# 2012 NFAA Meeting Agenda



## JPE (Feb 1, 2004)

Here's a link to the current NFAA constitution and by laws:

NFAA Constitution

The page numbers listed in the agenda items reference pages here in the constitution and by laws.


----------



## r49740 (Dec 7, 2006)

Would be nice to be able to allow guests to shoot in all of the state run tournaments, even if they limit a "guest" to 1 tournament year and then from there having to be a member. Some people don't want to pay the membership fee without really knowing what they are getting into, so that could give a start.

Also, something a member of royalty brought up concerning counting x's as 6's on a field/hunter round. The x ring generally gets abused on the shorter distances, and I'm sure there would be more scrutiny on calling those arrows that are close. So with that, will there need to be a stash of replacement faces at each bale, and then the shooters will need to look at the targets before shooting to see if they are too shot up or lines not clean enough, then walk to the bale to change the face, then walk back to shoot? Curious how that would work and how the time for the shoot would be extended based on that. Just a thought that had been shared.


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

JPE said:


> I know this forum usually gets a fair amount of discussion regarding NFAA rules and proposed rule changes so I thought this would be worth posting here:
> 
> 2012 NFAA Meeting Agenda
> 
> ...


I'm getting an 404 error message on the agenda link saying the file has been removed. Does anyone else have the agenda items?


----------



## Kade (Jan 11, 2011)

I haven't read what's been purposed for change link yet. But I wanted to comment in what has been said so far before it slips my mind :wink: 

I'm not sure why people wouldn't be able to shoot as a guest? I know I have shot in State shoots, indoors and field in my own State and in others as a guest. This year in our Spring State field shoot I had a friend come up and shoot both days as a guest from out of state without an issue. I also had two other friends come and shoot from another state on the 2nd day as a guest. I also shot a state field shoot in a another state as a guest both days and had a friend come from another state and shoot as a guest in August. 

As for the X getting chewed up. I really don't think its an issue even in the close targets. I've shot some shoots that had a good number of shooters on the course and even counting it just as an X it isn't an issue. Your using new faces every shoot. Even with a good number of 540 plus shooters on the range it's not an issue. If the target needs to be changed then it's not the group that is getting ready to shoot that face job to change the face. In my experience it's the job of the group that just shot it to change it. That's the way it's been handled every place I have been. Just like its the groups responsibility to move a face that just shot it that finds a soft spot. Besides going to a bale prior to shooting a target is a no no in the rule book :wink: 

Even in a worse case scenario though I can't see even a 15 or bunny needing to be changed more then once or twice for a typical shoot. As for adding time to the shoot, not a chance it would add enough time to even think about or bring up. I know at Nationals a few years ago I personally changed at least one face every day and I usually move a target or two on the avg range, it doesn't even take 30 seconds to do. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

Kade said:


> I haven't read what's been purposed for change link yet. But I wanted to comment in what has been said so far before it slips my mind :wink:
> 
> I'm not sure why people wouldn't be able to shoot as a guest? I know I have shot in State shoots, indoors and field in my own State and in others as a guest. This year in our Spring State field shoot I had a friend come up and shoot both days as a guest from out of state without an issue. I also had two other friends come and shoot from another state on the 2nd day as a guest. I also shot a state field shoot in a another state as a guest both days and had a friend come from another state and shoot as a guest in August.


The "Guest" issue relates to the 2 sanctioned shoots that all State affilliates must have to stay within NFAA compliance. What the rule is intended to do is require that all shooters in the sanctioning shoots be NFAA members. If theyu are not NFAA members and members of that State's NFAA club, they can not shoot in the official shoot. They can still participate and shoot, just not turn in a score or otherwise be included in the official records of the shoot. If the hosting club has a parallel shoot, 'guests' can also shoot in that shoot and not the sanctioning shoot...at least that is the way I understand the rule.

The issue blew up a couple years ago, and was interpreted to mean that the 'guest' simply couldn't shoot his or her bow at the sanctioning shoot. That is incorrect, according to my understanding. The 'guest' just can't shoot IN the sanctiong shoot, and there is no 'guest' class allowed.

I agree with the intention of the rule...it is designed to increase memberships in the State associations and the NFAA...i.e. if you want to play in these shoots, then you have to be a member, which is not a requirement unique to the NFAA. The rule has been misapplied (again as I understand it) and resulted in people who were not members being turned away, which is not the intent...just that they can't shoot IN the sanctioning shoot, but can still shoot, assuming room is available, etc.


----------



## Rattleman (Jul 6, 2004)

r49740 said:


> Would be nice to be able to allow guests to shoot in all of the state run tournaments, even if they limit a "guest" to 1 tournament year and then from there having to be a member. Some people don't want to pay the membership fee without really knowing what they are getting into, so that could give a start.
> 
> Also, something a member of royalty brought up concerning counting x's as 6's on a field/hunter round. The x ring generally gets abused on the shorter distances, and I'm sure there would be more scrutiny on calling those arrows that are close. So with that, will there need to be a stash of replacement faces at each bale, and then the shooters will need to look at the targets before shooting to see if they are too shot up or lines not clean enough, then walk to the bale to change the face, then walk back to shoot? Curious how that would work and how the time for the shoot would be extended based on that. Just a thought that had been shared.


If memory serves me correctly I think that you cannot advance to the target until after you have shot your arrows. If you advance prior to this I think that your score does not count.The rule book that I have is older and makes reference to this fact. My book is 2008/2009 and states Article IV Section H (Outdoor Shooting Rules) 2.2 " No archer may advance to the target until all arrows have been shot by the group.


----------



## r49740 (Dec 7, 2006)

Rattleman said:


> If memory serves me correctly I think that you cannot advance to the target until after you have shot your arrows. If you advance prior to this I think that your score does not count.The rule book that I have is older and makes reference to this fact. My book is 2008/2009 and states Article IV Section H (Outdoor Shooting Rules) 2.2 " No archer may advance to the target until all arrows have been shot by the group.


Could be right... I have no clue about that. Was just a passing thought a buddy had when first looking at the proposed discussion items. Maybe it wouldn't be an issue at all as stated above, but I would think when there is an actual point up for grabs, the lines would need to be more visable. Kind of same idea with when a judge has an archer change their targets at the indoor shoots... so they can call arrows appropriately with the lines. Again, maybe wouldn't matter but should be at least considered as to how to handle that should it arise.


