F/TR... Really... Who is interested?

Post by **AlanF** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:10 pm

Southcape wrote:Should F/TR be slotted into F Open to start, this is fine by me. So long as the results state the shooter is competing in F/TR and not Open.

Good idea Linda. When a class is in its infancy, you have to accept some compromises. I found that when starting out in F-Open, and no doubt F-Std was the same further back in time.

Alan

Southcape · Post by **Southcape** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:12 pm

You cannot restrict F/TR. When accepted, it needs to be as per the ICFRA rules.

Otherwise it does defeat the purpose of allowing the discipline of F/TR.

TOM · Post by **TOM** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:14 pm

Finally

Thank you Linda.

RAVEN · Post by **RAVEN** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:19 pm

Tom I agree but I don't have a crystal ball and would be prepared to be flexible if it meant more on the mound or in clubs what do you think.
Cheers
RB

Southcape · Post by **Southcape** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:44 pm

I sorry. I am unclear on this.

Raven are you saying that F/TR should be allowed with bullet restrictions?

If that's the case, we already have this class. It's called F Standard. This is where I shoot now. 8.25 kg rifle, with restricted ammo.

Lynn Otto · Post by **Lynn Otto** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:53 pm

Perhaps Linda is right, until it has been included in the SSR's as its own class, perhaps the most suitable place for F T/R is in Open. Then they can shoot with the equipment as the ICFRA rules intend without having issues with Ammunition. It should be a fairly simple matter to note that they are F T/R on any results.

Richard I'm sure you have heard the old adage of "lies, damn lies and statistics", a majority can be anything from 28 votes to 1 or 15 votes to 14, the difference is significant. Perhaps when quoting the majority it would be appropriate to state the actual numbers. In the case of the SA vote, I'm sure you would have them in the minutes of the meeting.

TOM · Post by **TOM** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:06 pm

Tom I agree but I don't have a crystal ball and would be prepared to be flexible if it meant more on the mound or in clubs what do you think.
Cheers
RB

I think if you restrict bullets you could call it F standard.

Southcape · Post by **Southcape** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:22 pm

Even when accepted Lynn.

Until we have the numbers available to hold a seperate class, F Open is where F/TR should be run.

I'm all for the common sense approach. If we all work together, it doesn't need to be painful for anyone.

This way F Standard is left as is.

The only request I have, is that the F/TR shooters, are noted as shooting F/TR. This way, we can keep track of numbers, and results.

Lynn Otto · Post by **Lynn Otto** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:29 pm

Southcape wrote:The only request I have, is that the F/TR shooters, are noted as shooting F/TR. This way, we can keep track of numbers, and results.

That shouldn't be at all difficult Linda, either add an additional column to note the F T/R shooter or if it is too difficult to change existing scoring spreadsheets/databases then simply put it in the name field so it shows up after the persons name. It should be easy to go through and add up numbers or compare results.

Woody_rod · Post by **Woody_rod** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:44 pm

Ok, so lets do it then.

RAVEN · Post by **RAVEN** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:19 pm

Linda Wrote

Raven are you saying that F/TR should be allowed with bullet restrictions

No not really Linda what I said is some flexibility may be required initially.
And that’s all.
This discipline is covered under the ICFRA set of rules and that is what the ultimate aim should be.
Adding it as an additional division of FO that’s fine personally I don't see the difference its all F-Class.
In SA we strive to all be under the F-Class banner even before the Champ target disappeared FS & FO would shoot shoulder to shoulder on the Champ Target until that option was removed all part of
the evolution of F-Class.

Cheers
RB

Post by **AlanF** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:38 pm

It actually could work quite well with F/TR included in Open until F/TR gets included in the SSRs. I would suggest a reduced entry fee if there are no badges/trophies. Alternatively, have badges and trophies if sponsorship for F/TR is forthcoming.

John E · Post by **John E** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:50 pm

Southcape wrote:We are waiting until the next NRAA meeting, where the F/TR rules have been submitted for approval, and requested they be accepted into the SSR's.

We can only move as fast and the NRAA.

I'm in favour of introducing F/TR in it's true form. I trust that the above rules submitted for approval are the International ICFRA F/TR rules. Anything else would be rubbish, in relation to International competition.

John

Southcape · Post by **Southcape** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:52 pm

John E wrote:
Southcape wrote:We are waiting until the next NRAA meeting, where the F/TR rules have been submitted for approval, and requested they be accepted into the SSR's.

We can only move as fast and the NRAA.

I'm in favour of introducing F/TR in it's true form. I trust that the above rules submitted for approval are the International ICFRA F/TR rules. Anything else would be rubbish, in relation to International competition.

John

Correct, and agree.

John E · Post by **John E** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:54 pm

AlanF wrote:It really makes you wonder what the motives of some posters are on this issue. There was a huge objection (understandably) to the prospect of F/TR replacing F-Std. But why would you also want to talk down the prospects of a new separate class that promises to bring more shooters onto our ranges i.e. hunting/tactical rifle shooters, plus it gives F-Std shooters an option for shooting internationally.

I think we need to ask some of these negative posters what they really are on about - i.e. what are they trying to achieve by talking down F/TR. And if they say its out of concern for prize meeting organisers, yeah right...

No doubt Rosedale will cater for F/TR at it's next Prize Meeting? Oh yeah. :lol: