[Darla]

I have a "for instance" for everyone. For the record I haven't seen this exact thing happen, but a very similar situation did.

You are at a State Shoot. This state has decided to have the ATA Class Championships on Friday, instead of in conjunction with the championship events.
I'll just talk about the singles, but this applies equally to the doubles. In the Class Singles there are 5 ATA trophies, one per class. There is no Champion Trophy, for obvious reasons. The State has also offered Category trophies, though they are not ATA trophies, of course. Okay, now for the scores.

AA - 5 shooters break 100 straights. One is a Vet, one is a Lady, one is a JR, and one a Sr Vet. I won't hypothesize for the other classes, assume that the results are comparable to AA.

Under the current rule, the non-cat shooter takes home the ATA AA Class trophy, along with any added money attached. I think that most will agree that this is a MUCH more prestigious trophy than the State supplied Cat trophy. Yes, the ones that EVERYONE else in AA that broke a 100 straight were forced to take. So, the trophy person has to tell the Sr Vet "Sorry, you're 6 years too old to win this, guess you should not have declared."

My question here is not what should be done, because I already know the answer. My question is where is the equity in this situation? Or, maybe you feel it is equitible because these people all declared their Cat 4 days before this, without any clear understanding of the ramifications of said declaration.

I know that many Cat shooters did not understand that their declaration would preclude them shooting off for a place trophy in the handicap, where the added money is substantially more than the Cat money. The attitude that "tough, they should not have declared" is a shade callous, considering the rule book clearly states that the order of importance is Champ, Cat, Class or Ydg. There are a lot of people that don't know why it says that, just that it does.

So, you say, which is more important to you, your AA points or a more prestigious place trophy AND quite a bit of money, choose now and forever hold your peace. You are entitled to your opionion. I just really don't agree with it.

The best thing that can be said about this rule is that it does not have to be enforced unless there is an ATA trophy in ANY event at said shoot, so the ATA does not force us to carry the inequalities to smaller shoots.

It has always been my understanding that the categories were added to encourage these minority groups to shoot. Well, we've got them now. Let's put them in their place and keep them there. We've created a solution to a problem (long shoot-offs) that we dealt with for many, many years, and the solution is worse than the original problem.

BTW, in the murky past of the ATA it was possible for a shooter to make 2 AA teams in the same year. I think this might be what Devi is thinking about, because sometime after 1987 it was changed, restricting shooters to 1 team only.

Darla Auten, Texas

 

[missed some]

i guess i have never paid attention, i didn't realize that money is split up bt catagory, i think i can safely say i haven't been to a shoot that does that. money is at the times i have paid attention divided up by class(which has nothing to do with catagory) or yardage group which again has nothing to do with catagory. mark crist

 

[V10]

Darla,

As you know, the ATA supplies trophies for both Singles Category Champions and Class Champions. States can split these into a Singles Class Championship event and the Singles Championship event. Utah does this, I'm assuming Texas does as well.

In the scenario you describe, the ATA trophies for Class are in the separate Singles Class Championship and so the ATA trophies for Category will be in the Singles Championship. In the Singles Championship the Class trophies will be provided by the state association. So, each group gets a shot at an ATA trophy, it's just in two different events.

And, I think it could be argued, that the more prestigious event to win is the State Singles Championship.

If folks find the separate events to be "unfair" then they need to voice this to the state association and indicate that they want one event where the ATA Singles trophies are awarded.

With regard to added money, I've mentioned on here before, I mentioned it in our Zone meeting and I mentioned it again in the General BoD meeting: Added money is distributed at shoot management's discretion. Shoot management needs to look at how they are distributing added money to ensure that they are doing it in an equitable fashion.

Hopefully my suggestion of sending out an "advisory" to gun clubs and state associations advising them to re-look at their added money policy will be taken. However, shoot management doesn't need a suggestion from the ATA, they can do it on their own.


Scott Hoover

Delegate, Utah

 

[Darla]

Scott, point well taken about Class Championship trophies vs State Singles trophies. I agree that the Singles Championship does carry more prestige. My point is that I (and I mean just me) feel it is not fair to exclude anyone from winning a trophy based on their age or gender. Most shooters declare because they feel they have a greater chance of winning a trophy in their cat, not because they are chasing AA points. But, because they are eligible for a cat trophy they are precluded from winning any other trophy (If they qualify for their Cat trophy). To the average Joe Schmoe shooter the R/U trophy, or class/ydg trophy is more to be desired than the cat trophy, because the win is over the greater field. So, if they have a good day and beat the field in their class/ydg they are told too bad, you shouldn't have declared, or should be older/younger/or have more external plumbing. I (and again I mean just me) feel this is unfair. I think if the ATA needed this to streamline the shootoffs at the Grand, well, their business. It's another when they force a smaller shoot (man, were we down this year) to do the same. I see both sides of the story, I just come down on the other side of the line.

