SASS Scoring - Important Notice!

[Crazy Mingo]

Heeee Haaaa Thank You Misty

[Jackaroo, # 29989]

9 hours ago, Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217 said:

This was mentioned on the TG wire. I agree with one poster that it creates a burden on the folks doing scores.

 

I'm with the commonly used 5 seconds times the round count + 30 seconds.

So using that method a shooter who has a SDQ on a stage with 6 shotgun (say 26 targets) gets penalised more than his competitor on a stage that has on 2 or 4 shotgun.??

Better make sure you sdq on a lessor target stage???

So do we make all stages 10 + 10 + 4...boring.

[Boon Doggle]

AMAZING!   Been playing at this game for over 10 years now (I know I'm just a young'un compared to some of y'all) but one of the first arguments I can recall on the wire was RP vs TT.  Most of the members seemed to want TT, while the powers the be'd wanted RP.  The powers that be always won that arguement.  Well now after TJD laid out a very good visual  arguement for TT the scoring system has changed.  But still the arguement goes on.  The wire sounds just like a bunch of Washington Politicos trying to decide which bathroom their constituents should use.

 

Isn't it time we moved on to more important things?   Ford, Mary Ann, "The Dance".

[Dogmeat Dad, SASS #48563L]

4 minutes ago, Boon Doggle said:

AMAZING!   Been playing at this game for over 10 years now (I know I'm just a young'un compared to some of y'all) but one of the first arguments I can recall on the wire was RP vs TT.  Most of the members seemed to want TT, while the powers the be'd wanted RP.  The powers that be always won that arguement.  Well now after TJD laid out a very good visual  arguement for TT the scoring system has changed.  But still the arguement goes on.  The wire sounds just like a bunch of Washington Politicos trying to decide which bathroom their constituents should use.

 

Isn't it time we moved on to more important things?   Ford, Mary Ann, "The Dance".

 

I think that the comment "Most of the Members seemed to want TT", depends greatly on the area where you typically shoot and what is used there.  Some areas, like the South East (and apparently Texas) use TT almost exclusively.  Other areas, such as the MidAtlantic use RP almost exclusively.  Shooter preference has a lot to do with what you are used to using, but since we have never actually asked ALL of the membership that question, we don't truly know.

 

My main issue with this change, is that the process that was followed to implement the change did not follow the defined procedure established by the TG's for implementing rule changes.  Certainly, there was a Vote of the TGs present at EOT, but that group of TGs only constituted a small number of the total number of TGs.  In addition, there was no advance notice to the other TGs that a vote was pending, and thus no opportunity for the TGs to poll their club membership so they could make their opinions known through their vote.  Quite possibly the outcome would have been the same, we will never know, but by not giving membership the opportunity to have their say, we have basically returned to the situation we had in the early days, when a small group of people dictated how the game is played.  It's just that this time, it is a small group of TG's as opposed to the Wild Bunch.

 

Personally I don't really care which scoring mechanism is used, as long as it is used consistently at every Championship match, (State & Above) and is formally documented in the rules.  At the moment, TT still is lacking a few important details, such as defining what the "Official" SDQ and MDQ times are to be and what process will be used to break ties.  Get those nailed down, documented, and the SASS Software updated accordingly, and we are good to go.

 

Just my $0.02,

 

Dogmeat Dad

 

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

2 hours ago, Boon Doggle said:

AMAZING!   Been playing at this game for over 10 years now (I know I'm just a young'un compared to some of y'all) but one of the first arguments I can recall on the wire was RP vs TT.  Most of the members seemed to want TT, while the powers the be'd wanted RP.  The powers that be always won that arguement.  Well now after TJD laid out a very good visual  arguement for TT the scoring system has changed.  But still the arguement goes on.  The wire sounds just like a bunch of Washington Politicos trying to decide which bathroom their constituents should use.

 

Isn't it time we moved on to more important things?   Ford, Mary Ann, "The Dance".

Excuse me,

 

No one is arguing. It seems to me that mature adults, are discussing some finer details of the, "new to Regionals and above," scoring method.

 

If you don't have anything constructive to post, specifically a suggestion to resolve the questions, pleas spare us from the condescending comments.

 

Regards,

 

Allie

[Jingles Jerr SASS #5463 L]

My club has been informed.

[Jackaroo, # 29989]

This debate will have no end because regardless of what system is used there will probably always be conflicting results between time and rank.

Just for example today at our work shirkers shoot, the time/rank thing exposed the same very issue.

There were two different winners, 3rd & 4th swapped places and 4 other placings that's were other way round.??

So just as we've had mainly very fast shooters and others I might add, advocating to go to TT in the belief it's a fairer system, there will be now other shooters saying " if it had been rank scoring I would have done.....etc. etc.

So it ain't going away, no matter how good a presentation was presented at the TG meeting.

Imho, TT doesn't level the playing field, rank does that far better as all stages are different in layout, targets movement etc, which allows shooters to shoot according to the stage layout, maybe be a bit conservative here and there and others go for broke. With TT it's go for broke whatever, cause it's the time that going to count, and not much else, to me anyway.

