The FTDR

[buddy_fuentes]

First let me say, I applaud Duane Thomas' stand on round dumping.

My thought is that if it is a big problem they can go to Virginia count. That should make violations clear. In the spirit of fairness to all contestants, loop holes should be eliminated.

Buddy

[jm9x23]

Maybe you see the FTDR as being unfair in the dumping senerio and think they should do away with the rule. Let me remind everyone that the FTDR applies to many other infractions of the rules and it gives lattitude to the SO's to bang someone not following any rule. Wearing cleats, the use of weighted mags, guns that won't fit in the box, changing capacity of your mags, and according to Bill Wilson not helping to tape and reset targets.

It's a great rule and seperates us as a sport. If we want to stop the dumping we need to have a rule that states you can only make up shots after meeting the requirements of the COF. How many people would go back and make up their shots that they thought didn't feel right.

[00bullitt]

I think that is a good way to reword the course description to prevent it. "Make up shots are not allowed until the course description is followed first"

But......should it still be a 20 second penalty? Or a 3 second procedural after that point? That is where the discrepancy lies.

My argument is that the penalty is too harsh for RD'ing. It still needs to be addressed but it should not fall under the FTDR rule and be assessed such a steep penalty. My thoughts are that it should be circumvented in the WSB and penalized with a 3 second procedural if not followed.

Also.....the intent of this thread was to discuss and gather info about the FTDR and its association with round dumping. Many are attacking or questioning Mike for his actions at the Nationals. Please realize that the character that Mike is known for is probably already suffering tremendously from having to make the call and while there were other ways he may could have handled it,he was not wrong. If Mike is anything like most of us...he has and still is analyzing what went down to improve upon it if there is a next time. (mod beanie on) If you have issues with Mike's decision please take it to PM or email as this thread will get locked for personal confrontation and going off topic(mod beanie off)

Edited October 2, 2007 by 00bullitt

[Greg Bell]

... If we want to stop the dumping we need to have a rule that states you can only make up shots after meeting the requirements of the COF.

In my opinion that doesn't work, you are essentially eliminating Vickers count scenarios.

[rubberneck]

... If we want to stop the dumping we need to have a rule that states you can only make up shots after meeting the requirements of the COF.

In my opinion that doesn't work, you are essentially eliminating Vickers count scenarios.

Not to mention that it becomes a safety issue when there are often targets up range of you when you complete the COF.

[Greg Bell]

Not to mention that it becomes a safety issue when there are often targets up range of you when you complete the COF.

Yep!

I don't want to be running the novice who decides he needs to go back to the first array and turns directly around to do so. Hard enough to get them to keep their muzzle downrange.

[Sgtsvi]

I received a FTDR at the 2002 Texas State championships for not firing the minimum number of rounds for the course of fire. This was my first sanctioned shooting event and the stage was a complicated shoothouse stage. I shot all the targets that I saw but I walked one of the targets that was partially obscured. The SO gave me the FTDR and I said OK because I didnt even know what it meant. At the end of the match one of my friends was adding my score sheets and freaked out when he saw the FTDR on my score sheet. I asked him what it meant and he said it mean your a cheater. I got kind of pissed but it was too late to do anything about it. A few matches later I was told by the SO that they didnt mean to trap me with the rule. They were gunning for some of my teamates that they considered gamers. I havent received another FTDR but I was rung up 5 times at this years Texas State match with PE's. This was more than likely due to the fact that I have not shot an IDPA match in 3 years and was wearing a sponser shirt. I enjoy shooting an occasional club match but I doubt I will shoot anymore sanctioned IDPA matches. They just arent that much fun to me anymore.

[racerba]

...I was told by the SO that they didnt mean to trap me with the rule. They were gunning for some of my teamates that they considered gamers.

So you paid the price of how the SO considered that people playing a game should not be gamers?!?!

[rubberneck]

It's funny how every year right after IDPA nationals we read the same bill of complaints against the sport, usually from guys that very rarely shoot the sport. I have been on the wrong end of some bush league calls in USPSA. Somehow I find a way to get past it and still enjoy the sport.

[Bob Hostetter]

<< they were gunning for my team mates who they considered gamers>>

This is exactly the problem with writing rules that allow the match staff to subjectively apply penalities. Since when is it a "failure to do right" to 'game a stage'? You either follow the rules or you don't.... Or better yet to be awarded a FTDR because you are known to be a 'gamer'?

