Future Structure of Queens Events

[jasmay]

Hi All,

Over the 9 day duration of the NRAA Queens and Natives comp last week, there was the usual level of discussion relating to changes and the future of State level queens events (which are suffering a drop in numbers) I thought I would bring up a few points for discussion, hopefully I don't get blasted for doing so

1) The number one comment most heard was "we need to drop the short ranges, in particular the 300" for various reasons I am simply not in agreeance with this but do see a number wanting it so it should be an area of consideration, I think merely dropping it would see an equal number of disappointed shooters on local ranges in Qld and perhaps a move to a short range and long range championships would be better than our classic leadup? 2 days of shorts and 3 days of longs or something similar.... What's everyone else's thoughts?

2) A couple of people complained about the use of Heavy bullets in FTR and want a restriction to 155gr pills, this is an odd one, isn't this why we still have F-Standard, and why when we are only just entering the international community would we want to effect change, its taken a couple of years for us to get FTR recognised, should we stay the course for a bit?

3) Squadding, this year we used a squadding system, and although it wasn't perfect it was quite obvious it worked a lot better, this is reflected in the scores being much tighter and the overall comp running smoother, the system used was, group 4 TR and 4 Fclass on one target i.e. shooter 1-4 TR 5-8 Fclass, but we would roll 1 off the top as is done classically, while this worked, it did see us split at times, I think rolling 1 within the group of 4 and perhaps changing the whole groups starting postion each range would be better. So at range 1 TR would shoot first and at range 2 Fclass would shoot first. Thoughts?



As a relatively new shooter to the game I have seen continual change in our sport which at times is frustrating, have goal posts shift doesn't allow for stability, I think it would be great to make some final changes and then stay the course for a period, perhaps a review every 3 years or, 4 years after the worlds...

I hope this generates some sensible and useful discussion on these topics.

Jason.....

[saum2]

Jason, Well done at the NRAA queens.
1, 300yds either way, but it's nice to see your rifles performance at this range. I see a lot more of 50.10's coming up in TR as well so maybe a good idea to drop it just at Queens level.
2, Leave FTR alone, plus the rules are International. Plus that's what F Standard is for to use 155's.
3, Squadding, I think alternate the start class each range but roll within each class so everyone gets to shoot first at some stage. Leave 4 of each class on the boards if you must but make sure all classes start at the same time. A big job to squad shooters who are at the same skill level within the classes.
My 2 cents worth.
Geoff

[Matt P]

Hi Jason
I'll answer your questions one at a time.
1. I wouldn't support a long range/ short range championship. The "Queens" has a long tradition (including F Class) and wouldn't want to see that change BUT agree 300 is a waste of time, all you end up with is damaged targets. I would prefer to start at 500 and only shoot it once. The argument I hear most for keeping 300 is "it gives shooters a chance to get a zero". What an absolute load of crap, if you can't keep a log with your zero's you're probably just there to socialize.
One issue for some ranges such as NSW and ACT is they only go back to 800m so you only have 500, 600, 700 and 800.
2. As I don't (and probably wont) shoot FT/R no comment.
3.I'm not a supporter of squadding in any of the forms I've been subjected too !!!!!
What we had over the Queens wasn't squadding it was just a "random draw with bigger gaps", at times you had shooters in the same class shooting 1st and last !!!!
There is no way to make open range shooting "fair", because even if a complete class all shot at the same time, then it will be one side of the range is better than the other and so on.
I can honestly say I don't think the results would be much different over the past 3 days if random squadding had been used.

Sorry Jason, I'm not having a go at you, just giving my opinion.

Matt P

[KHGS]

Hi Jason
I'll answer your questions one at a time.
1. I wouldn't support a long range/ short range championship. The "Queens" has a long tradition (including F Class) and wouldn't want to see that change BUT agree 300 is a waste of time, all you end up with is damaged targets. I would prefer to start at 500 and only shoot it once. The argument I hear most for keeping 300 is "it gives shooters a chance to get a zero". What an absolute load of crap, if you can't keep a log with your zero's you're probably just there to socialize.
One issue for some ranges such as NSW and ACT is they only go back to 800m so you only have 500, 600, 700 and 800.
2. As I don't (and probably wont) shoot FT/R no comment.
3.I'm not a supporter of squadding in any of the forms I've been subjected too !!!!!
What we had over the Queens wasn't squadding it was just a "random draw with bigger gaps", at times you had shooters in the same class shooting 1st and last !!!!
There is no way to make open range shooting "fair", because even if a complete class all shot at the same time, then it will be one side of the range is better than the other and so on.
I can honestly say I don't think the results would be much different over the past 3 days if random squadding had been used.

