The scoring system

IanP · Post by **IanP** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:54 am

Interesting discussion even though I agree with Lynn, (no real prob with current scoring system) and Barry, (make very ring count for both TR & FC) if the system is to be changed.

Barry raises a very good point in that TR are scoring more and more possibles to the extent that clapping a TR score of 50 has resulted in blistered hands at many clubs

The NRAA have made clear that two scoring systems are required for FC and TR so we need to come up with a system that brings both TR and FC together if it is to gain the momentum needed for change.

Despite Richard's monologue earlier in this thread on the history of whatever it was he was attempting to say about scoring. He makes a valid point that his club and others at Lower Light Rifle Range combined under a metric scoring system. The experiment at Lower Light, (No. 1 DRA) continues now with a changed with 50 as the top score for both disciplines.

The challenge for the majority of shooters both TR and FC would be to find a common scoring system that fills a need for both. Logically that would be to score every ring as Barry has already suggested and use a ring value system thats easy to add up. I thought the existing 60.X could be used for both and a V could be used for TR to keep score separation and easy indentification of both classes when posted on leader boards, etc.

Ian

johnk · Post by **johnk** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:59 am

In the ICFRA environment, everybody uses the the rings in the same manner that we do, viz, that TR shooters use a less challenging target. We are unique in that we have devised a method that permits both TR & F class shooters to coexist on the same target. I believe without qualification that the process that we use is vastly superior to what is in place elsewhere, eg Bisley, where there is a miserly limit on F class Queens entries, or the US, where their boards are rifle with F class shooters bemoaning their problems finding matches to compete in. In terms of the adequacy of target dimensions for iron sighted shooting, I've seen a distinct lack of interest Stateside for an upgrade to the F class target dimension & of course, Bisley dances to another tune entirely.

I urge you to hark back to the reason why we chose to score our targets like we do, namely that it does allow us to integrate irrespective of our chosen discipline on targets that are considered to be suitably challenging to the disciplines. It seems to me that there are a number of reasons that this procedure isn't working in some instances. From what I've seen, they can mostly be sheeted back to individual preference/prejudice. As you're aware, I attend a couple of Queens each year as a range officer & since that first formative year, I've never experienced any significant instances of irretrievable incorrect marking. After all, it takes two, make that three, incompetents to achieve that. On the other hand, I've run out of extremities counting the number of times that two scorers & a shooter have signed off on an incorrect card.

Surely a competitor can calmly & without rancor correct a call of V when the correct value should be a 6 or X or vice versa?

Barry Davies · Post by **Barry Davies** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:56 am

Some memories are short. In 2008 a Vic club conducted a two day PM using the system Chop is suggesting. This was against good advice from the F Class community.
Result -- PM a dismal failure and has never been held since.
Leave F Class scoring alone -- it works, and the difference between TR and FC scoring is restricted to the two inner rings. Hardly difficult to understand.
Probably one practice that could be done without is showing the X value on a TR score card. The X ring has no significance for TR--it's a V, not an X.

RAVEN · Post by **RAVEN** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:25 am

Lynn my point on the history lesson is the scoring system has been in constant flux over the centuries and there should be discussion about looking for a better system if available and we all know its a very complex issue.
And I have given my experience with all 3 systems that I have actively had to shoot under and what I considered were the upside of those.
Unless you have done it for awhile you are only hypothesising.
I must give No.1 alot of credit for giving it a try.

RB

Lynn Otto · Post by **Lynn Otto** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:49 am

RAVEN wrote:Lynn my point on the history lesson is the scoring system has been in constant flux over the centuries and there should be discussion about looking for a better system if available and we all know its a very complex issue.

Agreed and discussion is fine but I still think that any suggestions need to be reasoned and workable. I also feel that any change should only be made if change is necessary or desirable, a point I am not convinced of at this stage. As you said, "discussion about looking for a better system if available", perhaps if you want combined shooting of two different disciplines then there may not be a better system available, sometimes there needs to be compromise.

RAVEN wrote:I must give No.1 alot of credit for giving it a try.

RB

Fair enough, if you want to change things then trials are necessary but as per the example Barry gave, it doesn't always work and people need to see that and be prepared to let it go. Not everyone at No 1 DRA is happy with the scoring trials, something that also should be taken into consideration.

RAVEN · Post by **RAVEN** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:25 pm

There is an old saying Lynn "you can not please everybody all the time"
But a discussion in pursuit of alternate scoring systems to improve the sport as a whole is always worth the time and effort.
Just because someone comes up with something out of the square doesn’t mean it’s automatically better and sometime what one wishes for creates other issue that were never considered in the fist place.

I will say this Lynn that a common scoring system does have many benefits and that is fact not some emotional notion I have come up with.
And as I have stated it’s a complex issue with more emotion than common sense.