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating as to how it works out in the future, as it must be given a go I suppose.

As I see it, the most important problem to be sorted is the SDQ issue, unless every stage has the same number of targets, it is totally unfair at present.

My suggestion would be just to make SDQs all 150 secs and MDQs 200 secs, I don't know if that's a simple solution or not, but in rank it's 999.90 anyway?

The other issue is breaking a tie, and we all know how it's done with rank points.

But do we go back to rank points to break a tie, I hope not, cause with TT I don't think the rank points should even be displayed, this even might have the effect of taking away the " if it had been ..arguement...etc.etc.

I'm sure greater minds than mine will come up with a solution.

The debate continues !!

 

 

 

 

[Dogmeat Dad, SASS #48563L]

3 hours ago, Jackaroo, # 29989 said:

This debate will have no end because regardless of what system is used there will probably always be conflicting results between time and rank.

 

I cannot agree more with that statement.  Whatever scoring system is picked, and none of them is perfect, it is going to favor a particular group/style of shooter.  The real key to trying to determine the best scoring system is to find the one that disfavors the fewest number of shooters.   Not a trivial task, as we all has seen.

 

There is no question that the Rank Point system used by SASS had, at least in my opinion, problems with the way penalties were applied across the range of shooters but I think the biggest problem was the fact that shooters from different categories could affect each other’s finishing position.  That could probably have been addressed in other ways, but that horse has left the barn, the barn has been burned to the ground, and the ground has been plowed under.  Total Time is the new standard so we just need to do the best we can to fix any flaws or weaknesses as we find them and move forward.

 

Depending on one’s perspective, Total Time can also be viewed has having weaknesses, which I think can be seen in the following example.  Let’s say we have a 6 Stage match.  Shooter 1 is beating Shooter 2 by 0.20 seconds per stage on every stage, except the Stage 6.  On Stage 6, Shooter 1 short strokes his rifle and has to re-lever to chamber a round, which costs him 1.00 seconds.  Scores look something like this.

 

                      Stage 1          Stage 2          Stage 3          Stage 4         Stage 5         Stage 6            Total
Shooter 1        18.20             20.20             21.80             19.40             19.80             21.40            120.80
Shooter 2        18.40             20.40             22.00             19.60             20.00             20.40            120.80

 

The shooters end in a tie so, as has been stated elsewhere in this thread, the current the way to resolve this tie, is to count how many stages they each won.  Shooter 1 won 5, and Shooter 2 won 1 so, as everyone would probably expect, Shooter 1 won the match.  Seems logical, seems like what one would expect, and all is right in the SASS world.

 

Now, let’s change the scenario ever so slightly.  This time, the effort to re-lever the rifle on Stage 6 costs Shooter 1 an additional 1.01 seconds.  The scores would now look something like this.

 

                      Stage 1          Stage 2          Stage 3          Stage 4         Stage 5         Stage 6            Total
Shooter 2        18.40             20.40             22.00             19.60             20.00             20.40            120.80
Shooter 1        18.20             20.20             21.80             19.40             19.80             21.41            120.81
 

In this case, under the Total Time Scenario, Shooter 2 would win the match beating Shooter 1 by 0.01 seconds.  No tie break is required, and once again all is right with the SASS world, or is it?  Shooter 1 still beat Shooter 2 on 5 of the 6 stages, and only lost 1 of the 6 Stages and that by .01 seconds but, under Total Time, that’s all it takes.  The number of stages in which you beat your competitor has no bearing, other than in a Tie Break scenario, on your finish.  While it may seem counter-intuitive that he could win 5 of the 6 and still lose, that is the kind of situation that can/will occur under Total Time.  More importantly, it is a completely legitimate outcome under those rules, how the individuals feel about it not withstanding.

 

Granted these are simplistic examples, but ultimately it all really comes down to one thing.  Should the match be considered one giant continuous competition with no regard for the individual stage performance, or is it a series of discrete competitions with each stage individually calculated and the results combined?  Both are completely legitimate ways to determine the outcome, but they will at times create completely different results.  Neither mechanism is really wrong nor right, they are just different ways of looking at the same event.

 

I have never heard if anyone had performed a formal analysis of Rank By Category, and I sure would have liked to have read it if someone had.  It seems to me, at least intuitively, that Rank By Category would have minimized the dissimilar treatment of penalties, (primarily due to the smaller number of shooter in each category than in the whole match) amongst the shooters.  With today’s computer scoring systems, it would have been trivial to have run those calculations to select the Category winners and would have eliminated the problem where someone shooting Frontier Cartridge affected the placement of someone shooting Cowboy.  If the desire still existed to determine an Overall Match Winner, then running that calculation using Total Time makes complete sense as you are basically determining who shot the “Whole Match” the fastest and, with Rank By Category, there is no way to combine those results to do that anyway.  Again, not perfect, but probably as good a compromise as we would ever likely see.  But that is just my idle speculation from my addled brain after another 16 hours workday.  I am not advocating for Rank by category, its just an idle thought experiment, which I must confess, is one of the many diseases of the Engineering profession!

