The FTDR

[freeidaho]

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

Yes, the stage and target, 12 feet from the shooter.

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?

No, most people went ahead and shot one round on the next target and then reloaded at slidelock.

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

Lets just say that most people did the stage with integrity. Some did not.

kr

Edited October 4, 2007 by freeidaho

[NEPAKevin]

The problem with dumping the round dumping rule is that the purpose and principles of IDPA would be thrown out with the bath water which is something that not everyone, and I suspect that those who went to great trouble to form a new sport are among them, is content to do. Probably the only practical manner to remove the dumping rule would be to limit the number of rounds a shooter may run a string with and to similarly restrict ammo capacity so that the act of dumping rounds or similar acts of gamesmanship would be self penalizing. For example, you could specify that all shooters had to start an eighteen round stage with six rounds in the gun and have three reloads of six rounds each i.e. limited six. This would change the dynamics of reloading strategy, remove the need for making courses revolver neutral, and probably make those who want to load their standard capacity mags to full capacity heads explode. For a twelve round stage, you would limit the shooter to two reloads. etc. The idea would be to allow for adequate ammo for the novice classes to make up shots with out allowing enough for dumping not to create reload or ammo management penalties.

[tightloop]

from the picture, it looks like the stage designer encouraged the shooters to take an extra shot....however the shooters who did take the extra shot should have at least mixed it up a little...bam bam bam then two on the rest..and as close as it was, I might have fired one out of the A zone just to allow another shot without any flak...but that is just me..

too bad for all concerned...the shooters who got penalized and the stage designer who flunked his design test, the officials who colaborated on the FTDR and the MD who oked the stage as it was...sometimes it just does not work out like they thought it might..

[rubberneck]

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?

Yes.

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?

The stage required no such thing. The shooter could have moved to P4 engaged T7 with one round, performed a slide lock reload and re-engaged T7 with the second of two required rounds before moving to P5 and engaging T8. Throwing a third shot at T6 meant an early slidelock and eliminated the need to perform a reload and re-engagement of a target.

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

No, that is incorrect, as the stage did not call for a tac reload or a reload with retention. The shooter could have elected to do so but he/she was under no obligation to perform one before leaving P3.

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

The shooter.

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

I think anyone who has ever participated in a sanctioned sport has had issues with some of the rules of that sport. On that front you aren't alone. Instead of insisting that the sport yield to your point of view, you can do what I do, and that is to accept the flaws in the rule book and still enjoy the sport.

[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.

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).

I'll start by saying......it is not my intention at all to ask if this specific instance was the "right call". This specific stage just keeps becoming the target of discussion. My intention of this whole thread is to dissect the application of the round dumping rule and to justify that it should not be an FTDR in the majority of instances.

Thank you for clarifying. Ok......so this is me using my logic as to why/how round dumping was concretely determined. Reloads are not permitted on the move after slide lock. So the shooter had to stay behind cover before advancing to the next shooting position. To apply round dumping as a penalty.....I would expect to see a huge time savings gained of which I do not see in this instance. I personally would have moved to the next shooting position and made one shot and reloaded from cover there assuming no make up or additional shots were necessary at the previous location. If reloading on the move were allowed as I may do in real life, then I could see an advantage to doing such. I am not arguing with you at all. Just documenting my thoughts and logic on this forum for use later.

[Chills1994]

rubberneck on page 3 wrote:

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.

Everybody likes a soap opera, even moreso on a forum predominated by USPSA shooters/members. Yeah, you could say that IDPA split off or evolved from USPSA. And IDPA is being treated like a little brother to USPSA.

Remember how you'd treat your younger siblings?

[Jim Norman]

IF I recall correctly, you started out by shooting two plates, and then h=you retreated shooting at two more targets. You ducked behind the car and shot the two targets using the car as cover and then ran to the next position with one round in your gun where you sot one taregt, went to slide lock reloaded shot the second round, then proceeded to finish the stage.

So, while you MIGHT call it round dumping to shoot an additional round at the 3rd or 4th target, what if the shooter shot the extra round while retreating? Same end, he goes to SL before leaving the cover of the car, then winds up at the window with a full gun.

Were I to have planed to "Game" this stage, that is what I would have done. Anyone want to challenge an extra round while shooting and backing up?

