Hit/Miss Rapid Fire final on paper targets.

[brucef]

At the recent Australia Cup held in Brisbane, the peak organising body canceled plans to host a Final for the Rapid Fire event; claiming were too many issues to overcome shooting the Final on paper targets.(ie No ISSF rules for RF Finals on paper targets.)
The shooters only found out about this the day before the match, and to say we were a little bit cheesed off is a slight understatement.

So....
The shooters organised a 'practice' session and invited the top 6 RF shooters from the main event to participate.


It went something like this....

The 6 shooters, each with their own bank of targets, fired their finals series as one detail under one set of range commands.
ie, "Load", 60 seconds later, "Attention", targets turn away, face the shooter after 7 seconds, all shooters shoot the series together, "Stop, Unload, Score... " then repeat as necessary.

Scoring was done indicating the position of the shot on the target and calling 'Hit' or 'Miss'.
The total was then announced to the crowd and entered into a spreadsheet for displaying on the range thru a data projector.

The entire 'non final' took 50 minutes including sighters, 1 malfunction re-run and 2 shootoffs. (By the way, running a 10 shot Air Final takes about 45 min, including reporting time, if you follow the ISSF rules to the letter.)

The crowd and shooters enjoyed practising the 'non final', especially the shooter in 6th place after the match who ended up in 3rd position. (Helps when the scores restart again from zero.)
He is a local club shooter who was 40 points behind from the match, but beat last years National champion and another shooter who is the only current 'Master' grade (575+) rapid fire shooter in Australia.

This was the first time we have tried to run this sort of final (first time in Australia anyway, but we do tend to take the initiative here in Bris!), and no doubt will get more efficient and better with practice.

Things we might try differently....
Calling 'Zero' instead of 'Miss' - 'Zero' seemed to be easier to hear and more distinguishable from 'Hit', especially in the noise from the crowd.
'Premarking' targets with a circle at 9.7 - this would save 'guaging shots as there were upto 7 or 8 'guaged' shots in a series across all 6 shooters.
Modifying the spreadsheet to have the option to automatically sort the shooters names by current rankings.
(We just had a column showing current placings, would need to have the names revert back into 'bay positions' when entering the scores for the next series to would save any confusion.)
And I will look at updating Open for Windows to the new format for RF.


I really hope the 'officials' in Australia take this onboard and make the canged needed in our Associations rules to allow this sort of finals format to be recognised.

If anyone has any questions or suggestions, I would love to hear them as we are still trying to figure out the best way to do this.

Thanks
Bruce F

[j-team]

Hi Bruce

Seems that you have found a resonable solution, providing you have a range that can have 6 shooters firing at the same time.

Did you apply any penalty for late shots? If so, how was this done?

Also, how many range staff were used? Or, did the shooters do the scoring and patching themselves?

[brucef]

We did not have any late shots, but it would have been a deduction as per the rules. (Backing targets would indicate if it was a totally missed target or just a late shot but we did not worry about that for our 'non final'.)
We has 1 'caller' (person who called Hit/Miss) and 1 patcher per range. (total 6 people)
The 'scorer' (person who recorded on paper and the spreadsheet) walked from range to range back at the firing line and recorded the results as they were called. The scorer stood where the shooters were; so it helped ensure that the shooters could hear the hit/miss being called.
We could have used just the 3 people as we have access behind the ranges to the get thru to the next, but we had spare people looking to get involved so setup a 'crew' for each range. Having the extra people on the other ranges helps as they could check their targets for any close shots while Range 1 was being called, this saved a bit of time as they could then call the scores without a delay.
Thanks Bruce

[milevsport]

Great ideas. It was the way it went in Wiesbaden, Germany on the Rapid Fire Week this year (from what I've been told). Having target with added 9.7 ring will help and maybe the target companies should consider changing it.
I also think it will be great to have falling targets made. it will be like in biathlon - the plate is 124 mm and if you hit it, it falls. easy to score, than pull the rope to fix the targets for the next shooter. For the purpose of local matches it even can be done on reduced targets on closer distance. You even can have the lights on.

[IPshooter]

Great to hear how to run a RF final on paper targets. How did you score the 9.7?

Until the target makers add the ring, you could have a clear plastic sheet printed with the scoring rings and the 9.7 ring and use it as an overlay.

Stan

[Jack Milchanowski]

Great way to get 'er done!

[Spencer]

...Until the target makers add the ring...
Stan

It might take a brave target supplier to print targets with a 9.7 ring - tucked away in 6.16.7 is "The actual size of the hit zone to be used in ISSF Championship Finals may be adjusted by the ISSF Executive Committee".

