WA Queens F-Open Blog

Lynn Otto · Post by **Lynn Otto** » Tue Sep 28, 2010 9:35 am

Congratulations and well done Alan, and I look forward to seeing you in Adelaide next week. Well done to everyone else as well, the Queens can be hard work, it's an intensive few days, My commisserations to Brett, I know how it feels to be on the mound during a 'switchover' or the arrival of a sqawly weather front, it can end up not very pretty on the score board.

I'd be interested in a little more information on the 'only the top 5' shooting the last range, this seems a little odd. Was this range in addition to the rest, a special not included in the overall score? If not then how unfair is that on the rest of the field, they paid their money to shoot the event and how do they calculate a grand agg if not everyone shot all ranges. I'm sure there was some logic to the proceedings, it would be nice to have some insight for future reference.

Lynn

actionclear · Post by **actionclear** » Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:13 pm

Unfortunately Lynn, the scores did count towards the Grand Ag.

It was a huge mistake, and I hope WARA can see their mistake. They have made the event very elitist. The backlash will be huge at the next council meeting.

Shooters missed out on a chance to obtain a Grand Ag score, simply because they didn't make the cut.

When we enquired about the final shoot off, nothing was mentioned about only those going through to the final being eligible for Grand Ag.

Barry Davies · Post by **Barry Davies** » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:10 am

Why would anyone want to compete at WA Queens under those conditions?
Barry

Woody_rod · Post by **Woody_rod** » Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:11 am

Barry Davies wrote:Why would anyone want to compete at WA Queens under those conditions?
Barry

That is the question we shooters need to ask mate, and we will get an answer. This elitist BS needs to be thrown out before it gets hold. WARA really made a hash of the program this year, they will be getting a lot of hot conversation about it in the near future.

Every year since my involvement, the 1000 yards is where places can be made up in the grand agg, and happens often that people in the top 10 will change places a fair bit due to some being able to shoot the 1000, and others not. It has nothing to do with luck.

What WARA consistently misunderstand is that it is the shooters that matter, NOT them. The WARA council is made up of a lot of old fogies (mainly) that have no clue about much that happens in the 21st century. This has plagued them for years so I hear, and certainly has since my short time in the sport. Bisley operates on a "cut" for the final rounds, BUT IT DOES NOT COUNT TOWARDS THE GRAND AGG.

WARA members should revolt and vote these fools out.

Post by **AlanF** » Wed Sep 29, 2010 11:56 am

Rod,

While there does need to be a review of the way the 1000 yd score was incorporated, and possible changes, I didn't see it as badly as you do. The organisers would have basically been trying to keep as many as possible happy. The battlers would have been against having 1000 at all, particularly with the much tighter (at 1000) ICFRA target. Others (me included) feel stongly that 1000 should be included. I believe this was an attempt to keep both camps happy. Maybe the Grand Agg could have stood at the end of the 900, and Queens badge order only determined by adding the 1000 score to the Queens Agg.

Did you find those badges I left behind? :oops:

Alan (at Norseman)

Woody_rod · Post by **Woody_rod** » Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:14 pm

AlanF wrote:Rod,

While there does need to be a review of the way the 1000 yd score was incorporated, and possible changes, I didn't see it as badly as you do. The organisers would have basically been trying to keep as many as possible happy. The battlers would have been against having 1000 at all, particularly with the much tighter (at 1000) ICFRA target. Others (me included) feel stongly that 1000 should be included. I believe this was an attempt to keep both camps happy. Maybe the Grand Agg could have stood at the end of the 900, and Queens badge order only determined by adding the 1000 score to the Queens Agg.

Did you find those badges I left behind?

Alan (at Norseman)

We will find the badges today.

On the 1000 yards, maybe the view would be different if you could not shoot it? I could not shoot it, which is the first time in my 5 years in the WARA Queens. I have never done badly at 1000y, where others do, not my problem really.

If people can't shoot the 1000y, they drop down the list - long range shooting can be tough, that is the whole point. The Queens historically has always had the extreme ranges to truly test the shooter. If they can't do it, they should not expect to get a good score. It is not for the Association to decide for the shooter.

