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

Wis, outrage over ATA rule

Discussion in 'Shooting Related Threads' started by rabbitshooter, Feb 17, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rabbitshooter

    rabbitshooter TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2
    Looking for some views and thoughts and maybe answers. Please go to witrapshooters.com and view the board meeting minutes of 2010 for Jan. and Feb. Then if you want flames, read some of the discussion threads pertaining to this.
    People ask why we lose members and ATA delegates. Many questions were asked and very few answered. Sounds like a rule was dropped in and never voted on and leaving the WTA and our delegate with a mess after the Board turned their back on. All brought about by a well known soccer Mom, finding a loop hole in the rule to allow a sub junior, who turned 15, to shoot another year as sub junior. This not only effected tropies at the state level but the AIM program at the Grand as he won trophies at both. Curious to see how many other special catagory shooters were effected by this. In all, this might explain why or how some of these dumb rules are put in the rule book.
    Any opinions or thoughts on this ? Makes you wonder what our fees go to or even if our voices are being heard
     
  2. JACK

    JACK Well-Known Member Supporting Vendor

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    14,725
    Location:
    NW Wisconsin
    Rabbit. I am not outraged and not inclined to "flame". Perhaps you can make this easier for us to understand why you are so upset. Sounds like you have a specific beef. Why don't you tell us all sides of the story and save us the investigative beginnings you left out.

    Signed, not impressed nor upset in Prescott.
     
  3. tom berry

    tom berry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    760
    Location:
    Winterset, IA
    MIA,

    There was a note inserted in the NOV 2008 version of the rules stating that the Date for special classification changes would be Sept 1,2008. This was the year the target year was changed to begin Nov 1.

    There is much to do about the insertion of the rule with respect to the approval process or lack there of.

    Hopefully, the link above will work.

    Tom
     
  4. 320090T

    320090T Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,350
    Location:
    Indiana
    So what rule did "said family" violate, if any? Looks like there was a loophole, the family took it, and the ATA, relizing they left a hole open, covered themselves from a lawsuit and gave in. Bottom line, what is the damage, maybe I missed something. Six members instead of five?
     
  5. 870

    870 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,390
    Seems if that Sept 1 date was in the rulebook for 2008 as Tom points out above, the kid could have shot sub jr for the entire year. But if he ever entered as a junior during that year, that would void the sub jr election. If that was the case, why was he let back into sub jr?

    I'm missing what the ATA did wrong here. Must be more complicated than I'm seeing with all the parties involved, but once he shot junior over sub junior he was done. Where am I missing the point?

    Edit: I went back and reread the WI minutes and note that he shot Sub jr all year, I was wrong above, the junior issue never came into play. That said, it still looks like your uproar is over nothing. The ATA rule said the age based category year was 9/1/08 even thogh the target year started 11/1/08. With the change in years, some people could get screwed with the change in the year, so they put that note in; what's wrong with that? I assume his birthday was after 9/1/08, therefore he was entitled to shoot sub jr all year.

    I'm guessing that good old mom here really pissed some people off back in 2008 and that clouded peoples judgments at the end of 2009 when making up the teams.
     
  6. TNCoach

    TNCoach Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    579
    rabbitshooter,

    please state the rule.

    Thx,
    TNCoach
     
  7. miketmx

    miketmx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,969
    I too am missing what the ATA did wrong here and can only speculate on what happened and what the loophole was all about. Target year 2008 was 14 months long ending October 31, 2008. Target year 2009 was 10 months long ending August 31, 2009. Maybe that date of September 1, 2008 was a misprint in the rulebook or maybe it was a deliberate rule to maintain continuity with Target Year 2007 and prior years being 12 months in length. I haven't got a clue but either way it was a potential can of worms just waiting to mushroom into a problem.
     
  8. 99 straight

    99 straight TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    16
    From what I read from the minutes of the board meeting, it is from rule 7, page 19 in the 2009 target year book. It also says shooter and parents contacted WI. ATA Delegate, Central Zone President, and ATA Ex. Directer about the November 1 target year and him being cheated out of a year of sub junior. All contacted parties said no exceptions.
     
  9. likes-to-shoot

    likes-to-shoot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    6,092
    Location:
    Iowa
    Your right Gary, the parents are the worst when it comes to children's sports. There was one summer here that all parents were banned from attending Little league baseball games due to yelling and intimidating the kids from the other teams parents. Good example of maturity.
     
  10. SilverShooter

    SilverShooter TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    275
    I am amazed and impressed by the effort so many people put into reading the rules and finding loopholes. In this case, some really clever parents finageld another year for their child at an easier level (supposedly). I would like to know where the kid is in a few years, and what the parents continue to do to give him every advantage. If he is talented, sticks to the sport and becomes a grand champion, then good for them! My guess is that they will fade and no one will remember any of them.

    In any yearly event, there has to be a start and an end date, and when adjusted, someone on the cusp gets screwed and someone gets an advantage. That's life. Hopefully the loophole is now closed.
     
  11. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    I've always wonder why one particular soccer league team here had the same top dog players on it every year when team assignments were supposed to be random. You don't suppose there was taradiddle afoot?
     
  12. ivanhoe

    ivanhoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,539
    Location:
    Oxford MA
    99 straight said from the minutes of the meeting.

    "From what I read from the minutes of the board meeting, it is from rule 7, page 19 in the 2009 target year book."

