P10 finals on paper targets

[rmca]

Two questions:

First:

Should there be more than 150 seconds for the first 3+3 shots if you're doing one shot per target? Or would it be preferable to do all three shots on the same target so no time is wasted changing them.

Second:

If one of the eight shooters can't make it to the final what happens?
Does he still maintain is place in the qualification score table or should he be considered a DNF? Does the final still have 20 shots total or just 18?

Thanks

[Spencer]

Two questions:

First:

Should there be more than 150 seconds for the first 3+3 shots if you're doing one shot per target? Or would it be preferable to do all three shots on the same target so no time is wasted changing them...

While Finals are on EST, many ranges will only have paper targets available,and want to conduct Finals. Many ranges will be in this situation
Decimal scoring three shots a card should be 'do-able'

Second:

If one of the eight shooters can't make it to the final what happens?
Does he still maintain is place in the qualification score table or should he be considered a DNF? Does the final still have 20 shots total or just 18?

Thanks

- Qualification score stands
- DNS for the Final
- so that the Finals scores are comparable, the last two will need to have 20 shots.
- 7th shooter drops out after 10th Finals shot.

[RobStubbs]

Two questions:

First:

Should there be more than 150 seconds for the first 3+3 shots if you're doing one shot per target? Or would it be preferable to do all three shots on the same target so no time is wasted changing them...

While Finals are on EST, many ranges will only have paper targets available,and want to conduct Finals. Many ranges will be in this situation
Decimal scoring three shots a card should be 'do-able'

I'm going to disagree. ISSF rules are a single shot per card so that's what should be adopted for the finals and in which case it has to be 50 seconds per card, and I'd suggest cards scored at the end of those 3 shots. Trying to decimally score 3 shots on a single card is (IMO) asking for trouble and delays, especially with keyhole groups.

3-shots per card could be shot, but then the finals could only be claimed to be shot 'in the spirit of ISSF rules'.

Rob.

[rmca]

Thanks for the reply Spencer and Rob.

It seams like a double edge sword... You either ask for trouble going for three shots on one card in 150 seconds, or disregard the 150 seconds and go for 20 one shots in 50 seconds...

Either way you're still not complying with the rules... Do you think this would be addressed in the near future by the ISSF?

I know that the finals are intended for electronic targets, but like the difference in match time form electronic to paper, there should be a provision made for finals on paper targets.

Thanks

[Spencer]

Two questions:

First:

Should there be more than 150 seconds for the first 3+3 shots if you're doing one shot per target? Or would it be preferable to do all three shots on the same target so no time is wasted changing them...

While Finals are on EST, many ranges will only have paper targets available,and want to conduct Finals. Many ranges will be in this situation
Decimal scoring three shots a card should be 'do-able'

I'm going to disagree. ISSF rules are a single shot per card so that's what should be adopted for the finals and in which case it has to be 50 seconds per card, and I'd suggest cards scored at the end of those 3 shots. Trying to decimally score 3 shots on a single card is (IMO) asking for trouble and delays, especially with keyhole groups.

3-shots per card could be shot, but then the finals could only be claimed to be shot 'in the spirit of ISSF rules'.

Rob.

Yes....and no...

Finals rules are on the basis of EST (specified in 6.17+++) and if paper targets are used, there is no practical method of reproducing the immediacy of EST.

Once paper targets are used, the Finals would be 'in the spirit of ISSF rules' anyhow.

There is a 'flow' to Finals on EST that is lost when the whole process is put on hold while paper targets are scored.
My suggestion of scoring the first six shots as 2 x three shots per card comes from attempting to maintain a reasonable 'flow'.

While the original post relates to 10m Air Pistol, the situation paralleled for 50m, and is even more interesting for 25m Finals.

[RobStubbs]

Spencer, agreed but with 3 separate cards the first two can be scored whilst shot 3 is happening so delay shouldn't be too bad. Unfortunately the rules have gone further and further away from paper, which is a shame as it further alienates the grass roots.

Rob.

[rmca]

Spencer, agreed but with 3 separate cards the first two can be scored whilst shot 3 is happening so delay shouldn't be too bad.