----------



## Spotshooter2 (Oct 23, 2003)

Try this link 
http://www.fieldarchery.com/depot/documents/1195-20111212-2012 Agenda Items Summary.pdf


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

This could be interesting. First off the conflict concerning the voting rights of the Pro Representative. There are two conflicting agenda items:
GL-1:"election of Sectional Councilman by Board of Directors of that sections which INCLUDES Pro Representative." 
Conflicts with:
SE-2: Pro Rep "shall be a voting member at the Sectional Board meetings"....on all business except the election of the Councilman."
_What the heck gives with excluding the Pro Rep from voting on the Councilman? Somebody afraid of something?_

This one should be fun. The agenda item is IN-1: _"Outdoor 20 cm targets ...shooter has the option to shoot in ANY order as long as there is one arrow at each target in the vertical row."_
I tried to get this change through two years in a row, sometime around 2003-04ish, and it never even made it to the floor. Some thought that you could mis-set your site and still hit the "wrong" target and garner a score, so they kept the antiquated rule about shooting them IN ORDER top to bottom or bottom to top. GRRRRRR. I hope this new change does pass; it is LONG OVERDUE!

Now, for the "TWO let-down rule" for the Pros? What nonsense is this? If this applies for INDOORS and Outdoors, then it is completely silly. There is a 2 1/2 minuter rule for Vegas style targets indoors, and a 4-minute rule for the NFAA Blue Face. It should NOT matter as to the number of let-downs as long as the person completes the 3 shots in under 2 1/2 minutes or under 4 minutes!!! They HAVE THE TIME, so why should it matter? THEY will be the one that tires out!
OUTDOORS? The big problem with this silly rule is that in foul weather, such as rain, hail, sleet, snow, or WINDY conditions, forcing a person to shoot can cause a safety issue if they cannot let down more than twice. Gusty winds, fog moving in (saw this more than once at Watkins Glen, time and time again on some of the longer targets), rain getting into the peep site and obscuring vision recall Golden Colorado, Aurora, IL, the Glen, and all kinds of RAINY situations where this did happen to MANY shooters, and more than once on a single target, too); all of this comes to play OUTDOORS. Forcing in a "let down rule" is silly, IMHO....Go for a MAX TIME LIMIT for field and hunter rounds of 5 or 6 hours and ENFORCE IT. 5 hours used to work just fine, but a MAX of 6 hours from the time of the horn until the score-cards MUST be turned in would work...and be much easier to enforce, too! There is no reason to take longer than between 5 and 6 hours for a full field or hunter round.
Just cuz somebody got beat by a person that lets down a lot...brought on this ludicrous and silly rule that there is no NEED for; just somebody that has an axe to grind.

Should be some DRESS CODE...not only for the PROS, but for the competitors as well.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Rolo said:


> The "Guest" issue relates to the 2 sanctioned shoots that all State affilliates must have to stay within NFAA compliance. What the rule is intended to do is require that all shooters in the sanctioning shoots be NFAA members. If theyu are not NFAA members and members of that State's NFAA club, they can not shoot in the official shoot. They can still participate and shoot, just not turn in a score or otherwise be included in the official records of the shoot. If the hosting club has a parallel shoot, 'guests' can also shoot in that shoot and not the sanctioning shoot...at least that is the way I understand the rule.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can recall many years back when a particular NFAA State Director decided NOT to enforce the NFAA Sanctioned shoots rule for a particular club in that state!!!! They kept their charter, but...... In this case, several years passed before another SANCTIONED NFAA event was held on that course; they lost their 5-star rating and NFAA shoots because of a few members that had it in for the NFAA and wanted to be completely 3-D. Fortunately, that club's "new breed" only lasted like 4-5 years and the club came back into the mold of the NFAA and re-built, re-established the course back to its 5-star rating.


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

i can see the disconnect between what is proposed and what has been discussed in the thread http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1161041 .

the nfaa wants to be their usual 'need to make a rule for my buddy' group. this from of management and mentality i cannot and will not accept. as these proposals are discussed and more debate is produced, it can only make one wonder.


i do not agree with the 'us and them' proposals between the PRO division rules and the rest of the archer's rules. the rules should be the same across the board, evenly and fairly enforced for ALL ARCHERS. by having separate rules, you are in essence, making it a tournament within a tournament. having to learn '2 different' sets of rules will create confusion and bad decisions in a pressure situation like a shoot-off.


the count the X as a 6......silly. we all look forward to the shoot-offs in the target games and shoot-downs in the foam games. we like to see them shoot in a big stage setting and shoot well. this will have the same effect today as it did when the scoring changed in 78.

changing the targets......who's going to do it? the group that just shot the target had to 'deal with it'. why would they give their competitors an advantage by hanging a fresh target if the game has become THAT points-critical? who's going to change the target if you cannot advance prior to shooting? 

this gets tricky now when the NFAA and the IFAA nationals are held at the same time, on the same courses and have to change the animal targets like we did at the Glen in 2004. does the NFAA only scorekeeper get penalized because he/she advanced? the IFAA archer cannot score their own arrows by themselves.


again, we see the 'for my buddy' proposals and a disregard for common sense. why not make the rules so confusing that it traps everyone regardless of intention.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

I think the PROS think they need "separation" between their scores and those of the Amateurs. Why? Heck I dunno. This same technique was used in the mid-1970's to get the Outdoor round targets and scoring changed...now, 35 years later...we have practically the SAME THING going on again...to make the round TOUGHER and more difficult for the PROS, and leave the bread and butter amateurs behind in a cloud of dust.
I agree that a double scoring system, one for PROS and one for amateurs is NOT the right path. Imagine when the PROS are shooting mixed in with the amateurs as to the confusion with the double scoring of 6's (for the X) and adding up scores...some going to the 560 scoring system and the other really going with a potential of 672 total possible? say WHAT?

Just because ONE or maybe TWO people can shoot 560 on field/hunter rounds...we need to CHANGE THINGS? Not hardly! That % of perfect scores is so low when compared to total number of scores shot by all competitors that it doesn't even quantify into ANY reason to change things up. Pros are bored? Well, do they really think they'll 'catch up' to the likes of those FEW that are shooting 560's? Not much of a chance there either. SO WHAT if a couple of amateur scores show that they ended up with a higher total than SOME of the Pros?
Sure the Pros 'normally' shoot better scores, but WHY does the entire organization have to go to a double standard for a SMALL and "elite" group? Some of my best archery friends are "Pros", and while I respect them and their expertise, I do NOT think they should try to single themselves out with the "elitist" type of thing and go with "separatism"...they put on their trousers the same as everyone else, or so I would think?

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## carlosii (Feb 25, 2007)

the link doesn't work now. wonder if someone shut it down on purpose.


