Imperfections, inequities and subjective scoring

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

Smoke standard

[Widder, SASS #59054]

3 hours ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

Smoke standard

 

Trying to get in the last word?  

 

..........Widder

 

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

18 minutes ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

 

Trying to get in the last word?  

 

..........Widder

 

Now there's a weakness of mine...

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

Just thinking about additional subjectivity in the game

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

8 minutes ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

Just thinking about additional subjectivity in the game

Again...subjectivity will always be part of the game. I would have to be an absolute fool/idiot/nincompoop to think otherwise.

 

It would be nice to focus on those areas of subjectivity where improvement can be had...

 

Phantom

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

2 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Again...subjectivity will always be part of the game. I would have to be an absolute fool/idiot/nincompoop to think otherwise.

 

It would be nice to focus on those areas of subjectivity where improvement can be had...

 

Phantom

 

So, you believe that the smoke standard is not one of those places? 

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

2 minutes ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

 

So, you believe that the smoke standard is not one of those places? 

To the best of my knowledge...know-how...etc, I don't see how to make do any better.

 

Would love to see someone that's schmart (maybe Widderborg?), come up with something better than what we have now...got any suggestions on a better system?

 

Phantom

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

1 minute ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

To the best of my knowledge...know-how...etc, I don't see how to make do any better.

 

Would love to see someone that's schmart (maybe Widderborg?), come up with something better than what we have now...got any suggestions on a better system?

 

Phantom

 

This one even has CAS in the name...CASfire

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

4 minutes ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

 

This one even has CAS in the name...CASfire

Perfect!!!

 

I'll start a Go Fund Me thingie for all the SASS clubs!

 

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

Or...we can buy one and then come up with published minimum load data for various powder/caliber combinations that meet the smoke standard.

 

Just spit balling here...

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

27 minutes ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

Or...we can buy one and then come up with published minimum load data for various powder/caliber combinations that meet the smoke standard.

 

Just spit balling here...

Spit balling is good 

 

So we'd have to pull the bullets of those that there is a protest on. Verify BP/SUB used?

 

I shoot FCD. But I'm not an expert on BP loads. I just fill the case up, but my choice of Caliber/Case allows me to minimize smoke while still producing enough without any question. 

 

I think it's kinda like the Min/Max Velocity Standard. If you're close, you're not called out. If it seem rather obvious, you are.

 

Phantom

[Sedalia Dave]

Problem is few if any clubs have ammo to make a comparison with. Pretty darn hard to say a shooter is not making the standard when no one has access to said standard.

 

 

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

15 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

So we'd have to pull the bullets of those that there is a protest on.

 

Pulling bullets is also the first step in a smokeless ammo test.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

Both ammo tests are extremely disruptive for the shooter, the posse, and the match officials.
(probably why they are few & far between)

The primary reason for the BP smoke and PF/MinVel standards was to discourage anyone from downloading even close to the minimums.
Apparently they haven't quite succeeded in achieving that goal.

 

 

 

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

30 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

If you're close, you're not called out. If it seem rather obvious, you are.

 

The irony is not lost on me that this test, as you have defined it, very well mind you, is in itself subjective.

 

However, unlike power factor which can be measured objectively, the smoke standard is another subjective test that we use after calling out a shooter based on the initial subjective observation.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

18 minutes ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

 

The irony is not lost on me that this test, as you have defined it, very well mind you, is in itself subjective.

 

However, unlike power factor which can be measured objectively, the smoke standard is another subjective test that we use after calling out a shooter based on the initial subjective observation.

Unfortunately I don't know of a good process...smart minds tried years ago to figure it (smoke standard test), out.  

 

I don't think anyone would object to a better test being designed that isn't a complete cluster----for the shooter, posse and match. 

 

I'm all for eliminating subjectivity as you and other's probably know by now. Guess I'm going for the low hanging fruit for which the Smoke Standard Test is not one.

 

But like the Spit Balling  Get's the braincells working.

 

Phantom

[Dusty Devil Dale]

On 6/25/2021 at 2:37 PM, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

And what about your fellow competitors that might not have received that coaching??

For heaven's sake, yes, prohibiting coaching would help level the playing field, which is currently imperfect.  But hopefully you folks advocating changing rules to prohibit coaching will also realize that the people needing coaching or benefitting in any way from coaching are not the shooter's who threaten in any way the top competition ranks, even within categories.  They could be coached extensively, thus avoiding all the Procedural , MSV or DQ penalties, and still not be even close to the top ranks. 

