Novice
- <1 year experience
- King's Pawn only
- 60cm
Instinctive
- no sight
- any bow allowed
- 60cm
Olympic Recurve
- sighted shooters
- no scopes allowed
- 40cm
Open
- compounds
- crazy people
- anyone else that would qualify
- 40cm
Doesn't look like there would be much of a problem, right? It wouldn't be a problem if everyone was locked to their main category, which we can't do. So here's the first exploit of the system: shooters are allowed to shift around in different categories to maximize their chances of a medal. I can move from Open, where I willingly placed myself, to either Olympic Recurve or Instinctive. Moving between Open and Recurve is perfectly legal for me since I don't really qualify for Open in the first place (I'm doing it for the challenge). Moving to Instinctive could be seen as unfair, especially since my equipment can be considered superior (it would be if it were tuned), but since I haven't practised that style in quite a while, it would actually serve as a handicap. The same can't be said for a lot of other shooters. Plus, the mere presence of a more advanced or experienced shooter is enough to give the impression of "cheating" to the newer members. The only way to settle their (not necessarily) unfounded fears would be to announce that we would not submit our scores.
The second exploit that requires some patching came about because of the introduction of a promotion policy: score 225+ and you'll be moved to Open for the next tournament. I think there's also the second requirement of winning a medal, so anywhere from 1~3 will be shifted. Now, this can be seen as incredibly unfair because the Open category houses all the compound shooters. Compound shooters are made fun of because they apparently require less skill to use, and that it looks like they're using a bow with training wheels (they're great for efficient high poundage shooting, which is perfect for hunting). That's actually not the case though. They happen to have a higher minimum score when compared to all the other styles. The maximum is still the same and requires the same amount of skill to achieve. The skill set is different, too. Oh, and Instinctive shooters moving there would be completely obliterated, so I don't think they'll be moved if they meet that requirement.
See the problem? This encourages those with relatively high skill to score below 225 but still high enough to get a medal to prevent themselves from being shifted to Open. Moving to Open is essentially a death sentence for nabbing another medal, ever. Unless you're a provincial/national/international level shooter. Which none of us really are. So... no chance. A few have already admitted that if that policy was enacted, there's no reason to score as high as possible if they're going to be "punished" by being promoted to Open. I'd agree if I was a medal hunter.
There have been a few suggestions on how to deal with this, discussed over dinner a few nights ago. Unfortunately, all of them have little details that make them unfeasible. Like mine, which involves tracking attendance and performance, then applying a suitable handicap to their score if they're not competing in their main category. Another solution, which requires a massive amount of tracking and essentially an honour system for shooters to score regularly, is to normalize based on their category. But then we might not have enough sample data to even bother with finding the Z-scores.
The most feasible so far has been to have a raffle alongside the medals. The problem with this one is getting it to pass with the higher-ups, and that it heavily favours the high-end shooters. But that second point can be considered moot since we're playing a game of skill. If you don't have the skill to compete with the best, then you have no argument for even qualifying for the raffle. So. The cutoff point? I think was discussed that it would be around 230+ or 240+. So the shooters would still end up promoted, but they also have a chance at a prize should they not win a medal in Open. Of course, the medal winners with 225+ will also be entered, which can be seen as unfair. Not entirely so since while they're also part of the draw, it's completely random as to whether or not they end up winning. Leaving everything up to the RNG is totally fair, right? As long as it's a 1-RN game, should be fine~
There was one other solution that I've heard, but it's really more of a joke: break everyone's arms. That would work in the sense that no one can participate so that no one wins, and because there are no winners, there are no losers either. Too bad that would also mean that we suffer as a team when the IUAT rolls around. Great idea... if you want to break the team.
Still need to figure out what to do with the Instinctive shooters though. Can't, and shouldn't, pressure them to change to using sights just to improve. It's their shooting style and no one should force a change just for improving scores. Adding intermediate categories is just a bandage solution, so we need something more long term. Wonder what would work though... Adding another category or 2 would also mean that the raffle idea becomes that much harder to implement because of budget concerns. Well, we still have a while to discuss. The medals aren't going to be won until the second tournament anyways.
And I really hope that one guy falls flat when he shoots. I have a feeling that he purposely removed his sight to practice instinctive shooting to (re-)gain an edge for a high score. If a certain guy shows up, I don't think I'll be worried all that much. He's pretty damn good at instinctive. Oh, and there's another guy too, from another campus. As long as he doesn't lose his landmarks, he'll do very well~ I'll be participating, not scoring. And since I'm a coach/range officer, I should be there to help out with dealing with scores. And maybe record them. Getting records would be nice, ね？
This turned out to be a rather long post, didn't it? Well, archery is one of my interests and tournaments are a kind of game! It goes here. Could also go on the other blog, but I doubt many read that anymore. Don't know if I can get the stats on it either.
ETA: Turns out that he really did end up sending back his sight... after 2 months of use. He didn't realize that it was broken until he had used it. As another said, "Russian roulette with sights". He really should be more observant of his equipment.
Another thing. Seems like the systems they were proposing won't be implemented for the time being. Mostly because we don't have enough shooters that quite hit the required 225 yet. Need to focus on running the IUAT smoothly first. We're hosting again this year.
No comments:
Post a Comment