Match Finishes

[solaritx]

Jane,

I stand corrected. Thank you for your work.

Garry

[sigfla]

This recently became an issue I wanted to know more about b/c I truly believe most clubs and shooters are interpreting this portion of the rule book incorrectly. In order to get bumped at a sanctioned match you must satisfy either rule #1 or #2 on page 71 of the rule book. Here is the applicable text:

There are two ways a shooter can be reclassified at a sanctioned

match:

1. If total participation in a specific classification within a

division is 10 – 19 shooters, the winner of this class will

automatically be promoted up to the next higher classification.

If 20 – 29 shooters compete in this division/classification, both

1st and 2nd place competitors will be promoted, etc.

2. If the winner of a division and classification has a better

score than 10-19 people in his classification AND the

classification above his within the same division, the shooter

will be promoted to the shooter’s next higher classification. If

the 2nd place competitor of a division and classification has a

better score than 20 – 29 shooters in his classification AND the

classification above within the same division, the 2nd place

competitor will be promoted, etc.

Number 1 is easy enough. If the total # of people in your class is between 10-19 and you win, you move up. Where people make a mistake here is they think 30 shooters in the class is still participation between 10-19, it isn't. If you have 30 people in your class you aren't moving up no matter how well you did. If 20-29 people are in your class and you win both you and the second place person will move up. 30 people or more and no one moves.

Number 2 is a bit more difficult. If you win BOTH your division and class and your score is better than 10-19 people in your class AND the class above you will move up. The way this is drafted you must beat 10-19 people in your class in addition to winning your division. If you score better than 20 people in your class and win your division you will not move up b/c you were over the 10-19 limitation. Also rememeber you must also beat between 10-19 people in the class above you to win. If you beat 20 in the class above yours and win your division you will still not move up. Most shooters have incorrectly interpreted this rule to mean you are able to combine the people in your class and the class above to hit the 10-19 limit. In reality if you combine those people you beat in your class and that above you may have actually have "a better score than 10-19 people." You see if 20 people compete in your class #2 will never be triggered. Also you must win your division which for most low level shooters simply won't happen.

You must read these rules as you would any other statute or regulation. IDPA really should clarify them a bit better so we know what their intent is and provide for a more uniform interpretation by all area AC's. I E-mailed them about this 4 months ago and still haven't heard a response. This isn't a gripe per se but I do believe an error was made when drafting this portion of the rules. Class bumps at major matches under these criteria would rarely happen in my opinion.

Edited April 27, 2009 by sigfla

[astephenson]

My interpretation is a little different from yours.

If you have 30 people in your class you aren't moving up no matter how well you did. If 20-29 people are in your class and you win both you and the second place person will move up. 30 people or more and no one moves.

If there are 30-39 in your class the top 3 will move up; 40-49 and the top 4 will move up; 50-59 and the top 5 will move up, and so on and so forth. Basically put- the top 10% will move up a class.

[GmanCdp]

My interpretation is a little different from yours.

If you have 30 people in your class you aren't moving up no matter how well you did. If 20-29 people are in your class and you win both you and the second place person will move up. 30 people or more and no one moves.

If there are 30-39 in your class the top 3 will move up; 40-49 and the top 4 will move up; 50-59 and the top 5 will move up, and so on and so forth. Basically put- the top 10% will move up a class.

+1....

just buy and use the Beach Bunny software..it will tell you who and how many will get bumped...

[Dragoon]

My interpretation is a little different from yours.

If you have 30 people in your class you aren't moving up no matter how well you did. If 20-29 people are in your class and you win both you and the second place person will move up. 30 people or more and no one moves.

If there are 30-39 in your class the top 3 will move up; 40-49 and the top 4 will move up; 50-59 and the top 5 will move up, and so on and so forth. Basically put- the top 10% will move up a class.

In fact that happened to me. I placed 3rd out of 33 shooters in ESP MM Class at the 2007 Nationals and I got bumped to ESP SS as a result.

[Jane]

In order to get bumped at a sanctioned match you must satisfy either rule #1 or #2 on page 71 of the rule book. Here is the applicable text:

Yes, the math is bizarre and to me illogical.

