See http://www.ozfclass.com/rankings/default.html
All the winners won both leadup and Queens at the nationals, so big moves up the list for Shane and Craig, and Nick has jumped well into the lead of F-Std.
Just wondering if it would be worth adding another column for "Ranking 1 yr Earlier". It would show who has had a good year etc. Comments anyone?
Rankings Updated After Nationals
Moderator: Mod
-
- Posts: 7495
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
- Location: Maffra, Vic
-
- Posts: 1978
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:37 pm
- Location: Adelaide South Australia (CTV)
Re: Rankings Updated After Nationals
Hi Alan any chance that the SARA Hunt & Queens can be included for 2015
RB
RB
-
- Posts: 7495
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
- Location: Maffra, Vic
Re: Rankings Updated After Nationals
RAVEN wrote:Hi Alan any chance that the SARA Hunt & Queens can be included for 2015
RB
My humble apologies to South Australia. Don't know how that happened. Its the first mistake I've ever made .
I'll get onto it before anyone else notices .
-
- Posts: 7495
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
- Location: Maffra, Vic
-
- Posts: 1978
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:37 pm
- Location: Adelaide South Australia (CTV)
Re: Rankings Updated After Nationals
Yes I know you don't make many Alan
can you please check the field size
can you please check the field size
-
- Posts: 7495
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
- Location: Maffra, Vic
Re: Rankings Updated After Nationals
All field sizes checked. Please read About the Rankings, Points for Placings, first sentence.
-
- Posts: 1978
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:37 pm
- Location: Adelaide South Australia (CTV)
Re: Rankings Updated After Nationals
Hi Alan
from the SARA web site queens results there was a field of 12 yet the points awarded are on a field size of 11 (scale
Based on the table I should be awarded 27 points not 12
FS had a field of 15 not 13
FTR had a field of 13 not 10
NRAA FO field was 21 and that is what it states in the rankings
Have I missed something here
RB
from the SARA web site queens results there was a field of 12 yet the points awarded are on a field size of 11 (scale
Based on the table I should be awarded 27 points not 12
FS had a field of 15 not 13
FTR had a field of 13 not 10
NRAA FO field was 21 and that is what it states in the rankings
Have I missed something here
RB
-
- Posts: 7495
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
- Location: Maffra, Vic
Re: Rankings Updated After Nationals
RAVEN wrote:Hi Alan
from the SARA web site queens results there was a field of 12 yet the points awarded are on a field size of 11 (scale
Based on the table I should be awarded 27 points not 12
FS had a field of 15 not 13
FTR had a field of 13 not 10
NRAA FO field was 21 and that is what it states in the rankings
Have I missed something here
RB
You've actually missed quite a few things .
If you'd like to read the "Points for Placings" paragraph in "About the Rankings", it says that field size is the number of shooters who have non-zero scores at every range. In the F-Open Queens, D Williamson scored zero at the first 800yd so does not contribute to the field size, so the field size is 11. Your 3rd place is therefore taken from the previous row of the points table, and gets 12 points. This is also explained under the "Points for Placings" heading.
The other figures regarding lower field sizes are also due to some shooters not shooting all ranges. In F-Std for example, 3 pulled out at various times on the second day of the Queens.
The National Queens field size counted 21, but didn't include the McEwans who only shot the last day.
So apart from the fact that the F-Open figure were omitted, I haven't found any other mistakes.
-
- Posts: 1978
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:37 pm
- Location: Adelaide South Australia (CTV)
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests