Change to Scoring

[Potshot2023]

Has anyone heard there is a possibility of changing F Class scores to a possible of 50? That would mean the 'V' goes from 6 to 5 with the 'X' becoming a 'V'.
From what I can gather, the scoring areas will remain the same but with the above changes being considered. It means a 60.6 would become 50.6.
Not sure what's to be gained (or lost) but it's an interesting development.

[jasmay]

It aligns with the international rules for F-Class as set by IiCFRA….

[PeteFox]

Changing the rules is an occupation full of traps in the form of unintended consequesces.

The proposed change to the scoring system is very poorly thought out. There seems to be among us a push to align with ICFRA rules, but why?
ICFRA rules are designed to allow competition between countries under a standardised set of rules, that provide a level playing field. Every four years F Class world championships are shot and in a different four year cycle, Target Rifle championships are shot. The two do not mix in international events.
Not so in Australia where F Class and TR mix it on the same playing field squadded to the same target.
The adoption of the 5, V systems for F Class in Australia will mean the end of that.
F Class and TR will have to be squadded separately on different targets because there is too much propensity for errors (and cheating) and there will be a large imbalance in the time taken to complete a range between the F Class and TR targets. It will mean F Class competitors will be waiting around for the TR targets to finish.

An explanation:
1. for those events using manual marking (VRA Kings), the targets will be different sheets of paper with different rings sizes and obviously there wont be any repasting of targets between competitors. Squadding will be a must.

2. Consider a TR shooter using ETs (not Hextas) and as it happens often enough the scorer hasn't changed the target from F to TR. The five ring is now one MOA not two and the TR shooter is making double the correction necessary and ruins a string because the fired shots cant be retracted.

3. Consider an F class shooter where the scorer hasn't chaged the TR target to F. The Fclass shooter starts hammereing in V's and after six or seven V's, realises what is going on. Are you confident that ithe Shooter will own up. Or a shooter is shooting 5's and is on a possible but the fives are in reality 4's, again is he/she going to point it out and get a 40 instead of a 50?

For these reasons there will have to be separate squadding of F and TR shooters.
The 6 and X system was brilliant simplicity that didn't require squadding and if an error in change of target was made it didnt matter because 6 and X are V's in TR anyway. The Canberra Kings is shot on 6 and X for TR and it works.

For the ICFRA purists. There are a lot of domestic rules that don't conform to ICFRA standards (e.g. spikes on rear plates) but we tell ourselves it doesnt matter because everyone can do it so its a level playing field.

And what about those bitching about Rodzilla rests when they were introduced, even though they were ICFRA approved, the pundits yelled unfair advantage.

Well don't chage the scoring system because it does matter and the advantages of keeping the status quo outweigh any advantages of changing it. and the advantages in changing it are what exactly ???...........................

You want it to align with a competition that 99% of shooters will never get to go to? WTF

Pete

[AlanF]

Agree with Pete. Bad idea for the Australian environment of mixed discipline competition.

[Ras]

I agree with Pete. It was a nightmare 15-20 years ago when "FO" was just starting and using 10 point targets if a Queens only had say 14 shooters on 2 targets and finished early you either had 2 targets waiting with markers sitting around or you had to put new faces on them before any else could be squadded on that target.

[jasmay]

Hopefully they have thought of ways to address these issues.

Whilst the 99% of shooters point is valid, should it mean that we change rules in Australia to the point those wanting to, find it almost impossible to adopt and train for a world level event?

99% of all sports people in Australia probably don't have the desire to compete at the world level, should that mean we don't provide a pathway for those that do, (want to be an Olympian? sort out your own way to train under the international rules, we do it our way here)

Sports tend to grow/blossom when there are pathways to national and international level events, look at the development of snow boarding for instance after it's Olympic adoption.

What is it we are trying to achieve here in Australia, it seems to the sport is bastardized and confused, change is not always comfortable, but sometimes needed, developing a proper identity and a pathway through the sport I feel is critical to it's future. (We are not growing in Australia, the sport is dying, are we custodians that want to ensure it's local future?)

Do we want to provide a pathway that people can aspire to achieve, or do we just want to throw lead, at now very great expense, down range.

Now is maybe a turning point, do we want to be a part of the international Fullbore/F-Class community under ICFRA, and provide a platform and pathway for sport people to achieve results at the highest level, or do we just want to do our own thing?

Personally I think ICFRA rules should be adopted in full without modification for TR, FO and FTR, it is what makes sense... there is little point being affiliated with the global body if we are not going to provide a proper pathway to it.

[PeteFox]

In order not to be ambiguous and so that you can review the changes as proposed without accepting my word for it,
I have attached an extract from the Appendices that defines the proposed new targets.
I have also attached a summary document of all the changes and the various parts of the SSR's they affect. There are changes to 41 areas of the SSR's.

If anyone wants the complete document set for review please send me a PM with your email address and I will send it on to you.
There are two additional files for a total size of about 1.4mb all up.

