Proposed change in rules pertaining to national records

  • 393 Views
  • Last Post 2 weeks ago
Pentz posted this 3 weeks ago

Those of us that read the latest Fouling Shot likely noted the change proposed to Current Article 8.1 - Records.  The proposed change would require ALL national records to have been fired at a national tournament.  The reason given is to have conditions the same for all shooters.

In addition, a change to current article 9.3 would require a minimum of 4 moving backers to be required for all national group records.

I will address the proposed Article 8.1 change first.   Why eliminate the possibility of a national record at other than a national match?  This measure will eliminate the opportunity for any CBA competitor to fire a record target at other than a national match.  This seems contrary for an organization having the objective to appeal to cast bullet shooters and attract new members.  For a short time I held the national record for the 10-round 300 yard group fired at Clark Rifles, taken later by a fellow club member.  Both of our targets had 10 clean holes, but the subsequent moving backer rule now eliminates our club from any new potential records.

I will likely never attend a national match, and I find the move to exclusivity to be very disheartening.  Guess you have to be a "member of the club" to be a potential record holder.  Point of interest, if this proposal is adopted, ALL Existing national records should be stricken, and as such all new records can then be fired "shoulder to shoulder with all conditions as close as possible".  Take the clean slate approach, so that previous records cannot be accused of being fired in supposed unfairly ideal conditions.

As for moving backers, Clark Rifles does not have them.  We cannot afford to close our range for a day prior to and after our bi-monthly matches, even if we had energetic young helpers, which we do not.  As such, we are now unable to have an opportunity as a CBA sanctioned activity to set records.  As a matter of fact, we now have no incentive to be members of the CBA, or to fire sanctioned CBA matches at all.  What is the point?

Thoughts to consider, and I would hope the CBA not adopt Proposed Article 8.1, although the requirement for moving backers pretty much kills the hope for national records at our range.

Mike Boynton aka Pentz

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Ross Smith
Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
frnkeore posted this 3 weeks ago

I have to agree with Mike.

If records are only available at the Nationals, it gives no incentive at all to even belong to CBA or abide by CBA rules.

Every club that uses backers will stop using them, there will be no reason to use them because of setup time and maitinance of them.

The CBA matches that I've competed at, since about 1990, have always been run very professionally. Changing the records as proposed, gives no incentive to do that any more or, for that matter, no incentive to abide by CBA rules.

At one time ASSRA's records could only be set at their range in IN. That caused all kinds of friction among the national membership. They then revised the records and added records set at all other clubs, BUT that has kept open a sore that makes the "other" clubs and members feel like second class members. It still exists, but it's also STILL a big point of contention, too!

If CBA is trying to increase it's membership, I really don't think this change will help to do that. The conditions at Pioneer, aren't unique, nor are conditions at other clubs, unless we have a club that holds matches indoors or a tunnel.

A better idea might be to only allow records to be shot in only one month of the year, that would equalize things, as well as the one range record idea. I don't think that would get much support either.

Frank

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Ross Smith
Bohica793 posted this 3 weeks ago

In my opinion, anything that restricts participation is a bad thing.  I live in an area where there are no sanctioned matches within about a 6 hour drive (one way).  National matches are even farther.  I participate in postal matches because that is what is available to me but I would love to see more local matches, especially in my area.  I see this rule change actually having the opposite effect, discouraging and ending more local competitions

Attached Files

gnoahhh posted this 3 weeks ago

I agree with the sentiments expressed so far. As someone rushing headlong into retirement and who intends to pursue CB competition now that I have the time, this proposed rule change sort of takes the wind out of my sails.

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 3 weeks ago

... or how about designing a simpler ( cheaper ) "  backing "  device   ... ?

could we go to digital impulse-counting ?? ...   10 impulses would be 10 shots ?? ....   probably a dang app on a smart phone would run a whole nationals range ...