Sorry Jason, I'm not having a go at you, just giving my opinion.

Matt P

Totally agree with your views Matt.
I have been at this "game" longer than most. It is not possible to make open range shooting "fair" I have heard the argument for making it "fair" many times over the years & I am convinced that the quest is like chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. So stop messing with that & get on with it!
I don't have a problem with dropping 300.
I don't care about FTR either.
My 2 cents worth!
Congratulations to all who did well at the Nationals .
Keith H.

[macguru]

Hi Jason.

As for 300m at queens. Pretty much all the OPMs I know about start at 500 yards and the only f class comps i know about shooting 300 are queens events. I agree you could pretty much leave 300m out or just shoot it once and move on ....

The trouble with FTR is the success of F standard in Australia. People who shoot FTR complain about the recoil , light rifles, heavy bullets and thus bouncy bipods. But there is no getting away from the fact that its a world standard. Having both is splitting the numbers 3 ways (FA, FB, FTR) and thats a shame. Perhaps that has helped swell the numbers in FO which seems to be going from strength to strength.

By the way the bigfoot rear bag is great , thank you.

Andrew

[jasmay]

Thanks for the comments guys, Matt no offense taken, honestly I would never have considered any of the topics without hearing them first from others, with only 3 and a bit years target shooting under my belt Considering change isn't really something on my mind, but when you hear so much talk of it from others it does make you wonder if your shooting in the right sport, one that hasn't found a standard and let it be.

Personally the only change I liked was the squadding, but then as Matt and Keith have said they don't believe it has made any difference.

I think what we all need is to shoot more with what we have and think less about continual change...

As for the growth in FTR/ Success of FS A&B, with only 23 shooter across both A&B FS and 29 in FTR I think in a short time FTR has had considerable success itself, and talking to a number of those in FS they are looking to shoot FTR, a lot of people were asking for advice on setups to make the transition. The lead up only had 13 across both A&B FS, with FTR having 28. Numbers vary per state, but overall there is an uptick.

Interesting points so far, thanks guys....

[saum2]

Just something to add. Last year at the QRA Queens they squadded shooters for the last day according to the overnight position on the leader board. I was at this queens and thought this idea was ok.
Squadding won't help at a range like Bendigo as often your score is reflected by your position on which side of the range you shoot.
Lower Light may be ok to Squad as the range is very open and fair, conditions can vary from early morning to midday and this gives each class the opportunity to shoot under the same conditions.
Geoff

[johnk]

Belmont isn't all that fair either. From where I stand, I see graduated scores across the range dependent on what the wind is doing.

[ecomeat]

After shooting just the three days of the Queens, I fully agree with Matt, in that the "Squadding" as used didn't do a single thing to make things "fair". It ended up giving guaranteed lengthy gaps within a discipline.
As Matt and Keith pointed out, with open range shooting.......and add the fact that some boards had two more shooters than others.......it is physically impossible to have all shooters of the same discipline and level, down at the same time and experience identical conditions. It just can't happen.
I would be happy to see them trial a system that kept the "F Disciplines" at the top of the board on all occasions, and just rotate withing the 4 spots....and keeping the TR crew shooting and rotating in positions 5-8/9. They traditionally take soooo much longer to shoot. But then we have an F Open shooter like New Zealander Nik Chiew, absolutely entitled to his 15+ minutes.....and as a cautious, careful and highly capable F Open shooter, he used much of his allowance at every range. So his board could/would easily end up 10 minutes or more out of sync with the others. You can't demand he take less than his internationally ratified time allowance, so those sort of time problems are unavoidable, and have to be accepted as just being a part of our sport.
I would also be happy to see them reward the Top Twenty after the second last range with a seeded final range, based on what they tried last year. If it takes an extra hour or so, that shouldn't be a problem, as there is always a lengthy wait for the Presentations.
Having said that, I wouldnt complain if we went back to the old system where you just had to take it on the chin if some of your competitors had a bit more luck with conditions than you did. Even that would be fairer than this years "go up one, and an enforced break after 4th shooter" system. All that achieved, as Matt pointed out, was some competitors shooting at least an hour apart. I benefited from it at 1000, and climbed a couple of places, but genuine contenders like Steve Nelson and Peter Carter who shot near last certainly didn't !!
As for dropping the 300 at Queens, I think it's a great idea, and agree with Matt that the idea it allows people to confirm their zero is just BS. At our/Queens level ???