 

At the end of the day, some will be happy with TT, some will not be happy with TT, and for the vast majority of shooters it just won’t matter.  SASS and Cowboy Action Shooting will continue to provide entertainment/competition to those who continue to play for as long as they continue to play.

 

Dogmeat (7 Days, 12 Hours, 44 Minutes Until Vacation) Dad

[Texas Jack Daniels]

Hi DM.  I see right off we agree the systems produce different answers. And I think we at aligned on nearly everything.  But you did ask one question.

 

I have done rank by category analysis and compared it to total time and overall ranking systems.  Literally hundreds of matches.  Probably 70,000 sample points. .  The fundamental problem is that you cannot use it and then get overall winners unless you use a separate scoring system.  When you do that all hell breaks lose.  For example the person who comes in 3rd using rank by category wins the match overall.  Yes, that happened. 

 

Also the fundamental question is a match ???

1) A Nascar race (lap winners and a who crosses the finish line in the end  aka Total Time)

2) The world series (who wins the most stages)

 

This is not a math question.  It is a philosophy question, a preference question.  And the answer was from our shooters  A match is a Nascar race

 

Also our shooters have said they want an overall winner.  So rank by category fails

 

Yes you can use multiple systems simultaneously.  When you do that you get different answers.

 

I am in China now.  Holler at me next week if you would like to talk on the phone about it.  Happy to do so.

 

I too am an Engineer,  We analyze everything I think.  I prefer to look at pretty girls and analyze curves.

 

Enjoy your vacation.

[Dogmeat Dad, SASS #48563L]

TJD,

 

Howdy, and thanks for the reply.  I spent some time in Taiwan and South America a few decades ago.  World travel certainly broadens ones perspective on life.  Enjoyed the experiences, but I certainly don't miss the hours sitting on planes! 

 

Glad to know someone at least looked at Rank By Category, and I did realize that there would have needed to have been a separate way to determine the overall winner.  I definitely can see that having the 3rd place Cowboy be declared the overall winner would confuse a lot of people and throw the whole mess in doubt.  I do think we agree on most points, and if there is any disagreement, it's the answer as to what the shooters want.  I suspect it is very dependent on who you ask and where they typically shoot, but there is no doubt that almost everyone wants an "Overall Champion".  It is just a logical outgrowth of any competition to ask, "Well, who won?" How one determines that, with so many variables between the shooting categories that affect performance, is a major part of the problem.

 

I suspect that the proliferation of categories over the years has greatly complicated this problem.  If memory serves, when I started this back in 2002 (long after many of you had been doing this) I think there were only 6 categories,  Traditional, Modern, 49r, Senior, Duelist, Frontier Cartridge, and Gunfighter was just coming on line and you needed an official "Gunfighter Approved" card or something.  There was probably Young Guns too, but I don't recall.  Now we have I believe 18 "Official" categories (36 if you count Ladies) and it is not uncommon to add a half dozen more at big matches with Silver Senior Duelist, Senior Gunfighter, and the like.  All well and good, if there are folks to fill them, but it increases the number of variables that come in to play when trying to determine the "Overall Winner".

 

As I mentioned in another post, (maybe another thread, there are several running) I just wish that there had been a full vote of all of the membership before making this change.  If the majority wanted TT as you suspect, then the switch would have been made anyway, but at least everyone would have had an opportunity to have their say.  I think we all know that there has historically been a low participation rate when it comes to voting on rules changes.  I suspect that is because for so many, it just doesn't matter one way or the other, but I still would have liked to have seen the vote happen so that there would not be the perception that it was ramrodded through.  It truly did blindside a whole lot of folks, even those who are paying attention.

 

Regardless, we are here, we have TT, lets get the tweaks done to the rules and the software, and move forward.  I look forward to a whole new round of "discussions" about why TT unfairly treats shooters!

 

Enjoy China, and stay away from "Sea Cucumber Soup"!  Trust me, it has nothing to do with vegetables!

 

DD

[CD Tom]

The SASS scoring system right now can do Rank by Category, the way the program works it calculates the rank by category and then recalculates the match final, so TDJ you would not need two separate programs.

Here's another thought.  Should a SDQ and a DNF be awarded the same amount?  What if we gave a DNF the number of shots on a stage with no additional seconds added.  What about a SDQ getting the slowest shooter on that stage + additional seconds.

As for ties what if we took the total misses, procedurals and minor safety and the shooter with the lower number breaks the tie.  I don't think that you would have a total time tie and a total of misses, procedurals and minor safety tie.  But in the that case would it matter if the shooters were in the 100 + place.  If they were in the top ten then there could be a shoot off or a flip of a coin. 

For those that think that a tie wouldn't happen that often, you would be wrong I just went through Winter Range scores from 2016 and found 6 ties, none in the top 20.  Use the misses procedurals and minor safety this broke the ties. To be truthful I was surprised that there were that many ties.

I had a club call me the other day on the SDQ and DNF difference and what we did was in the scoring system put a 999.99 in the Match DQ time, a 150.00 in the Stage DQ time and a 120.00 in the DNF time. They liked that idea better than the SDQ and the DNF being the same.

 

[Dogmeat Dad, SASS #48563L]

CDTom,

 

I had posted this earlier in the thread, but there are multiple threads and many posts so stuff gets lost.  My suggestion for SDQ would be the following, sort of a combination of the two existing scenarios:

 

SDQ = (The Larger Of ((# shots x 5 seconds) or (Slowest stage time))) + 30 sec

 

That would set a minimum SDQ time of (# of shots x 5 sec + 30) but allow for that number to increase in the event that a shooter posts a stage time with penalties greater than that.  The SDQ should always be at the bottom, with the exception of a DNF or a MDQ, at least as I see it.

 

For the MDQ, there is no reason I can think of not to continue to use 999.99, they aren't going to win anything anyway, and they should be on the bottom.  For the DNF, I think we presently use 999.90, but I am going from memory on that.  Again, no reason to change that that I can see, they aren't going to win anything anyway, unless it is considered acceptable to win an award without shooting the whole match.  Could happen if a very fast shooter has to drop out on the last stage.  They might still finish in a category where they place.  Using something less than that, also creates problems when there are new shooters, or rifle lockups or any of a number of things where the shooter might find themselves with a time in excess of the set number.

 

Using Misses, Procedural's, and Safety's as the first level tie break certainly has an appeal, for the same reason we recognize Clean Matches.  Cleaner is better, at least in my opinion.  The only question I would ask regarding this is, are we talking about the "Number Of Penalties" or the "Total Time Of All Penalties"?  May seem like a silly question, but the two quantities will not necessarily give the same result.  Just another thought, but maybe we can use one of them for the first level tie break, then the other for a second level tie break.  If, in the unlikely event, that this also does not break the tie, then using stages won provides a another level of tie break.  Any of these three tiebreaker scenarios could be used, in any order, to break ties to three levels, we just need to figure out what works the best, and standardize it.

 

So, now we are at the point where we have had two (or three) levels of tie break and are probably down into the Extremely Unlikely event that they are still tied.  At that point, maybe we just need to let them...

 

 

 

 

Dogmeat Dad

 

[CD Tom]

Ok, the questions about the tie breaker, I was thinking that we take the number of misses + number of procedurals + number of minor Safeties, so if a shooter had 2 misses a procedural (can only have one procedural) and maybe a minor safety ( again only one minor safety) that shooter would have a total of 4.

Also the rules are (I think) Two DNF and you can't win a prize. In total time a shooter with one DNF wouldn't have a chance to make up the DNF with a total of 999.00, where if the DNF was 120.00 they might have a change.  Now IMHO I don't think a shooter that doesn't finish all stages shouldn't be able to place at all.  

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

Hi Folks,

 

It is my understanding that the WB and ROC are taking all of the suggestions presented on the Wire and TG Forums, based on a post by PWB on the TG Forum, under advisement and will soon make a determination on scoring a SDQ and handling a tie.

 

Stand by.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

[Dogmeat Dad, SASS #48563L]

1 hour ago, CD Tom said:

Ok, the questions about the tie breaker, I was thinking that we take the number of misses + number of procedurals + number of minor Safeties, so if a shooter had 2 misses a procedural (can only have one procedural) and maybe a minor safety ( again only one minor safety) that shooter would have a total of 4.

Also the rules are (I think) Two DNF and you can't win a prize. In total time a shooter with one DNF wouldn't have a chance to make up the DNF with a total of 999.00, where if the DNF was 120.00 they might have a change.  Now IMHO I don't think a shooter that doesn't finish all stages shouldn't be able to place at all.  

 

I agree with you about the shooter who did not finish should not be eligible for awards.  I guess we will see where that ends up, but 120 for a DNF I think is too low, and I don't think any fixed number will work in all situations.  It will need to be adjustable based on the longest time of the stage to accommodate the worst case shooter, but also have a minimum penalty.  I would suggest the same equation I suggested above,

 

SDQ = (The Larger Of ((# shots x 5 seconds) or (Slowest stage time))) + 30 sec

 

except that instead of +30 seconds, we add +60 seconds, making

 

DNF = (The Larger Of ((# shots x 5 seconds) or (Slowest stage time))) + 60 sec

 

That would also assure that there is a minimum but that a DNF would finish below the SDQ.  Of course, that assumes that everyone agrees that a SDQ is better than a DNF on the stage.  To me that seemed appropriate, but I will let other make that call.

 

 

1 hour ago, Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217 said:

Hi Folks,

 

It is my understanding that the WB and ROC are taking all of the suggestions presented on the Wire and TG Forums, based on a post by PWB on the TG Forum, under advisement and will soon make a determination on scoring a SDQ and handling a tie.

 

Stand by.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

 

Thanks Allie!  I am glad to know that folks are actively working on this and I look forward to the official rulings.

 

And Thanks to the WB and ROC for their efforts on this.  No doubt, another in a long list of thankless tasks.

 

DD

[Jackaroo, # 29989]

15 hours ago, Texas Jack Daniels said:

Also the fundamental question is a match ???

