Steel Challenge - Jan 15, 2022 BOD Minutes - Zack Jones Presentation

[Hoops]

SCSA Mission Statement

"Our mission is to promote safe, fair and fun participation in Steel Shooting competition, for members of all ages and [all] skill levels, through effective leadership, education, communication and administration."

If SCSA org follows their Mission Statement on the website homepage, Outer Limits should be, at a minimum, reviewed by the organization for it's fairness for all ages and all skill levels....including people with disabilities.   This also includes the evaluation of Peak Times.

It's a game........based on  Speed and Accuracy.  Youth and people blessed with good physical health will always prevail.....so why place obsticles for those that are less forturnate.  It's a game.

[AzShooter]

+ 1

[Darqusoull13]

On 3/12/2022 at 3:04 PM, Hoops said:

SCSA Mission Statement

"Our mission is to promote safe, fair and fun participation in Steel Shooting competition, for members of all ages and [all] skill levels, through effective leadership, education, communication and administration."

If SCSA org follows their Mission Statement on the website homepage, Outer Limits should be, at a minimum, reviewed by the organization for it's fairness for all ages and all skill levels....including people with disabilities.   This also includes the evaluation of Peak Times.

It's a game........based on  Speed and Accuracy.  Youth and people blessed with good physical health will always prevail.....so why place obsticles for those that are less forturnate.  It's a game.

You're equally allowed to safely compete regardless of age or skill level. You are not entitled to change the game to suit you. That is unfair and against the mission statement. 

[Hoops]

53 minutes ago, Darqusoull13 said:

You're equally allowed to safely compete regardless of age or skill level. You are not entitled to change the game to suit you. That is unfair and against the mission statement. 

An all inclusive point of view to the game is not to "suit me".  This conversation was intended to have a much broader aspect to it.  When the penalty, for example, was arbitrarily set at 4 seconds per run for a disabled person, what people benefited as compared to those that were actually further disadvanged by one stage out of eight?  

 

Granted, this is mine and yours thoughts on the subject.  Am I right?  Are you right?  It's not for me to say.  Clearly there have been those that agree with both sides of the discussion, with a variatey of reasons, so far in this forum.

 

It does not seem unreasonable to me, that the current board, who can change the game by simply changing Peak Times or asses penalities on an arbitary basis, should be able to review Outer Limits objectively in an effort to arrive at a broader, balanced and informed position.   Perhaps for transparency, the SCSA membership should be offered to take a poll. 

 

I personally like to see constructive pros and cons comments on the subject, but unfortunately, only a very small number of people voice their opinions in this forum.  Thus there is no ability by anyone in this forum to know what the broader SCSA membership would think about any changes.....if any.  I do hope that Zack will bring this up to the board....at least for consideration.  

 

 

 

 

[Darqusoull13]

1 hour ago, Hoops said:

An all inclusive point of view to the game is not to "suit me".  This conversation was intended to have a much broader aspect to it.  When the penalty, for example, was arbitrarily set at 4 seconds per run for a disabled person, what people benefited as compared to those that were actually further disadvanged by one stage out of eight?  

 

Granted, this is mine and yours thoughts on the subject.  Am I right?  Are you right?  It's not for me to say.  Clearly there have been those that agree with both sides of the discussion, with a variatey of reasons, so far in this forum.

 

It does not seem unreasonable to me, that the current board, who can change the game by simply changing Peak Times or asses penalities on an arbitary basis, should be able to review Outer Limits objectively in an effort to arrive at a broader, balanced and informed position.   Perhaps for transparency, the SCSA membership should be offered to take a poll. 

 

I personally like to see constructive pros and cons comments on the subject, but unfortunately, only a very small number of people voice their opinions in this forum.  Thus there is no ability by anyone in this forum to know what the broader SCSA membership would think about any changes.....if any.  I do hope that Zack will bring this up to the board....at least for consideration.  

 

 

 

 

I genuinely hope the board does absolutely nothing as far as rule changes for the foreseeable future. 

[jrdoran]

Parking Outer Limits on the side for the time being,

 

Suppose ( closer to the original thread intent )   SCSA reduces ( lower time; make harder )  all Low Ready and Rimfire peak times by 10%

 

I arbitrarily chose 10%, but it would really be done in context of trying to achieve a statistical measure of classifications across each division.   

 

 

 

  

Edited March 14, 2022 by jrdoran

[BentAero]

On 3/12/2022 at 4:04 PM, Hoops said:

SCSA Mission Statement

"Our mission is to promote safe, fair and fun participation in Steel Shooting competition, for members of all ages and [all] skill levels, through effective leadership, education, communication and administration."

If SCSA org follows their Mission Statement on the website homepage, Outer Limits should be, at a minimum, reviewed by the organization for it's fairness for all ages and all skill levels....including people with disabilities.   This also includes the evaluation of Peak Times.

It's a game........based on  Speed and Accuracy.  Youth and people blessed with good physical health will always prevail.....so why place obsticles for those that are less forturnate.  It's a game.

 

Corollary question: Why are Oympic games for less ambulatory competitors held separately from the 'main' games?

[BritinUSA]

Because disabled competitors simply cannot compete on equal terms in 99.99% of all sports. 
 

Steel Challenge could be one of those 0.01% if they changed a single stage.

[nso123]

On 3/14/2022 at 3:07 PM, jrdoran said:

Parking Outer Limits on the side for the time being,

 

Suppose ( closer to the original thread intent )   SCSA reduces ( lower time; make harder )  all Low Ready and Rimfire peak times by 10%

 

I arbitrarily chose 10%, but it would really be done in context of trying to achieve a statistical measure of classifications across each division.   

 

 

 

  

It wouldn’t surprise me to see another 4 second drop in RFRO and PCCO. If I remember correctly, last year’s WSSC was not as fast overall as the year before. I don’t know that this year will be any faster either. I can say that it appears there is some waning interest in Steel Challenge in my area. Matches have gotten smaller. I know ammo has kept some out, and can’t help but wonder if some folks are just moving into other hobbies. 

[EarlKeese]

4 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

Because disabled competitors simply cannot compete on equal terms in 99.99% of all sports. 
 

Steel Challenge could be one of those 0.01% if they changed a single stage.

Or maybe they could just fix the penalty...

[motosapiens]

21 hours ago, BentAero said:

 

Corollary question: Why are Oympic games for less ambulatory competitors held separately from the 'main' games?

the same reason uspsa (olympics) and steel challenge (special olympics) are separate.

[Sinister4]

Just re adjust the 4 second penalty,  ie  can a person win the stage at a national level with the 4 seconds added ?  iF not its to high, adjust it.  Maybe 3, maybe 2  whatever it needs to be. Should be easy to figure out the time actually required for movement between the boxes.  I like the longer stages so I would really like to see them stay as they are target wise

[Gregg K]

19 minutes ago, Sinister4 said:

Just re adjust the 4 second penalty,  ie  can a person win the stage at a national level with the 4 seconds added ?  iF not its to high, adjust it.  Maybe 3, maybe 2  whatever it needs to be. Should be easy to figure out the time actually required for movement between the boxes.  I like the longer stages so I would really like to see them stay as they are target wise

I also think that 4 seconds is too much. 3 seconds was plenty. Nobody is going to be denied a title by someone taking 9 seconds worth of penalty on a stage and if they did their game needs serious work anyway.  I'd have to shoot some strings all from the center to get a better opinion but maybe less than 3 would be appropriate.

 

[egd5]

I would bet if you made the penalty 2 seconds (which is what I think actual time to move would be for most people), or even 3, that 99% would just shoot from the middle anyway.

[motosapiens]

3 hours ago, egd5 said:

I would bet if you made the penalty 2 seconds (which is what I think actual time to move would be for most people), or even 3, that 99% would just shoot from the middle anyway.

maybe at 2 seconds some old B class shooters would benefit by taking the penalty.  no one would good would shoot from the middle with a 3 second penalty.

 

An A/M class shooter takes about 2 seconds between shots to get across (compared to .4-.5-ish transition times for that level of difficulty), so about 1.6 seconds slower than just standing there and shooting. Taking the penalty would add 4-5 seconds to your time, enough to move you from 2nd to 6th (or 40th to 50th) at a big match.

[Hoops]

Put the article below and the last sentence in Rule 10.1.10.2 in the FWIW round file cabinet.  Are there a messages here that relates to the current discussion which seems to be pinned to Outer Limits?  Clearly USPSA writes about and even provides discrecinary relief to people in that sport.  

 

https://nroi.org/stage-design/ethics-and-stage-design/

 

10.2.10.2 If the request is approved by the Range Master, a minimum of one procedural penalty, up to a maximum penalty of 20% of the competitor’s points “as shot” (rounded up to the nearest whole number), will be deducted from the competitor’s score. For example, if 100 points are available in the course of fire and the competitor actually scores 90 points, the special penalty is a deduction of 18 points. The Range Master may waive any or all procedural penalties in respect of a competitor who has a significant physical disability prior to the competitor making his attempt at the course of fire. 

 

And around and around we go....................

10.2.10.2

If the request is approved by the Range Master, a minimum of one

procedural penalty, up to a maxi

mum penalty of 20% of the

competitor’s points “as shot” (rounded up to the nearest whole

number), will be deducted from the competitor’s score.

For

example, if 100 points are available in the course of fire and the

competitor actually scores 90 points, th

e special penalty is a

deduction of 18 points.

The Range Master may waive any or all

procedural penalties in respect of a competitor who has a

significant physical disability prior to the competitor making his

attempt at the course of fire.

10.3

Match Dis

qualification

–

General Regulations

10.3.1

A competitor or staff member who commits a safety infraction or any other

prohibited activity during a USPSA match will be disqualified from that

match.

When the safety infraction or prohibited activity is caused by a

medical condition the

competitor or staff member will be prohibited from

attempting any remaining courses of fire and duties in that match regardless

of the schedule or physical layout of the match.

The Director of NROI shall

be notified immediately.

10.3.2

When a match disqu

alification is issued, the Range Officer must record the

reasons for the disqualification, and the time and date of the inci

dent, on the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hoops]

Disregard all the duplicate text above.  Clearly I can't do a simple copy and past.

[egd5]

Excuse my ignorance here, but it is the 4 sec penalty for each string isn't it?

 

Using Moto's numbers as a guide, what about a 5 sec penalty for the stage?

 

Although I still favor just making it stationary for all.

[motosapiens]

31 minutes ago, egd5 said:

Using Moto's numbers as a guide, what about a 5 sec penalty for the stage?

 

Although I still favor just making it stationary for all.

i think it probably needs to be in the 7+ second range for the stage. That way everyone reasonably able-bodied would choose to move, but particularly elderly or disabled shooters would stay stationary, but the guy in a wheelchair wouldn't be so penalized that it kills his match. I mean, c'mon, the dudes already freaking paralyzed, why pile on with 4 second/string penalties?

 

a 7-8 second penalty for the stage would result in a time that should still be 2-3 seconds slower than a normal able-bodied shooter of similar skill could attain. It might be worthwhile to have a few people actually shoot it both ways and report their results. I'll probably set it up in the next week or two, so I'll try to remember to shoot a couple strings from the middle.

 

I think having some actual data points from shooters of different skill levels would help alleviate some of the concern. 

Edited March 17, 2022 by motosapiens

[Gregg K]

4 hours ago, motosapiens said:

i think it probably needs to be in the 7+ second range for the stage. That way everyone reasonably able-bodied would choose to move, but particularly elderly or disabled shooters would stay stationary, but the guy in a wheelchair wouldn't be so penalized that it kills his match. I mean, c'mon, the dudes already freaking paralyzed, why pile on with 4 second/string penalties?

 

a 7-8 second penalty for the stage would result in a time that should still be 2-3 seconds slower than a normal able-bodied shooter of similar skill could attain. It might be worthwhile to have a few people actually shoot it both ways and report their results. I'll probably set it up in the next week or two, so I'll try to remember to shoot a couple strings from the middle.

 

I think having some actual data points from shooters of different skill levels would help alleviate some of the concern. 

I hope to get time this weekend to do the same and test out shooting from the center box only so we aren't totally guessing but using real data. I think we are pretty close to knowing but I want to see it on a timer.

[Sinister4]

We shoot the stage this weekend in our local match i`ll see if I can get some times too

[nso123]

On 3/17/2022 at 12:42 PM, motosapiens said:

maybe at 2 seconds some old B class shooters would benefit by taking the penalty.  no one would good would shoot from the middle with a 3 second penalty.

 

An A/M class shooter takes about 2 seconds between shots to get across (compared to .4-.5-ish transition times for that level of difficulty), so about 1.6 seconds slower than just standing there and shooting. Taking the penalty would add 4-5 seconds to your time, enough to move you from 2nd to 6th (or 40th to 50th) at a big match.

On my 3.80 range strings I am in the range of 2.0 between shot 2 and 3. On a 3.55ish string I am in the 1.85 range. The really fast guys are doing it in the mid to low 1.50s. A 2 second penalty might would be a little on the low side. I think it needs to be enough to keep from encouraging people to not move. The stage would probably be about like Showdown if there was no movement, so you are looking at potentials of 1.60s before the penalty. 

[BritinUSA]

If you want to keep a penalty - instead of just eliminating the movement - then perhaps the penalty should be a percentage of the time on each run rather than a fixed amount. 
 

For example, a 50% penalty added to the time for each string where the competitor does not move.

 

I still think they should just eliminate the movement.

[edyan]

I remember this topic came up when the  4sec. rule came into effect. I didn't think it was fair then or now. I'll be 76 in May, my knees are shot and I need a cane to walk. I'm an A class shooter with A and M scores in some of my rated stages. When it comes to Outer Limits they become comes more like C class scores... those extra 12 seconds added on are a killer...I think they should go back to the three sec penalty, while it hurts, it would still let me competitive. I agree to just let it be about pure speed shooting, for those that can shoot and move, shoot Action Steel. Today they had their first Action Steel match at Homestead, it was a big success and will grow.

[Hoops]

On 3/19/2022 at 10:39 PM, nso123 said:

On my 3.80 range strings I am in the range of 2.0 between shot 2 and 3. On a 3.55ish string I am in the 1.85 range. The really fast guys are doing it in the mid to low 1.50s. A 2 second penalty might would be a little on the low side. I think it needs to be enough to keep from encouraging people to not move. The stage would probably be about like Showdown if there was no movement, so you are looking at potentials of 1.60s before the penalty. 

Thanks for the test results.  Your speed is GM level.  Hopefully after this week we can get some additional times from A and M shooters.