I complained about it when the rule book was circulated as a draft

Assume you're shooting SS, and you finish 2d.

You have to beat 18 other SS to be promoted. (20 SS shoot. You finish 2d. That means you've beaten 18)

OR... you have to beat 20 SS and Exp combined.

So imagining a match where there are 2 SS and 30 EX registered (just play along with me, OK?), the second place SS would have to beat 20 experts. Whereas if more people shot SS, he'd only have to beat 18 SS.

I rewrote my scoring software in 2005 to play by those rules... so at this point I kinda hope they never change it to something more logical where you don't have to beat more people who are "better" than you...

[Bones]

I rewrote my scoring software in 2005 to play by those rules... so at this point I kinda hope they never change it to something more logical where you don't have to beat more people who are "better" than you...

The current system seems logical, but incomplete, to me. Normal population statistics dictate that some SS will beat some EX on any given day at any given match even with significantly different population means. I know a lot of (pick your classification) shooters who got promoted by match performance that now perform with surprisingly consistent mediocrity at the higher Classification at Major matches. Are they really skilled at that higher Classification level, or did they just happened to perform at the upper 10% of their skill level for 10 stages in a row?

I believe both registered Classifier scores and major match performance criteria should be criteria for promotion at all levels, especially to MA.

Craig

[sigfla]

Jane, your scenario cited below references rule #2 correct? How do you reconcile the language in the rule that references a "Division and Classification" win? The way the rule is drafted only a Division AND Class winner would move up under rule #2. If you win your division you have beaten everyone in it, MM, SS, EXP, and Master. This to me is the odd paradox in the rule in addition to the funky math.

The way I read rule #2 a Division winner must have 10-19 people competing in his own class and 10-19 people in the class directly above his/hers to move up. (This itself is odd assuming you accept the fact that the total number of people you must beat is between 20-38, the 10-19 in your class and the 10-19 in the class directly above yours). Now I understand that most people will contest the idea that you must beat both 10-19 in your class in addition to the 10-19 in the class directly above yours but that is how the rule is drafted. So lets assume it doesn't mean what I just said and that IDPA wants you to combine your class with the class above yours to hit the 10-19 figure. You are still left with the issue of having to win your division for rule #2 to trigger. Think of it, you win your division and beat 5 people in MM division, you also beat 4 people in SS, BUT you decimate the EXP and MA ranks which both had 20 competitors each respectively. You don't move up b/c you never hit the 10-19 people you needed to for the rule to move you b/c they weren't in the class directly above you.

I believe IDPA meant for Rule #2 to benefit the higher ranked EXP's from it who score very well in majors but do not hit the MA mark in a classifier. Those people are most likely to win a division and only have 1 other division above theirs to count participants from. Playing devils advocate for the concept that class numbers shouldn't be combined:

An EXP winner of a Division and class at a major who beats 10-19 people in EXP and another 10-19 people in MA above him/her should move up to MA. If he/she only beats 10-19 people in EXP and there are no other MA's in the match or 1-2 of them it may not really be fair for them to move up into MA as a result. A SS who does the same thing and wins their division along with 10-19 in SS and 10-19 in EXP should certainly move up. However if only 5 people were in the EXP class above his and no MA were at the event (being more likely to win the Division) maybe he/she just had a really good day. Just b/c you are the best SS there and had a great day doesn't mean you should get bumped to EXP if in the broad scheme of the IDPA world you are still a SS.

IDPA should clarify rule #2 a bit better. If we are supposed to combine classes to hit the required numbers then say so: "If the winner of a division and classification has a better score than 10-19 people combined in his classification AND/OR the classification above his within the same division, the shooter will be promoted to the shooter’s next higher classification. If the 2nd place competitor of a division and classification has a better score than 20 – 29 shooters combined in his classification AND/OR the classification above his within the same division, the 2nd place competitor will be promoted, etc."

I don't have any conceptual problem with combining the numbers b/c I think IDPA probably meant it that way anyhow. However I do think clarification must be given under rule #2 that you must win your division before it applies. Also, to be honest I don't see anything in the rules about 3rd or 4th place finishers getting bumped under any circumstance irrespective of the "etc." language. However, I could make a pretty good argument that was the intent of IDPA also given the strict set of numbers that must be complied with, otherwise they would have simply said 10+ competitors for 1st, 20+ for 2nd to move up. In fact now that I have typed this I think that is exactely what they meant to happen, lol.

Anyway, it should be about as clear as mud now.

In order to get bumped at a sanctioned match you must satisfy either rule #1 or #2 on page 71 of the rule book. Here is the applicable text:

Yes, the math is bizarre and to me illogical.

I complained about it when the rule book was circulated as a draft

Assume you're shooting SS, and you finish 2d.

You have to beat 18 other SS to be promoted. (20 SS shoot. You finish 2d. That means you've beaten 18)

OR... you have to beat 20 SS and Exp combined.

So imagining a match where there are 2 SS and 30 EX registered (just play along with me, OK?), the second place SS would have to beat 20 experts. Whereas if more people shot SS, he'd only have to beat 18 SS.

I rewrote my scoring software in 2005 to play by those rules... so at this point I kinda hope they never change it to something more logical where you don't have to beat more people who are "better" than you...

[Gregg K]

Jane, your scenario cited below references rule #2 correct? How do you reconcile the language in the rule that references a "Division and Classification" win?

You do not have to win your Division for any of the bumps. When they say Division and Classification they are just trying to narrow down that exact spot that you are competing in. If they didn't word it that way someone would come along and say that competitor A beat 15 other SharpShooters, (5 in SSp, 5 in CDP and another 5 in ESP) so he should be bumped. They are just narrowing down who your competitors are.

[sigfla]

Then all they needed to say for #2 is the "winner of a classification." Number 2 is more specific than that I hate to say. Maybe Jane can clear it up since her software seems to be the IDPA standard but if they didn't mean "division and class" they should have just said winner of a specific class within a division like they did in #1. Without knowing their intent we can't determine the scope of the rule.

Jane, your scenario cited below references rule #2 correct? How do you reconcile the language in the rule that references a "Division and Classification" win?

You do not have to win your Division for any of the bumps. When they say Division and Classification they are just trying to narrow down that exact spot that you are competing in. If they didn't word it that way someone would come along and say that competitor A beat 15 other SharpShooters, (5 in SSp, 5 in CDP and another 5 in ESP) so he should be bumped. They are just narrowing down who your competitors are.

Edited April 28, 2009 by sigfla

[astephenson]

The rules are crystal clear to me. Lemme try to explain it better.

A shooter has to beat at least 10 people in his class and/or the classes about him (in his division) to get bumped.

For two shooters to get bumped they'd both have to beat at least 20 people in their class and/or the classes above theirs (in their division).

For three shooters to get bumped they'd all have to beat at least 30 people in their class and/or the classes above theirs (in their division).

For every shooter that gets bumped just add 10 to the number of people in their class or the classes above them (in their division, of course) that they'd have to beat.

[Jane]

I rewrote my scoring software in 2005 to play by those rules... so at this point I kinda hope they never change it to something more logical where you don't have to beat more people who are "better" than you...

The current system seems logical, but incomplete, to me. Craig

I'm just a girl, Bones...

'splain to me, please, why it seems logical to you that you'd need to beat 20 in the classification above you but only 18 in your own classification... please???

[Gregg K]

The rules are crystal clear to me. Lemme try to explain it better.

A shooter has to beat at least 10 people in his class and/or the classes about him (in his division) to get bumped.

Not exactly, you only have to beat 9 people in your class to get bumped. You must be the best of 10 total so you have to beat 9.

It's only when there is not a total of ten in your class and you look to the class above yours for shooters that you bested that the number of people you have to beat changes to 10.

Examples would be,

1. You are a Sharpshooter and there are a total of 10 shooters in your class and you win, you beat 9 people, you get bumped.

2. You are a Sharpshooter and there are a total of 6 in your class and you win. You beat 5 in your class. You also beat 5 of the experts in your division. You have beat 10 and you get bumped. If you had only beat 4 of the experts you would not get bumped.

