June 2nd, IDPA, Red Brush Rifle Range

[Grelber]

AFAIK as long as you don't blow cover or violate the course description (tac sequence/tac priority) you would be fine to re-engage.

Ok. So it works likea dis?
1. Tactical priority. Once you get the initial sequence done in correct order you can go back and pick up a miss or misses if you want.
2. Tactical sequence. Once you move to the next target you have blown cover on any target not neutralized, so trying to pickup a miss on an early target is going to be a procedural regardless of where you are when you go after it again.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Ok. So it works likea dis?
1. Tactical SEQUENCE. Once you get the initial sequence done in correct order you can go back and pick up a miss or misses if you want.
2. Tactical PRIORITY. Once you move to the next target you have blown cover on any target not neutralized, so trying to pickup a miss on an early target is going to be a procedural regardless of where you are when you go after it again.

That is my understanding, yes. (Except you got them backwards )

 

[sbcman]

Ok. So it works likea dis?
1. Tactical priority. Once you get the initial sequence done in correct order you can go back and pick up a miss or misses if you want.
2. Tactical sequence. Once you move to the next target you have blown cover on any target not neutralized, so trying to pickup a miss on an early target is going to be a procedural regardless of where you are when you go after it again.

I'm not an SO, but I would say not.

Tactical sequence will call for targets to be engaged in a specific manner. The targets must be within two yards of each other and equal threat to the shooter for TS to be specified. The course description must specify TS. If two targets were called to be engaged TS, the SO needs to see 1-2-1. Then the shooter can make up shots if needed.

Tactical priority calls for targets to be engaged by order of threat (near to far). Threats have to be engaged and shooters can "go back" to targets if needed unless the COF specifically says they can't (had a stage like that in TN).

To the specific stage in question, there is no way an SO can know whether or not a 15 yard swinging target has been neutralized. He can know if it has been "engaged." The shooter has every opportunity to continue and come back to the target, so long as he's behind cover. If I'm understanding Ben right, it wasn't the order that got you pegged, it was cover.

 

[Grelber]

That is my understanding, yes. (Except you got them backwards )

Details details.
Thanks !

 

[Titanium_Frost]

To the specific stage in question, there is no way an SO can know whether or not a 15 yard swinging target has been neutralized. He can know if it has been "engaged." The shooter has every opportunity to continue and come back to the target, so long as he's behind cover. If I'm understanding Ben right, it wasn't the order that got you pegged, it was cover.

Bingo!

 

[Grelber]

If I'm understanding Ben right, it wasn't the order that got you pegged, it was cover.

Ok, but the cover procedural would apply regardless of where a person was standing when they came back to re-engage the target?

 

[sbcman]

Ok, but the cover procedural would apply regardless of where a person was standing when they came back to re-engage the target?

I didn't see your run, so something might have went down that I don't know about. But, on the surface and all other things being equal, no, the cover call would only have applied because the shooter broke cover AND shot a target while doing so.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Ok, but the cover procedural would apply regardless of where a person was standing when they came back to re-engage the target?

Only if engaging the subsequent targets did not expose you to the previously engaged target.

EXAMPLE:

If you shot at the target behind the weeds, ducked behind cover again and engaged the steel and drop targets on the RIGHT before re-engaging the third target on the left IMO you would be OK since you have been behind cover and you still engaged the targets in the order described in the course description.

I didn't see your run, so something might have went down that I don't know about. But, on the surface and all other things being equal, no, the cover call would only have applied because the shooter broke cover AND shot a target while doing so.

This. There is no penalty for not being behind cover, but for firing on a target while not behind cover.

In your case it would actually have been 2 procedurals for the steel and dropper target you engaged before re-engaging the swinger. You engaged two targets while not behind cover therefore two procedurals. I did not think about it that way then, I only considered the target you re-engaged as the procedural.

I hope at least half of that makes sense.

 

[Grelber]

I hope at least half of that makes sense.

Spooky as this might sound, I think you two have finally pounded in an understanding. Thanks for your patience!

In truth, besides the two procedurals I think you possibly could have added an FTDR. I was planning on going back for a second wack at the swinger at the end.

On the bright side, since I didn't know I was planning an FTDR then a DQ would seem to have been a bit heavy handed

 

[sbcman]

Spooky as this might sound, I think you two have finally pounded in an understanding. Thanks for your patience!