I think most of the systems work to different degrees but is their a better one?

There is an old saying Lynn "you can not please everybody all the time"
But a discussion in pursuit of alternate scoring systems to improve the sport as a whole is always worth the time and effort.
Just because someone comes up with something out of the square doesn’t mean it’s automatically better and sometime what one wishes for create other issue that were never considered in the fist place.
I will say this Lynn that a common scoring system does have many benefits and that is fact not some emotional notion I have come up with.
And as I have stated it’s a complex issue with more emotion than common sense.
I think most of the systems work to different degrees but is their a better one?

Not everyone at No 1 DRA is happy with the scoring trials, something that also should be taken into consideration.

And interestingly enough those ppl belong to clubs that are in decline or have division with in!!
RB

Chopper · Post by **Chopper** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:29 pm

Apart from all that, I think ? you would agree that one score on the board with one scoring system in place , Has to be better and easier , Barry, the Super V trial at Bendigo was the start of the Super V and has gone on from there, so I say it was a success, How could I forget, I was first down and scored 50.10 ,or as its called now 60.10 cutting two 6,s,

Chop.

Barry Davies · Post by **Barry Davies** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:50 pm

Chop
The 50.10 you scored is a different 50.10 to that which applies to TR because the FC 5 ring is not the same 5 ring as TR.
The only thing that would change under your proposed system is that the V bull is now scored as 5 instead of 6. The scorer still has to recognize the discipline being shot and apply the V ring score accordingly.
Example -- a centre bull is signaled -- under the current system it is a V for TR and a 6 for FC. under your system it is a V for TR and a 5 for FC. Whats the big deal about scoring it a 6 ? Why is it so important that 50.10 be the possible for both disciplines? It cannot be for comparisons because the 5 ring is different for both, so why this insistence on the V being 5 and not 6?
Too many people try to make comparisons between TR and FC --stupid --because there is none, FC is done differently. Different rifles, different ammo, different technique,-- no comparison.
Give it away Chop, we like it the way it is.-- and it aint difficult to score.

Quick · Post by **Quick** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:56 pm

My club, Bass/Bell RC in Perth is trialling 10 ring targets for next years shooting season. Mainly to make handicapping easier and also to improve peoples shooting. I think a common scoring system would be simpler and I look forward to shooting on 10 ring targets.

Southcape · Post by **Southcape** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:02 pm

How will a 10 ring target improve peoples shooting?

Quick · Post by **Quick** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:34 pm

For the TR guys it's thought that it will help people bring there groups in. I hope sambo comes in and gives his views. Instead of constant 5s they will be 8-9s and less possibles will be shot so people will try harder.

Barry Davies · Post by **Barry Davies** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:58 pm

Chop,
Further
You say that the current scoring for FC is confusing. Well, if your system was adopted do you realize that for every position of the score indicator, ( on target or wand or however ) Every position of that indicator would represent two score values -- one for TR and one for FC. ( and they are of different value )

For example -- indication in the bottom RH corner of target would be 5 for TR and 4 for FC, similarly with all other indicator positions.

So under your proposed system TR would be scored --
X V 5 4 3 2 1 and F Class would be scored --
X 5 4 3 2 1 --

If I am incorrect in interpreting what you say then correct me.

The upshot of this is of course that all scorers would need to learn two systems -- one for TR and one for FC and how confusing would that be?

Alternatively, if you want to have both TR and FC indicators on the target representing the same score value, then the markers would have to learn two systems as well as being informed who was shooting -- a TR shooter or an F Class shooter, and the indicators would represent the following
X V 5 4 3 2 1 For TR
X 5 4 3 2 1 For FC

I think I got that correct --I'm confused. Bugger, lets just leave it as is.

Lynn Otto · Post by **Lynn Otto** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:06 pm

Southcape wrote:How will a 10 ring target improve peoples shooting?

Linda most people who shot on the metric F Class Championship target would probably agree that the tighter rings did in fact tighten up groups. If you were even a little sloppy you paid for it with lower scores, it's one of the things about that target that I regret losing. That said, there is not a lot of difference in the size of the centres on the ICFRA with super centre. The real difference now is that out from the centre the width of the rings is larger since there are only five so out there you can be sloppier. When there were ten rings there was much less room for error, you learnt to stay focused very quickly.

Post by **AlanF** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:57 pm

Barry Davies wrote:--I'm confused. Bugger, lets just leave it as is.

+1 to that.

DannyS · Post by **DannyS** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:37 pm

Must admit that I'm surprised this post has gone on for so long. Some people will always want to change things. If its not broken don't try and fix it. What we have is pretty simple and if people can't understand it then how do they work out things like elevation settings, windage etc.

Cheers
Danny