----------



## carlosii (Feb 25, 2007)

if you're an officer in another national organization you can't be an nfaa officer? why not?
pros have to dress up but the joes can wear whatever they want? good for the goose, good for the gander, so to speak.
pros get to count up to 6 while the joes can only count to 5. is this because the joes are slow learners and haven't mastered their 6's yet?

i hold membership in the nfaa and have for a few years. not much nfaa activity in our area so i don't get to participate much. so my opinion probably ain't worth a warm cup of spit. but it seems to me on the outside looking in the nfaa has way too many classes, a confusing operating system, and some confusing and sometimes needless rules. could that be the reason for the decline in field? to me, field, and i include the hunter and animal rounds in that, is a great sport. love it. better than 3d, better than indoor, and even better than fita. so why does it seems to be stuck in a rut?

oh well, i'm too old to do anything about it, but i sure miss the late 50's and early 60's when field archery was in vogue.


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

PROs are PRO for a reason. they ARE *THAT* good. i do not think that by having the rules change across the board because a chosen few can do the near impossible is the right option.

does MLB change the rules for the extra innings games?, no. does the PGA change the cup size in sudden death play-offs or for tournament play?, no........atleast not that i'm aware of.

scoring rules are fine the way they are, why does anyone keep wanting to fix what aint broke? i would look deeper into their motivations than into changing the rule. we have the 'pro scoring' rules in the good book, but has anyone ever used them? not that i'm aware of. if we arent going to use them, why list them or have targets with the pro rings on them? in the case of a PRO, most are not concerned with the real estate outside of the 5ring.




i wholeheartedly agree that the PRO division needs to unify and develop, as a group, the pursuit of better representation, better payouts and more diverse sponsorships. there is only so much money available within the archery community. to grow their purse values, sponsorships from outside of the archery world must be pursued.

the most recognizable example is NASCAR. what does Kleenex have to do with racing? VERY little, but they do sponsor a car from time to time. Redbull....look at their sponsorship diversity. Outside money is the most beneficial and best way to grow the PRO division.



i do not include myself in any of the PRO conversations because i am not one. i do listen because i still aspire to be one. i do want archery and the availability of sponsorships to grow but doing it the proposed NFAA way is not beneficial in the long term.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

field14 said:


> I can recall many years back when a particular NFAA State Director decided NOT to enforce the NFAA Sanctioned shoots rule for a particular club in that state!!!! They kept their charter, but...... In this case, several years passed before another SANCTIONED NFAA event was held on that course; they lost their 5-star rating and NFAA shoots because of a few members that had it in for the NFAA and wanted to be completely 3-D. Fortunately, that club's "new breed" only lasted like 4-5 years and the club came back into the mold of the NFAA and re-built, re-established the course back to its 5-star rating.


Tom...not sure exactly what you are talking about, but I think I get the general gist of it...or not...

As far as the "guest" rule...do you understand it the way I do...anyone can shoot at a sanctioned shoot (assuming there is room) but not all can shoot IN the sanctioned shoot?


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

rock monkey said:


> --- we have the 'pro scoring' rules in the good book, *but has anyone ever used them? not that i'm aware of. * if we arent going to use them, why list them or have targets with the pro rings on them? in the case of a PRO, most are not concerned with the real estate outside of the 5ring.----


RM--Pro Division shot the identity round/pro round instead of a meaningless animal round for many years. Unless someone mis-set their site, the extra lines made little difference to pro freestylers. However, several other pro shooting styles were affected.

Very much agree that the am & pro scoring rules (and all other shooting rules) should be the same. In the posted Cliff Notes version of the meeting agenda, it is Florida that is asking for the x ring to score 6 points--that rule change would be for everybody if passed. Until complete agenda items are made available, I see a lot of swinging in the dark.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

Touching on what has been mentioned so far...

I really don't care what order the 20cm faces are shot, and not sure why it matters...so changing the rule seems a good thing...

I also agree about the proposed "2 let-down" rule is silly...and opens up a can of worms for interpretation. There are time limit's indoors and they work. Way too many variables outside to make this a rule...with safety being a primary consideration.

Changing Xs to add an extra point...I guess I really don't care...as long as it applies across the board to all divisions. Logistics make it near impossible to change the scoring systems and/or ranges for the Pros to Am divisions. If anything, Pro ranges ought to be harder...but the logistics don't allow for it.

Dress codes...I'm all in favor of it, and don't care if the Pro code is more strict than the Am code...they are pros for a reason...but I don't see anything wrong with collared shirts and jeans/shorts (at a minimum) that are free from holes, grease stains, and what not...there are very few men alive today that should be wearing sleeveless shirts in public...


----------



## Spoon13 (Feb 20, 2007)

I've been rolling these ideas over in my head and I've flipped back and forth on a few issues but This where I've landed on some of these Agenda Items.

1) Dress Code--Really?? We have to have a rule in the Constitution and By-Laws that requires people to not look like slobs?? It shouldn't be the NFAA making Pros or anybody else treat the game with respect. We should all do it without being told to do so. If you are a Pro and your sponsors allow you to look like a ragga-muffin, well then I guess that company deserves whatever opinion I would have of them and the way they allow their company to be represented.

2)NO MORE DIVISIONS!!!!!!! The 3 existing Recurve/Longbow Divisions supported 20 shooters at Nationals last year. We have too many Divisions and Classes as it is, there is no need to add more. PERIOD.

3)I personally think an electronic form of "Archery Magazine" is a mistake. If you want to save the cost, just shut it down. Fewer people will read it online than do in paper copy so I'd suggest dis-continuing it. I'd prefer to have the paper copy so I can read it in my "office" instead of having to lug a laptop in there.

4)The general philosophy of this game is pretty easy. Aim at the correct target face, from the correct stake, and execute a good solid shot. If you fail to do so, you will lose points. Why treat the 20cm face differently than the other faces in the game?? If you shoot the bottom target when you are supposed to shoot the top, you lose points. If you shoot the right face when you are supposed to shoot the left, you lose points. So why change the 20cm face?? You have to shoot them top down or bottom up. Same as shooting the left face from the left on a fan and the right from the right. Or first line shooting bottom and second shooting top. It's no different so don't treat it any different. Leave it like it is.

5)The 2 let down rule is just dumb. There is timer Indoor and a let down rule already in place for Outdoor. No need to change things. I'd much rather watch 2 Pros shoot against each other and show off their best games instead of one Pro winning because another one was forced to break a shot because of the let-down rule. But that might just be me.


That's where I'll start. If I make my mind where I stand on anything else, I'll add it later.


----------



## Spotshooter2 (Oct 23, 2003)

carlosii said:


> the link doesn't work now. wonder if someone shut it down on purpose.


The link I posted earlier is still working.


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

I agree with a lot of what was said as well. I think personally I would agree on a Pro recurve division though, and then maybe eliminate a couple or combine a couple of the current recurve divisions. Seems to have been a lot of talk about sponsorship money the last few months, and recurvers deserve to have a chance for that as well if they are able, so why not allow them to have a Pro division to help aide them in that. But again, maybe combine some of the other classes since there is too many.

I think going to a 6 is a bad move. People complain about archery not being exciting enough for tv, but it would be even worse when there is no shoot offs. The shoot offs of the sport is where all the fun is, and most of the pressure. Pressure situations like that is what would make it fun for tv, kind of like when golf goes to extra holes. Why eliminate shoot offs? For indoor, not sure why it makes sense, a 300 and 60 is the same as a 360. Why change the way scores have been? 

Dress code.. not sure about this. I think colored shirts, or at the very least sleeve shirts should be necessary. But other than that, why? There is a thread in the FITA section where someone says what kind of shoes to wear, how to comb your hair, paint your nails etc. That is a bit crazy just in my opinion. What kind of shoes I wear to shoot in has nothing to do with anything. I think the suggestion was solid colors only. I believe I saw a video of Reo representing the US in a World Cup match wearing shoes that had crazy colors all over them. At no point did I feel he did a bad job representing or looking professional because he wasn't wearing wing tips. And who wants to wear wing tips walking around a field course? Who wants to have to wear khakis or slacks in the middle of summer walking around a field course or shooting outside period? I get eliminating the wearing of tank tops or cut off sleeves, but that other stuff is a bit too far just in my opinion.


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

the shoe thing in FITA is a safety issue.

FITA is primarily a recurve centric organization. most, if not all recurve shooters shoot small diameter arrows. some of the points used for small diameter arrows can be quite sharp, like the ones from Victory for the NanaForce/VAPs.

many recurve shooters rest the bottom limb tip on their foot/toes between shots. in the rare occasion a limb begins to delaminate at the tip and creates a sharp edge, there will be a self inflicted injury.

what about stubbing a toe or catching the lip of a sandal while walking a woodland or rocky course?

FITA made the rule to protect the archers from silly accidents that can delay the progress of the shoot. mostly it's a rule made to reinforce common sense.


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

rock monkey said:


> the shoe thing in FITA is a safety issue.
> 
> FITA is primarily a recurve centric organization. most, if not all recurve shooters shoot small diameter arrows. some of the points used for small diameter arrows can be quite sharp, like the ones from Victory for the NanaForce/VAPs.
> 
> ...



I'm not saying don't wear shoes. Not saying anyone should wear sandals either. I'm just saying there was a comment on a different thread where they outlined what colors and type of shoe is acceptable and what is not. My opionion is that if shooting outdoors then there is nothing wrong with shooting in toe covered shoes that are comfortable to the archer and at no point should there be a rule to state what color of shoe is appropriate. I feel like shoes should be worn, and also don't think crocs qualify, but stating what shoe colors are allowable is crazy. That was my point on the shoe part.


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

long ago, FITA had a color restrictive dress code. the chewies like to beat up on that no longer existing rule. nevermind the fact that the ASA has a collared shirt rule, it's just a dig at the target crowd and they dont mind taking it every chance they get.

me personally, i wont shoot in sandals or 'skeleton' shoes. shoot in an area with bugs, and you'll only wear them once. same reason i wont wear shorts when fishing on the NJ intercoastal waters.....i did it once.


there's a lot of rules in place to keep the lawyers out of the game. liability insurance is costly enough. common sense aint so common anymore.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

rock monkey said:


> there's a lot of rules in place to keep the lawyers out of the game.


Hey...I like the game a lot. :wink: But you are correct...a lot of the rules as implemented because common sense is uncommon.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Something needs to be done in THIS country to reduce or eliminate the more and more common practice of skying the bow! On the FITA/NAA circuits, a person "skying" the bow would be warned once, and if they did it again, they'd be off that shooting line in a heart-beat. There are several top echelon shooters that if they shot FITA/NAA/World Cup competitions, they wouldn't last past the warm up ends or first arrow because they would be judged unsafe and removed from the line.
It is ridiculous to see people pointing their bows upwards of more than 45 degrees or more in order to draw back their bows! That is NOT needed...but they'll do it as long as they can get away with it.

Worried about two-let downs in an end and yet the potential of a flight arrow and a sure safety hazard is ignored ? What the heck gives with this? Just cuz some of them that sky draw are PROS...that makes it OK?


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

field14 said:


> Something needs to be done in THIS country to reduce or eliminate the more and more common practice of skying the bow! On the FITA/NAA circuits, a person "skying" the bow would be warned once, and if they did it again, they'd be off that shooting line in a heart-beat. There are several top echelon shooters that if they shot FITA/NAA/World Cup competitions, they wouldn't last past the warm up ends or first arrow because they would be judged unsafe and removed from the line.
> It is ridiculous to see people pointing their bows upwards of more than 45 degrees or more in order to draw back their bows! That is NOT needed...but they'll do it as long as they can get away with it.
> 
> Worried about two-let downs in an end and yet the potential of a flight arrow and a sure safety hazard is ignored ? What the heck gives with this? Just cuz some of them that sky draw are PROS...that makes it OK?


Definitely agree in principle...in practicality a 'rule' would be open to a ton of subjectivity, especially when trying to apply angles to it. Not talking about the obvious cases here, but a majority of people start their draw cycle with the bow above the target. Setting the shoulder/grip/arm and what-not. May even appear to be above 45 degrees. But, that doesn't mean the drawing of the bow has started at that point. Bow could actually be drawn well below that angle...which leads to a ton of subjectivity in enforcing such a rule and determining what 'sky drawing' is.

But, like I said, I don't disagree with the principle of the rule, and agree something needs to be done about it. The obvious cases are easy to identify...the others becaome problematic, and may not be 'sky drawing' at all, though it may appear to be that way at the beginning...


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Rolo said:


> Definitely agree in principle...in practicality a 'rule' would be open to a ton of subjectivity, especially when trying to apply angles to it. Not talking about the obvious cases here, but a majority of people start their draw cycle with the bow above the target. Setting the shoulder/grip/arm and what-not. May even appear to be above 45 degrees. But, that doesn't mean the drawing of the bow has started at that point. Bow could actually be drawn well below that angle...which leads to a ton of subjectivity in enforcing such a rule and determining what 'sky drawing' is.
> 
> 
> 
> But, like I said, I don't disagree with the principle of the rule, and agree something needs to be done about it. The obvious cases are easy to identify...the others becaome problematic, and may not be 'sky drawing' at all, though it may appear to be that way at the beginning...


What I'm talking about are those that are at or nearly at full draw before they are even down to the bale yet...and you see it more and more and more because tournament officials just won't deal with the safety issue. Sure, many start above the target and do come down AS they are drawing the bow...but several top echelon 3-D shooters are at or near FULL DRAW before they lower the bow...and THAT is a serious safety issue.
The FITA/NAA don't worry about subjectivity...they ENFORCE the skying the bow rule. The "safety net" is well-defined for the judges, and again enforced. The people shooting those competitions know it will be enforced, so they are obviously in compliance; otherwise, they'd be off that shooting line.

Too many at or near full draw BEFORE lowering the bow anywhere near to the line of the target they are trying to hit.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

field14 said:


> What I'm talking about are those that are at or nearly at full draw before they are even down to the bale yet...and you see it more and more and more because tournament officials just won't deal with the safety issue. Sure, many start above the target and do come down AS they are drawing the bow...but several top echelon 3-D shooters are at or near FULL DRAW before they lower the bow...and THAT is a serious safety issue.
> The FITA/NAA don't worry about subjectivity...they ENFORCE the skying the bow rule. The "safety net" is well-defined for the judges, and again enforced. The people shooting those competitions know it will be enforced, so they are obviously in compliance; otherwise, they'd be off that shooting line.
> 
> Too many at or near full draw BEFORE lowering the bow anywhere near to the line of the target they are trying to hit.
> ...


Oh...I agree with that. It is just that sometimes...at least on this board...it seems that 'sky drawing' isn't applied as you have done it...and those that start the process above are labeled as 'sky drawers' even though they aren't.

It is the adoption of a rule that would lead to implementation problems...not for the odvious cases that I think is problematic. Amnd a rule that disallows 'sky drawing' without some definition creates a whole other can-o-worms.


----------



## JPE (Feb 1, 2004)

field14 said:


> Something needs to be done in THIS country to reduce or eliminate the more and more common practice of skying the bow!


Interesting thought Tom, but a little off topic since this isn't an item on the 2012 NFAA agenda. I believe there is another thread pegged to the top of the forum that discusses ideas that folks would like to see on future meeting agendas.

I agree with a lot of the opinions expressed so far. I just want to remind everyone to share those thoughts with your state directors since they will be the people who actually get to vote on these items. You've already written your thoughts here so it should be easy to copy & paste in an email to your state director, if you haven't already done so.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

No can of worms for the FITA/NAA/World Cup/World Games/Face to Face competitions...they have the rule and ENFORCE it; plain and simple.

Here in US, we are allowing this to continue, unabated, and are in some cases, letting the newbies, and that includes KIDS to sky draw, contort their bodies, move the bow in just about any direction but down-range...turn their heads 180 degrees from the intended path of the arrow...and NOBODY is saying crap about it. This is UNSAFE, and needs to be curtailed. Never used to be any sort of a problem until SPEED at all costs came into play. Now people are way overbowed, way too long on draw length, and seem to think that the bow is NOT a LOADED WEAPON, so they can pretty much just do whatever they want with the "muzzle" and their vision with regard to direction they are pointing themselves and the weapon!

Watch some of the hunting gurus on the TV outdoors channels...my heavens...TURNING THEIR HEADS AWAY FROM THE INTENDED TARGET...just so they can get their bows drawn back because they are so overbowed/overdrawn it is ridiculous! Great method to teach the newbies and youngsters, isn't it? Draw the bow with your drawing elbow down on the torso, the bow almost straight up in the air (potential flight arrow that is uncontrolled), gyrate the body in any ole direction you want to just to reach full draw, and then figure out later where your intended target is or should be??? Sheer insanity...and again, the orgs here in the USA are allowing this during competitions because of "subjectivity"??? it is entirely OBVIOUS in most cases when these gyrations are going on...put a frickin' stop to it by ENFORCING common sense even....GRRRRRRR.

This isn't an "agenda item", but perhaps it should have been or should be...probably way more important than a TWO LET DOWN RULE when there is already a TIME LIMIT in place (for indoors). Ha. Worry about a person safely letting down a shot that could end up out of control...but ALLOW potential flight arrows to go unabated and not bother to deal with a severe SAFETY ITEM because some of the PROS sky draw, along with some of the upper echelon Amateurs? Allow the KIDS to emulate this improper technique cuz it looks cool and is "subjective"? HMMMMMM???? Something to think about, huh?

field14 (tom D.)


----------



## r49740 (Dec 7, 2006)

field14 said:


> No can of worms for the FITA/NAA/World Cup/World Games/Face to Face competitions...they have the rule and ENFORCE it; plain and simple.
> 
> Here in US, we are allowing this to continue, unabated, and are in some cases, letting the newbies, and that includes KIDS to sky draw, contort their bodies, move the bow in just about any direction but down-range...turn their heads 180 degrees from the intended path of the arrow...and NOBODY is saying crap about it. This is UNSAFE, and needs to be curtailed. Never used to be any sort of a problem until SPEED at all costs came into play. Now people are way overbowed, way too long on draw length, and seem to think that the bow is NOT a LOADED WEAPON, so they can pretty much just do whatever they want with the "muzzle" and their vision with regard to direction they are pointing themselves and the weapon!
> 
> ...



I would agree with JPE. You seem passionate about this, so copy, paste and email to your state director to be included on the next agenda. It won't get done having it on archery talk. The agenda that was posted seems to be what they are considering, and same with your thoughts for the 2 let down rule.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

field14 said:


> No can of worms for the FITA/NAA/World Cup/World Games/Face to Face competitions...they have the rule and ENFORCE it; plain and simple.


Tom, again, not disagreeing with you on the need for the rule...but wondering about the application of it only. Look at the listening to i-pod issue. Clear rule for x-bows...no specific rule for the rest...but the general catch-all rule for range safety and range officer discretion would seem to clearly apply to this on a SAFETY issue alone...shouldn't really be any discussion of it at all...but there is...people telling ranges officials that they will listen to their i-pods because there isn't a specific rule...or to thes the range official...

Well...now an 'arbitrary' rule about 'sky drawing'...unfortunately, or fortunately, the NFAA is just different than the other orgs you cited...and was modeled after a system that encouraged a stalemate...and people who are members who desire to push the rules...and others who are required to make 'on-the-spot' decisions about things that could ipact the outcome of a shoot. Again, the obvious cases are easy...the others...not so much...but a person coulkd be disqualified because of a subjective view of something...that may not have been what it appeared to be...and if that happens...you know there would be a big ol' can-o-worms that gets opened...