New target sizes.pdf

2025 SSR summary of changes.pdf

The parts relevant to the targets have been highlighted.

Pete

[PeteFox]

Hopefully they have thought of ways to address these issues.

Whilst the 99% of shooters point is valid, should it mean that we change rules in Australia to the point those wanting to, find it almost impossible to adopt and train for a world level event?

99% of all sports people in Australia probably don't have the desire to compete at the world level, should that mean we don't provide a pathway for those that do, (want to be an Olympian? sort out your own way to train under the international rules, we do it our way here)

Sports tend to grow/blossom when there are pathways to national and international level events, look at the development of snow boarding for instance after it's Olympic adoption.

What is it we are trying to achieve here in Australia, it seems to the sport is bastardized and confused, change is not always comfortable, but sometimes needed, developing a proper identity and a pathway through the sport I feel is critical to it's future. (We are not growing in Australia, the sport is dying, are we custodians that want to ensure it's local future?)

Do we want to provide a pathway that people can aspire to achieve, or do we just want to throw lead, at now very great expense, down range.

Now is maybe a turning point, do we want to be a part of the international Fullbore/F-Class community under ICFRA, and provide a platform and pathway for sport people to achieve results at the highest level, or do we just want to do our own thing?

Personally I think ICFRA rules should be adopted in full without modification for TR, FO and FTR, it is what makes sense... there is little point being affiliated with the global body if we are not going to provide a proper pathway to it.

Bullshit!
Because the sport is majority owned by the other 99% who are going along fine as it is.
Pete

[jasmay]

Bullshit!
Because the sport is majority owned by the other 99% who are going along fine as it is.
Pete

Pete, TR is declining & traditional F-Class numbers are barely stable in Australia (I actually think you will find FO/FS/FTR are in decline), the growth we have had has largely been driven by sporter hunter.

This isn’t actually growth either according to the NRAA, numbers are static at 6500 nationally, when I started shooting in 2012, there were just over 7500 from memory. Around a 15% decline over a decade.

Are you sure the 99% don't care their sport is dying (or at the very least a strong trend change to sporter) ?

The 99% that don't wish to compete at the world level will always be the majority in any sport, is that a reason to not provide a pathway to world level events?

[PeteFox]

Jason
If a prospective international shooter training in Australia on 6,X targets is not able to grasp that 6=5 and X=V, and then make the transition at the appropriate time, then I would have to question whether his/her mental fitness is suitable to cope with the pressures of the world stage.
It's a small sacrifice for an elite shooter to make to accept that the world is not designed around the them and their needs and conform to the status quo .

For the 1% that absolutely must have a 5,V target, I suggest that they be squadded separately and leave the rest of us in peace.
Pete

[jasmay]

So you have no concern the sport is in decline and that perhaps there are things that could be done to reverse that trend?

[AlanF]

...TR is declining & traditional F-Class numbers are barely stable in Australia (I actually think you will find FO/FS/FTR are in decline), the growth we have had has largely been driven by sporter hunter...

Jason, its not immediately obvious what the targets change would do to improve this situation - could actually do the opposite.

[jasmay]

I’m more referring to rule changes in general and full adoption of ICFRA rules, not merely focusing on target dimensions.

[Potshot2023]

I understand changes to rules relating to safety should be introduced and implemented quickly. However major changes, with significant consequences should surely be widely canvassed beforehand.
The present changes seem excessive and top down .

[PeteFox]

So you have no concern the sport is in decline and that perhaps there are things that could be done to reverse that trend?

Well no, I'm working my arse off to keep members and get new ones every day but the reality is that the attrition rate is about equal to the sign-on rate. I'm coming up to five years as TRA secretary and although we have had membership growth in that time, I've still got a few spare fingers when I count the increase.

When I joined Roma Rifle Club in 1984, the sport was in decline and was headed for disaster. Ten years left at the most. then the Army chucked us out, that was going to be the end, then some sneaky buggers started bringing handloads, bloody hell, blasphemy, a looming disaster.
Its the same story year after year, I think all sports are experiencing the home entertainment/head in ipad/online everything driven downturn. It will keep going until a new equilibrium is found. Check out the numbers of country towns that can't field a footy or cricket team.

This sport had numbers in the past for three main reasons:
It was encouraged by various governments
It satisfied the National Service obligation, and;
The ammunition and firearm was subsidised. All of these things are a recipe for getting a crowd.

With the finish of those things, the demographics are vastly different. There is no more shooting for the masses.
The sport can now only attract people who have the means, the time, the will to be different and the will to turn off the tennis and get off their arse. Sadly there are too few.

However, I do know that pissing people off by making un-necessary changes to what works won't drive numbers up, and if these rule changes go through then I expect that we'll lose a few more. But that won't matter too much, because it's a sacrifice me must make so that some can go to the worlds.
Pete