10 Pts For Thrown Clays In Uspsa. Is It Enough?

[Religious Shooter]

Well it's almost been a month since the Nationals in Albany. I think the interim rules will be expiring sometime in December. I guess that's why we had that pow-wow at the end with Voight and Gary.

Anyways... did you guys think 10 pts was enough for the thrown clay birds?

I thought about it and I'm (re)asking Mr. Gary in this post to allow thrown clays to be valued up to 20 points. Hopefully the rest of you guys will chime in with a yes or no so we can get a consensus or more viewpoints on the matter.

From the Nationals Stage 6... I think using the 10 pts, for the Limited/Tactical shooter it was a push on if they should or should not engage them. If you take into account the risk involved even at 10 points IMHO the Lim/Tactical shooter should have left most of the flying targets unengaged.

From the results on stage 6 (I've highligted the shooters that probably skipped some of the clays on purpose):

2006 USPSA_Multigun_Nationals - Stage 6 Pigeon Dinner

Place Name No. Class Division Points Penalties Time Hit Factor Stage Pts Stage %

1 Taran Butler 112 GM Tactical 110 0 25.44 4.3239 110.0000 100.00%

2 Mark Hanish 158 GM Tactical 110 0 25.93 4.2422 107.9216 98.11%

3 Bennie Cooley 24 M Tactical 110 0 27.11 4.0575 103.2228 93.84%

4 David Neth 143 M Tactical 80 0 21.15 3.7825 96.2268 87.48%

5 Daniel Horner 79 A Tactical 110 0 29.97 3.6703 93.3724 84.88%

6 Keith Tyler 7 M Tactical 110 0 30.13 3.6508 92.8763 84.43%

7 Carl Carbon 15 M Tactical 110 0 30.93 3.5564 90.4748 82.25%

8 Robby Johnson 78 U Tactical 80 0 23.72 3.3727 85.8015 78.00%

9 Rod Current 5 M Tactical 110 0 34.22 3.2145 81.7769 74.34%

10 Craig Salman 11 C Tactical 110 0 34.62 3.1774 80.8330 73.48%

11 Shawn Carlock 22 M Tactical 100 0 32.23 3.1027 78.9327 71.76%

12 David Littman 149 A Tactical 80 0 25.87 3.0924 78.6706 71.52%

13 Joe Harless 80 B Tactical 80 0 25.89 3.0900 78.6096 71.46%

14 Vance Schmid 46 M Tactical 100 0 32.47 3.0798 78.3501 71.23%

15 Gordon Baladad 17 B Tactical 110 0 35.89 3.0649 77.9710 70.88%

16 Jack Boyd 157 B Tactical 90 0 30.84 2.9183 74.2415 67.49%

17 Chuck [mp] Anderson 34 M Tactical 110 0 38.35 2.8683 72.9695 66.34%

18 Greg Purcell 47 M Tactical 110 0 38.52 2.8557 72.6490 66.04%

19 Chris Sechiatano 129 A Tactical 90 0 32.18 2.7968 71.1506 64.68%

20 Tom Hemker 9 U Tactical 110 0 39.61 2.7771 70.6494 64.23%

You can see Dave Neth's run here at Jerry the Geeks page http://jerrythegeek.arpc-ipsc.org/gallery/...s6/mg06s6_1_001

There were four flying clays total. Neth skipped three of the flying clay targets (you can see them flying up in the video) and engaged and hit the fourth. He got fourth place on the stage. He outright skips three targets and gets fourth place on the stage.

If you took a look at the non GM/M classes:

A: 2nd place A (Litman) skipped three clays.

B: The class winner (Harless) skipped three clays.

C: Pretty much all top placers engaged the clays.

D: I only see one shooter and it looks like she tried to engage all the clays.

Even with those barrels and barricades to give/force the shooter to have some time to reload the 10 points did not make them worth engaging (IMHO) for those shooting Lim/Tactical. If you took those barrels and barricades out and left the rest of the stage the same... no doubt in my mind that 10 points wouldn't have been enough to make the flying clays worth shooting.

If you make the flying clays be able to be valued (like far rifle targets) at 10, 15 or 20 points you would give the course designer the ability to tweak the stage to where you have the above situation (where you have to make the choice) or to make the flying clays a must hit/engage target outright.