1) A Nascar race (lap winners and a who crosses the finish line in the end  aka Total Time)

2) The world series (who wins the most stages)

 

This is not a math question.  It is a philosophy question, a preference question.  And the answer was from our shooters  A match is a Nascar race

 

Also our shooters have said they want an overall winner.  So rank by category fails

 

One Nascar doesn't determine an overall winner.

There are say 12 Nascar races, and we have 12 Stages each one a "Nascar race" at the end of each race you get points,...those are finishing rank points.

Each race track is different, more corners, more pit stops or what ever,.. each stage is different, more shotgun, less shotgun, pistol knock down or no knockdowns, you get different winners and losers at each, they don't total the times of each racing driver at each race and add the up at the end of the season?

At the end of the 12 races/stages all the points for each race/stage are totalled and you get a winner overall. That's rank points, a much fairer system in my book than TT.......and ties can be broken simply.!

I think The only time TT is fair,...... is if everything race /stage is the same.

[Houston CAS]

6 hours ago, Dogmeat Dad, SASS #48563L said:

 

I agree with you about the shooter who did not finish should not be eligible for awards.  I guess we will see where that ends up, but 120 for a DNF I think is too low, and I don't think any fixed number will work in all situations.  It will need to be adjustable based on the longest time of the stage to accommodate the worst case shooter, but also have a minimum penalty.  I would suggest the same equation I suggested above,

 

SDQ = (The Larger Of ((# shots x 5 seconds) or (Slowest stage time))) + 30 sec

 

except that instead of +30 seconds, we add +60 seconds, making

 

DNF = (The Larger Of ((# shots x 5 seconds) or (Slowest stage time))) + 60 sec

 

 

Slowest stage time for the category or slowest overall? 

 

I like the targets*5+30 calculation. Makes it easy to accommodate in a spreadsheet for scoring. 

 

 

[Dogmeat Dad, SASS #48563L]

26 minutes ago, Houston CAS said:

 

Slowest stage time for the category or slowest overall? 

 

I like the targets*5+30 calculation. Makes it easy to accommodate in a spreadsheet for scoring. 

 

 

 

The option that currently exists is for the slowest time on the stage over all categories, plus 30sec.  The theory is that the shooter who earned the SDQ should never finish ahead of anyone who completed the stage but should be 30sec behind the slowest.

 

The other option was for a fixed penalty dependent on the number of shots per stage times 5sec + 30sec, which could vary stage to stage as the number of shots change, but it is possible that a shooter could in fact shoot slower than that and thus finish below the person with the SDQ.

 

My suggestion was for a combination of the two, a minimum of shots times 5sec +30sec, but allow it to rise if in fact someone actually shot slower than that.  The minimum penalty will be slowest time +30, the maximum will be the suggested combination, the middle option is shots x 5 sec + 30sec, with the understanding that it is possible for someone to actually finish below  that.  All three ways will effectively remove someone from the possibility  of winning an award, with varying levels of harshness.

 

Biggest potential issue I see is that some folks will see a SDQ as a MDQ, since they are effectively out of the running, and just go home, it all depends on the perspective of the shooter.   But that is a side effect of using TT, where as under RP,  rightly or wrongly, there was always the possibility of recovery.

[Houston CAS]

19 minutes ago, Dogmeat Dad, SASS #48563L said:

 

The option that currently exists is for the slowest time on the stage over all categories, plus 30sec.  The theory is that the shooter who earned the SDQ should never finish ahead of anyone who completed the stage but should be 30sec behind the slowest.

 

The other option was for a fixed penalty dependent on the number of shots per stage times 5sec + 30sec, which could vary stage to stage as the number of shots change, but it is possible that a shooter could in fact shoot slower than that and thus finish below the person with the SDQ.

 

But getting all misses + 30 seconds would almost certainly put the shooter at a major disadvantage for his category right? Isn't that the point of a SDQ? puting it against the slowest overall shooter puts in "rank times" territory. 

 

If a guy's SDQ in Wrangler gives him a 150 and there was someone shooting Cody/Dixon that had a 210 time, a 240 seems very excessive considering that 150 would be sufficient. 

[Dogmeat Dad, SASS #48563L]

22 minutes ago, Houston CAS said:

 

But getting all misses + 30 seconds would almost certainly put the shooter at a major disadvantage for his category right? Isn't that the point of a SDQ? puting it against the slowest overall shooter puts in "rank times" territory. 

 

If a guy's SDQ in Wrangler gives him a 150 and there was someone shooting Cody/Dixon that had a 210 time, a 240 seems very excessive considering that 150 would be sufficient. 

 

Absolutely true, but that is the way it is currently handled by the clubs that shoot TT, at least as I understand it.  There is no accommodation for category with the penalty, if you SDQ then for all intents and purposes, you are out of the running.

 

The question I would ask you is, Do you believe that it is acceptable to have a shooter who SDQs finish ahead of someone who actually safely completed the course of fire?  Accommodating for categories in the penalties would permit that to happen.