.... smart phones count how many steps you take ....   thud thud thud ...  there is a g-sensor on a chip now ....

or go to local jc electronics class and have them design a kit ... need a filter for impact minimum and memory recall ... etc . etc. 

as one who just had my eyes rebuilt, maybe SOME of this new technology ain't so bad ...

ken

 

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Ross Smith
Scearcy posted this 3 weeks ago

I agree with most of what has been said above and as a 18 year match director I may have some even stronger feelings, HOWEVER

 

We have very solid leadership in the CBA. This is a very good time to trust them to do the right thing. I am very confident that they will.

Jim

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 3 weeks ago

Thanks for the vote of confidence Jim.

Our rules require us to publish ALL proposed rules in the Fouling Shot.  They are not pre- judged by the board of directors, In fact some  board members may not even know a rule has been proposed until they read it in TFS.

The reason our rules require us to publish all proposed rule changes and then wait 30 days before the Board is allowed to formally discuss and vote is to give members a chance to voice their opinions to guide the Board's discussion. Thanks to all who have taken that opportunity.

We get zero feedback about most proposed rule changes.  In 19 years of being involved I have never seen so much negative feedback as on this proposal.

John

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Ross Smith
BHyett posted this 3 weeks ago

The ASSRA experience of two sets of records should be an awakening. The attempt at conciliation lead to further fragmentation. The Beeson Range in Indiana is far from many members and I doubt that I will ever shoot there. 

The CBA rules define the range and match requirements for a record where anyone can compete. The  CBA should be encouraging competition since competition leads to improvements. We as members realize the group for a national record can be anywhere and anytime. Even with dedication and diligence, this is a one-time event.

The record should be celebrated, wherever and whenever it was shot.

 

 

Country boy from Illinois, living in the Magical Pacific Northwest

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Ross Smith
RicinYakima posted this 3 weeks ago

John,

We are confident the board will do the right thing with the proposal.

I am also opposed to this even though I only have shot at national matches. There are no local CBA match shooters and I can not afford to  make the matches in Seattle or Spokane. But everyone who can shoot locally, should have the same opportunity to set records.

Ric

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Ross Smith
Tom Acheson posted this 3 weeks ago

Agree 100% with the above resistance to the ill conceived proposal.

The CBA and all the local matches are not defined by the National Tournament. That event is just one more match with more shooters than most local matches have.

One of our shooters has a good day in Podunksville and sets new records, then that is every bit as meritous as anything done at the NT.

Tom

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
Old Coot posted this 3 weeks ago

I too agree with the negative sentiment expressed concerning the proposed rule changes.  Why adopt practices that will limit participation? 

B.E.Brickey

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Ross Smith
Ross Smith posted this 3 weeks ago

FWIW: I watched a regional air rifle match. Interesting. They had targets that instantly broadcast the impact point on a screen and it's score and total for the round.

I agree with y'all, Ross

Attached Files

John Carlson posted this 3 weeks ago

My experience is limited to the military classes which, as I understand it, would not be changed by this proposal.  Even so, I must agree with the sentiment expressed here.  There may be changes that could be adopted which would improve on our current practices, but I don't think this is one of them.

Holding public office should be viewed as an obligation to serve, not an opportunity to rule.

Attached Files

MarkinEllensburg posted this 3 weeks ago

Agree this is not a good idea. Someday I hope to earn a record with one of the rifles my father passed on to me. As if that is not hard enough to make the requirement of only one match a year would make it nearly impossible for most of the membership. With every score match I enter I have the intention of shooting a perfect score with 18x or better. It could happen. It is not likely.

I also would like to see a moving backer system that it easier to set up. It is my thought that tiny groups happen. I would be surprised if a record sized group is shot at a match and does not count because no moving backers were used. How sad for the shooter. I understand the need for moving backers. In the situation of Pentz mentions I lose the justification for a moving backer. If 5 or 10 distinct holes are present, how does a moving backer help? In the few matches I've shot at Spokane backers are not used; too bothersome to set up.