I don't think that the scoring part is the major issue, although there lies one big vipers nest. The fact that you have to change paper targets two times during the 150 seconds does take some precious time away, especially if the target carrier system isn't that fast. Then you have to give that target to the referee or put it somewhere were he can pick it up without disrupting the others shooters. And then put in a new target. Worst still for 10m air rifle...

After thinking about it I believe that the best option would be to break the 150 seconds part into three 50 seconds shoots. Not perfect but it would be the best compromise in my opinion...

[brucef]

We ran a new final back in Nov, and did it starting with 3 shots on a single paper target in 150 sec. (560 to 570 level shooters) We scored the targets thru a Rika scoring machine - no problems. The Rika gave a decimal total of all 3 shots (ie 28.7 or 30.2 etc). The Rika had no problems with multiple shots including several targets with 'doubles'. The whole final took about 30min with results updated onto an Excel spreadsheet displayed via a projector onto a large screen for the spectators.
It was an interesting excercise from both the spectators and competitors point of view. There were quite a few changes in the lead as 2 (or 3) good vs poor shots can make or break a score.
The only draw back is that it is hard to tell how 'close' the scores are between shooters that drop out of the final as the 'departing' competitors score will be 2 shots different to the next. (It may have only been 0.1 point between 3rd ant 4th but because 3rd place gets to shoot 2 more shots you can really see how close it was at the end of the final.)
Thanks Bruce F, Brisbane, Aus.

[David Levene]

The only draw back is that it is hard to tell how 'close' the scores are between shooters that drop out of the final as the 'departing' competitors score will be 2 shots different to the next. (It may have only been 0.1 point between 3rd ant 4th but because 3rd place gets to shoot 2 more shots you can really see how close it was at the end of the final.)

Hi Bruce

If you use a "data entry" sheet (probably in lane order) to automatically feed a "ranking" sheet then it's quite easy to just compare the relevant shots on that latter sheet. (With your computing skills I'm sure you already know that)

Initially it seems that it would be easy to include any shoot-offs, but it becomes a lot more untidy if a shooter is involved in 2 shoot-offs.

[Joakim]

Yes, it's easy to achieve in a spreadsheet, but the design of static (PDF/printed) result lists must still be solved in some way. In most lists I've seen so far, the individual shots (or 3-/2-shot groups) are listed, and then just the total score, which is pretty much pointless as, apart from the gold and silver medallists, there's nothing to compare them to. So if the reader wants to know how close to a medal the 4th-placed competitor was (for example), he has to sum up the numbers himself. Certainly not optimal for anyone, least of all for sports journalists and other non-shooters.

The natural remedy is to list everybody's total score at each elimination point, as in this Wikipedia article. That's very clear, but needless to say it makes for wider pages, or smaller text, for 20-shot finals, not to speak of the 45-shot finals… Also, it gets cluttered if it's combined into the qualification result list—which, frankly, I don't see a point of doing anymore.

Do the rules give any guidance for this?

[Joakim]

Yes, it's easy to achieve in a spreadsheet, but the design of static (PDF/printed) result lists must still be solved in some way. In most lists I've seen so far, the individual shots (or 3-/2-shot groups) are listed, and then just the total score, which is pretty much pointless as, apart from the gold and silver medallists, there's nothing to compare them to. So if the reader wants to know how close to a medal the 4th-placed competitor was (for example), he has to sum up the numbers himself. Certainly not optimal for anyone, least of all for sports journalists and other non-shooters.

The natural remedy is to list everybody's total score at each elimination point, as in this Wikipedia article. That's very clear, but needless to say it makes for wider pages, or smaller text, for 20-shot finals, not to speak of the 45-shot finals… Also, it gets cluttered if it's combined into the qualification result list—which, frankly, I don't see a point of doing anymore.

Do the rules give any guidance for this?

To answer myself, I think the way SIUS is doing it at the European Championships is very nice and clear.

[David Levene]

To answer myself, I think the way SIUS is doing it at the European Championships is very nice and clear.

I was thinking exactly the same thing myself.