With the holidays here, I had some nice time to ponder some things. On another forum, there was a discussion about tiebreakers, mixed with a bit of grumbling about positionals.
It was pleasantly discussed about alternative options to avoid shoot-offs. Specifically, the positional element of a shoot-off... and so on.
I have been thinking about this topic since the implementation of the AAFTA rules what about a year ago? Every occasion a monthly match rolls around, most if not all shooters are not in any mood to do a shoot-off. We have done the first-miss, longest streak, last-person-that-leaves-wins (that helps with clean-up), even rock-paper-scissors to avoid a shoot-off. At the last GP we had, we implemented the shoot-off as instructed, with absolute precision. And as a result, it was as fair as it could be. Thinking about this over the year and spurred by this other post, I though id interject some thought into this over here.
One method that seems to me as the fairest method of determining a win without a shoot-off would be to rank the misses based on the target's Troyer scale. Yes, this would take a bit of mathing, however it seems incredibly fair and easy. The way it would work would be for the scorers to add up the missed shot's Troyer score, and the shooter with the lowest number wins. Essentially, demonstrating the shots that were hit... were harder targets, and therefore the winning shooter would simply be a better shooter by hitting a higher number of harder shots.
This concept may sound familiar. In other airgun matches (Benchrest), there is the integer (8 ,9 ,10, X) method, and in other events the decimal system is utilized 8.9, 9.1, 10.4 etc). Whereas the best representation of the better shooter is always found in the decimal system. FT is a simpler binary system, hit or miss!
Then always thinking how much of an effect this would be on the MDs to implement, I looked at our last GP, and we had a total of four ties ranging from 13 misses to 44 for ties in the top five. that would mean at worst adding up only 44 numbers each. Not too daunting. Since every GP event is a well-charted match with the MD carefully mapping out every lane beforehand, this wouldn't be hard at all to figure out. In addition, the fairness of this is quite stunning. The only variability would be where you started on the course and what the winds developed into. However, a reasonable response to that would be that the statistical layout of a course is pretty averaging and equalizing considering nears and fars at every lane, exposed parts at another end, and positionals at another, etc., and those top shooters are paired and grouped on the second day anyway.
Some interesting thoughts, and thanks for letting me share mine.
But then again the suspense of a shoot-off is always fun too... if you are not shooting it lol.
Garrett
*edit. Please understand I’m not trying to change anything, just continuing another discussion that I thought was interesting and provided some very interesting and fun discussions and challenges
It was pleasantly discussed about alternative options to avoid shoot-offs. Specifically, the positional element of a shoot-off... and so on.
I have been thinking about this topic since the implementation of the AAFTA rules what about a year ago? Every occasion a monthly match rolls around, most if not all shooters are not in any mood to do a shoot-off. We have done the first-miss, longest streak, last-person-that-leaves-wins (that helps with clean-up), even rock-paper-scissors to avoid a shoot-off. At the last GP we had, we implemented the shoot-off as instructed, with absolute precision. And as a result, it was as fair as it could be. Thinking about this over the year and spurred by this other post, I though id interject some thought into this over here.
One method that seems to me as the fairest method of determining a win without a shoot-off would be to rank the misses based on the target's Troyer scale. Yes, this would take a bit of mathing, however it seems incredibly fair and easy. The way it would work would be for the scorers to add up the missed shot's Troyer score, and the shooter with the lowest number wins. Essentially, demonstrating the shots that were hit... were harder targets, and therefore the winning shooter would simply be a better shooter by hitting a higher number of harder shots.
This concept may sound familiar. In other airgun matches (Benchrest), there is the integer (8 ,9 ,10, X) method, and in other events the decimal system is utilized 8.9, 9.1, 10.4 etc). Whereas the best representation of the better shooter is always found in the decimal system. FT is a simpler binary system, hit or miss!
Then always thinking how much of an effect this would be on the MDs to implement, I looked at our last GP, and we had a total of four ties ranging from 13 misses to 44 for ties in the top five. that would mean at worst adding up only 44 numbers each. Not too daunting. Since every GP event is a well-charted match with the MD carefully mapping out every lane beforehand, this wouldn't be hard at all to figure out. In addition, the fairness of this is quite stunning. The only variability would be where you started on the course and what the winds developed into. However, a reasonable response to that would be that the statistical layout of a course is pretty averaging and equalizing considering nears and fars at every lane, exposed parts at another end, and positionals at another, etc., and those top shooters are paired and grouped on the second day anyway.
Some interesting thoughts, and thanks for letting me share mine.
But then again the suspense of a shoot-off is always fun too... if you are not shooting it lol.
Garrett
*edit. Please understand I’m not trying to change anything, just continuing another discussion that I thought was interesting and provided some very interesting and fun discussions and challenges
