2014 USARB Nationals, The Aftermath

S

sgeorge

Guest
The 2014 USARB Nationals is about 90 days in the rearview mirror and a lessons learned conversation is in order. This is not an attempt to place blame, only to recognize areas of improvement. Since I was in charge and actually in Arizona, it is my first hand account to acknowledge the good and the bad.

This event was the first for USARB. With 86 shooters, the largest gathering of air rifle benchrest shooters since 2011 and the largest gathering of USA air rifle benchrest shooters EVER. Some of the highlights were,

A beautiful facility with great weather.
5 different classes of air rifle being contested, something for everyone.
2 solid days of shooting and the course of fire never missed a beat.
The range staff and volunteers were as professional as any.
A wonderful banquet with so many prizes from the generosity of sponsors.
An organizing team and match director that poured their souls into this event.

With that being said, errors in judgement were made. Some of those,

The registration process was cumbersome and took too long, detracting from valuable practice time.
The lack of an immediate protest period after a class concluded.
Electronic scoring that produced errors that were not easily explained or promptly resolved.

This last point appears to be one of the reasons any discussion of electronic scoring becomes a waste of time. The perception of electronic scoring has been tainted by this single experience.

This leads to some critical questions,

Should USARB have minimum standards and dictate such, for holding a national event?
If yes, should the same standards apply for regional events? For local sanctioned events?
Should these standards include scoring, paper for targets, backer material and construction of plugs? Should these standards include electronic scoring and the protest process to be utilized?

Maybe the bigger question, what and how far should a national sanctioning organization go to ensure fairness for the shooting community at sanctioned events?
 
I think we're asking the wrong question in regards to scoring


sgeorge said:
This last point appears to be one of the reasons any discussion of electronic scoring becomes a waste of time. The perception of electronic scoring has been tainted by this single experience.
Click to expand...


Good job. Rational questions must be asked and factual answers should be sought. Thus, please jump in where my logic fails.

Proper questions require proper assumptions. That being said I assume we can agree that in order to both precisely and consistently score a shot, one needs to determine POI in relation the exact center of the target. If the statement is true, then ideally the closer POI is to the target center, the higher the shot value awarded. Conversely, under ideal circumstances the more distant the POI from true target center, the lower the shot value.

Plugging a POI hole to determine where the edge of the hole is in relation to a value ring does not determine the distance between target center and POI. Likewise, optically examining the edge of a pellet hole to determine whether or not a value line has been touched does not determine target center to POI distance.

The question we should therefore be asking is what manner of scoring and associated technology provides the most precise distance measurement and related value? What method and technology can provide the data in a statistically valid, statistically reliable, and timely manner when tens to hundreds of competitors may be involved in an event of one or more days ? Moreover, how does one provide reliability and validity from event to event, at different times, on different continents in order to be fair to all competitors and not just those that disagree with a particular POI value assignment?

If I were asked to provide an answer, now that we have asked the proper question(s), I could confidently state that the only way to precisely and consistently assign values any time and any place would be to measure actual distances involved. Measure distances for every single shot in fact, and do so in a manner that is as close to perfect as possible (keeping in mind - but not blindly accepting - that sometimes stuff just happens).

The only question we are then left with is which of the methods or systems used today can help us achieve precision, fairness and consistency

But why ask me. Honestly reflect on the assumptions and the desired goals listed here-in, that I'm sure we all desire from a scoring system. Rather than rely on anecdotes or misinformation do some first hand research for example at http://www.orionscoringsystem.com/orion/Support.aspx to find out for yourself what one scoring method and system (out of many) attempts to do. Compare what you find to plugs, optics and other systems. Honestly evaluate the benefits and limitations of them all. Finally, keep in mind that we all allegedly participate in a precision sport. Should we not therefore be using the most precise, reliable and valid scoring method available rather than methods that are convenient or traditional?

I'm not saying we should go with Orion, or an iPhone App, or plugs or optics. Rather, I am saying we should first determine how to best identify target center to POI distance shot, after shot, after shot, after shot - now and into the future - rather than letting perception from one alleged bad experience overshadow reality.

