Why no bullet overlays?

[ihocky2]

I am okay either with or without overlays, I'll work with whichever the board chooses in the future. I do however think that the use of overlays should be limited to major matches only. Local matches are for practice and bragging rights. There are no trophies, no prizes, no money or anything else on the line at a local match. If you are worried about your score being wrong by a half second at a practice match, you are taking things a little too serious and intensely. Come 3:00 Sunday afternoon at a practice match I am thinking about getting home to relax and eat dinner with a few frosty hockey sodas, if the match is being drug out by someone asking for hits to the be checked on every stage it's going to take a lot of the fun out of it.

It can mean more than just .5 sec's. What if it's a pair of -3's in questions. The differance is .6+FTN and -4. Or it could be the differance between a hit or miss on a NT target. A tight hard cover shot could be the differance between -0 and -5.

If it is a shot that could make a that big of a difference in the score is one thing, and I have a lot less of a problem with. But I know guys that are that serious they will (and have) argued over a single -1 on a target, and it was not the differnce between -0 on the stage and -1. They already had other points down on that stage and others. But any time they had a shot they could argue, they would. And like I said, what bump or prize are you losing out on by being down an extra half second at a local match. I go to the local matches to practice and try to improve, not to try to argue my way to the top. Maybe I am jsut less competetive than some others and don't understand the need.

[steel1212]

I compete to win. Practice is what you do before you go to a match. There will always be those that argue every scoring call. With a overlay there is no argument it either is or is not there

[bikerburgess]

I am okay either with or without overlays, I'll work with whichever the board chooses in the future. I do however think that the use of overlays should be limited to major matches only. Local matches are for practice and bragging rights. There are no trophies, no prizes, no money or anything else on the line at a local match. If you are worried about your score being wrong by a half second at a practice match, you are taking things a little too serious and intensely. Come 3:00 Sunday afternoon at a practice match I am thinking about getting home to relax and eat dinner with a few frosty hockey sodas, if the match is being drug out by someone asking for hits to the be checked on every stage it's going to take a lot of the fun out of it.

It can mean more than just .5 sec's. What if it's a pair of -3's in questions. The differance is .6+FTN and -4. Or it could be the differance between a hit or miss on a NT target. A tight hard cover shot could be the differance between -0 and -5.

If it is a shot that could make a that big of a difference in the score is one thing, and I have a lot less of a problem with. But I know guys that are that serious they will (and have) argued over a single -1 on a target, and it was not the differnce between -0 on the stage and -1. They already had other points down on that stage and others. But any time they had a shot they could argue, they would. And like I said, what bump or prize are you losing out on by being down an extra half second at a local match. I go to the local matches to practice and try to improve, not to try to argue my way to the top. Maybe I am jsut less competetive than some others and don't understand the need.

I think with overlays you would see LESS argument on how the targets are scored, with the current rules if you want to contest every close shot the SO is prohibited from looking too closly so they may just take a second look and give the shooter what they want rather than go to the trouble of pulling the target and running it up the chain of comand for other opinions basses on not looking at it too close. if the shooters know that the hit will actualy be measured they probably won't contest the ones they are pretty sure they won't win.

[Ty Hamby]

So did a little experiment today. This was called zero by the SO. The overlay doesn't touch and took me all if 20 seconds to verify that. The called zero stood of course as that is what the SO called it and overlays can't be used....

While that would help resolve some questionable hits, I am not sure I like the potential impact to the length of a match if it took you 20 seconds to determine if it was a good hit. I would rather give the shooter the benefit. Maybe for sanctioned matches.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Disputes are rare. Overlays don't add any time. In a recent case I was involved with a DASO stared longer at the target than it would have taken to overlay it and see it was a good hit. After 30 seconds and others telling him it is in, and if he is in doubt you got to give it and move on. He continued to look at it, front, back, low, high and say its out. What a DASO!

Maybe I'm mistaken, but it would appear that most of these arguments for overlays (something that will probably never be allowed anyways ) aren't for the shooters benefit, but to prevent the competitor any unnecessary advantage.

If its so close that it requires an overlay, it's already going to go in the shooter's favor. Why are we still beating this horse? Is venting about it going to change anything? It would appear most have already voiced our opinions prior to the finalization of the new rulebook. For one reason or another the BOD isn't budging on this.

If you fail to award a hit you just gave that score to the good to everyone else. We just want an accurate or benefit to the shooter score. We don't want DASO, screwing shooters out of earned hits.

The "close goes in the shooters favor" doesn't go in EVERY shooter's favor. If you give a hit that was close but not quite there to the shooter who shot it that helps him but hurts every other shooter as he has a score he didn't earn.