[Jane]

The rules are crystal clear to me. Lemme try to explain it better.

A shooter has to beat at least 10 people in his class and/or the classes about him (in his division) to get bumped.

For two shooters to get bumped they'd both have to beat at least 20 people in their class and/or the classes above theirs (in their division).

For three shooters to get bumped they'd all have to beat at least 30 people in their class and/or the classes above theirs (in their division).

For every shooter that gets bumped just add 10 to the number of people in their class or the classes above them (in their division, of course) that they'd have to beat.

Nope.

Read my post again. (Check your crystal.)

Add 10 to "their class and the class above them"

Add 9 to "their class"

[lugnut]

I believe both registered Classifier scores and major match performance criteria should be criteria for promotion at all levels, especially to MA.

Craig

I think I agree with your reasoning. But a potential problem I see is that in some divisions- there just aren't enough competitors to possibly get bumped in sanctioned matches- unless you are lucky to get into some of the bigger major matches and can travel. But hell- the way I see it... if someone wants to train their ass off to do well in a classfier... just to get the butts kicked at matches... all the power to them!

I also think think IDPA needs a GM class... but that's for another discussion.

[astephenson]

The rules are crystal clear to me. Lemme try to explain it better.

A shooter has to beat at least 10 people in his class and/or the classes about him (in his division) to get bumped.

For two shooters to get bumped they'd both have to beat at least 20 people in their class and/or the classes above theirs (in their division).

For three shooters to get bumped they'd all have to beat at least 30 people in their class and/or the classes above theirs (in their division).

For every shooter that gets bumped just add 10 to the number of people in their class or the classes above them (in their division, of course) that they'd have to beat.

Nope.

Read my post again. (Check your crystal.)

Add 10 to "their class and the class above them"

Add 9 to "their class"

I stand corrected. I'm putting my crystal in the shop tomorrow.

[VegasOPM]

I might have got bumped... I took 4th out of 30 in SS and I beat 16 in EX at the NV State Match.

[Bones]

I'm just a girl, Bones...

'splain to me, please, why it seems logical to you that you'd need to beat 20 in the classification above you but only 18 in your own classification... please???

Sure. I see the stated minimums as cumulative, and not additive, addition.

Dave, wouldn't making MA more exclusive with the existing data accomplish the same thing as creating a "Grand Master" at no additional cost?

"Master" is a superlative term. As such, elevating modifiers are intuitively dissatisfying. What's next - "Supra-Ultra-Grand Master"? Rationalizing the lesser Classifications is more logical, and simpler in my mind.

Requiring both a Classifier score and match win for MA Classification would also increase the EX ranks and, likely, match attendance, making the competitive field bigger in that Classification in all Divisions - that's good, isn't it?

Craig

[Jane]

I'm just a girl, Bones...

'splain to me, please, why it seems logical to you that you'd need to beat 20 in the classification above you but only 18 in your own classification... please???

Sure. I see the stated minimums as cumulative, and not additive, addition.

Craig

Still not talking language that a simple girl with no college degree can understand, Bones...

Please lay it out in appropriate programming pseudo-code...

Edited April 29, 2009 by Jane

[Bones]

I'm just a girl, Bones...

'splain to me, please, why it seems logical to you that you'd need to beat 20 in the classification above you but only 18 in your own classification... please???

Sure. I see the stated minimums as cumulative, and not additive, addition.

Craig

Still not talking language that a simple girl with no college degree can understand, Bones...

Please lay it out in appropriate programming pseudo-code...

The formula for promotion of a single competitor in a given Division and Classification is: A + B = 9 (that's the additive part)

it is not = 9A + 9B = 18 (that's the cumulative part)

where:

A = number of competitors bested in the competitors own Division and Classification

B = the number of competitors bested in the competitors own Division in the next higher Classification

Craig

[Jane]

The formula for promotion of a single competitor in a given Division and Classification is: A + B = 9 (that's the additive part)

it is not = 9A + 9B = 18 (that's the cumulative part)

where:

A = number of competitors bested in the competitors own Division and Classification

B = the number of competitors bested in the competitors own Division in the next higher Classification

Craig

Not how I read it.

