Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

The FTDR


00bullitt

Recommended Posts

After much debate in the Nationals thread and to help address the newbies about this rule I think this could make a good topic of discussion if it stays on its intended track.

I've never been penalized with this penalty but I have been warned on two occasions about round dumping both times on 10 round stage arrays and it was prior to my days of shooting in USPSA as I shot IDPA for two years before being introduced to USPSA. I will say that the rule has a purpose but disagree about the round dumping. It is way to subjective of a call to apply such a steep penalty. It should be assessed for other blatant violataions such as equipment violations. I just don't see how SO's can be in my head and see my sight picture and read my mind about what is going on. I see the sight picture and only me. There should not be a contradiction to Vickers scoring such as this. If this is going to be an issue.....my opinion is that it should be eliminated by executing proper stage design.The two times I was dinged for round dumping both times I was trying to make up my first shot or last shot on an array that were not in the 8" circle on a multiple target array. I even had an SO say to me " now I know you fired an extra shot to go to slide lock". That is way too subjective of a call for an SO to be making most of the time. There are many times the more experienced shooters make up shots to better there points and they may be close to each other or they simply might just not have been sure exactly where they broke the shot and took a make up. Stage design should come into play here. If the MD and stage designer ever have to question if that array could lead to round dumping it should be addressed in the design of the stage to prevent it.

Please remember to try and keep this topic on track and not turn it into a bashing thread. My hopes are that enough viable info can be obtained here to approach IDPA headquarters about a possible change in the rule book for the future. What say you?

Edited by 00bullitt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I will say that the rule has a purpose but disagree about the round dumping. It is way to subjective of a call to apply such a steep penalty. It should be assessed for other blatant violataions such as equipment violations. I just don't see how SO's can be in my head and see my sight picture and read my mind about what is going on.

As I said in the other thread when the targets are close, say 5 yards or less, and you put a tight group of three into the down zero on the last target of an array which also happens to get you to slide lock at an advantageous moment it is obvious. You can always claim that the SO can never know what is going through a shooters mind and you would be correct, but if you are warned before hand that they are going to be watching for round dumping at a particular spot in a COF and you go ahead and do it, than it's all on the shooter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone once told me the subconsious mind does not know who you are talking to. So if an SO tells me about putting 3 on that target guess what is likely to happen. You guessed it, three on that target. I don't always need a good sight picture or even a sight picture at all on close 5yard targets. When that happens I second guess myself about the hits and will sometimes throw a third shot for insurance. If that puts me at slide lock oh well. Life is vickers count so should stages unless you are testing standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said in the other thread when the targets are close, say 5 yards or less, and you put a tight group of three into the down zero on the last target of an array which also happens to get you to slide lock at an advantageous moment it is obvious. You can always claim that the SO can never know what is going through a shooters mind and you would be correct, but if you are warned before hand that they are going to be watching for round dumping at a particular spot in a COF and you go ahead and do it, than it's all on the shooter.

First off I shoot both games, and I like them both.

While I agree with what you posted above, the problem comes when in that situation a shooter intentionally puts his first round on any target in the berm, and then fires two more into the -0. He's at slide lock, and there are only 2 holes per target. How could the SO justify a FTDR in that case. I realize the shooter is a cheating ba$tard :angry2: in this case, and possibly should be DQ'd, but you have to have probable cause.

I also agree that good course design would go a long way to fixing the problem.

Bruce

Edited by bruce282
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said in the other thread when the targets are close, say 5 yards or less, and you put a tight group of three into the down zero on the last target of an array which also happens to get you to slide lock at an advantageous moment it is obvious. You can always claim that the SO can never know what is going through a shooters mind and you would be correct, but if you are warned before hand that they are going to be watching for round dumping at a particular spot in a COF and you go ahead and do it, than it's all on the shooter.

First off I shoot both games, and I like them both.

While I agree with what you posted above, the problem comes when in that situation a shooter intentionally puts his first round on any target in the berm, and then fires two more into the -0. He's at slide lock, and there are only 2 holes per target. How could the SO justify a FTDR in that case. I realize the shooter is a cheating ba$tard :angry2: in this case, and possibly should be DQ'd, but you have to have probable cause.

I also agree that good course design would go a long way to fixing the problem.

Bruce

No disrespect intended.

How could you accuse him of cheating when we have a rule that allows the shooters to shoot as many shots as he wants at each target.

I as a SO will not put myself in the shooters mind.

I will never call Round Dumping

I just will not call it .