Do you have the 'rule' from the other orgs that you can post?



field14 said:


> Here in US, we are allowing this to continue, unabated, and are in some cases, letting the newbies, and that includes KIDS to sky draw, contort their bodies, move the bow in just about any direction but down-range...turn their heads 180 degrees from the intended path of the arrow...and NOBODY is saying crap about it. This is UNSAFE, and needs to be curtailed. Never used to be any sort of a problem until SPEED at all costs came into play. Now people are way overbowed, way too long on draw length, and seem to think that the bow is NOT a LOADED WEAPON, so they can pretty much just do whatever they want with the "muzzle" and their vision with regard to direction they are pointing themselves and the weapon!
> 
> Watch some of the hunting gurus on the TV outdoors channels...my heavens...TURNING THEIR HEADS AWAY FROM THE INTENDED TARGET...just so they can get their bows drawn back because they are so overbowed/overdrawn it is ridiculous! Great method to teach the newbies and youngsters, isn't it? Draw the bow with your drawing elbow down on the torso, the bow almost straight up in the air (potential flight arrow that is uncontrolled), gyrate the body in any ole direction you want to just to reach full draw, and then figure out later where your intended target is or should be??? Sheer insanity...and again, the orgs here in the USA are allowing this during competitions because of "subjectivity"??? it is entirely OBVIOUS in most cases when these gyrations are going on...put a frickin' stop to it by ENFORCING common sense even....GRRRRRRR.
> 
> ...


Agreed...but you are talking about the obvious cases...not the gray ones...it's like wraps on an arrow...


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

I tried to open the link and it won't come up. I will say that the dress code is one of the dumbest things out there. Were will it help archery if I were a pair of slacks? I have been around this sport for years and have seen it come and go with no advantage to it at all. I think that if they want a dress code that tattoos should be covered. If it's how you look then a tattoo is far from professional. So lets see if they go all the way with the dress code or just part way. Just my thoughts and think its crazy.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

Reo said:


> I tried to open the link and it won't come up. I will say that the dress code is one of the dumbest things out there. Were will it help archery if I were a pair of slacks? I have been around this sport for years and have seen it come and go with no advantage to it at all. I think that if they want a dress code that tattoos should be covered. If it's how you look then a tattoo is far from professional. So lets see if they go all the way with the dress code or just part way. Just my thoughts and think its crazy.


Reo...I don't think a majority of people advancing the concept of a dress code want it to mandate slacks and/or wingtips...I certainly don't. I also think that youi are 'subject' to a degree, a dress code already (whether it is written or not) from your various sponsors. I am sure if you showed up to a national shoot looking like a hobo, they wouldn't be appreciative...but, I think you have enough common sense to not show up looking non-professional...heck, I rarely wear a tie for work, and at least 1/2 the time am in jeans and a polo...not up to the 'professional' dress code of my profession from years gone past...but acceptable today. Same applies for my 'sponsors'...they expect me to look presentable, according to the function, if I am acting as an ambassador to their product. 

IMO...a dress code that requires people to wear collared shirts and clean and undamaged pants (jeans, khakis, slacks, shorts, etc.) ismn't asking an awful lot...wingtips, ties and nutt'n but slacks may be a bit too far, IMO.

The only thing we have to 'gain' is an influence on public perception...right, wrong or indifferent, public perception from non-archers and archers will significantly define who we are. With that said, I have never seen a pro, certainly one representing any of a number of manufacturers, at a 'big' shoot come anywhere near what I think to be distatteful is appearance or dress. I ain't talking white pants here. :wink: But a 'dress code' requiring all participants to appear similar to how you do now, ain't asking for a lot IMO...personally, I think it is more needed in the AM division (goes back to the sleeveless shirt thing)...


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

I just think the funny part about dress codes is X games is one of the fastest individual sponsor sports. They look a little rough but you can tell who is who. I think that we just put to much on people wearing nicer clothing. I have been around this sport forever and never seen a dress code so anything.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

I don't disagree about the X-Games...but a lot of the participants are "counter-curtural" and dress as such. The world already views them as such, so the dress ain't that shocking. Also appeals to the target audience of the sponsors...but I also bet that the one's receiving the biggest sponsor support show up at the sponsor's office looking a little more 'business like" too.

I agree that some DC that calls for "church going clothes" (at least by the standards of say 20 years ago) aren't what is necessary...but for 'big' shoots, some sort of decent dress should be encouraged...it is a sad state of affairs if a rule has to be adopted to require it...but...


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Rolo said:


> Tom, again, not disagreeing with you on the need for the rule...but wondering about the application of it only. Look at the listening to i-pod issue. Clear rule for x-bows...no specific rule for the rest...but the general catch-all rule for range safety and range officer discretion would seem to clearly apply to this on a SAFETY issue alone...shouldn't really be any discussion of it at all...but there is...people telling ranges officials that they will listen to their i-pods because there isn't a specific rule...or to thes the range official...
> 
> Well...now an 'arbitrary' rule about 'sky drawing'...unfortunately, or fortunately, the NFAA is just different than the other orgs you cited...and was modeled after a system that encouraged a stalemate...and people who are members who desire to push the rules...and others who are required to make 'on-the-spot' decisions about things that could ipact the outcome of a shoot. Again, the obvious cases are easy...the others...not so much...but a person coulkd be disqualified because of a subjective view of something...that may not have been what it appeared to be...and if that happens...you know there would be a big ol' can-o-worms that gets opened...
> 
> ...



Yes, I do have the FITA rules to post! FITA rule 7.7.7 is quite specific...and it IS ENFORCED! They don't worry about "subjective" or the notoriety of the person involved.

This is from the FITA Rule Book: Book 2, Chapter 7. Outdoor Rounds. p. 26 bottom half. April, 2011.

Quote: "7.7.5 No athlete may touch the equipment of another without the latter’s consent. Serious
cases may lead to penalties being applied.
7.7.6 No smoking is allowed in or in front of the athletes’ area.
7.7.7 When drawing back the string of his bow an athlete must not use any technique
which, _in the opinion of the judges_, could allow the arrow, if accidentally released,
fly beyond a safety zone or safety arrangements (overshoot area, net, wall etc.). *If an
athlete persists in using such a technique, he will, in the interest of safety, be asked
by the chairperson of the Tournament Judge Commission or the Director of
Shooting to stop shooting immediately and to leave the field.*

Here is the link, but you'll have to scroll down to find the above...but in reading, you are going to find things VERY well defined...and ENFORCED. The No. 1 ranked archer in the world could be pulled off the line if he/she violates rule 7.7.7...it matters not whether they are PRO or newbie. The practice is obviously unacceptable and will be dealt with harshly.

http://www.archery.org/UserFiles/Do...ules/01 C&R Book/Book 2010/2010_Book2_NEW.pdf

In addition, Section 7.8 might be well worth your while to read, too. They aren't playing games here. The 7.7.7 rule is mentioned AGAIN....in section 7.8: "7.8.1.9 An athlete who persists in using a dangerous method of drawing the string in the
opinion of the judges, will be asked by the chairperson of the Tournament Judge
Commission or the Director of Shooting to stop shooting immediately and leave the
field (article 7.7.7)." p. 27 bottom.