Missed some, I don't know about where you shoot, but we've had added money for Champ, R/U, Classes, Ydgs, and Spec Cats for a long time. Resident and Open. Oh, and in the case of Non Res Champ and R/U, too.
Darla

 

[missed some]

well i told jimmie i would shoot your state shoot this year so will add yours to my list. so you only have added money for non resident champion and runnerup

 

[Darla]

If you don't count all the open money. If you told Jimmy you'd come, come on. He's a hard man to disappoint. Darla

 

[V10]

Darla,

It may be callous, but if a person believes that place, class, or yardage group is a more "prestigious" trophy to win, then they shouldn't declare category.

The ATA doesn't believe that place, class, and yardage group are more prestigious, but I understand that a lot of shooters do.

One of the things that gets lost in this discussion is the fact that prior to this year, the choice as to what a category shooter wanted to do was made after having shot. That's a pretty unfair situation.

Now they have to decide before they shoot a tournament. That's as it should be. Decide before you shoot which is more important to you: place, class, yardage group; or category. Recognizing that if you are unsuccessful in your category pursuit, you may still be eligible to win a place, class, or yardage group trophy.

 

[jim brown]

This year at the Spring Grand I wasn't aware of the rule. When asked if I was a vet I said yes. I broke a doubles score that would have won my class "A". It also tied for vet with 3 other shooters all "AA" and "AAA". I was forced into the carry over against the higher class shooters while "A" shooters which I beat got that trophy. To add insult to injury I was advanced to "AA" for the championship doubles. The same thing happened to a friend who broke 100 singles in a preliminary event. He was in class "C". Forced into vet carry over which he lost. If this sounds fair to you then you have a different definition of fair than I have.

jim brown

 

[Darla]

Scott, I guess it just depends on your starting point. I'm probably prejudiced. Sixteen years as a Cat shooter, my Dad never took the line thinking "Oh, Boy, another chance at a Vet trophy." He shot always to win. Up to and including the last 100 targets he shot at. I have heard Nora say the same thing. I just think that the score should be the determining factor, not age or gender. If we have the Spec Cats to promote the sport, maybe it's not a good idea to suddenly start penalizing people for something we've encouraged for many years.

I want to apologize for the "callous" remark. Not aimed at you, but at something said to me recently that still stings. Sorry, I realize that people disagree and I don't think that everyone that doesn't agree with me is callous.

Come on down to Amarillo next year. I'll buy you a drink.

Darla

 

[V10]

Why weren't you aware of the rule?

It was discussed, ad nauseam, on this site last year at this time, and many times thereafter.

I'm sure you know that rule changes are made every year. Do you read the rule book every year? You should.

 

[V10]

Don't worry Darla, I didn't think the "callous" comment was directed at me.

BTW, my drink of choice is water.

 

[Darla]

No prob, but I'll have to get it at a curb store. Our drinking water leaves a lot to be desired. Darla

 

[recurvyarcher]

The only people who are against the way it used to be are guys who don't qualify for category, even though some of those that shot as Jrs and subs probably benefitted from the old rules back then when they posted a winning score. Wait until they all become vets, and the rules will change again, I'm sure. Majority rules, of course.

 

[jim brown]

This is a BS rule passed only to ease the load on shoot management who pick shoot-offs. If it is a good rule then it should be used for the championship trophies too. BTW the question asked at most handicap tables is "are you a vet" NOT "do you want to declare as a vet". Maybe the lack of understanding of the rule isn't limited to just old fools like me.

Jim brown

 

[BIGDON]

How many category shooters are actually concerned about AA points for various reasons?? But because of the current rule are actually penalized in the few shoots of any size they may attend if there is added money and ATA trophies. I think it is mainly jealousy that a category shooter might get "two bites of the apple" by non-category shooters.

Some just can't accept the fact of getting beat by a Lady, a kid or an old man. Just keep them in a group (category) where they belong and keep them away from us, great attitude.

Don

 

[vatrap]

I have been on both sides of the issue and I would suggest it is first viewed as a what are we actually trying to accomplish with category shooters and then try to discuss what's fair to the category shooters as well as the general population of shooters.

By establishing protected classes of shooters (Lady, Veterans, Senior Veterans, Junior, Sub Junior and wheelchair categories for the purposes of this discussion) to encourage shooting by these groups, we are acknowledging as a group that the majority of these shooters cannot compete with the general population of trapshooters on a level playing field. Should it be that way and is that the message we are trying to convey?

Some would view this as a form of affirmative action by the ATA (and most other recreational sports groups, not limited to the shooting sports)due to the allowance of these groups to compete against there respective age or gender groups for category trophies as well as the event or tournament championship at large. Since in our sport we still have the class and handicap systems in place for category shooters, they are already placed in their respective classes or yardage handicap, are they in fact already grouped according to their proven ability regardless of their sub category?

In the most extreme example I can think of, two shooters approach the classification desk, first is a 17 year old female shooter in B class singles and the second is a 40 year old male in B class singles as well.

