# Vegas 2015 Scoring



## gcab

So, what are the chances that NFAA or WAF or whoever is in charge now gets rid of the ridiculous scoring procedure for the shootoffs so that it doesn't take 2 minutes of the exciting shoot time and 15 minutes of stand around and do nothing but wait in silence until scores are said(even though everyone from the stands with a pair of binos) can tell already what the scores are? Any chance?


----------



## FV Chuck

gcab said:


> So, what are the chances that NFAA or WAF or whoever is in charge now gets rid of the ridiculous scoring procedure for the shootoffs so that it doesn't take 2 minutes of the exciting shoot time and 15 minutes of stand around and do nothing but wait in silence until scores are said(even though everyone from the stands with a pair of binos) can tell already what the scores are? Any chance?


With about 75K on the line for those arrows?... not much of one
But we did make a couple changes to expedite the process.

Did you have a suggestion that might help tho?


----------



## gcab

I think so, I mean it wasn't like that a few years ago. How about the normal process where the archers that are paired up on a bale make the calls, and if there is question, then call the judge over per normal. The 75k isn't just earned on the shootoff, but also with the 90 shots that take place before that, right? and the system works well for that why change it? There are world ranking tournaments that have archers make the call, and have judge decide in the event of a question. So my thought would be how about the archers decide with multiple scoring and call a judge for calls as needed. You can hear you and griv in the video talk about how it can be seen from the stands so shouldn't be that slow. We have seen the pros shoot their 3 arrows, and then sit down until the judges make their way all the way down the targets. Which shows they already know what is in or out or they would've been standing right there to look at it. The idea and process is terrible the way it is, and makes it so slow and boring. Go back to the way it was and speed it back up. Use the judges to make calls as needed as always.


What are the changes that were made?


----------



## archer_nm

Ok I have held off as long as I can, in the 1st place there is a bunch of money on the line and these archers deserve all of the attention from the officials that they can get to make the call. As Chuck said there are changes (I was not at this years planning meeting) that will speed things up. Trust me if the shooters that are on that line voiced your concerns we would look into speeding things up. Are you one of them? My last thing to say the band wagon you are on is very short.


----------



## gcab

Didn't realize I was on a band wagon. Thought that things that could be done to make the sport more viewable to the audience and not so boring as many have said, maybe that would be a good thing. But true.. keep it the way it is. Keep the pros sitting down while the judges look at arrows that everyone from the stands with binos can see. Keep it slow. Keep it boring. Keep it from being more promotable to the masses and off tv. Someone in a different room put a thread on about darts being on tv and not archery. Maybe has something to do with the powers making it as boring as possible to watch by having 3 judges look at each arrow individually and slowing it down. But just me... lets not make changes to make it better and keep it the way it is. makes sense


----------



## archer_nm

you seem to be in the minority for voicing concern about the time it takes to score the arrows for the Championship Freestyle division, as i said before we listen to the Pro-Division and take what they have to say concerning issues like this and we are not hearing the same complaints. I would ask you to wait to see if the changes we are making help out on this.


----------



## blueglide1

The whole design of the way it is now makes more sense for this shoot off than before.Controversy,and wrong calls with this much money on the line must be avoided.If you remember we had a few call problems a few years ago.This change in the format of calling arrows is the best improvement from the way they used to do it.As a Pro archer I would want all available time, and judgments made to insure the correct call of an arrow with this amount of money on the line.I only wish they were calling my arrows,on that particular line, for that big cash pot,LOL It's not like we as the audience have anything else to do during the shoot off,if we do than your not really interested in the out come,thats why we sit with our bino's glued to the targets.For non -participants in the sport, maybe it is like watching paint dry,but if you are a competitor, you still want to be there to witness history in the making.
Don Ward


----------



## stickswife

I don't find the pace of scoring to be boring when watching an event like this. 

It's thrilling, it's exciting and even if you can see from the stands, it's totally different to hear it from an official.


----------



## stickswife

And I'll second the fact that if the pros on the line wanted it changed, I'm sure there would be thought put into it. I'm not a pro (yet) so my opinion doesn't hold weight.


----------



## Pete53

with alot of money on the line and the fame that goes along with the top honors, plus the pro`s seem content with how the scoring with time takes place ,those pro`s in that class have a right to how they prefer it done ,they are paying the price and do the practicing to become such great archers.to me its an honor just to watch these pro`s compete and time should not be a factor,Rome was not built in a day. what i would like to see with each pro archer`s name published for each tournament in the NFAA magazine is name,state or country,brand of bow and his score.


----------



## gcab

In case some didn't listen or watch them all, check out the shootoff from Lancaster between kendall and jesse... two more pros ripping on NFAA for the current process of doing score in the shootoffs. so can hear it from two pros in the actual vegas shootoff video from last year, one of which replied here, and two more on another video. But guess its true pros like it the way it is.


----------



## Pete53

i still wish that when a pro signs up to shoot that pro class that each pro archer is reguired to write down the brand bow they are shooting in that tournament. its very interesting when a small bow company wins or just place`s well against the three of the bigger companies. example of the past was when Dave Barnsdale won with his Barndale bow in the male pro F.S. class , but the big bow companies called it the other bow. besides all bow companies would get a little free advertisement too.


----------



## field14

Pete53 said:


> i still wish that when a pro signs up to shoot that pro class that each pro archer is reguired to write down the brand bow they are shooting in that tournament. its very interesting when a small bow company wins or just place`s well against the three of the bigger companies. example of the past was when Dave Barnsdale won with his Barndale bow in the male pro F.S. class , but the big bow companies called it the other bow. besides all bow companies would get a little free advertisement too.


Not to mention that Dave also did it with KNITTING NEEDLE shafts, too. He was NOT shooting fat shafts when he won it.


----------



## gcab

And no changes. Got rid of the regular ten scoring but still had to wait for 3 judges to look at every arrow. Should close ones be looked at, definitely. By all 3. Does every arrow need to be looked at when it is clear even from the bleachers? No. Take the lance/jones shootoff. First archer had 30. Very clear 30. Second had one way out of the normal 10. Does it really need to take 3 judges to look at it like that? If nothing else why not when first judge scores a target, then move to next one and score it instead of a group huddled at a target The shooting part isn't what is boring and will continue to keep it from being entertaining.. It's the down time like that Sure lot of money on line, so what. There's a lot of calls made for them to get to 900 as well but they handle it just fine and if need a call they ask for it. Not sure why all do a sudden it needs to slow down to a nonexistent pace. And those ring girls... Eh


----------



## Pete53

the scoring at the end is for show and politics , as far as the ring girls they need more those sign numbers are too heavy for one ring girl !


----------



## gcab

There is no show in that scoring. It removes the show. All three times that they had to say why there were so many judges all the people in my section that I was sitting in booed and said bull snot. It's a terrible way to give a show. And the ring girls were a joke Terrible decision. For those who said there were changes to the scoring for the Shootoff, what were they? Seemed slower than ever so maybe I missed something. And whoever decided it was better to hire ring girls than say maybe Give money to the volunteers that worked for the tournament, or pay some more volunteers so there was more than 1 official per side of the rooms and arena for calls... That person should volunteer to step away


----------



## archer_nm

:thumbs_do:thumbs_do I hope you enjoyed the shoot off because I did......


----------



## gcab

Can thumbs down if you like. Some will have different opinions. But shoot as in shooting off.. Yes I liked. 3 judges looking At every arrow that yet again anyone with $100 pair of binos could see from the seats... Yea not so much. Terrible process for scoring arrows. And mind you, I didn't say terrible people or efforts, but terrible process. And those attached sure will feel it's perfect. But that is boring and not needed. And again the ring girls.. Terrible decision all around.


----------



## Pete53

wished they would have had live the lucky-dog shoot-off also. i did enjoy watching the shoot-off. i do think maybe it should take a few more rounds to determine the best of the best at Vegas in the male pro division. somehow ? maybe the pro`s have that answer ? and again i want to mention why not have a silver senior pro division ? should i mention all the other archery class`s shot at Vegas that don`t have many archer`s ?? but on the sweet side i did like the ring girls i am never to old to enjoy that show !


----------



## field14

Pete53 said:


> wished they would have had live the lucky-dog shoot-off also. i did enjoy watching the shoot-off. i do think maybe it should take a few more rounds to determine the best of the best at Vegas in the male pro division. somehow ? maybe the pro`s have that answer ? and again i want to mention why not have a silver senior pro division ? should i mention all the other archery class`s shot at Vegas that don`t have many archer`s ?? but on the sweet side i did like the ring girls i am never to old to enjoy that show !


Interestingly, they apparently fouled up the SENIOR CHAMPIONSHIP shoot off by NEVER announcing the 2nd place winner correctly as Bob Wolfram. They kept repeating that the two Senior Championship shooters were shooting it off for 2nd and 3rd, when in reality, it was for 3rd and 4th Place in the Men's Senior Championship. Of course the narrators on the live broadcast kept talking about this and that and weren't paying attention to that IMPORTANT detail...and then got all caught up in the Women's Championship Shootoff among the 4 gals shooting off for 3rd thru 6th places. Narry a mention of the two WINNERS of the Women's Championship, 1st place from France, 2nd place from Colombia, nor for the WINNER of 1st Place in the SENIOR Men's Championship, which, by the way, had MORE competitors than the Women's Championship Division!
Not so sure that Silver Seniors championship is a good idea...BUT...I would say that MASTER Senior Championship should perhaps be considered. That change from 50 to 70 is HUGE with regard to fine motor control, eyesight, strength, flexibility, et cetera; bad enough between ages 50-60!
Maybe consider Senior Championship 50-65, MASTER Senior Championship 65+????

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## FV Chuck

Pete53 said:


> wished they would have had live the lucky-dog shoot-off also. i did enjoy watching the shoot-off. i do think maybe it should take a few more rounds to determine the best of the best at Vegas in the male pro division. somehow ? maybe the pro`s have that answer ? and again i want to mention why not have a silver senior pro division ? should i mention all the other archery class`s shot at Vegas that don`t have many archer`s ?? but on the sweet side i did like the ring girls i am never to old to enjoy that show !


YEah it would be cool to do the LD live, but it's a bit of a wild moment. We shoot it off before the start of the last line so we know who will be in the shootoff a couple hours later. It might be a bit of a fumble to coordinate it but I do kind of dig the shoot it off for the LD winner and walk right in the the finals match excitement aspect. .. A good topic for post production meetings.

As for the length of the shootoff... I'm getting mixed messages here. I thought everyone was up in arms about how long it took in years past? We sped it up now you want it longer again?? (( more rounds))


----------



## field14

FV Chuck said:


> YEah it would be cool to do the LD live, but it's a bit of a wild moment. We shoot it off before the start of the last line so we know who will be in the shootoff a couple hours later. It might be a bit of a fumble to coordinate it but I do kind of dig the shoot it off for the LD winner and walk right in the the finals match excitement aspect. .. A good topic for post production meetings.
> 
> As for the length of the shootoff... I'm getting mixed messages here. I thought everyone was up in arms about how long it took in years past? We sped it up now you want it longer again?? (( more rounds))


Chuck, for what it is worth, I personally liked the idea of going to the BabyX right from the get go! That way, the entire process is exactly the same all the way through that shoot down.
What I would like to see, however is that the Top shooter with the perfect 900 AND the most X's be guaranteed a finish no worse than 4th place (i.e. he gets to the quarterfinals automatically) and the rest have to shoot "up" to him). The way it stands right now, that top X-ring count shooter basically has to "win the tournament twice."
In bowling tournaments for like forever, the TOP "qualifier" for the event sits while everyone else "shoots" for the right to face him in the final match; thus he is guaranteed no worse than 2nd place for his efforts in basically winning the event. Yes, he does basically win it twice, but...he sure isn't out of it in the first part of the shoot-off.
Just my thoughts concerning about the only thing I personally think isn't quite "right" with the shootoff at Vegas. At the National Indoor...everyone in the shootoff is "even" on X-count...you don't make the shootoff unless you shoot all 120 X-s. Thus, the winner essentially is NOT forced into "winning it twice" like he has to at Vegas! It would give a huge added meaning to the requirement of counting those x's during the event...a HUGE reward to the one that has the 900 AND the most x's.

I really liked the way things moved along on the video; but didn't like the commentators talking along during the announcements...and they weren't paying attention during the SENIOR Men's Championship shootoff to determine 2nd place...and bombed out because of it. No mention of Bob Wolfram winning 2nd place right off, and then the other two shooting it off for 3rd and 4th...and that included, apparently the floor announcers, too??? They went on and on several times that the two men were shooting off for 2nd and 3rd, and that was totally incorrect information that was being passed along. They didn't make that mistake in the women's, however, but they didn't give much fanfare about the French lady and the Colombian lady what placed 1st and 2nd respectively, either. ALL emphasis was away from the winners and put onto that shoot off for 3rd through 6th, which was, I agree, exciting, too. 
Got all caught up in the 4-way women's shootoff and didn't pay any attention at all to the fact that the SENIORS had MORE competitors in their Division than the Women...and the scores were the same, or pretty much so in Seniors.
I also liked the way the judges were calling those arrows! That much money on the line MUST be called correctly. Keeping the shooters back and away from those targets and not "lobbying" for the calls is GREAT! 