Yep. Accurate calls is all anyone expects.

I compete to win. Practice is what you do before you go to a match. There will always be those that argue every scoring call. With a overlay there is no argument it either is or is not there

Absolutely, there is no score in practice.

I think with overlays you would see LESS argument on how the targets are scored, with the current rules if you want to contest every close shot the SO is prohibited from looking too closly so they may just take a second look and give the shooter what they want rather than go to the trouble of pulling the target and running it up the chain of comand for other opinions basses on not looking at it too close. if the shooters know that the hit will actualy be measured they probably won't contest the ones they are pretty sure they won't win.

One huge problem our club has is that SO's still over examine hits failing to award full diameter hits. Having trouble correcting DASO's

[BillR1]

With a overlay there is no argument it either is or is not there

The moderator has already said that this is simply untrue. Disputes still happen with overlays. Disputes WILL happen as long as there are human judges and officials. To pretend otherwise is just silly.

[BillR1]

Just to be fair, USPSA scoring discrepancies aren't simply a CRO whipping out overlays, calling a score, and no delay after. People have been painting that picture in this thread and it just isn't so.

As an RM at multiple Level 2 matches I've been called many times to examine targets upon which the CRO and competitor had a differing view of the scores...with overlays.

Disputes happen when humans are involved...fact!

[Glock3422]

The real reason there are no overlays is because IDPA would either have to make their own or use one from another sport and that ain't gonna happen.

[steel1212]

With a overlay there is no argument it either is or is not there

The moderator has already said that this is simply untrue. Disputes still happen with overlays. Disputes WILL happen as long as there are human judges and officials. To pretend otherwise is just silly.

Your absolutely right. Just like mark said disputes will happen. I've got news for you though that bullet either touched the line or it didn't FACT!!!

The naked eyeball is inferior to any tool designed to tell that.

[BillR1]

With a overlay there is no argument it either is or is not there

The moderator has already said that this is simply untrue. Disputes still happen with overlays. Disputes WILL happen as long as there are human judges and officials. To pretend otherwise is just silly.

Your absolutely right. Just like mark said disputes will happen. I've got news for you though that bullet either touched the line or it didn't FACT!!!

That IS a fact. People will still disagree if it happened or not, regardless of the "tool" being used. As long as people are involved, there will be disputes. It seems way easier and faster to simply give the close calls to the shooter and move along.

[steel1212]

With a overlay there is no argument it either is or is not there

The moderator has already said that this is simply untrue. Disputes still happen with overlays. Disputes WILL happen as long as there are human judges and officials. To pretend otherwise is just silly.

Your absolutely right. Just like mark said disputes will happen. I've got news for you though that bullet either touched the line or it didn't FACT!!!

That IS a fact. People will still disagree if it happened or not, regardless of the "tool" being used. As long as people are involved, there will be disputes. It seems way easier and faster to simply give the close calls to the shooter and move along.

I will not accept easier and faster as being better than more accurate.

[BillR1]

With a overlay there is no argument it either is or is not there

The moderator has already said that this is simply untrue. Disputes still happen with overlays. Disputes WILL happen as long as there are human judges and officials. To pretend otherwise is just silly.

Your absolutely right. Just like mark said disputes will happen. I've got news for you though that bullet either touched the line or it didn't FACT!!!

That IS a fact. People will still disagree if it happened or not, regardless of the "tool" being used. As long as people are involved, there will be disputes. It seems way easier and faster to simply give the close calls to the shooter and move along.

I will not accept easier and faster as being better than more accurate.

That's your call. Apparently IDPA doesn't see enough overall value in overlay scoring to change. That's THEIR call. The rest of us just play or choose not to.

[steel1212]

With a overlay there is no argument it either is or is not there

The moderator has already said that this is simply untrue. Disputes still happen with overlays. Disputes WILL happen as long as there are human judges and officials. To pretend otherwise is just silly.

Your absolutely right. Just like mark said disputes will happen. I've got news for you though that bullet either touched the line or it didn't FACT!!!

That IS a fact. People will still disagree if it happened or not, regardless of the "tool" being used. As long as people are involved, there will be disputes. It seems way easier and faster to simply give the close calls to the shooter and move along.

I will not accept easier and faster as being better than more accurate.

That's your call. Apparently IDPA doesn't see enough overall value in overlay scoring to change. That's THEIR call. The rest of us just play or choose not to.

Yup it is their call. The wrong one for a sport that keeps score.

[BillR1]

With a overlay there is no argument it either is or is not there

The moderator has already said that this is simply untrue. Disputes still happen with overlays. Disputes WILL happen as long as there are human judges and officials. To pretend otherwise is just silly.

