The fact that this thread has progressed this far with differing views on the rule as written, means the rule needs clarity. The process that changes any rule is the submission of an agenda item, followed by a vote at the annual meeting. So, for all of you that want to get these types of oversights corrected, don't just hit the keyboard, hit the annual meeting!!!!!!!!
IBS score question 49-5x target
- Thread starter ScottD
- Start date
mike cockcroft
New member
I've only been to two score matches in my life. Sounds very gracious to give someone any points at all for missing their whole target.
Here's a funny thought. If I were at Kelbley's and shooting on bench 60 for instance, and crossfired a shot onto bench 1's target, then shot my group on my own target, I would be penalized 1 inch plus the actual size of the group. But if I put 1 shot out of the record, but still on my own target, I get DQ'd. Didn't miss my target at all, get DQ'd. Put a shot all the way across the range and onto another competitor's target, and get a 1 inch penalty...Sounds like I'm picking on group, but score is the same way. If I put a shot to the left hand side of my #3 record, I would get a 0 for that shot. Only lose a single point for a crossfire though. Some of the rules make me scratch my head
M
Maddog
Guest
Brain dead
Exactly. Some people would like to argue that point though.
Finally we have an answer about how the rulebook got so screwed up...an engineer wrote it!!!. It has stood up to time and provided us well but is in need of some "updating." "Local interpretation" cannot be legislated.
The only way change can happen is to get an agenda item to be voted on at the annual meeting in PA. Now who thought up the idea of always holding the annual meeting in the heartland of benchrest????? and why must only the attendees of the annual meeting get to vote on agenda items???? and if those members who cannot attend the annual meeting are denied their right to vote does their dues get rebated becasue they cannot enjoy the full benefit of their membership???
This thread and some of the logic used is embarassing to me as a score shooter. it is no wonder that Score shooting is looked down on.
Exactly. Some people would like to argue that point though
.Finally we have an answer about how the rulebook got so screwed up...an engineer wrote it!!!
. It has stood up to time and provided us well but is in need of some "updating." "Local interpretation" cannot be legislated. The only way change can happen is to get an agenda item to be voted on at the annual meeting in PA. Now who thought up the idea of always holding the annual meeting in the heartland of benchrest????? and why must only the attendees of the annual meeting get to vote on agenda items???? and if those members who cannot attend the annual meeting are denied their right to vote does their dues get rebated becasue they cannot enjoy the full benefit of their membership???
This thread and some of the logic used is embarassing to me as a score shooter. it is no wonder that Score shooting is looked down on.
Jeff Stover
Member
I hope this settles this thread:
1. The first instance in the IBS rulebook in which the score crossfire appears is #5, issued, January 1976. It was not in the 1972 rulebook, but I am missing two issues beween 1972 and 1976, so it may have appeared earlier. I don't think Jim Borden started shooting until about 1978; obviously, he did NOT write the crossfire rule.
2. The 1976 rulebook initiated the language of deducting a point from the errant shot. It appears in the "course of fire" section"
3. OK, what about X's then?! X's were dealt with in another section dealing with "breaking of tie scores" in the classification section.
In today's rulebook match ties have been folded into the "scoring" section, but the counting of X's is still linked to the breaking of ties in a separate paragraph.
And as Paul Harvey says, "and that's the rest of the story..." Quick summary: you crossfire, no "X". Why would you expect one?
I don't think we need a rule clarification. If there are those that insist on it, by July 1, 2009 you can get a petition going and secure at least 25 signatures of IBS members for inclusion on the 2010 meeting agenda.
Jeff Stover
1. The first instance in the IBS rulebook in which the score crossfire appears is #5, issued, January 1976. It was not in the 1972 rulebook, but I am missing two issues beween 1972 and 1976, so it may have appeared earlier. I don't think Jim Borden started shooting until about 1978; obviously, he did NOT write the crossfire rule.
2. The 1976 rulebook initiated the language of deducting a point from the errant shot. It appears in the "course of fire" section"
3. OK, what about X's then?! X's were dealt with in another section dealing with "breaking of tie scores" in the classification section.
In today's rulebook match ties have been folded into the "scoring" section, but the counting of X's is still linked to the breaking of ties in a separate paragraph.
And as Paul Harvey says, "and that's the rest of the story..." Quick summary: you crossfire, no "X". Why would you expect one?
I don't think we need a rule clarification. If there are those that insist on it, by July 1, 2009 you can get a petition going and secure at least 25 signatures of IBS members for inclusion on the 2010 meeting agenda.
Jeff Stover
Last edited:
I guess Id paraphrash Maddog -post #68.
Id say the rules were written by a politician (legislator/lawyer).
As far as the voting-sounds like DC-taxation without representation.
I just became aware of 6 more quarters in the "state" series for the territories. DC will get one. It was proposed that the 'saying' on the coin would be-"Taxation without representation." Was disallowed-to controversial or not PC in my opinion.
