F Class Shooting at NRAA Queens - October 2010

[Barry Davies]

Bob
Further,
Going back to your original post.
The NRAA were concerned that if F Class was fired under ICFRA rules there would be many that could not conform and therefore would not enter--- you suggested 70% ineligible.
YET, in Bruce Scott's statement, Quote " There will be one grade only.
How many do the NRAA think this will keep from entering? or ar'nt they unduly concerned?
Good reason why we need an association to stand up for our rights.
Grading is allowed for in the current SSR's but the NRAA see fit to delete it from ( their ) your National Titles.
I don't believe they have that right.
Bet they would'nt be game to delete B or C grade in TR.
Barry

[johnk]

As I see it, it would be worthwhile gaining an international perspective before trying to promote FS as the international standard. The imperatives behind the stance of other countries is vastly different from ours.

Whilst Canada is true to the origfinal Farquharson vision of a TR rifle fitted with a spring bipod & scope, the US us in regular turmoil between their Highpower/Palma shooters who "own" the rights to the ranges & the numerically & financially superior tactical shooters who have the backing of commercial interests who want to sell more of their plastic stocked premium cost exotics, while both preach that F class should not be "belly benchrest". Admittedly, they have progressed somewhat with respect to the standard of bipod in use.

Britain has no real axe to grind other than there is still strain between TRcentric Bisley & benchrest-derived Diggles & while they coexist at the moment, I wouldn't expect they would change without some major reason. Remember that this is the bunch who run ICFRA by virtue of the number of votes they have.

Anyway, this year's nationals is the obvious place to showcase our Standard class to the world.

Incidentally, I may be wrong in my recollections, but weren't our Open & Standard committees launched because the semiformal focus groups that Bruce Scott launched to discuss the draft ICFRA rules weren't happy with them?

[Barry Davies]

John,
The committees that devised the rules for FS and FO were commissioned by the NRAA following continued complaints about the adhock FS rules. The original FS rules were a bastardization of FO without much thought as to the differences between the disciplines.
At the time the FS and FO rules were rewritten, ICFRA was but a pipe dream of some and had no influence on the formulation of local rules.
Barry

[bobped]

Remember guys where we are. We've come a long way in the last couple of years.

We have Super V's on all targets. People of all persuasions have accepted the 6.1 as a score, almost without any dramas.

F Standard now has grades in all Queens except the NRAA. Their position is that as yet, there is no National F Standard grading system, therefore it would be improper have grades in their Queens. Victoria is to report on the system they have been running at the next AGM in November.

F Open is being integrated into the mainstream. I know that some would still prefer the old Championship target, but I can assure you that if F Open had kept on insisting on it, then there would not have been competitions run for them in many places.

There were two recent Queens run, where some of the organizers pushed strongly to segregate F Class down at the end of the mound. Fortunately there were enough "Friends of F Class" who knew that this was the last thing we wanted. It nearly happened, but it didn't.

The Nationals have agreed to recognize F Class to the extent that F Class winners will be asked to sit out the front with the TR winner. This is also done in Victoria and Tasmania.

In their latest Newsletter the NRAA are pointing out with pride that 11 Teams have entered in the National F Class Teams Matches in Canberra in November.

As I said before, F Class is one of the success stories of the last few years.

Mind you, Bruce Kneebone and I are wondering what to do with the $60 we each won for winning the MacIntosh and the Queens in NSW!

As I also said, there's a way to go yet.

Bob Pedersen

[bruce moulds]

we have come a long way and this should never be overlooked. however this should not preclude open minds looking for improvements and open debate.
i personally feel that a national grading system would be easier if all three disciplines scored the same (50.10), because the same handicap system could be used for all.
the main argument against this is that scoring is too hard, but this has been disproven here in s a where it has been tried.
it also has follow on benefits at club level where all disciplines compete at handicap level.
with regard state assns, obviously every state has its own needs, but in sa our assn has raised the status of fclass immeasurably. we work on the theory that how we manage ourselves is reflectd by how we are seen, and this has paid a dividend. we understand that the correct way to communicate with the nraa is through our state body.
the super v target is a great hope for fopen, but only if open shooters accept the responsibility of supporting events puy on for them, until such time as there are enough of us that events are sufficiently supported by a minority. for some reason some open shooters tend not to recognize this.

[bobped]

In regards to the National Queens not having Grades, I wrote some time ago to the NRAA asking them about proposed arrangements for F Class.

Bruce Scott responded. The following is an extract from those emails, which he agreed that I could post.

I made the following comment about grading:-

F Standard Competitors should be graded into A and B Grades. Everyone is very happy with the present grading system being used in Victoria and Tasmania. It was also used at the other Queens Prize Meetings held this year.


Bruce sent this reply:-
NRAA – this cannot occur yet as there is no NRAA approved system for grading F Class shooters. VRA will be providing their system (with supporting data) for discussion at the NRAA Delegates Workshop in November this year. With respect to 2010, the Board has agreed to review the number of F Class entries and where justified the number of badges awarded will be adjusted based upon entry numbers (interim certificates will be awarded if additional badges are approved). Please note the previous F Class Std entries to the NRAA Championships: 2003 – 25, 2004 – 18, 2005 – 19, 2006 – 9, 2007 – 16, 2008 – 14, 2009 – 25.

