Classification discrepancy

[vluc]

Was scoring a local match, and as I was registering the folks, came across some who had a different classification level marked on their sheets than was listed at USPSA.

I did the download of the latest info, updated both the match and master, and their classification did not change to what they had marked on their score sheets. I take it that the "official" info is what we should use and not what is stated on their paper (at least that is what I did....)

[mactiger]

Unless the competitor has a new card in hand, showing that their classification has changed, you have no choice but to use information from the USPSA database.

Troy

[Matthew_Mink]

Can't the competitor sign up in a higher class than he/she currently holds?

[rhino]

vluc ... you probably already did this, but don't forget to check the prefix of their number against what you have in your match database. If they told you "A" and they're actually "TY" in the current USPSA update, it won't update in your match or master.

[mactiger]

Can't the competitor sign up in a higher class than he/she currently holds?

For a club level match, i.e. non-sanctioned or tournament, the answer is probably yes. The Sanction and Tournament requirements state that USPSA classifications must be used. I've looked for some sort of official policy (and asked), and maybe I've missed it, but I don't think that at your local club you have to shoot your class--of course, you can't shoot lower, but I think you can move up.

Troy

[blkbrd]

I have found under some conditions your new card can arrive a month before the data base is updated.

[Robert Snyder]

This issue came up at a Match and I questioned a competitors classification. It seems that as Much as Dave Thomas states that the system that is in place works, there is actually flaws within the system. The computer program needs to be fixed as it is not recognizing for instance, that if a competitor has shot 5 classifiers in Open it should not use the 5th classifier until the person has shot a 6th but it is not kicking out the 5th one.

Not to discredit anyone but if something is Broke,Fix It! The rules are also confusing as they state that a new shooter will be classified by his first 4 classifiers. But in order to be re-classified it states that they will use the best 6 after having shot your 8th but in fact they are using your first 6. It seems that there is a need to get something done so that the rulebook matches what the computer program actually does!

For Local small Matches this is not a problem but when I plunk down a large entrance fee and they have a great prize table, that's when it matter's!

[Rob Boudrie]

This issue came up at a Match and I questioned a competitors classification. It seems that as Much as Dave Thomas states that the system that is in place works, there is actually flaws within the system. The computer program needs to be fixed as it is not recognizing for instance, that if a competitor has shot 5 classifiers in Open it should not use the 5th classifier until the person has shot a 6th but it is not kicking out the 5th one.

Not to discredit anyone but if something is Broke,Fix It! The rules are also confusing as they state that a new shooter will be classified by his first 4 classifiers. But in order to be re-classified it states that they will use the best 6 after having shot your 8th but in fact they are using your first 6. It seems that there is a need to get something done so that the rulebook matches what the computer program actually does!

For Local small Matches this is not a problem but when I plunk down a large entrance fee and they have a great prize table, that's when it matter's!

I looked at the board minutes from 1996 (before I was on the board), and the current implementation is indeed "correct" in the sense that it matches the rules and policies - although a strict construcitonalist could argue that we must wait until we have 8 before making the calculation after the first 4.

I agree that it makes little sense to "count 4, ignore 5, then count 6", and I will be bringing this up at the next board meeting. I am also going to determine the organization's official position on the relation of classificaiton policy to the rulebook - it is a "policy" which is explained in the rulebook, or is it a "rule?". I sure wish I had thought to request a notation clarifying that this was an administrative policy when submitting my review comments on the book.

Rob

[mactiger]

Thanks for taking this on, Rob. I think it does need some cleaning up and clarification-like I said earlier, the only reference I can find is the Sanction and Tournament requirements.

Troy

[EricW]

If the class system just simply annoys me, is it permissible to sign up as "U" ?

[Rob Boudrie]

John Amidon has advised me that the description of the classification in the rulebook is just that - a description, not part of the rules. This is similar to the letter from the president published in the rulebook, in that it does not have standing as part of the "rules".

This means that the board could modify the classification procedures without the alteration being considered a change to the rules.

I am not going to propose any fundamental changes, however, I feel that the 4/6 issue is something that we could tweak. I have asked Michael Voigt to add this issue to the agenda for the next board meeting. Since changing the system to count "all 5" for a shooter with 5 on record would be a modification of a policy adopted by board motion in 1996, it would take another board motion to change it.

