3 way tie in singles. Carried over to the next day, won the carry over. When you record it on your average card in the "win/tie" block........should you record it as a "win" or a "tie"?

Sounds like you won to me. Congrats.

Your first line was "3 way tie in singles." So it must be a tie. The carryover was the next day and another score, correct? That would be a "win" it seems.

Agree with Hippie. Two days, two different scores. Day 1, put a T in the box. Day 2, won shoot-off, put a W in the box. Mike C

Jason has it correct you won the event on the first day.

Had you lost the carry over you would have marked a tie.

Good shooting

Shawn

I have always colored in the tie and the win.....because you did both.

Each to his own, good shooting John and good to see you.

Rick in MT

Sorry folks, it's a win, for John. Not a tie.

The carry over was merely used as a surrogate score in place of a shoot off.

John won the trophy for the "first day's" event. Not, necessarily, for the second day's event.

Listen to V10, that is the correct answer. Some of those other posts leave me wondering where some come up with these ideas.

Just look at it this way, if you won the trophy, mark a win. If you were one of the guys that tied but did not win the trophy, mark as a tie. Just to rile some of you up: another shooter might ALSO have to mark a win or tie if his score would have won or tied in class even though he won a different trophy - say event champ.

V10 is correct, once again. The carryover is treated exactly as a shoot off late into the wee hours of the morning.

"The carryover is treated exactly as a shoot off late into the wee hours of the morning."

Just a question don't you need to tie to be in the shoot off????

Just another Grey area in the rulebook. It should be made clearer as it is necessary to tie to get in the shoot off.

Bob Lawless

Bob:

Not taking a shot at you, but I don't follow what you mean by a grey area in the rule.

If you win the trophy, you mark a win. If you tied but did not win, you mark a tie. It serves no purpose to mark a win AND a tie if that is what you are getting at?

Keep them straight, V10! They do have funny ideas.

"Not taking a shot at you, but I don't follow what you mean by a grey area in the rule."

I am not taking a shot at you either. If that is what the rule means then say so in the rules. From the document provided by the ATA,link above.

"6 W/T = If you win or tie for your singles class that day you would put a "W" for a win or A "T" for a tie in this column."

Is that what you feel is clear?? Knowing that most that come hear after being given all the information possible on any given rule still argue the point.

All I am saying is if what you have stated is the way it is supposed to be then put it in the rules just that way. Don't leave room for confusion or you will get what you have now damn few that mark anything in the appropriate space.

Bob Lawless

Uh, yes Bob. You do need to tie to be in a carryover/shootoff...

There's nothing to argue about here guys. If its my average card and I won the carryover then I'd mark the first days event won. Won't it go into trap and field as a win? It was only a tie until the results of the shoot off (carryover) was in, now it's not a tie. Once again, congrats.

Thank you all for the advice fella's, I've recorded it as a "W".

Had a GREAT time in Great Falls, Rick! .....as expected.

John C. Saubak

Gee Bob, yeah I think that's pretty clear. W if you win, OR T if you tied. The W is determined after the event is concluded, which means after shootoffs/carryovers if necessary, that is common sense.

"W/T = If you win or tie for your singles class that day you would put a "W" for win or "T" for tie in this column. If you win your category (i.e, veteran), do not enter it as a win or tie unless your score is as high or higher than the class winner." Same thing goes for doubles.

Again, if you won the class trophy, mark a win. If you tied for class but lost out on the class winning trophy after shootoff/carryover, you mark it as a tie. If you won your category, but your score was higher than the score that won your class, you would mark a W. If you won category with a score that tied your class winning score, you'd mark a T. If you won your category with a score lower than your class winning score, you'd make no mark at all. I just don't see a problem as written.

I don't intend to argue the point with you as it would serve no useful purpose.

I will however ask why is it that you feel it is clear enough. Yet every time there is a rule question you and Scott and BigM and a few others spend much time explaining what the rules are saying?????

It would seem to me if what the rules were written to say what they are supposed to mean they wouldn't need to be clarified every time someone can't seem to use common sense. You however seem to feel that it is fine because it is common sense.

The only other thing I don't understand is why you can't seem to understand what I am saying. Yet you seem to understand what all the rules say and some of them are as clear as mud.

Bob Lawless

Your right Bob, I shot a 98, by God I should be in the shootoffs with those guys shooting 100's...

What was I thinking....

Jim "BITE ME" I never said that in any of my posts on this or any other threads. I don't need you putting words in my mouth.

Bob Lawless

Bob,

The reason some long winded explanations are necessary is because some people's responses indicate that they have a fundamental misunderstanding about what is being discussed. And the reply is intended to educate the wayward so that they can gain the proper fundamental understanding.

