IPSC region championship matches

[RogerT]

Hi all.

There is one question I've been wondering about since this summer and the National championship and Nordic championship I've attended.

In the final match results all competitors results where listed and thats of course the way it should be for the match itself.

But if the goal with the match was to select a national champion or a regional champion in each division, should there not be a another match result without shooters "out of state/region" in the match?

I've done some checking with a separate result list with only regional shooters and for the winner in each division it does'nt change anything, but the absence of a stage winner "out of the region" makes effect's in the results regarding to the competitors match percent compared to the winner.

I've been told that "this is the way" matches are scored, but is it right for a regional championship?

[Vince Pinto]

Hi Roger,

The official IPSC policy, which has been in place for many years, will answer your question. Only a resident of the Region or Continent hosting the match can be declared the Regional or Continental Champion, as the case may be.

For example, Eric Grauffel came 1st in Open Division at the 2004 USPSA Nationals. He is therefore overall winner of that division, so he is entitled to the IPSC President's Medal (and "credit" is given to IPSC France). However Max Michel Jr., who placed 2nd in Open Division at that match, is the USPSA Open Division Champion, because he was the highest placed person who actually resides in the host region (namely the USA), and Max should have received the relevant trophy, assuming one was available.

Taking this a step further, if Eric Grauffel comes 1st in Open Division at the forthcoming Level IV Australasian Championships in Bali next month, he will once again be entitled to the IPSC President's Medal (and "credit" will once again be given to IPSC France). However if Crocodile Dundee, who actually resides in Australia, places 2nd in Open Division, then he will be Australasian Open Division Champion, and he gets the relevant trophy, assuming one is available.

However you cannot "remove" an "out of region or continent" competitor in order to recalculate match results, beause this would skew the results and make them meaningless trivia.

Having said all that, when it comes to a World Shoot, each Division (or Division/Category) winner is the World Champion for that division (or Division/Category), regardles of his or her residency. The residency aspect only affects which Region gets the kudos and bragging rights.

Section 6.5 of the IPSC rulebook gives you further information about residency, but I hope this answers your question.

[Vince Pinto]

Roger,

One more thing. The fact that I'm a member of the USPSA has no bearing whatsover on my entitlement to become a USPSA champion.

So, if next year I attend the 2005 USPSA Nationals, and I ask my very dear friends in [xxxxxx] to drug and/or kidnap the 487 people who are likely to beat me (shooting the match, not with big sticks on my head), and I therefore "win" my Division, I still cannot be a USPSA Champion, because I don't reside in the USA.

Edited October 25, 2004 by Flexmoney

[Dead Buff]

...to drug and/or kidnap the 487 people who are likely to beat me (shooting the match, not with big sticks on my head), and I therefore "win" my Division, ...

From a total of how many competitors?

Sorry for the drift - could not resist...

[Neil Beverley]

We nominate 5 matches at the start of the season to count as UK championship rounds. Best 4 matches to count so if you shoot all 5 you can drop the worst result. We average the percentages of the 4 matches to creat an annual championship winner.

Because this is the UK Championships we do in fact exclude any overseas visitors if they have won a match or if they have won any stages so that the championships results only compare the true performance of UK shooters against each other.

This very subject has been under discussion this weekend because Kurt Miller from the US won Standard Division in one of the championship matches, the British Open.

The UK champion would change depending on whether Kurt is included or not. There is one happy sole over here and an unhappy one at the moment.

Otherwise, for the match itself, it works as Vince described it above.

[Vince Pinto]

The UK champion would change depending on whether Kurt is included or not.  There is one happy sole over here and an unhappy one at the moment.

This is precisely why you cannot (for want of a better word) "manipulate" the match results by removing selected competitors. If you want to exclude foreigners, make the subject matches "Invitational" not "Open" from the very outset, but that would not be globally friendly, and we'd call you nasty names behind your back!