And remember the rules should work for both the Nationals and the club matches. We should be able to just slap down a flipper target anywhere on a course without having to add barrels, vision barriers, or what have to give some time to reload and then MAYBE make the flying clay target worth engaging. If you value that clay at 20 points the less we will need to go through all that stage planning and tweaking.

[mike_pinto]

This is what we contimplate every match. We want to make the shooters feel it is worth it to engage the clays. One of the MD's even made it a penalty to not engage the target. We shoot outlaw style so the USPSA rules do not apply, but I can't imagine it is a rule that you have to engage dissappearing targets or a 10 second penalty, but I could be wrong.

Is 20 points enough? If a feller like Taran or Kurt are shooting, it is usually not an issue for anyone else to win the stage, but I think in the spirit of the stage, shooters should be forced to engage them. I have shot a few 3-gun matches with Kurt, and no matter how much faster he could do it without engaging them, he always does because that is how the stage is designed. Those are local matches though.

I say make them worth enough that no one will pass on them to avoid a reload to loose the points. But to answer your question, yes make them worth more.

Sorry for the long post, but this has bothered me as well.

Mike

[Jim Norman]

Saturday we will be having our annual USPSA Shotgun Match. We have three flippers on one stage. You'll likely have time to stoke your tube before you get to them. We have valued them at 10 poiints, the current maximum. I think that we would welcome making them worth 20 points. You would have no choiice but to attempt them. Just too many points to miss.

Right now people will shoot all three or four steel, then take whatever birds they get as bonus points. Make them 20 points and you'll see people shoot one/one or two/two, but very unlikely four/four.

My opinion.

Jim

[Mickster]

This same situation happened at DPMS.

Many tactical/limited shooters chose not to shoot the flying clays on stage one because of the time used in shooting/loading. Even though each clay was a 5 second penalty and there were 10 of them, it was still safer to just not engage them, unless you were a world class trap shooter, which most of us aren't.

If they were 10 seconds each, or a 5 second failure to engage was added on, then you bet they would get shot at.

An outstanding match director/promoter, Kyle Lamb, said it best regarding the question of penalties and dissapearing targets. "Dissapearing targets? If a target shows itself, you need to shoot it".

Makes sense to me.

[MikeFoley]

In the past couple of years, I have changed the way I feel about all optional/disappearing targets. They are seldom worth it, and sometimes it is just a push. If you have to reload the shotgun, and you are not 100% sure you can take the target without lingering in a position, then I skip it. Double points still don't overcome the time it takes to get you a higher hit factor. If they are worth 20 points each, then it may work. 50 points in 5 is the same as 60 in 6 with comstock scoring.

[Chuck Anderson]

Or another idea. Do away with them completely. These things are a horrible target system. They count for score but the RO has only a second or two to make the determination of a hit or not. I watched a shooter on our squad hit one of the clays on his second shot. Both RO's were watching the other target and didn't see it. Should this shooter be penalized 20pts. because the RO's missed it. He eventually got the hit after, well a hissy fit. But he was right, he did hit it. I got scored a hit that I didn't think I got because both the RO's saw a single pellet hit through the clay. I got lucky.

I wouldn't look at those results and decide whether people tried shooting at them based on the number of points they got. I tried all 4 but still ended up with a miss. I'm guessing there's one or two, or a lot more that tried the same.

I hate targets that don't allow verification. These things are gone normally within a second or less of the shot being fired. I really do hate them.

[mike_pinto]

But if you hit them hard on the first shot, they turn into a puff of black smoke that no one could miss scoring. I think it is another facit of the game that requires practice and a little creativity. The more we shoot 'em, the better everyone will get at seeing those golden bb shots that make a small hole in the bird.

That outta start some "I Hate Mike" posts!

Mike

[MarkCO]

My opinion is that the rules should be changed to state that disappearing clays must be engaged or incur a FTE and leave them at 10 points. That, to me, puts everyone on a more even level and will encourage more local clubs to use them while not being a huge penalty for a miss, if it truly is a miss and not just a skip. Kind of like some points for engagement and some points for the hit. That also tends to reduce the slam factor if, by chance, an RO misses seeing a "Golden BB" (or actually a #8) and the clay hits the ground and shatters.