[RDavies]

Hi All,

Over the 9 day duration of the NRAA Queens and Natives comp last week, there was the usual level of discussion relating to changes and the future of State level queens events (which are suffering a drop in numbers) I thought I would bring up a few points for discussion, hopefully I don't get blasted for doing so

1) The number one comment most heard was "we need to drop the short ranges, in particular the 300" for various reasons I am simply not in agreeance with this but do see a number wanting it so it should be an area of consideration, I think merely dropping it would see an equal number of disappointed shooters on local ranges in Qld and perhaps a move to a short range and long range championships would be better than our classic leadup? 2 days of shorts and 3 days of longs or something similar.... What's everyone else's thoughts?

2) A couple of people complained about the use of Heavy bullets in FTR and want a restriction to 155gr pills, this is an odd one, isn't this why we still have F-Standard, and why when we are only just entering the international community would we want to effect change, its taken a couple of years for us to get FTR recognised, should we stay the course for a bit?

3) Squadding, this year we used a squadding system, and although it wasn't perfect it was quite obvious it worked a lot better, this is reflected in the scores being much tighter and the overall comp running smoother, the system used was, group 4 TR and 4 Fclass on one target i.e. shooter 1-4 TR 5-8 Fclass, but we would roll 1 off the top as is done classically, while this worked, it did see us split at times, I think rolling 1 within the group of 4 and perhaps changing the whole groups starting postion each range would be better. So at range 1 TR would shoot first and at range 2 Fclass would shoot first. Thoughts?



As a relatively new shooter to the game I have seen continual change in our sport which at times is frustrating, have goal posts shift doesn't allow for stability, I think it would be great to make some final changes and then stay the course for a period, perhaps a review every 3 years or, 4 years after the worlds...

I hope this generates some sensible and useful discussion on these topics.

Jason.....

I would much rather 300 be dropped in favour of one extra longer range, or 2 15 shot matches. 300 is great for club shoots where hunters turn up in droves to sight in their pig guns on 300 days, but not for a championship shoot.

I don't YET shoot F/TR but I would prefer it to stay with international rules and allow any weight. F/std is a great discipline if you want to reduce costs and recoil but staying with 155gn pills.

I would prefer squadding. The squadding at the Nationals was not perfect, but they were totally open that it would not be totally perfect first time around. I think it would cause too much of an uproar if they changed things too much too quickly among the flat earth brigade who have been doing it this way since they started shooting in 1953. I think what they did was a good start, with some slight changes in future queens as people get use to it. There was not a major difference in conditions between relays at this Queens, but in some events there have been huge differences in conditions, where leader boards got switch around drastically. I say stick with the squadding with some improvements learned from this event.
One thing I would like added to more events is something like the Mace Cup where the last range for the day is 15 shots Bisley style at the longest range, whether this is part of the Queens or Grand agg, and whether it is only for the top 4-10-20 or whatever is up for discussion

[KHGS]

After shooting just the three days of the Queens, I fully agree with Matt, in that the "Squadding" as used didn't do a single thing to make things "fair". It ended up giving guaranteed lengthy gaps within a discipline.
As Matt and Keith pointed out, with open range shooting.......and add the fact that some boards had two more shooters than others.......it is physically impossible to have all shooters of the same discipline and level, down at the same time and experience identical conditions. It just can't happen.
I would be happy to see them trial a system that kept the "F Disciplines" at the top of the board on all occasions, and just rotate withing the 4 spots....and keeping the TR crew shooting and rotating in positions 5-8/9. They traditionally take soooo much longer to shoot. But then we have an F Open shooter like New Zealander Nik Chiew, absolutely entitled to his 15+ minutes.....and as a cautious, careful and highly capable F Open shooter, he used much of his allowance at every range. So his board could/would easily end up 10 minutes or more out of sync with the others. You can't demand he take less than his internationally ratified time allowance, so those sort of time problems are unavoidable, and have to be accepted as just being a part of our sport.
I would also be happy to see them reward the Top Twenty after the second last range with a seeded final range, based on what they tried last year. If it takes an extra hour or so, that shouldn't be a problem, as there is always a lengthy wait for the Presentations.
Having said that, I wouldnt complain if we went back to the old system where you just had to take it on the chin if some of your competitors had a bit more luck with conditions than you did. Even that would be fairer than this years "go up one, and an enforced break after 4th shooter" system. All that achieved, as Matt pointed out, was some competitors shooting at least an hour apart. I benefited from it at 1000, and climbed a couple of places, but genuine contenders like Steve Nelson and Peter Carter who shot near last certainly didn't !!
As for dropping the 300 at Queens, I think it's a great idea, and agree with Matt that the idea it allows people to confirm their zero is just BS. At our/Queens level ???

