1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Severe Penalty for "Cheaters"

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by Neil Winston, Dec 26, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,849
    Severe Penalty for

    "It has been suggested by the Handicap Committee and is being seriously considered by the Executive Committee, and will be decided before the next Grand American, that any shooter wilfully missing targets to lower his average or falsifying his score in any way shall be disqualified from the Sport for one year. Such drastic measures, of course, have been suggested by experiences the Handicap Committee has had. Here is an instance, exceptional of course, but authentic according to Chairman Billy Beers. A shooter who had an average of 94 per cent, attended two shoots shortly before the Grand American. Result: Shot at 150, broke 119 and shot at 150, broke 101; average decreased to .8600. This was considered by the Handicap Committee to be very unfair and they disregarded these low scores. The committee was compelled, in seeking to be fair to all, to throw out nearly 1,000 scores which apparently did not demonstrate the shooters' real ability."

    ATA Secretary Seitz sent this clipping to me from . . . when?

    Neil
     
  2. phirel

    phirel TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,556
    Severe Penalty for

    Intentionally missing targets does warrant a penalty. I do see a problem in distinguishing between a very poor day by a shooter and intentionally missing targets.

    Pat Ireland
     
  3. smartass

    smartass TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,099
    Severe Penalty for

    I'm betting this was a long time ago. It sounds like a good idea though- as long as I get to be the sole judge of who is sandbagging.
     
  4. lumper

    lumper TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,586
    Severe Penalty for

    Yeah ... sure ... like they actually did anything about cheaters.
     
  5. incognito

    incognito TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    233
    Severe Penalty for

    Now there's a sure fire plan to further damage a dying sport!!! Are you planning to use a commercially built mind-reading machine, or build your own???
     
  6. Hauxfan

    Hauxfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,080
    Severe Penalty for

    I'm with Anonymous, I'm guessing it was from a long time ago.

    And Neil, if you see me missing targets, I can assure you, it isn't because I want to. I'm just in a long slump......

    Hauxfan!
     
  7. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,849
    Severe Penalty for

    It was from a long time ago, eighty-four years in fact. It's reproduced as it appeared in Sportsmen's Review in 1933. A thousand scores? Maybe sandbagging isn't as much of a problem now as it used to be!

    Neil
     
  8. Capt. Morgan

    Capt. Morgan TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,061
    Severe Penalty for

    A rule such as that is really pointless. Once the rule is included in the regs, shooters who want to miss intentionally will simply become less obvious about it. It will remain the responsibility of the shoot organizers and the ATA to prove that the misses were intentional and I'd REALLY like to see how they intent to do that!

    It's almost laughable to accuse someone of "not doing their best" or "not trying to hit every target". For most shooters the term "real ability" has no valid meaning. Does the fact that I once shot 100 straight mean that I am not shooting to my "real ability" unless I do the same thing every time out? Classification can be legitimately based only on observable performance; writing a rule that legislates a mandatory level of performance is ludicrous.

    Morgan
     
  9. miketmx

    miketmx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,964
    Severe Penalty for

    Quote: "The committee was compelled, in seeking to be fair to all, to throw out nearly 1,000 scores which apparently did not demonstrate the shooters' real ability."

    I don't understand the above statement even if there is a misprint. I would hope that the CHC and the EC or for that matter the Handicap Committee at an important shoot like a State Shoot would have the 'Power' to deal with persons who are cheating on classification. It seems sometimes that ATA rules have to be very explicit as though someone could take the committee to court on a 'legal' technicality if the committee used common sense in disciplining an obvious cheater. I didn't word this very well but I still don't understand rules that might hurt the majority of shooters in order to get the dedicated sandbagger.
     
  10. JBrooks

    JBrooks TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,707
    Severe Penalty for

    It's not the intentionally missed targets that is a problem. It is the guys who don't shoot all winter and show up with 600-100 targets averaged down because they were rusty in March-May and maybe caught a cold rainy day and show up in C & B class and shoot 100s.
     
  11. smartass

    smartass TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,099
    Severe Penalty for

    I think some of you folks missed the point of the thread, even though Neil tried to explain it to you. Take a look at when this happened- it was 84 years ago. It's a little late for this debate. LOL
     
  12. trapperjohn

    trapperjohn TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    34
    Severe Penalty for

    Neil,

    I think you are on the right track by disregarding scores that are out of the normal range in a shooters records. However, I've been in a 20 year slump while, at the same time, I can shoot a mid-90's singles now and then. At a State shoot, without the required minimums, I don't stand a chance in B or A Class against all the 100's. For folks who are fortunate to record thousands, i.e. Pat, of targets, it jumps right out when they register a few low scores. I think you are talking about that type of shooter and not us folks who record a few hundred targets a year. The problem with placing the folks who don't get lots of targets is that a shooter could shoot thousands of unregistered targets, get classed low and clean up at registered shoots. To solve this problem, shooters with low counts of registered should be allowed to shoot for only "target count".

    Whatever decision is made, it will upset some folks and make others happy. Except for Lumper who is always grumpy. By the way, I know Lumper and he is not as bad as he sounds. Maybe!

    Yours in Sport,
    Trapper John
     
  13. Easystreet

    Easystreet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,462
    Severe Penalty for

    In working with averages, the ATA should take a clue from the USGA (golfer's association) in figuring handicaps. The USGA takes only the "best 10 of the most recent 20 scores" in figuring a handicap for golfers who play handicapped tournament golf. "Handicap" refers to your stroke average, not the fact that you may have a physical impairment.

    So, if the ATA wanted to adopt a similar system, they would use the highest 10 scores of the most recent 20 scores submitted to ATA for each shooter to figure an "average" for that shooter.

    Why figure in the bad days when a shooter is clearly having an off day? You want to know how well a shooter shoots when he is having a fairly good day, not how poorly he shoots (or how many targets he can deliberately miss) on a bad day.
     
  14. jeffprigge

    jeffprigge Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,055
    Severe Penalty for

    how do you explain averages from all year at 86 % and then all of a sudden they break 99 or 100 at Missouri in the fall. this outa get you all going
     
  15. oleolliedawg

    oleolliedawg Banned User Banned TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    10,124
    Location:
    Northampton PA
    Severe Penalty for

    As our late President Gene Anastasio once said "you guys just shoot all those low Winter scores you want because we'll disregard them at classifying time"!!
     
  16. hmb

    hmb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,417
    Severe Penalty for

    Money won, that's the key. HMB
     
  17. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,849
    Severe Penalty for

    STOP! STOP! STOP! READ THIS!!!! STOP! STOP! STOP!

    As I said in the first post,

    "ATA Secretary Seitz sent this clipping to me from . . . when?"

    and I intended it to show how little things have changed, except gotten better, perhaps.

    The just six post down - since it didn't seem to working as I had expected, I wrote:

    "It was from a long time ago, eighty-four years in fact. It's reproduced as it appeared in Sportsmen's Review in 1933. A thousand scores? Maybe sandbagging isn't as much of a problem now as it used to be!"


    And what a proof it's been! Look at all the people who took it to be today's news, not almost a century old!

    Neil
     
  18. smartass

    smartass TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,099
    Severe Penalty for

    Hey Neil, I tried too, but these gents just see what they want to see. It was worth lots of laughs though. LOL
     
  19. nicky

    nicky Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    283
    Severe Penalty for

    Neil all we ask is for today's board to do the best that they can.

    Kevin
     
  20. lumper

    lumper TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,586
    Severe Penalty for

    Earl ... did you take this as todays news? Stud took it as old news and it looks like you jumped his case for ... well ... did you take this as todays news? Seems like you did.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.