Edited August 23, 2006 by MarkCO

[kurtm]

What??? Mr. Pasamanic (hope I spelled that right) and I agree??? I can't believe it!! Yep that is how we score them at Outlaw Matches..( Outlaw 3-gun is the name of the Oklahoma city gun club 3-gun section )

A procedural for not shooting AT the bird but 3 seconds off for hits, in USPSA cases 10 points sound fair.

Now with that being said, I also hate fliing clay targets for all the same reasons Mr. H listed. Once I smoked a clay and wasn't given credit for it as the R.O. was watching the camera crew that was filming me and not the bird. ( not a bad option as they were in need of watching in thier zeal to film, but it did cost me a substantial time penalty). No amount of talking would change his mind so that was that. You can't replay the hit! I would hate for the out come of a match to hing on a fliing clay target and the call of one pellet striking it! I think this kind of thing is great for club matches but has no place in higher level competitions! KURTM

[mike.45]

Mark has a good point, giving them a FTE would probably make people go for them. We just had a championship match and two squads gamed the entire stage and its frustrating for the match organisers who were trying to present a shooting challange.

On the video its clear DN doesnt engage the clays as he only wanted to load 2 shells between positions and not the 3 he would have needed, so as not to run his gun dry each time. He could have negated this by initially loading 3 then 3 and then 3 (1 of his chest rig)which would have completed the stage, and also used up the 8 on his side saddle, leaving his gun dry. The one off his chest rig could easily have been loaded in the steps he takes to move to his second shooting position.

[outerlimits]

i hate them too, but shot them, in open it was a no brainer. i was more surprised the long range rifle targets were only worth 5 pts. i shot them all in 88 & change, but others blew them off. those 375 yarders should have been 10 or 15 pts!

[Chuck Anderson]

I also don't like FTE penalties on disappearing targets. We ran some three gun matches earlier in the year and the first two times I shot them my gun malf'd after the activator. Now I can take the FTE or I can fire a shot at nothing, but where the clay was 10 seconds before and scare the crap out of the RO. There is no good way to force someone to shoot at a disappearing target. That's why it's called freestyle. There are times they're worth it and times they're not. If you want to say it's not tactical, how about this. There have been lots of times where for a fleeting moment, I could have shot someone. Is it tactical to require me to shoot them after they're gone, or stopped presenting themselves as a threat? Just figured I'd throw that one in since someone brought up Kyle Lamb.

[bigbrowndog]

i believe in the ESC match they will be using disappearing, clays that look like they will be verifyable, if a target cannot be verified that it was hit after the COF is over it should not be used in a match.

opinion, favoritism, bias, and simple oversight, should not be encouraged in scoring a match!

the targets in the ESC match appear to be verifyable after the COF is over, however after figuring out time and points, with HF they still do not appear to be worth engaging, and they will be worth double points. closer inspection of the COF, will tell for sure....it would be nice to have Mr. Hill's opinion available, he always seems to be able to figure stuff like that out rather quickly.

[MarkCO]

What??? Mr. Pasamanic (hope I spelled that right) and I agree??? I can't believe it!! Yep that is how we score them at Outlaw Matches..( Outlaw 3-gun is the name of the Oklahoma city gun club 3-gun section )

Kurt, you did not spell it right, but I've seen worse. I'm not sure I could spell it til I was about 8! Heck, we don't enter spelling Bs, so no worries.

Best, Mark

[Neil Beverley]

i believe in the ESC match they will be using disappearing, clays that look like they will be verifyable, if a target cannot be verified that it was hit after the COF is over it should not be used in a match.

opinion, favoritism, bias, and simple oversight, should not be encouraged in scoring a match!

the targets in the ESC match appear to be verifyable after the COF is over, however after figuring out time and points, with HF they still do not appear to be worth engaging, and they will be worth double points. closer inspection of the COF, will tell for sure....it would be nice to have Mr. Hill's opinion available, he always seems to be able to figure stuff like that out rather quickly.

You are correct! The disappearing targets will be verifiable.