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## FV Chuck

field14 said:


> Chuck, for what it is worth, I personally liked the idea of going to the BabyX right from the get go! That way, the entire process is exactly the same all the way through that shoot down.
> What I would like to see, however is that the Top shooter with the perfect 900 AND the most X's be guaranteed a finish no worse than 4th place (i.e. he gets to the quarterfinals automatically) and the rest have to shoot "up" to him). The way it stands right now, that top X-ring count shooter basically has to "win the tournament twice."
> In bowling tournaments for like forever, the TOP "qualifier" for the event sits while everyone else "shoots" for the right to face him in the final match; thus he is guaranteed no worse than 2nd place for his efforts in basically winning the event. Yes, he does basically win it twice, but...he sure isn't out of it in the first part of the shoot-off.
> Just my thoughts concerning about the only thing I personally think isn't quite "right" with the shootoff at Vegas. At the National Indoor...everyone in the shootoff is "even" on X-count...you don't make the shootoff unless you shoot all 120 X-s. Thus, the winner essentially is NOT forced into "winning it twice" like he has to at Vegas! It would give a huge added meaning to the requirement of counting those x's during the event...a HUGE reward to the one that has the 900 AND the most x's.
> 
> I really liked the way things moved along on the video; but didn't like the commentators talking along during the announcements...and they weren't paying attention during the SENIOR Men's Championship shootoff to determine 2nd place...and bombed out because of it. No mention of Bob Wolfram winning 2nd place right off, and then the other two shooting it off for 3rd and 4th...and that included, apparently the floor announcers, too??? They went on and on several times that the two men were shooting off for 2nd and 3rd, and that was totally incorrect information that was being passed along. They didn't make that mistake in the women's, however, but they didn't give much fanfare about the French lady and the Colombian lady what placed 1st and 2nd respectively, either. ALL emphasis was away from the winners and put onto that shoot off for 3rd through 6th, which was, I agree, exciting, too.
> Got all caught up in the 4-way women's shootoff and didn't pay any attention at all to the fact that the SENIORS had MORE competitors in their Division than the Women...and the scores were the same, or pretty much so in Seniors.
> I also liked the way the judges were calling those arrows! That much money on the line MUST be called correctly. Keeping the shooters back and away from those targets and not "lobbying" for the calls is GREAT!
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


National Indoor - You need 120x's to make the shoot off and can still finish last in that group. Your point is incorrect.
Win it twice - Never liked the analogy in any realm. You don't win till you win. All you did was make the shootoff, or the brackets, or the playoffs. Winning is winning. Not winning is not winning. Although a top award for the highest qualifier ((x count)) - (like winning pole position in racing) would be kind of cool. We should really look into that. Other than that point, I would need a lot of convincing to support a finishing position guarantee based on Q score alone.
WC Broadcasters - I wasn't in that loop, I was working with George T. - That was Carl and George, the director or producer could have influenced that content, not sure. I wasn't in that meeting


----------



## gcab

FV Chuck said:


> YEah it would be cool to do the LD live, but it's a bit of a wild moment. We shoot it off before the start of the last line so we know who will be in the shootoff a couple hours later. It might be a bit of a fumble to coordinate it but I do kind of dig the shoot it off for the LD winner and walk right in the the finals match excitement aspect. .. A good topic for post production meetings.
> 
> As for the length of the shootoff... I'm getting mixed messages here. I thought everyone was up in arms about how long it took in years past? We sped it up now you want it longer again?? (( more rounds))


The Boring part is not the shooting. It's the waste of time for the ridiculous scoring method. It's a terrible system, of which maybe not too publically some and maybe yourself won't agree with.. Although it is heard on past year shootoff videos of the commentators even talking about it. That's the part that needs to change not the format of the shootoff. 

And agreed with your last post. Vegas isn't won by qualifying for the Shootoff. It is won by the shootoff. Stolen from before, but let's say for example the Seahawks scored the highest amount of touchdowns in the regular season and qualified for the playoffs. Does that mean they qualified for the playoffs, or does that mean they won the championship? If one team wins 13 games, qualifies for the playoffs, but never scored a touchdown and only played great defense and kicked field goals, do they automatically lose to a team that also qualified but set the record for most touchdowns scored? Don't believe so. And again, the ring girl thing was terrible. The only few I've heard or seen on fb or anywhere else that liked it were of the older ages. Don't know any of my friends in my age generation 29-50 that thought it was cool or nice. That was a terrible idea


----------



## FV Chuck

gcab said:


> The Boring part is not the shooting. It's the waste of time for the ridiculous scoring method. It's a terrible system,



Give me an alternative method then please..... dont just complain about things. Offer solutions.
Truly I'm all ears, because I'm not the biggest fan of it either. I just havent come across a better version or solution. 
If we can derive a better method....trust me. It would happen. None of us are huge fans.


----------



## field14

FV Chuck said:


> National Indoor - You need 120x's to make the shoot off and can still finish last in that group. Your point is incorrect.
> Win it twice - Never liked the analogy in any realm. You don't win till you win. All you did was make the shootoff, or the brackets, or the playoffs. Winning is winning. Not winning is not winning. Although a top award for the highest qualifier ((x count)) - (like winning pole position in racing) would be kind of cool. We should really look into that. Other than that point, I would need a lot of convincing to support a finishing position guarantee based on Q score alone.
> WC Broadcasters - I wasn't in that loop, I was working with George T. - That was Carl and George, the director or producer could have influenced that content, not sure. I wasn't in that meeting


OK. I see where you are coming from with the "guaranteed no less that 4th place" scenario. However, I really do feel that there should be a significant "bonus" given to the one person that shoots 900 AND the most "baby x's"... They are made to count those, so make them worth something for beating the entire field of those shooting 900. I would suggest a $5,000 bonus, since a lot of contingency money is in the $1,000 to $3,000 range. Announce it in advance, and away we go.
If the person gets eliminated in the shoot down early, at least there is some reward for attaining that.

As I said earlier, as an arm-chair quarterback, I think things were done superbly....what we have now is way better from what we've had in the past (nothing), and much improved over even last year's. The live scoring was fun to keep track of, the video work was great, etc.
KUDOS to everyone that put forth the huge efforts to coordinate all this and get it working. I didn't even mind the Las Vegas gals strutting the numbers...afterall, it IS "Vegas"...so should be done up in show classic style.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Pete53

i agree with field 14`s ideal of money figure of $5,000.00 for the men`s high x count for those three days,that top shooter should recieve a bonus. also do some type of pro master senior class ? and again its Vegas keep those show girl`s come`n !


----------



## gcab

FV Chuck said:


> Give me an alternative method then please..... dont just complain about things. Offer solutions.
> Truly I'm all ears, because I'm not the biggest fan of it either. I just havent come across a better version or solution.
> If we can derive a better method....trust me. It would happen. None of us are huge fans.



whats wrong with the method that is used every other end of every other tournament? two archers to a bale. They go down and score with each other. If there is a close arrow that they need called, then do the 3 officials as it sits now. Watch the shootoff with Lance and Erika... was that really needed to take that much time? So as I posted before, my alternative as an idea would be to do just that. Yes its a lot of money, but the money isn't just made with those 3 or 4 ends of the shootoff. It is also made on the first 90 arrows right?


----------



## gcab

field14 said:


> OK. I see where you are coming from with the "guaranteed no less that 4th place" scenario. However, I really do feel that there should be a significant "bonus" given to the one person that shoots 900 AND the most "baby x's"... They are made to count those, so make them worth something for beating the entire field of those shooting 900. I would suggest a $5,000 bonus, since a lot of contingency money is in the $1,000 to $3,000 range. Announce it in advance, and away we go.
> If the person gets eliminated in the shoot down early, at least there is some reward for attaining that.
> 
> As I said earlier, as an arm-chair quarterback, I think things were done superbly....what we have now is way better from what we've had in the past (nothing), and much improved over even last year's. The live scoring was fun to keep track of, the video work was great, etc.
> KUDOS to everyone that put forth the huge efforts to coordinate all this and get it working. I didn't even mind the Las Vegas gals strutting the numbers...afterall, it IS "Vegas"...so should be done up in show classic style.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


Just curious, but what generation would you be a part of? Say ages 15-30, 31-50, 50-65, 65+? Being 31-50 along with all my friends and those that were in the section I sat in for the shootoff... not one of us enjoyed that. That part of Vegas is from the 70s or 80s or whenever it was. That isn't what younger generations want or care about. If that is used as comparison, it is more blue man group, tosh, jeff dunham type shows that younger ones would even consider in the first place. To us, it was tacky and ridiculous.


----------



## archer_nm

To all of the fine folks that have responded to this thread, it obvious that gcab does not get it and to respond to this person is only feeding his fire, so I would hope you follow my lead and stop responding.


----------



## gcab

What don't I get? you have your opinion and I have mine. The show girls were terrible. I think you if you look around on facebook you will see many many people saying the same. Look up the bowjunky post about it. Or do you mean about the shootoff scoring? It was just acknowledged by someone that is in on conversations and decisions for this, at least at one point., and just said its bad and needs changed. He asked what my idea would be, and I said what my idea is. What is there not to get? is it that younger generations shouldn't have input or opinions as to what needs changed because older generations don't want change?


----------



## archer_nm

Have you taken a good look at my signature and I am one of the folks that make the decisions for the Vegas Tournament and I think you are giving false information. Matter of fact if you looked at the DOS position at the shoot off it was me sitting and running the clock. So stop your BS


----------



## Supermag1

I really enjoyed the format of the shoot off this year by going straight to the baby x. I do have to agree with field14 on one thing and that is that the winners in senior and women's classes weren't emphasized even though they won it outright. Maybe they should use the x count for breaking the ties when there isn't a need to shoot off for 1st (Sarah Lance probably wouldn't like this change since it would've moved her from 3rd to 7th).


----------



## CHPro

> Give me an alternative method then please


Hey Chuck - I've heard some of the same comments regarding the scoring process having to take so long on obvious calls. What about having a "head" judge making all calls initially. Then if the archer or any of the competitors disagrees with the "head" judge's call on a particular arrow they can request the other 2 judges both individually make calls on the disputed arrow(s). The 2 calls could/should be made without divulging to the other judge and only to the head judge, preferrably in a written format. Then the majority based on the 2 calls and the head official's call would be the final call. This way all 3 judges only need to review any disputed, or close, calls and not the more obvious arrow values. Just a thought anyway......... Similar to FITA but still set up in such a manner that any competitor could dispute and the 2 separate judge's calls would both have to be made and kept secret from each other until revealed by the head official.


----------



## gcab

archer_nm said:


> Have you taken a good look at my signature and I am one of the folks that make the decisions for the Vegas Tournament and I think you are giving false information. Matter of fact if you looked at the DOS position at the shoot off it was me sitting and running the clock. So stop your BS


What did I say that was bs? Just sounds like you're upset that people don't like certain things maybe you helped to decide on and take personal offense to it for some reason. But if you say there last year, you should have heard the commentators complaining as well. It's more than audible on the video. And one just said its a bad process as well. But what part did I say that was bs exactly?


----------



## gcab

CHPro said:


> Hey Chuck - I've heard some of the same comments regarding the scoring process having to take so long on obvious calls. What about having a "head" judge making all calls initially. Then if the archer or any of the competitors disagrees with the "head" judge's call on a particular arrow they can request the other 2 judges both individually make calls on the disputed arrow(s). The 2 calls could/should be made without divulging to the other judge and only to the head judge, preferrably in a written format. Then the majority based on the 2 calls and the head official's call would be the final call. This way all 3 judges only need to review any disputed, or close, calls and not the more obvious arrow values. Just a thought anyway......... Similar to FITA but still set up in such a manner that any competitor could dispute and the 2 separate judge's calls would both have to be made and kept secret from each other until revealed by the head official.


That would help a lot. And good to know that it isn't supposedly just me that has had or have heard these comments regardless of where one sits when the shootoff is happening.


----------



## shawn_in_MA

My $.02...
The ring girls can stay or go, doesn't matter to me one bit. We (my wife and about 10 other people sitting together) got a laugh out of it. Nimes has scantily clad dancing girls...Vegas had showgirls...whatever

Like Chuck, I am not a fan of the scoring system but can't think of many improvements. The only way I can see speeding things up WHILE STILL keeping the 3 judges would be to have each judge score a target and write it down and move to next target and write it down. While judge 1 is on target 2, judge 2 can start on target 1...while judge 1 is on target 3, judge 2 is on target 2, and judge 3 is following behind on target 1. Judges Compare scores at the end and let George (NOT BRUCE) announce each competitor and their score. As it stands now while 1 judge looks at a target the other 2 are standing around waiting, this way all 3 would be actively calling arrows. 

As for highest X-count receiving a bonus...I like that Idea, but that's all it should be a bonus, it should have no effect on ranking or placement in the tournament. Vegas is vegas and is different than any other tournament, It should remain that way IMO. Having 17 people in one big shoot off for all that money is more exciting than elim matches or ranking based on x-count IMO.

I also liked the change to baby X as 10 right off the bat. It definitely sped things up.