 

So in a practical sense, nobody is going to lose a buckle to anyone due to differential official coaching, unless bad coaching messes the top shooters up.  So just direct the TO not to coach you, and let others be helped as much as they need or want to be, in order to have fun shooting the stages.   All the coaching in the world won't mask an inability to shoot or transition effectively.

 

And if the peanut gallery chirps in, just learn to ignore them.  Focusing beyond distraction is one of the skills of our game.  JMHO. 

 

 

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

I have seen multiple World Champions lose their way on stages.

It does happen.

And sometimes buckles are won with imperfect performances - just less imperfect than the next shooter.

So yes; I would say better coaching has affected buckle placements many times. 

I personally know of one because I was the TO.

 

[Dusty Devil Dale]

1 minute ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

I have seen multiple World Champions lose their way on stages.

It does happen.

And sometimes buckles are won with imperfect performances - just less imperfect than the next shooter.

So yes; I would say better coaching has affected buckle placements many times. 

I personally know of one because I was the TO.

 

You have experience that goes well beyond my own, so I can only accept what you say.   I've never personally seen a top shooter lose track or need coaching in a big match.  Apparently it does happen.   Thx for informing/correcting me.  

DDD

 

[Widder, SASS #59054]

Coaching isn't just about buckles and top finishing 

of a match or category.

Some of this discussion isn't even about

the benefit of the shooter or detriment of the shooter.

 

Coaching is also about TO responsibilities.

Does SASS want the TO's to observe the timer, look for procedures,

muzzle control, REAL safety concerns, 170 violations,

measure how much smoke is being produced by BP

shooters AND THEN.....

be responsible to coach a shooter on how they need to shoot the

stage?

 

That is also a big part of this discussion.

 

..........Widder

 

[Sedalia Dave]

I agree.

 

  

5 hours ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

Does SASS want the TO's to observe the timer, look for procedures,

muzzle control, REAL safety concerns, 170 violations,

measure how much smoke is being produced by BP

shooters AND THEN.....

 

If a TO is doing all of this....

 

5 hours ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

AND THEN....

 

be responsible to coach a shooter on how they need to shoot the

stage?

 

Then how are they supposed to always know which target is next in the sequence?

 

Some stages are designed in such a way that a TO can do all the above AND keep up with target sequence. Others do not allow the TO to be in this ideal position.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

6 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

For heaven's sake, yes, prohibiting coaching would help level the playing field, which is currently imperfect.  But hopefully you folks advocating changing rules to prohibit coaching will also realize that the people needing coaching or benefitting in any way from coaching are not the shooter's who threaten in any way the top competition ranks, even within categories.  They could be coached extensively, thus avoiding all the Procedural , MSV or DQ penalties, and still not be even close to the top ranks. 

 

So in a practical sense, nobody is going to lose a buckle to anyone due to differential official coaching, unless bad coaching messes the top shooters up.  So just direct the TO not to coach you, and let others be helped as much as they need or want to be, in order to have fun shooting the stages.   All the coaching in the world won't mask an inability to shoot or transition effectively.

 

And if the peanut gallery chirps in, just learn to ignore them.  Focusing beyond distraction is one of the skills of our game.  JMHO. 

 

 

Oh dear, is someone getting frustrated???

 

Generally, those that are not competing for a "Buckle" are shooting just for the fun and comradery of SASS...how many times have you heard that? So how is receiving an earned penalty stopping them from doing that?

 

Now you'll probably consider that a rhetorical question...but it's not.

 

Looking forward to your answer.

 

Phantom

[Hoss]

22 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Oh dear, is someone getting frustrated???

 

Generally, those that are not competing for a "Buckle" are shooting just for the fun and comradery of SASS...how many times have you heard that? So how is receiving an earned penalty stopping them from doing that?

 

Now you'll probably consider that a rhetorical question...but it's not.

 

Looking forward to your answer.

 

Phantom

For many of those folks a “win” is getting thru a match with no Ps. While I’ll agree that a coach helping a shooter avoid a P is not exactly the same as a shooter going thru the course of fire without a P, the coaching, as the rules currently stand, is allowed. The shooter won’t remember the coaching. He will remember his first clean match!  So that increases his enjoyment of the game. 
 

I see the benefit of no coaching at annual or state + matches. But I like the game as it is. Sometimes you’re the bug, sometimes the windshield! 

[Widder, SASS #59054]

11 minutes ago, Hoss said:

 

I see the benefit of no coaching at annual or state + matches. But I like the game as it is. Sometimes you’re the bug, sometimes the windshield! 

 

But who is really driving the car..... the shooter or the TO.

 

(sorri, I just couldn't help myself)

 

..........Widder

 

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

7 minutes ago, Hoss said:

For many of those folks a “win” is getting thru a match with no Ps. While I’ll agree that a coach helping a shooter avoid a P is not exactly the same as a shooter going thru the course of fire without a P, the coaching, as the rules currently stand, is allowed. The shooter won’t remember the coaching. He will remember his first clean match!  So that increases his enjoyment of the game. 
 

I see the benefit of no coaching at annual or state + matches. But I like the game as it is. Sometimes you’re the bug, sometimes the windshield! 

Of course no one arguing that coaching isn't currently part of the T.O. acceptable duties...though not a requirement...hence part of the problem.

 

And I believe that it would be within the current rules to have individual clubs allow T.O. coaching. So if the rules were simply changed to remove the Coaching clause from T.O. duties...we'd probably be good to go...other than figuring out what, if any penalties, would be incurred if Coaching was done at the State and Above matches...what do other shooting disciplines do?

 

Don't know...someone schmart will hopefully chime in. Otherwise, this'll probably die off into the dustbin of interesting topics to be discussed in the future for eternity.

 

Phantom

[Hoss]

6 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Of course no one arguing that coaching isn't currently part of the T.O. acceptable duties...though not a requirement...hence part of the problem.

 

And I believe that it would be within the current rules to have individual clubs allow T.O. coaching. So if the rules were simply changed to remove the Coaching clause from T.O. duties...we'd probably be good to go...other than figuring out what, if any penalties, would be incurred if Coaching was done at the State and Above matches...what do other shooting disciplines do?

 

Don't know...someone schmart will hopefully chime in. Otherwise, this'll probably die off into the dustbin of interesting topics to be discussed in the future for eternity.

 

Phantom

That’s a whole nurther problem. A TO inadvertently correctly coaching. You know it would happen. What then? Shooter still gets the P? After all, the MIGHT have figured it out for themselves??? Give TO a penalty? (Good luck finding TOs)  

[Hoss]

14 minutes ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

 

But who is really driving the car..... the shooter or the TO.

 

(sorri, I just couldn't help myself)

 

..........Widder

 

Phantom’s driving. Smashing bugs however he can. 

 

(talk about couldn’t help myself!)

[Dusty Devil Dale]

1 hour ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Oh dear, is someone getting frustrated???

 

Generally, those that are not competing for a "Buckle" are shooting just for the fun and comradery of SASS...how many times have you heard that? So how is receiving an earned penalty stopping them from doing that?

 

Now you'll probably consider that a rhetorical question...but it's not.

 

Looking forward to your answer.

 

 

I do understand your question and position.  The answer is that very little can completely stop the "participant/fun" folks from enjoying a match.  But with that said, past coaching has helped many to avoid some penalty frustrations or DQs, which obviously detract from their experience.   

 

Apparently that assistance, which by its nature must be unequal,  creates resentment from competitors who feel materially disadvantaged by others receiving unequal help, and then possibly getting undeserved awards at the podium.  So whether the coaching help is a good or bad thing depends who is viewing it and how important that final credit is to them.  (Different strokes for different folks).

 

None of us should presume to know what everyone else needs or wants.  The rules of our game have evolved to the best center-point that the ROC could find, given the diversity of our shooters' skills and attitudes.  

 

The SHB isn't carved in stone, and if CAS needs and attitudes have changed, then go ahead and change/fix the coaching rules if you can find a better way.   But before you embark, you ought to try open-mindedly to find out what the breadth of CAS people prefer; that is,  unless you want to risk ending up competing 100% equitably against a very small field at EOT, with all the others at home enjoying their monthly matches (with coaching).

Look carefully before you leap.  Being right isn't necessarily the same thing as being happy. 

 

[Doc Shapiro]

1 hour ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

<snip>

 

Apparently that assistance, which by its nature must be unequal, 

<snip>

 

And that right there is the rub.  It's got nothing to do with resentment as you seem to think in the next clause of the sentence above.  It's about "by its nature must be unequal". 

 

This discussion is about finding potential ways to remove inequalities that can be removed to produce a more objective result. 

 

Removing the requirement for coaching would be a move in that direction.  Painting targets between shooters and not having spotters (yes, I know it's not possible at all ranges) is another move in that direction.

