Why no bullet overlays?

[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".

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? ...

I don't think anyone is suggesting scoring a close call from 5-6 yards away, just as you wouldn't/couldn't use an overlay from that distance. If you walk up to the target and need an overlay to score a shot, then the shooter gets the call.

[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".

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? ...

I don't think anyone is suggesting scoring a close call from 5-6 yards away, just as you wouldn't/couldn't use an overlay from that distance. If you walk up to the target and need an overlay to score a shot, then the shooter gets the call.

so if you're lucky enough to have a less experienced SO, or an SO with poor eyesight, then you will score better. That seems like a great way to ensure consistency.

[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".

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? ...

I don't think anyone is suggesting scoring a close call from 5-6 yards away, just as you wouldn't/couldn't use an overlay from that distance. If you walk up to the target and need an overlay to score a shot, then the shooter gets the call.

so if you're lucky enough to have a less experienced SO, or an SO with poor eyesight, then you will score better. That seems like a great way to ensure consistency.

Yep, human errors happen. And as Mark stated, they happen with overlays too.

IDPA apparently doesn't think there would be enough changed calls or "settled disputes" to change their scoring method. I tend to agree. The key would seem to be better training for SOs, and not attempting to "human-proof" the process.

[motosapiens]

Yep, human errors happen. And as Mark stated, they happen with overlays too.

IDPA apparently doesn't think there would be enough changed calls or "settled disputes" to change their scoring method. I tend to agree. The key would seem to be better training for SOs, and not attempting to "human-proof" the process.

well, we can agree to disagree. my experience as both a shooter and SO/RO is that MORE mistakes happen without overlays and that overlays don't take any longer, so I have to conclude that the only reason IDPA avoids them is the desire to simply not do *anything* the same as USPSA does, even if that way is obviously better.

[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.

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? ...

I don't think anyone is suggesting scoring a close call from 5-6 yards away, just as you wouldn't/couldn't use an overlay from that distance. If you walk up to the target and need an overlay to score a shot, then the shooter gets the call.

so if you're lucky enough to have a less experienced SO, or an SO with poor eyesight, then you will score better. That seems like a great way to ensure consistency.

Yep, human errors happen. And as Mark stated, they happen with overlays too.

IDPA apparently doesn't think there would be enough changed calls or "settled disputes" to change their scoring method. I tend to agree. The key would seem to be better training for SOs, and not attempting to "human-proof" the process.

Nope human errors don't happen in IDPA because there is no way to guard against it. Tools protect us from errors more than with out.

[ac4wordplay]

<snip>

Yep, human errors happen. ...<snip>

I'm quite late to this discussion, but I've noticed that you keep stating this (above) as if it's a legitimate defense.

Your position (on these specifics) seems to be something like this:

• human error occurs
• therefor human error occurs with both USPSA-style overlays, and with IDPA "eyeball" scoring
• as human error occurs with USPSA-style overlays, they can't be superior (more accurate, etc.) than IDPA "eyeball" scoring
• therefor, IDPA "eyeball" scoring is as accurate as any scoring method can be, and there is no reason to change/improve it

This is a terrible argument (with an invalid conclusion) because it treats USPSA-style overlays and IDPA "eyeballs" as if they have the same error rate. I wonder if any experienced individual believes that they have the same error rate? I wonder if any experienced individual believes that the error rates are remotely similar?

If there is a defense for using IDPA "eyeball" scoring, it's not: "humans make mistakes - even with USPSA overlays, therefor IDPA doesn't need overlays".

Respectfully,

ac

[BillR1]

<snip>

Yep, human errors happen. ...<snip>

I'm quite late to this discussion, but I've noticed that you keep stating this (above) as if it's a legitimate defense.

Your position (on these specifics) seems to be something like this:

• human error occurs
• therefor human error occurs with both USPSA-style overlays, and with IDPA "eyeball" scoring
• as human error occurs with USPSA-style overlays, they can't be superior (more accurate, etc.) than IDPA "eyeball" scoring
• therefor, IDPA "eyeball" scoring is as accurate as any scoring method can be, and there is no reason to change/improve it

This is a terrible argument (with an invalid conclusion) because it treats USPSA-style overlays and IDPA "eyeballs" as if they have the same error rate. I wonder if any experienced individual believes that they have the same error rate? I wonder if any experienced individual believes that the error rates are remotely similar?

If there is a defense for using IDPA "eyeball" scoring, it's not: "humans make mistakes - even with USPSA overlays, therefor IDPA doesn't need overlays".

Respectfully,

ac

As I stated previously, overlays are probably more "accurate" in the right hands. My contention is that simply being more accurate doesn't make them better in every case. IDPA has (correctly IMO) determined that the small increase in "accuracy" doesn't outweigh the real or perceived disadvantages in using them. Since scoring disputes still occur even with overlays, it's easier to simply award the shooters the calls that are that close and move on.

[steel1212]

On a sport that uses a scoring system and saying that the score beig accurate isn't that big of a deal is just absurd.

