Do you get a “reshoot” for untapped targets?

[George Jones]

Yeah...sure... just order up reshoots every single time you cannot prove with "absolute iron clad certainty" that the holes in a target are not from pasters falling off. Give the shooters that "benefit" of your doubt. Walk up to T1, look at the 2 holes, and instead of calling the hits...call for a reshoot...cause ya just aren't sure, now are ya?

(Silly argument, huh? Most straw man arguments are.)

Hmmm....

Then so is using hyperbole to attempt to prove your point.

And BTW, there is no such thing as "benefit of the doubt to the shooter". It's an old phrase (shortcut/crutch) unsupported by the rulebook. If there is doubt, there is no call or no score.

[Strick]

So you are saying that if I apply your method to scoring a target that appears to not have been taped then I am fairly and accurately scoring that shooter? I am curious how you know for a fact the target was not taped as opposed to another reason the pasters are not there?

You are not accurately scoring anything you are just accurately applying a method that you have decided is fair.

Would the method I responded to that you posted accurately score a target if the pasters fell off during the COF? Yes or No? If no then it is not a fair method and flawed.

The argument that is could be applied to all shot is ridiculous since the matter at hand is when there are extra shot on a target.

[Strick]

And BTW, there is no such thing as "benefit of the doubt to the shooter". It's an old phrase (shortcut/crutch) unsupported by the rulebook. If there is doubt, there is no call or no score.

Which is actually giving the shooter the benefit of the doubt since you instead of giving him an incorrect score he would get a re shoot.

[Flexmoney]

I find the whole argument of "how do you KNOW paster didn't fall off"... humorous .

I find the whole argument of "RO infallibility".... wishful thinking.

Me too. (you do seem to like it for shot counting, though. )

Infallibility isn't the issue. That is why you gather as much evidence as possible.

Who wouldn't want MORE evidence?

Then, you make the determination...as the rule book states. If the evidence isn't good, then you can't make an accurate call on the score, and you order the reshoot.

The other way is black and white (and that is NOT what the rule says). And, there will be instances where that would order up a reshoot that is not necessary. And, that can and will change the outcome of the match...

I know that I got a reshoot for this at a Nationals. I was faster in the reshoot, but the points were less (I think it was a wash, hit factor wise...so, maybe not a great example here). But, in the finals there was only a half a percent difference between Mike Seeklander (in front of me) and Chuck Anderson (behind me). I was the cut off (16th) for awards. [and I am not suggesting that was the wrong call...under the circumstances at the time]

Reshoots matter. While ordering up a reshoot is the easy thing for me to do as an RO, the most fair thing for all of the competitors is for the shooter to get the score of their first run. If I can obviously determine that score in an accurate manner, I will do so. I not looking to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Flexmoney

[mactiger]

I'll present an actual case that supports George's position, IMO. For the record, I won't go back to a score sheet for a target scoring issue (untaped, etc.), because we teach to score what you see on the targets. Now, I know the rule is vague here, and this is my position, but there are many cases where you cannot determine an accurate score from the last scoresheet on the stage.

Here it is: on my stage at this year's Single Stack Nationals, there were two disappearing targets, a drop turner and a max trap. Given the layout of the stage, it was more efficient to start scoring on the right hand side, where the competitor finished, and move to the left. The two DT's were more on the right side of the stage, and were pretty much toward the bottom of the score sheet. Therefore, we decided to score from the bottom up, thus catching the two DT's in order, and hopefully scoring the stage in target order. Good plan, but on more than one occasion I (or my RO--neither one of us were noobs) found ourselves starting at the top of the sheet, because that's where you normally start. As long as we caught the two DT's, however, it made no difference in the overall outcome whether we scored top to bottom or bottom to top--we just had to account for any no-penalty mikes on the DT's. So, you could have an accurate total of the competitor's hits, misses, procedurals, etc., to present to stats--a "definitive document" so to speak, because stats is interested in how many hits there are, not how many there are on T-1 or T-12, and how many no penalty mikes there are, versus actual mikes. In a lot of cases, going back to the prior sheet would not have informed us of the correct hits on a particular target, because that score sheet may have been scored out of order.

I'm not saying that in some cases a stage isn't run precisely and accurately, and maybe a prior score sheet could be used. I am saying it's not a good habit or practice to get into, because it's not always consistent across a match, and that's what counts--individual stages must be run consistently to make a consistent match. We strive for that at all matches; unfortunately we are human and make mistakes, but we do approach perfection on occasion. Introducing variables such as reviewing score sheets is just not good practice, unless it can be made to work on every stage at every match. Scoring what you see on the targets removes that inconsistency.

Troy

[Flexmoney]

Troy,

You gave a perfect example of using your judgement to determine when an accurate score cannot be determined.

And, that will likely be the case, most of the time, I would imagine.

It's not an absolute, however. Applying it in an absolute manner would appear to be outside the rule.

Let me ask this, can you envision a circumstance where you could determine an accurate score? If not, then the rule isn't being applied, or is redundant, right?

Scoring what you see on the targets removes that inconsistency.

That is only true if you actually score the target. Give that a thought. If the RO orders up a reshoot...when they may not have to...then they have most certainly introduced a whole bunch of new variables into the situation. That isn't removing inconsistency. It is merely what we do to make the best of a bad situation.

---------------------

Q: Why would we exclude evidence?

Common Answer: Because it's not reliable evidence.

That answer is an opinion of absoluteness. When, in fact, it may not be absolute at all.

The process ought to be one where we look at as much evidence as possible, and decide if that evidence is reliable or not. Then, see if we can use that to call an accurate score.

Isn't that what the whole of the rules says? And, the very reason it is in the book?

[mactiger]

Well, maybe not. There were times when I knew the targets I'd previously scored were scored the same way as the set I'd just scored, but I still wouldn't (and didn't on at least one occasion) review a score sheet to determine a score, because I knew there were times that it wouldn't have been that way.

Likewise, if you can't score the target, then it's a reshoot. Simple and consistent.

Troy

[Jake Di Vita]

So you guys would rather make a call you know to be incorrect (the evidence exists to make a correct call) on the sole basis that this method can't be used 100% of the time?

And regardless, how can that rule be read any other way? It clearly places the judgement on the RO.

[George Jones]

He's all yours, Troy.

My fingers hurt.

[Strick]

So you guys would rather make a call you know to be incorrect on the sole basis that this method can't be used 100% of the time?

And regardless, how can that rule be read any other way? It clearly places the judgement on the RO.

Why should the performance of a shooter be left up the judgment of an RO?

This isn't figure skating.

[mactiger]

So you guys would rather make a call you know to be incorrect (the evidence exists to make a correct call) on the sole basis that this method can't be used 100% of the time?

And regardless, how can that rule be read any other way? It clearly places the judgement on the RO.

I'm saying that the rule says if an accurate score can't be determined, it's a reshoot, and I'm also saying that for the sake of being as consistent as possible, I score targets, not review score sheets. That's my judgement, and it does not result in an incorrect score--it sometimes results in a reshoot.

The rule is, admittedly, not exclusive of reviewing score sheets. I don't recommend the practice, nor do I teach it, for the reasons I stated.

That's the long and short of it as far as I'm concerned.

Troy

[boz1911]

I hadn't really thought about the point of view you presented, Troy. I have used previous score sheets in the past to determine an accurate score but now I have to ask myself if the scorekeeper has been as diligent recording scores as I have been scoring the targets.

[JThompson]

How many words does it take to say. "Score what you see, reshoot the rest?"

You can run endless what if scenarios, but it boils down to score what is there and if you can't reshoot it.

JT

Edited June 20, 2010 by JThompson

[Flexmoney]

How many words does it take to say. "Score what you see, reshoot the rest?"

You can run endless what if scenarios, but it boils down to score what is there and if you can't reshoot it.

JT

Nope

That just is not what the rule says. If/when it says that, then that would be the call.

If you follow that, I know...for an actual fact...that you will order up a reshoot that is not deserved. And, I know...for an actual fact...that it can change the outcome of the match. And, I know...for an actual fact...that it can happen to a likely division winner at an Area match.

-------------------

It's not a matter of merely looking at the past score sheet. That may not be reliable.

What the rule says is to see if you can accurately determine a score. It says that, because it is the right thing to do. Reshoots suck. They aren't the right thing. They are the thing we are stuck with when we can't do the right thing.

[Flexmoney]

The rule is, admittedly, not exclusive of...

Thanks Troy. That was my original question. I was wondering if I had missed something.