mwezell
Mike Ezell
What'cha gonna do if they're perfectly on line with one another.....
Shoot it again, I guess
It probably wouldn't help me much, Dave. I'd just shoot up more ammo.
-Mike
Last edited:
IBS score question 49-5x target
- Thread starter ScottD
- Start date
Shoot it again, I guess
It probably wouldn't help me much, Dave. I'd just shoot up more ammo.
-Mike
D
Dave Short
Guest
If the rule simply says to deduct a point, why would you deduct the X also? It has been stated here that a 49-5X is impossible, so you have to deduct the X also................Clearly a 49-5X is possible...It happens when a shooter fires one X on the wrong target and 4 on the right target.
The rule is clear.
-Dave-
The rule is clear.
-Dave-
M
mike in co
Guest
i guess it is pretty obvious, that a second or third uninterested party needs to proof read the rules.
what we "meant" just does not fly once it is in print.
mike in co
what we "meant" just does not fly once it is in print.
mike in co
Jim Borden
New member
next lower score
Just for giggles and grins.
a cross fired 10x has been a 9 for 38 years now without question or concern on anyone's part.
It has been administered that way since the crossfire rule was written.
Jim
Just for giggles and grins.
a cross fired 10x has been a 9 for 38 years now without question or concern on anyone's part.
It has been administered that way since the crossfire rule was written.
Jim
A
AVanGorder
Guest
X doesn't equal 9
The X is part of the 10 ring. Therefore, in this case, an X has no value, unless it is accompanied by a 10.
The X is part of the 10 ring. Therefore, in this case, an X has no value, unless it is accompanied by a 10.
M
mike in co
Guest
but we are not talking target...we are talking the rule as written...
it says to remove one point....
we have wasted way too much band width on this with no productive action.
simply fix the rule....what is so big about that....
its identified, fix it....
lets stop now....
mike in co
C
cassidy
Guest
Crossfire Rules
Why change a rule that has been in effect for 38yrs and never caused a problem?
If you are so interested in changing a working rule then file a request to be submitted for the annual meeting to be held in 2010. The agenda items for 2009 have been submitted and closed on 8/15/08!
Lot's of luck!!
Why change a rule that has been in effect for 38yrs and never caused a problem?
If you are so interested in changing a working rule then file a request to be submitted for the annual meeting to be held in 2010. The agenda items for 2009 have been submitted and closed on 8/15/08!
Lot's of luck!!
A
AVanGorder
Guest
I am a FIRM believer in the written black and white. I do not believe in gray. I do not believe in guessing. I don't believe in the good-ole-boy anything. And I definitely don't believe in "because". If a rule isn't written, it doesn't exist - Period.
The X is part of the 10 ring and nothing else.
Let's go one more beyond an X, a "wipe-out". An X is a great 10 and a wipe-out is just a perfect 10. Both still carry a value of 10.
The X is part of the 10 ring and nothing else.
Let's go one more beyond an X, a "wipe-out". An X is a great 10 and a wipe-out is just a perfect 10. Both still carry a value of 10.
David Halblom
Flying Fish Fundamentals
That logic ass-u-me-s
that a 10 and an X are equivalent scores. WRONG!! 10's are one score, X's are another. They DO NOT negate or equal each other. In a cross-fire situation, it is VERY reasonable to get a 49-5x.
READ the RULES!!! Intent IS NOT outlined i the rules!!!!. If this is NOT the CASE, Then CHANGE THE RULES!!!!!!!!
that a 10 and an X are equivalent scores. WRONG!! 10's are one score, X's are another. They DO NOT negate or equal each other. In a cross-fire situation, it is VERY reasonable to get a 49-5x.
READ the RULES!!! Intent IS NOT outlined i the rules!!!!. If this is NOT the CASE, Then CHANGE THE RULES!!!!!!!!
M
mike in co
Guest
why.... because someone just pointed out a flaw in the written rule.Why change a rule that has been in effect for 38yrs and never caused a problem?
If you are so interested in changing a working rule then file a request to be submitted for the annual meeting to be held in 2010. The agenda items for 2009 have been submitted and closed on 8/15/08!