----------



## wolf44

If you watch closely the last end that alex beat levi. Watch Alex and Levi talk. The one arrow of Levi's thats in question Alex looks at levi and says "I think you got it" or "I think its in" If I'm in the shootoff I want an impartial judge or 3 to look at and call the arrows. If I'm calling my arrows for that kind of money and I think its in and someone else thinks its out, I'm going to fight and argue my case for why that arrow is in. The way its done takes all the possibilities out of the equation. I know Levi is a good guy and I know that Alex is a great kid. But, you put a newer "kid" in there in a postion like that with a multiple time world champion, what are the possibilities that the "kid" could be pushed around and persuaded into making a call that they don't agree with. I do like the judges walking down the line and writing their score down. It would speed it up a bit. 

As far as the x count bonus....where would you like the money to come from? Unless you could sell the idea and have a sponsor come up with the money, I don't think it would be right to take the money out of the pot to pay the high score from the three days of competition.


----------



## shawn_in_MA

wolf44 said:


> If you watch closely the last end that alex beat levi. Watch Alex and Levi talk. The one arrow of Levi's thats in question Alex looks at levi and says "I think you got it" or "I think its in" If I'm in the shootoff I want an impartial judge or 3 to look at and call the arrows. If I'm calling my arrows for that kind of money and I think its in and someone else thinks its out, I'm going to fight and argue my case for why that arrow is in. The way its done takes all the possibilities out of the equation. I know Levi is a good guy and I know that Alex is a great kid. But, you put a newer "kid" in there in a postion like that with a multiple time world champion, what are the possibilities that the "kid" could be pushed around and persuaded into making a call that they don't agree with. I do like the judges walking down the line and writing their score down. It would speed it up a bit.
> 
> As far as the x count bonus....where would you like the money to come from? Unless you could sell the idea and have a sponsor come up with the money, I don't think it would be right to take the money out of the pot to pay the high score from the three days of competition.


Sir could you please get your weapon out of the bar area! LOL


----------



## gcab

wolf44 said:


> If you watch closely the last end that alex beat levi. Watch Alex and Levi talk. The one arrow of Levi's thats in question Alex looks at levi and says "I think you got it" or "I think its in" If I'm in the shootoff I want an impartial judge or 3 to look at and call the arrows. If I'm calling my arrows for that kind of money and I think its in and someone else thinks its out, I'm going to fight and argue my case for why that arrow is in. The way its done takes all the possibilities out of the equation. I know Levi is a good guy and I know that Alex is a great kid. But, you put a newer "kid" in there in a postion like that with a multiple time world champion, what are the possibilities that the "kid" could be pushed around and persuaded into making a call that they don't agree with. I do like the judges walking down the line and writing their score down. It would speed it up a bit.
> 
> As far as the x count bonus....where would you like the money to come from? Unless you could sell the idea and have a sponsor come up with the money, I don't think it would be right to take the money out of the pot to pay the high score from the three days of competition.


I think maybe the confusion with my comments for how ridiculous the scoring is right comes into the arrows in question. You mention close arrows, and I and others have said, absolutely.. close arrows deserve and demand a ruling from multiple judges to keep it fair and honest. Same as the regular three days to even qualify to be on that line. But its the having to have 3 judges independently look at every arrow in the fashion it is done. It is slow, boring, and eliminates all of the possibility of getting anything like that on tv, which has been discussed over and over. So again, just an idea, and no one seems to be able to answer with anything other than "its about the money on the line". But are there close arrows the first 3 days that could possibly qualify someone to shoot in the shootoff, or even knock them out of the shootoff? I would guess yes. Do the archers have a judge look at them if in disagreement with the call? I would guess yes. So why all of a sudden is it different? Two archers go to the bale, they both look at the arrows, and make the call. Archer A disagrees with a call, doesn't matter, whose target it is, and then the judges come to look at them independently as they do now. Why is that so wrong? Again, take the shootoff for Erika and Sarah... why did it need to be 3 judges to look at the arrows that slow and in that process? It was more than obvious from the nosebleeds to see the outcome. Now take Levi and Alex, there were probably 3 arrows that were pretty dang close. those two could walk up, look at them, and then if in question have the judges come over and individually look at them as they do now. Outside of me spewing bs with that, although still not sure what the bs is or the false information is, what is wrong with that? Is there not a difference between close arrows and arrows without question?


----------



## >--gt-->

gcab said:


> I think maybe the confusion with my comments for how ridiculous the scoring is right comes into the arrows in question. You mention close arrows, and I and others have said, absolutely.. close arrows deserve and demand a ruling from multiple judges to keep it fair and honest. Same as the regular three days to even qualify to be on that line. But its the having to have 3 judges independently look at every arrow in the fashion it is done. It is slow, boring, and eliminates all of the possibility of getting anything like that on tv, which has been discussed over and over. So again, just an idea, and no one seems to be able to answer with anything other than "its about the money on the line". But are there close arrows the first 3 days that could possibly qualify someone to shoot in the shootoff, or even knock them out of the shootoff? I would guess yes. Do the archers have a judge look at them if in disagreement with the call? I would guess yes. So why all of a sudden is it different? Two archers go to the bale, they both look at the arrows, and make the call. Archer A disagrees with a call, doesn't matter, whose target it is, and then the judges come to look at them independently as they do now. Why is that so wrong? Again, take the shootoff for Erika and Sarah... why did it need to be 3 judges to look at the arrows that slow and in that process? It was more than obvious from the nosebleeds to see the outcome. Now take Levi and Alex, there were probably 3 arrows that were pretty dang close. those two could walk up, look at them, and then if in question have the judges come over and individually look at them as they do now. Outside of me spewing bs with that, although still not sure what the bs is or the false information is, what is wrong with that? Is there not a difference between close arrows and arrows without question?


What you seem to fail to understand is, with what's at stake, the scoring at the Vegas shootdown must be, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion. Every arrow scored must be treated equally, because when a decision is made to waive one because "it's obvious", the definition of what's obvious quickly becomes questionable.

As a sort of poor analogy, here in the USA if you do something criminal in front of a thousand witnesses, you still get a trial, even though it is obvious what you have done. It's a matter of consistency.

If you don't like it, volunteer to help with the event and propose changes. Whining on this forum is useless.


----------



## gcab

>--gt--> said:


> What you seem to fail to understand is, with what's at stake, the scoring at the Vegas shootdown must be, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion. Every arrow scored must be treated equally, because when a decision is made to waive one because "it's obvious", the definition of what's obvious quickly becomes questionable.
> 
> As a sort of poor analogy, here in the USA if you do something criminal in front of a thousand witnesses, you still get a trial, even though it is obvious what you have done. It's a matter of consistency.
> 
> If you don't like it, volunteer to help with the event and propose changes. Whining on this forum is useless.


Actually not whining.. gave my opinion and started discussion with it. Why does everyone get so knotted up in the crack cheeks for it? And I get that it is the shootoff.. I have said that.. But the 90 arrows it takes to make the shootoffs mean just as much since one bad call there will not even let someone qualify. So why not three judges for every arrow call on the first 90 arrows as well?


----------



## gcab

And since I have been accused of spewing bs, on two points of poor decisions with score keeping(although a few have stated the same thing here as well as can be heard on the shootoff videos from the commentators) and the ridiculous decision of the show girls, check out Sam wothius post on facebook. Christian or not he had a great point. And gee imagine that, he is a pro


----------



## field14

CHPro said:


> Hey Chuck - I've heard some of the same comments regarding the scoring process having to take so long on obvious calls. What about having a "head" judge making all calls initially. Then if the archer or any of the competitors disagrees with the "head" judge's call on a particular arrow they can request the other 2 judges both individually make calls on the disputed arrow(s). The 2 calls could/should be made without divulging to the other judge and only to the head judge, preferrably in a written format. Then the majority based on the 2 calls and the head official's call would be the final call. This way all 3 judges only need to review any disputed, or close, calls and not the more obvious arrow values. Just a thought anyway......... Similar to FITA but still set up in such a manner that any competitor could dispute and the 2 separate judge's calls would both have to be made and kept secret from each other until revealed by the head official.


Sure beats putting it in the hands of 2 people on a bale scoring each other's arrows...which by the way, is contrary to the NFAA rules, where there MUST be at least 3 archers in any "group" for the scoring to be "legal."
With this amount of money being decided upon, I personally think it is great to have the archers stand behind that line and not enter in or be able to "lobby" for calls on arrows! This prevents higher profile, better known shooters from being able to intimidate and/or "over-rule" lesser known shooters, or shooters from other places, etc. Takes the "blame" off the "other shooters on the bale" if a person thinks they are screwed over, too.
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## field14

gcab said:


> I think maybe the confusion with my comments for how ridiculous the scoring is right comes into the arrows in question. You mention close arrows, and I and others have said, absolutely.. close arrows deserve and demand a ruling from multiple judges to keep it fair and honest. Same as the regular three days to even qualify to be on that line. But its the having to have 3 judges independently look at every arrow in the fashion it is done. It is slow, boring, and eliminates all of the possibility of getting anything like that on tv, which has been discussed over and over. So again, just an idea, and no one seems to be able to answer with anything other than "its about the money on the line". But are there close arrows the first 3 days that could possibly qualify someone to shoot in the shootoff, or even knock them out of the shootoff? I would guess yes. Do the archers have a judge look at them if in disagreement with the call? I would guess yes. So why all of a sudden is it different? Two archers go to the bale, they both look at the arrows, and make the call. Archer A disagrees with a call, doesn't matter, whose target it is, and then the judges come to look at them independently as they do now. Why is that so wrong? Again, take the shootoff for Erika and Sarah... why did it need to be 3 judges to look at the arrows that slow and in that process? It was more than obvious from the nosebleeds to see the outcome. Now take Levi and Alex, there were probably 3 arrows that were pretty dang close. those two could walk up, look at them, and then if in question have the judges come over and individually look at them as they do now. Outside of me spewing bs with that, although still not sure what the bs is or the false information is, what is wrong with that? Is there not a difference between close arrows and arrows without question?


The NFAA rules clearly state that it takes at least THREE archers in a group for the scoring to be "legal", preferable FOUR shooters to a group. Therefore, having only TWO shooters in a "group" isn't even legal nor should a two shooter group be even considered in the shoot-off scenarios (any of them!) in Vegas. Switching bales for scoring, that is, those on say bale #3 scoring Bale #4 and Bale #4 scoring Bale #3 isn't going to work either.
The money for the BONUS of say, $5,000 to the person that shoots 900 AND has the most x's would be very easy to come by. Of course, the stipulation would have to be the perfect 900 AND the most x's. A person with 899 or less that has the most x's would NOT be eligible for the bonus money. MUST have the perfect 900, too.

Why make the Men's Championship count and record those x's when for the big money payout they don't mean squat? Why bother with the time taken to look at them, score them as X and write those down? The person shooting the 900 and most baby-x's gets NOTHING for it in the present format.
Make it worth something and give a reward for it...For Pete's sake, they don't give a ton of money...but money IS given to people that shoot a 300...and there isn't any problem at all coming up with that money from "sponsors."
I'd say the highest TOTAL X COUNT AND a perfect 900 has got to be worth something. Right now, it isn't even really acknowledged unless a person pays attention...NO MENTION of this at all, and yet this year, Chris shot 87 out of 90 shots into the baby x-ring....and NO MENTION, NO REWARD...no nothing for this accomplishment.
IMHO, this isn't right. A person shooting ONE 30X-300 gets more acknolwedgement than that.
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Supermag1

Didn't Truball or someone give out money for people shooting a 300-30x this year?


----------



## FV Chuck

You do understand that this is NOT an NFAA event and the the event uses preposted modified rules ... right?

No. 
Clearly you dont. Because You dont go. 

Stop stirring the pot, put the armchair quarterback book down and leave it to the ones who actually play the game.


----------



## FV Chuck

Supermag1 said:


> Didn't Truball or someone give out money for people shooting a 300-30x this year?


Yes - 

Despite Tom's assertion that no one was recognized in any way whatsoever.... I PERSONALLY did the PA announcements to the entire arena congratulating and highlighting the high scores of the day... TruBall gave out checks 1000$ a day


----------



## field14

FV Chuck said:


> You do understand that this is NOT an NFAA event and the the event uses preposted modified rules ... right?
> 
> No.
> Clearly you dont. Because You dont go.
> 
> Stop stirring the pot, put the armchair quarterback book down and leave it to the ones who actually play the game.


Chuck,
I think you know full well that TWO persons on a bale, each scoring one another is something that shouldn't be done. Really I should have changed the post to reflect that...too many chances of "others" questioning things. With this amount of money "on the line", let the JUDGES make those decisions and keep the politicing or lobbying possibilities out of it.

Now about the $1,000 a day given to the 300's (too bad it wasn't $1,000 for EACH 300, haha)..>GREAT, and it should be done. But shooting the highest overall x-count for the entire tournament is no easy achievement, and I'm still saying that there should be something given for accomplishing that feat. That is all.

