# Tough Break for Rio



## teebat (Oct 28, 2013)

Wow.


----------



## ScottyE (Apr 17, 2008)

Sorry it was the second half of qualification


----------



## Onpoint85 (Jun 26, 2013)

Dang, that's gotta hurt


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

14.4.1. Each target will have two scorecards one of which may be electronic. If there is a discrepancy in the arrow values between an electronic and a paper score card, the paper card will take precedence.

The organisers are not required to accept or record scorecards that have not been signed, and/or do not contain the sum total, and/or the number of 10's and/or the number of X's (or 9s for indoor) and/or which contain mathematical errors.

The organisers or officials are not required to verify the accuracy of any submitted scorecard, however if the organisers or the officials note an error at the time of submission, they will ask the athletes concerned to correct such error and the result as corrected will stand.

Should a discrepancy be found in the sum total where:

-two paper scorecards are used, the sum total of the lower arrow scores will be used for the final result; if the score on a single scorecard (and in the case of double scoring, the score is the same on each scorecard), is lower than the actual score, the lower score on the scorecard will be used, and if

-one paper scorecard and one electronic scorecard are used, the sum total of the paper scorecard will be used for the final result unless the sum total reflected on the scorecard is greater than the actual score (in which case the lower actual score is used).


----------



## TheElBow (May 18, 2015)

It seems that the same - 100 points less in 2nd half - even happend to No 116 and 117


----------



## RickBac (Sep 18, 2011)

Hard lesson to be learned.

We will be using this as a lesson to our kids.


----------



## shawn_in_MA (Dec 11, 2002)

To me this seems like a rule change in the making. Why can't we ever interpret the rules with a "what is the intent of the rule" mentality


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Definitely a teaching moment because none of the three was even on the same bale (I checked out of interest, wondering if some dope had burned all the scores at his target with 200s math). That's the same mistake made independently 3 times.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

shawn_in_MA said:


> To me this seems like a rule change in the making. Why can't we ever interpret the rules with a "what is the intent of the rule" mentality


The intent of the rule per its language is the paper still governs. And most scoring systems are that if there's an unresolved discrepancy you get the lower result. I get that in this case there is a reasonable explanation, but the intent of the rules is to be more mechanistic, since the people tallying scores don't necessarily watch you to know better. Does it match? Yes. Counts. Doesn't match? OK, throw out the higher. No subjectivity, no begging and pleading, which might give room for manipulation. It's cold-blooded but there are 100, 200 people in some of these categories.


----------



## shawn_in_MA (Dec 11, 2002)

YOu are absolutley right by saying "paper still governs"...but if all the arrow scores are recorded properly (which they were) then why should a math error be playing any part in determining a world archery championship


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Pro golfers have done worse, and it cost them a LOT more money.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Pro golfers have done worse, and it cost them a LOT more money.


In this case he took down his whole team which is what he likely feels the worst about.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

apparently he claimed he thought it was a three and that is what the score keeper said he wrote


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

TomB said:


> In this case he took down his whole team which is what he likely feels the worst about.


That is unfortunate. Pretty unusual for such a veteran to make a mistake like that.


----------



## RickBac (Sep 18, 2011)

If it comes down to a handwriting issue and not an addition issue, is it tougher to swallow?

If the writer says its a three and it was misinterpreted by the scoring entry people as a two, then what happens?


----------



## Scipiotik (Apr 11, 2012)

Really need to see the score card to judge, but if it comes down to bad penmanship then that's just a stupid decision.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Tough break but you sign it you own it. I've seen a potential British Open winner disqualified for just this when leading after round 3, it must suck.


----------



## Chris1ny (Oct 23, 2006)

Sorry Rio. I feel for you.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Azzurri said:


> Definitely a teaching moment because none of the three was even on the same bale (I checked out of interest, wondering if some dope had burned all the scores at his target with 200s math). That's the same mistake made independently 3 times.


