Ftn On Head Shot

[f250sd]

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.

Is the rulebook different in different parts of the country?

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.

A true "gamer" is not going to take a 2.5sec. penalty to dump one round. The penalty far out ways the time saved.

I think one way to make the COF legit, would be to make the reengagement of the head shots after retreating to cover, were a separate string of fire. You can't change the rules by saying it would make since in the real world, otherwise that would justify me doing a slide lock reload in the open, if thats where I went dry.

[Bones]

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?

Dwight,

Read the 2nd full paragraph on page 51 of the rule book.

Craig

Edited November 4, 2006 by Duane Thomas

[Mayonaise]

Dwight,

Read the 2nd full paragraph on page 51 of the rule book.

Craig

Craig,

Yeah it's in there. But it's used in a way that validates Dwight's point.

Mark

[Crusher]

"One of the most commonly heard statements about poor course

design is “Well, it is the same for everyone”. Please do not use the

phrase “it is the same for everyone,” to use stages that trivialize the

purpose of IDPA or that are not really practical. Claiming that it

will be the same for everyone is a lame way of rationalizing a poor

stage or course of fire. Anyone using the line “it is the same for

everyone” to justify a tactically unsound stage should not be

allowed to run or design any stages of fire in IDPA. Mistakes will

be made in IDPA, but allowing poor course designs to flourish will

lead to the demise of IDPA quicker than any other factor."

From the IDPA rulebook regarding course design rational P 51.

Thanks Bones, if it were in there I KNEW you would be the one to find it.

While the stage described in the post has merit with regard to the "principles" of IDPA, the justification for the FTN penalty violates IDPA rules regarding assesment of the FTN penalty on such a target engagement sequence (two scored to the body 1 scored to the head box, FTN for head box miss). You can't have one without the other for a legitimate stage under the IDPA rulebook.

[Punkin Chunker]

If I understand and can summarize here -

1. The stage idea is sound -- it is not unrealistic to put two rounds into a threat and yet not realize the threat is neutralized until it keeps coming -- but the design is flawed because the rule says a single -1 hit = a neutralized target, so a FTN is not appropriate.

2. The principle of IDPA is to use simulated environments to replicate possible real-world situations.

3. In many real-world situations, threats do not wear visual cueing that they are wearing body armor or have a situation which would negate otherwise legitimate neutralization shots, so the CoF tried to accomplish that with rules on the walk-through. So although the design was true to the overall principle of IDPA, it did not comply with the FTN rule.

4. Just saying, "It's the same for everyone," is against the rules too.

My take (FWLIW):

1. If this is a reasonable scenario (two apparently solid hits, target keeps coming, a head shot required), then in a RW situation you probably won't get to put your weapon down and talk it out on a forum later. I realize that for many, IDPA is mostly game, but at the same time, if the principle is supposed to be oriented toward the real world, then maybe the perspective of the CoF should be, too.

2. I've heard people who don't like to be hamstrung by rulebook quotes turn around to quote the rulebook to hamstring a CoF which is solid in principle, but tries to duplicate an "unduplicatable" situation. I'm not saying this is the case here, but I have heard it on the range. If it is a tactically sound situation, then why not use it? If it is not tactically sound (and I haven't heard anyone say the situtation presented by this stage was unsound), then oppose it on those grounds, not because the heat of the match messed up the shooting plan.

3. There needs to be some way to recreate the "solid body hits don't stop the threat" situation which is in keeping with the rules.

Maybe a clamshell, with the head of the no-shoot removed so that after the threat is hit the first time, the no-shoot comes up and covers the body, which visually cues the shooter that a new situation is present, but only the head is available? But then, that again presents the, "Hey, I already put two -0s into that target, you can't penalize me if I don't shoot it again!" complaint.

How about a target stand faced with a steel plate in the A zone. When shot it would be designed to fall, and as it falls backward it rocks up a second target, on which the CoF could require a headshot?

[FTDR]

4. Just saying, "It's the same for everyone," is against the rules too.

a sugestion is not a rule

Please do not use the phrase “it is the same for everyone,”

[kdmoore]

I agree entirely with read of Punkin Chunker. Especially what I'd call his read on the spirit of that COF. I'll add this.

MD spiced up the stndrd 2 torso, 1 head. Variety is good.

Another way to make this stage legal ...

Just cut the head of the target off. Require two hits to that body. Also, use the head as a seperate target. As head's can be a pain to mount, just tape it to the torso. Use clear tape. Now, technically we are sound with the rule book. Or, we could just not cut/tape the target and tell everyone that we did and tell them what the COF requires during the walkthru .....

[Punkin Chunker]

IOr, we could just not cut/tape the target and tell everyone that we did and tell them what the COF requires during the walkthru .....

Sounds like a great idea -- as long as it's the same for everyone.

[Mayonaise]

After pondering on this and discussing it with a couple of people I feel the best way to do this within the rules is with two targets. Scored separately, yet stay true to the MD's intent.

I would probably make it 3 to the body and 1 to the head to reduce the chance that a shooter might fail to neutralize the front target.

[Delta Mike]

At a local match we had a similar course that was handled differently.

Two regular targets must be engaged with 2 shots each. Two steel plates were used to simulate the head shots after the original targets were engaged.

DM

[Jim Watson]

You guys are making this way too complicated.