Id say the rules were written by a politician (legislator/lawyer).
As far as the voting-sounds like DC-taxation without representation.
I just became aware of 6 more quarters in the "state" series for the territories. DC will get one. It was proposed that the 'saying' on the coin would be-"Taxation without representation." Was disallowed-to controversial or not PC in my opinion.
Pete Wass
Well-known member
The Idea
of Disqualifying a competitor for making an error to me is rediculous. With the cost involved in traveling to matches, why would an orginization want to disqualify anyone who hadn't broken safety rules and has all their equipment in spec?
I was comparing that to boxing. I have been watching the"Classic" fights lately and several of the ones I have watched were won by boxers who committed a low blow on the other fighter. The rule there is one point is deducted but if the injured fighter can't start the next round at the bell a TKO is awarded to the Perp. This would be sort of like a crossfire wouldn't it? One point deducted from the perp. They don't award an x for low blows so I guess we must be silent about that issue in this case.
of Disqualifying a competitor for making an error to me is rediculous. With the cost involved in traveling to matches, why would an orginization want to disqualify anyone who hadn't broken safety rules and has all their equipment in spec?
I was comparing that to boxing. I have been watching the"Classic" fights lately and several of the ones I have watched were won by boxers who committed a low blow on the other fighter. The rule there is one point is deducted but if the injured fighter can't start the next round at the bell a TKO is awarded to the Perp. This would be sort of like a crossfire wouldn't it? One point deducted from the perp. They don't award an x for low blows so I guess we must be silent about that issue in this case.
Last edited:
M
Maddog
Guest
I don't know who wrote the rules and I DON'T REALLY CARE. The problem is the lack of use/ total disregard or the "interpretation" of the rules.
As an example:
The PA States last year at Mainville, there was firing after cease fire. Several shooters acknowledged the infraction but after some "counseling" the referrees allowed the shooters to continue shooting without any discipline. a protest was filed and submitted. The Score Committee decided to not do anything about it and forwarded their reccommendation to the Executive Board who also choose to do nothing about the infractions. You read the rules and YOU decide if your elected representatives followed the written rule. One week before this match, at the Bridgeville, DE. State championship, shooters were DQ'd for firing after ceasefire.
This year at the Bud Pryor match at Thurmont a target was scored a 10. another shooter protested the target saying it was clearly a 9. after review, the refferees agreed and scored it a 9 and instructed the Statistician to record it as a 9. The chairman of the Score Committee interceded and over ruled the refferees, instructing the statistician to leave the score a 10 because the protest of the score was submitted beyond the allowable time limit for protests.
The section dealing with this under Score Shootig in section E5. it reads in part "Scores win be posted and thirty minutes allowed for protests....". the word "scores" has a letter attached to it that indicates plural, more than one. the "local interpretation" of this was that the offending target (singular) was posted for 30 minutes, that time had passed, and therefore the protest was invalid. HUH??? Whatever happened to doing the right thing??? In what section of the rulebook does it provide the Score Committee chairman authority to over rule refferees? You read the rules and YOU determine if the officials followed the rules as written.
Historically it has been convienient for some to say "just use common sense" while at other times the same people will say "read the rule book'. What good is reading the rulebook if it is not followed? How can the word "scores" be interpretted as a single score (target)???
Hal...
if you knowingly shoot a 0 on your own target you get a zero...you knew it was your target and you really screwed up. If you "think" you are on your own target but are, in fact, on your neighbor's and you own up to the mistake, you get penalized 1 point. That is the graciousness of the score game. --Greg
Here's a funny thought. If I were at Kelbley's and shooting on bench 60 for instance, and crossfired a shot onto bench 1's target, then shot my group on my own target, I would be penalized 1 inch plus the actual size of the group. But if I put 1 shot out of the record, but still on my own target, I get DQ'd. Didn't miss my target at all, get DQ'd. Put a shot all the way across the range and onto another competitor's target, and get a 1 inch penalty...Sounds like I'm picking on group, but score is the same way. If I put a shot to the left hand side of my #3 record, I would get a 0 for that shot. Only lose a single point for a crossfire though. Some of the rules make me scratch my head
if you knowingly shoot a 0 on your own target you get a zero...you knew it was your target and you really screwed up. If you "think" you are on your own target but are, in fact, on your neighbor's and you own up to the mistake, you get penalized 1 point. That is the graciousness of the score game
. --GregJeff Stover
Member
Maddog (I don't know who you are):
I thought we were talking about crossfires in score competition? The issues you raise are separate and distinct-I am aware of all of them.
The protest period clarification is being dealt with via an agenda at the annual meeting in January. In this case, the clarification is needed so that the duration of the protest period is clear to all and not arguable.
Jeff Stover
I thought we were talking about crossfires in score competition? The issues you raise are separate and distinct-I am aware of all of them.