Hmm. Does this happen a lot at this level but usually get corrected before signing? This happening to 3 different archers seems questionable.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

as john has mentioned this has happened a few times in golf and is unfortunate for all concerned...

in golf however if he signed for a LOWER score(or HIGHER in archery) he would have been disqualified..

in archery they will just use the lower course as what happened here..


----------



## ScottyE (Apr 17, 2008)

You would think a bell would have gone off in the score keepers head when the total came out to be 242. It's a ridiculously low score for any compound shooter.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

ScottyE said:


> You would think a bell would have gone off in the score keepers head when the total came out to be 242. It's a ridiculously low score for any compound shooter.


Yeah that is a good point, I don't know what is worse, signing a score card with the obviously wrong number or the guy who actually wrote down 242 instead of 342. How that happened is beyond any rational explanation. and it sucks for BG and AW to not have a chance of winning the team title.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

ScottyE said:


> You would think a bell would have gone off in the score keepers head when the total came out to be 242. It's a ridiculously low score for any compound shooter.


You would have to assume the scorekeepers were all archers, which may not be the case. I've shot international events where the scorekeepers were boy scouts and from other youth groups.


----------



## markdenis (Sep 7, 2010)

There is a reason for instant replay in sports...one use is to correct a wrong. If this was a filmed event, he might have a case against the rule.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

markdenis said:


> There is a reason for instant replay in sports...one use is to correct a wrong. If this was a filmed event, he might have a case against the rule.


I would agree if there is a discrepancy in the arrow value, the judges take the lower of the two. but (while I have not seen the score card) it appears the arrow values support the proper score and I would argue the rule should reflect that. Still, how wouldn't someone notice the wrong score. What will be interesting is the explanation of the score keeper. was the score keeper an archer or some "volunteer" who doesn't have a clue about what a score should be


----------



## bowmender (Jul 5, 2006)

Bet they wouldnt have made him keep the score if it had of been a 442!


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

bowmender said:


> Bet they wouldnt have made him keep the score if it had of been a 442!


No, he would have been DQ'd.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Jim C said:


> I would agree if there is a discrepancy in the arrow value, the judges take the lower of the two. but (while I have not seen the score card) it appears the arrow values support the proper score and I would argue the rule should reflect that.


That would apply BEFORE the card was signed and handed in.



Jim C said:


> Still, how wouldn't someone notice the wrong score. What will be interesting is the explanation of the score keeper. was the score keeper an archer or some "volunteer" who doesn't have a clue about what a score should be


Irrelevant, because ultimately it's the archer's responsibility.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

Stash said:


> No, he would have been DQ'd.


i think i read that they will just use the lower of the 2 scores...


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Stash said:


> That would apply BEFORE the card was signed and handed in.
> 
> 
> Irrelevant, because ultimately it's the archer's responsibility.


I agree but its unfair to the two other archers who get knocked out of the team event. It doesn't help the world archery organization especially when the arrow values are there.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

People get DQ'd or penalized in all sports for a lot of different reasons. Sure it's unfair to the other team members, but you can't ignore the rules because it's "unfair to the team-mates".


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Stash said:


> People get DQ'd or penalized in all sports for a lot of different reasons. Sure it's unfair to the other team members, but you can't ignore the rules because it's "unfair to the team-mates".


I agree with you-I believe the rules are needing a change in this case. nothing more nothing less given that the arrow values and the electronic scoring clearly indicate the proper value.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I don't agree. This particular rule in one form or another has been on the books for, well, always. I don't see a sudden need to change a long-standing rule because someone breaks it and pays the price.

Here's another one...Pan Am Games track event - Canadian runner in the 4 x 100 stepped on the line. No real effect on the result, but against the rules and the whole team was DQ.