[j-team]

...Until the target makers add the ring...
Stan

It might take a brave target supplier to print targets with a 9.7 ring - tucked away in 6.16.7 is "The actual size of the hit zone to be used in ISSF Championship Finals may be adjusted by the ISSF Executive Committee".

And, the entire format might be different on Jan 1st 2013.

[brucef]

Yes, I am sure the format will change again.
One of the main reasons the format was changed because there were no medalists in the last half of the 2008 Olympic Final (2 lots of 3 shooters)
We had the situation in Bris where 1st, 2nd, and 3rd were decided in the sixth series, as there was that much of a gap in the scores. The placings could not have changed regardless of the score in the last round. I wonder what the ISSF would do if that were the case in London... It was actually a bit of an anti-climax when the winner was obvious before the final was finished.
Bruce F

[john bickar]

the shooter in 6th place after the match who ended up in 3rd position...was 40 points behind from the match

Just let that sink in...

[RobStubbs]

It was actually a bit of an anti-climax when the winner was obvious before the final was finished.
Bruce F

I know it's a circular argument, but surely that's the result of shooting 60 good shots ? Which is the main part of the match (shot count wise). When a shooter is 30 points off and medals, that to me is unjust.

Rob.

[JamesH]

Big deal, the person who ran the best 100m qualifying time may still come last.

It does seem gimmicky, and is steadily turning a lot of shooters off rapidfire.

[RobStubbs]

Big deal, the person who ran the best 100m qualifying time may still come last.

And the chicken that lays the biggest egg has a sore butt - your point is ?

Sorry just following with an equally irrelevant comment.

Rob.

[Spencer]

the shooter in 6th place after the match who ended up in 3rd position...was 40 points behind from the match

Just let that sink in...

from the spread of scores for the seven shooters in the qualification round, it is not all that surprising - http://www.ausshooting.org/competitions ... esults.pdf

[David Levene]

Big deal, the person who ran the best 100m qualifying time may still come last.

And the chicken that lays the biggest egg has a sore butt - your point is ?

I think what James was trying to say is that the competition has changed. The qualification round is now no more than that; it allows you to shoot in the final.

James' analogy was actually spot on. You could set a new World Record in the qualifying rounds of the 100m. That means nothing though with regards to medals; they are awarded solely on your performance in the final. If you fall over in the final then you get nothing. The only difference is that in the 100m the final is the same "course of fire" as the previous rounds; in RFP it is a different course.

It is therefore a different competition to the one we used to have. Whether you like it or not, that's the way it is.

[Mike M.]

I think what's driving people away from RF, aside from the scarcity of RF bays, is the constant changes in the rules.

I could buy off on going to the .22LR pistols as a standardization measure. I can buy off on hit/miss scoring. But a 9.7 as a hit? Has anyone at ISSF headquarters priced Suis-Ascor targets lately? An overlay is silly...if you are going to use this approach, just use the 10 ring.

The rule set MUST be written around the average range, not the high-end electronic targets. I can accept hit/miss scoring - the pre-1960s Olympic Rapid Fire event used it (as well as a 2-sec string) - but it's got to be practical for small clubs.

[j-team]

James' analogy was actually spot on.

Not quite.

Now it would be like running 100m which was timed to 100th of a second to qualify for the final. Then have the final in which you had to run only 10 metres six times over and it is timed only to the nearest whole second to determine the winner.

[David Levene]

James' analogy was actually spot on.

Not quite.

Now it would be like running 100m which was timed to 100th of a second to qualify for the final. Then have the final in which you had to run only 10 metres six times over and it is timed only to the nearest whole second to determine the winner.

As I said, "The only difference is that in the 100m the final is the same "course of fire" as the previous rounds; in RFP it is a different course." I obviously therefore agree with your "Not quite".

In neither example is your performance in the qualification rounds a factor, other than mentally or your starting location, in your chance of medalling.

The new rules ensure that the fight for the medals all happens in the final rather than hours, or even the day, before.

[brucef]

Maybe the ISSF should drop the qualification score out of all Finals? Why should Air, 50m, Sport, 3P Rifle, Trap etc be different ?

Anyway, we are getting away from the intent of the original post.
Has anyone else run a RF Final on paper ? Would love to hear any other ideas.

Thanks Bruce F

PS. for those interested, I have attached the spreadsheet we used for the scoring. (Excel file)

[Bob-Riegl]

Now I am sure Dave Levene will straighten me out---but the new finals I saw on You tube showed a new type of finals using the five targets ---each shooter got 4 seconds for five shots and the scoring was simple 10 or 0, After 5 rds for each competitor started the elimination rounds until one person was standing with the highest or the fewest outs. Thats's the way I remember the video---which has been removed by ISSF. "Doc"