shotgunpeople,

Don't be so sure there are not ATA people with some pull either reading or participating on this forum. Several come to mind although I'll leave them nameless. I'll just say you never know who is listening.

Just because they are not posting doesn't mean they are not there.

"You don't double up punches"

Well you don't cut them in half either. The original poster said,

"I was surprised to see yardage score of 93 get ½ yard. High scores for that event were 100, 98 and 97, 96 and an half yard. And 93 half yards money punch."

If the rule reads one yard for $750 bucks. How can you get a half yard for $750 just because it is a 93 or an 88. Seems to me it shouldn't be paid at all there were no 100, 99, 98, 97, or 96's involved so why a payout at 93 or 88??????

Bob Lawless

It would appear they should have received 1 yard for the money. Nothing for the 93.

Rjstuart shows a money punch of 1 yard for a 93.

look at the ohio state shoot results fot the rio handicap under [earn yardarge], you will see a guy name dan barker 96 gets a 1/2 yard 19 to 19 1/2 , then look down you will see his name again with money and gets another 1/2 yard 19 1/2 to 20 for winning over $750. in that event. if he would have won over $1200. he would have gotten the full yard on the money punch. if you read the rule there is a [OR IN IT. I thought the same as Frank when I read the rule, but then I called the ATA AND THE [OR] means either or both. If you do not get the proper amount of yardage withyour score, and win over $750. you will get a money puch. even if it is a low score.

In reading the rules on page 24 item (5) where money rule comes in I don't see the 1/2 yd money punch only 1 yard money punch,

please point out the 1/2 yd money punch rule page and item.

I saw the money punch on RJ Sturart web site of the Ohio State Shoot.

I know it has been discussed to VOID all 1/2 yd punches at small shoots but it has not been enacted.

The money punch for Low Lewis Class Scores is ASSININE in other words a stupid rule and not in line w/2 yard reductions.

I think the rule book needs a section explicitly addressing the $750 earned money yardage, It is vague as written.

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

Holy Sh!p I actually agree with the Dr. On a few points. The money punch is absolutely stupid and makes no sense. Get rid of the whole thing.

5. Any score of 97, 98 and 99 or winning a total of $750.00 or more (option and added money) in a single handicap event will automatically earn 1 yard, and a score of 100 or winning a total of $1,200.00 or more (option and added money) in a single handicap event will automatically earn 1-1/2 yards provided these scores do not earn at least that much under the earned yardage table

It's pretty clear. He can only get a yard for the $. His 93 would be irrelevant.

Maybe their software needed it split that way.

Event#10 Tom Cecil got a 1.0 yd money punch that means he had to win $1250 or more, if he ran the last 50 that was $885.00 and he wouild have gotten $49.00 and $61.25 score did not hit lewis But also $32.25 for GEP Missed so how did he get a 1.0 yd punch for money.

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

I'm now looking at Zach Anderson's 97 same event. A yard for 97 and a 1/2 yard for $??

1 yrd for the 97.

Nothing for his less than $1200 earnings..

Why is everyone referring to $1200 you get a yard for $750 and 1 1/2 yds for $1200. Or so the rule says.

"Any score of 97, 98 and 99 or winning a total of $750.00 or more (option and added money) in a single handicap event will automatically earn 1 yard"

So that would mean Tom Cecil would get a yard for the $885 for the last fifty as LS says. The $1250 that LS said was required would have given Tom Cecil 1 1/2 yards according to the rule.

Bob Lawless

Handicap committee should look at this

The lower portions of Lewis class pay-outs at the Grand American might prove interesting again this coming August as the ante is upped again? Earn real estate for shooting like crap and winning cash also? OR, is that a different kinda cash because carrots were dangled in front of the smaller horses? :-)

Still a bad rule Einstein!

Harem Crampbull

We seem to have a consensus here. It's a bad idea and it's being badly interpreted to boot.

With all the people bitching about the rules all they have to do is get involved with the ATA and change them. That would get more done than complaining about the rules or people who actually do try to do something!!!

Thanks for the suggestion. Now lead the way.

I got a "sucker" punch with an 89 once.

I'm not addressing whether the money punch is good or bad, but I feel sorry for the guys that write the rules, classify the shoots, and follow the rules and then get stuck listening to all of this "stuff" above from people that just do not understand what they are talking about.

First, nobody listed on Stuart's site received a "1/2" yard money punch for a 93. Disregard any posts saying that above.

Next, nobody received a "1/2 yard" money punch by itself, there is no such thing. What happened is Baker must have won enough for a 1.5 yard money punch, which is only imposed at .5 yards since he already received 1 yard for his 97. Nothing wrong with what happened there.

Cecil received 1 yard for his 93. Must have won $750, which playing the 50's could have done. LS's post makes no sense regarding Cecil.

Barker also had a 1 yard money punch, imposed at only .5 yards since he already received .5 yards for his 96.

EVERY SINGLE ISSUE YOU GUYS ARE YELLING ABOUT ABOVE IS DONE THE WAY YOU WOULD EXPECT (IF YOU COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU READ).

Sorry about the yelling, but certain people just keep posting pure BS and getting everyone riled up when nothing was done wrong in the first place.

EDIT: Just to clarify, both Targetbreaker and Longshot have subsequently changed their original posts to say "1 yard" instead of their original "1/2 yard" when refering to the money punch for the 93 for Cecil.

So explain Zach Anderson's 97 getting a 1 1/2 total....

870 thanks for pointing that out. If you would read the rio handicapper under earn yardage and 2012 Ohio State. You will see the man's name was[Dan Barker] not Baker, he whent from 19 yard line to 19 1/2 for a score of 96. Then read down to the bottom, you will see that he got 1/2 yard more for any money punch. Which put him on the 191/2 to the 20 yard line. There is no B.S. hear my facts are straight and in black and white if you are capable of reading.

he won over $750. which = 1 whole yard. even though he broke a 96

and yes there is a 93 same shoot got a 1 yard money punch.

Target:

I read fine, you just don't understand what you are reading. As I clearly stated, Barker received a 1 yard money punch for his 96. Since a 96 automatically earns .5 yards under the earned yardage automatic score rule, that yardage is applied first. Next, the money punch only applies at .5 yards to bring him up to the 1 yard money punch total. You get punched the maximum of the table, the 96,97,98,100 score punch, OR the money punch. In this guys case the money punch was 1 yard, which is greater than his punch for the 96, which was only .5 yards. Therefore, he earns 1 yard in total because the money punch was 1 yard and it was larger than the others. They just apply it in reports as regular yardage first and then the balance up to the max labeled money.

I clearly labeled Baker as a separate shooter, your confusion.

There is no 93 listed on Stuart's site with a 1/2 yard for a 93. EDIT: I see you changed your post to say 1 yard for a 93 now. Yes, that is correct, Cecil received a 1 yard money punch, that;s what I said in my post,what about it?

Big M.........You didn't see me complaining about the rules did you??

Actually, I perceived you were bitching about people not doing something about them. I thought you had a plan, a roadmap to Nirvana.