    I have duplicated the rule below

    "7. Shooters who become eligible for new age based categories during
    the target year may elect to continue to compete in the previous
    category for the remainder of that target year. (For example a shooter
    reaching age 70 may elect to continue to shoot as a Veteran for the
    remainder of the current target year.) However, once a shooter has
    elected to move to the new category that decision is irrevocable and
    he/she may not again declare eligibility for the previous category.
    Junior shooters reaching the age of 18 may continue to declare Junior
    category for the remainder of the current target year. (Note: Shooters
    will become eligible for new age based categories on September 1,
    2008 for the 2009 target year).

    It would appear to me that they made allowences for the time in a shooter eligbility or maybe I am reading it wrong.

    Bob Lawless
     
  13. miketmx

    miketmx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,969
    Unless I'm interpreting the whole story wrong, the boy was 14 years old on September 1, 2008 and he should be entitled to Sub-Jr trophies for all of Target Year 2009.
     
  14. brad patterson

    brad patterson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    168
    If you read the thread above by which shows the rule in question. The issue had nothing to do with a loophole, more with how the issue was handled by the ATA and how the family acted.

    The big issue involves the last statement beginning with note. Most people read the rule as follows: (exp. Joe Smith is a sub junior with a birthdate of Oct. 1st, the target year begins Nov. 1st.)

    'Note : Shooters (Joe Smith) will become eligible for new age based (Junior) categories on September 1, 2008 for the 2009 target year).

    If Joe Smith turned 15 on Oct 1st, then when the target year began on Nov. 1st Joe Smith would no longer be able to compete as a sub-junior but would be a junior.

    In our case in WI, our shooter asked for an exemption to continue to compete as a sub junior. Was told no on several occasions, then unknown to anyone and without following basic rules, the ATA Ex. Committee approved an exemption as their intent for the above rule was to grandfather shooters and act as if the target year began Sept. 1st.

    The WTA did an extensive investigation into the issue and the situation and tried to come up with the best situation for all involved. Many are upset with what has taken place. Some involved are considering not serving on boards anymore because of it.

    Moral of the story is learn what NO means, occasionally their are rule changes, sometimes people get shafted by a rule change, learn to deal with it.

    the saddest part is our shooter involved in this is a very good shot and can compete with anyone on any day. Going to the junior category would not affect him at all. He and his family should have had a little more faith in his abilities.


    Brad
     
  15. JACK

    JACK Well-Known Member Supporting Vendor

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    14,725
    Location:
    NW Wisconsin
    Let's face it. Some outcomes are just "Wedgie" issues
     
  16. 870

    870 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,390
    Brad:

    I still say you guys got upset over something that shouldn't have been such a big deal. The parents were probably a big issue here, but putting that aside you just had to apply the rule as written.

    Yes, the rule could have been more clear, but to me I would have read the rule this way: the age based rules were to run AS IF the target year started on Sept 1. That's what the rule sounds like to me. In that case the kid would have been eligible for Sub jr status through 8/31/2009; and that is how it played out.

    What's the big deal? The kid ended up in exactly the same category he would have been in if the ATA had never switched the target year in the first place.
     
  17. brad patterson

    brad patterson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    168
    Just remember, there is always more to the story. On here you get the glossed over version. This issue had to do with morals, integity, sportsmanship, proper procedure, issues worth getting involved in and not taken lightly.

    Brad
     
  18. 870

    870 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,390
    Brad:

    I appreciate that other issues came into play. Sounds like the parents were a real nightmare. My only gripe about the original post is that the rule as written (in my opinion) was not all that "dumb" and certainly not deserving of the slam that post was putting on the ATA.

    Now, maybe the goings on behind the scenes were another matter entirely, we don't know that, only you guys stuck in the mess know what went on.

    Getting past the PITA peolple involved though, and just applying the rule as I read it, does not seem to be that big of a deal to me. Obviously you guys read that rule differently then I do. From an outsider just looking at the facts and the rule, the end result is what I would have said it should be.
     
  19. TNCoach

    TNCoach Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    579
    Brad,

    I have to agree with 870 on this one the rule was created to allow sub juniors and juniors to compete in their respective category until the end of the shooting season (calendar year).

    I think the rule is a good one, and I don't think the TS community reading this post knows about any of the details enough to substantiate any of the crimes in your last post.

    Let's just say this kid was a junior would your opinion be the same? I've seen a lot of great juniors compete at 19 until the end of the season (calendar year) and hopefully I'll see more.

    FACT: If a sub-junior or junior fails to be correctly classed by shoot management, it is in their best interests not to register a target at that shoot unless they want to change classes in the middle of a target year.

    Just my 2 cents,
    TNCoach
     
  20. tom berry

    tom berry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    760
    Location:
    Winterset, IA
    Brad,

    Why was the kid not just put on the JR team? The state team is based on target requirements and averages only. It shouldn't matter that he shot as SJ or JR for trophies.

    As the rule reads, he didn't violate anything. He was eligible for SJ and shot it. The notes from the January board meeting state the shooters actions were a blatant rule vioation and lack of responsibility. I'd have to disagree with that statement, based on the rule as it was written.

    I know it's easy to sit back after the fact and review excerpts from the whole process and make comments as many of us have done. We haven't experienced the on going, and apparently difficult, discussions with the various parties and perhaps don't have all the facts to the story. But is does seem that emotions and ego may have gotten in the way here a little more than it should have.

    Now, your beef with the ATA is a whole other issue.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.