[Nuke8401]

I just shot a great regional match, the match was great not my shooting! But there was one "rule" concerning steel engagement. The COF had a mixture of steel and paper, the steel was to be "engaged" before the paper. The COF also stated that the steel had to "Fall" before moving to the paper or it was a procedural. My limited experience with steel in IDPA is that it must be engaged (shot at, not necessarily hit) to be considered engaged, not fall. My understanding is that the shooter will get a 5 second penalty if any steel is left standing, so most shooters would return to any steel that they missed or failed to knock down on the first shot.

This is no big deal but to someone like me who shoots too fast for my skill level I end up waiting on steel poppers to fall before moving on to the next target.

What are the thoughts out there?


This was quite possibly the best organized and run match that I have been too. Awesome job to all involved!!!!!!!!!

David E.

[CDPMatt]

Here is Robert's take on it....


Question: Regarding the use of steel targets in a stage: Pepper poppers, Reid Reactors, etc. When engaging targets from cover, in Tactical Priority, is a steel target considered to be engaged when the minimum number of shots has been fired at it, ie: 1; or does the shooter have to wait to see if it falls before exposing himself to the next target in priority?

Answer: Typically it (steel) is considered engaged when the required number of rounds has been fired at it. The steel has to fall to be scored a zero otherwise it would be 5 down and a failure to neutralize (if it is a Vickers stage). If it is not hit after the required number of rounds fired (usually one on steel) the competitor can move on.

There are some issues that a stage designer or MD needs to be aware of. One is a safety issue. For instance, if the steel is at the end of a hallway that the competitor has to advance down after engaging the steel, the MD needs to stipulate that the steel can only be engaged from a certain point. You do not want someone missing the first shot and then advancing on the steel and engaging from what may be an unsafe distance. The second is if the steel is used as an activator. The MD needs to make sure that the competitors are aware that the steel has to be downed to active something.

Thank you,

Robert Ray

International Defensive Pistol Association

[nwb01]

If the CoF stated that it must fall before moving to paper then it must be followed or earn the procedural. I see no issue with that as long at it is written in the CoF.


Leaving steel standing in IDPA is very costly.... 7.5 seconds !! Since IDPA has no popper calibration procedure (which is another discussion), in a major match it would be careful of leaving one standing even if you clearly hit it.

[Steve J]

nwb01, on Aug 17 2009, 06:59 AM, said:

If the CoF stated that it must fall before moving to paper then it must be followed or earn the procedural. I see no issue with that as long at it is written in the CoF.

+1

If it is stated in the COF then you have to abide by it. I like to use the phrase "steel must be neutralized in tactical priority". Same meaning. If you move on and it hasn't fallen - procedural.

[Nuke8401]

Thanks to all,

I like Robert Rays reply best of course as it fits my needs. There was a stage that had a minimum distance to engage the steel, good plan on their part. I guess my point is that when asked to do something out of the ordinary it pushes IDPA towards a thinking game vice a skill game. In other words I become a procedural magnet when my brain gets too involved.

Thanks for the replies.

[Steve J]

Nuke8401, on Aug 17 2009, 08:16 AM, said:

I guess my point is that when asked to do something out of the ordinary it pushes IDPA towards a thinking game vice a skill game. In other words I become a procedural magnet when my brain gets too involved.

That is the whole point. Imagine that. Requiring someone to think with a loaded gun in their hands - what are we thinking?







quotation edit

This post has been edited by Steve J: 17 August 2009 - 06:39 AM

[RobMoore]

I've never been to a match where Robert Ray's interpretation was used. Any time I was slicing the pie with steel between paper targets, shot at the steel, called it a hit in my sights, moved on to shoot paper, and had to come back because the steel was still standing....I got a Procedural.

[gb32]

Think of a steel target as a paper with the -1 and -3 cut off only requiring one shot. No difference between the two target types. Just because something is written in the course of fire does not mean it can and should contradict the rulebook(yes I know the rulebook does not cover this but now you've heard the clarification). Engaged means shot at. No more, no less.

[Nuke8401]

Thanks All,

I think I'm on the side with considering steel same as a paper target when it comes to engagement. I don't wait to see holes in a paper target before moving on, but may choose to re-engage later if the COF allows.

I am relatively new to the shooting sports though.

Steve J. As for “thinking with a loading gun in my hand” I "think" I’m doing OK.

David E.
A26458
SSP MA

[RobMoore]

I agree with that view. It should be the same, since you don't get a cover procedural if, while scoring, they find you've missed one of the targets.

I'm just saying that this is not what I've seen happening. I got dinged for this at NATIONALS.

[mjoy64]

RobMoore, on Aug 17 2009, 04:34 PM, said:

I've never been to a match where Robert Ray's interpretation was used. Any time I was slicing the pie with steel between paper targets, shot at the steel, called it a hit in my sights, moved on to shoot paper, and had to come back because the steel was still standing....I got a Procedural.

That's the way we've always scored it at our matches... unless the COF states otherwise. Engaging the next target (from a slicing the pie perspective) w/o knocking the steel down dings you with a procedural for exposing yourself to an target that hasn't been neutralized. I don't know if it necessarily makes sense... we've just always scored it that way.

[steel1212]

So if you have paper, steel, paper, and you have to slice the pie. You shoot 2 at the paper but miss them both so you failed to neutralize that target, you shoot once at the steel and it does not fall, fail to neutralize that target, then are down 1 on the last paper. Do you get a procedural for failing to neutralize the first paper like you did the steel before moving on?

[mjoy64]

steel1212, on Aug 19 2009, 06:30 PM, said:

So if you have paper, steel, paper, and you have to slice the pie. You shoot 2 at the paper but miss them both so you failed to neutralize that target, you shoot once at the steel and it does not fall, fail to neutralize that target, then are down 1 on the last paper. Do you get a procedural for failing to neutralize the first paper like you did the steel before moving on?

I honestly don't know the answer to your question. Maybe it's because the COF descriptions at our matches include "steel must be neutralized in tactical priority" (borrowed from a previous post). I don't know that for fact, just that is the way we score the miss on steel when slicing the pie. I'm not trying to assert any particular right answer... just the way we tend to score it at our local matches.

[Steve J]

I think in any future revision of the rule book it will specify that if you shoot at steel, miss and go on it will be okay, because you engaged it with the required number of rounds. That, as I understand it, is Robert Ray's opinion. I don't like it and disagree because steel as a reactive target is the closest thing we have to a realist target. If you shoot at it and miss you obviously haven't neutralized the target and should stay on it until neutralized specifically because you do know whether or not it has been neutralized. Therefore, as long as it is not specified in the rules, I will specify in my COFs that steel must be neutralized in tactical priority, meaning you stay on it until it's down.





edited for spelling.

This post has been edited by Steve J: 19 August 2009 - 05:58 PM

[RobMoore]

Steve J, on Aug 19 2009, 08:58 PM, said:

If you shoot at it and miss you obviously haven't neutralized the target and should stay on it until neutralized specifically because you do know whether or not it has been neutralized.

In this hypothetical situation, would you give the shooter a PE for a center of mass hit in the steel that failed to knock it over? We know there isn't a "calibration" procedure, so how would you handle that one?

I, for one, don't wait to hear the ding or stop to watch the steel fall. I shoot at it, and unless I see a misaligned sight picture when the round goes off, I move on to the next target. If whoever reset the steel from the previous run didn't give it the "push it to make sure it'll fall" test as they stood it up, it could very well be sitting heavy if it shifted on soft ground.

[Steve J]

RobMoore, on Aug 19 2009, 08:56 PM, said:

Steve J, on Aug 19 2009, 08:58 PM, said:

If you shoot at it and miss you obviously haven't neutralized the target and should stay on it until neutralized specifically because you do know whether or not it has been neutralized.

In this hypothetical situation, would you give the shooter a PE for a center of mass hit in the steel that failed to knock it over? We know there isn't a "calibration" procedure, so how would you handle that one?

I, for one, don't wait to hear the ding or stop to watch the steel fall. I shoot at it, and unless I see a misaligned sight picture when the round goes off, I move on to the next target. If whoever reset the steel from the previous run didn't give it the "push it to make sure it'll fall" test as they stood it up, it could very well be sitting heavy if it shifted on soft ground.

We set our poppers as light as the prevailing head wind will allow. It falls with a rap of my knuckles and I don't like pain, so... Steel must fall to score. We write that on every COF and stick to it. The +3 stick would apply. Now, I'm not an ogre, so if there was a clear hit in the scoring circle of the popper, I would investigate, but not guarantee a reshoot.

[cnote]

Anyone ever been at a match where if you double tap steel, you get DQ'd. I think it is for safety reasons and forward falling poppers have done away with even wanting to, but i could see people double tapping if that is the way the COF is written.

[uscbigdawg]

cnote, on Aug 19 2009, 08:18 PM, said:

Anyone ever been at a match where if you double tap steel, you get DQ'd.

Yep. Usually it's a range geometry/safety issue (i.e. a bullet skips off the steel and goes over the berm into a place where they don't want fragmentation going.