While we're on the topic, I have another question:

Should we change the "average the best 6 of 8 each month" to "average the bext 6 of 8 after each classifier score?". Currently, the sampling interval can effect the classification. Consider a shooter whose average would be 76% if calculated on the 5th of the month, but a lower score (still within the range of the classification) comes in on the 6th, pushing his average to 74%. It's only a matter of chance that the timing was such that the sampling interval missed the peak, and the shooter does not get an A card. Another shooter witn an identical sequence of scores, which arrive at USPSA HQ in the same order but at a different point in the classification cycle, would get an A card. It's like a weather report which generated the "daily high" by measuring the temperature every hour on the hour only - the answer will be in the right ballpark, but not necessarily an accurate high.

So, sould we cange from a "monthly sampling" to "rolling average" ?

Rob

[mactiger]

John Amidon has advised me that the description of the classification in the rulebook is just that - a description, not part of the rules. This is similar to the letter from the president published in the rulebook, in that it does not have standing as part of the "rules".

I don't think I understand what this means. Can you elaborate?

Thanks.

Troy

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

I don't have a clue about how the USPSA Classification system operates, and I'm only marginally familiar with the IPSC version, but here is the official IPSC policy for the ICS:

A shooter can achieve initial Classification with 4 scores. Following this, the Classification will be based on the average of the best 4 scores of the most recent 8 classification records submitted.

I'm reliably informed that "the most recent 8" above means "or part thereof". Hence it might be "best 4 of the most recent 5" or "best 4 of the most recent 7". Once you achieve 8 or higher scores, then it's always the "best 4 of the most recent 8".

Of course the catch to ensure that you don't just sit back and rest on your laurels is the next part of the policy:

In order to maintain their Classification, shooters must keep current IPSC membership and submit scores for a minimum of two Classification Stages or one approved Classification Match each calendar year. Shooters will be removed from the ICS system at the end of the second consecutive year where no scores are submitted.

FWIW.

[shred]

Since changing the system to count "all 5" for a shooter with 5 on record would be a modification of a policy adopted by board motion in 1996, it would take another board motion to change it.

I think "all 5" might not be the right way to go.

Normally shooters get to drop two-- so why not have it "Best 4 of first 4,5,and 6 scores, best 5 of 7, then best 6 of most recent 8"

We could skip the 5/7 step if needed.

Typically new shooters have even more variability in thier scores and thus more need to drop some.

Should we change the "average the best 6 of 8 each month" to "average the bext 6 of 8 after each classifier score?". 

So, sould we cange from a "monthly sampling" to "rolling average" ?

Even if you do it instantly, there will still be problems with clubs that send in scores late or with the wrong dates attached (both happened to me last year).

Of course if you did that, classifications wouldn't need to be run monthly so the web site would be updated every week, right?

[Rob Boudrie]

John Amidon has advised me that the description of the classification in the rulebook is just that - a description, not part of the rules.  This is similar to the letter from the president published in the rulebook, in that it does not have standing as part of the "rules".

I don't think I understand what this means. Can you elaborate?

Thanks.

Troy

Gladly.

Both rules and policies define how we run USPSA matches. The significance of the difference in this case relates to the process of changing how something is done - there is a differerence between "updating policy" and "changing the rules."

If something is part of the "rules", it takes a board motion to "change the USPSA Rules." Is something is a "policy", it takes a board motion to change USPSA policy. These are two conceptually different acts.

Also, since we are operating under a dispensation for region-specific USPSA rules, Michael Voigt would have to formally notify the world body we were changing the "rules" again ... after he already told them we were "done." Fuermore, "rules" have been evaluated with the perspective of minimizing variance with the world rules. Policies, such as USPSA classification procedures, are not evaluated by the same criteria.

Based on this, it is my personal impression that there is much less of an obstacle to changing a "policy" than there is in changing a "rule".

"Rule" vs. "Policy" is a significant difference from the perspective of changing them, however, they are applied in a similar manner once established.

Rob

[mactiger]

Rob, sorry, I understand the difference in rules and policy. I was confused RE your quote from John about the classification in the rulebook. The original question in this thread was whether a competitor could enter a match and shoot above their classification, i.e. USPSA says you are "C", but you enter or want to enter in "B". My take on that is that the Sanctioned and Tournament standards say "USPSA classifications will be used", and means you can't shoot a different classification than what you currently are. Is this what you were referring to, or to the "how classification works" in the rule book?

Thanks,

Troy