In truth, besides the two procedurals I think you possibly could have added an FTDR. I was planning on going back for a second wack at the swinger at the end.

On the bright side, since I didn't know I was planning an FTDR then a DQ would seem to have been a bit heavy handed

Again, no SO here, but I don't see a FTDR in this mix. Your equipment was legal, your techniques were legal and your actions, albeit premeditated, did nothing to better your score. Even if you had went 0 down on the swinger with the second volley, the time required to do it offsets the benefit.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Again, no SO here, but I don't see a FTDR in this mix. Your equipment was legal, your techniques were legal and your actions, albeit premeditated, did nothing to better your score. Even if you had went 0 down on the swinger with the second volley, the time required to do it offsets the benefit.

I don't believe that there has to be an actual net benefit to contract an FTDR but when your action violates the spirit of IDPA or the course design.

When Grelber said he specifically was going to re-engage the swinger when it wasn't swinging later IMO (and I don't have a rulebook handy) that would be a FTDR penalty.

 

[sbcman]

PC 1. Failure To Do Right (FTDR):
A. Adds twenty (20) seconds to total score.
B. Is assessed for any attempt to circumvent or compromise
the spirit or rationale of any stage by the use of
inappropriate devices, equipment or techniques.
C. Is assessed for unsportsmanlike conduct, unfair actions,
or the use of illegal equipment, which, in the opinion of the
MD, tends to make a travesty of the defensive shooting
sport. This will result in an FTDR or DQ from the entire
match at the discretion of the MD. Repeated offenses
15
reported to the AC or HQ can result in having membership
revoked.
D. Examples: (Non-inclusive list)
1. Firing extra rounds so that you may reload at a more
convenient time.
2. Purposely committing a procedural error because
your score will be better even with the penalty
3. Not reloading to fire one more round because your
score will be better even with the miss.

 

[sbcman]

I don't believe that there has to be an actual net benefit to contract an FTDR but when your action violates the spirit of IDPA or the course design.

When Grelber said he specifically was going to re-engage the swinger when it wasn't swinging later IMO (and I don't have a rulebook handy) that would be a FTDR penalty.

OK, I missed the him saying that he was planning to go back because the swinger slowed down. That does change things, although an SO would have no ability to know what the shooter was thinking.

And that is the chief problem with vickers count and FTDR. An SO might "think" and have every reason to believe a shooter was circumventing, but really he doesn't and can't know.

For example, on the dice stage, one particular ESP shooter engaged the first two targets with 4 each and the 3rd with 3. This brought him to slidelock. He passed the NT and went 3 on the last two. Was it in his mind that he could take those two shots faster rather than hit 1 on target, reload, re-engage and put the other hit on target? Possibly. Probably. But its vickers, in form its legal, and the SO just really can't know.

What is known is that he will never tell

My squad, not my SO, threw a fit at the regional match because I threw a round on target, reloaded, and engaged the last three targets without putting another round in that first target. In truth, I simply skipped the target and that's just what happened- 2.5 sec down for a mental break. One particular guy, running SSP, asked me if I could reload in a half second. Well, as a matter of fact, I can, but I didn't know what he was getting at, so I said "I doubt it." Good thing. I was accused of being a "gamer" which I am- this is a game- and it is hilarious to me when dudes in SSP call revolver guys that. Long story short, that was a case where an SO could have called a FTDR on me. The SO for that stage, however, was very experienced and knew that he couldn't know what was really on my mind.

 

[Grelber]

albeit premeditated

Never argue rules with some dude that talks like that!

 

[sbcman]

Never argue rules with some dude that talks like that!

That's right- SOs BEWARE

 

[Titanium_Frost]

OK, I missed the him saying that he was planning to go back because the swinger slowed down. That does change things, although an SO would have no ability to know what the shooter was thinking.

And that is the chief problem with vickers count and FTDR. An SO might "think" and have every reason to believe a shooter was circumventing, but really he doesn't and can't know.

For example, on the dice stage, one particular ESP shooter engaged the first two targets with 4 each and the 3rd with 3. This brought him to slidelock. He passed the NT and went 3 on the last two. Was it in his mind that he could take those two shots faster rather than hit 1 on target, reload, re-engage and put the other hit on target? Possibly. Probably. But its vickers, in form its legal, and the SO just really can't know.