And AGAIN...."7.8.4.6 Neither the arrows nor the target face will be touched until all
the arrows on that target butt have been recorded
(article 7.6.2.1).
7.8.4.7 When drawing back the string of the bow an athlete must not use
any technique which, in the opinion of the judges, could allow
the arrow, if accidentally released, fly beyond a safety zone or
safety arrangements (overshoot area, net, wall etc.)
(article 7.7.7).

You think they might be SERIOUS about this?

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

Thanks Tom.

I do still see some issues of gray, at least in what you posted, with the "in the opinion of the judges" vervage, but at least its plural.

And I have no doubt that Fita will enforce the rule, against anyone...but that gets back to how the different organizations were established and are run. It is sad though that there even needs to be a discussion of the need for such a rule, or one dealing with i-pods, or one dealing with...


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

You might see some issues in "Gray"...BUT...those are the QUOTED rules from the FITA Rule book...so gray or not...as the other rule further down reads...the ruling of the JUDGES ARE FINAL!
COMMON SENSE should prevail...and NOT have squat to do with the notoriety of an "offender", period. SAFETY should be paramount, and personally, I feel that the NFAA, IBO, and ASA have really become complacent about SAFETY especially with regard to how they are allowing people to treat a LOADED WEAPON!! 
Worried more about how many times a shooter "lets down" in an end (and putting this AND a time limit into effect???), and to heck with SKY-DRAWING which is becoming rampant out there.

IT has become all about fame, notoriety, MONEY, and the lacadaisical attitudes of "individuality" and "their style of play" and safety is playing second fiddle; that is, until someone finally looses a sky-drawn arrow and it comes down and wounds, maims, or kills something or worse yet, some person! Then the typical accordion effect will happen...AFTER the fact. 
Yes, I am passionate about the sky-drawing issue and find it absolutely ridiculous that just cuz a "PRO" does it it is OK for everyone else...using the excuse of a 'gray area' so we "Can't" do anything about it...the heck we can't! Get 'em off the line...all it takes is ONE TIME to pull a person off a shooting line to make others know it is serious stuff and the problem will be vastly reduced...but somebody has to have the cajunas to do just that....pull the offender off the line.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

Tom...I'm pretty sure we basically agree, but feel like we are arguing...


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Rolo said:


> Tom...I'm pretty sure we basically agree, but feel like we are arguing...


No problem here. Too late this time around to introduce any other agenda items anyways. I do hope that the one concerning the 20 cm target face and the order in which it is shot comes to fruition this time around. That change is long overdue.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## rpdjr45 (Jul 28, 2007)

I agree with the any order of shooting on the birdie/bunny targets. I don't see the harm at all in making the inner most ring a scoring ring of 6. You can still mark the number of X's on the score sheet. I think it would add to the game. If I had to select one or the other, I'd go for the shooting of the birdies in any order.


----------



## Spotshooter2 (Oct 23, 2003)

> , in the opinion of the judges


And you don't see a gray area here. One man's gray area is another man's black and white.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

FITA officials (plural) have the cajunas to stand on their own two feet. There is the option of an appeal. 
Splitting hairs apparently is an AMERICAN thing to do. The FITA rules are clear and FITA obviously WILL enforce them. They aren't going to allow you to launch that arrow that has been sky-drawn and THEN to something about it...FITA is PROACTIVE, not reactive.

What is the common sense behind a TWO let down rule AND a 2 1/2 minute or a 4 minute TIME LIMIT? It shouldn't matter one iota if a person lets down 5 times in an end...as long as he/she gets their arrows shot within the time limit? 
It is ludicrous to ADD another rule to HURRY UP the action...when the time limit takes care of things quite well. Place a TIME LIMIT on FIELD/HUNTER? You bet...5 or 6 hours for 28 targets is PLENTY...and there is accommodation allowed for foul weather.
Once again FITA/NAA has it covered with regard to TIME LIMITS and they enforce that.

Allowing the Pro Rep to vote on everything BUT selection of the Sectional Councilman? Say WHAT? Why that exlcusion?

Of course getting 49 or 50 Directors to agree on things is probably as bad or worse than our Dems and Repubs in Congress agreeing on anything....all talk...party line...and "my favorite things" are more important that resolving the problems.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

field14 said:


> Allowing the Pro Rep to vote on everything BUT selection of the Sectional Councilman? Say WHAT? Why that exlcusion?
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


Tom...I probably should have reviewed the NFAA Constitution before typing this...but oh well...

Isn't the Sectional Councilman voted on only by the Directors in that Section? The Pro Rep doesn't have a specific Section that he/she belongs in/too. 

Why should the Pro Rep get to have a vote on Sectional Councilmen, that are specific to a Section/region, if the Pro Rep doesn't belong to any one Section? Why should the Pro Rep get to influence who is the Councilman for all the Sections? A director from Wyoming doesn't get to help determine who the Councilman from New York is...


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Rolo said:


> Tom...I probably should have reviewed the NFAA Constitution before typing this...but oh well...
> 
> Isn't the Sectional Councilman voted on only by the Directors in that Section? The Pro Rep doesn't have a specific Section that he/she belongs in/too.
> 
> Why should the Pro Rep get to have a vote on Sectional Councilmen, that are specific to a Section/region, if the Pro Rep doesn't belong to any one Section? Why should the Pro Rep get to influence who is the Councilman for all the Sections? A director from Wyoming doesn't get to help determine who the Councilman from New York is...


You could be correct...but for some reason, I thought that each State has a Pro Rep and that each section has one as well. Perhaps the Pro Rep situation is only by state and then the Head Pro Rep, and there isn't one for each section? I could be wrong, could be right.
I agree that per your example about the director from WY having any say at all about the Councilman for the Mid-Atlantic Section, nor should the Mid-Atlantic Director have a say in who the Councilman should be for the Northwest Section.

The overall Pro Rep obviously is in a section...in the case of Chuck Cooley, that would be the Mid-Atlantic, I believe, since isn't Chuck from NY State.
Now you have me wondering about the State Pro Reps...and the perhaps, lack of a Sectional Pro-Rep:? But in retrospect that ADDS 50 more people to the already troubled gaggle, doesn't it? Bad enough that 50 can't agree...let alone 100 and half of those only really interested in PROS, or at least committed by Pros?