One more thing, Chuck...before you "bad mouth" me for "not going" or "not playing the game"...walk a frickin' mile in my shoes...for a day, for a week...and then try to "bad-mouth" my situation...You haven't a freaking clue what I'm up against. You think it is because I don't WANT to go? WRONGO! Wanting to or not wanting to has NOTHING to do with my situation....you know my brother...ask him; you'll get an earful.
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## gcab

FV Chuck said:


> You do understand that this is NOT an NFAA event and the the event uses preposted modified rules ... right?
> 
> No.
> Clearly you dont. Because You dont go.
> 
> Stop stirring the pot, put the armchair quarterback book down and leave it to the ones who actually play the game.


Doesn't appear as though this was directed at me, but I want to be clear... my opinion, statements, and suggestions are not to stir any pot.. its to give feedback for what many including commentators have said, is no good. Two archers, 3, 4, whatever. 10 judges, whatever. The point was that slowing it down that much makes it really boring and don't believe will get anything on tv that way.. Yes I know.. its been said a billion times that "all the money on the line" yada yada... great. I get that. Its a lot of money. Should the calls be guessed? no. should archers demand a judge and impartial calls for close arrows? yes but there has to be a different way of doing it. a couple ideas have been tossed out. why not try them? was said different scoring this year. I didn't see it and simply asked that if I missed it to say what it was. Maybe I just missed it. the point isn't to stir the pot, its to talk about things that I or anyone else may feel are done poorly, and as you said, give ideas. which has been done.

and has nothing to do with calling arrows, but yet again, the tournament isn't won by x count. superbowl isn't won by most tds in the regular season. someone wants to win vegas, then win the shootoff. and I may be wrong, but don't xs rank archers outside the shootoff or as tie breakers for final seating, of which payouts are different for second, third, fourth, ect? So isn't that the incentive to shoot more xs? And x's counting was tried for field, pretty sure that didn't work out.


----------



## Pro1

My brother is ENTITLED TO HIS OPINION CHUCK. AND he can say what he wants. If you don't like it don't read it. I have ALWAYS disliked the fact a person has to win Vegas TWICE and the high score X count shooter for three days gets nothing rules or not. I have been going since 1988 do I have an opinion?? I'm getting tired of you critizing him. I think you need to back off. You nor anyone else is the TELL ALL BE ALL OF ARCHERY nor Archerytalk. Although the POTUS doesn't seem to think so this is STILL a free country and everyone has freedom of speech and their opinion. You are out of line and I'm alittle tired of it. As you have said yourself MANY times if you don't like something don't read it and move on. But the comments directed at my brother better stop. You are a PRO act like one.


----------



## FV Chuck

field14 said:


> Chuck,
> I think you know full well that TWO persons on a bale, each scoring one another is something that shouldn't be done. Really I should have changed the post to reflect that...too many chances of "others" questioning things. With this amount of money "on the line", let the JUDGES make those decisions and keep the politicing or lobbying possibilities out of it.
> 
> Now about the $1,000 a day given to the 300's (too bad it wasn't $1,000 for EACH 300, haha)..>GREAT, and it should be done. But shooting the highest overall x-count for the entire tournament is no easy achievement, and I'm still saying that there should be something given for accomplishing that feat. That is all.
> 
> One more thing, Chuck...before you "bad mouth" me for "not going" or "not playing the game"...walk a frickin' mile in my shoes...for a day, for a week...and then try to "bad-mouth" my situation...You haven't a freaking clue what I'm up against. You think it is because I don't WANT to go? WRONGO! Wanting to or not wanting to has NOTHING to do with my situation....you know my brother...ask him; you'll get an earful.
> field14 (Tom D.)


living in your life for a week would kill most people but being bitter and driving the armchair bus when you really havent a clue about the how or the why of a situation isnt helping Tom.


----------



## Pro1

He knows the how or why through ME. Plus he has been to Vegas SEVERAL times. Just not recently. Saying he doesn't have a clue is uncalled for.


----------



## FV Chuck

Pro1 said:


> My brother is ENTITLED TO HIS OPINION CHUCK. AND he can say what he wants. If you don't like it don't read it. I have ALWAYS disliked the fact a person has to win Vegas TWICE and the high score X count shooter for three days gets nothing rules or not. I have been going since 1988 do I have an opinion?? I'm getting tired of you critizing him. I think you need to back off. You nor anyone else is the TELL ALL BE ALL OF ARCHERY nor Archerytalk. Although the POTUS doesn't seem to think so this is STILL a free country and everyone has freedom of speech and their opinion. You are out of line and I'm alittle tired of it. As you have said yourself MANY times if you don't like something don't read it and move on. But the comments directed at my brother better stop. You are a PRO act like one.


seriously Pat?


----------



## Pro1

Yes Chuck. We have discussed this over and over. He stated an opinion and you personally attacked him AGAIN. I see no where he personally attacked you. He stated an opinion just like the other guy did. You have my number. I'm out but this was on you this time.


----------



## wolf44

field14 said:


> Why make the Men's Championship count and record those x's when for the big money payout they don't mean squat? Why bother with the time taken to look at them, score them as X and write those down? The person shooting the 900 and most baby-x's gets NOTHING for it in the present format.
> Make it worth something and give a reward for it...For Pete's sake, they don't give a ton of money...but money IS given to people that shoot a 300...and there isn't any problem at all coming up with that money from "sponsors."
> I'd say the highest TOTAL X COUNT AND a perfect 900 has got to be worth something. Right now, it isn't even really acknowledged unless a person pays attention...NO MENTION of this at all, and yet this year, Chris shot 87 out of 90 shots into the baby x-ring....and NO MENTION, NO REWARD...no nothing for this accomplishment.
> IMHO, this isn't right. A person shooting ONE 30X-300 gets more acknolwedgement than that.
> field14 (Tom D.)


lets say 9 people make it to the shootoff. if we don't record x's how are places 10 down determined if there are a bunch of ties at 899, 898, etc?

the game in vegas is the big 10 until the shootoff. EVERYONE knows that going in and there are no complaints from the people shooting. I complained last year that someone shot a 29X when I shot a 28X. No Truball check for me 

CX used to give $300 to archers shooting 300's every day and $1000 if you shoot a 900. That WAS $1900 for the weekend for the 900. Now they only do $300 on day one and $1000 if you shoot a 900. $1300 for the weekend for the 900. 

Chris was mentioned when he was introduced for the shootoff as breaking the xcount record.


----------



## field14

wolf44 said:


> lets say 9 people make it to the shootoff. if we don't record x's how are places 10 down determined if there are a bunch of ties at 899, 898, etc?
> 
> the game in vegas is the big 10 until the shootoff. EVERYONE knows that going in and there are no complaints from the people shooting. I complained last year that someone shot a 29X when I shot a 28X. No Truball check for me
> 
> CX used to give $300 to archers shooting 300's every day and $1000 if you shoot a 900. That WAS $1900 for the weekend for the 900. Now they only do $300 on day one and $1000 if you shoot a 900. $1300 for the weekend for the 900.
> 
> Chris was mentioned when he was introduced for the shootoff as breaking the xcount record.


Breaks a record for a tournament and gets an atta boy? That is fine, excepting that what else does a person get for, under the rules of "common sense", winning the event (yeah I know that they know the rules of front, so have no gripe coming) with the perfect 900 AND more X's than anyone else. Seems empty to make the Championship Shooters count the x's and they are meangingless, yet for the non-championship divisions they do count (for ties) and on down the list.

What I've proposed is a SUGGESTION...it sure as heck isn't as a "law" or something. It would seem to me that apparently nobody wants to go with a "bye" (they DO go with byes in professional sports during the playoffs, by the way...the top dogs get a first round bye. There are BONUSES for making the playoffs, a higher BONUS for winning the conference PLUS a first round bye), and of course there are bonuses for making it to each level and up to the finals), then a BONUS would certainly be in order for the 900 AND the most x's. 
Again, a SUGGESTION for consideration. IF it happens, fine, if it doesn't...then oh well, at least there was SOMETHING put onto the table for consideration. Like the video feeds we now get...something is better than nothing at all other than a short little mention about an accomplishment that deserves more than a lick and a promise.

I'm wondering how many times the person with the perfect 900 AND the most x's has made it to the final two left standing? Then I also wonder how many have WON the shootdown? NO! I will not even try to do the research on it, but it would be interesting.
I know that one time in recent past, the person with the 900 and the _lowest x-count of those in the shootdown WON _the event!

Thinking out of the box quite often is what gets things done! Just cuz the "bonus" for the 900 AND most x's hasn't been done before doesn't mean that it is "bad" or it is "good"...but IMHO, it certainly warrants consideration. Maybe $5,000 is a bit high...but SOMETHING is certainly better than "a few words" during the announcements that likely are heard only by a few people. Hoop-dee-dooo....

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Pete53

tom or as most know him field14, really does have some good ideals ,maybe the NFAA Pro division should take this under advisement ?? why not ?? I have never been to Vegas so ya I am just another arm chair guy I guess. but I see what goes on and also read how some bad mouth Tom on here too , he is just trying to help solve some scoring problems , this year 2015 Vegas there was some more problems that should be cleared up. Tom really does have some great ideals so why not use them,he gives advice free !


----------



## gcab

So..... any response as to what exactly changed with the score keeping from previous years? Or what I spewed as bs concerning that and the show girls?


----------



## FV Chuck

gcab said:


> So..... any response as to what exactly changed with the score keeping from previous years? Or what I spewed as bs concerning that and the show girls?


Nope. Nothing to add. 
You guys seem to have it figured out... 

See ya!


----------



## Pete53

maybe the people on here that posted some real good suggestions should be taken seriously by the NFAA ? maybe the pro`s that made the shootoff would also have some ideals on solving these problems ?? even the guys maybe who made the lucky dog shootoff ? why not send out a guestionaire to these two groups of pro archer`s ? thinking outside of the box maybe ???


----------



## archer_nm

Pete the Pros have a direct link to the Council and if THEY let us know what changes they are looking at then we will look into those issues. My concern with what has been posted is we have a bunch of armchair quarterbacks making comments on something they are not involved with except from the spectator side of the shoot off. If all of you would take a good look on how and who makes the changes you might understand the process. As far as any changes for Vegas the NFAA Foundation Tournament committee (pretty much the NFAA council) makes all changes. The only changes that get tied into Vegas by the Directors are the NFAA styles and then the Tournament committee make changes as we see fit. When you folks become a Pro Member that is invovled with the shoot off the things you say would have some weight.


----------



## Pro1

Not necessarily. I have been a Pro for 23 years and SEVERAL times over the years only top dog or big name Pros were asked questions on tournament changes. Most times who you are has a lot to do with what "weight" your opinion carries which is not right. All Pros should be polled just like all NFAA Members should be polled when changes to rules or target changes are made. My opinion is that NO Pro's opinion carries ANY more weight than any other Pro's when it comes to the Pro Division. And no NFAA Members opinion carries any more weight than any other NFAA Members when it comes to those changes. Oh and I have been a NFAA Member for 44 years. Several times over the years decisions some pretty major were made without the General memberships input and so has been the case in the Pro Division. Just this year "polls" supposedly were sent out about possible changes yet MANY Pros did not get them. And before this comment was made ALL of my contact information is current and correct in NFAA database. Yet I didn't receive any polls or questionnaires. And I still don't see WHY people (all of a sudden) are called "armchair quarterbacks" because they have an idea or opinion. And are told their opinion or idea don't matter because they don't make the shootoff or don't attend a certain event. I feel that is wrong.


----------



## archer_nm

Pat then I would suggest you contact your Pro Rep and voice your concerns. The NFAA gave you boys and girls a voice on the Board so you could have a say on Pro matters and not fill like the Red Headed Step children and if he is not doing what you elected him to then replace him.


----------



## gcab

archer_nm said:


> Pete the Pros have a direct link to the Council and if THEY let us know what changes they are looking at then we will look into those issues. My concern with what has been posted is we have a bunch of armchair quarterbacks making comments on something they are not involved with except from the spectator side of the shoot off. If all of you would take a good look on how and who makes the changes you might understand the process. As far as any changes for Vegas the NFAA Foundation Tournament committee (pretty much the NFAA council) makes all changes. The only changes that get tied into Vegas by the Directors are the NFAA styles and then the Tournament committee make changes as we see fit. When you folks become a Pro Member that is invovled with the shoot off the things you say would have some weight.


Well that's a great response. Typical grumpy response anytime people don't agree with or have suggestions on things that could change. But armchair since I wasn't in the shootoff? neither were you. neither was someone that was the rep for the pro class, in fact wouldn't have even been in top 5 flights. So its based on score that can have an opinion, or just pay the 75 and call ourselves a pro to have an opinion. But that's alright.. keep making great decisions like the show girls and the death crawl of score keeping.. and it'll continue to not get any bigger for televised events and such. Perfect


----------



## gcab

FV Chuck said:


> Nope. Nothing to add.
> You guys seem to have it figured out...
> 
> See ya!


But you had said there was changes being made to the score keeping procedure. I didn't notice any, but am asking what they were.. but have it figured out? Ok. great input


----------



## archer_nm

I thought you were watching, we skipped the 2 ends of normal scoring and went straight to the X being a ten. Dude we went through all of those shoot off's in 60 min almost 1 hour shaved off from years past. Oh yea you were to busy looking through your binos second guessing the officials to notice.


----------



## gcab

archer_nm said:


> I thought you were watching, we skipped the 2 ends of normal scoring and went straight to the X being a ten. Dude we went through all of those shoot off's in 60 min almost 1 hour shaved off from years past. Oh yea you were to busy looking through your binos second guessing the officials to notice.