Take the case above. One respondent indicated that they were two different scores on two different days, so the first one must be a tie and the second one must be a win (because John "won the carryover".) This is so obviously a misunderstanding of what is happening that it begs for a longer explanation. And because some of us don't mind patiently educating folks, we indulge in long-winded explanations. It's not the rule that needs the explanation, it's the ideas that underpin the rule (or requirement, in this case) that require explaining.

The requirement is that you mark wins and ties. That's simple and straight forward.

Now, if someone doesn't understand what constitutes a win or a tie, then additional explanation is needed. In the case above, some people don't understand how carry overs work. John could have "won the carry over" on the first box. He could have had a 25, and the other two shooters could have had 24s. John could have then gone on to post a 21, 20, 18 for an 84. And the other two shooters could have run the last three traps. They would have had 99s in the carry over event, but John would have won the carry over with his 84. Because carry overs are determined by sub event, not by total score. So, again, in this example, John would have won the carry over (and thus event 1), but he wasn't even close to winning the next day's event.

How's that for a long-winded response?

Scott you stated that,

"Take the case above. One respondent indicated that they were two different scores on two different days, so the first one must be a tie and the second one must be a win (because John "won the carryover".) This is so obviously a misunderstanding of what is happening that it begs for a longer explanation."

Did I say anything different in my first post? Personally I just think that if it was stated clearly in the rulebook under Classification as that is what win/ties is supposed to be for.

All I said was the same thing 870 said. Only I stated it differently I said it was a Grey area in the rules 870 said.

"if you won the trophy, mark a win. If you were one of the guys that tied but did not win the trophy, mark as a tie."

I don't know about anyone else but 870's statement is a lot clearer to me than the way it is worded in the Average Card Information PDF. Yet I am getting all this crap about what I said??????

BTW Scott exactly where is this rulebook is this listed????

Bob Lawless

Bob:

The rulebook simply says we must mark all wins and ties. As you know, the method used to accomplish this is in another document, not the rulebook.

Let's not overcomplicate this, you and I are not arguing. You simply think the wording quoted above is confusing, and I don't. You ask why I don't understand what you are saying, and the answer is that when I read the instruction, I understand it. If a lot of people read the quoted text in the second paragraph of my 8/8/12 9:21 post and can't understand it, then I guess there might be a problem. I just don't think most shooters really have trouble understanding it; more likely, many have never read it.

You feel that my earlier statement above was clearer than the instruction as written, and I would agree with you; but it was just a general plain-english summary. You have to realize that you can't write a rule or instruction like that all the time though. If you used my wording for instance, we'd get a Class winning shooter complaining that they shouldn't have to mark the W because they didn't win a trophy at a shoot that had no trophies.

There are other places in the rules where clarification would be great, this issue would be very low on the list, but that's just my opinion. I think most of the rule discussions on this site result from shooters that have never read the rule themselves.

"You feel that my earlier statement above was clearer than the instruction as written, and I would agree with you; but it was just a general plain-english summary. You have to realize that you can't write a rule or instruction like that all the time though."

Ask yourself a question do I usually complain about rules??? I usually understand most of the rules. What you seem to be missing is John has been in this sport for over ten year and he felt a need to ask how to record it.

If it were stated in the rulebook as you have stated it or close to that. He may not have found a need to ask. In your second paragraph of your last post you want to keep it simple not over complicated. Yet you don't explain why "many have never read it" I will give you a clue as to why. you said

"As you know, the method used to accomplish this is in another document, not the rulebook."

Exactly so without using the link I provided please tell me how difficult that link is to find. That should give you a clue as to why I called it a Grey area in the rulebook yet by your own statement the rulebook isn't used to clarify this rule. So how would anyone that is new. Or spends very little time in the rulebook supposed to understand it as it is near impossible to find. Not to mention the fact that there is another document to clarify it.

So I ask you is it a rule or isn't it???? If not why is it expected. If it is a rule why another document to explain it. Or maybe you still don't see my point, again you can interpret the rule fine yet you don't seem to understand the need to make it iron clad. I have made my point as far as I am concerned no further discussion is needed by me.

BTW Scott it would seem that for some reason "a long-winded response" is very necessary in some instances. Also common sense doesn't seem to work in all aspects of this question.

Bob Lawless

Oh well.

I will merely state that around here Alberta and Montana the classifiers use Averages but do not seem to pay much attention to the "W" or "T" on the average cards. Maybe this is because they know most of the shooters at the small shoots. And speaking of small shoots, how meaningful is a Class B win for classification purposes when there is only a handful of shooters in Class B ??