Pat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

I understand and in fact agree with you. You can't have a round dumping penalty on a Vickers stage. The two contradict each other. In my example I was using a situation where an SO would have a hard time giving a FTDR based on the shooters intent. In my case there is no real way intent could proved, while if someone put 3 in the -0 at a 5 yard target, well that's just fishy.

I think it's a bad combination, and they should fix it.

Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said in the other thread when the targets are close, say 5 yards or less, and you put a tight group of three into the down zero on the last target of an array which also happens to get you to slide lock at an advantageous moment it is obvious. You can always claim that the SO can never know what is going through a shooters mind and you would be correct, but if you are warned before hand that they are going to be watching for round dumping at a particular spot in a COF and you go ahead and do it, than it's all on the shooter.

First off I shoot both games, and I like them both.

While I agree with what you posted above, the problem comes when in that situation a shooter intentionally puts his first round on any target in the berm, and then fires two more into the -0. He's at slide lock, and there are only 2 holes per target. How could the SO justify a FTDR in that case. I realize the shooter is a cheating ba$tard :angry2: in this case, and possibly should be DQ'd, but you have to have probable cause.

I also agree that good course design would go a long way to fixing the problem.

Bruce

No disrespect intended.

How could you accuse him of cheating when we have a rule that allows the shooters to shoot as many shots as he wants at each target.

Just because a stage is a Vickers count stage it doesn't automatically exempt the assessment of a penalty for round dumping. The two can and should co-exist.

Every single sport that I can think off calls on it's rules officials to exercise their judgment in making calls during the course of an event. This notion that an official making a judgment call in IDPA is completely unfair must be unique to IDPA in the sporting world.

If you don't think it is your place as an official to use your best judgment and experience to assign a penalty as called for in the rule book than you might want to rethink being an SO. What is the point of having a rule book when an official will tell you flat out that he will never ever enforce one of the rules under any circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duane Thomas said it best a while back.

A lot of folks seem are putting forth the argument that the SO can't read their mind. There is always one person who knows what you are doing, and that is the shooter. If the shooter knows they are putting that round downrange solely for the purpose of getting to slidelock, then they know they are cheating, plain and simple. The shooter should have the integrity to play by the rules, and not come up with some nonsense metaphysical argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

I understand and in fact agree with you. You can't have a round dumping penalty on a Vickers stage. The two contradict each other. In my example I was using a situation where an SO would have a hard time giving a FTDR based on the shooters intent. In my case there is no real way intent could proved, while if someone put 3 in the -0 at a 5 yard target, well that's just fishy.

I think it's a bad combination, and they should fix it.

Bruce

You are correct Bruce.

Even if we don't like a rule we should enforce it.

I am just not comfortable enforcing the RD rule.

Hopefully it will be addressed in the next rule book.

Pat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FTDR should not be assessed for round dumping. Its too subjective of a call to make. The shooter sees the sight picture and deals with the stress after the buzzer. It should not be the SO's call to say he/she was round dumping. Like I said in the other thread. If an SO can honestly say that he/she are 100% positive that the shooter dumped rounds.....their skills would probably put to better use helping locate Osama Bin Laden. Granted it is a rule......it needs to be repaired. It is a dmaged rule. A 20 second penalty is too steep for such a subjective call.It should not be more than a procedural. If anything....the penalty should only cancel out the gain at the very most. The FTDR needs to be applied to equipment where it truly belongs. Illegal equipment for gaming purpose is more along the lines of a FTDR(Heavy guns,improper holsters,vests with large held open pockets,etc.) That is something concrete.

I know for a fact that the two times I was warned that I absolutely did not do it with intention. It was clearly me making up a shot that I called less than what I wanted when I broke the shot. Even the mere warning irritated me because I was warned after it being unintentional. I could only imagine how upset a shooter would be if they truly received penalty for an unintentional action. It is most definitely a rule that needs to be addressed and corrected for the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the beginning:

Round dumping while shooting on the move at target(s) between cover was sometimes an issue that needed to be addressed as it was permissible to reload "on the move" if you were at a slide lock condition. At times some would take advantage of the ability to reload "on the move" in the open while engaging targets and the "POWERS" decided this situation needed to be addressed. Rather than using stage design as a limiting factor:

ENTER the "take a dumpo" rule that has become a defacto insta FTDR penalty for "taking a dumpo" anywhere where you may reload from a slide lock condition regardless of the "Vickers Count" scoring. In reality there IS NO ADVANTAGE to where (other than in the open/not behind cover) a slide lock reload is performed on a stage.