> The four members of Canada's men's 4x100-metre relay team had danced along the track, each draped in a Canadian flag, posing for pictures, shaking hands, wearing the wide smiles of gold medallists.
> 
> In the moment it took for an official to quietly motion them over, those smiles disappeared.
> 
> The men's team was disqualified from the Pan American Games after Gavin Smellie stepped on the lane line in the lead-off leg, denying sprint phenom Andre De Grasse a third gold medal.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I have a rather intimate understanding of sports rules and serve as the chairman of another NGB's ethics and grievance committee which deals with alleged violations of our rules and our code of conduct. I also used to referee pro squash events and you, I suspect, as a Canadian, have a bit more understanding of how difficult that sport is to referee at a professional level. Ultimately the rules of a sport should be limited to preventing athletes from engaging in activities that gain them unfair advantages. I fail to see how this rule in question does that. Also Stan, I don't buy into the "because it has been this way" as an argument that has any merit. If archery really believed that, we'd still be picking winners based on a 288 Double FITA rather than the lets keep the olympic dollars flowing with the 6 point crap shoot that often means a guy with a far lower total score wins an event.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So it used to be that we had two paper scorecards, and one could be checked vs. the other. Now, we have ONE paper scorecard and one electronic. 

This WILL be a recurring problem for this reason.



> the 6 point crap shoot that *often* means a guy with a far lower total score wins an event.


"often" Jim? How about rarely.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Has anybody noticed that two other archers dropped near 100 points as well? On three separate targets. A Norwegian and a Greek. Chances are it could have been a similar mistake. Although a travesty, the rules are made so everyone is of same mind. If Reo questioned the score, he should have corrected it himself to clarify the number value. When it comes to score cards, you do not care if you hurt someone's feelings. You fix it! Obviously, I am going on what has been said by others about the 3 looking like a 2. I have argued for years that archers do not take the time to verify and confirm their scorecards. They spend years perfecting their form and will not take 15 minutes to make sure the scorecard is correct. 

As for it not being right. Maybe so, but if you recall in 2001 the World Championships went on without the US Team due to 9/11. It did not stop the event and this will not either. Although tragic, we can only hope lessons were learned and even used for the kids to show that even the best archers make mistakes and it is important to verify and check your score cards.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> So it used to be that we had two paper scorecards, and one could be checked vs. the other. Now, we have ONE paper scorecard and one electronic.
> 
> This WILL be a recurring problem for this reason.
> 
> ...


how often has the guy with the most points in the qualifying round won a tournament lately/ who had the most points in the pan am games final? I don't recall the points for the last olympics but I don't believe the winners in 92, 96, 2000, 2004, or 2008 were the top qualifiers in the men's division.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i believe this scorecard problem has been occurring in golf more than in archery(first time i actually heard about it in an archery event) and the unfortunate person involved 
always gets a lot of sympathy among his peers but seldom from the officials....

there is always talk of it being a "stupid rule"..."it has to be changed"..etc..etc...but so far it has remained the same..

in the end the person is responsible for his own score and nobody else and if he does not protect it by being more careful he has to bear the consequences..

it has cost professional golfers more than it will ever a professional archer but they have learned to accept it and learn to be more careful next time..


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

It appears that the error in question was never on the archers part.

The scorer said he wrote a 3, Reo signed for what he thought was a 3.
The "fault" is on that of the official as it was at this stage it was first read as a 2.

Is there any procedure within the rules for an official to admit a mistake was made and correct it?

I wonder if it was the same official who dealt with the three score cards in question.


----------



## [W.S.Z] (Aug 6, 2012)

toj said:


> It appears that the error in question was never on the archers part.
> 
> The scorer said he wrote a 3, Reo signed for what he thought was a 3.
> The "fault" is on that of the official as it was at this stage it was first read as a 2.
> ...


I don't know. 

I do think that there's a lesson to be learned here: Never trust someone is going to be able to decipher bad or sloppy handwriting. If the scorekeeper's handwriting leaves room for interpretation, even if it's just a little, then ask them to clarify it. Moreover, I think we can expect that level of conscientiousness from an archer acting at this level and at such a podium, it should be part of their "professionalism" or approach the the sport. (However, if it's really "bad" interpretation from the official, then that might not even be enough.)


----------



## hdracer (Aug 8, 2007)

Good thing it wasn't the recurve team in an Olympic qualifying event. Miss the Olympics because you signed for a wrong score? They would have to move to another country...


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Gt said it was clearly a 2 on the card so this isn't a handwritting issue.