No I noticed... that is a change to the shooting procedure not the score keeping procedure as far as the judges were concerned as per the original question. The shooting isn't the boring part, sitting around for officials to score 1 arrow at a time is the boring part. But you cant have an opinion since you weren't in the shootoff, right?


----------



## archer_nm

Ok Gcab I have a great Idea since you are so eager and full of Ideas why don't you jump on board and become a Councilman or a Director or are you just full of of it. (Ideas)


----------



## gcab

archer_nm said:


> Ok Gcab I have a great Idea since you are so eager and full of Ideas why don't you jump on board and become a Councilman or a Director or are you just full of of it. (Ideas)


actually I asked some questions and gave 1 idea, two if you count the ring girls being ridiculous... but can you have a great idea if you weren't in the shootoff? thought you just covered that


----------



## FV Chuck

gcab said:


> But you had said there was changes being made to the score keeping procedure. I didn't notice any, but am asking what they were.. but have it figured out? Ok. great input


I'm disengaged from this any further.
There is a tangible disconnect that I do not wish to be a part of. 
I will read all the comments and take them into due consideration for those who I can identify. 
Those who hide behind monikers and aliases and fake names I'll take no heed to. 

You should all know that my single biggest disappointment is your group failure to recognize, support, or acknowledge the unprecedented growth of this event, the planning, the volunteerism and the monumental effort undertaken by ummm a bunch of grumpy old men or a guy that can't make the 5th flight that don't listen. 

So pardon my lack of respect. Youll find I tend to reflect as much as I'm given.


----------



## archer_nm

Long ago I was not going to add to this mess but I did, so Chuck I will now follow you lead and you are right, these people hide behind monikers because they are children and deserve no respect so I will also bid farewell to this thread. Adios


----------



## gcab

No respect is actually given in the first place when it is said that one does not qualify to have an opinion when they don't meet some unpublished shooting criteria.. but yet those saying that are at the bottom of the shooting to begin with. The fact that it is at the point where people can't give opinions on things that could be improved upon probably means its time to move on from what you are doing so that others can actually help make changes instead of just run people off for having ideas. And chuck, you'll notice I said that the volunteers should have been paid instead of wasting money on the show girls


----------



## Pete53

maybe it is time for new counsel personal and or state directors,i am from minnesota where the NFAA lost alot of NFAA members and now just have a handful are left including myself in the very small MAA here in minnesota formed after the mess a decade ago with the much larger state organization the MSAA and yes the NFAA helped make this mess in minnesota too. sure sign me up for the state director here in minnesota i will personally fix this state club problems . that is where i will start and then ?? Pete53 "just so some don`t think i am hiding under an alias> Steven L. Peterson " i do have one small question: so all pro`s and counsel members were contacted before the final last vote on the 2712 size arrow issue ? and they all got a chance to talk it over and then vote ?


----------



## zenarch

FV Chuck said:


> Give me an alternative method then please..... dont just complain about things. Offer solutions.
> Truly I'm all ears, because I'm not the biggest fan of it either. I just havent come across a better version or solution.
> If we can derive a better method....trust me. It would happen. None of us are huge fans.


Chuck,
Here's my thoughts which you will see written in the upcoming issue of U.S. Archer.
1- Score the X ring as an 11 and have a shoot off if it happens. It wouldn't take much time like the manufactured mass shoot off does now.
2- Shoot off only for 1st in each championship division. All other ties would combine the payoffs and split the results equally. Watching two guys shoot off for second while the winner was accepting congratulations was ludacris.
3- Lose the loud announcer and "Who let the dogs out" music. This isn't the World Wrestling Federation and I don't think anyone needs to be "pumped up" to enjoy watching a tense shoot off. The noise must grate on the archers who are trying to compose their thoughts. I watched it on TV in my room where I had a volume control. Let's quit trying to make another Nimes.
Joe Bauernfeind


----------



## FV Chuck

zenarch said:


> Chuck,
> Here's my thoughts which you will see written in the upcoming issue of U.S. Archer.
> 1- Score the X ring as an 11 and have a shoot off if it happens. It wouldn't take much time like the manufactured mass shoot off does now.
> 2- Shoot off only for 1st in each championship division. All other ties would combine the payoffs and split the results equally. Watching two guys shoot off for second while the winner was accepting congratulations was ludacris.
> 3- Lose the loud announcer and "Who let the dogs out" music. This isn't the World Wrestling Federation and I don't think anyone needs to be "pumped up" to enjoy watching a tense shoot off. The noise must grate on the archers who are trying to compose their thoughts. I watched it on TV in my room where I had a volume control. Let's quit trying to make another Nimes.
> Joe Bauernfeind


Thanks Joe - 

Apologies though, I am out of this conversation. I'm responding to you directly because you are a respected man of the game and a HOF here in NY where I am. 
For what it's worth though I would hunch that your suggestions would be better received if they were to got to NFAA vs US Archer. I haven't seen a role they play in the mgmt or administration of the Vegas shoot.
I wont comment on #1 or #3, but #2 was an oversight by us in the heat of the moment.
We should have paused to let those places finish before completing 1st and 2nd. 
It was discussed immediately following the event by the officials (BC and others), we realized the error. It wont happen again.


----------



## zenarch

FV Chuck said:


> Thanks Joe -
> 
> Apologies though, I am out of this conversation. I'm responding to you directly because you are a respected man of the game and a HOF here in NY where I am.
> For what it's worth though I would hunch that your suggestions would be better received if they were to got to NFAA vs US Archer. I haven't seen a role they play in the mgmt or administration of the Vegas shoot.
> I wont comment on #1 or #3, but #2 was an oversight by us in the heat of the moment.
> We should have paused to let those places finish before completing 1st and 2nd.
> It was discussed immediately following the event by the officials (BC and others), we realized the error. It wont happen again.


Chuck,
Anything that appears to be critical of the NFAA is very hard to get into print in their magazine.


----------



## field14

zenarch said:


> Chuck,
> Here's my thoughts which you will see written in the upcoming issue of U.S. Archer.
> 1- Score the X ring as an 11 and have a shoot off if it happens. It wouldn't take much time like the manufactured mass shoot off does now.
> 2- Shoot off only for 1st in each championship division. All other ties would combine the payoffs and split the results equally. Watching two guys shoot off for second while the winner was accepting congratulations was ludacris.
> 3- Lose the loud announcer and "Who let the dogs out" music. This isn't the World Wrestling Federation and I don't think anyone needs to be "pumped up" to enjoy watching a tense shoot off. The noise must grate on the archers who are trying to compose their thoughts. I watched it on TV in my room where I had a volume control. Let's quit trying to make another Nimes.
> Joe Bauernfeind


Joe, 
IF you are talking about the shootoff for the Men's SENIORS Championship...it was NOT even a shoot off for 2nd!!! It was a shootoff for 3rd and 4th between those two SENIORS! The WINNER, Rodger Willett, and 2nd Place WINNER in the first two ends was BOB WOLFRAM...but people were too focused on other things to pay attention to the announcement, that I barely heard from live stream when BOB WOLFRAM's name was announced...but couldn't hear the rest of it because the commentators were focused on the 4-way shoot off in the WOMEN's for 3-6th!!!
Sad when a person wins a shootoff....and two others are announced numerous times as shooting for that position...when in fact they were NOT shooting for 2nd place!
If I didn't know Bob Wofram personally and wasn't aware that he was in a 3-way tie (because I was being texted at the time), I wouldn't have even picked up his name because I only heard it in the background, not from the commentators...who never mentioned it at all...and incorrectly assumed the remaining two seniors were shooting for 2nd...which they were NOT.
That is water under the dam...Bob did get his 2nd place check and the standings correctly reflect his finish...although the money payout didn't match up with the standings for a few days.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## gcab

zenarch said:


> Chuck,
> Anything that appears to be critical of the NFAA is very hard to get into print in their magazine.


Thats because nothing to be critical of. If you are critical or want changes or think things could be done different, it doesn't matter unless you are in the shootoff. If you are not, then it only matters if you are in the bottom of your class and just happened to pay 75 for the status, or you sit in the booth watching like the rest of us. So since I didn't pay 75 to call myself a pro, my opinion isn't wanted. But to your points, I personally like the shootoff. That is what makes vegas vegas in my opinion. who can keep it together to get their 900, and then who can keep it together against the other 15 or whatever is there that year.


----------



## gcab

like the shirt idea though. Those could sell and use the proceeds to pay the volunteers something for their time and effort. To go with the theme as suggested via post, could be: NFAA Pro Class: where those who would reside in bottom of flights can go when they gather $75


----------



## gcab

field14 said:


> Joe,
> IF you are talking about the shootoff for the Men's SENIORS Championship...it was NOT even a shoot off for 2nd!!! It was a shootoff for 3rd and 4th between those two SENIORS! The WINNER, Rodger Willett, and 2nd Place WINNER in the first two ends was BOB WOLFRAM...but people were too focused on other things to pay attention to the announcement, that I barely heard from live stream when BOB WOLFRAM's name was announced...but couldn't hear the rest of it because the commentators were focused on the 4-way shoot off in the WOMEN's for 3-6th!!!
> Sad when a person wins a shootoff....and two others are announced numerous times as shooting for that position...when in fact they were NOT shooting for 2nd place!
> If I didn't know Bob Wofram personally and wasn't aware that he was in a 3-way tie (because I was being texted at the time), I wouldn't have even picked up his name because I only heard it in the background, not from the commentators...who never mentioned it at all...and incorrectly assumed the remaining two seniors were shooting for 2nd...which they were NOT.
> That is water under the dam...Bob did get his 2nd place check and the standings correctly reflect his finish...although the money payout didn't match up with the standings for a few days.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


Just curious, didn't think to look. but was Ulmer there again this year? Was cool to see him last year.


----------



## zenarch

Tom,
I was referring to the FS Mens Division. Jesse and someone else were shooting after the winner had been determined.


----------



## vito9999

This thread has been an interesting read for many reasons though archery is not one of them. There is obvious animosity here and it has reached a point of being a pointless debate. However I will state that a few items have been forgotten. Respected is earned and responsibility cannot be delegated. Time for this thread to be closed.


----------



## Pete53

this thread might as well close, nothing will probably be done on any of it,except i suppose next year louder music, more show girls and maybe 4 judges instead of 3 judges. oh and if you pay your pro fee you still might not have a voice on any decision in the nfaa pro class. and for us old guys of archery just hope the rug is clean when the nfaa starts sweeping !


----------



## gcab

Pete53 said:


> this thread might as well close, nothing will probably be done on any of it,except i suppose next year louder music, more show girls and maybe 4 judges instead of 3 judges. oh and if you pay your pro fee you still might not have a voice on any decision in the nfaa pro class. and for us old guys of archery just hope the rug is clean when the nfaa starts sweeping !


Only have a voice if in the shootoff, remember? Unless you are basically dead last in the class, then you revert back to having a voice. But the rest of us rank and file meaningless people with an opinion to make it more enjoyable to watch.. nah just keep mouth shut and give respect.


----------



## Rolo

I'm not certain there needs to be any dramatic (or subtle) changes to the biggest, most popular archery shoot in the world, at least not well thought out and vetted changes, at least IMO...

As to the scoring...I think that was born out of necessity based on an event that occurred at the Riveria, but that's totally an assumption. In any event, a procedure needed to be implemented to make sure that the scoring was 'right' with that type of money on the line, and to take it out of the hands of one person (rightly so IMO, which is not a statement about the 1 person). So, the 3 judges were born, and yes, while it takes additional time, especially for those things 'obvious' I haven't really seen a proposal that would be 'better', again IMO...getting th eindividual judges to speed things along when 'obvious' would be good, but then the criticisms would come from the "they're not taking it serious enough" side of the room.

Oh, I agree with what has been posted about Xs...the rules of the game have been that way for awhile now, the people entering the championship division are well aware of the rules, history demonstrates that the X leader after 3 days rarely if ever wins the tournament...why change what has proven to be a popular tournament?



archer_nm said:


> Pete the Pros have a direct link to the Council and if THEY let us know what changes they are looking at then we will look into those issues. My concern with what has been posted is we have a bunch of armchair quarterbacks making comments on something they are not involved with except from the spectator side of the shoot off. If all of you would take a good look on how and who makes the changes you might understand the process. As far as any changes for Vegas the NFAA Foundation Tournament committee (pretty much the NFAA council) makes all changes. The only changes that get tied into Vegas by the Directors are the NFAA styles and then the Tournament committee make changes as we see fit. When you folks become a Pro Member that is invovled with the shoot off the things you say would have some weight.


Yeah...tis interesting to see the public complaints. Wonder if any of these folks have communicated with their directors about the issues raised here, or that have affected them over the years?


----------



## Pete53

yes we have ,but it has not seemed to help ,they seem to be still sweeping alot towards the rug !


----------



## Rolo

Pete53 said:


> yes we have ,but it has not seemed to help ,they seem to be still sweeping alot towards the rug !