What to reduce the chances of round dumping? or better yet, add to the "reality of the game? Make all targets reactive. You shoot till it falls. Can't get to the end of the COF with three mags? Practice.

Seriously, The one activator target that had you shooting a down zero or head to make the steel fall was a great target. You could double it to move it faster or to be shure it would fall. Or you could husband your ammo supply, aim carefully and shoot and scoot.

I think that round dumping is a very difficult call to make. I for one cannot see my hits, my glasses for shooting are focused on the front sight, the targets are a bit blurry, I either "Know" I hit the target or I make up the shot. Usually. Sometimes I find what I Know just ain't so and I take a miss.

Jim

[freeidaho]

This is the stage.... kr

[00bullitt]

I think anyone who has ever participated in a sanctioned sport has had issues with some of the rules of that sport. On that front you aren't alone. Instead of insisting that the sport yield to your point of view, you can do what I do, and that is to accept the flaws in the rule book and still enjoy the sport.

For the most part I do take it how it is. This is just a hot button for me and I assume try and aid a fix for it. IDPA has its flaws in its rules and its time for a good hard revision. The association of round dumping and the FTDR as an applied penalty is a big flaw in my eyes and the eyes of many others. I don't look at this as just MY point of view. There are other rules that need attention but I like to take personal interest in this one. I still enjoy the sports no matter which letters represent them.

[rvb]

To apply round dumping as a penalty.....I would expect to see a huge time savings gained of which I do not see in this instance.

Everyone's (myself incl.) problem w/ the rule is that it's already too subjective.... you can't expect SO's to start judging not only the calls themselves, but their potential impact to the score?!

[rubberneck]

Is dumping a round intentionally really any different than purposely down loading your first mag by a round to ensure a slide lock at a specific point in the COF? As far as I am concerned they are the same thing. I suppose the shooter could always claim that it was a simple mental error and they were unaware of the fact that their gun only had 9+1 instead of 10+1 but it nets the same result. Downloading your mag is obvious but if knowing the shooters intent is the standard for applying the FTDR than it will never be applied.

[00bullitt]

Is dumping a round intentionally really any different than purposely down loading your first mag by a round to ensure a slide lock at a specific point in the COF? As far as I am concerned they are the same thing. I suppose the shooter could always claim that it was a simple mental error and they were unaware of the fact that their gun only had 9+1 instead of 10+1 but it nets the same result. Downloading your mag is obvious but if knowing the shooters intent is the standard for applying the FTDR than it will never be applied.

Good point!

Another reason it should only be a PE penalty and not an FTDR.

Mistakes happen. Again......how do you prove it was intentional?

[rvb]

Again......how do you prove it was intentional?

I think you jsut nailed the point most people are trying to make.... intention should not be in the book. It's not objective/quantitative. The question should be, "Did xyz happen or did it not?" The question should not be "xyz happened, what was the shooter thinking?" That's the crust of the issue. People compare this issue to other sports all the time... in other sports the questionable calls are things like a ref calling a receiver out of bounds when the player thinks he was in. The ref doesn't notice the receiver out of bounds then try to decide if the receiver "intended" to go out of bounds. The current book really puts the SO/MD/competator in a difficult situation. You said your goal with this thread was to brainstorm a suggestion to HQ to make things better.... You nailed it. Good luck getting anyone to listen.

-rvb

[racerba]

Really, so the 8 procedurals I took ...

All calls regarding any rule are judgement calls, however not all rules are as subjective as the FTDR. Judgement calls on a rule with set limits and a judgement calls on a rule without a set limit are completely different.

All those examples you cited for USPSA are not subjective. In the RO's eyes/views/judgement, what he physically sees - not what he thinks, you broke a line. They were not (and should not be) subjective calls. Just because the ball of your foot was on the box, it does not mean your toes could not be touching the ground outside the box. All the 180 DQs are also not subjective as with any other DQs you mentioned.

Can the RO make a mistake, sure, we all make mistakes. However, there is a big difference between what the RO sees and what the SO think your intentions are. That is what FTDR is. It is a penalty for SOs to give if they think that the competitor is "gaming" the game.