----------



## Mormegil (Jan 26, 2012)

toj said:


> It appears that the error in question was never on the archers part.
> 
> The scorer said he wrote a 3, Reo signed for what he thought was a 3.
> The "fault" is on that of the official as it was at this stage it was first read as a 2.
> ...


If that was truly the case he would have won his appeal. He didn't. Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## markdenis (Sep 7, 2010)

I run both outdoor and indoor tournaments in Kentucky, and I see rule infractions all the time with 100's of people. One I might mention is indoor shooting at 20 yards. NFAA rule states "An archer must straddle the shooting line or distance marker." I see people all the time that touch the line....soooooo should I disqualify them? It is a rule infraction! I won't disqualify them!

Rules are made for a number of reasons but should never be used to penalize a shooter in this situation. Common sense should be used. It was a clerical error by 100 points and probably filmed and on video. 

The shooter shot the score and can most likely prove it. 

Oh....and this is archery not golf or any other sport.

Rules are made to be revised in special situations.


----------



## Mormegil (Jan 26, 2012)

markdenis said:


> I run both outdoor and indoor tournaments in Kentucky, and I see rule infractions all the time with 100's of people. One I might mention is indoor shooting at 20 yards. NFAA rule states "An archer must straddle the shooting line or distance marker." I see people all the time that touch the line....soooooo should I disqualify them? It is a rule infraction! I won't!
> 
> Rules are made for a number of reasons but should never be used to penalize a shooter in this situation. Common sense should be used. It was a clerical error by 100 points and probably filmed and on video.
> 
> ...


If you don't at least warn them that they are breaking a rule then you are failing to prepare them for a tournament with a more strict judge. "But we do it at my club!" is an argument that will last less than a nanosecond with most of the judges I know.

Yes he shot the score. And yet he signed off on one that was 100 points lower. He knew the rules going in, as did all the other competitors. He appealed, the appeal failed, the results of his carelessness stand. Again, most judges I know have told me that they are taught that if there is any ambiguity they should find in favour of the archer. They didn't which (along with gt's post) suggests there is no ambiguity. He screwed up and is paying the same price for his mistake that other archers have paid before.


----------



## markdenis (Sep 7, 2010)

Maybe he didn't screw up....maybe he thought or it appeared the 2 was a 3 in his mind but the final judge saw it differently. My point is, he can probably prove he shot the score which should be the final call.


----------



## Mormegil (Jan 26, 2012)

markdenis said:


> Maybe he didn't screw up....maybe he thought or it appeared the 2 was a 3 in his mind but the final judge saw it differently. My point is, he can probably prove he shot the score which should be the final call.


Why? The rule says that if he signs off on a lower score then that's what he gets. I'm not saying that rules shouldn't be revised or questioned but that's an issue for the next tournament. For this tournament he's gotten the only result he could legally get.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

when you participate in a sport where the winners are determined by the highest or lowest scores and the athlete has the SOLE responsibility for THEIR OWN SCORE you better believe that the rules officials will never accept "clerical errors" by the athlete involved as a justification for adjusting the final outcome... 

it is ok to lobby for changing any rule but until that lobbying is successful we just have to live with the existing ones...


----------



## ScottyE (Apr 17, 2008)

I'm guessing the score keeper forgot to carry a one while adding the score. And everyone says Americans are bad at math :wink:


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

One name: Roberto Di Vicenzo. He signed for a lower score in the final round of the 1968 Masters. The score he signed for is the score he received. The prestige of a Masters title, much larger than a qualification round in an archery world championship, was never his. He will always be a footnote and a lesson for checking your scorecard. 

I feel for Reo, his teammates and the situation, but the rule is clear. Golf has not changed the rule, I'm not sure archery should do so either.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

I see clearly both camps on this. On the one hand, yes, the rule is clear, and that's that. On the other hand, with no provision for at least a nod toward justice, it's an inanely strict rule that serves expediency, not justice. That kind of strictness would make most of life unlivable. 