What is known is that he will never tell

My squad, not my SO, threw a fit at the regional match because I threw a round on target, reloaded, and engaged the last three targets without putting another round in that first target. In truth, I simply skipped the target and that's just what happened- 2.5 sec down for a mental break. One particular guy, running SSP, asked me if I could reload in a half second. Well, as a matter of fact, I can, but I didn't know what he was getting at, so I said "I doubt it." Good thing. I was accused of being a "gamer" which I am- this is a game- and it is hilarious to me when dudes in SSP call revolver guys that. Long story short, that was a case where an SO could have called a FTDR on me. The SO for that stage, however, was very experienced and knew that he couldn't know what was really on my mind.

I agree TJ. IDPA reminds me of games that a certain individual (who will go unnamed) used to create when I was a kid. He would have a great idea for a role playing tag game like Aliens vs Predator but would have to make up so many rules so his friends didn't 'cheat' the spirit of what he had in his head.

It frustrated him because his friends quit wanting to play with him since his rules were near the border of being in conflict to narrow the scope of play.

This is where I think IDPA is. It isn't so much a competition as a role playing game. We "pretend" to be in a defensive position and must "fight" our way out of it. The problem is that they try to limit the scope to what they think is the best tactics rather than let the shooter decide. They limit the equipment to what they deem is 'defensive' or 'concealable' regardless if anyone actually uses it in the real world.

 

[sbcman]

to contract an FTDR

What about a guy that talks like this

Ben- I think you are right, at least that's how I understand the rules. There doesn't have to be an advantage in points for an FTDR to be given. However, all the examples cited apart from equipment or technique pertain to gaining score. So, I think as an SO, if there was a question that something wrong might be going on and it did benefit the shooters score, the SO has more ground to stand on for giving an FTDR.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

What about a guy that talks like this

Ben- I think you are right, at least that's how I understand the rules. There doesn't have to be an advantage in points for an FTDR to be given. However, all the examples cited apart from equipment or technique pertain to gaining score. So, I think as an SO, if there was a question that something wrong might be going on and it did benefit the shooters score, the SO has more ground to stand on for giving an FTDR.

Right, such as the shooter THINKING it would be faster to engage a swinger and then, slowly, re-engage it while it was moving slower.

 

[sbcman]

I agree TJ. IDPA reminds me of games that a certain individual (who will go unnamed) used to create when I was a kid. He would have a great idea for a role playing tag game like Aliens vs Predator but would have to make up so many rules so his friends didn't 'cheat' the spirit of what he had in his head.

It frustrated him because his friends quit wanting to play with him since his rules were near the border of being in conflict to narrow the scope of play.

This is where I think IDPA is. It isn't so much a competition as a role playing game. We "pretend" to be in a defensive position and must "fight" our way out of it. The problem is that they try to limit the scope to what they think is the best tactics rather than let the shooter decide. They limit the equipment to what they deem is 'defensive' or 'concealable' regardless if anyone actually uses it in the real world.

That is very well said, my friendI really like IDPA and have chosen it as my "main game." But there are several things rule-wise that just don't jive.


Plus, we can't do an aliens vs. predator course because the rules say

Often we hear of match designers who like to make their courses
or stages unusual to the point that they appear silly. Some of these
are simple modifications of cowboy match stages that require
contestants to ride rocking horses and shoot targets after walking
through swinging saloon doors. Sometimes these stages are called
silly names like “Revenge of the Green Men from Mars”. Such
mindless scenarios simply degrade what IDPA is about. Please
keep IDPA true to its practical roots.

Just wait till the mothership lands- they'll wish we had those courses then!

 

[sbcman]

Right, such as the shooter THINKING it would be faster to engage a swinger and then, slowly, re-engage it while it was moving slower.

Ah- another excellent point to bring up! I look at Grelber's plan and say "there is absolutely no benefit to it all." But, someone else, such as yourself, can look at it and say "he probably just went from 10 down to 0 down because the target is nearly stationary.

The difference is that I'm viewing it purely as a competitor and you're viewing it as an SO. And from an SO perspective, yeah, it does seem at least border on a FTDR.

Good stuff to think about.