Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Badlands Bud #15821

Members
  • Content Count

    150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

Previous Fields

  • SASS Number or "Guest"
    15821
  • SASS Affiliated Club
    Murietta Posse

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,957 profile views
  1. For the sake of this discussion, and given historical precedent, let's say that isn't an option.
  2. I understand the desire to not have overall rank points influence category placement, but relative to the problem of inconsistent penalties, rank within categories would be even worse, especially in small categories. The issue that rank points cause is due to a conversion in the difference between two shooters measured in seconds scored as the number of shooters which fill the gap. This means that a difference of 10 seconds could be anywhere between 0 rank points and the number of shooters attending the match. As you get into smaller and smaller categories, the potential for extreme variation in the real penalty, as measured in rank points, gets worse. The effect of a 10-second penalty in wrangler is going to vary wildly from a 10-second penalty in frontiersman. I don't disagree that perhaps there should be some change to address the issue of overall rank interfering with the scoring of individual categories, but rank within category will not help the issue of variable (or non-existent) safety penalties. Again, rank within categories would increase, not decrease the chances of minimal or non-existent safety penalties. The issue of variable resolution in scoring due to rank points gets worse as the number of shooters in the scoring system is reduced. If you separate by category, you will always reduce the number of shooters being scored together. Unless you increase the safety penalty to some substantial number like 60 seconds, you will still have instances of minimal penalties for safety infractions without addressing the issue of different shooters on the same or different stages receiving different penalties for the same infraction. Why should the penalty for the same safety infraction be different for two different shooters simply because of where they placed in the score distribution? If the match is to be scored using rank points, why shouldn't a safety penalty be issued in the units used to score the match so that it is the same across all stages and throughout the score distribution? I could see an argument being made for allowing the miss or procedural penalties to vary based on stage design and score distribution, but I see no good argument for allowing safety penalties to do the same. Same safety infraction, same penalty would seem like the only logical desired outcome, and if we score matches using rank points, the only way to do this is to issue the penalty in rank points. Unless I'm missing something? Bud
  3. Creeker, with a set quantity of rank points for the penalty you would face an issue similar to the one we have now. Instead of having penalties which are variable depending on the distribution of scores, you would have penalties proportionally variable based upon the number of shooters attending. My idea was for a penalty in rank points which is a fixed proportion of the number of shooters attending. Thus if a MSV was a x% RP penalty at a 100 shooter match, the penalty would be x rank points. This would keep the penalty scaled for different sized matches. Edited for clarity.
  4. We're heading into the cold months, and that always brings about some old, re-hashed topics. One of those, which is sure to come up again, is the scoring system we use in this wonderful game. Rank points are loved and hated, feared and respected, but one way or another they are the scoring system used at SASS sanctioned State level and above matches. One of the issues that I and some others have frequently brought up concerning this scoring system is how penalties effect different shooters to different extents, even on the same stage. Within the rank point scoring system, two shooters at the same match on the same stage may incur a penalty for the same infraction, e.g. a miss, procedural, or safety infraction, and may receive differing numbers of rank points in penalty, potentially none at all. For example, if shooter A and shooter B are 122nd and 123rd on stage 6, shooter A beats shooter by 10.01 seconds, and incurs a MSV, no rank points will be added to his or her score. To some this brings no end of bother, and some people seem to simply not be bothered by it. Personally, I find the potential for an un-penalized safety infraction to be the most bothersome aspect of our scoring system. It would appear to me that, in a shooting sport of all games, safety must be emphasized to the utmost, and we must hold ourselves to its highest standards. This is not expressed in a scoring system which has the potential to place zero penalty on a shooter for a safety infraction. For years I have hoped that rank points would be thrown out in favor of a different scoring system, but it seems this may never happen. Instead, I would like to hear the Wire's thoughts on altering the penalty for safety infractions. Instead of issuing a penalty in seconds, which are not the units used to score a match, why couldn't safety penalties be issued in rank points? It would be fairly easy conceptually to insert wording into the rules in which SASS sanctioned state or above matches shall issue penalties in rank points for safety infractions of X% of total shooters with X being between Y and Z. While there will surely be no end of discussion as to what Y and Z should be, much less X at each match, this would at least address the penalty issue, and ensure that all shooters who incur a safety penalty are in fact penalized for their safety infraction. It would allow flexibility for match directors to set the penalty to what their clubs consider to be a reasonable penalty, and it would allow SASS to show a greater emphasis on safety, which some may speculate has become or continues to be somewhat lax. Keeping in mind that this is the result of idle pondering, has not been submitted as a rule proposal, and is hypothetical to the greatest degree, what do y'all have to say about that? Badlands (what's quite interested to see where this goes) Bud
  5. Your inbox is full.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.