforced this on a swinging target no less. If you want to simulate body armor, paint the body black and only score the head. That way a miss on the head would meet the rulebook requirement. Even then the required body shots couldn't be scored for points other than misses because of the "hard cover/body armor".

As long as the shooter meets the rules requirement of at least one -1 hit or higher the target is considered neutralized by the rulebook. Being the same for everyone and "The rule book is for minimum requirements, nothing against the CoF setting higher standards." are not in the rulebook.

The rulebook IS the standard for a sanctioned match. If ET45 protested the call the MD has nothing in the rulebook to support your position. If it can't be covered by the rulebook it should not be in a sanctioned match.

Edited October 25, 2006 by Mayonaise

[RickB]

When we require shots on the body and the head, we put a strip of black tape across the neck, and score the head as a separate target.

[austinkroe]

If it can't be covered by the rulebook it should not be in a sanctioned match.

Here, here! Mayo, you have spurred me into research.

IDPA Rule Book p.63

Rule 2. Agree to run the match strictly by the IDPA Rule Book

Seems to me the word strictly means no expanding or narrowing of the rules. Take this as you will. Until someone shows me in the book where this type of penalty is allowed I will think something was fishy about this call.

Although, the black tape idea creating two separate targets is an interesting one. I wonder how this plays out in the rules. Seems to me it would work. The rules do say the target is not designed to resemble the human anatomy and I dont see any reason why you cant split it up as you see fit. Afterall you could cut the head off of a target and put it on a serperate stand to make a new target with "hardcovor over the body".

So, in conclusion I think if there is no separation of body and head there is no FTN but if there is separation there can be one.

[et45]

I did not protest,matter of fact I did not even think about it until yesterday at work and got the rule book out and read it.The more I shoot IDPA the more I like USPSA better.

[Joe D]

I have seen that scenario several times. I don't care for it. The head miss should be scored as a miss, not FTN. If you are going to simulate body armor then black out the target below the head and require head shots.

Mark, I don't remember that stage. I must have hit the head. BTW, the Alabama match for '07 will be a lot simpler. We had too many movers. Even my stages will be easier - maybe.

[Jim Watson]

Well, Mark, I guess you are going to have to swing through this part of the country and educate about 2/3 of the ACs, MDs and SOs, because the "Failure Drill with FTN if head not hit" is just dead common.

And while you are here, please talk to the SO who gave me a PE for shooting one like that three times in the head.

[Joe D]

My thoughts are if you have the 2 to body 1 to head scenario you don't score the body shots. Just require two hits on the body before the head shot. If we are saying that the BG has armor on how can we score the two body shots?

[Jim Watson]

To keep you gamers from just dumping a couple into the bushes to get to the head a fraction sooner. Remember, the rationale of the Failure Drill is that you don't know the body shots will be ineffective until you have tried them.

[kdmoore]

Don't think I've seen this before.

Totally wrong unless it was explained that the target would be treated as two in the stage description. (I personally don't see the need for tape, just designate the head as T1 and the Torso as T2 and make it clear to the shooter).

If we aren't surprising the shooter, then I see no problem with this, it should have been reviewed by the AC and HQ, so they would be of like mind too.

If it was announced, I have no sympathies for you .....

ETA

I agree with Jim Watson ....

My thoughts are if you have the 2 to body 1 to head scenario you don't score the body shots. Just require two hits on the body before the head shot. If we are saying that the BG has armor on how can we score the two body shots?

Well, if they want to justify it in the course description then they can make up a lot of diff scenarios. Off the top of my head, why do you go to failure shot (headshot) if you haven't made the two torso shots. So making those shots gives you the feedback that you actually need to add the head shot. Thus, all shots are dependant and critical .... but I'm know RW writer, nor do I play one on the internet ....