If you consider the 2004 USPSA Nationals (which will be of interest to most punters here), the actual results show Eric 100%, Max 97.40%, Chris Tilley at 94.70% and JJ Racaza at 94.28%, so I would not be at all surprised if the "removal" of Eric at least causes Chris and JJ to "flip-flop", but what's the point in doing so?

Those who shot the match, shot the match, and nothing's gonna change that - the key is following the protocol, whereby "Division winner does not necessarily mean Regional winner", because residency counts for something.

[Skywalker]

Vince,

I must take exception from your considerations.

Here in Italy we follow the same path as in the UK, as Neil pointed out.

For the match results, the final standings are as generated, with all competitors (foreign and home) included. These standings will be the ones to award match prizes and trophies.

But for the National titles to be assigned, we exclude foreign competitors.

Think about it for a moment: in the example you cited, you're going to award a national title to Mr. Tilley or Mr. Racaza based on their performance gauged against Mr. Grauffel, and not gauging the performance of competitors (legally) competing for the title among themselves.

To me this is the same as scoring all the divisions together, then declaring the divisional winner upon selecting the first competitor of that division in the overall standings.

It's plain wrong.

You have to score apples with apples, and oranges with oranges.

The match standings are mixed, the prizes are awarded according, but the national titles have to be recalculated comparing apples with apples.

[Skywalker]

Moreover Vince,

if you have a look at the results for the handgun European Championship 2001, you'll notice that IPSC did the same.

The International Results for Standard Division include Mr. Garcia, who probably won at least one stage. According to these standings, Adriano Santarcangelo should have been placed 2nd.

The European Results for Standard Division, without Mr. Garcia, place Adriano in 3rd place, and he got the bronze medal according.

Looks like IPSC will exclude foreign competitors for titles too.

[Vince Pinto]

For the match results, the final standings are as generated, with all competitors (foreign and home) included. These standings will be the ones to award match prizes and trophies. But for the National titles to be assigned, we exclude foreign competitors.

No matter how you try to justify it, and despite your honourable intentions, you're still manipulating results and, with all due love & respect, you're also being selective and inconsistent. For example, when considering Open Ladies, do you "exclude" all the male competitors, and then print out a special set of "Ladies Only" match results for Open Division? What about for Open Juniors, Open Seniors and the various other categories? Remember, you're the guy who brought up the fruit .....

Looks like IPSC will exclude foreign competitors for titles too. 

No Sir. Absolutely not. Perhaps our friends in Germany, the host region, published two sets of results, but this was most certainly not at the behest of IPSC HQ. In fact, I just called the IPSC President who, despite being in considerable pain due to having broken ribs after he lost a tug-of-war with a large horse, confirmed my statement. IPSC uses a single set of results, and we just read down to award the Regional or Continental Champion, as the case may be.

Besides, doesn't the thought of "two sets of results" for the same match sound very much like "two sets of company books" (i.e. the real ones for the owners and the "special" set for the IRS)?

Unfortunately the 2001 European results are no longer available on the IPSC website, but I note from the results of the Italian Handgun Nationals last month, that a Spanish competitor is recorded as winning Standard Division. Those are the real results, and those are the only ones in which IPSC HQ is interested. Of course IPSC Italy is entitled to declare Guido Ciccarelli as the Italian Standard Division Champion, but you can do that by reading a single set of results.

[Skywalker]

Vince,

the european standings I reported were used to award the EC medals: Adriano Santarcangelo was awarded bronze medal at EC 2001 according to european standings, and not silver medal, according to international standings.

I don't know if this was done by the German organization or by anyone else. I was not there (unfortunately). Anyway, it has been done and it has been done in a level IV competition.

Concerning Italian Nationals, yes the final standings (the ones sent to IPSC, the ones we used to award prizes and President's medals) include foreign competitors, but National standings (without foreign competitors) have been used to declare national champions for divisions and classes.

[RogerT]

Hi all.

Sky and Neil, exactly what I tought it should be like when it comes to the "match within the match", namely the (in my case) Swedish National Championship and Nordic Championship.

We would not like to make them Invitationals, we need the shooters (and RO's) from abroad to shoot our competitions to get skilled RO's at the competitions and to get their fellow countrymen to rise the total number of competitors in the match.