I calculated the stage (Stage 20) as a likely 30 second run. Possibly down to 25 seconds but I don't see much if any improvement on that. Assuming all targets are hit in 30 seconds then the stage factor is 4.0 and in 25 seconds 4.8. To consider this another way - if a double value clay can be successfully shot in under 2.5 (or at 25 seconds in 2.08), including the time to reload then the hit gains you points. If it takes you longer to load the extra round and take the extra shot then you lose points. You then have to consider the risk factor. You also have to consider what if the guy you're trying to beat goes for it and gets all hits?

Consider Kurt in full flow. He would reload as part of a sequenced reload with other rounds so the reloading time is small. There are other targets close by so the transition time is small. I would be surprised if taking a shot at one of these clays would add much more than 1.2 to 1.3 seconds (each) to Kurt's time. If the stage is won in 30 seconds Kurt improves his score at 5 points per clay by hitting them, 20 points better off in total for all 4. Perhaps an improvement of 3.5 - 3.8 points per clay if the stage runs at 25 seconds. he can even afford 1 or 2 misses and still be better off.

When I reviewed the match Stage 19 gave me more heartache. T9 and 10 disappear. Certainly OK for Open and Modified but for Standard Division it will hinge on whether you can get a single round in the gun before arriving at the door without slowing you down enough to counter the 5 points available on the second of these targets.

On Stage 4 T4 (a paper target) disappears but it is a buckshot stage and we count 2 hits on paper anyway so the target is worth 10 points without declaring it "double value".

It is elements such as these that I believe adds an extra dimension to the skills required for IPSC Shotgun. A thinking man's sport!

[LPatterson]

If you want verifiable clays then use rabbit targets. I have seen them spun with #8's & not broken & some hit with 7 1/2's that wouldn't break but the hits show.

[Neil Beverley]

The rules require that for a hit to count a frangible target must break or there must be a piece visibly missing. A single pellet hole would count but simple marking on the surface would not.

Perhaps this is a good reason to not use shot as small as #8s?

[bigbrowndog]

neil, i was looking at stage20, and figured 20 secs to shoot all targets (120pts), HF 6.0. do it in 16 secs. and do not shoot the disappearing clays(90pts) HF 5.6. obviously 6.0 is better than 5.6, however miss just one of the disappearing clays HF 5.5.

it will take some looking at to figure it out. it depends on how easy it is to get all the disappearing clays???????

see you soon......trapr

Edited August 23, 2006 by bigbrowndog

[apriav]

Make them manditory to engage or get a FTE like some of the other 3gun events...just throw a shot at them if you want to go fast...if you try it won't take that much longer and a higher score.

[George]

To the question RS posed, I do not believe 10 points is enough to encourage Limited/Tactical shotgunners to always go for them. The math is too close to break even if you get them and if you don't, it's all downside.

In Open I feel 10 points makes them mandatory to engage unless the stage design just plain sucks.

In summary, I feel that valuation up to 20 points for the flying frangibles is a good idea.

I also feel the LD rifle stage steel could have been valued higher. One thought here is that making all nine steel 10 points would have made the LD stage worth more in the scheme of things and reward the better rifle shooters with more match points. I personally have no problem with this and even felt the 360 yarders should have been valued at 20 points for this match! The way this stage was valued tipped the scales towards the CQ rifle stages being more important in the scheme of things.

Was this an intentional design element, or an unseen flaw in the stage weighting?

[Jim Norman]

To the question RS posed, I do not believe 10 points is enough to encourage Limited/Tactical shotgunners to always go for them. The math is too close to break even if you get them and if you don't, it's all downside.

In Open I feel 10 points makes them mandatory to engage unless the stage design just plain sucks.

In summary, I feel that valuation up to 20 points for the flying frangibles is a good idea.

I also feel the LD rifle stage steel could have been valued higher. One thought here is that making all nine steel 10 points would have made the LD stage worth more in the scheme of things and reward the better rifle shooters with more match points. I personally have no problem with this and even felt the 360 yarders should have been valued at 20 points for this match! The way this stage was valued tipped the scales towards the CQ rifle stages being more important in the scheme of things.

Was this an intentional design element, or an unseen flaw in the stage weighting?

There are many ways that matches are scored. USPSA uses HHF, stage points, and a total. This favors high point stages. Time Plus or similar systems use your time and add for penalties. THis favors those that are really good on long stages. Example is the Long Rifle that everyone except a few take a long time to shoot or even time out on. A couple people smoke this and they can coast on shorter stages. What we have done is combine two methods. We use HHF and percentace of stage winner. THat percentae is converted to your points. All stges become worth 100 points. This way, all skill sets are equal to the outcome.