Lot's of luck!!
the real question is why not fix it ??
when you have a gunsmith build you a rifle for benchrest competition, and you expect himto build to your instructions and it does not match what you asked for, and does not shoot......"well its how i have been building them that way for 38 years..i dont read the instructions."
would that be acceptable to you ??
ScottD
Member
I didn't say the rule was flawed...the rule is fine just like it is. It is actually one rule that is written quite clearly.
I just wanted to make sure that I was correct in my scoring it a 49-5x score for the match.
It is interesting that in 38 years no one else ever asked.
I guess I related it to golf - when you get a penalty stroke. It doesn't have anything to do with the particular shot you made...it is just a penalty added to your score at the end of the hole. Its not like they make you three-putt, or pretend that your chip from the bunker into the hole didn't really happen. You simply get a +1 at the end.
I just wanted to make sure that I was correct in my scoring it a 49-5x score for the match.
It is interesting that in 38 years no one else ever asked.
I guess I related it to golf - when you get a penalty stroke. It doesn't have anything to do with the particular shot you made...it is just a penalty added to your score at the end of the hole. Its not like they make you three-putt, or pretend that your chip from the bunker into the hole didn't really happen. You simply get a +1 at the end.
Pete Wass
Well-known member
The book sez
(" In all Registered Tournaments there shall be a Range Officer, three Referees, a Statistician and an official Scorer.")
("All officials for Championship Tournaments must be approved by the President of IBS")
("No officials, except Referees, shall participate as contestants in Championship Tournaments in Which he/she is an official in.")
("Referees must be an IBS member in good standing") No punctuation after standing in the book
In 5) Duties of Tournament Officials, b. There are directions for Referees and no prohibitions for them listed there.
Perhaps burried in the other text there are prohibitions with regard to Referees but if there are, I haven't found them yet. Any other changes in their conduct or individual eligabiltity must have been deem as such by the Executive Cmmittee. I didn't see any prohibition for Club Members or Committee Members.
(" In all Registered Tournaments there shall be a Range Officer, three Referees, a Statistician and an official Scorer.")
("All officials for Championship Tournaments must be approved by the President of IBS")
("No officials, except Referees, shall participate as contestants in Championship Tournaments in Which he/she is an official in.")
("Referees must be an IBS member in good standing") No punctuation after standing in the book
In 5) Duties of Tournament Officials, b. There are directions for Referees and no prohibitions for them listed there.
Perhaps burried in the other text there are prohibitions with regard to Referees but if there are, I haven't found them yet. Any other changes in their conduct or individual eligabiltity must have been deem as such by the Executive Cmmittee. I didn't see any prohibition for Club Members or Committee Members.
Dick Grosbier
Club Coordinator
Scott,
There is no such score as 49-5x in IBS scoring.
In 38 years it actually has come up several times and it has always been explained to the person asking the question an x is a tie breaking device that is earned when a very good ten is shot and it cannot be attached to a 9, thats not how it works Not in IBS. in canada I am told they use it differently . In club matches it may be used differently.
It is not a complicated concept, it has never in my memory of 25 years of attending IBS annual meetings ever been brought up as a concept people are having difficulty with. What is unclear to me is how people can have suuch difficulty grasping this simple concept.
Last edited:
Jim Borden
New member
Does not have to do with the way it has been
Just want to be clear about this--it was obvious to those that wrote and initially enforced the rule and taught others of us to enforce the rule that scoring is 10x, 10, 9, 8 etc---notice 9X does not exist--it was implicit in their writing --now if someone wants to clarify it--fine--then clarify it--but lets not let OPINIONS rule.
Once again I am amazed at how nit-picky some can get about something that has been obvious for a long time.
the 38 years part--was trying to relate that it has stood the test of time and certainly has precedent on enforcement and interpretation--certainly not saying if something has been wrong forever--it should remain wrong. There is more than one way to read this as is obvious by this thread---but stating that the new reading of it is the way it is is as wrong as someone saying it has been this way for 38 years-----
Just want to be clear about this--it was obvious to those that wrote and initially enforced the rule and taught others of us to enforce the rule that scoring is 10x, 10, 9, 8 etc---notice 9X does not exist--it was implicit in their writing --now if someone wants to clarify it--fine--then clarify it--but lets not let OPINIONS rule.
