[Pak26]

If you could change 1 ata rule, what would it be?

For me, the easy one would be a show pair after every rotation in doubles like they allow in pita. If you are unfamiliar with this rule, pita allows the lead off shooter to throw a show pair after every rotation.

I'm going to cheat a give a second rule change also, but I understand this rule change would be much more difficult. The one thing I like about skeet, is I never feel like my ammo matters. I feel like I could shoot 1/2oz of rice and still hit the target. I'm not sure if allowing higher velocities, bigger shot, larger pay loads would alleviate this. But if changing the ammo limitations would open up ammo possibilities, thus making ammo/reloading components cheaper/easier to get. I'd be for a change in this rule. The goal here would not be to make the game easier, although I understand that could be a side affect. It's purely to make ammo more broad and not feel at a dis advantage. Again I understand there are several challenges to this such as curtains and shot fall off.


Curious to hear what you guys would change, if you would even change anything.

 

[tomk2]

Shot impact anywhere between your post and the trap house, trap house included, would be a disqualification for the day.

 

[The Canuck]

I'd add a rule like NSSA has in registered skeet where a shooter who has a Balk(ftf) due to their own doing(flinch, refusal to fire, refusal to shoot at a legal target) has that target scored lost. I see way too often shooters with known flinch issues take advantage of the ftf rulings allowing a shot to be taken over multiple times in an event. This rule should be eliminated altogether imo. FTF allowance should only be allowed due to a proven defective gun or shell.

 

[Pak26]

I'd add a rule like NSSA has in registered skeet where a shooter who has a Balk(ftf) due to their own doing(flinch, refusal to fire, refusal to shoot at a legal target) has that target scored lost. I see way too often shooters with known flinch issues take advantage of the ftf rulings allowing a shot to be taken over multiple times in an event. This rule should be eliminated altogether imo. FTF allowance should only be allowed due to a proven defective gun or shell.

unfortunately I see this taken advantage of way too often. Trap shooters are bad actors and hard right ftf on station 5 is as sus as it gets.

 

[ronseeleyjr]

I'd add a rule like NSSA has in registered skeet where a shooter who has a Balk(ftf) due to their own doing(flinch, refusal to fire, refusal to shoot at a legal target) has that target scored lost. I see way too often shooters with known flinch issues take advantage of the ftf rulings allowing a shot to be taken over multiple times in an event. This rule should be eliminated altogether imo. FTF allowance should only be allowed due to a proven defective gun or shell.

I remember scoring in the 80's, when there was a failure to fire I had to go up to the shooter and they would eject a shell and I would look for a primer strike. No strike shown lost target? It was a while ago. The only other exceptions were an obvious slow pull or illegal target. I realize the rules have changed since then.

 

[DonW217]

I'd like to see a better approach to the situation where the puller calls 'lost' and the shooter says I saw a chip. I understand the puller has the final call but quite often the puller will accept the shooters call. Sometimes the shooters is correct, sometimes not. Something along the lines of another shooter on the squad must agree that there was a chip. I've been on both sides of this and don't like it a bit.

 

[F*W*F]

This isn't a rule, but tradition/etiquette: moving the mic for the next shooter. Most scorers don't turn off the trap between posts, and handling mics tends to release unintended targets. If you move the mic for the next shooter, they often end up moving it again anyways because they're not satisfied with the placement. Moving your own mic would lead to less wasted targets.

Larry

 

[Rutter]

I'd like to see a better approach to the situation where the puller calls 'lost' and the shooter says I saw a chip. I understand the puller has the final call but quite often the puller will accept the shooters call. Sometimes the shooters is correct, sometimes not. Something along the lines of another shooter on the squad must agree that there was a chip. I've been on both sides of this and don't like it a bit.

I agree, hate to say it but a replay system would definitely help. I’ve seen a few squads claiming they seen a chip. When it was clearly a miss and what they seen was the wad. This is definitely the case in a few shoots that we have been to and a young kid is scoring. No kid is going to buck an adult.

 

[Rick Barker]

If you could change 1 ata rule, what would it be?

For me, the easy one would be a show pair after every rotation in doubles like they allow in pita. If you are unfamiliar with this rule, pita allows the lead off shooter to throw a show pair after every rotation.

I'm going to cheat a give a second rule change also, but I understand this rule change would be much more difficult. The one thing I like about skeet, is I never feel like my ammo matters. I feel like I could shoot 1/2oz of rice and still hit the target. I'm not sure if allowing higher velocities, bigger shot, larger pay loads would alleviate this. But if changing the ammo limitations would open up ammo possibilities, thus making ammo/reloading components cheaper/easier to get. I'd be for a change in this rule. The goal here would not be to make the game easier, although I understand that could be a side affect. It's purely to make ammo more broad and not feel at a dis advantage. Again I understand there are several challenges to this such as curtains and shot fall off.


Curious to hear what you guys would change, if you would even change anything.

I see problems with your suggestion rule changes. Number 1 is the additional “let’s see s pair” for every field change. People complain about high cost of shooting and if you force clubs to throw more targets so the lead shooter can see a pair, clubs will have to increase the price of targets to cover the additional birds thrown. As long as you and everyone else understand the clubs are not going to eat additional costs, ok.

Number 2 suggestion. As far as increasing shot sizes and velocities, the problem with this is some small clubs pressed for space limit shot and velocity, so they are not having shot land on a neighbor‘s property. A small club I used to belong to had this problem and were very strict on shot size and velocity.

Making the game easier is not the answer to making the game more interesting. How many tied scores and additional shoot offs be required to call it a day? With more shoot offs, you run into Increase cost burdens on the clubs. Willing to recieve lesser payouts and prizes? Clubs might decide that all ”all ties divide“ instead of having more shootoffs.

 

[Rick Barker]

I'd get rid of the rule banning release triggers.

Sure they could kill dozens of trap houses a year with release triggers but they serve a good purpose to the gunsmith community commerce out there between changing triggers from pull to release, and then again from release to pull.
There's probably millions of dollars being lost that gunsmiths could be taking home to their families if release triggers were legal.
The trap houses getting shot are just the eggs being broken to make omelets.

Can you refer me to the ATA rule that bans release triggers? I am unaware such a rule exists. If it does exist, a lot of people are ignoring it.

 

[o-hale]

Doing away with the 19 and 20 yard line for caps, start them on the 21.

 

[Turbine]

Can you refer me to the ATA rule that bans release triggers? I’d was unaware such a rule exists. If it does exist, a lot of people are ignoring it.

 

[Turbine]

The reason you are not aware of it is that there is no such rule!

 

[guncoach]

unfortunately I see this taken advantage of way too often. Trap shooters are bad actors and hard right ftf on station 5 is as sus as it gets.

I agree with the show pair change.

 

[The Canuck]

I remember scoring in the 80's, when there was a failure to fire I had to go up to the shooter and they would eject a shell and I would look for a primer strike. No strike shown lost target? It was a while ago. The only other exceptions were an obvious slow pull or illegal target. I realize the rules have changed since then.

When I shot registered skeet in the early 2000's the referee would call your target lost if you ejected the shell on a ftf. If a shooter failed to fire they had you remain on your post, point your gun downrange in the target flight zone and place their finger over yours on the trigger and pull the trigger. If the gun went bang, lost target for a ftf. If the gun did not then they would have you open it and check the shell. If the primer was struck you got a defective ammo ruling and allowed another target. If the primer was good they had you load a fresh round to shoot again. If that resulted in a ftf then your gun or ammo were deemed defective and you had a few minutes only to swap them out to continue. I always felt it was a very good and fair set of rules/procedures.

 

[Carl Brown]

How about eliminating the rule your required to have one foot on a imaginary center line of your post or one foot on either side of the line.

 

[1nsomninja]

Some interesting suggestions here. I agree that a show pair after every rotation in doubles would help new shooters and make the experience more consistent. As for ammo, opening up the specs a bit might ease the pressure on reloading supplies, even if it slightly changes the feel of the game. It's not about making it easier, just more accessible.

 

[9point3]

Being high in your class should advance you to the next class not being champion of your class.

 

[PULL PULL]

Bring back two-hole target settings. Anyone who is sponsored, let them shoot against each other. I don't care if they get free shells or a free hat. They should not shoot with the amateur. Neither of these rules will ever change. Let the professional shooters shoot for their own money. Or let them shoot for no money. And watch the money come back into the sport. None of this will ever happen. And yes, I do not have any talent in this sport. I do it for a hobby. Like most shooters out there.Now lets go trapshooting!

 

[Carl Brown]

Can you refer me to the ATA rule that bans release triggers? I’d was unaware such a rule exists. If it does exist, a lot of people are ignoring it.

Oops, that is an ISSF rule. 😎