Our region is small and competitions of level three and above are few, only a couple a year. And it's fun when really top shooters like Saul Kirsch attends, it gives a boost to the whole match.

Having said this, the National or Regional championship is not really the main match, it's more like a side match about "honour and a medal" among us locals and should be calculated as such, without the competitors from abroad, for this is really of no interest of anyone else than us locals.

Does this make me sound lika a "northern hill billie" or do I make sense?

[Flexmoney]

I didn't some editing to get rid of anything that might be controversial...and off topic.

Now back to your thread...

Thanks,

Kyle F.

Administrator

[kdj]

Because this is the UK Championships we do in fact exclude any overseas visitors if they have won a match or if they have won any stages so that the championships results only compare the true performance of UK shooters against each other.

Not that this is every likely to matter to me but

What's the situation for UK folk who are members of the UKPSA but spend a lot/all of their year overseas?

Is there a corrolary of the "may represent the region of citizenship" rule.

I'm curious about this since I guess "technically" any UK citizen is resident the second they set foot in the country, so some one could pop over from the US for 4 days and be the UK Champion?

Now you know why I'll never be a member of a rules committee: Any semantics that is not mathematical is imprecise

Kevin

[Phil Dunlop]

For team selection matches we too remove the results of overseas shooters. Like the UK we include a couple of throw away matches, but make the Nationals compulsory.

We use average match percentage as the basis of selection, and find where only one selection match attracts some top Australian competition their win, devalues the match for the purpose of selection, often (and to my regret), by as much as 10%.

P.D.

[Vince Pinto]

What's the situation for UK folk who are members of the UKPSA but spend a lot/all of their year overseas? Is there a corrolary of the "may represent the region of citizenship" rule. I'm curious about this since I guess "technically" any UK citizen is resident the second they set foot in the country, so some one could pop over from the US for 4 days and be the UK Champion?

6.5.1 All competitors must be individual members of the IPSC Region in which they normally reside. Residency is defined as the Region where the individual is ordinarily domiciled for a minimum of 183 days of the twelve months immediately preceding the month in which the match begins. Ordinarily domiciled condition is a physical presence test and does not relate to citizenship or to any address of convenience. The 183 days need not be consecutive or the most recent 183 days of the twelve month period.

I think you're confusing residency (as defined by IPSC above), with tourism! Moreover:

6.5.2 A competitor and/or team member may represent only the IPSC Region in which they reside, except as follows:

...... 6.5.2.1 In respect of a competitor who resides in one Region, but who wishes to represent the Region of which they are a citizen, the Regional Directors for the Region of residence and the Region of citizenship must agree in writing prior to the commencement of the match.

Consider my situation - I'm an Australian citizen who "permanently" resides in Hong Kong. Under the rules, if I wish to shoot an international match, I must be a member of, and I must represent, IPSC Hong Kong. If I want to represent IPSC Australia, then the Hong Kong RD and the Australian RD must both agree in writing.

By the same token, I could never represent the USA, the Philippines or Macau, eventhough I'm a member of their respective organisations, unless I actually took up residence in those regions.

[Vince Pinto]

the european standings I reported were used to award the EC medals: Adriano Santarcangelo was awarded bronze medal at EC 2001 according to european standings, and not silver medal, according to international standings.

But this is precisely my point! The actual official "international" match results show Adriano in 2nd place but, after the results were manipulated to remove Frank Garcia (from 4th place, mind you!), Adriano suddenly flip-flopped with Juan Carlos Jaime, and then Adriano dropped to 3rd place.

What the hell is that all about? A guy actually finishes 2nd (and he beats a world class competitor like Frank Garcia in the process), but some dweeb decides to delete the names he doesn't like because they have the wrong passport, and then the guy in 2nd place drops to 3rd place? Hello? HELLO??

Don't you see how this is a gross injustice to Adriano? So, what lesson have we learned today? Don't manipulate match results.