[sperman]

[BillR1]

On a sport that uses a scoring system and saying that the score beig accurate isn't that big of a deal is just absurd.

I never said or suggested accuracy wasn't a big deal. Lets go back to the baseball analogy...Is it more "accurate" to have instant replay cameras call balls and strikes? Absolutely! Does that make it a "better" way? Not a chance, and those guys are making millions of dollars. You'd think they would want the utmost in "accuracy".The bottom line is the TINY number of calls that would get changed is not worth the increased lag in the game.

At some point, with or without overlays, you simply have to accept what a human judge determines your score is and move along to the next target.

Also, with or without overlays, there WILL be disputes and disagreements on what the human judge decides. Overlays are not the cure for that at all.

Edited August 16, 2013 by BillR1

[motosapiens]

As I stated previously, overlays are probably more "accurate" in the right hands. My contention is that simply being more accurate doesn't make them better in every case. IDPA has (correctly IMO) determined that the small increase in "accuracy" doesn't outweigh the real or perceived disadvantages in using them. Since scoring disputes still occur even with overlays, it's easier to simply award the shooters the calls that are that close and move on.

What are the real or perceived disadvantages in using them? As far as I can tell, the disadvantage is that USPSA uses them, and everyone knows that IDPA is USPSA-phobic. Doing something just because it's 'easier' seems like a good way to do a crappy job at something. It also seems like it would encourage whining. If a whiny shooter knows that he can just whine on close calls and get 'given' something that he may not have earned, why wouldn't he whine for every close call?

Overlays aren't the cure, but they are absolutely certainly more accurate, and they result in far fewer scoring disputes. As an RO at Area 1 this year, we had only 1 scoring dispute out of 400 shooters that required the RM (a mike that the shooter wanted to be a double). We had dozens of potential scoring disputes that were averted by quickly using an overlay. Even when the shooter didn't ask for it, they tend to not dispute the call if the overlay is used.

However, it doesn't bother me if you prefer to be wrong. But giving away points and doing things the easy way may be part of the reason that so many shooters go a different direction as their skill level and experience increase.

[Flexmoney]

On a sport that uses a scoring system and saying that the score beig accurate isn't that big of a deal is just absurd.

You...you...silly competitor you. Your logic is getting the way of other's participation.

[v1911]

Edited August 16, 2013 by v1911

[BillR1]

Exactly!

I guess the bottom line for me is I don't have an issue trusting an SO to make the correct call with the naked eye. I may not agree with them every time, but that's the nature of any game. IDPA apparently feels the same.

Those that need artificial aids for scoring to confirm the SO's decision have the "other game" to play. Everyone's happy!

[Brian Gonsalves]

On a sport that uses a scoring system and saying that the score beig accurate isn't that big of a deal is just absurd.

I never said or suggested accuracy wasn't a big deal. Lets go back to the baseball analogy...Is it more "accurate" to have instant replay cameras call balls and strikes? Absolutely! Does that make it a "better" way? Not a chance, and those guys are making millions of dollars. You'd think they would want the utmost in "accuracy".The bottom line is the TINY number of calls that would get changed is not worth the increased lag in the game.

One of the many differences between baseball and IDPA, is the Umpires don't play on the other team. SO's are competitors, in a perfect world that wouldn't matter..................

[steel1212]

Those that need artificial aids for scoring to confirm the SO's decision have the "other game" to play. Everyone's happy!

I guess the fact that I'm a USPSA, IDPA, 3 gun, steel competitor I feel that each organization could learn from the others in what works and what doesn't, what's fair and what isn't.

Having a SO look at a target and give a marksmen a down zero when the hole is half a inch away and then turn around and not do the same for me just infuriates me to no end. Those SOs typically are in TE mind set that they are just helping old Joe out but that Corey guy he doesn't need any help. Well in the end your SO just helped old Joe win MM SSP because the other SOs didn't give out points like Joes SO did. Then you have Joe winning something he didn't earn. I mean if that is the way you like to okay cool then let's not keep score at all.

[Brian Gonsalves]

Those that need artificial aids for scoring to confirm the SO's decision have the "other game" to play. Everyone's happy!

I mean if that is the way you like to okay cool then let's not keep score at all.

Like T-ball

[BillR1]

Those that need artificial aids for scoring to confirm the SO's decision have the "other game" to play. Everyone's happy!

I guess the fact that I'm a USPSA, IDPA, 3 gun, steel competitor I feel that each organization could learn from the others in what works and what doesn't, what's fair and what isn't.

Having a SO look at a target and give a marksmen a down zero when the hole is half a inch away and then turn around and not do the same for me just infuriates me to no end. Those SOs typically are in TE mind set that they are just helping old Joe out but that Corey guy he doesn't need any help. Well in the end your SO just helped old Joe win MM SSP because the other SOs didn't give out points like Joes SO did. Then you have Joe winning something he didn't earn. I mean if that is the way you like to okay cool then let's not keep score at all.

A couple of questions come to mind after reading this...