As it stands now ALL RELOADS MUST BEGIN AND END WHILE BEHIND (the same section of) COVER, if the ability to reload in the OPEN was regulated as a permissible action on a specific stage design with allowances made in the WSB/Stage procedure this PROBLEM of "clairvoyant ROing" and a bogus "taking a dumpo" penalty would vanish faster than the sub-prime lending market.

Edited by Crusher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every single sport that I can think off calls on it's rules officials to exercise their judgment in making calls during the course of an event. This notion that an official making a judgment call in IDPA is completely unfair must be unique to IDPA in the sporting world.

If you don't think it is your place as an official to use your best judgment and experience to assign a penalty as called for in the rule book than you might want to rethink being an SO. What is the point of having a rule book when an official will tell you flat out that he will never ever enforce one of the rules under any circumstances.

What sport ask its rule official to make judgement call on the competitor's intent?!?! "Every single sport" has some sort of a line that the "officials" need to use in order to assess a penalty. If there is one, please be so kind to post an example. The only judgement is whether the line was crossed or not. There has to be something concrete that they SEE happening to be able to rule on the situation. There is no judgement on the intent of the action in any other sport. The point of having a rule book is NOT allowing SOs to make judgement "guesses" as to the competitor's intent. The rule book is supposed to set a guide line as to what the competitor is allowed or not allowed to do. If a line cannot be drawn, the rule should not exist.

Edited by racerba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have finally come off the fence with this one.

I think there are several facet's to this incident.

First, I think the penalty was too much. As many have said, you don't know what's going on in the shooters mind. I'd say that the buzzer does strange things to all of us. Some are more prone to it, and some are more experienced with dealing with it. As an example, a year or so back at the VA state match, I had decided to shoot an array a particular order. As I approached the start position, it hit me that the alternative looked better, so I mentally said close, left, right, far in my mind. Buzzer goes off .. you know it, it was close right left far for me ... Not a huge deal, wasn't much different, but I sure laughed at myself. Buzzer can scramble brains and destroys plans. That shooter may have been reacting to ANYTHING. including a brain fart. I think this is MORE likely the case as they were warned just before buzzer, but surely I wasn't there.

Second, As an SO, I agree that there is a degrees of surety that depend on the stage. Roughly for me, if any of these recieve an extra round then ....

steel that is falling/downed = procedure

point blank target = procedure

close target that recieves a "thoughtful round" = procedure

anything else = Nothing

One exception to any situation ... If I hear a shooter say that he dumped a round for SL reload = procedure.

Third, I peronally think the rule should be abandoned. Any advantage gained is surely minimal. The difficulty of enforcing this rule brings about more issues than the benefits it gains. Knowing that it's not likely to be let go (I don't own the sport and it's not my vision), I'd suggest the following types of verbiage to explain the apparent contradiction in round dumping and vickers count.

Vickers definition:

"In order to keep the game an approximation of real world situations, the competitors are encouraged to shoot as many rounds as they think are needed to nuetralize the targets according to stage description, but can be penalized when the shooting appears to be done for competitive purposes"

Just like the verbiage that is used to explain why slide lock reloads are the norm in IDPA, you could throw in a comment such as "you would never put a round in a bad gun, just so you could get to slide lock for a reload" (that looks terrible typed, but I'm at a loss for a better way to express it).

The tiny scientist in me would LOVE to test the benefits of round dumping for a variety of shooters. (I will actually test this on myself in practice).

2 targets 2 yards apart, 7 yards from barricade. Limited stages would be dictated as such.

Stage 1: start with 3 rounds in the gun. Shoot target 1 2x and shoot target 2 2x.

Stage 2: start with 3 rounds in the gun. Shoot target 1 3x (but score the best 2) and shoot target 2 2x.

More shooting could be attached to these ministages. But it would detract from the read of how much (if any) advantage is gained by round dumping.

Variations would be neat to throw in as well (distance to target, target spacing, weak hand side of barricade, etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was the CSO for Stages 1 and 2 in bay 1. I assessed the FTDR in question.

Here is a little bit of my background in IDPA. I helped start the 1st club here in Texas in 96, Quickly followed by becoming a Certified S.O. I started Match Directing in 97 putting on 3 matches every month for the last 10 years. I am an S.O. instructor. I have been the M.D. for a couple of Regional Matches. I have been to the last 10 IDPA National and have S.O.ed at 9 of them and been a CSO at 7 of them. I am also the Area Coordinator for Texas, New Mexico and Louisiana.