Once again I am amazed at how nit-picky some can get about something that has been obvious for a long time.
the 38 years part--was trying to relate that it has stood the test of time and certainly has precedent on enforcement and interpretation--certainly not saying if something has been wrong forever--it should remain wrong. There is more than one way to read this as is obvious by this thread---but stating that the new reading of it is the way it is is as wrong as someone saying it has been this way for 38 years-----
Pete Wass
Well-known member
Ties in Golf Scores
aren't broken by X es. They are broken by Play Offs, at least from what I know about it and have seen on TV. If they assigned extra points for Birdies, Eagles and Holes In One, then there would be an analogus situation. Xes are only used to break ties and to establish records now. I don't see how any logic can be brought forward to think X es can be accrued if the score they are atteched to isn't acheived. I do agree that if there is Gray in rules the Gray should be removed. Being a Benevolent Dictator, I would simply make the change without the Legislative Process.
Obviously if the Founding Fathers had intended for the X es to accrue seperately from Score, the process would be in standard practiced after all these years. This is a Score game, Not an X game.
aren't broken by X es. They are broken by Play Offs, at least from what I know about it and have seen on TV. If they assigned extra points for Birdies, Eagles and Holes In One, then there would be an analogus situation. Xes are only used to break ties and to establish records now. I don't see how any logic can be brought forward to think X es can be accrued if the score they are atteched to isn't acheived. I do agree that if there is Gray in rules the Gray should be removed. Being a Benevolent Dictator, I would simply make the change without the Legislative Process.
Obviously if the Founding Fathers had intended for the X es to accrue seperately from Score, the process would be in standard practiced after all these years. This is a Score game, Not an X game.
M
mike in co
Guest
jim b.wrote"Just want to be clear about this--it was obvious to those that wrote and initially enforced the rule and taught others of us to enforce the rule that scoring is 10x, 10, 9, 8 etc---notice 9X does not exist--it was implicit in their writing --now if someone wants to clarify it--fine--then clarify it--but lets not let OPINIONS rule."
i actually understand what most of you are saying, but here is the hiccup.
"scoring is 10x, 10, 9, 8 etc---notice 9X does not exist--".... the issue is he shot 5 10-x's....that totals 50-5x , now remove the one penalty point and his score is 49-5x.......he never claimed to shot a 9x, he was penalized one point from his total...or from one target.....over and over the rule says one point, it does not say the next lower score.....
i'm all for a benevolent benefactor making a change with no vote.....
let me ask you guys , if the irs discovered they had made a 1 percent error in all tax returns for the last 38 years, would it be acceptable to leave it the way it is, or should it be corrected ??.........wrong is wrong....
yep lets fix it...
i actually understand what most of you are saying, but here is the hiccup.
"scoring is 10x, 10, 9, 8 etc---notice 9X does not exist--".... the issue is he shot 5 10-x's....that totals 50-5x , now remove the one penalty point and his score is 49-5x.......he never claimed to shot a 9x, he was penalized one point from his total...or from one target.....over and over the rule says one point, it does not say the next lower score.....
i'm all for a benevolent benefactor making a change with no vote.....
let me ask you guys , if the irs discovered they had made a 1 percent error in all tax returns for the last 38 years, would it be acceptable to leave it the way it is, or should it be corrected ??.........wrong is wrong....
yep lets fix it...
Jim Borden
New member
Mike --we differ
Mike
we differ -it is obvious to me that there is no 9X--it is not obvious to you--that does not make me wrong and the rule book wrong--it makes it that we read and interpret different.
bringing up things like the gunsmith thing and the tax thing have absolutely nothing to do with this--both cases you have presented information of something that is wrong--in this case you have expressed your opinion of what may be wrong-----
Jim
Mike
we differ -it is obvious to me that there is no 9X--it is not obvious to you--that does not make me wrong and the rule book wrong--it makes it that we read and interpret different.
bringing up things like the gunsmith thing and the tax thing have absolutely nothing to do with this--both cases you have presented information of something that is wrong--in this case you have expressed your opinion of what may be wrong-----
Jim