With no category trophy rules in place the first shooter is eligible for the following trophies at an average state shoot, for this example there are resident and open trophies offered in the program for this event;

Resident Champion, Resident Lady Champion, Resident Junior Champion, Resident B class winner, Open Champion, Open Lady Champion, Open Junior Champion, Open B class winner.

Our second shooter is eligible for the following trophies; Resident Champion, Resident B class winner, Open Champion, Open B class winner.

Both shooters now go to the cashiers window and pay the same amount to participate in the event. The first shooter is eligible for 8 trophies and the second shooter is eligible for 4 trophies. Fair, probably not, however the real question is does it meet the intended goal of increasing the participation by groups of shooters that normally would not be competitive against the general population?

For those of us that have officiated at state and zone shoots, the above scenario is a practical disaster in the making if the first shooter post a score high enough to be eligible for the event championship. The potential for shootoff and fall back for 8 trophies become very difficult to handle when you add in all the other categories, and exponentially increases the time needed for shootoffs as well as the opportunity for errors.

If you want to see a bunch of mad shooters, hold 5 or 6 until 11pm by telling them that they may have to shoot depending on the outcome of the category shootoffs that run for 2 or 3 hours, just to go back and tell them they are out of the shootoffs and trophies, but please take your card to classification for a 1 yard punch. It's happened to me and I have had to tell the same to others as an official.

In the longer view, if the stated goal of having category trophies is to increase participation of the included groups, is the current rule a benefit or a detraction?

Perhaps better stated, is the new rule enough of a benefit to the majority of shooters and shoot management to outweigh the detrimental affect it's having on category shooters?

Mike

(In a pitiful effort for full disclosure, my wife shoots and won 3 trophies at this years state shoot, 2 category and one class. Fortunately she has not reminded me of it often, but my shooting buddies are a completely different matter!)

 

[missed some]

nicely put mike

 

[OhioBob]

Mike,

A very thorough explanation of the mechanics and practical implications of both the "old rule" and the "new and improved" special category decalration rule.

I will also accept at face value your explanation for the reason these "Special categories" exist in the first place. You stated that:

By establishing protected classes of shooters (Lady, Veterans, Senior Veterans, Junior, Sub Junior and wheelchair categories for the purposes of this discussion) to encourage shooting by these groups, we are acknowledging as a group that the majority of these shooters cannot compete with the general population of trapshooters on a level playing field.

So...I take from your stated reasoning that the majority of younger shooters are at a disadvantage to older more seasoned shooters, and also that the feminine gender enters into the scenario as well.

I am however having difficulty explaining to my 2 daughters (Junior and Sub-Junior respectively) that there currently is no difference in their ability to compete with males of their own age grouping.....that is until they reach the ripe old age of 18....at which time they can no longer be expected to compete on a level playing field.

Of course, if they declare as a Lady...they are also at no disadvantage due to their experience level and youth.

To summarize....why IS there a difference between a 19 year old woman and a man...yet there is NO difference between a 13 year old girl and boy ?

Bob Ternes

 

[vatrap]

Bob,

Excellent question for which I have no ready answer. Unfortunately I got into this in the late 80's and the special categories were already well established by the time I started shooting. In my premise for establishing special categories, it is not my reasoning but the generally accepted explanation for having divisions based on age or gender in almost every recreational sport that I can think of.

Unlike many other sports, trapshooting already has a class/yardage system in place to accomplish the stated goal of having competitors shoot against others of like ability although any competitor is eligible for the championship or high gun trophy.

Under the previous rules your girls could shoot against the field and win a class or yardage should they post the best score in their class or fall back on their category for an additional chance at a trophy if not. Currently they have the benefit of being eligible for age based trophies as well as gender based ones.

My recommendation is to tell your girls that they are always allowed to shoot against the men heads up, just don't declare Lady at the classification desk when they enter.

As I asked in my earlier post, if we think there is a benefit to having special category shooters, should we then make rules that deter them from taking advantage of their category?

If you believe the class/handicap system works, then in theory there should not be a need for age or gender category trophies for all competitors to shoot on an equal basis in their respective class/yardage. Since there are category trophies, one must assume that it is due to a real or perceived need to allow these groups to have an additional incentive to shoot. If that is the case, should rules that hinder or discourage participation in special categories be in place and what is the purpose of this rule?

Bob, your last question lends more to anatomy than ability unless you are referring to the 13 year old female can shoot as a sub-junior or lady, while the 13 year old male can only declare as a sub-junior, as for the 19 year old male, he is just stuck with the rest of us until he reaches the age of 65. The 19 year old lady will be one for the rest of her life hopefully.

Mike

 

[phirel]

The sole stated reason for the "category rule change" was to make shoot offs simpler for the management. I do not believe this is an adequate foundation to support a rule change. Management could obtain the same advantage in conducting shoot offs by requiring shooters who are possibly eligible for more than one trophy to declare 20 minutes prior to the beginning of the shoot offs rather than declaring at classification when they have no idea how their declaration might affect what they might win.

I stand opposed to rules that are advantageous only to management and disadvantageous to shooters.

Pat Ireland