Interesting rules to this game that I'll eventually play.

Rich

[Steve Koski]

Steve J, on Aug 19 2009, 06:58 PM, said:

I think in any future revision of the rule book it will specify that if you shoot at steel, miss and go on it will be okay, because you engaged it with the required number of rounds. That, as I understand it, is Robert Ray's opinion.

I don't like it and disagree because steel as a reactive target is the closest thing we have to a realist target. If you shoot at it and miss you obviously haven't neutralized the target and should stay on it until neutralized specifically because you do know whether or not it has been neutralized. Therefore, as long as it is not specified in the rules, I will specify in my COFs that steel must be neutralized in tactical priority, meaning you stay on it until it's down.

Well said bro!

Further, if the steel doesn't go down, hit it again, hit it higher, hit it higher again.

[RobMoore]

Steve J, on Aug 19 2009, 10:49 PM, said:

We set our poppers as light as the prevailing head wind will allow. It falls with a rap of my knuckles and I don't like pain, so... Steel must fall to score. We write that on every COF and stick to it. The +3 stick would apply.

Sounds fair to me. That way if it doesn't go down, it certainly wasn't hit.

[Fireant]

Thank you guys for reminding me of a couple of things I had forgotten.

[GmanCdp]

this question has been around for a long time,and to me it all goes down to stage design,and what the MD and COF designer had in mind when they wrote it..around here,several times i've seen the COf of steel activator,drop turner,steel and the COf will let you go for the 2 steel then back to the disapearing paper all with it on the shooter to decide what to do...
the qoutes below are from a SO/AC forum from 2005....G'reg
qoute:The shooter fires five quick rounds, and the steel
> is still standing. I dinged him for not "engaging" the targets in
> the proper sequence.
Rick,
I have always thought
"engaged = shot the requisite number of rounds at the target."
If engaged also means neutralized then every FTN penalty would come
with a procedural for not engaging. That doesn't sound right.
I'm pretty sure someone can shoot the requisite number of rounds in
the direction of the target, make no hits, and not get a procedural
for not engaging.
I am not aware of a seperate rule for engagement ofr steel vs paper.
On the down side of which you described, if done by an upper level
shooter, probably looks a lot like gaming, so I can see where you are
coming from. But I don't think there is anything in the rulebook
that prevents it.

qoute 2:"Now, as to a shooter that you can show PURPOSELY missed the popper
so he can
re-engage from a more advantageous position, he has committed an
FTDR, as per rulebook."
There's the rub; there is no way to divine the shooter's intent.
Just because he misses doens't mean he intended to, but if you don't
require him to neutralize the target to fulfill the "engage"
requirement, you have lost the ability to dictate the sequence of
engagement.
qoute3:
> the way it has always been enforced to my knowledge is the targets
must be engaged, not necessarily neutralized.....think of the
following scenario;
>
> a shooter faces the same scenario you described EXCEPT all 3
targets are paper.......he slices the pie engaging quickly as he sees
them....after engaging the 3rd target he notices he did not
neutralize the 1st target, he then fires 2 more rounds. He then
unloads and shows clear....did you penalize him for a "cover"
violation? Probably not.....
>
> Now, as to a shooter that you can show PURPOSELY missed the popper
so he can re-engage from a more advantageous position, he has
committed an FTDR, as per rulebook.
qoute4:In IDPA, all targets in a stage have to be neutralized, thus the FTN
penalty.
In the case of a steel poppers, they must fall. If a steel popper
remains standing, the score for it would be down 5 for the miss, and
a FTN (5 sec.)
If the shooter was using cover, in the situation you describe, he
would "slice the pie", shooting 2 on paper, 1 on steel, and then
shooting 2 on paper. The shooter would get a Procedural for COVER if
he didn't "slice the pie", otherwise the only penalty would be the
FTN for the standing steel.
Your question sort of sounds like you're mixing IDPA Apples with
USPSA oranges. USPSA has a "failure to engage" penalty. It can be
difficult to assess, because the shooter claims that he did shoot AT
it. IDPA eliminated the argument by requiring evidence on the
target, in the case of steel, it is down, or FTN is awarded.
QOUTE 5:The course description says "Draw and engage . . .", so not shooting
at a target is failing to engage it; or, not neutralizing it is
failing to engage? If engaging in tactical priority, can you or can
you not leave a steel target standing, and still fulfill the
requirement, per the course description, that the targets be engaged
in tactical priority? Of course, you can't tell if shots at paper
targets are hits, so you must assume that the target has
been "engaged", and that the shooter can then move on, pie, to the
next target. If the shooter misses the steel, and continues pieing
to the next target, are they not exposing themself to a threat
target? My concern is not that a shooter won't neutralize the steel
(FTN), but that they will claim that it was "engaged" (fulfilling the
procedure) by having fired a round at it, and then drop it from
another location.
So, you agree, that even though the shooter engaged the targets in
tactical priority, that he gets a PE for bypassing the standing
steel, then coming back to it after engaging another target? It
seems that if you don't require neutralization of steel, in order to
fuill the requirement of engaging it from a certain place or in a
certain sequence, you allow the shooter to decide the when and where
of neutralizing it.
qoute 6:You are absolutely correct about not being able to know the shooter's intent.
That's where it should end.
If the steel is still standing, then they get the points down, the FTN and maybe
a procedural for not using cover, if they move on to another target and the
timer is still running if they come back to it.
I am one of those "upper level" shooters referred to and I can assure you that
in most cases, it's better to slow down just a little and make the hit, than to
try to get a better position.
I had a discussion with an individual at a major match a little while back, who
said that as an RO, the target or number of hits on the target has no bearing on
the issue of "dumping rounds", because some "upper level" shooters can make 2
good hits and deliberately make 2 bad ones so it looks like they made up the bad
ones, so if they shot too many rounds than the min. required, then they should
get a procedural or a FTDR. He's right about part of that. Some shooters can
do that, but you don't really know. If you only want x number of rounds shot,
then specify. Stage design is the answer to most all of this crap. If someone
figures out how to shoot a stage I designed, in a better way than I thought
about, then I need to just accept that the shooter was smarter than me and drive
on. There's entirely too much range nazi / I love to tag those gamers,
mentality going on in this sport. There are a few guys out there who truly
delight in sticking it to "upper level" shooters, I guess to compensate for
their lack of skill and commitment, or something. It's a sad thing for the
sport.
I've been running matches since the inception of IDPA and have never given a
FTDR to anyone. I'm certainly not going to give one for "assuming" they did
something a certain way, when I really don't know. You know the old saying
about assuming. There are enough asses out there already.

In conclusion: STAGE DESIGN, STAGE DESIGN, STAGE DESIGN !!!

and last but a very important qoute::::]:]
xxxxxxx, This is going to be a large undertaking that will take alot of
time. There also has to be some sort of flow time line and some
organization. To that end let me suggest that what needs to occur
first is that we build from the top down. The AC's should spend a
weekend with Bill and go thru the rule book chapter and verse. When
all the Ac's are on the same page then each of them can meet with the
SOI's in their area and do the same thing. We can then get the SOI's
and AC's to collaborate on the course of study for the new SO classes.
As I go to different parts of the country and talk to people about
IDPA, it becomes real clear that we have all made our own
interpretations of what we think the rule book says and the bottom
line is that we may be totally off base with what the board thinks.
All they have to do is start the ball rolling if they are serious..

I'm not here to post what is in the rule book or what should be in the rule book..i feel like if it is "talked" out or written and read by the shooters during the COF walkthru
then the current way of writing a COF is still up to the MD...

[granderojo]

Seems to me that the real point is that the COF "said" that the steel had to fall BEFORE engaging the next paper. So with that said, he should have gotten a PE for not following the COF as written in addition to any other points down (FTN etc).


just my 2ctsw

This post has been edited by granderojo: 20 August 2009 - 11:51 PM

[Steve J]

granderojo, on Aug 21 2009, 01:49 AM, said:

Seems to me that the real point is that the COF "said" that the steel had to fall BEFORE engaging the next paper. So with that said, he should have gotten a PE for not following the COF as written in addition to any other points down (FTN etc).


just my 2ctsw

+1 Exactly right.

[Bones]

As GB stated, the rule is very clear and verification has been recieved.

As Gregg noted it's all about stage design.

To me, the use of steel in IDPA merely to add rd count is not consistent with the stated principles and purpose of the sport - as much as a shooter expending rounds to facilitate a reload or downloading a magazine is. No one has ever had to defend themselves against a steel popper 30 feet away. Ever. Poppers are pretty slow, even I can out run one.

The only way it makes sense is to simulate headlights on a car,etc. or a popper placed behind a scored threat target to activate a swinger/mover/DT,etc. The use of it solely to add an odd rd count to an IDPA stage is absurd and adds nothing but unnecessary and unwarranted pedantic discussions. Requiring it to fall before progressing amplifies the insanity.

Make it do something or remove it and the argument ends.

Craig

This post has been edited by Bones: 21 August 2009 - 05:39 AM