No offence, but I believe that such squadding idea should be avoided at all costs! This would bring segregation back which hampered the growth of F-Open for years. F-Open only started its current growth rate with the dumping of the "championship" target & F-Open shooters intermingling with everyone else.
Keith H.

[AlanF]

As a general comment on squadding, I believe that the higher the level of competition, the more effort should be made to make it fairer. At a local prize meeting you're not shooting for sheep stations, and the luck factor probably gives the battlers more hope, and you might attract bigger fields. However if you've travelled a long way to a major competition with well prepared equipment, then it can be gut-wrenching if you get dudded by the luck of the draw. I agree that selective squadding does not always improve fairness, but in my experience it sometimes does, and with further refinement could do better.

Here's my thoughts on it :

(a) Start the squadding after the first range, to allow a roll up start (possibly wait till the start of day 2).
(b) Squad according to class/grade, plus current position within class/grade.
(c) Resquad at the beginning of each day.
(d) Have at least one "catch-up" pause per range, ensuring pauses occur at a clear divide between classes.
(e) Wherever possible, have the largest class/grades begin at the start of the range or immediately after a pause.
(f) There will always be situations where there are "leftover" shooters either because of the small size of a particular class/grade or because the large class/grades will rarely divide evenly across the number of targets. In these situations, give preference to having the top position shooters in all class/grades, regardless of field size, shooting together, followed by the need to have lower position shooters shooting as soon as possible after the higher position shooters in their class/grade.
(g) If as suggested the resquadding is done daily, then squads should be moved across the range so as to complete the cycle in a day e.g. if there are 20 targets and 4 ranges then squads would be moved 5 targets left (or right) after each range.

It would be possible to computerise this process, in fact I've already designed one which takes its input from the results from the NRAA website via a simple copy and paste, then takes a few minutes to process, and then produces detailed squadding printouts.

The key requirement is that the squadding process is easy to do, does not significantly slow down the day, and most of the time, makes things fairer.

Keith, that's a valid point regarding segregation, but if squadding is only done at major events, then the effect should be less. And you still get some mixing due to scoring "overlap".

[Matt P]

As a general comment on squadding, I believe that the higher the level of competition, the more effort should be made to make it fairer. At a local prize meeting you're not shooting for sheep stations, and the luck factor probably gives the battlers more hope, and you might attract bigger fields. However if you've travelled a long way to a major competition with well prepared equipment, then it can be gut-wrenching if you get dudded by the luck of the draw. I agree that selective squadding does not always improve fairness, but in my experience it sometimes does, and with further refinement could do better.

Here's my thoughts on it :

(a) Start the squadding after the first range, to allow a roll up start (possibly wait till the start of day 2).
(b) Squad according to class/grade, plus current position within class/grade.
(c) Resquad at the beginning of each day.
(d) Have at least one "catch-up" pause per range, ensuring pauses occur at a clear divide between classes.
(e) Wherever possible, have the largest class/grades begin at the start of the range or immediately after a pause.
(f) There will always be situations where there are "leftover" shooters either because of the small size of a particular class/grade or because the large class/grades will rarely divide evenly across the number of targets. In these situations, give preference to having the top position shooters in all class/grades, regardless of field size, shooting together, followed by the need to have lower position shooters shooting as soon as possible after the higher position shooters in their class/grade.
(g) If as suggested the resquadding is done daily, then squads should be moved across the range so as to complete the cycle in a day e.g. if there are 20 targets and 4 ranges then squads would be moved 5 targets left (or right) after each range.