As for my credentials, I started out shooting PPC back in 1996 or so, IDPA back in 1999 or 2000 (I forget), steel in 2001, USPSA in 2002. I can't say I currently shoot IDPA every month, but I probably shoot it 6-10 times a year (when I have the time) - which is more than PPC or steel. I had plans to go to the IDPA nats, but other plans took presidence. My focus is more into USPSA/IPSC. IDPA is not that big around here compared to USPSA but I shoot it to get trigger time. I do not like the FTDR rule along with some other rules in IDPA (as you can tell). However, I know and shoot while abiding by the rules. There are also many rules I do not like in USPSA and in IPSC. I am also outspoke about some of those rules as well - especially IPSC.

I do not, and never have, bashed any of the shooting sport dicipline, only the rules and certain participants. I do not, and never have, said that this sport is better than that sport, or that isport is better than this sport, etc. I only speak of my experiences and experiences of trusted friends.

Regards,

Bob A.

[kdmoore]

Is it just me? I see no way that this stage is a mistake given the framework of the rulebook.

As I understand it, people will round dump in order to skip a target to target transition. There's no way to avoid tempting SOMEONE somewhere to do it. We shoot too many arrays from cover, there's always going to be this temptation.

I actually think the way to fix the RD "problem" would be to show top notch shooters proving that it doesn't really save time, so it's instilling a poor technique.

If this were serious enough to really want to eliminate at the expense of a lot of extra effort, I'd offer the following idea:

Count the number of rounds used to complete a stage, and work that into the scoring. Maybe add .25 seconds for every round above the required minimum. Effectively we would be further penalizing poor marksmanship. I know it would never happen, it would involve counting the number of rounds that a competitor started and ended with (what a nightmare). But I do think it would keep vickers count in line with allowing the shooter to shoot as many rounds as needed to nuetralize the targets, but not enough to game a stage.

[kdmoore]

why can there be no subjective calls? While they aren't my favorite, many sports have them. I think it's inevitable when the rule book uses the term "spirit" that judgement will be included.

Big example would be contact:

During contact in the NBA, ref has to decide who he thinks initiated it. During contact in NASCAR it's analyzed to see if it was intentional. During Contact in football ref's decide if it was legal or not (i.e. defender going for ball or the wide reciever). Baseball was he sliding to the bag or the player trying to make the relay throw.

I agree that minimizing subjective calls is good (we don't want to be a dancing competition), but I don't agree that every case of it must be removed. It's definitely one of the ways IDPA differs from other sports, and I think differences are refreshing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of this rule (because it is difficult to enforce uniformly), but I understand why they want it in. I'm just giving my opinion that "subjetivity" must be eliminated entirely.

[shootingchef]

Say whatever you want, beat the horse back to the stone age, IDPA HQ does not listen to the average shooter outside of B-ville Arkansas.

I understand the rule, and the intention of the rule, the only way to fix the issue is in stage design. No more than 3 targets from any one position. or require a TL, or TWR at every position. Can't include the revo guys, they have too many reloads as it is.

[00bullitt]

why can there be no subjective calls? While they aren't my favorite, many sports have them. I think it's inevitable when the rule book uses the term "spirit" that judgement will be included.

Big example would be contact:

During contact in the NBA, ref has to decide who he thinks initiated it. During contact in NASCAR it's analyzed to see if it was intentional. During Contact in football ref's decide if it was legal or not (i.e. defender going for ball or the wide reciever). Baseball was he sliding to the bag or the player trying to make the relay throw.

I agree that minimizing subjective calls is good (we don't want to be a dancing competition), but I don't agree that every case of it must be removed. It's definitely one of the ways IDPA differs from other sports, and I think differences are refreshing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of this rule (because it is difficult to enforce uniformly), but I understand why they want it in. I'm just giving my opinion that "subjetivity" must be eliminated entirely.

Should such a subjective call be penalized with such a harsh penalty as the FTDR? Its not about getting rid of it. Its about revising it to make it work better. Round dumping is not a quantifiable rule to enforce with such a harsh penalty. Its truly only worthy of a PE in my opinion. Thats pretty much what I have been preaching from the beginning.

Yes......the examples you list in the other sports are quite judgemental. Not so much subjective. Also......how harsh are the penalties involved with those infractions? Do they equal what the FTDR does in IDPA? I'm not a sports fan so I am asking. Trigger pulling is the only sport I am a huge fan of at this point in my life.

[00bullitt]

Say whatever you want, beat the horse back to the stone age, IDPA HQ does not listen to the average shooter outside of B-ville Arkansas.