I'd really like to know what specific examples you have? What specific AIs have you proposed to your director? How many of them became actual AIs? Of those that became actual AIs, how many of them were swept toward the rug? Which ones? Who is "they"? (This also presumes that the NFAA exists for the Pro Division's benefit, which it does not) 

Really want to know in order to see, evidence goes a long way to proving, whereas accusation, dare I say unfounded conspiracy erodes credibility.


----------



## Rolo

Crickets...

They really are serious questions for a vocally critically few on this thread...other than participating in threads like this, what have you done to get the suggested changes to your director to get them placed on the agenda, to see if they are supported by the majority? What specific ideas were communicated to your director? What thoughts or positions on other AIs were communicated? Were any of your ideas formally made AIs? The result was?

Maybe the silence answers the questions...that's usually how this sorta thing works out...vocally critical, yet paralyzed in action (I await the "I tried in the past and gave up response")...credibility is a precious commodity...


----------



## gcab

Actually I had discussed with my director thoughts and such last year. Same as this year after the vegas tournament. However, also thought it was possible for people to discuss and give things they think could or should change, but looks like anything that is recommended to change, those who were in on decisions take offense and then create criteria to qualify to have an opinion.. such as having to be in the shootoff. And when it is stated that they weren't in shootoff either, and in fact complete bottom of class and far below where they would have been in any class, it is then some how now disrespectful to them and then its time to stop responding and shut things down. So yea, I think vocally critical of things like terrible decisions of things like show girls, or saying there were changes to scoring procedure and asking what they were since didn't notice them, I think that's fair. But then again, didn't realize is only fair to have opinion if I just pay 75 to call myself a high standing pro


----------



## Rolo

I'll try to break this down into specific issues...leaving the personal stuff out...

A little bit of a disconnect, but...



gcab said:


> Actually I had discussed with my director thoughts and such last year. Same as this year after the vegas tournament. However, also thought it was possible for people to discuss and give things they think could or should change


I don't get the sense that anyone involved in the decision making wouldn't like a smoother more efficient way of doing things. Yet, I don't see a workable solution that would really increase the efficiency, while also eliminating some of the things that the 3 judges are preventing.

But, curious question: Do you even know why there is a policy that requires 3 judges to individually score each arrow before an official score is announced?



gcab said:


> So yea, I think vocally critical of things like terrible decisions of things like show girls,


I personally agree that the show girls were unnecessary and irrelevant during the shootoff. There may have been a time and place for them otherwise. But, as far as I know, this was the first year there any show girls. Not like it is a repeat issue...and not sure the vitriol about them is warranted either.



gcab said:


> or saying there were changes to scoring procedure and asking what they were since didn't notice them, I think that's fair.


I'm pretty sure the changes were explained before the shoot even occurred...no regular scoring for the first 2 ends.



gcab said:


> But then again, didn't realize is only fair to have opinion if I just pay 75 to call myself a high standing pro


A little more disconnect...

But, from my standpoint, I see a number of volunteers who do their best to produce a quality event. I cannot foresee an event with 2600 participants going off without a hitch. I see a whole bunch of volunteers who invest a whole bunch of their time not only at this shoot, but at all of them from the National to local level, and from all that comes with it. I imagine hearing a the continued complaints from the sidelines, from the peeps who may not be so volunteering to attempt to fix the problems, tend to get a wee bit old...

It's the old you can complain about the problem, or you can lend a hand to help fix the problem dilemma.

Just curious, who is your Director?


----------



## gcab

Yes I have heard of why the need for multiple judges. I get that.. as I have said probably a dozen times now. money on line.. I get it. close calls and such should have judges look at them indpenednetly and call with no issue. the point was, and example yet again, is like the lance jones shootoff. why was it needed to have judges spend time looking at the arrows like that? and same with many with the male shootoff. when there is no question, why slow it to a crawl? yes close ones need judges. understood.. as said. if scored amongst the archers, and then call a judge over for any arrow close, would speed it up and keep the judges. Again, does the first 90 arrows for the weekend count just as much as the ones in the shootoff? Does missing on of the first 90 hurt just as much..since that eliminates the chance for the shootoff in the first place? Are there 3 judges that look at every arrow like that for the first 90? if not, why not? That was the point to that. 

for the show girsl, first year.. ok first year. but people can have opinions and can voice them, contrary to those who made the decision may think. I personally, and many others as you may have seen from a few facebook posts, thought it was a terrible decision, especially with how much nfaa has been working the youth stuff. so that's my opinion and I voiced it. you have a different opionin, at least to a point, and you voiced yours. others liked the girls and thought that was classy and good way to gain membership some how, so they voiced their opinion. but to me, was ridiculous decision.

and that wasn't a change to the scoring procedure. meaning, they still had 3 judges look at every arrow independently ect... see first part of this post. Again, I mentioned maybe going to back how they all score the first 90 arrows for the weekend, but bring in 3 judges for the calls as opposed to just the 1 that is typically used to call for the first 90. To go with your previous post where you wait for the tried it and didn't work type response... that was the response. 

and no I don't think there is much disconnect on my side with the last part. there has certainly been a failry high level of arrogance with subjects concerning any of this and people discusseing and stating things they didn't like and what they think could change. and response was if not in shootoff then keep mouth shut and don't worry about it, and that's coming from one who sat in the booth for the shootoff(so not shooting) and one who wouldn't even come close to the shootoff, and wouldn't even come close to top 3, and probably not even top 5, flight placing in the flights division. so that boils down to basically paying 75 to pretend to be a professional archer and have an opinion. and I don't think that is right. but cant really talk about people not helping or volunteering or appreciating the volunteers without actually knowing if I or others have helping with anything, or volunteered with things, or thanked volunteers or judges or whatever. right? If you look back, I said that isnstead of money paid for show girls, maybe give that to voluneteers for their time and help. so maybe me or others have helped lend hands, but just because we have opinions on to things that weren't good or could change, then some take offense.


----------



## Rolo

gcab said:


> Yes I have heard of why the need for multiple judges. I get that.. as I have said probably a dozen times now. money on line.. I get it. close calls and such should have judges look at them indpenednetly and call with no issue.


It's a little more than that.



gcab said:


> the point was, and example yet again, is like the lance jones shootoff. why was it needed to have judges spend time looking at the arrows like that? and same with many with the male shootoff. when there is no question, why slow it to a crawl? yes close ones need judges. understood.. as said. if scored amongst the archers, and then call a judge over for any arrow close, would speed it up and keep the judges.


I'm fairly certain that everyone who has posted here with half a clue agrees that it would be great if the process was more efficient. What is lacking, is a viable alternative that eliminates the reason that there are 3 judges now...again, a little more in depth than the money, and a function of a desire to eliminate potential improprieties, and also to relieve the pressure of the decision making from one or more people. Leaving it to the shooters would not eliminate the reason the process exists to begin with.



gcab said:


> for the show girsl, first year.. ok first year. but people can have opinions and can voice them, contrary to those who made the decision may think. I personally, and many others as you may have seen from a few facebook posts, thought it was a terrible decision, especially with how much nfaa has been working the youth stuff. so that's my opinion and I voiced it. you have a different opionin, at least to a point, and you voiced yours. others liked the girls and thought that was classy and good way to gain membership some how, so they voiced their opinion. but to me, was ridiculous decision.


I must have missed the part about not being ale to have an opinion? Of course, there's a difference between having an opinion, relaying it in a rational, intelligent manner, and having an opinion and relating it with vitriol...again, want to fix the problem or not?

In any event, I parents want to shield the eyes of their children from such things, they may want to start by not taking them to Vegas at all. It simply cannot be avoided...from the airport to the hotel and anywhere in between. That said, I'm fairly certain I thought the girls were unnecessary...but apparently for different reasons than you. 



gcab said:


> and that wasn't a change to the scoring procedure. meaning, they still had 3 judges look at every arrow independently ect... see first part of this post. Again, I mentioned maybe going to back how they all score the first 90 arrows for the weekend, but bring in 3 judges for the calls as opposed to just the 1 that is typically used to call for the first 90. To go with your previous post where you wait for the tried it and didn't work type response... that was the response.


I'm fairly certain that was the change that I and a few other people were referring to. I can't help it that you didn't understand what we were talking about, I thought it was clear. I understand that your focus is on 3 people, and maybe that clouded things some...again, there's a reason for the 3 judges.

As for the rest...you'e going to need to interpret that...



gcab said:


> and no I don't think there is much disconnect on my side with the last part. there has certainly been a failry high level of arrogance with subjects concerning any of this and people discusseing and stating things they didn't like and what they think could change. and response was if not in shootoff then keep mouth shut and don't worry about it, and that's coming from one who sat in the booth for the shootoff(so not shooting) and one who wouldn't even come close to the shootoff, and wouldn't even come close to top 3, and probably not even top 5, flight placing in the flights division. so that boils down to basically paying 75 to pretend to be a professional archer and have an opinion. and I don't think that is right. but cant really talk about people not helping or volunteering or appreciating the volunteers without actually knowing if I or others have helping with anything, or volunteered with things, or thanked volunteers or judges or whatever. right? If you look back, I said that isnstead of money paid for show girls, maybe give that to voluneteers for their time and help. so maybe me or others have helped lend hands, but just because we have opinions on to things that weren't good or could change, then some take offense.


Ugh...there is a disconnect. That was not the response at all, and I can't help that you were offended by it. The reality is, you started this thread complaining about the scoring before the shoot. The shot happened, the scoring was done in a way that you don't like, for reasons you really don't appreciate, but you wanted to come back and complain about it again. Did I miss anything?

More disconnect, and more of the personal stuff...why? What do you hope to accomplish? You do realize that you don't gotta be a pro to shoot the championship division? You do realize that it';s more than a $75 difference? Yes...a disconnect indeed.

Actually...no one is offended with opinions..at least when they are relayed in a rational, intelligent way. And, maybe the volunteers are doing it because they give a damn and don't really care about getting paid for something they are personally invested in.

I ask again...who is your director?

I ask anew...what help have you personally been with the Vegas shoot or other NFAA shoots? Thanking a volunteer with one side, but essentially tearing them down with the other, well that ain't all that impressive in itself...


----------



## Rolo

Because I can, and like to understand the historical perspective, thought I'd go down memory lane...the OP...



gcab said:


> So, what are the chances that NFAA or WAF or whoever is in charge now gets rid of the ridiculous scoring procedure for the shootoffs so that it doesn't take 2 minutes of the exciting shoot time and 15 minutes of stand around and do nothing but wait in silence until scores are said(even though everyone from the stands with a pair of binos) can tell already what the scores are? Any chance?


Got it...you don't like the 3 judges. that was your original opinion, and you wanted to know if the NFAA or WAF was going to fix what you believe is a problem.



FV Chuck said:


> With about 75K on the line for those arrows?... not much of one
> But we did make a couple changes to expedite the process.
> 
> Did you have a suggestion that might help tho?


Changes made (which we now know were the no regular scoring) and also a solicitation for ideas to make it better.



gcab said:


> I think so, I mean it wasn't like that a few years ago. How about the normal process where the archers that are paired up on a bale make the calls, and if there is question, then call the judge over per normal. The 75k isn't just earned on the shootoff, but also with the 90 shots that take place before that, right? and the system works well for that why change it? There are world ranking tournaments that have archers make the call, and have judge decide in the event of a question. So my thought would be how about the archers decide with multiple scoring and call a judge for calls as needed. You can hear you and griv in the video talk about how it can be seen from the stands so shouldn't be that slow. We have seen the pros shoot their 3 arrows, and then sit down until the judges make their way all the way down the targets. Which shows they already know what is in or out or they would've been standing right there to look at it. The idea and process is terrible the way it is, and makes it so slow and boring. Go back to the way it was and speed it back up. Use the judges to make calls as needed as always.


OK, that's how normal scoring works, and again a statement of your opinion.

Going back to the way it was is not going to fly, again, there's a reason for it...wondering at this point in the thread (and presently), why you haven't bothered to ask why...



gcab said:


> In case some didn't listen or watch them all, check out the shootoff from Lancaster between kendall and jesse... two more pros ripping on NFAA for the current process of doing score in the shootoffs. so can hear it from two pros in the actual vegas shootoff video from last year, one of which replied here, and two more on another video. But guess its true pros like it the way it is.