Stated another way, we can't just be precise sometimes. We need to be precise all the time in BR; scoring as well as shooting. So let's find the best way to do so, fix it if broke or improve it if there are shortcomings, and then move on to other important things. Bickering over "I've always done it a certain way so everything else is bad" is no way to advance the sport to international levels of competitiveness. Rather, it makes the sport a rudimentary curiosity that never evolves beyond a pedestrian pass time.
 
targets

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't aim to hit the center of the target, I aim to hit the 10 ring. If my pellet cuts the 10 ring, I should get a 10. If it eliminates the 10 ring I get an x. extrapolate out from there. From what I've read, the Orion system doesn't much care or register what my pellet has done to the 10 or any other ring. It measures some hypothetical center, which may or may not be accurate to my shot, depending on how the target was printed and on what paper. To me that is an unacceptable flaw. In many ways I do not have a dog in this fight because I am just a mediocre shooter. That said, to get better I don't want to add outguessing an apparently flawed electronic scoring system to learning to read the wind, mind my trigger break, weighing and sorting my pellets etc. just mho
 
Response from the Match Director

Thank you for your post assessment. As with any event, there are opportunities for learning.

First of all lets put some things into perspective. We shot and scored over sixteen thousand bulls in just under a day and a half. Gentlemen, this has never been done before.
Using a recent expert-scorer's analogy, at seven minutes to score each without a break, that is the equivalent of 75 straight hours. Divide that by 5 scorers, that leaves you with fifteen hours straight, per person in a back room somewhere. Just imagine the error potential.
Even with only the hand full of errors experienced, we are dealing with an accuracy well into the 99.9%tile. For the next event of this magnitude, I welcome any group of volunteers to sit in the back room to manually score for 8 to 15 hours per day straight, and we'll talk afterwards.

***Lets move on, and leave the Electronic scoring success in another thread.***

Stephen, lets reconsider the terms used. I do not favor the words "Errors in judgement". They were not errors. I would rather use the term "future opportunities for success".

1. Registration lines: Yes they were long. They were long because many attendees did not provide accurate information in their registration packets. Many shooters also did not choose a rifle and did not list it in the registration process. Or, they changed what they originally listed while in line. We felt it was imperative to get this information correct. Next time, multiple registration clerks are necessary to expedite. I would also suggest the sanctioning organization donate computers to accommodate this demand to minimize this inconvenience. Please mind also, our team called each shooter sometimes several times prior to the match to ensure correct information. Still despite this effort, changes were made at the last minute at everyone-else's inconvenience. ( If the complaints exist from waiting in line a few hours for registration, imagine the complaints of waiting for manual scoring results) Remember it is the shooters responsibility to show up with as much time as the shooter desires before the event to meet the shooters need for adequate practice, (and not blame it on a lengthly registration).

2. Lack of protest period: Remember, a protest period did exist for folks to review their targets. it was about 45 minutes. Shooters received their actual targets and the printout of the scores to review. Yes, and I agree some would like more time. That can easily be changed in future events. I agree 100%. It can be changed to being done immediately after a shoot. Depending on how long the scoring takes (i.e. manual). Also be mindful, that the shooters may be shooting their next match and not have time to review. In the future shooters should not be given their actual target to reference. They should be given either a printed copy, or have it hung on a whaling wall and they can judge their score from three feet away.

3. Scoring:Easily explained errors, not promptly resolved: Every error that was presented, was immediately reviewed/ explained. Every scoring issue that was brought up was promptly resolved. Stephen, please, you were involved in those resolution issues.

I would like to add some learning opportunities.

1. Lack of a clear and concise rule book. The USARB is an organization that had at best just a few words for rules. As a result, you cannot hold an event of this magnitude without rules. We needed to adopt the Worlds rules and apply them to the event where items were not specifically mentioned in the USARB rules. A prime example of this includes the stock width issue that a shooter had. Rules are a necessary evil in order to avoid misunderstanding, and assumptions. The USARB needs to put together a clear, concise, and comprehensive set of rules before any major event is held in the future.

2. Dispute resolution: In the future, if there are issues that are brought up, the USARB must have in place an arbitration system / team that can make the call, and have it stand with full authority. This still does not exist to this day.

3. Length of Time of event: We were able to do this event in an almost incomprehensible about of time. Many had their doubts that it could be done. But it was. With precise choreography and flawless orchestration and execution once started. Which was precisely on time. Now, I will be the first to say, in the future if the USARB chose to host all of their classes and distances, we are looking at needing several more days. This year it was done in 1.5 days of shooting. Next it should be done over at least four days. And of course that is dependent on the number of benches available as well.