1. What difference does it make to you as a MA shooter what score a MM is given on a target?

2. In the scenario given, would you really pull out an overlay to try and degrade a score given to another shooter by an SO? I know what MY answer to that question would be...

Like I said, it comes down to trust. You either trust the SOs to have integrity and make the right calls, or you don't.

[Brian Gonsalves]

Those that need artificial aids for scoring to confirm the SO's decision have the "other game" to play. Everyone's happy!

I guess the fact that I'm a USPSA, IDPA, 3 gun, steel competitor I feel that each organization could learn from the others in what works and what doesn't, what's fair and what isn't.

Having a SO look at a target and give a marksmen a down zero when the hole is half a inch away and then turn around and not do the same for me just infuriates me to no end. Those SOs typically are in TE mind set that they are just helping old Joe out but that Corey guy he doesn't need any help. Well in the end your SO just helped old Joe win MM SSP because the other SOs didn't give out points like Joes SO did. Then you have Joe winning something he didn't earn. I mean if that is the way you like to okay cool then let's not keep score at all.

A couple of questions come to mind after reading this...

1. What difference does it make to you as a MA shooter what score a MM is given on a target?

2. In the scenario given, would you really pull out an overlay to try and degrade a score given to another shooter by an SO? I know what MY answer to that question would be...

Like I said, it comes down to trust. You either trust the SOs to have integrity and make the right calls, or you don't.

I know those were questions for Corey, but I'll throw in my answers to them:

#1 - None, but it may mean a lot to another MM shooter that has worked to improve only to be beat by a bad call.

#2 - No, but I would talk to the SO or MD after the stage was scored.

As to the trust statement, what would you do if you had SO's you couldn't trust to make a correct/fair call?

Edited August 16, 2013 by Brian Gonsalves

[Racinready300ex]

Like I said, it comes down to trust. You either trust the SOs to have integrity and make the right calls, or you don't.

And he is saying he's had SO's make bad calls. So why should he trust them to always make the right call?

Personally I've had the same thing happen that he is talking about. I've lost points for a close a shot, that others were given for similar shots. Or get PE's that no one else gets, cover calls are the worst as they are so subjective. One day I shot with some older guys who clearly wanted to do everything they could to hurt my score because I was shooting "to fast". That day was miserable, every stage was something. But, if IDPA wants to give SO the power to play favorites, who am I to argue?

[BillR1]

As to the trust statement, what would you do if you had SO's you couldn't trust to make a correct/fair call?

I have no idea...I've never experienced that. I guess I'd just do the best I could and find someplace else to shoot next time.

I have a hard time believing that an SO would intentionally try to cheat me in a game where there's so little at stake. There's no money involved, so what's the point?

Edited August 16, 2013 by BillR1

[BillR1]

Like I said, it comes down to trust. You either trust the SOs to have integrity and make the right calls, or you don't.

And he is saying he's had SO's make bad calls. So why should he trust them to always make the right call?

Personally I've had the same thing happen that he is talking about. I've lost points for a close a shot, that others were given for similar shots. Or get PE's that no one else gets, cover calls are the worst as they are so subjective. One day I shot with some older guys who clearly wanted to do everything they could to hurt my score because I was shooting "to fast". That day was miserable, every stage was something. But, if IDPA wants to give SO the power to play favorites, who am I to argue?

Great point! In that situation, the use or non-use of overlays makes NO difference. If you're in a spot like that where the SOs or other competitors have an issue with you for whatever reason, then they're going to find some way to "penalize" you. PEs, cover calls, etc. are still subjective, regardless of the scoring method used.

[motosapiens]

2. In the scenario given, would you really pull out an overlay to try and degrade a score given to another shooter by an SO? I know what MY answer to that question would be...

In local matches (where many SO's are not certified or don't have much experience), I will absolutely request the SO/RO take another look if I believe an incorrect score was called.

[BillR1]

2. In the scenario given, would you really pull out an overlay to try and degrade a score given to another shooter by an SO? I know what MY answer to that question would be...

In local matches (where many SO's are not certified or don't have much experience), I will absolutely request the SO/RO take another look if I believe an incorrect score was called.

I want to be sure I understand this...you would stop the scoring and send for the RO/MD (who is probably himself shooting on a different squad) to try and change (downgrade!) a score that's not even your own?

[motosapiens]

2. In the scenario given, would you really pull out an overlay to try and degrade a score given to another shooter by an SO? I know what MY answer to that question would be...

In local matches (where many SO's are not certified or don't have much experience), I will absolutely request the SO/RO take another look if I believe an incorrect score was called.

I want to be sure I understand this...you would stop the scoring and send for the RO/MD (who is probably himself shooting on a different squad) to try and change (downgrade!) a score that's not even your own?

No, I would request the RO/SO take another look at it and explain why I think the score should be different. Makes no difference whether it's an upgrade or a downgrade, just that it is correct. I would hope anyone else would do the same for me if I missed something. It's not that unusual to make a mistake.

Edited August 16, 2013 by motosapiens