And what right does the match staff have to create a stage for the spoken purpose of screwing someone with a FTDR? Any SO who would do such a thing (especially then brag about it) should never be allowed to SO a match again. To me that is the most obvious type of cheating there is and shouldn't be allowed.

[tightloop]

<< they were gunning for my team mates who they considered gamers>>

This is exactly the problem with writing rules that allow the match staff to subjectively apply penalities. Since when is it a "failure to do right" to 'game a stage'? You either follow the rules or you don't.... Or better yet to be awarded a FTDR because you are known to be a 'gamer'?

And what right does the match staff have to create a stage for the spoken purpose of screwing someone with a FTDR? Any SO who would do such a thing (especially then brag about it) should never be allowed to SO a match again. To me that is the most obvious type of cheating there is and shouldn't be allowed.

You tell 'em Bob.

[Bigbadaboom]

It was after that shooter that we called for the MD, and after the next one (the lady) did the exact same thing in front of the MD, she was dinged (dented?) with the FTDR and the whole squad was put on notice.

Mike is a great guy, a great SO, and gave everyone the benefit of the doubt until the doubt was removed by the next couple of shooters.

Is that disturbing to anyone else?

Yes it is. Greatly disturbing.

[racerba]

It's funny how every year right after IDPA nationals we read the same bill of complaints against the sport, usually from guys that very rarely shoot the sport. I have been on the wrong end of some bush league calls in USPSA. Somehow I find a way to get past it and still enjoy the sport.

The differences is that when you get dinged in USPSA, you do so because you did something wrong - same as if somebody else would do the same thing, not because you also play IDPA. In IDPA, there are SOs who go out of their way to try and ding people who were USPSA shooters. FTDR is just the perfect excuse for them to do use because of it being very subjective. Just because I did something different, yet within the rules, but faster, the SO feels that I am a gamer and can assess the FTDR penalty. It happens...alot.

[p99shooter]

I received a FTDR at the 2002 Texas State championships for not firing the minimum number of rounds for the course of fire. This was my first sanctioned shooting event and the stage was a complicated shoothouse stage. I shot all the targets that I saw but I walked one of the targets that was partially obscured. The SO gave me the FTDR and I said OK because I didnt even know what it meant. At the end of the match one of my friends was adding my score sheets and freaked out when he saw the FTDR on my score sheet. I asked him what it meant and he said it mean your a cheater.

Just so everyone's clear, not shooting a target gets at least 10 seconds added to your score (5 for the Failure to Neutralize penalty, and 5 more for a -10 score on the target). The FTDR penalty would could be assessed in a case where a shooter subverted the written stage description in order to gain an advantage, such as purposefully not shooting a target to get a better score. However, a 10 second penalty is far too steep to gain any sort of advantage by not engaging.

I havent received another FTDR but I was rung up 5 times at this years Texas State match with PE's. This was more than likely due to the fact that I have not shot an IDPA match in 3 years and was wearing a sponser shirt.

I've added emphasis to the above quote. I was not there, so I don't know what happened. However, I will point out that you are calling into question the integrity of another shooter, in this case an IDPA shooter, and possibly the whole sport of IDPA, based on how you felt about it. When the character of a USPSA shooter was questioned on this board a while back, all heck broke loose and many shooters came forward as character witnesses.

I can only act as a character witness for IDPA shooters in my area, which has a huge (80+ shooters every month, with at least 10 new shooters every month) IDPA following. We have many crossover shooters from regional USPSA clubs, and I have NEVER heard of any USPSA shooter being treated unfairly at any of our club matches, or any of the sanctioned matches our club has put on. The whole US vs. THEM mentality is just a myth propogated by Internet bulletin-boards; the reality is that shooters coexist very well at the local and regional level.

[nipplehead]

I do not shoot IDPA more that twice a year the rest is USPSA and steel. But the first time I heard of FDTR I thought the guys were joking. I honestly believed they were messing around. then when I learned it was a real penalty I thought how can you judge whats in a shooters head...Its like a penality to apply to someone who found away around shooting the stage the way the MD envisioned the stage....I think better stage design might be the answer...shooters will educate you when they shoot stages you design in any disapline BUT, How do you measure motive?