It would be possible to computerise this process, in fact I've already designed one which takes its input from the results from the NRAA website via a simple copy and paste, then takes a few minutes to process, and then produces detailed squadding printouts.

The key requirement is that the squadding process is easy to do, does not significantly slow down the day, and most of the time, makes things fairer.

Keith, that's a valid point regarding segregation, but if squadding is only done at major events, then the effect should be less. And you still get some mixing due to scoring "overlap".

Sorry Alan
I totally disagree with resquadding after each day, all it does is separate the field more and give one group a bigger advantage over an another, either by when or which part of the range they shoot on, sorry but I'm yet to be convinced that squadding is any better than what we have now.
Matt

[jasmay]

No offence, but I believe that such squadding idea should be avoided at all costs! This would bring segregation back which hampered the growth of F-Open for years. F-Open only started its current growth rate with the dumping of the "championship" target & F-Open shooters intermingling with everyone else.
Keith H.

Keith, I believe if any changes at all are to be made it should be squadding before any other suggestions I have heard, now I am on the fence somewhat at the moment, but from what I have seen to date both locally and internationally, it does make a difference, sure side of ranges may differ, but as we move across we all shoot them, unlike shooting up to an hour and sometime much more apart. You wouldn't run Bathurst on 2 or 3 separate days would you? the closer we shoot together the more realistic a result we will see. A vote on the day by Bob P. returned a near unanimous agreement that it was a good thing, I couldn't count the yay votes, but only 7 of the attendees voted nay.

Matt is right, what was done at the NRAA queens was not perfect as rolling 1 from the top seen large times between us creep in, this could be avoided easily with a few adjustments.

Even with the squadding we still had great mingling with the TR shooters, and more than a few were standing behind me and a couple of the F-class leaders at times, and visa versa, perhaps its more the people wanting to mingle rather than being made to by forced alignment through a squadding system that will see a better improvement. I've had more than a couple of scorers over the years show a complete disregard for my discipline, no amount of squadding or not would change that attitude.

Jason.

[jasmay]

As a general comment on squadding, I believe that the higher the level of competition, the more effort should be made to make it fairer. At a local prize meeting you're not shooting for sheep stations, and the luck factor probably gives the battlers more hope, and you might attract bigger fields. However if you've travelled a long way to a major competition with well prepared equipment, then it can be gut-wrenching if you get dudded by the luck of the draw. I agree that selective squadding does not always improve fairness, but in my experience it sometimes does, and with further refinement could do better.

Here's my thoughts on it :

(a) Start the squadding after the first range, to allow a roll up start (possibly wait till the start of day 2).
(b) Squad according to class/grade, plus current position within class/grade.
(c) Resquad at the beginning of each day.
(d) Have at least one "catch-up" pause per range, ensuring pauses occur at a clear divide between classes.
(e) Wherever possible, have the largest class/grades begin at the start of the range or immediately after a pause.
(f) There will always be situations where there are "leftover" shooters either because of the small size of a particular class/grade or because the large class/grades will rarely divide evenly across the number of targets. In these situations, give preference to having the top position shooters in all class/grades, regardless of field size, shooting together, followed by the need to have lower position shooters shooting as soon as possible after the higher position shooters in their class/grade.
(g) If as suggested the resquadding is done daily, then squads should be moved across the range so as to complete the cycle in a day e.g. if there are 20 targets and 4 ranges then squads would be moved 5 targets left (or right) after each range.

It would be possible to computerise this process, in fact I've already designed one which takes its input from the results from the NRAA website via a simple copy and paste, then takes a few minutes to process, and then produces detailed squadding printouts.

The key requirement is that the squadding process is easy to do, does not significantly slow down the day, and most of the time, makes things fairer.

Keith, that's a valid point regarding segregation, but if squadding is only done at major events, then the effect should be less. And you still get some mixing due to scoring "overlap".

Sorry Alan
I totally disagree with resquadding after each day, all it does is separate the field more and give one group a bigger advantage over an another, either by when or which part of the range they shoot on, sorry but I'm yet to be convinced that squadding is any better than what we have now.
Matt

Matt, shoot NQ next year, or head to the USA, you may change your mind.... I agree, what was done was not great this year, but I do believe it was better than has been in the past, and Bob has accepted that it needs further refinement.