This horse may be dead to you......but I'm not done trying to kill it.

I am going at this with the assumption that the fellas down at IDPA HQ will not be so close minded. I know Ken Hackathorn and Larry Vickers personally and am confident that they will apply logic and common sense to the info gathered if they are involved in the revision of the rules.

I shall see

[Loves2Shoot]

Consistancy.

This is a single player sport, a man his gun, the targets, the course of fire and a timer (ok people are fond of non shooting skills, so there will be props too.) It is simple, unless you make it not simple.

Part of the fun of action shooting for me is that the shooter gets to decide the best way to get the best score for them. Ok, some folks like to be robots and that is what the standard are for, but the beauty of the sport comes from getting to chose a strategy for yourself.

I've seen the top shooters get breaks no one else does, and subjectivity in sport ends up putting too much presure on the people making the calls. This is especially true in a volunteer sport IMO.

How many perfect doubles have been handed out when they shouldn't have because the SO is there to have fun and doesn't want to upset the moron who is barking in his face that he is good enough to put 2 bullets in the same hole on the move at 7-10 yards?

PS. After thinking about it for several days, I think the only reason for the FTDR is to make up for for poor stage design and to give the RM a club to smack competitors with. The reasons listed in the rule book pretty much make this clear, since the example 1 and 2 show the first and the 3rd doesn't make any sense because you will likely get a FTN and down 5 for the shot not taken. A DQ and Procedurals should take care of everything. If the competitor has illegal gear, he is DQ, if he cheats he is DQ, if he exploits a course of fire procedurals. That seems simple.

Edited October 4, 2007 by Loves2Shoot

[Jim Watson]

Good luck, 00bullitt.

I was peripherally involved in some of the long and acrimonious debate leading up to the present (2005) rule book. Bill W. is not going to put himself in that position again any time soon. Ken Hackathorn is no longer on the BoD and Larry Vickers never was; so I doubt they have a whole lot of input.

Debates over the rules are seen more often on the Internet than the range. Thank goodness. I will be sure to learn the MD's and SO's position on these controversial calls before shooting a stage that might bring one out, but other than that, I will just do my best. As Bubba says, ask the SO what he wants you to do and then do it as fast and accurate as possible.

[Joe D]

Not saying that I would ever dump a round, BUT there are plenty of opportunities to place a 3rd/make up round on a target way before you get to that last one in the array. The Professional Round Dumpers would put their 3 rd round on one of the two targets shot while retreating or the target before the last one in the array.

My keen eagle eyes will be on the look out for round dumpers on my stage this weekend at the Georgia match. I plan on handing out FTDRs like M&Ms. Mostly for those shooting SSP Master.

Edited October 4, 2007 by Joe D

[Greg Bell]

I plan on handing out FTDRs like M&Ms.

[Bob Hostetter]

I should listen myself and stay out of this but...............

KDMoore used the example of a fight in the NBA as a comparsion. I think it is a good one.

1st off the ref's know for a fact that the fight happened. The SO for a fact knows that the shooter fired an additional shot over the mininum required. The difference is the NBA ref knows any fight is illegal, the SO knows that not all extra shots are illegal. The ref can review the tape of the fight to determine who started it. The SO has to guess as to the reason for the extra shot.

The upside to the NBA is there is a clear rule which states "No Fighting". The downside to IDPA is the rules say for a given action sometimes it's legal and sometimes it's not. The NBA says if you throw the first punch you are gone. IDPA says, the SO has to determine your mental intent to determine if the action is punishable. The ref can confirm intent (first punch), the SO can only guess. The point most people are trying to make is that it is not fair to the competitors to award a match ending penalty based on someones ability to guess someone else's mental intent.

Over nearly 10 years of shooting IDPA I have fired a lot of extra shots. Some were needed, some were not. Some resulted in a better reload, some turned a miss into a "-0", some forced an extra reload, some were just wasted time, and I am sure a couple were all of the above. All most all of them were fired instinctively because I didn't like something when I broke the shot. None of them were an attempt to cheat, which is what the FTDR was supposely designed to address.

If you are going to keep a penalty for round dumping, make it a procedural. At least then I can recover from it........

[Crusher]

From some posts here I get the impression that "shot calling" as a concept and practice still evades some. With all the information available on there boards I find this somewhat confusing.