4. Accommodations of Sharing equipment: We went through painstaking efforts to ensure those that requested alternate relays due to the desire to share equipment were accommodated. This amounted to numerous changes in schedules and extensive amounts of time dedicated to these requests. In addition, not to mention the supervision of children during alternate relays. In the future, the hosting organization may want to reconsider this flexibility as it posed more headaches and inconveniences than benefits. By accommodating this, it forces at least two relays of each event, despite the numbers filling the benches.

To answer some posed questions:

1. Minimum standards for holding an event: Absolutely. A facility should have the resources in place to handle all the demands of a Regional and or National venue. Everything from basic needs such as restrooms, to food, to numbers of benches, and environmental protection become important.

2. Same for Regional, Local sanctioned: Absolutely. What is the purpose of rules if they are not adhered to. What do we need a sanctioning body for if rules are not necessary or followed? Otherwise just call it a "local, unsanctioned" match. We clearly state in our local matches and in our rules when it comes to this. For example, spring gun class that we support.

3. Scoring methods should be universal. I do understand some clubs cannot afford electronic, or some do not prefer the complexity of it. (again another thread). I do believe a universal paper target should be used for all sanctioned events. Not just a PDF printed at your local copy shop. The Orion company has ready made targets of the highest quality that have ever been shot in airgun benchrest. They are made in Germany, and imported. If those are not desired, then the USARB should find a source, get those printed/imported, and made available. Again, something that has never been done. Everyone should be on the same page for Scoreline. I believe using a method of scoring that does not damage the hole. And in order to verify a "record" score, the target must be sent in on the Official USARB target paper, and scored by optical scanner at headquarters. I have found backer material does have an effect on hole quality, but not hole location. Backers can be a whole other thread.

4. With all respect, it is the job of the sanctioning body to "ensure fairness for the shooting community at sanctioned events". And this can be done by establishing a comprehensive set of rules that match directors can adhere to and reference. Again, otherwise, why would we need a sanctioning body?


In closing, I would like to say thank you for your compliments regarding the national event. Every effort was made to make it a first-class event for the shooters and vendors that came to shoot and participate. Thousands of combined man-hours were volunteered to make this happen. Lets not forget the tens of thousands of dollars worth of prizes that were given right back to the shooters. Remember, in this event air rifles were the prizes for First, Second and Third place in all five events! Remember this event was never held before. No event ever came close to the number of shooting matches in such a short time period. This was a record, and a benchmark. As with every event, the next should be better.

I look forward to the progression of our sport, embracing the future, savoring of the evolution, and enjoying the diversity of company our fellow shooters bring.
Because that, that, is what makes it all worth while.

Kind Regards,

Garrett
 
Mark,

"I am saying we should first determine how to best identify target center to POI distance shot"

This is the essence of the controversy. Finding the theoretical center of an imperfect pellet hole. Those that prefer plugs believe that their method finds that theoretical center best. EVERYONE agrees that the electronic system will measure the distance to the target center but that's where any agreement ends.


jz,

It should not make any difference how well you shoot, you deserve scoring that is accurate and consistent.


Garrett,

My apologies for my poor choice of words. My attempt was to be as objective as possible. Personally, I had a great time and believe you and your team did an outstanding job. I felt it important to step up and address both the good and the bad. If you look at the above comments, while I agree that a discussion of electronic scoring should remain separate, unfortunately for most, you cannot talk about the 2014 USARB Nationals without bringing it up.

"Lack of a clear and concise rule book."

This will always be a double edged sword. Clear and concise does not translate well to dozens of pages and thousands of words. Have a look at the WRABF rules. They pass new rules that conflict with existing rules and are forced to make up a new term, "technical writing error". The intent of rules is what needs to be clear. In that way, people are not constantly trying to find some loophole to sneak through. Stock width was a perfect example. USA classes were not designed around WRABF rules. USA Open began as a class, with the intent, of being an extension of HV, meaning higher power and no stock restrictions, front or back. This should be a simple game. This needs to remain essentially true while we continue to attempt to grow the ranks. As you and I have discussed, a glossary of terms with definitions and pictures might be a place to start. Is this approach perfect? No, but when there is a question about legality, shooters will ask the question and the answers should be clear because we all understand the intent.
 