Not sure what solicited this response, but I think we know what your opinion is...still on page 1, and you've shared that opinion at least 3 times, but have not offered a viable alternative other than going back to the way it was, without knowing why it is the way it is.




gcab said:


> And no changes. Got rid of the regular ten scoring but still had to wait for 3 judges to look at every arrow. Should close ones be looked at, definitely. By all 3. Does every arrow need to be looked at when it is clear even from the bleachers? No. Take the lance/jones shootoff. First archer had 30. Very clear 30. Second had one way out of the normal 10. Does it really need to take 3 judges to look at it like that? If nothing else why not when first judge scores a target, then move to next one and score it instead of a group huddled at a target The shooting part isn't what is boring and will continue to keep it from being entertaining.. It's the down time like that Sure lot of money on line, so what. There's a lot of calls made for them to get to 900 as well but they handle it just fine and if need a call they ask for it. Not sure why all do a sudden it needs to slow down to a nonexistent pace. And those ring girls... Eh


Still on page one...but after the shoot. This begins your continued statement of your opinion that there wasn't the change that you wanted, and you're upset about it. We get it, everyone gets it.




gcab said:


> There is no show in that scoring. It removes the show. All three times that they had to say why there were so many judges all the people in my section that I was sitting in booed and said bull snot. It's a terrible way to give a show. And the ring girls were a joke Terrible decision. For those who said there were changes to the scoring for the Shootoff, what were they? Seemed slower than ever so maybe I missed something. And whoever decided it was better to hire ring girls than say maybe Give money to the volunteers that worked for the tournament, or pay some more volunteers so there was more than 1 official per side of the rooms and arena for calls... That person should volunteer to step away


Are you doubling down on your opinion? Still on page 1 and still with the 3 judges...we get it, everyone gets it. But alas, the showgirls are coming into focus too...



gcab said:


> Can thumbs down if you like. Some will have different opinions. But shoot as in shooting off.. Yes I liked. 3 judges looking At every arrow that yet again anyone with $100 pair of binos could see from the seats... Yea not so much. Terrible process for scoring arrows. And mind you, I didn't say terrible people or efforts, but terrible process. And those attached sure will feel it's perfect. But that is boring and not needed. And again the ring girls.. Terrible decision all around.


So, what's your opinion on 3 judges scoring every arrow again? What's your proposed solution? I digress...Yes, this is still page one.




gcab said:


> The Boring part is not the shooting. It's the waste of time for the ridiculous scoring method. It's a terrible system, of which maybe not too publically some and maybe yourself won't agree with.. Although it is heard on past year shootoff videos of the commentators even talking about it. That's the part that needs to change not the format of the shootoff.


We get it, you don't like 3 judges. Yep, still page 1, and other than going back to the way it was, I have yet to see you offer any viable alternative at all, while continuing to share your opinion on 3 judges.

But alas...



FV Chuck said:


> Give me an alternative method then please..... dont just complain about things. Offer solutions.
> Truly I'm all ears, because I'm not the biggest fan of it either. I just havent come across a better version or solution.
> If we can derive a better method....trust me. It would happen. None of us are huge fans.


You were asked in what can only be described as a polite way for alternatives. You were told that the person you apparently have chosen to focus on actually agrees with you (as well as others) that it slows the process down, and alternatives would be appreciated...at least that's the only way that can be interpreted...

And so ends page 1...



gcab said:


> whats wrong with the method that is used every other end of every other tournament? two archers to a bale. They go down and score with each other. If there is a close arrow that they need called, then do the 3 officials as it sits now. Watch the shootoff with Lance and Erika... was that really needed to take that much time? So as I posted before, my alternative as an idea would be to do just that. Yes its a lot of money, but the money isn't just made with those 3 or 4 ends of the shootoff. It is also made on the first 90 arrows right?


Ok...what's wrong with it is the amount of money on the line, and the establishment of what can only be described as an absolutely fair and objective process that is also boring. But, the process preserves the integrity of the shoot. I'm all for integrity. 



FV Chuck said:


> You do understand that this is NOT an NFAA event and the the event uses preposted modified rules ... right?
> 
> No.
> Clearly you dont. Because You dont go.
> 
> Stop stirring the pot, put the armchair quarterback book down and leave it to the ones who actually play the game.





gcab said:


> Doesn't appear as though this was directed at me, but I want to be clear... my opinion, statements, and suggestions are not to stir any pot.. its to give feedback for what many including commentators have said, is no good. Two archers, 3, 4, whatever. 10 judges, whatever. The point was that slowing it down that much makes it really boring and don't believe will get anything on tv that way.. Yes I know.. its been said a billion times that "all the money on the line" yada yada... great. I get that. Its a lot of money. Should the calls be guessed? no. should archers demand a judge and impartial calls for close arrows? yes but there has to be a different way of doing it. a couple ideas have been tossed out. why not try them? was said different scoring this year. I didn't see it and simply asked that if I missed it to say what it was. Maybe I just missed it. the point isn't to stir the pot, its to talk about things that I or anyone else may feel are done poorly, and as you said, give ideas. which has been done.


And the response to the post that was not directed to you, but you take offense too and later adopt as a post that was directed to you, even though it wasn't, in which we again learn of your opinion...the solution...we still don't have one...but we know your opinion...



gcab said:


> So..... any response as to what exactly changed with the score keeping from previous years? Or what I spewed as bs concerning that and the show girls?


Yeah...that was previously covered...sorry you didn't understand what it was that was changed...

Which I'm pretty sure is why you received this reply...



FV Chuck said:


> Nope. Nothing to add.
> You guys seem to have it figured out...
> 
> See ya!


I mean, you can only lead the horse to water so many times...



gcab said:


> But you had said there was changes being made to the score keeping procedure. I didn't notice any, but am asking what they were.. but have it figured out? Ok. great input


Did anyone mention there would not be 2 regular ends of scoring to start things out before this post? Yep...I'm fairly certain it was covered.

But, just in case...



archer_nm said:


> I thought you were watching, we skipped the 2 ends of normal scoring and went straight to the X being a ten. Dude we went through all of those shoot off's in 60 min almost 1 hour shaved off from years past. Oh yea you were to busy looking through your binos second guessing the officials to notice.


It got answered again...but...that wasn't the "change" you were defining...



gcab said:


> No I noticed... that is a change to the shooting procedure not the score keeping procedure as far as the judges were concerned as per the original question. The shooting isn't the boring part, sitting around for officials to score 1 arrow at a time is the boring part. But you cant have an opinion since you weren't in the shootoff, right?


I personally thought it was fairly clear, and had been recognized what the change was...no matter which "procedure" a person wants to label it as...but hey...when you get to define what 'is' is, I guess you get to determine whether the question was or was not answered, no matter how many times it was answered for the remainder of the human population... 

So...I can understand the frustration...



FV Chuck said:


> I'm disengaged from this any further.
> There is a tangible disconnect that I do not wish to be a part of.
> I will read all the comments and take them into due consideration for those who I can identify.
> Those who hide behind monikers and aliases and fake names I'll take no heed to.
> 
> You should all know that my single biggest disappointment is your group failure to recognize, support, or acknowledge the unprecedented growth of this event, the planning, the volunteerism and the monumental effort undertaken by ummm a bunch of grumpy old men or a guy that can't make the 5th flight that don't listen.
> 
> So pardon my lack of respect. Youll find I tend to reflect as much as I'm given.





gcab said:


> No respect is actually given in the first place when it is said that one does not qualify to have an opinion when they don't meet some unpublished shooting criteria.. but yet those saying that are at the bottom of the shooting to begin with. The fact that it is at the point where people can't give opinions on things that could be improved upon probably means its time to move on from what you are doing so that others can actually help make changes instead of just run people off for having ideas. And chuck, you'll notice I said that the volunteers should have been paid instead of wasting money on the show girls


I missed the part where you were ever told that you were not entitled to your opinion...It certainly was not said by the person you are addressing on page 1, nor in his post above...and I'm fairly certain you told everyone what your opinion was a number of times on Page 1...we get it, now, we got it then...what we still don't see is any attempt at a solution from you other than going back to the way it was...but we certainly have read a number of complaints about how it is...

Which would lead most rational people to one conclusion...your stated opinion is clear, you don't like the 3 judge process, but anyone who asks for alternatives, or suggestions from you, or tries to point out what was changed, or talks about the commitment that volunteers make because they want to, well their no good SOBs who seek to limit and prevent your opinion...

Considering the number of times you stated your opinion (on page 1 alone), the number of times you were politely asked for alternatives, and the number of times not only your questions were answered, but further explanation was given...it seems apparent that others would reach the conclusion that you either refuse to understand or are incapable of understanding, and thus resort to to personal attack and provocation.

This also tends to lead to the conclusion that you may be more interested in hearing yourself, than actually participating and solving the problem...but that's just my opinion...


----------



## gcab

Rolo said:


> It's a little more than that.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fairly certain that everyone who has posted here with half a clue agrees that it would be great if the process was more efficient. What is lacking, is a viable alternative that eliminates the reason that there are 3 judges now...again, a little more in depth than the money, and a function of a desire to eliminate potential improprieties, and also to relieve the pressure of the decision making from one or more people. Leaving it to the shooters would not eliminate the reason the process exists to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> I must have missed the part about not being ale to have an opinion? Of course, there's a difference between having an opinion, relaying it in a rational, intelligent manner, and having an opinion and relating it with vitriol...again, want to fix the problem or not?
> 
> In any event, I parents want to shield the eyes of their children from such things, they may want to start by not taking them to Vegas at all. It simply cannot be avoided...from the airport to the hotel and anywhere in between. That said, I'm fairly certain I thought the girls were unnecessary...but apparently for different reasons than you.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fairly certain that was the change that I and a few other people were referring to. I can't help it that you didn't understand what we were talking about, I thought it was clear. I understand that your focus is on 3 people, and maybe that clouded things some...again, there's a reason for the 3 judges.
> 
> As for the rest...you'e going to need to interpret that...
> 
> 
> 
> Ugh...there is a disconnect. That was not the response at all, and I can't help that you were offended by it. The reality is, you started this thread complaining about the scoring before the shoot. The shot happened, the scoring was done in a way that you don't like, for reasons you really don't appreciate, but you wanted to come back and complain about it again. Did I miss anything?
> 
> More disconnect, and more of the personal stuff...why? What do you hope to accomplish? You do realize that you don't gotta be a pro to shoot the championship division? You do realize that it';s more than a $75 difference? Yes...a disconnect indeed.
> 
> Actually...no one is offended with opinions..at least when they are relayed in a rational, intelligent way. And, maybe the volunteers are doing it because they give a damn and don't really care about getting paid for something they are personally invested in.
> 
> I ask again...who is your director?
> 
> I ask anew...what help have you personally been with the Vegas shoot or other NFAA shoots? Thanking a volunteer with one side, but essentially tearing them down with the other, well that ain't all that impressive in itself...


Yes I come back and complained. I think.. not you.. not someone else.. .I think it is a bad system. There were suggestions given. At least 3 that I can remember without going back through all the pages. And each time the response was too much money on line and is what it is. And I guess you may have missed the part of having an opinion. Response was if you weren't shooting in the shootoff then opinion doesn't matter. And yes I realize theres a difference between pro and shooting in championship division. I also realize that it is, or at least should be, more than the 75. Howeever, part of that should be a decent response to people and when you look at the responses, and the typical responses, it is not decent. Field could probably show you a book of it. so to me if someone wants to be high and mighty with it, then they should at least belong in the class to begin with to have that attitude with people. Doesn't or don't like responses from people or things people don't like, so what. Its their opinion just like he has or you have your opinion. Its a forum. Where people can discuss things, and say things they don't like. Why does that have to fit in to just what makes people feel warm and cozy. 

No need to cut and paste things I said. I know what I said. you can also go back thorugh and paste the responses of "lot of money on line" and the no one cared about the show girls, and what not. And because I can, just like you can, I can state my opinion in a fashion that I want to and don't have to have it be in the manner to make one person feel good or whatever. respect earned.. yea... that goes both ways.

And since you seem to know what I have done or have not done with helping with things, tell me what I did this year in vegas to help out


----------



## Pete53

after reading these last few post i kinda agree with gcab much more now, but to be honest will anything get done ? i surely hope so all who posted really just want to see Vegas archery get better, and $75.00 to be called a pro and then have a voice that`s what upset`s many of us. now please don`t get too upset with this question: but if NFAA went back to using arrow size in a size 23 shaft instead of the shaft size 27 would there be as many shootoff`s or problems with scoring ?


----------



## Rolo

Ok...this is the post that seem to have everyone it was not directed at all twisted up...



FV Chuck said:


> You do understand that this is NOT an NFAA event and the the event uses preposted modified rules ... right?
> 
> No.
> Clearly you dont. Because You dont go.
> 
> Stop stirring the pot, put the armchair quarterback book down and leave it to the ones who actually play the game.


First, this post was not directed at you gcab, or you pete. It was directed at field14. It has nothing to do with being a pro or shooting the championship division. It has everything to do with a poster who has a habit of highly criticizing things, but at the same time, that person has not participated or attended those events in some years. He hears something, or reads something, and off to the races he goes...no matter how inaccurate what he heard was.

And then, this specific reply was to a rant about the NFAA rule book and NFAA rules...which are inapplicable unless specifically adopted for the Vegas shoot. So a rant about nothing that is applicable at all. Yeah, maybe if field had played the game in the last 10 or so years he would know that what he was saying wa shighly inaccurate, and nothing more than an effort to stir the pot...



gcab said:


> Yes I come back and complained. I think.. not you.. not someone else.. .I think it is a bad system. There were suggestions given.


Yes, we know, you made that clear on the first page, first post, and the rest of your posts on page 1 alone. We get it. Your suggestion was to go back to the way it was...that was the extent of your suggestion...you never offered an alternative...which was the point of the cut and paste...



gcab said:


> And each time the response was too much money on line and is what it is.


That was not the only response you received, but yeah, that's a big reason the scoring process works the way it does.



gcab said:


> And I guess you may have missed the part of having an opinion.


No, I didn't...



gcab said:


> Response was if you weren't shooting in the shootoff then opinion doesn't matter.


As I stated above...that was not the response to you, pete or anyone other than one person...and it has everything to do with not only that person not shooting, but that person not attending, not knowing, and yet continuing to tangentially rant about things...