[Possum Skinner, SASS#60697]

One of the big arguments against rank scoring was that mistakes were not penalized equally.  Now ya'll want to do that to total time? (shaking my head!)

 

If I get a SDQ equaling 150 sec and you shoot a stage slower than that, well, soggy cookies.

 

Let's keep this thing simple.

DNF = 5 sec per shot

SDQ = 5 sec per shot + 30

MDQ = 999s

 

Ties are good enough for the Olympics.  If you tie, you tie.  Congratulations!

 

Possum

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

Hi Folks,

 

I've been reading everything and my opinion has evolved to the following, which is in line with the emails I received. My Club's next match is not till the 5th.

 

SDQ: Round count x 5 seconds + 30 seconds. It is pretty much traditional for those using total time.

Maximum stage time: None. As a slower shooter; but not that slow, I'm willing to take what I earned.

DNF: Round count x 5 seconds. Do not add 30 seconds. Say someone has a heat episode on the last stage. Do you think they really deserve the extra 30 seconds.

Tie: Two awards. Those people worked hard and held it together for the entire match. Both earned the award.

 

Regards,

 

Allie

[Sedalia Dave]

I feel that a SDQ should be 300 seconds vice 150.  This way the severity of the penalty is maintained even for the slower shooters. MDQ should remain 999 seconds and as Allie stated a DNF of 5 seconds times the total number of targets.

 

SD

[Tracker Jack Daniels,58780]

A 300 second penalty for a SDQ will almost always equate to a MDQ.  Is that really fair?  We have been using shots times 5 plus 30, for a SDQ for many years now.  I do not remember anyone being able to overcome that deficit to place, other than in a very small category. 

[Dogmeat Dad, SASS #48563L]

5 hours ago, Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217 said:

Hi Folks,

 

I've been reading everything and my opinion has evolved to the following, which is in line with the emails I received. My Club's next match is not till the 5th.

 

SDQ: Round count x 5 seconds + 30 seconds. It is pretty much traditional for those using total time.

Maximum stage time: None. As a slower shooter; but not that slow, I'm willing to take what I earned.

DNF: Round count x 5 seconds. Do not add 30 seconds. Say someone has a heat episode on the last stage. Do you think they really deserve the extra 30 seconds.

Tie: Two awards. Those people worked hard and held it together for the entire match. Both earned the award.

 

Regards,

 

Allie

 

On my phone so please forgive my stupid thumbs.

 

As I understand it, that places finishes in the following order:

 

Normal stage time plus penalties would finish ahead of

DNF = # shots x 5 sec

SDQ = # shots x 5 sec + 30 sec

MDQ = 999.99. ( Note that this is an assumption)

 

So the only potential issue I see is the possibility, however unlikely, that a shooter might safely complete a stage, yet finish BELOW someone who either earned DNF or SDQ.  Logically, that seems inappropriate, which is why I had suggested that the time for SDQ be the greater of either

(# shots x 5 sec + 30 sec) or (slowest time + 30 sec).  The minimum penalty would be what is suggested by Allie, but would allow it to rise if the need arose to prevent that anomaly from occurring.  Maybe make DNF + 0.50 sec instead of the 30 sec just so they too finished the the proper order.

 

Other than that inconsistency, I would be OK with that portion.

 

As too the tie breaks, I personally still think there needs to be at least one, if not two, levels of tie break in the rules.  Use number of stages won as the first level (again this seems logically correct) and, if they are still tied, then go by cleanest match.  Whether to  use the number of penalties, or the  total time of all penalties, can be debated.  If they are still tied at that point, then by all means, declare dual winners and move on as they both earned it, but it will an issue for Match Directors if it occurs with any frequency.

 

DD

 

 

[Jackaroo, # 29989]

Your SDQ analysis is still flawed and unfair. I mentioned in previous posts that the system # of shots X 5 secs + 30 is discriminatory unless ALL stages have the same number of targets.

So are we going to go down that path of all the same stages, this is the only time that TT is fair.

If there are stages with say 6 SG and some with 2 SG ala EOT this year, if you have SDQ on the 26 target stage and your competition happens to have one on the 22 target stage you are in fact penalised an extra 20 secs?. And when pistol knock downs are involved with make ups, makes it even more erroneous.

and as I've have mentioned before I do believe this method of scoring is not ideal at all, while it might expose the fastest shooter, it will not necessary expose the BEST shooter.

This will become obvious later after we move down this path.

one can already see the Pandora's box open.

 

[Sedalia Dave]

4 hours ago, Tracker Jack Daniels, 58780 said:

A 300 second penalty for a SDQ will almost always equate to a MDQ.  Is that really fair?  We have been using shots times 5 plus 30, for a SDQ for many years now.  I do not remember anyone being able to overcome that deficit to place, other than in a very small category. 

I routinely shoot Cody Dixon at matches. Single Shot stage times in excess of 150 seconds is not uncommon.  I also shoot with at least two SASS shooters that have stage times that have exceeded 150 seconds. In those instances a SDQ of 150 seconds could actually improve a stage time.

 

You ask if that is fair. Is it fair for a SDQ to actually improve a shooters time? SDQs are awarded for serious safety issues. The penalty should be just as serious.

[Assassin]

3 minutes ago, Sedalia Dave said:

I routinely shoot Cody Dixon at matches. Single Shot stage times in excess of 150 seconds is not uncommon.  I also shoot with at least two SASS shooters that have stage times that have exceeded 150 seconds. In those instances a SDQ of 150 seconds could actually improve a stage time.

 

You ask if that is fair. Is it fair for a SDQ to actually improve a shooters time? SDQs are awarded for serious safety issues. The penalty should be just as serious.

Considering Cody/Dixon is not an official category your point is moot!

[Tracker Jack Daniels,58780]

Cody Dixon has squat to do with this discussion!!  We are talking about SASS SANCTIONED MATCHES, local matches can still do as they wish. 

[Marauder SASS #13056]

On 7/23/2017 at 8:28 PM, Jackaroo, # 29989 said:

Your SDQ analysis is still flawed and unfair. I mentioned in previous posts that the system # of shots X 5 secs + 30 is discriminatory unless ALL stages have the same number of targets.

So are we going to go down that path of all the same stages, this is the only time that TT is fair.

If there are stages with say 6 SG and some with 2 SG ala EOT this year, if you have SDQ on the 26 target stage and your competition happens to have one on the 22 target stage you are in fact penalised an extra 20 secs?. And when pistol knock downs are involved with make ups, makes it even more erroneous.

and as I've have mentioned before I do believe this method of scoring is not ideal at all, while it might expose the fastest shooter, it will not necessary expose the BEST shooter.

This will become obvious later after we move down this path.

one can already see the Pandora's box open.

 

Jackaroo brings up some excellent points.  We do need to have an SDQ be equal for all stages.  I had favored the worst time +30 seconds, but I now see that would not be a standard for the match either.

 

Although I prefer rank for a LARGE match, I have no problem with  going to total time, but we do need to settle the SDQ issue. 

A MDQ is not a difficult issue since that will place the person last.   If it is a 999.99 for all stages or whatever the SDQ is for all stages.

 

I was not only an engineer but also a statistician trained in measurement theory - which is what we are discussing.  Ranks is an okay system, but not perfect.  It is based on several assumptions which sometimes do not apply, such as having a relatively homogeneous distribution of talents.  ( I've only studied SASS scoring  since the mid-1990, so other may have done more.)  I've compared local club scores for about 10 states plus national and world championships for that period of time and slightly before.  But I have had the advantage of having studied measurement theory prior to and during this analysis.  So I did not have a preference before studying it.  So I've seen the advantages of Rank as Jackaroo and others have pointed out.  And I've seen the disadvantages. And the impact of a miss or bobble is not actually a disadvantage, but an advantage to ranks scoring.  But the distribution of talent, sometimes at the top and more often at the bottom of the placement is a more significant issue.  For example when Lead Dispenser was beating everyone by 2 seconds on a stage and only gaining 1 rank point.  That is somewhat unusual, but it has happened at even the largest matches.

 

The greatest issue with rank scoring is that it requires a large sample size.  So the weakness of rank show up in smaller matches.  That is one reason many local matches favor Total Time.  I have always recommended that for matches with less than 100 shooters.  The more shooters, the better for rank scoring.

 

Rank within category always limits the sample size so that the results are TERRIBLE.  You see, that the number of shooters provides the index. The better the index, the better the measurement. The indexing is just not large enough to give good accuracy of the measurement.  It is like trying to measure the length of your brass with a 1 foot ruler versus a micrometer.

[Father Kit Cool Gun Garth]

54 minutes ago, Marauder SASS #13056 said:

{Previous text removed only to optimize space} I was not only an engineer but also a statistician trained in measurement theory - which is what we are discussing.  

{Previous text removed only to optimize space} You see, that the number of shooters provides the index. The better the index, the better the measurement. The indexing is just not large enough to give good accuracy of the measurement.  It is like trying to measure the length of your brass with a 1 foot ruler versus a micrometer.

 

Marauder:

    Usually in threads like this that go 4 pages deep with 136 responses, especially those that one TAGS to follow, it becomes hard to dive back into the context of the thread and expect to find some new insight; however, I applaud you for your dedication to enlighten our readers as to a different perspective on the matter, especially from an engineer/statistician viewpoint.

    I believe I have a better understanding of the complexity in finding a fair and equitable scoring system, and certainly one that the majority affected will approve of. It the Old West, it was simply resolved with the last gunfighter standing.

[Dogmeat Dad, SASS #48563L]

For those that think an SDQ needs to be the same for every stage, let me offer this perspective.  While I agree that is true when using a scoring system where all stages in a match have the same range of values, i.e. a rank point match where the range is 1 to #total shooters, I am not sure that restriction necessarily applies to a total time match.

 

Remember that a TT match is not being scored as a collection of stages, but is effectively one big, long, match with breaks so the shooter can change location.  Under that way of thinking, I ask the following.  What is the maximum score a shooter could obtain if they missed every target on a stage, not counting time for movement or  penalties?  The answer is #targets x 5 sec.   A SDQ needs to be equal to that as a minimum, thus each stage can, and should, have a different value for a SDQ depending on the number of targets.  A SDQ on a stage with more targets will carry a larger penalty than one on a stage with fewer targets "Because the shooter Missed More Targets" and in a TT match, it doesn't matter which stage you missed them on, all misses carry the same 5 sec penalty.  The extra 30sec that is added is the real penalty for the SDQ, and it is equal across all stages.

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but from the one big match perspective, I don't see a problem having a variable SDQ penalty.  In fact it seems logically consistent.

 

Just my $0.02.  I'll go back into my room now and climb into my flame suit.

 

DD

 

[Jackaroo, # 29989]

Hi Marauder, yes probably we do need to settle this issue soon. I think the ROC is even looking into it.

Just as a matter of interest, do you know how we ever came up with the TT  SDQ penalty system on number of targets x 5 +30 secs in the first place??

If in TT the MDQ is still 999.99 why is not the SDQ time 999.90, & the DNF/DNS 999.00,... all the same as it is in rank points??

Surely this will put the issue to bed and we can all get on with it. 

7 hours ago, Marauder SASS #13056 said:

The greatest issue with rank scoring is that it requires a large sample size.  So the weakness of rank show up in smaller matches.  That is one reason many local matches favor Total Time.  I have always recommended that for matches with less than 100 shooters.  The more shooters, the better for rank scoring.

Wasn't that the reason we had the system before?  I think it worked fine, as it levels the field better, and it results in the best shooter winning, not necessarily the fastest shooter.

In all motor racing events the champion driver is the best driver for say 12 different circuits, who can adapt to the conditions..I call it racing with your head not your foot..it's no different to the 10 or 12 different stages we have for a match. ( I did build and race cars for 10 years too so I know how that thinking goes)

Anyway out to the range we go and try work up some more ....speed..

[Jackaroo, # 29989]

35 minutes ago, Dogmeat Dad, SASS #48563L said:

Remember that a TT match is not being scored as a collection of stages, but is effectively one big, long, match with breaks so the shooter can change location.  Under that way of thinking, I ask the following.  What is the maximum score a shooter could obtain if they missed every target on a stage, not counting time for movement or  penalties?  The answer is #targets x 5 sec.   A SDQ needs to be equal to that as a minimum, thus each stage can, and should, have a different value for a SDQ depending on the number of targets.  A SDQ on a stage with more targets will carry a larger penalty than one on a stage with fewer targets "Because the shooter Missed More Targets" and in a TT match, it doesn't matter which stage you missed them on, all misses carry the same 5 sec penalty.  The extra 30sec that is added is the real penalty for the SDQ, and it is equal across all stages.

Yes,..... I think you could be missing something DMD?

Going back to my post earlier

On 7/23/2017 at 7:28 PM, Jackaroo, # 29989 said:

If there are stages with say 6 SG and some with 2 SG ala EOT this year, if you have SDQ on the 26 target stage and your competition happens to have one on the 22 target stage you are in fact penalised an extra 20 secs?. And when pistol knock downs are involved with make ups, makes it even more erroneous.

It's got nothing to do with the 30 secs as the penalty, as I see it,  that's just an add on, it may be equal, but that's about all that is..... the penalty is discriminatory on different number of target stages????  And I for one, do not believe that this type of system should prevail, unless every stage in every match with TT are all identical number of targets, & that includes doing away with pistol/rifle knockdowns and make ups. Think about the could be penalties on those 2 stages at EOT

I also want to do COWBOY Action Shooting....not just ACTION Shooting only.

[Dogmeat Dad, SASS #48563L]

Jackaroo,

 

First off, let me say that I too was perfectly happy with the old system but, at least for the moment, we are required to use TT and the Mason Dixon is only about 60 days away, so I need to have this solved.

 

As I'm sure we all know, in a RP match, all stages are treated equally in terms of rank points, and an SDQ buys you the maximum possible number of rank points in that match. Doesn't matter how many targets, how much movement, etc., you get Maximum Points.

 

So, in a TT match, shouldn't a SDQ buy you the maximum unit of measure? How do you detemine that other than by using the slowest stage time as a basis?  Or the number of targets?  Picking any fixed penalty, in a TT match, will either devalue, or inflate, the value of a miss or other penalty unless, as you note, all the stages have basically the same structure.  Because of that, I guess I just don't see the issue with having different SDQ values for different stages as the stages themselves are meaningless, it's all about the total match time.

 

Basically, these discussions are dealing with a difference in philosophy of what constitutes a winner.  I put forth an example earlier in this thread where Shooter 1 won 5 of the 6 stages in a match by 0.20 sec, but fell to Shooter 2 by 1.01 sec in the 6th stage.

 

Shooter 2, who lost 5 of the 6 stages, won the match.  Those who want TT are OK with that, those who want RP are not, and I don't see where there is a middle ground.  All I really want at the moment is just an answer before the first round goes down range.  

 

DD

 

And they thought RP vs TT discussion threads were dead!