If you have been to the Nationals anytime in the last 9 years I have run you through at least one course of fire and some years 3 COFs. Y'all know what kind of an S.O. and CSO I am. I try to help each shooter when I can. I'm consistent with all my calls and ALWAYS ALWAYS give the shooter the "benefit of the doubt".

The reason for all that info is just to let people know where I'm coming from and my experience as an S.O. I have the same problem everyone else does with the subjectivity of the "round dumping" rule. As many shooters as I have run through Cofs over the years I have highly suspected "RDing" on numerous occasions. But, because there has always been a doubt in my mind I have never called it. I have always adhered to the whole "shooter gets the benefit of the doubt" thing.

I never thought in a million years that I would be forced to assess a FTDR for RDing. Then to my complete shock and dismay an international squad at the IDPA Nationals this year removed all "benefit of the doubt" that I thought I'd always have in regards to RDing.

Every shooter in this squad that was shooting SSP and ESP had the exact same game plan. They were blatantly and consistently Rding in the same place at the same target to get an advantageous reload. I gave them “the benefit of the doubt” because:

1. That’s how I S.O.

2. They are an International Squad

3. It was their first time at the Nationals

4. The language barrier.

I bear a lot of the responsibility for letting it go on too long. At one point I had had enough but was unsure as to how to handle it because of all the above reasons. I had the MD come into the bay to see if he had any reservations about me issuing a FTDR. As he and I walked back into the bay one of my assistant S.O.s had taken over running shooters in my absence. (Btw, great job Mike, Cindy and Kitty!!!) The next shooter was a young lady. She predictably did the exact same thing as the others in front of the MD. I looked at him and he looked at me and said that was about the most blatant Rding he had ever seen. He and I had a quick conversation about how to handle it. We decided to give her an FTDR because we both had seen it and were in complete agreement that it was Rding.

I told him that not only was I going to give her the FTDR. I was also going to put the whole squad on notice. I gathered them all up and told them “we have a problem here” and proceeded to read them the riot act. I told them that what they were doing was against the rules and couldn’t happen anymore at this match or any other IDPA match. It is unfortunate that this happened. It is also unfortunate that this young lady paid the price for the rest of her team. This incident put a real damper on my whole crews day but we did the right thing for the sport.

I apologize for the long post. I just wanted to set the record straight. Hope everyone had fun and hope to see y'all again next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reality there IS NO ADVANTAGE to where (other than in the open/not behind cover) a slide lock reload is performed on a stage.

Snipped to address this one statement.

You are not realizing that having to reload after engaging a target with one round and then having to re-engage the same target with another round is slower that reloading between targets instead of on the same target. I hope that makes sense. Maybe someone can put this in better words. I'm pretty fried after the Nationals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because a stage is a Vickers count stage it doesn't automatically exempt the assessment of a penalty for round dumping. The two can and should co-exist.

Every single sport that I can think off calls on it's rules officials to exercise their judgment in making calls during the course of an event. This notion that an official making a judgment call in IDPA is completely unfair must be unique to IDPA in the sporting world.

If you don't think it is your place as an official to use your best judgment and experience to assign a penalty as called for in the rule book than you might want to rethink being an SO. What is the point of having a rule book when an official will tell you flat out that he will never ever enforce one of the rules under any circumstances.

Really? the definition of "VICKERS COUNT STAGES" is simple and I quote from the rule book:

In Vickers Count scoring, as many shots as desired may be fired, but only the best hits as specified by the course description will be scored.

Let's now check the good old dictionary for the definition of "DESIRED"

de·sire

de·sire [di zr]

vt (past and past participle de·sired, present participle de·sir·ing, 3rd person present singular de·sires)

1. wish for something: to want something very strongly

2. find somebody sexually attractive: to want to have sexual relations with somebody

3. request something: to wish for and request something (formal)

n (plural de·sires)

1. craving: a wish, craving, or longing for something

2. something wished for: something that or somebody who is wished for (formal)

3. sexual craving: a strong wish for sexual relations with somebody

[13th century. Via French désirer < Latin desiderare ]

-de·sir·er, , n

Word Key: Synonyms

See want.

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Additionaly in ALL other sports that I am aware of there is not a "duality or conflict" within the rule set when the application of penatiles is accessed by officials making a judgment call.

Edited by Crusher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not realizing that having to reload after engaging a target with one round and then having to re-engage the same target with another round is slower that reloading between targets instead of on the same target.