The protest period clarification is being dealt with via an agenda at the annual meeting in January. In this case, the clarification is needed so that the duration of the protest period is clear to all and not arguable.
Jeff Stover
L
lws
Guest
Cassidy, What I wrote was, “the IBS rules which do not explicitly address the x-count, must be considered, regardless of the past precedence. Rules dictate, not opinion, in this example.”
And since the rulebook has been shoved down our throats during the past couple of years here in the Mid Atlantic, we have learned to use those rules. When a rule is not explicit, it makes for some issues, like this one. But let’s try to remember the reasons why there are rules to begin with and know that the rules can be written more concisely through an Agenda item. It's all we've got.
Realistically, an “X” is a subset of the 10-ring. If the 10-ring score is reduced by a penalty point of “1”, then logic would bear that the score was a flat “9”. Most do agree on this, as do I. But this is where the rule falls short. Since the rulebook does not address the “X”, explicitly, it only refers to the minus 1 point, there is a conflict and “interpretation” is being used. Stover’s statement about a tie-breaker is as close as has been found in the rules. So onward to writing an Agenda item. And yes, wording of the rule DOES need better clarification, Cassidy. Wayne and/or I will definitely submit one.
Jeff, I’m glad you decided to add to the thread because you really have taken time to search out some factual evidence that is presented well. Thank you. Issues like this one NEED to be discussed and hopefully, the issues will progress to a productive outcome. I’m amazed that the content in this thread is perceived as being so frustrating that anyone would want to reign it in rather than discussing it for a good outcome. These are the very issues that need attention so that there will never be a situation where someone has an “X” removed due to “interpretion” or “precedence”. Talk about frustrating….Would you want to be the shooter who has had an “interpretation” change your score?
And since the rulebook has been shoved down our throats during the past couple of years here in the Mid Atlantic, we have learned to use those rules. When a rule is not explicit, it makes for some issues, like this one. But let’s try to remember the reasons why there are rules to begin with and know that the rules can be written more concisely through an Agenda item. It's all we've got.
Realistically, an “X” is a subset of the 10-ring. If the 10-ring score is reduced by a penalty point of “1”, then logic would bear that the score was a flat “9”. Most do agree on this, as do I. But this is where the rule falls short. Since the rulebook does not address the “X”, explicitly, it only refers to the minus 1 point, there is a conflict and “interpretation” is being used. Stover’s statement about a tie-breaker is as close as has been found in the rules. So onward to writing an Agenda item. And yes, wording of the rule DOES need better clarification, Cassidy. Wayne and/or I will definitely submit one.
Jeff, I’m glad you decided to add to the thread because you really have taken time to search out some factual evidence that is presented well. Thank you. Issues like this one NEED to be discussed and hopefully, the issues will progress to a productive outcome. I’m amazed that the content in this thread is perceived as being so frustrating that anyone would want to reign it in rather than discussing it for a good outcome. These are the very issues that need attention so that there will never be a situation where someone has an “X” removed due to “interpretion” or “precedence”. Talk about frustrating….Would you want to be the shooter who has had an “interpretation” change your score?
Jeff, what Maddog is doing is showing a pattern that plagues IBS score shooting as a whole. This thread represents a small part of the problem with whats going on in the score community today. In the Score portion of the rulebook, there are a number of rules that seek to separate Score shooting from the rest of Benchrest as a whole. I don't know who wrote these rules, nor do I care. But in my mind, Benchrest is Benchrest, and all disciplines should be governed by the same General rules. But they are not. This years meeting has a couple of agenda items that would attempt to fix some of these issues. As everyone can see on the website though, the Score committee recommends against these items. The Score committee seems to want to keep all things Score under its control.
M
mike in co
Guest
may i ask a simple question ? i was not there, do not know the particulars.
is it possible that the term "scores" referes to all targets of a relay, but not all relays ?
if i'm off base to the given situtation...just tell me.
thanks
mike in co
Bob Kingsbury
New member
I can readily accept that a 9X cannot be shot. In this case it was not.
what was fired was a 10X. By way of the written rule, it becomes
something less, when transferred. This is the score given to the target,
it need not be tangible or logical. Simply the result of the rule applied,
as worded. No matter how an X is defined, it does have a value. Were
a 9 shot and converted to an 8, the penalty is 1 point. That a 10x
was shot and is converted to a 9 implies that if the shot was good enough,
its ok to take the gravy also. The rule seems clear
what was fired was a 10X. By way of the written rule, it becomes
something less, when transferred. This is the score given to the target,
it need not be tangible or logical. Simply the result of the rule applied,
as worded. No matter how an X is defined, it does have a value. Were
a 9 shot and converted to an 8, the penalty is 1 point. That a 10x
was shot and is converted to a 9 implies that if the shot was good enough,
its ok to take the gravy also. The rule seems clear