Too bad Reo didn't get the benefit of someone with some decent Street Solomon perspective that cops and others have to employ every day, as necessarily happens millions of times in everyday life ("Reo, are you sure you want to turn in this scorecard as is? I'll give you a moment to check it over") across the planet. 

Although, would that Congress was held to such a strict standard.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

What I really found to be distasteful, was the tweet of Jake Kaminski, which stated the rule was ridiculous and that he should turn in scorecards of 360 and 36x. Well, that would get you a DQ.

Again, I can empathize with the situation, but athletes (especially at that level) should be aware of the rules, abide by them and for goodness sake, stay off the mouse when frustrated. It is a poor reflection on you and the sport.

Jake Kaminski ‏@jakekaminski 17h17 hours ago
@worldarchery I'm going to sign my score cards as 360 with 36 tens from now on. @USAArchery #ridiculous rules.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

midwayarcherywi said:


> One name: Roberto Di Vicenzo. He signed for a lower score in the final round of the 1968 Masters. The score he signed for is the score he received. The prestige of a Masters title, much larger than a qualification round in an archery world championship, was never his. He will always be a footnote and a lesson for checking your scorecard.
> 
> I feel for Reo, his teammates and the situation, but the rule is clear. Golf has not changed the rule, I'm not sure archery should do so either.


Gabe...Roberto actually signed for a HIGHER score on the 17th hole i think (4 instead of the 3 he actually made) and the higher score was upheld and he should have tied with eventual winner Bob Goalby and gone into a play-off but was relegated to 2nd place..

the irony was it was his playing partner Tommy Aaron who was doing the scoring but he failed to check his OWN scores before signing his card...if the score was for a LOWER score--ie--3 instead of the 4--he would have been DQ'd and lose 2nd place prize money..

Jackie Pung signed for a LOWER score--5 instead of a 6--and would have won the 1957 US Women's Open by 1 stroke but was DQ'd instead and lost the winners check and the fans,officials and club members passed the hat around for her and she got a total of $3000 instead of the $1800 winner's check.. 

again it was her playing partner Betsy Rawls who was scoring for her but again she failed to check her OWN card before signing..

if these happened with today's tournament purses the amounts involved would have been in the hundreds of thousands of $ or even a million...

....i guess the lessons here are pretty obvious...

PS:...there are more recent examples in golf but these 2 are the ones i remember the most..


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Of course you are correct. He made a birdie on 17 and Tommy Aaron marked a 4 on his card. A tough, tough break and produced an enduring quote from Di Vicenzo. "What a stupid I am to be wrong here."


----------



## markdenis (Sep 7, 2010)

Vegas shoot....clear foot (or left leg) violation. My point is not all rules should be used to take away from the shooter. And, this was the first picture I looked at. I could probably do a little research and find 100's of different rule violations. There is a time to use common sense when applying penalties to archers.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

when the scorecard is signed and submitted there is no more recourse available to the person involved in case he wants to change the numbers....and i believe this is what this topic is about...

....other rules violations MAY still be cured prior to signing and submission...


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

markdenis said:


> Vegas shoot....clear foot (or left leg) violation. My point is not all rules should be used to take away from the shooter. And, this was the first picture I looked at. I could probably do a little research and find 100's of different rule violations. There is a time to use common sense when applying penalties to archers.
> View attachment 2557378



Its not a violation as in Vegas you have to straddle the line.. which is what is being done. And its no one's fault but his own. Anything you sign your name to you should look at first. And if it didn't look right, he should have corrected it before signing it. Only way I would personally see past that is if it was a 3 written, and the score enterers put a 2, and then argued that it looked more like a 2 somehow. But would have to see a pic of the scorecard itself. But Its his own fault. And no, a score enterer should not see a score for a certain archer and ASSUME it is wrong or too low. Things happen. How many of these pros have shot the wrong target? Had nocks break and miss? Sight break? ect. its just the way it is and its his own fault.


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

how long a period is the submission time?
_"however if the organisers or the officials note an error at the time of submission, they will ask the athletes concerned to correct such error and the result as corrected will stand."_


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

jmvargas said:


> when the scorecard is signed and submitted there is no more recourse available to the person involved in case he wants to change the numbers....and i believe this is what this topic is about...
> 
> ....other rules violations MAY still be cured prior to signing and submission...


i'm actually referring to the rules in golf in the above and am assuming it is similar in archery....