Your absolutely right. Just like mark said disputes will happen. I've got news for you though that bullet either touched the line or it didn't FACT!!!

That IS a fact. People will still disagree if it happened or not, regardless of the "tool" being used. As long as people are involved, there will be disputes. It seems way easier and faster to simply give the close calls to the shooter and move along.

I will not accept easier and faster as being better than more accurate.

That's your call. Apparently IDPA doesn't see enough overall value in overlay scoring to change. That's THEIR call. The rest of us just play or choose not to.

Yup it is their call. The wrong one for a sport that keeps score.

That one is a matter of opinion...but that's fine.

[Gary Stevens]

I'll speak generally on this subject. I have scored so many targets that I can look at it and in 99.5 percent of the time make even a close call and be correct. Part of that is understanding the relationship between the bullet and the hole in the target, and any angle that may have to be taken into account.

However, in order to get a "correct" score every now and then I have to pull the overlay. Takes a few seconds, but I know the score is correct which is all most people want.

[daytona955i]

If it is close enough that you would contemplate digging out a piece of plastic with circles drawn on it... you should be giving the points to the shooter.

[JD45]

If the SO doesn't like you, it won't be "close enough". That is the part we want IDPA to see.

[Brian Gonsalves]

If the SO doesn't like you, it won't be "close enough". That is the part we want IDPA to see.

Exactly!

[steel1212]

It has nothing to do with me. I typically don't get "the calls" because "oh he is a USPSA GM he does t need my help". Shot a match a little while ago where if I didn't put it obviously in the down zero I didn't get it. Watched the SO give other shooters the down zero that was obviously not in. My problem is I can't argue because if mine isn't in it's not in. What do I do argue that he is giving others down zeros that they didn't earn. People I beat probably by 30 seconds or more?

Keep it the same across the board. Over lays allow you to do that better.

[BillR1]

If it is close enough that you would contemplate digging out a piece of plastic with circles drawn on it... you should be giving the points to the shooter.

This...again.

[steel1212]

If it is close enough that you would contemplate digging out a piece of plastic with circles drawn on it... you should be giving the points to the shooter.

This...again.

And it simply doesn't consistently work that way as I tried to point out in my last post from the last match I shot.

[Flexmoney]

If it is close enough that you would contemplate digging out a piece of plastic with circles drawn on it... you should be giving the points to the shooter.

Why? Why GIVE points?

Don't you want what you have EARNED? Don't you want the competition to get what they have EARNED?

[BillR1]

If it is close enough that you would contemplate digging out a piece of plastic with circles drawn on it... you should be giving the points to the shooter.

Why? Why GIVE points?

Don't you want what you have EARNED? Don't you want the competition to get what they have EARNED?

I don't think the issue is whether or not the points were "earned". If the shot/hole is close enough to not be able to discern with the naked eye, then the call goes to the shooter. The problem is not with using this scoring method; the problem (in a few cases) is the standard being applied inconsistently. As the moderator pointed out, disputes will and do still happen with overlays. They don't eliminate human "errors". (intentional or not)

[motosapiens]

If it is close enough that you would contemplate digging out a piece of plastic with circles drawn on it... you should be giving the points to the shooter.

Why? Why GIVE points?

Don't you want what you have EARNED? Don't you want the competition to get what they have EARNED?

I don't think the issue is whether or not the points were "earned". If the shot/hole is close enough to not be able to discern with the naked eye, then the call goes to the shooter. The problem is not with using this scoring method; the problem (in a few cases) is the standard being applied inconsistently. As the moderator pointed out, disputes will and do still happen with overlays. They don't eliminate human "errors". (intentional or not)

That seems like a pretty random way to call things, and very dependent on the skill, experience, preferences and eyesight of the SO. Seems like it would be applied inconsistently (which is exactly what I have observed in real life).

An overlay is a valuable tool for ensuring consistency, and that's why USPSA scoring is consistent in my experience and idpa scoring is not consistent in my experience. Of course scoring is just one of the many areas where idpa rules allow a wide variation and lack of consistency. Based on what I read and hear, this lack of consistency is the primary aspect of idpa that many shooters find frustrating. Also note that using an overlay generally takes no more time than looking closely.

[Flexmoney]

... note that using an overlay generally takes no more time than looking closely.

Madness!

[Flexmoney]

If it is close enough that you would contemplate digging out a piece of plastic with circles drawn on it... you should be giving the points to the shooter.

Why? Why GIVE points?

Don't you want what you have EARNED? Don't you want the competition to get what they have EARNED?

I don't think the issue is whether or not the points were "earned".

That is the point he made. If you gotta look close, just GIVE the points.

How do you look close, anyway? Can I look close at 5y away while scoring the target? 6y? ...