But hey, in a world where people are looking for ways to be offended, you fit in well.



gcab said:


> Howeever, part of that should be a decent response to people and when you look at the responses, and the typical responses, it is not decent.


I am unaware of an indecent response to any post you made, or the number of posts saying the same thing that you made, until you became offended by a post that was not made to you...



gcab said:


> Field could probably show you a book of it. so to me if someone wants to be high and mighty with it, then they should at least belong in the class to begin with to have that attitude with people.


I agree, field has made a lot of positive contributions to archery, and these should be appreciated...I disagree that you are accusing the right person of being "high and mighty" in this circumstance, especially considering history...and the class is people who show up and shoot or don't shoot...that's the class.



gcab said:


> Its their opinion just like he has or you have your opinion. Its a forum. Where people can discuss things, and say things they don't like. Why does that have to fit in to just what makes people feel warm and cozy.


Apparently, it must fit in to everyone must agree with your opinion, or you're going to keep telling everyone what your opinion is. The ol' he who yells the loudest. I do agree...forum = discussion...I don't think you have done much of that. You have stated your opinion about an issue, repeatedly, offered one unworkable solution, and then got mad when others didn't agree...



gcab said:


> I know what I said.


So does everyone else...figured it out myself the first time you said it...



gcab said:


> you can also go back thorugh and paste the responses of "lot of money on line" and the no one cared about the show girls, and what not. And because I can, just like you can, I can state my opinion in a fashion that I want to and don't have to have it be in the manner to make one person feel good or whatever. respect earned.. yea... that goes both ways.


For the love of comprehension...no one has said that you can't state your opinion...but my gosh, when people know why things are the way they are, you should at least allow them to help educate your opinion. Maybe when asked for suggestions about how to fix it....offering a fix would be a good thing...rather than letting us know what your opinion is again...it hasn't changed.



gcab said:


> And since you seem to know what I have done or have not done with helping with things, tell me what I did this year in vegas to help out


I'm going with complained to anyone and everyone about the shootoff scoring procedure and the show girls...


----------



## gcab

Rolo said:


> Ok...this is the post that seem to have everyone it was not directed at all twisted up...
> 
> 
> 
> First, this post was not directed at you gcab, or you pete. It was directed at field14. It has nothing to do with being a pro or shooting the championship division. It has everything to do with a poster who has a habit of highly criticizing things, but at the same time, that person has not participated or attended those events in some years. He hears something, or reads something, and off to the races he goes...no matter how inaccurate what he heard was.
> 
> And then, this specific reply was to a rant about the NFAA rule book and NFAA rules...which are inapplicable unless specifically adopted for the Vegas shoot. So a rant about nothing that is applicable at all. Yeah, maybe if field had played the game in the last 10 or so years he would know that what he was saying wa shighly inaccurate, and nothing more than an effort to stir the pot...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we know, you made that clear on the first page, first post, and the rest of your posts on page 1 alone. We get it. Your suggestion was to go back to the way it was...that was the extent of your suggestion...you never offered an alternative...which was the point of the cut and paste...
> 
> 
> 
> That was not the only response you received, but yeah, that's a big reason the scoring process works the way it does.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't...
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated above...that was not the response to you, pete or anyone other than one person...and it has everything to do with not only that person not shooting, but that person not attending, not knowing, and yet continuing to tangentially rant about things...
> 
> But hey, in a world where people are looking for ways to be offended, you fit in well.
> 
> 
> 
> I am unaware of an indecent response to any post you made, or the number of posts saying the same thing that you made, until you became offended by a post that was not made to you...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, field has made a lot of positive contributions to archery, and these should be appreciated...I disagree that you are accusing the right person of being "high and mighty" in this circumstance, especially considering history...and the class is people who show up and shoot or don't shoot...that's the class.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, it must fit in to everyone must agree with your opinion, or you're going to keep telling everyone what your opinion is. The ol' he who yells the loudest. I do agree...forum = discussion...I don't think you have done much of that. You have stated your opinion about an issue, repeatedly, offered one unworkable solution, and then got mad when others didn't agree...
> 
> 
> 
> So does everyone else...figured it out myself the first time you said it...
> 
> 
> 
> For the love of comprehension...no one has said that you can't state your opinion...but my gosh, when people know why things are the way they are, you should at least allow them to help educate your opinion. Maybe when asked for suggestions about how to fix it....offering a fix would be a good thing...rather than letting us know what your opinion is again...it hasn't changed.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going with complained to anyone and everyone about the shootoff scoring procedure and the show girls...


When did I say the only responses given were from Chuck? And that sounds about right to finish.. you assume things and formulate opinion and response from that as opposed to actually know any details first. So you would be wrong.


----------



## Rolo

Pete53 said:


> after reading these last few post i kinda agree with gcab much more now, but to be honest will anything get done ? i surely hope so all who posted really just want to see Vegas archery get better, and $75.00 to be called a pro and then have a voice that`s what upset`s many of us. now please don`t get too upset with this question: but if NFAA went back to using arrow size in a size 23 shaft instead of the shaft size 27 would there be as many shootoff`s or problems with scoring ?


First...the following are not hard questions to answer:

I'd really like to know what specific examples you have? What specific AIs have you proposed to your director? How many of them became actual AIs? Of those that became actual AIs, how many of them were swept toward the rug? Which ones? Who is "they"? (This also presumes that the NFAA exists for the Pro Division's benefit, which it does not) 

Really want to know in order to see, evidence goes a long way to proving, whereas accusation, dare I say unfounded conspiracy erodes credibility.

Second: you understand that the Vegas shoot has experienced unprecedented growth the last few years right? One could conclude it is getting better.

Third: It was not about being a pro, and it was not a post directed at you. Quit looking for reasons to be offended.

Fourth: Vegas is not an NFAA shoot. Thge NFAA could go back to 23 arrows tomorrow (I doubt it) and that would not automatically change anything in Vegas. Do you understand that? Do you understand that an arrow, regardless of size that is really close or even touching a line, is really close or touching regardless of its size? 

Finally, back to point 1...please answer the questions, I have demonstrated that I can answer yours...


----------



## Rolo

gcab said:


> When did I say the only responses given were from Chuck? And that sounds about right to finish.. you assume things and formulate opinion and response from that as opposed to actually know any details first. So you would be wrong.


Who else said it? Provide the quote.


----------



## gcab

Rolo said:


> Who else said it? Provide the quote.


So you have gone through the thread, and pasted everything I have said, but can't seem to see where it was said that opinions only matter if a pro(which is just paying $75 and that's the current reality) or in the shootoff? Which both that have said that were neither in the shootoffs themselves, or should be shooting pro class at this time(and again, yes I know don't need to be pro to shoot championship division in vegas, but im not the one that said pro voice matters)


----------



## Rolo

I'm guessing you can't either...


----------



## gcab

How about post 62


----------



## gcab

Just curious Rolo, and not good or bad/right or wrong, but were you in the shootoff in Vegas? If not, then as you can see by that post, your opinion doesn't matter either so no reason to continue to copy things I have said


----------



## gcab

And after post 62, you will also see that's where Field and his brother it appears come on and discuss how that isn't right.. and then its back to the attitude given to them for having opinions. Right or wrong, its their opinion and feedback. just like yours or mine or someone who pays the 75 to call themselves a pro or someone running a shot clock


----------



## Rolo

gcab said:


> How about post 62


This one?



archer_nm said:


> Pete the Pros have a direct link to the Council and if THEY let us know what changes they are looking at then we will look into those issues. My concern with what has been posted is we have a bunch of armchair quarterbacks making comments on something they are not involved with except from the spectator side of the shoot off. If all of you would take a good look on how and who makes the changes you might understand the process. As far as any changes for Vegas the NFAA Foundation Tournament committee (pretty much the NFAA council) makes all changes. The only changes that get tied into Vegas by the Directors are the NFAA styles and then the Tournament committee make changes as we see fit. When you folks become a Pro Member that is invovled with the shoot off the things you say would have some weight.


I think that's the reality of the situation at least as far as the actual shooting and stuff. The point was not that you cannot have an opinion about something as a spectator, the point is that if you want changes to a Division, it makes the most sense that it be a division you shoot. I really don't want the X-bowers making decisions about the FS division...I really don't want non-pros (which I am one of) making specific decisions about the Pro division, unless those decisions are needed for the best interest of whatever org as a whole. So yeah...I'll leave to the folks shooting in the division to be the ones that have the most input, especially at Vegas, those seem to be the ones most vested in it...also seems contrary to tell another division, that I am not a part of, how to do things so I stay entertained...My entertainment not being paramount to their shooting of course...

See: my enjoyment placed behind the folks that are the most affected seems to be the least selfish position to take...


----------



## gcab

But one does not need to be pro to shoot in championship division.. right? So if I am not pro, but shoot in championship division, then that qualifies as shooting in that division, right? Or is it just those that make the shootoff, or those that pay the extra $75 per year just for the sake of paying an extra $75 per year?


----------



## Pete53

Rolo, i P.M`d you a very private post as to what is wrong. but this does need to be addressed first in my state. thank you Pete53


----------



## Rolo

gcab said:


> And after post 62, you will also see that's where Field and his brother it appears come on and discuss how that isn't right.. and then its back to the attitude given to them for having opinions. Right or wrong, its their opinion and feedback. just like yours or mine or someone who pays the 75 to call themselves a pro or someone running a shot clock



Did you also notice that after brother comes on and talks about being ignored, etc. that I generally asked for specific examples? Have you seen any?



gcab said:


> But one does not need to be pro to shoot in championship division.. right? So if I am not pro, but shoot in championship division, then that qualifies as shooting in that division, right? Or is it just those that make the shootoff, or those that pay the extra $75 per year just for the sake of paying an extra $75 per year?


This makes about as much sense as a $3 bill...but I interpret archer_nm's opinion (we're all entitled to them right) to be that if you want to have a say in a division, step up to the plate and enter the division, it would probably go a lot farther than pissing and moaning from the sidelines...which I tend to agree with...


----------



## gcab

Rolo said:


> Did you also notice that after brother comes on and talks about being ignored, etc. that I generally asked for specific examples? Have you seen any?
> 
> 
> 
> This makes about as much sense as a $3 bill...but I interpret archer_nm's opinion (we're all entitled to them right) to be that if you want to have a say in a division, step up to the plate and enter the division, it would probably go a lot farther than pissing and moaning from the sidelines...which I tend to agree with...


How does it not make sense? Does a shooter have to be a pro to shoot in the championship division? As stated... no. So if I am not a pro, I can still shoot in championship division, right? yes. So if I shot in the championship division, then that means I am part of that division, which means I am discussing something that applied to the division I chose to shoot in, right? As stated, yes. So as I asked, is it those that shoot in the division that are allowed to share an opinion, or just those in the division that made the shootoff, or those that pay an extra$75 to call themselves a pro? That's a question. Not sure why that was hard to follow.


----------



## sharkred7

CHPro said:


> Hey Chuck - I've heard some of the same comments regarding the scoring process having to take so long on obvious calls. What about having a "head" judge making all calls initially. Then if the archer or any of the competitors disagrees with the "head" judge's call on a particular arrow they can request the other 2 judges both individually make calls on the disputed arrow(s). The 2 calls could/should be made without divulging to the other judge and only to the head judge, preferrably in a written format. Then the majority based on the 2 calls and the head official's call would be the final call. This way all 3 judges only need to review any disputed, or close, calls and not the more obvious arrow values. Just a thought anyway......... Similar to FITA but still set up in such a manner that any competitor could dispute and the 2 separate judge's calls would both have to be made and kept secret from each other until revealed by the head official.


Agreed! The only problem I had with the scoring that took so long was each judge went up, looked at it and gave his score like it was a secret. Most calls are very clear and I believe the back up judges should only be called in for close ones that the SHOOTER questions.

Then we could go back to the 2 ends of regular scoring. That makes a difference as there were some big nines shot in the first two ends that would have changed the placing of others that shot regular 10's but not X's.

That would be my suggestion for a solution that will speed things up and go back to the regular scoring of years past.

Also, was the scoring the same in ALL divisions for the shoot off? Did ALL divisions go straight to the baby X scoring? It should be consistent for all divisions.

John


----------



## brtesite

CHPro said:


> Hey Chuck - I've heard some of the same comments regarding the scoring process having to take so long on obvious calls. What about having a "head" judge making all calls initially. Then if the archer or any of the competitors disagrees with the "head" judge's call on a particular arrow they can request the other 2 judges both individually make calls on the disputed arrow(s). The 2 calls could/should be made without divulging to the other judge and only to the head judge, preferrably in a written format. Then the majority based on the 2 calls and the head official's call would be the final call. This way all 3 judges only need to review any disputed, or close, calls and not the more obvious arrow values. Just a thought anyway......... Similar to FITA but still set up in such a manner that any competitor could dispute and the 2 separate judge's calls would both have to be made and kept secret from each other until revealed by the head official.


Bingo, remember that every one got to the shoot off by the calls of one judge when needed. I think that the integrity of the calls would not be jeopardized by having the head judge make the call. Then if the archer has a dispute, it can go to the 3 judge system.


----------

