How to make RFP Finals work on paper targets

[Spencer]

Has anybody come up with a workable procedure for RFP Finals on paper targets?
Here in AUS we only have one 25m range with EST: the rest are paper on turning target mechanisms.

I have posted some considerations here

[Alex L]

Hi Spencer,
When we worked at the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne, 2006, in the RF section the time it took to score and patch paper targets was 1minute 45 seconds for the best time, - and we were standing ready at the end of the tunnel, so had quick access to the targets.
We found it hard and exhausting by the end of the day.
You would need to have a tunnel at each range, as MISC has.
And that was a different format - it was under the Old rules.

I think you are looking for a miracle solution. I cannot see it working with Paper targets, - only on an electronic range like Sydney!

This would be an additional expense to any club to make the necessary alterations for a tunnel at each side of the ranges.

Of the 3 alternatives you give, I can only see an Overlay working - as once a patch was over a line, the plug guage would not work. So targets would need to be changed -- even if there was only one shot on it.

As far as having TV come to video the finals - the guys will Not hang around for the "quiet" time while you are scoring and patching , because it will take so long to cover the whole range. I reckon 6 shooters in this sort of finals will add at least half an hour to the proceedings.

Jenny G. could probably confirm some of the times we took to score the R/F events.

Good luck with this. I vote for all the Nationals to be held in Sydney!
As a taxpayer we paid for it!! Alex L.

[brucef]

Simple - the easiest way would be to have the 6 shooters fire at their own bank of targets all at once - just like in the match (and previous RF Final rules). Then score the targets with an overlay.

Scoring would be faster than the old finals (and even the main match) as it is either in or out of the 9.7 area - no need to guage an 8 into a 9; or use the overlay if it is obviously a 10, or less than a 9. (I would still use the normal RF target as it would help make it much easier to see that it is in or out of the 9.7 zone').

Yes, you need to have the 1 minute to load, call Attention, shoot.... clear the guns, score then do it all again. Malfunctions will slow the process down a little but hopefully there would not be too many of them in a 6 person final.

I reckon you could do it faster than the 30 minutes taken on electronic targets in Munich the other week, or the 40 minutes at the recent Sydney Aus Cup. (that is the local Aus Cup, not the upcoming World Cup; I reckon that might be even slower with all the shooter presentations and stuffing about...)

It might even be more exciting as you call all shooters scores one after the other - not having a break waiting for the next shooter to fire. (Even I got bored watching the ISSF TV video of the RF Final - ok for the first 5 minutes then skipped thru to the last 5 minutes when it got serious.)

Funny how RF started being scored by just the number of hits - good to see we have progressed to the past...

[lastman]

You could also have a target made up with a singular 9.7 scoring ring.

That way scoring will take very little time and will be as simple as "Hit" or "Miss"

As far as smaller ranges go where you can have 6 shooters in a line shooting all at once. You can have 3 sets of 2 shooters.

1st 2 shoot their series and they switch their benches with the next 2 while scoring is happening and so on thorough the series. Similar in theory to how clay target shooters rotate.

[Spencer]

We want to keep as close to the ISSF rules as possible.

[Spencer]

You could also have a target made up with a singular 9.7 scoring ring.

That way scoring will take very little time and will be as simple as "Hit" or "Miss"

As far as smaller ranges go where you can have 6 shooters in a line shooting all at once. You can have 3 sets of 2 shooters.

1st 2 shoot their series and they switch their benches with the next 2 while scoring is happening and so on thorough the series. Similar in theory to how clay target shooters rotate.

I doubt that a 'special' target would be any faster to score and would be expensive to do a small print run.

In AUS, any range that is likely to run a competition with Finals would have at least three 25m range sections. We have lots of ISSF style ranges here, but only one with 25m EST.

[JamesH]

Is decimal scoring the worst idea to hit shooting?

9.7 Is now the bullseye?

I'd go back to simple scoring with an X count for ties and be done.

[David Levene]

We want to keep as close to the ISSF rules as possible.

That's the big problem Spencer.

As we've discussed "offline", it's all very well suggesting changes to the shooting pattern but they would interfere with the whole idea of a final that flows quickly from one shooter to the next. If you try to get away from that then you can run any finals format you want; they will all be meaningless when compared to the ISSF version.

I wish there was an easy answer. I did make a suggestion during the discussion at http://www.targettalk.org/viewtopic.php?t=29142 but I still wonder whether it would be worth the effort.

[David Levene]

Is decimal scoring the worst idea to hit shooting?

9.7 Is now the bullseye?

I'd go back to simple scoring with an X count for ties and be done.

Any scoring method other than decimal scoring is arbitrary. What is so magic about the dimensions of the scoring rings that makes an X so much better than a 10 or a 10(.0) so much better than a 9(.9).

This is however nothing to do with the finals. They are designed to maximize spectator appeal, so need to be short, exciting and easy to understand.

[RobStubbs]

I really don't think you can run the new finals on paper targets. To manually have to change and score the cards defeats the objectives of the exercise. Actually just checked and the rules now specifically say the finals must be shot on electronics (6.16.7 - 21st Feb 11).

Rob.

[Spencer]

I really don't think you can run the new finals on paper targets. To manually have to change and score the cards defeats the objectives of the exercise. Actually just checked and the rules now specifically say the finals must be shot on electronics (6.16.7 - 21st Feb 11).

Rob.

the thread relates to a method to conduct RFP Finals in competitions at ranges that do not have EST - these are not ISSF Sanctioned Championships.

[RobStubbs]

the thread relates to a method to conduct RFP Finals in competitions at ranges that do not have EST - these are not ISSF Sanctioned Championships.

Without drammatically changing targets, I still can't see how this can be acheived. You have to ask yourself also if you do have to go and score, is the finals going to be so far removed from the new finals philosophy that you're better off playing 'old rules' or cobbling something together - for example a pair of shooters both shooting at 2 banks of targets together - then do the 'scoring' or 'hitting' markings.

Rob.

[JamesH]

Is decimal scoring the worst idea to hit shooting?

9.7 Is now the bullseye?

I'd go back to simple scoring with an X count for ties and be done.

Any scoring method other than decimal scoring is arbitrary. What is so magic about the dimensions of the scoring rings that makes an X so much better than a 10 or a 10(.0) so much better than a 9(.9).

This is however nothing to do with the finals. They are designed to maximize spectator appeal, so need to be short, exciting and easy to understand.

Using decimal scoring which only goes to one decimal place is just as arbitrary. Why should a 9.9 be so much better than a 9.8?
I'd go to three places at least, then you don't get that arbitrary cut off between 9.85 being rounded up to 9.9 and 9.84 being rounded down to 9.8.

But really, decimal scoring for the match and then the final is determined by a hit/miss 9.7 bullseye? Its bizarre.

[David Levene]

But really, decimal scoring for the match ...

What decimal scoring for the match?

[JamesH]

Ah, I thought the match had gone over to decimal scoring.

I still see no reason for it in any situation, surely shootoffs are more 'exciting' than seeing a range officer scoring with a plastic overlay?