I had a slightly different perspective as a competitor.

First let me say that the actual conduct of the match was outstanding. As stated elsewhere every relay went off on time and the ran without a hitch. My hats off to the crew for a job well done. The range was excellent and the target boxes and stands were really well designed and functioned very well. The benches were more than adequate. All of this contributed to a well run match.

Registration and Power Testing
I thought Steve was being kind in calling it an error in judgment and cumbersome. It was horrible! After waiting in a registration line for up to 2 hours you were asked to re-confirm the information you had just confirmed not 5 days before via telephone. The worst part was the point of the exercise was to attempt to verify information that would not be accurate until you set up your rifle to begin your relay. This registration process was followed by a trip to the power testing station where another wait of up to 2 hours could be expected. To blame this situation on the shooters is way out of line.

Protest Period:
There was no 45 minute protest period. The targets began to be distributed approximately 45 minutes before the awards ceremony began, how ever most shooters had 30 minutes or less to review their targets. What was on the target to review, nothing but a hole in the paper. Your score was on another sheet of paper with a bunch of other information. To check your scoring you had to look at the bull then go over to the score sheet and find the the target you were looking at, then find the bull you were looking at, then look at the score you were given then go back and look at the target to see if you agreed.

It was a tedious and time consuming process and initially very confusing to someone who had not seen the Orion scoring system. This was taking place in a dimly lit dining room, with 100 plus people carrying on conversations and moving about. Most shooters had between 9 and 12 targets to review. Most did as I did and didn't bother to review their targets. It was approaching 9 pm and most of the participants were anxious to get on with the ceremony as they had a long drive ahead of them. This and the fact that it was $20 a bull to protest a score. And what was the protest procedure you ask? The bull in question was called back up by the computer and re-scored by the same program that scored it originally. What is the definition of insanity? What made matters far worse was you had no idea where you stood in the match, were you in 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] place or 22[SUP]nd[/SUP]place, you had not a clue.

Scoring:
I am going to express my personal opinion. Had this match been scored using traditional USARB scoring methods the results would have been different, I don't know what they would have been but they would not be what was actually awarded. I talked to 4 or 5 of the top finishing shooters in the match and every one of them had questionable scores going in both directions (based on manual scoring methods). The odds that all the top shooters would have the same number of errors moving scores in the same direction is a virtual impossibility. The top 4 scores in the LV were separated by 2 points and 1 x-count. I will state that I have never left a major bench rest match feeling that my score was incorrect. Were the scores the same as someone else would have scored them? I don't know, but I do know that I was satisfied with the results. That was not the case with this year's Nationals. The fate of electronic vs manual scoring is being discussed elsewhere.

The Process of Scoring:
I think there are some crazy numbers being thrown around to justify electronic scoring. Where did the number of 7 minutes to score a target come from, this is not my experience. I have manually scored hundreds and hundreds of BR targets and I would say it takes me an average of about 2 minutes to score a target. The local matches I put on usually result in 50-60 targets that need to be scored and I finish the job in less than 2 hours. You have to remember that 80% of the bulls on any given target are obvious scores. Of the remaining 20% a quick check with an Eagle Eye gauge will score 75% of them.That leaves about 5% of the targets that are potentially plug-able or require close scrutiny with the Eagle Eye. So let's redo the math,16,000 bulls sound like a lot, but that is 640 targets. At 2 minutes each that comes out to about 22 hours over two days or about 2.5 hours per scorer per day with 5 scorers, giving them time for an occasional break. Adding a few more scorers you can get the time to a very reasonable number.

A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the speed of electronic scoring and how we would have to wait intolerable amounts of time if targets were manually scored. All I can say is I never saw a single one of my targets until about 8:30 pm on Sunday night, or about 36 hours after shooting my first target and I had no idea where I placed until the results were announced. I fail to see the advantage of electronic scoring as a way to speed up scoring. Every regional match I have shot has had the targets available for review within an hour after a relay was completed.

Has anyone thought about how you would have a wailing wall with Orion?The targets would have to be posted on the wall, score sheets would have to be distributed, you would have to stand there with score sheet in hand trying to match a score to a target. The actual targets would have no scores on them so you could not see how others in your class are doing unless a scoring summery was posted.