This is probably the main reason the Imperial meeting in Bisley final 100 shoot the 1000 yards. It is tough, and only the toughest / best should win. Places are decided on the real skill of the shooters. There are no excuses from the organisers for the final of the UK Queens being so difficult, that is the whole point.

For me, it is the expectation of shooting the 1000y that really makes the event. It can be very hard, and a real challenge, that is what I got into this game for, not to have it dumbed down for some people to make it easier. I want it as hard as it is, a challenge is worth looking forward to. Bring on the small targets and harder conditions.

Lynn Otto · Post by **Lynn Otto** » Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:24 pm

Personally, I would be very pissed off if I was 6th man in F Std since he had the exact same score as the 5th person but shy a few super V's. Which I am told are not scoring values, so why was he not given the equal opportunity to shoot since he had an equal score. Nit picking I know but put yourself in that persons position and tell me you would be happy.

Lynn

Post by **AlanF** » Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:04 pm

If they had required everyone to shoot the 1000, there may well have been more disaffected shooters than with what they did. They were caught between a rock and a hard place. Everyone will have personal views on how they would like it done - all WARA could hope to do is displease the least number of shooters. If you can suggest a better way Rod, it probably won't be hard to find someone who doesn't like it.

Alan (at Eucla

)

Woody_rod · Post by **Woody_rod** » Wed Sep 29, 2010 11:46 pm

AlanF wrote:If they had required everyone to shoot the 1000, there may well have been more disaffected shooters than with what they did. They were caught between a rock and a hard place. Everyone will have personal views on how they would like it done - all WARA could hope to do is displease the least number of shooters. If you can suggest a better way Rod, it probably won't be hard to find someone who doesn't like it.

Alan (at Eucla )

The 1000 yards has always been shot. They should just leave it alone, very simple.

Post by **AlanF** » Thu Sep 30, 2010 12:22 am

Woody_rod wrote:The 1000 yards has always been shot. They should just leave it alone, very simple.

I agree with you on that, but that would also mean leaving it on the 2002 target. At 1000 yards the inner 4 ring on the 2002 target was 1220mm - on the ICFRA LR target its only 815mm. I mention the 4 ring because that's what comes into play when the battlers shoot 1000.

actionclear · Post by **actionclear** » Thu Sep 30, 2010 12:43 am

The battlers that would struggle to hit the target won't be the ones missing out on a chance at the Grand Agg. Even on the old targets there were quite a few shooters pull out of the 1000 yards because they see it as too hard.

Even so, shooters should have the choice to shoot 1000 yards, not have WARA decide they are not good enough.

There are very few 1000 yard ranges in WA. How are people supposed to improve their shooting if the chance to even have a go has been removed.

We shot 1000 yards on IGFRA targets at our own club PM. No one complained about the size of the target, because everyone was shooting on targets the same size. Our conditions were much worse than Swanbourne.

Lynn Otto · Post by **Lynn Otto** » Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:23 am

OK, I didn't, and may never shoot this event but for what it's worth I tend to agree that it should be the shooters choice if they shoot that range or not. If they think it is too hard then the answer is simple, don't go to the mound, but that should be an individual option not an automatic 'we don't think you are up to it'. Who's to say that one of the top 5 may not have wanted to shoot it. :roll:

Lynn

Post by **AlanF** » Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:31 am

Okay - 3 against one - I give in.

But I don't think its a hanging offence. I'm sure they were trying to do the right thing.

I'll rejoin the discussion from somewhere closer to Adelaide.

Alan

Barry Davies · Post by **Barry Davies** » Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:46 am

Back before F Class was introduced, the VRA in their wisdom decided to introduce a final 20 ( I think, it was 20 ) to their Queens. Did so for a couple of years and then gave it away as a bad show-- the whole concept was unpopular to say the least. It was done more to appease the TV cameras as a spectacle -or so they said.
The general opinion of shooters was that you battle for 3 days, finish on top and then have to go and prove you are the best by shooting another range in a reduced field--in other words you had to win the Queens twice.
If everybody shot the extra range I rather think there would have been no problem-- but how on earth can you eliminate people who have just shot for 3 days --8 or 10 ranges.

Barry

Woody_rod · Post by **Woody_rod** » Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:30 am

Alan,

That makes 4-1, sorry mate