 

Note that in other shooting sports, coaching is NOT permitted.  Once the buzzer goes off, the shooter owns the stage.  Good, bad, and ugly.  TO is there to keep the shooter from breaking the 180 and looking for other infractions, then scoring after.

 

Please stop making this about "top shooters" and other such  rhetoric, because it's not - that's just a red herring type argument.  This is about creating a less subjective, and therefore more fair outcome.

[Dusty Devil Dale]

9 minutes ago, Doc Shapiro said:

 

And that right there is the rub.  It's got nothing to do with resentment as you seem to think in the next clause of the sentence above.  It's about "by its nature must be unequal". 

 

This discussion is about finding potential ways to remove inequalities that can be removed to produce a more objective result. 

 

Removing the requirement for coaching would be a move in that direction.  Painting targets between shooters and not having spotters (yes, I know it's not possible at all ranges) is another move in that direction.

 

Note that in other shooting sports, coaching is NOT permitted.  Once the buzzer goes off, the shooter owns the stage.  Good, bad, and ugly.  TO is there to keep the shooter from breaking the 180 and looking for other infractions, then scoring after.

 

Please stop making this about "top shooters" and other such  rhetoric, because it's not - that's just a red herring type argument.  This is about creating a less subjective, and therefore more fair outcome.

Like I said, "Different Strokes".  Change it if you can find a better way.  

[Captain Bill Burt]

10 minutes ago, Doc Shapiro said:

 

And that right there is the rub.  It's got nothing to do with resentment as you seem to think in the next clause of the sentence above.  It's about "by its nature must be unequal". 

 

This discussion is about finding potential ways to remove inequalities that can be removed to produce a more objective result. 

 

Removing the requirement for coaching would be a move in that direction.  Painting targets between shooters and not having spotters (yes, I know it's not possible at all ranges) is another move in that direction.

 

Note that in other shooting sports, coaching is NOT permitted.  Once the buzzer goes off, the shooter owns the stage.  Good, bad, and ugly.  TO is there to keep the shooter from breaking the 180 and looking for other infractions, then scoring after.

 

Please stop making this about "top shooters" and other such  rhetoric, because it's not - that's just a red herring type argument.  This is about creating a less subjective, and therefore more fair outcome.

That closes the door on several potential 'inequalities' and is definitely an idea I can get behind. 

[John Kloehr]

3 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

what do other shooting disciplines do?

 

Don't know...someone schmart will hopefully chime in.

I'm not necessarily schmart, but for Steel Challenge, from a discussion at (with my bold):

 

https://nroi.org/steel-challenge/coaching-in-steel-challenge/

 

Quote

 

The Steel Challenge rules allow a limited amount of coaching by competitors at Tier 1 matches only, and that’s limited to calling misses, if requested by the competitor.  Coaching by competitors or spectators is not permitted at higher tier matches, in any way, shape, or form.  

 

RO’s may assist the competitor with certain things at all level matches, but other competitors and spectators are forbidden from doing so. 

 

TOs can prompt a competitor to reload or move when appropriate, but this is very limited.

 

While one competitor loading magazines for another is not considered assistance, almost anything else is and can even result in penalties to the competitor.

 

More details and pointers to the actual rules are in the link.

[John Kloehr]

And for 3 Gun (USPSA) (with my bold):

 

https://uspsa.org/viewer/2021-USPSA-Competition-Rules-March-2021.pdf

 

Quote

 

8.6 Assistance or Interference

1. 8.6.1  No assistance of any kind can be given to a competitor during a course of fire, except that any Range Officer assigned to a stage may issue safety warnings to a competitor at any time. Such warnings will not be grounds for the competitor to be awarded a reshoot.

2. 8.6.2  Any person providing interference or unauthorized assistance to a competitor during a course of fire (and the competitor receiving such assistance) may, at the discretion of a Range Officer, incur a procedural penalty for that stage and/or be subject to Section 10.6.

8.6.2.1 When approved by the Range Officer, competitors at Level I matches may, without penalty, receive whatever coaching or assistance they request. Range Officials may safety coach competitors as needed, unless a safety violation occurs.

 

 

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

Belly button

[Sedalia Dave]

20 hours ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

Both ammo tests are extremely disruptive for the shooter, the posse, and the match officials.
(probably why they are few & far between)

The primary reason for the BP smoke and PF/MinVel standards was to discourage anyone from downloading even close to the minimums.
Apparently they haven't quite succeeded in achieving that goal.

 

 

 

 

I am seeing a few shooters that are doing their level best to be right at the minimum.  Impossible to challenge them as no one has access to the standard for comparison.