One of the tremendous benefits of manual scoring is your target contains all the information you and anyone else needs to see. It takes about a minute or so to review a target check the math and determine if a protest is necessary. You can see your targets and your competitors targets, it is one of the more fun things that takes place in a BR match. The shooters are part of the scoring process through this review.

Suggestions for future matches:

  1. Registration and power testing has got to be fixed. This has to be cut down to no more than 30-40 minutes per shooter for both functions. Information about equipment used in the match should be collected just before the relay starts, and entered afterwards.
  2. Targets have to be scored and available for review by shooters no more than 2 hours after your relay has finished. (Both 1 and 2 can be fixed by asking for volunteers and volunteer equipment.)
  3. If computerized scoring is used an acceptable protest process must be developed. Having the computer re-score a shot is not the answer. I think the method used in South Africa by Gert is an excellent method if computer scoring is used. If you are going to protest a bull than the entire target must be re-scored manually and you must live with the results. This will avoid cherry picking only bulls likely to move in you favor.
  4. Rules to be followed must be clearly identified and posted before the match. The USARB must provide at least one official at any match deemed the National Championship. That person will have final say in rulings related to the USARB classes being contested at the match.
  5. Since it is the US National Championship, residence in the US should be a requirement for all awards for the top placing shooters.
  6. I agree that no accommodation should be made for sharing equipment. This could create a significant amount of work for the match director.
  7. I agree that we should standardize on a single source of targets for regional and national matches only. The Orion targets are reasonably priced for the quality of the target. If we could get the heading information for recording shooter data like the World target it would work.
  8. I would like to see the draw for benches and relays take place when you register at the match. I loved the idea of having your relays on the name tags and this data could easily be added with a pen at the time of the draw.


I would like to thank Garrett and everyone else who was associated with the Nationals for the incredible amount of work they did to hold this match. I hope that we all learned from the experience and use it as as tarting point to build on for next year's Championship.

Sorry for being so wordy, and thanks Steve for giving us the opportunity to express some suggestions on how to improve future matches.

Jim in Sacramento
 
Jim,

First, it was great finally meeting you.

A couple of points. 2 minutes a target? No disrespect but that is 5 seconds per bull, very fast, that level of speed would concern me. A few bulls but over and over. If you can do this, more power to you. Efficiency, not speed is what is needed, in addition to the accuracy, when large events are run. It would be great to have a team of 5-8 experienced scorers on hand to share the load but that is not always an option.

Our suggestion for a protest period using Orion is simple. When the relay ends, the targets are scored. Copies of the targets are printed and those 3 pieces of paper are given to the shooters. They have the next 20 minutes, during the next relay, in any light, in any location, including the rest room to review their targets and decide if a protest is in order. Shooters never touch the actual targets and no need for a crowded and overly public wailing wall. Shooters that wish to share their highlights are free to do so, shooters that do not wish to share their misery are free to make the same choice.

Using a plug to settle protests is the real insanity. Orion is the same system but uses a different process to resolve protests and human intervention is still a major part in that process.

Not to argue, just we see things differently. Thanks for your views.
 
Well put Jim, I agree 100%. While I have never been to a match that uses electronic scoring as it stands now I have no interest in attending one.
Dan
 
Additional recommendation,

So how many scoring systems exist to this day for air rifle benchrest? Maybe at the next championship, we could embrace ALL the scoring systems, and average the scores? Or, allow the shooter to choose which one they like best based on the highest score? Or just choose the highest scoring system?

I am looking forward to seeing the volunteer list for the pluggers at the next major event that sees a hundred or so shooters with five plus classes. It won't be me, thats for sure. But, i will buy you a beer afterwards. And do you think for a moment there won't be any complaints there? Keep dreaming and stick to your antiquated ways.

Boy if there are complaints of people waiting a few hours in line for registration, I look forward to hearing the complains about the wait for thousands of 100% accurately hand scored targets.

Maybe the USARB should invest in a portable paperless scoring system? Now that's progress!
 
Aftermath

May I suggest gentlemen you attend a NBRSA benchrest match called the "Supershoot"

It boasts over 400 shooters, targets are scored and displayed after every relay, minimum of protests and been that way for over 20 years.
Quit bitching and get smart.

Frank
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top