I fully relaize what you are saying and it is NOT correct other than in multiple array targets where you MUST present to the same target 2x and preform a transition to the next target in the array. Don't belive me? Put a timer on it.

The stage in question required a slide lock reload at some location during the stage= time to perform = the same

It also required an additional spit to shoot to slide lock time +.20 (if the shooter can trigger the shot that fast)

There is NO need to retreat fully behind cover while reloading from slide lock so the additional present time (after dropping the slide on the fresh mag) should be = to the added split for the extra shot. bottom line no time advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always maintained that penalizing "round dumping" is contradictory with the definition of Vickers Count. Can't have it both ways, as I and others say here and before.

But Mike, I think we have a worse problem here. You say:

"I gave them “the benefit of the doubt” because:

1. That’s how I S.O.

2. They are an International Squad

3. It was their first time at the Nationals

4. The language barrier."

Then you penalize the next shooter for following their example because she speaks English?

Did "reading the riot act" add time to any of the others' scores? No.

Did any of the foreigners win, place or show by less than 20 seconds?

This is a bad rule, contradictory and subjective to the point that one of the most experienced SOs in the game dithers over it and ends by screwing most of the entrants.

I do not recognize it, will not call it, and if I suspect any SO of recognizing it will ask "Is there any target in this stage that I will be penalized for firing an extra shot at?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that it would be more proper to reward clear thinking and self control, by allowing empty mags to be dumped for reloads before slide lock.

If a competitor can realize how many times they have fired and reload before empty, reward it, don't penalize it. But instead, running your gun dry is not a "failure to do right"?

Make it a penalty to lose count, releasing a less than empty magazine, for instance. There would be no judgment call necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always maintained that penalizing "round dumping" is contradictory with the definition of Vickers Count. Can't have it both ways, as I and others say here and before.

I agree but it is still a rule.

But Mike, I think we have a worse problem here. You say:

"I gave them “the benefit of the doubt” because:

1. That’s how I S.O.

2. They are an International Squad

3. It was their first time at the Nationals

4. The language barrier."

Then you penalize the next shooter for following their example because she speaks English?

She was part of the same team I'm not sure if she spoke english..

As stated earlier I take full responsibility for letting it go on too long, I apologize. It wasn't until a few of them had already shot that I had all doubt removed.

This is a bad rule, contradictory and subjective to the point that one of the most experienced SOs in the game dithers over it and ends by screwing most of the entrants.

Agreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm consistent with all my calls

Obviousely your call was not consistent in this match. I'm not saying it was your fault, but the way the rule is written, it forced you to do what you had to do after you let it go for so long. As Crusher stated, the rule also allowed you to shoot as many shots as desired. They are contradicting and you cannot assess one person's actions based on several other's actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the better solution would have been to make that squad reshoot it after a brief schooling on the rule and its true intended purpose. They may not have been aware and fully understood the rule or its intent being as they were foreign and an international group as you stated there could have been a language barrier. Making one suffer for a squad is not fair when the whole squad was liable in my eyes. None the less.......the rule is flawed and too severe to assess a FTDR 20 second penalty for. It needs to be addresses and revised as it is blatantly contradictory to Vickers scoring. A mere procedural would do away with the gain even in this circumstance. It is still subjective and someones integrity is in question. Integrity is highly valued to some folks and they might just assume punch you in the throat for calling them a cheater when they very well were not. Where is the burden of proof? The only way that this call could be removed as subjective is if the RO heard the shooter state to another person that the plan was to fire extra rounds to go to slide lock intentionally and then execute that plan after the buzzer went off. Then it could become an issue of unsportsmanlike conduct and be worthy of a DQ.

Edited by 00bullitt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't comment on the incident because I wasn't there. If you've SO'd for as long as Mike has, you will know it when you see it and as he said, if you have any doubt at all you don't make that call. It's not rocket science. You give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter, until there is no doubt. The SO doesn't commit the procedurals or FTDRs. They just have the unpopular job of making the tough call. How many times have we seen an SO miss a call and the shooter got the "gift"? A lot more than bad calls, I'll bet. Agree with the dumping rule or not, it's there, so if you're going to do it, you do it at your own risk. Some people are more adept where others are are more obvious.

I'll be willing to bet that it's bothers Mike more than the shooter. Good job Mike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

Thanks for explaining the situation. That is a crappy position for both you and the match director to have been put into by the shooters in question. I really think it is time for IDPA to "fix" this issue. I just hope the fix isn't worse or harder to define.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...