Clarifying a few issues.....
Gentlemen,
There have been a lot of issues discussed within this thread; I'll respond to the few which concern me, our range, and shooters that I've discussed this with. I had no intention of writing this much, but have tried to fully "vet" the issues for perspective.
Nationals-
Frankly, I can't speak to the Colorado "situation". I had planned to drive 13ish hours west for the upcoming nationals, rather than the 13ish hours east that I drove this last year, to shoot at White Horse (where I had a great time and enjoyed a very well ran match, even if I couldn't keep up with Tod....
). As shown in the attached file, I did submit a "bid" asking to be considered for upcoming 600 & 1000 yard national tournaments (start at the bottom and read up). I don't believe that this was an intentional nor malicious oversight, and most likely was an honest mistake. My purpose in posting this is not to cry "foul", but to correct the record as I know it.
Points / the new SOY rule change-
Of much greater concern to me, is the issue and rule change concerning SOY points. During last year's season, I was contacted by a Long Range Committee member wanting to discuss SOY points. He had been receiving complaints from [Eastern (not my emphasis)] shooters that
"shooters earned too many points for relay wins" at our range and other "Western" ranges, due to the number of benches (15) that we have. I was also informed of a
"Gentlemen's agreement", reportedly between ranges, that relays would be limited to 10 shooters (this was a historical agreement, which is not part of the rules). Initially, I was a bit surprised by the nature of such a claim and then proceeded in responding, discussing the merits of the current point system and my primary focus as range owner/match director;
the safe and efficient operation of the match. Having 15 benches, the number of shooters within a relay is strictly based on the number of shooters that attend the match.
For us to fully discuss/understand this issue, it is important to note that there is a new and old system, relating to SOY points. Prior to a recent conversation, I was only aware of the new system.
OLD (ARBITRARY,
match based): Apparently, the old system had arbitrarily, pre-determined [static] values, in awarding the relay winners (
.50 point), and shoot-off winners (
1 point), regardless of the number of shooters within the relay, or total shooters participating in the match.
NEW (PROPORTIONAL,
shooter based): The new system rewards an individual based on the number of competitors that have been overcame; (
.05 point) for each shooter within the relay, and (
.03 point) for each shooter within the match in shoot-offs.
Both systems have their pros and cons, and I have no preference concerning which is used. However,
MIXING the two systems is unfair to the participants, and has placed several match directors (any range having more than 12 benches) in a difficult, "non-win" type situation. To better illustrate, please review last year's match results at our range (or you can take my word at the numbers I've provided):
Match 1: 30 Total shooters, Relay 1 = 15, Relay 2 = 15 (-1 shooter due to a non-IBS shooter (NIBS))
Match 3: 26 Total, R1 = 13, R2 = 13 (-1 shooter for NIBS)
Match 5: 22 Total, R1 = 11(-1 shooter for NIBS), R2 = 11
Match 7: 33 Total, R1 = 11, R2 = 11, R3 = 11
Match 9: 33 Total, R1 = 11, R2 = 11, R3 = 11
Match 11: 28 Total, R1 = 14, R2 = 14
As shown, the number of shooters within a relay (and consequently, the number of relays), is directly relative to the number of shooters that show up. Relays are always divided as evenly as possible, which is also based on the number of shooters. If you stare at the numbers above long enough, you will begin to notice "magic"........
Well not really magic, but
30 (being a multiple of 15) is a relatively special number. Simply put, if there are 30 shooters or less (down to 16), we shoot two relays. With 31 shooters or more (up to 45), we shoot three relays. If we have 15 or less, we will shoot one relay. The number of shooters within a relay has never been considered relative to the amount of points that would be awarded to a relay winner.
Here's the rub. The LR committee passed a
rule at the winter meeting keeping the .05 pts/shooter, with a cap at
.60 points per relay. How would this have affected the previous season? As shown in the above examples, for a majority of the matches, shooters (under the newly passed rule) would not be receiving due credit for the
actual number of shooters that were bested in a season. The question really should be asked of the 1000 yard community, "What determines the BEST shooter for the year?"
- · Is the best shooter the one that has won the most relays/matches? (Arbitrary, static points - Match Based)
- · Is the best shooter the one that has beaten the most individuals shooting simultaneously? (Proportional, dynamic points - Shooter Based)
It should be noted that as match director, I have three options:
- Split one actual relay into two artificial relays (i.e. bench 1-7 & bench 8-15;
- Limit the number of shooters per relay to 12 or less;
- Continue utilizing the potential of the range as built, in which relay size would depend on the number of attendees, up to 15.
Option 1 isn't necessarily fair, as the "second" best group is invariably in the same relay with the best group; advancing someone that shouldn't be, as they were outshot in identical conditions. Option 2 would unnecessarily increase the cost and duration of the match; which would result in some incomplete matches, depending on the progress that day. Option 3 is efficient, but would unintentionally penalize relay winners any time there was 13-15, or
25-30, or 36-45 shooters. Unfortunately, this is an issue that never needed to occur, and is lamented/viewed as unfair by the members that I've discussed it with. I would respectfully ask and urge the Long Range Committee to (immediately please) rectify the situation that has been created by the passage of this rule to pacify a few, without consideration for the fairness of the majority.
Meeting / Representation:
The winter meeting/rule passage process seems to have been put in place as a safeguard against "fringe" or unpopular (with a few) opinions, in that the meeting location is inaccessible(for practical purposes) to the majority, and if the committee is not in favor of a proposal, it will never be voted on by the general membership. This appears to "backfire" as often as it works, in that regardless of the opinion, transporting a bus load of individuals to the meeting can get nearly anything passed (for a year). The technology is now widely available (teleconference, video conferencing, internet voting, etc.) to allow participation, without the encumbrance of a continental trip. I have enough faith in the membership to believe that if the majority (or 2/3rds even) were more involved in the decision, the issues discussed within this thread wouldn't exist.
Robert Ross
robert@midwestbenchrest.com