It is

(9 * A) OR (10 * (A+) = bumpola

And I think it makes more sense for the multiplier to be the same.

Within:

If

total participation

in a specific classification within a

division is

10

– 19 shooters, the winner of this class will

automatically be promoted up.

[i.e., participation = 10. You are one of the 10. You beat 9.]

Within and above:

If the winner of a division and classification

has a better

score than 10

-19 people in his classification AND the

classification above his within the same division..

[i.e. you beat at least 10.]

(emphasis added)

Edited to add:

You're a married man, Bones.

Certainly by now you've learned the phrase, "You're right, Dear"

Edited April 29, 2009 by Jane

[sigfla]

Gotta go with Jane on this one also. The rules themselves must be read and construed strictly, that is the only way they can be uniformly applied. I am assuming most competitive sports do the same when interpreting their rules. I think Janes interpretation here falls in line with a strict reading of the rule book. Otherwise it is left up to subjective individual interpretation.

I tend to think after having read this thread that everyone contributing is of above average intelligence. I have been shown the error of some of my interpretations of the rule and I think others have been shown theirs. I mention this fact only b/c in my opinion the rule book should be relatively obvious and simple to interpret for anyone, 99.9 percent of it is exactly that way, however this particular section isn't in my opinion. It is left open to several different interpretations and for most clubs and shooters to simply rely on Jane's bunny software to determine the issue without being able to understand the rules isn't the best approach IMHO. No offense to Jane, her stuff has made life easy for alot of clubs. without it I think we would have many more issues. Let me say thanks for all the hard work in producing it.

I say the above b/c I have asked for interpretations at matches before and have gotten many different answers on a myriad of issues. Some of which aren't even addressed in the rule book but were still subject to a quick response by various RO's, MD's, and SO's. If it isn't in the book and/or a correct DEFINITIVE response cannot be given then the issue must be left to IDPA or the next revision of the rule book if they deem it worthy of an addition.

In the end we are all there to have fun and move up in skill level.

[GmanCdp]

here is a good example...this is not a test please don't flame or get a skirt ruffled ...2009- S.C> state...who/how many SSP sharpshooters[counted 25 not 26 ] got bumped at this match..

and..who/how many SSP marksmen got bumped at this match..G'

http://idpa2009.midcarolinarifleclub.com/2...A_SC_Finals.pdf

edited for link

Edited April 29, 2009 by GmanCdp

[freeidaho]

In summary:

Proposing solutions to issues is a good thing. The bump numbers are completely arbitrary. They could be 5, 10, 15 or 3, 7 and 11 if you like prime numbers. They could be the same for one classification and different for the classification above. It is an arbitrary number, easy to argue with.

But criticising IDPA and its HQ is the only enjoyment some seem to get from the sport. Even the many parts of the rulebook that are crystal clear, some have found a way to ignore or modify for their own purposes.

HQ has said they are working on a new rulebook. They have said they have a quote "Big Book" of clarifications to work on. If it was me, more flogging would not be motivational....

Rest assured that when the new rulebook comes out, HQ will be rewarded with very few thank you, and more flogging.... I truly do not understand some of the participants of the sport. Most yes, some, not at all.

kr

Edited April 29, 2009 by freeidaho

[Jane]

here is a good example...this is not a test please don't flame or get a skirt ruffled ...2009- S.C> state...who/how many SSP sharpshooters[counted 25 not 26 ] got bumped at this match..

and..who/how many SSP marksmen got bumped at this match..G'

http://idpa2009.midcarolinarifleclub.com/2...A_SC_Finals.pdf

edited for link

Some of my favorite skirts have ruffles

The top two MM are obvious in that there were 21 in MM.

Third place MM beat 18 MM and 7 SS (not counting the DQ, whom she didn't "beat") - no bump

Top two SS are obvious.

Third place SS (labeled "4") beat 22 SS (not including DQ) and 7 EX, so I say no bump.

I've had the way my software calculates bumps debated.

An email I got from Robert Ray last year read in part,

"I do feel that it is the right call to count DNF's & DQ for trophies but not bumps. "

Edited April 29, 2009 by Jane