End of Edit

Which is what

Edited October 25, 2006 by kdmoore

[dcloudy777]

I missed the match (sick as a dog), but this does seem like a confusing rule application. I think (hindsight's 20/20), the theory is sound, basically the shooter is engaging 2 seperate targets. Perhaps a better way to end up with the same basic result is two place 2 targets right next to one another, one "hard-covered" in the head, and the other "hard-covered in all but the head. The stage desciption could still state that both targets represent the same threat, just in varying stages of armor. Just my 2 cents in case someone wants to simulate a failure-to-stop drill ( a valuable survival skill), in a future match.

DanO

[GmanCdp]

another reason to be at the front of the squad when the SO is giving the walk thru.. and stage description....

[Greg Jones]

This Failure Drill is not uncommon in IDPA matches around here, even appeared in the Ohio state match last year. I don't have a problem with it, although I do wish there was a better way to score the body hits. If none of the body hits have neutralized the target, then (2) -0 hits should not be worth more than (2) -1 hits, etc.

I'm curious about the suggestions that there should be two separate targets to simulate the Failure Drill. What does this accomplish that having 1 target and a FTN for a head shot does not accomplish? If the shooter misses the shot on the head-only target, then he/she still gets a FTN. If the shooter also has (2) -3 shots on the body-only target, then he/she gets a FTN for that also. I can't see the reason to have the opportunity for (2) FTN penalties for what is intended to be a Failure Drill on a single target?

[et45]

It was announced at the walk through,I thought I hit the head but alas, I did not. I am not bitching or complaining, it was my piss poor shooting that was to blame.I just want to know if I interpreted the FTN rule correctly.

Edited October 25, 2006 by et45

[Mayonaise]

Joe, Jim,

The stage in Alabama was SO'd by the former TN AC John F and Joe D. The AL AC was the MD and when I told them the as long as the shooter scored 4 points (prior to the current FTN rules) the target is neutralized. I was given that it's the same for all shooter line. Well, sorry, that's not in the rule book.

While it seems like a small thing that shot was difficult on a swinger. It was brutal for a MM or NV shooter. Even by their logic it wasn't the same for everyone. Easy for Sevigny, Hard for me, brutal for the novice and MM.

I discussed this issue again with former AL AC and he finally admitted that it wasn't according to the rules. I can't believe it was AGAIN in a sanctioned match.

I have no problem with failure drills in IDPA. But if the rules state that a target is neutralized by points (a hit in the minus 1) then that's the rule.

I've seen it before in a club match. Two stages that the shooter was issued a procedural and an FTN for passing a target without scoring a head shot. Didn't matter how many times you scored hits to the torso. We nicknamed it "A murder match".

To get back on point. This could have been solved by making the body hard cover. In the COF description make sure the shooters know that misses will be scored as misses. That way the head shot is required and satisfies the FTN requirement per the rules.

Mark

Edited October 26, 2006 by Mayonaise

[Scooter]

We always score a miss on the head as just a miss. No FTN unless there's no -1 or 0 hit somewhere on the body.

There is a provision in the rules that state if you have a target that require 2 in the body and 1 in the head, a competitor can choose to put all 3 rounds into the head since it's a "tougher" shot and no penalty will be assessed to the body.

[Mayonaise]

We always score a miss on the head as just a miss. No FTN unless there's no -1 or 0 hit somewhere on the body.

There is a provision in the rules that state if you have a target that require 2 in the body and 1 in the head, a competitor can choose to put all 3 rounds into the head since it's a "tougher" shot and no penalty will be assessed to the body.

Scooter,

That's partially correct. It's actually up to the MD and should be made clear before hand.

2005 Rule Book Page 45

Shooting all shots to the head to circumvent sight alignment transition may be considered a procedural and incur the penalty. CoF designers and MDs should be aware of this possibility and decide beforehand how to handle it. Some course designers will specify head shots in order to simulate the threat target as wearing body armor.

[Greg Jones]

To get back on point. This could have been solved by making the body hard cover. In the COF description make sure the shooters know that misses will be scored as misses. That way the head shot is required and satisfies the FTN requirement per the rules.

I would disagree. Hard cover (black) over a portion of a target has a very specific meaning in IDPA, and USPSA. Requiring shooters to place scoring hits in the black on some hard cover targets, and not others, would create a mess. One option that might be less confusing to the shooter would be to use a t-shirt on targets with body armor. Another option would be to make a stencil to identify body armor targets similar to how no-shoots are identified with exposed hands.

Edited to add that locally I don't think that we have ever created a stage that mixed stationary body armor threat targets with non-body armor threat targets. There is no confusion as to which target gets what-all require 2/body, 1/head, swingers, drop turners, and steel scored normally.

Edited October 26, 2006 by Greg Jones

[Joe D]

I remember that stage now. You were shooting over a car at a close swinger. I did not like the FTN either on that stage. Some of the guys just shot three head shots. As I recall the AC said two of those shots were to be counted as misses. My argument was the head shots were more difficult and should be counted as hits. I don't recall what the final decision was on that issue.

John gave Dave Sevigny a Procedural on that stage for reloading before reaching cover.

I have Dave shooting that stage on video somewhere. That stage was right after the briefcase stage.

[Crusher]

PP 3. Failure-to-Neutralize (FTN):

A. Will add five (5) seconds per infraction. This penalty

applies to any target that does not have at least one (1) four

zone (minus 1) or higher value hit. See Appendix NINETarget-

Scoring Zones for further clarification. Failure to

neutralize penalties ONLY applies when standard Vickers

Count scoring is used and the target(s) do not completely

disappear.

I think that this is straightforward and leaves no room for "interpretation".

Of course that does not include "It's the same for everyone" justification used by many to validate a bogus stage. FWIW "it's the same for everyone" can not be found anywhere in the latest IDPA rulebook yet is is often used as a rule. What's up with that?

[Mayonaise]

I would disagree. Hard cover (black) over a portion of a target has a very specific meaning in IDPA, and USPSA. Requiring shooters to place scoring hits in the black on some hard cover targets, and not others, would create a mess. One option that might be less confusing to the shooter would be to use a t-shirt on targets with body armor. Another option would be to make a stencil to identify body armor targets similar to how no-shoots are identified with exposed hands.

Greg,

The reason I would offer the body armor shots as misses is to eliminate the round dumping and courage the shooters to make the effort to follow/adhere to the intent of the stage design. Otherwise what's to stop the shooter from bypassing the torso and dump 3 rounds as fast as they can at the head? Either way it needs to be clearly addressed how the COF will be scored in the walk through and hopefully in the printed description.

Edited to add that locally I don't think that we have ever created a stage that mixed stationary body armor threat targets with non-body armor threat targets. There is no confusion as to which target gets what-all require 2/body, 1/head, swingers, drop turners, and steel scored normally.

I'll agree with that to some extent. I don't like shooting traps where some target arrays require 2 and others require 3 etc... I don't have a problem though if the T1 target requires some extra rounds though. Those are realistic to me. Regarding your previous post about having the head scored separately from the torso. I don't think that's the right path either. We're shooting humaniod targets, not circles and squares. If you can't score the target straight up, you probably need to rethink the stage.

Joe, That's the stage. I remember that clearly because RT and I were there on Friday and shot with Dave, Julie and the SO's. Myrin later agreed with me on the FTN issue on that stage. I don't know which AC approved this current one we're discussing but it's not legal IMO and open for a protest.

Mark

PP 3. Failure-to-Neutralize (FTN):

I think that this is straightforward and leaves no room for "interpretation".

Of course that does not include "It's the same for everyone" justification used by many to validate a bogus stage. FWIW "it's the same for everyone" can not be found anywhere in the latest IDPA rulebook yet is is often used as a rule. What's up with that?

Yeah I think I stated that earlier. How can you enforce a COF like this if there is no rule to support it? Wide open for a protest IMO. The result might even be that the whole stage has to be wiped out of the scoring for everyone, which really sucks.