Other methods are order of finish equals a point per place, low score wins. THis has the same effect and removes the extra math. THhe point of all of this being to make it so that no single skill or stage can win the match and all stages and skill are needed.

Jim

[George]

There are many ways that matches are scored. USPSA uses HHF, stage points, and a total. This favors high point stages. Time Plus or similar systems use your time and add for penalties. THis favors those that are really good on long stages. Example is the Long Rifle that everyone except a few take a long time to shoot or even time out on. A couple people smoke this and they can coast on shorter stages. What we have done is combine two methods. We use HHF and percentace of stage winner. THat percentae is converted to your points. All stges become worth 100 points. This way, all skill sets are equal to the outcome.

Other methods are order of finish equals a point per place, low score wins. THis has the same effect and removes the extra math. THhe point of all of this being to make it so that no single skill or stage can win the match and all stages and skill are needed.

I am fully aware of how other scoring systems effect things. This thread is about USPSA scoring of flying clays and in subset, about the LD rifle targets at the recent USMG, not a discussion of why USPSA scoring is not preferred for 3gun/Multigun.

Personally, I don't like IMG (time+) scoring at all, especially when penalty valuations are set so that a single miss/fte penalty can be a huuuuge percentage of the stage run time. Yeah, that's fair, not!

Now back to hit factor based suppositions ;-)

[ap3]

I agree with 20 points for flying clay, and I also support the idea of greater points on LD rifle targets.

Given that many clubs have limited long-distance bays, and long distance rifle shooting is important to true 3 gun competition those type stages should have a important point value for the rifle part of a match. Since space is limited this could be the only way many clubs can provide a high point value for LD rifle.

[Jim Norman]

George,

What it pertains to is allowing one stage to dominate the match. If we have a rifle stage where the percentage of hte match points is say 30% and the stage is only one of say 10, it skews the results heavily towards a person that is really good at long range rifle. Or in the case of Shotgun flipped birds, someone that can hit 4 poppers and 4 birds while they are all in the air, given that the birds become higher point values.

For discussion purposes is why I brought this up. In most matches, there are a variety of stage lengths and point values. The mix of short, medium and long courses that is suggested does not actually work when you also apply the percentages of points to the formula. I have seen too often where a single stage will determine the match. As an example, take a match that has one stage with 300 yard targets and a 300 second (5 minute) time-out. All the rest of the stages are shot in 20-60 seconds and no one times out. On the LRR stage a third of the shooters time-out and many finish with multiple penalties for mikes. One person absolutely smokes this stage, does it in 90 seconds. He is 25% ahead of his nearest rival. the stage has 280 points on it because it has 6) 30 point long targets. the average stage has only 75 points. Our rifle shooter can win, simply by not crashing on any other stage if we score on stage points. He need not pull out the stops, all he has to do is shoot a safe match. However, if we adjust the scoring so that you are awarded either a point for place or percentage points, then each stage becomes worth the same and no matter what you have to shoot them all well to win. A crash is a crash.

I am sure there are a math issues in the example, I did not take the time to work out an exact example, rather I tried to point out in very broad terms what happens when Time Plus or Match Points are used as we in USPSA currently use them.

[George]

My concern is based on the 2006 USMG having a LD rifle stage that was barely worth shooting. Stage 12 was only worth 105 points against a number of 180 and 200 point stages. Stage 7 (CQ rifle only) was worth 200 points. Basically, this match was weighted to favor someone who is fast on close targets.

My figuring says that stage 12 should have been at least 150 points, if not 200. Then it would have stacked up favorably and the reward factor would have been evenly slipt for folks better at CQ stuff versus LD stuff.

Jim, I think you right are on the money about any stage that is significantly higher than the rest (your 30% weight to one LD stage would never happen at any match I had a say in).

I don't feel the exact same weight per stage is much fun. I like there to be a mix of stage values kinda' in keeping with world IPSC standards. No one stage should call the match. If you design a 200 point CQ rifle stage, there also needs to be a 200 point stage for LD rifle, another one for shotgun and one for pistol, otherwise we are favoring groups of competitors.