...i stand corrected if it's not.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

And the real reason this is done is not to punish Reo but because of that jerk who either from poor math or outright greed tries to extract a point or two more from you than an accurate card would give them. That if it can't be resolved or sorted out between the scorers, you get the low number, which cuts off the bullying. I had that happen in March and it took 20 minutes of a parent cajoling me and trying to get the range hands to change my score to convince them the lower score was right.

Also, this reflects some of the pluses and minuses of electronic scoring, which would generally have gotten the score right by software, except we don't trust it not to crash, have a bug, or run out of power so we still have the paper scorecards which reflect a more human set of inputs and mistakes. And I forget from my trip to Arizona, but one check on scoring mistakes is comparison, but I don't remember if you can compare paper to the software score, or if it's just in the books and you add the paper and turn it in. Two people with paper and you'd figure out 246 versus 346 real quick, and two computers would have just totaled up scores and if there was a difference someone messed up an entry.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

From reading Erika Anear's comments on Facebook, it appears that archers had gotten sloppy and were turning in horrible scorecards, thus the rigid approach to the rules. Reo made a mistake and for that he has paid for it. Now, if we can do a little tough love here in the US and teach our kids and parents to either turn in the scorecard correctly or be dq'ed, just maybe archers would learn to pay attention. The responsibility is on the archer. No common sense, no forgiveness, and no excuses. It may take a few more minutes, but the amount of time the organizers would save would be huge!


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

there was a thread in my regular golf forum--Golfwrx--wherein the question was posed as to "what irks you most at the golf course?" and no. 1 on my list was "people who don't follow the rules and etiquette of golf"...

although a few thought this was rather snobby considering the thick rules book we have in golf i qualified my reply that i only got irked when playing in a competition or when there was something at stake on the game--ie--a bet...

i also added that i did not hesitate to ask for help whenever i was in doubt of a rule... 

i mentioned that was the way i was taught how to play the game more than 50 years ago and i just didn't know any other way to play...and then they understood...


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

markdenis said:


> There is a time to use common sense when applying penalties to archers.
> View attachment 2557378


This was exactly my feeling. 
if the rule actually does read this way:
_"however if the organizers or the officials note an error at the time of submission, they will ask the athletes concerned to correct such error and the result as corrected will stand."_

then the card should have been handed back to him with the question asked "do you really want to give away 100 points?"


----------



## Mormegil (Jan 26, 2012)

b0w_bender said:


> This was exactly my feeling.
> if the rule actually does read this way:
> _"however if the organizers or the officials note an error at the time of submission, they will ask the athletes concerned to correct such error and the result as corrected will stand."_
> 
> then the card should have been handed back to him with the question asked "do you really want to give away 100 points?"


If it is worded that way then it would only apply if they happened to notice it - they're under no obligation to check. The only person who does have an obligation to check is the archer and this incident will be a teaching moment for a long time.


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

Mormegil said:


> If it is worded that way then it would only apply if they happened to notice it - they're under no obligation to check. The only person who does have an obligation to check is the archer and this incident will be a teaching moment for a long time.


Correct!


----------



## sharkred7 (Jul 19, 2005)

markdenis said:


> Vegas shoot....clear foot (or left leg) violation. My point is not all rules should be used to take away from the shooter. And, this was the first picture I looked at. I could probably do a little research and find 100's of different rule violations. There is a time to use common sense when applying penalties to archers.
> View attachment 2557378


Not a violation. He is stradling the line. You would have to show me where it says you can not touch the line. part of his body is in front and part is behind. That is the definition of straddle.


----------



## Anarchist_Otter (Mar 26, 2013)

Mormegil said:


> If that was truly the case he would have won his appeal. He didn't. Draw your own conclusions.


The way the rule is written there is really no ability to appeal.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

There's always an "ability to appeal". There's just no chance of winning the appeal.


----------