Lets hope a lot more F Standard shooters turn up this time.
Cheers
Bob Pedersen

[Barry Davies]

There probably will be if grading is introduced.
Barry

[Barry Davies]

Bruce,
The grading system being used in Vic, Tas, NSW, Qld and ACT is not dependent on all disciplines being scored the same. It can be successfully applied irrespective of whether scoring is out of 100, 150. 175, 200, ( typ TR scores ) or 180, 240, 270, 360, 480 ( typ F Class scores ) or whatever.
As percentages are used for averages it is not score dependent.
It's not handicapping--which is a value added to ones score--it's grading, which is a comparison of a shooters ability compared to that of other shooters.
Barry

[RAVEN]

Hi Barry good to see you back in the thick of things
SA has been using your grading system for 2 years we only apply it at the SARA Queens as the no's at OPM's don’t warrant it.
Cheers
RB

[Barry Davies]

G'day Richard.
It's a failing I have and does'nt get better with age.
Barry

[bobped]

Hi Raven,
That brings up another point about grading in F Standard.

At what number of entries should we expect someone running a Prize Meeting to provide both A and B Grades in F Standard?

I've had this discussion with a number of people. Should we expect two grades when there are 10 or 12 or 15 or 20 entries?

Some organizers say it should be as many as 20 entries before they split into 2 F Standard grades.

What makes me crabby is that the same organizers don't even blink when they have 9 B Grade entries and 3 C Grade. They don't even consider perhaps dropping the C Grade but they'll quibble about the F Class.

There's a principle involved here. We should be quietly and sensibly discussing these anomalies with organizers. Most are beginning to realize that we are here to stay, and we should be insisting on respect and recognition.
There were 59 F Class competitors all up at the recent NSW Queens. There were 20 C Grade shooters and the winner there received the same $60 as the F Class winner. I think that's not right in principle.

We need to get over the message that F Standard (especially A Grade) is a highly skilled and and fiercely competitive competition, by no means a bunch of semi-retired TR shooters pottering away to keep themselves amused. We should stop accepting second best, but do it in a sensible way that doesn't get up people's nostrils. That won't get us anywhere.

Cheers
Bob Pedersen

[Razer]

I thought "$60" must be a misprint, that is a poor result from all that is required to compete,let alone win. It is not even covering your entry fees. For a comparison to what you received in the much publicised 150th NSW Queens I competed at the Lyndhurst 2 day OPM in March this year. Won two ranges,first day aggregate and grand aggregate and received $410 and the entry fee was $60 It seems to me that the FS shooters at the NSW Queens were unfairly compensated and there is certainly no encouragement[monetory] to compete. When a NSW country club can put a queens shoot to shame it is time they started to take a long serious look at their agenda.
Congratulations Lyndhurst, you are the best OPM and what a great two days it was
Ray.
PS: I also received some excellent, quality prizes, plus badges

[RAVEN]

Very valid points Bob

At what number of entries should we expect someone running a Prize Meeting to provide both A and B Grades in F Standard?
I've had this discussion with a number of people. Should we expect two grades when there are 10 or 12 or 15 or 20 entries?

IMO 10 -12 would be sufficient
But as tradition dictates the organisers don’t know how many will attend so the badge thing is always an issue.

Some organizers say it should be as many as 20 entries before they split into 2 F Standard grades.

Well I suppose that’s ok because TR would have 20-30 and this is split into 3 divisions
Every year I am seeing at some prize meetings there are nearly as many F-Class as TR
And I’m sure it is quit agonising for the organisers to work out how many badges to provide for 6 divisions A B C FS-A FS-B FO

What makes me crabby is that the same organizers don't even blink when they have 9 B Grade entries and 3 C Grade. They don't even consider perhaps dropping the C Grade but they'll quibble about the F Class.

There's a principle involved here. We should be quietly and sensibly discussing these anomalies with organizers. Most are beginning to realize that we are here to stay, and we should be insisting on respect and recognition.

There were 59 F Class competitors all up at the recent NSW Queens. There were 20 C Grade shooters and the winner there received the same $60 as the F Class winner. I think that's not right in principle.

The Badges and Prize money should be directly proportionate to the entries in each discipline.
Or the F-Class group do as we do in SA and get sponsors onboard to bulster the F-Class prize pool.
From what I understand F-Class has some issues in NSW (lack of support from their state council) and I’m sure that the NSW bunch will work together to remedy this could take some years though one needs to be patient. Cultural change is never made quickly!

We need to get over the message that F Standard (especially A Grade) is a highly skilled and fiercely competitive competition, by no means a bunch of semi-retired TR shooters pottering away to keep themselves amused. We should stop accepting second best, but do it in a sensible way that doesn't get up people's nostrils. That won't get us anywhere.

Don’t forget FO Bob wouldn’t be the same with us there