You may, of course, set up your own targets as you like, but I am not buying into any scheme that makes more work for me.

If you don't think the Failure Drill with FTN is legit, don't use it.

And if you get caught on it somewhere else, let us know if the arguments presented here save you a penalty.

[Mayonaise]

I know one thing Jim. In those sanctioned matches it appears that the rules are subjective. I can support my position with the rulebook. But that won't get me anywhere when the stage is approved by the AC and the AC is the Rangemaster at the match will it?

It's a valid shooting problem. But the effort should be made to make it happen within the rules is all I'm saying. I'm done.

[PHolsted]

We just shot a stage like this at our last match. The basic COF is as follows:

Scenario: Upon arriving home from your Department of Defense job you are approached by three strange guys dressed in black who start asking you questions about your job. Then from nowhere they produce guns and tell you to come with them or your family dies.

Procedure: At signal drop to one knee behind your car and engage T-1 thur T-3 with 2 rounds to the body then reengage each target with 1round to the head. (Note T-1 thru T-3 have body armor) Then run to the house and save your family. Engage T-4 thru T-7 with 2 rounds min each.

On set up of this stage I painted black for hard cover on the bodies of T-1 thru T-3.

In the walk through I explained that these targets were wearing body armor thus was hard cover but they were still were required to place to shots to each target before they could reengage them with head shots. We did not score the body shots at all only the head shot. If there was a miss it was a FTN. I as MD did not care where the body shots were on the target just as long as there were two shots on each target.

So I know the next question people are going to ask what if they did not shoot the body shots?

Simple answer they did not follow the Cof which required them to shoot the body shots first. So they would have gotten a FTDR for per the rule book.

“C 1. Competitors will not attempt to circumvent or

compromise the spirit or rationale of any stage either by the

use of inappropriate devices, equipment or techniques. This is

the Failure To Do Right rule.”

The best thing I can say about this CoF was that not a single competitor had a problem with the stage design or how it was scored.

This is just my .02

Patrick

[Jane]

Patrick,

I like that solution

[kdmoore]

In the walk through I explained that these targets were wearing body armor thus was hard cover but they were still were required to place to shots to each target before they could reengage them with head shots. We did not score the body shots at all only the head shot. ..... the target just as long as there were two shots on each target.

Several things I like about this, but it really does open up another can of worms. (can you require shots that aren't scored). I'd suggest if that becomes a topic to discuss, we do it in another thread.

What I like ... Clear upfront communication, even justification in the stage design and story.

Also, "The best thing I can say about this CoF was that not a single competitor had a problem with the stage design or how it was scored."

This is what the sport is about to me. MD want's to shoot something a certain way, unorthodox or not. Shooters shoot that course. Fastest gun wins. End of story. Yep, sounds like a shooting match to me, not a debate

[PHolsted]

When I was coming up with this CoF I put a lot of thought into making it as easy on the shooter as possible and keeping it in line with the rules.

With this kind of failure drill I could not think of any other way to run it. I asked a few different people in the local area who are very experienced and have been shooting IDPA since 1996. When I ran this by them their first looks were puzzled. After they read it a few more times they cam to the same conclusion that I had. But how else could it have been set up to make it easy to score, not confuse the shooter and keep the debate down to a minimum.

I also sent a copy to HQ to see what their thoughts were. I hope to hear something back from them soon. When I do I will let all know.

[kend]

I agree with the programmer babe....nice solution Patrick.

(can you require shots that aren't scored).

Just thinking out loud here, why not? If this action was required by the cof wouldn't it be considered the same as requiring you to open a door or carry a baby? It's a non-scoring action but it is required. And requiring two hits would be considered the same as requiring the baby be SET down and not dropped or thrown, which should be a pe instead of ftn's.

[Punkin Chunker]

In the walk through I explained that these targets were wearing body armor thus was hard cover but they were still were required to place to shots to each target before they could reengage them with head shots. We did not score the body shots at all only the head shot. If there was a miss it was a FTN. I as MD did not care where the body shots were on the target just as long as there were two shots on each target.

So I know the next question people are going to ask what if they did not shoot the body shots?

Simple answer they did not follow the Cof which required them to shoot the body shots first. So they would have gotten a FTDR for per the rule book.

Patrick

Is this thread STILL active? Wow.

I go with what kdmoore said -- I like this CoF (shucks, I like just about any course of fire other than, "With 5 rounds load and prepare to fire. Is the line ready? The line is ready. Ready on the left . . . ." On second thought, I kind of like that one too, 'cause I get to shoot something.

But it all comes down to circles and squares anyway, until we get the self-healing, self-storing, fully reactionary, programmable, infinitely proportional target dummies that can take the shots, transmit the hit data to the scorekeeper, maneuver themselves through a timed sequence of physically realistic movement upon detection of the timer start signal, and deliver pre-programmed reactions to shooters' actions, including being neutralized, taking shots and recovering (immediately or after a programmed delay), or chasing the shooter while waving its arms overhead and clucking like a chicken.

[Duane Thomas]

I really like the solution put forth by RickB (who is the president of the Renton, Washington IDPA club, BTW) of putting a piece of black tape along the base of the head, and counting the body and head as two separate targets. That's how they do it at Renton, and it works well.

"Genius is the ability to make the complicated simple."