You simply cannot pretend that Manuel Labour from IPSC Guacamole did not shoot the match, just like Lady competitors cannot pretend that Men didn't shoot the match, and A grade competitors cannot pretend that GM and M grade competitors didn't shoot the match.

Stick to the protocol and have a single set of results, then you can give awards to whoever you like, based on actual official placings.

[Flexmoney]

I see both sides of this...and they both have merit.

Vince, they aren't just pulling out whoever they want and manipulating results.

They are talking abouit running a match within a match.

Think of it like having overall results...and division results.

There is no gross injustice.

It is two matches in one.

[Vince Pinto]

They are talking abouit running a match within a match. It is two matches in one.

If that were the case, why don't they delete all the male competitors to produce a "special" set of Lady results? Or delete the GM & M results and produce a "special" set of A Grade results?

Think of it like having overall results...and division results.

Skewed results is the reason why we score divisions seperately, and not overall with divisions extracted. If you start extracting competitors according to their region of residence, we're back to square one, but why stop there? Why not extract sponsored competitors so that the "amateurs" can look better? Hey, maybe we could extract the skinny runts, so that Fat Bastards © look better? Jokes aside, I also remind you guys of a little thing called "The Rulebook":

9.2.6 Match results must rank competitors within the relevant Division in descending order of the combined total of individual stage points achieved, calculated to 4 decimal places.

The above rule does not say "except for selected people, chosen by the match organisers".

Anyway guys, I'm done here. There is only one correct, legal way to produce match results, and that is with a single set which incorporates ALL competitors, separated solely by Division (but within those Divisions authorised categories are "tagged" for recognition purposes). Extracting competitors for any reason is totally against the rules.

[Jim Norman]

I see nothing wrong with pulling out as many as 6 or more "Special Matches" if you want to call them that, from one larger match.

You can pull and present seperately, only the G, M, A, B, C & D classes. You can pull the Law, Military, Ladies, Seniors, Juniors, Super Seniors. You can present all the divisons combined and do all this all over again on a combined set of results.

I agree that the results are "NOT OFFICIAL" So What?????

If it makes a lot of people happy and they come out and shoot more and bring their friends and they shoot more and join USPSA or whatever local/regional organization, so what? I see that a as a "Good Thing"

We only award the prizes, medals, ribbons and the like only based upon Divisions and Classifications as broken out of the respective Division. As to the State, Section, Regional, Continental Champions, I would think that at the very least we'd require residency. I would not be opposed to requiring citizenship in order to win.

Jim Norman

[Flexmoney]

Extracting competitors for any reason is totally against the rules.

3.3 gives the RD latitude

I would think that a region (or section) should be able to pick the manner in which they choose their champion?

[Skywalker]

Anyway guys, I'm done here. There is only one correct, legal way to produce match results, and that is with a single set which incorporates ALL competitors, separated solely by Division (but within those Divisions authorised categories are "tagged" for recognition purposes). Extracting competitors for any reason is totally against the rules.

Vince,

maybe I'm missing something, but I need to ask: if your feeling is that in EC 2001 the final standings were manipulated, and a gross injustice has been done to Adriano, why didn't IPSC rectify the "illegal" situation? All in all, it was a sanctioned Level IV match and you say that something against the rules has been carried on there.

I think that, running a match inside the match, i.e. scoring all competitors from one region as a match per-se to award regional titles is not against the rules.

Match results are calculated in only one way, prizes and trophies are awarded according to the complete standings, but for regional purposes a match-in-the-match is run and scored accordingly. What's wrong with this?

Flex,

rule 3.3 doesn't help because it requires approval both from regional directorate and IPSC Executive Council to adopt local rules not in compliance with IPSC rules.

In any case, I wonder why a regional directorate shouldn't be free to set their own criteria to select national champions. I still can't see it against the rules. Rule 9.2.6 is completely satisfied by the match official results and prizes awarding.

Who says, or where is it written, that me and my teammates can't use Italian league matches to run our own team league, and exclude all non-teammembers from the results, to determine our own team champion at the end of the year?