A lighter weight or electronic system just needs to be developed and made available to match directors.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
Scearcy posted this 3 weeks ago

One  of our Region 5 shooters has made his own movable backer system. It has proven to be quite reliable over the past 3 years. It is heavy and somewhat awkward as it requires a car battery but it works each and every time. so it is possible for a competitor to build their own backer system.  Now it would be a very interesting engineering project to try to design the ultimate single person movable backer system.

There would be issues. For example most ranges do not have electricity available at both 100 yd and 200 yd. Also the terrain and target frames differ on almost every range so a system needs to be very flexible.

Unfortunately I could drag around a movable backer system for 10 years and never set a new record. As Dirty Harry said you need to know your limitations.

Jim

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 3 weeks ago

The individual backer system mentioned by Jim was the subject of a Fouling Shot article including instructions for building one by John Kaufenburg in TFS #240

I share MarkinEllenburg frustration about groups small enough to break records and with 5 or 10 distinct holes.  Although it will be a long time before any such qualifying group is fired in one of the CBA  classes allowing custom guns because of the tiny sizes of existing records.  It may still make sense for the Production and Hunting Rifle classes where the present records are still large enough for a record breaking size group (or groups for aggregate) to sometimes have 5 or 10 bullet visible holes. It is even more likely the holes will be distinct at 200 yards.

A while back I wrote and proposed such a rule requiring that all three group judges must agree that there were enough distinct holes to qualify.  However, I didn't get a majority vote by the Board. Some concerns were that it would be more complicated to administer and lead to arguments and hard feelings.

John

Attached Files

Mike H posted this 3 weeks ago

Years ago,when I shot pistols and missing shots were causing problems with competitors and scorers,it was decided to use fixed backing targets a metre behind the scoring targets.If there was any doubt of the correct number of shots on the scoring target,the backer was examined.It was a little more work as the backers had to be patched after each detail.My brother lost a State Champioship before they came in use,

mike.

Attached Files

shootcast posted this 3 weeks ago

Seems to be pro’s and cons to this proposal. This isn’t new and was brought up a general meeting at the  nationals a few years back. The best solution I thought was brought  up by a shooter in that meeting.  Have two sets of records, National and club. This of course requires additional paper work. A club record would not just be your club but any club all together. When you think of it this way we are not taking away from but adding incentive to attend the Nationals. You may very well have high honors in both club and national records. 

As for article 9.3 I’ m not sure the intent here. We have kicked a similar issue around before. Years back it was brought to my attention that rule 11.5 in part did not allow anything at local or regional matches that was not allowed at the Nationals. Since our rules state we need a minimum of four shooters for a legal shoot and that we always use moving backers for everyone at the Nationals. I believe our rules kinda counter Dick each other and we need to address these.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 3 weeks ago

  1. Shootcast,

  2. I don't believe there is any conflict in our rules about group shooting. Please let me know where.

         I think the intent of 9.3 is clear

           "9.3 Backing Targets - Moving backers are required for all groups considered for National Records."

           Jim's proposal to change it is also clear - we would have to have moving backers for at least four shooters             which would outlaw individual backer devices now being used by two individuals.            

            Article 11.5 pertains to allowing a shooter to use two guns in a match and has nothing to do with groups or             backers. Maybe you are reading an old set of rules.  Please check the current version I sent you a few             days ago.

            John

Attached Files

Pentz posted this 3 weeks ago

Re hard feelings, John, imagine a 3" 10-round group target at 300 yards with 10 distinct holes being DQ'd due to a lack of a moving backer. 😠

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 3 weeks ago

Multiple sets of records? What, the Match Directors-VOLUNTEERS-don't have enough to do already?

Someday we need to get off the bus that loves to worship at the Alter of the National Match!

 

Tom

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • BHyett
BHyett posted this 2 weeks ago

Tom Acheson is right; may we always remember we are a group of volunteers. 

Country boy from Illinois, living in the Magical Pacific Northwest

Attached Files

Close