If you cant time it ,score it, or measure it, then you should not penalize it....essecially when certain acts counterdict the genneral rules of the sport such as a Vickers stage ...meaning shoot as much as you need to...yet adding a penality for the extra and or makeup shot.....the shooter still spent time making up shots and scoring his targets ie not calling shots but counting holes. so what if all three were down zero...its within the Measurable rules

[rubberneck]

The differences is that when you get dinged in USPSA, you do so because you did something wrong - same as if somebody else would do the same thing, not because you also play IDPA. In IDPA, there are SOs who go out of their way to try and ding people who were USPSA shooters. FTDR is just the perfect excuse for them to do use because of it being very subjective. Just because I did something different, yet within the rules, but faster, the SO feels that I am a gamer and can assess the FTDR penalty. It happens...alot.

Really, so the 8 procedurals I took at a match last year for supposedly having my toes touching the ground outside the shooters box wasn't a subjective call. After all the ball of my foot was on the wood part of the box and only an inch of my foot was extended outside of the box. The only way he could have been 100% sure was if he was laying on the ground looking to see if it touched, which is impossible to do when his major responsbility was to watch my gun. Nope that was totally black and white. No chance that the SO got that one wrong.

I suppose no shooter has ever been disqualified at a major USPSA match because the SO claimed the shooter broke the 180. I suppose the guys DQ'd because the SO claimed that they put a shot over the berm weren't subject to a judgment call that may or may not have been correct. After all, only the shooter knows what his sight picture looked like when he broke the shot. I am sure the guys who have been dq'd because the SO thought they had an AD in between two targets weren't subject to a judgment call.

I see where you are coming from. USPSA SO's never exercise their judgment when assigning penalties far stiffer than a FTDR at a major match. Nope no judgment has ever been required when DQ'ing someone at a USPSA match and in every one of those cases the SO was obviously 100% correct. They never make errors.

I am curious, how many IDPA matches you shoot annually? You seem to be very outspoken about your feelings towards IDPA. Isn't only fair that we know what your background is regarding your participation in the sport you seem to have strong feelings for?

[Nik Habicht]

Closed to allow everyone an opportunity to cool off.

[Nik Habicht]

O.K. --- we'll see how this goes. This topic only stays open as long as everyone remains on point and POLITE. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation!

[00bullitt]

Thank you Nik for unlocking this thread and giving us another chance to act like adults

I was perusing through the rule book and came upon an interesting phrase in paragraph 4 of page 50 of the rule book that reads "Slide lock reloads are the recommended type of reload in IDPA. Statistics show that this happens in the real world,regardless of intention or training. Tactical reloads and reloads with retention are intended for use during lulls in the action and should not be required on the clock. Avoid setting up stages that call for a Tac-Load or RWR in aplace where shooters are likely to have an empty magazine while there is still a round in the chamber."

Yes.....I do realize there are several ways to interpret this. Again a slight contradiction of the FTDR. And to clarify......my main pet peeve is the round dumping penalty on a 10 round string of fire on an array when 11 rounds are max in the gun as in SSP/ESP or an 8 round string of fire on an array when there are 9 rounds maximum in the gun as in CDP. It is totally understood and more feasible to call round dumping if a shooter goes to slide lock after firing at a simple array that my be 3 targets at 5 yards requiring two shots each. I think the biggest complaint is calling round dumping on those arrays that are one shot under division capacities. In that case.....is the shooter making a travesty of the sport or the course designer? Since that is a big concern for IDPA I think it fair to question it.

Again......I ask this and write this in hopes of gathering good info to help HQ see the need to revise this issue in the rule book. I am not looking for argument or bashing......only good clean discussion.

[freeidaho]

Here is a picture of the target where round dumping occurred. The target is 12 feet from the shooter.... kr

Edited October 4, 2007 by freeidaho

[Jane]

I personally would like to see the round-dumping rule dropped in the next rule book.

The most blatant instance that I've seen was by an IPSC GM at a sanctioned IDPA match. Several targets at 6 or eight feet. Bam-bam; bam-bam; bam-bam-bam; slidelock. (Not called by the SO)

Or should I rephrase that? The most blatant instance that I think with great certainty I've seen (my mind-reading certification having expired in 2004)

There's also an inherent contradiction between discouraging tac or RWR on the clock, but requiring them on stage 3 of the Classifier. Of course, I think it would be unfair to remove them from the Classifier at this point without then requiring everybody to reclassify.

My suggestion would be to dump the round-dump rule altogether. Also drop discouraging tac/RWR on the clock. Just keep the requirement that you can't leave a mag on the ground unless the gun is at slidelock. And let the shooter sort it out.

'Cauz even Dirty Harry wasn't a good round counter: "I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself"

Or had he really lost count?? LOL...

[00bullitt]

Here is a picture of the target where round dumping occurred. The target is 12 feet from the shooter.... kr

Is that the stage at the nationals that got the girl her FTDR?

A stage that required the shooter to either make a RWR or Tac-Load and have an empty magazine with one round left in the chamber?

A stage that headquarters urges the course designer to avoid setting up on pg. 50 of the rule book?

So was the shooter wrong.......or the course designer?

In my opinion.......there are several aspects of the current rulebook that need revision.

[00bullitt]

I personally would like to see the round-dumping rule dropped in the next rule book.

The most blatant instance that I've seen was by an IPSC GM at a sanctioned IDPA match. Several targets at 6 or eight feet. Bam-bam; bam-bam; bam-bam-bam; slidelock. (Not called by the SO)

Or should I rephrase that? The most blatant instance that I think with great certainty I've seen (my mind-reading certification having expired in 2004)

There's also an inherent contradiction between discouraging tac or RWR on the clock, but requiring them on stage 3 of the Classifier. Of course, I think it would be unfair to remove them from the Classifier at this point without then requiring everybody to reclassify.

My suggestion would be to dump the round-dump rule altogether. Also drop discouraging tac/RWR on the clock. Just keep the requirement that you can't leave a mag on the ground unless the gun is at slidelock. And let the shooter sort it out.

'Cauz even Dirty Harry wasn't a good round counter: "I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself"

Or had he really lost count?? LOL...

So how was the course of fire written to allow the shooter to have only seven rounds in the gun? And the shooter being a GM.....I'm sure was able to call his shots at speed. Again.......still a subjective call from the way I read it. Bottom line is that the round dumping rule is judgemental. The rule book also says that the SO should not be forced to make a judgemental call.

[rvb]

Here is a picture of the target where round dumping occurred. The target is 12 feet from the shooter.... kr

Is that the stage at the nationals that got the girl her FTDR?

A stage that required the shooter to either make a RWR or Tac-Load and have an empty magazine with one round left in the chamber?

A stage that headquarters urges the course designer to avoid setting up on pg. 50 of the rule book?

So was the shooter wrong.......or the course designer?

In my opinion.......there are several aspects of the current rulebook that need revision.

Answers:

Yes

No*

No

shooter**

* That was not the end of the stage. Shooter then advanced to another cover position and engaged more targets. If minimum round count was followed, the SLR for a 10+1 capacity gun was after the first shot on the first target from the new cover position following the one pictured above. There was no requirement for TL/RWR. The only way the stage would have required (or "called for" in rule-book language) a TL/RWR is if you were required to engage targets on the move between cover positions where you would have been "trapped" needing to get to cover to initiate the reload and this was not the case. TL/RWR was an option at this position as it is anywhere in a course, but not "called for."

**I'm staying away from the whole "was it the right call" debate on this post, just trying to make my point that the stage was fine, imo.

I [strongly!] agree with you opinion, but this was not a case of bad stage design or a "trap." Some people loaded to 10+1 feel there is an advantage in this case to reload before going to the next position so for them this creates the temptation to dump (I do not agree w/ there is an 'advantage' btw). Risk v Reward and risk won for that particular shooter (again, just going by the documented ftdr, not debating the call itself).

Edited October 4, 2007 by rvb

[Jane]

So how was the course of fire written to allow the shooter to have only seven rounds in the gun? And the shooter being a GM.....I'm sure was able to call his shots at speed. Again.......still a subjective call from the way I read it. Bottom line is that the round dumping rule is judgemental. The rule book also says that the SO should not be forced to make a judgemental call.

He obviously had 7 rounds by the time he engaged that group of three close-up targets. Presumably, he'd engaged a couple of other targets previously (kindly add two more bam-bams to my prior post )

As for the CoF of the Nats stage in question, you were not required to make any specific kind of reload on the clock at any specific point.