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

Each section should have a pro rep, who in turn reports to the pro chair (chuck).


----------



## blueglide1 (Jun 29, 2006)

Reo said:


> I tried to open the link and it won't come up. I will say that the dress code is one of the dumbest things out there. Were will it help archery if I were a pair of slacks? I have been around this sport for years and have seen it come and go with no advantage to it at all. I think that if they want a dress code that tattoos should be covered. If it's how you look then a tattoo is far from professional. So lets see if they go all the way with the dress code or just part way. Just my thoughts and think its crazy.


Reo,do you tell the World Cup administrators that you dont want to wear the clothes you wear during that shoot? What makes it any different than the NFAA?Do you wear blue jeans all around the world at those competitions?I dont think I ever saw anything but every team dressed alike and looking good.And I might add,it looks good on TV too.Will it help archery if you wear slacks?,maybe, it would garner the thought of others if you stepped up and set the example.Just sayin. Don Ward 
PS Ive been around here for along time also,and its just my view on the subject.


----------



## Kade (Jan 11, 2011)

gcab said:


> I think going to a 6 is a bad move. People complain about archery not being exciting enough for tv, but it would be even worse when there is no shoot offs. The shoot offs of the sport is where all the fun is, and most of the pressure. Pressure situations like that is what would make it fun for tv, kind of like when golf goes to extra holes. Why eliminate shoot offs? For indoor, not sure why it makes sense, a 300 and 60 is the same as a 360. Why change the way scores have been? .


How is changing the X to a 6 in field going to take away from this? If anything it will make the chance of a shoot off more likely. When was the last time there was a shoot off? I know on the state level all of the shoots I have been to in the past 8 years I have seen ONE shoot off. 

BUT with the adding a 6 you have a chance to have that for the simple fact that someone can tie because they shoot more Xs then the person ahead of them. Just like in golf you can shoot a round with 17 pars and one birdie and I get 15 pars a bogey and two birdies and we tie and have to go to a playoff. Not very often will two golfers in a playoff have the same number of pars, birdies and bogeys. 

If Jesse and Reo are tied going into the final round and Jesse shoots a 559 with 85Xs and Reo shoots a 558 with 86Xs. Guess what we will have that we wouldnt have without counting the X as a 6????? You guessed it a shoot off. Jesse has won what 6 titles in a row and not once has there been a shoot off. 

Adding a 6 will also add some excitement in the other classes and up and down the list of finishes. I know I have been to numerous shoots that things would have been a lot different finish wise if the X was a 6. Heck I shot one bigger field shoot this year that the Pro/Money class winner would have finished in 2nd with the 6 because the 2nd place shooter punished the X ring. Heck I finished in 7th or 8th that weekend and with counting the X as a 6 I would have jumped up to 4th.

Pressure would be added trust me. If I know that "Joe" is up on me by a few points going in to the last round but I usually shoot more Xs then he does guess who is gonna have pressure on him? Guess what also might happen? Shoot off. 

The X as a 6 takes nothing away from the game. You already count Xs indoors making them worth something outdoors does the same thing. Makes them worth something. If everyone shot clean outdoors then you could just count Xs. 

Changing the X to a 6 indoors would do nothing really but rounds like the LAS round and the round that Presleys shoots proves that it takes nothing away either. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

field14 said:


> You could be correct...but for some reason, I thought that each State has a Pro Rep and that each section has one as well. Perhaps the Pro Rep situation is only by state and then the Head Pro Rep, and there isn't one for each section? I could be wrong, could be right.
> I agree that per your example about the director from WY having any say at all about the Councilman for the Mid-Atlantic Section, nor should the Mid-Atlantic Director have a say in who the Councilman should be for the Northwest Section.
> 
> The overall Pro Rep obviously is in a section...in the case of Chuck Cooley, that would be the Mid-Atlantic, I believe, since isn't Chuck from NY State.
> ...


Yeah...I was thinking of the Pro Chair, Chuck, and not the individual State Pro Reps...if a State has one. I don't think Wyoming does. Going to have to go-a-digging to see how a 'pro rep' is defined by the book. I can see some concern for allowing the State Pro Reps to vote for councilmen...the State Directors are elected by the State members to represent the State's interests...Councilmen keep the Directors and States, to a degree in line, and attempt to collectively represent the interests of the region. I don't think pro reps are voted on (more appointed, or the only ones willing). Allowing each a vote on Councilmen could result in some very interesting issues concerning views of what is good for the states/members and what is good for the pro division...assuming people would look at it that myopically. I really think both the pro division and gen membership could actiually work together for the benefit of the total org, and all its members, including Pros...if they would just let themselves. 

I think Chuck is off to a good start in this endeavor on the Pro 'side'...but am not privy to the details. Hopefully the Directors will be too...hopefully we can get rid of the 'sides' too...

But, why allow a Pro State Rep an individual vote on everyhting else then? Definite inconsistency...


----------



## r49740 (Dec 7, 2006)

Kade said:


> How is changing the X to a 6 in field going to take away from this? If anything it will make the chance of a shoot off more likely. When was the last time there was a shoot off? I know on the state level all of the shoots I have been to in the past 8 years I have seen ONE shoot off.
> 
> BUT with the adding a 6 you have a chance to have that for the simple fact that someone can tie because they shoot more Xs then the person ahead of them. Just like in golf you can shoot a round with 17 pars and one birdie and I get 15 pars a bogey and two birdies and we tie and have to go to a playoff. Not very often will two golfers in a playoff have the same number of pars, birdies and bogeys.
> 
> ...


And at the same time, we have had a shoot off in both of the last two years by not counting x's as 6's. There was also the same thing in our woman's class about 4 or 5 years ago. So 3 times in the last 5 years we have had a shoot off at our state run NFAA field event, twice for 1st place-1 for MFS and one for FFS, and then last year for our team event which was between 2 teams of 2 people each. So you see it one way, I happen to see it another. No harm. Just my opinion or your opinion.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Kade said:


> How is changing the X to a 6 in field going to take away from this? If anything it will make the chance of a shoot off more likely. When was the last time there was a shoot off? I know on the state level all of the shoots I have been to in the past 8 years I have seen ONE shoot off.
> 
> BUT with the adding a 6 you have a chance to have that for the simple fact that someone can tie because they shoot more Xs then the person ahead of them. Just like in golf you can shoot a round with 17 pars and one birdie and I get 15 pars a bogey and two birdies and we tie and have to go to a playoff. Not very often will two golfers in a playoff have the same number of pars, birdies and bogeys.
> 
> ...


Could just about accomplish the SAME THING by utilizing the EXPERT SCORING for the field round....5-4-3-2-1, and then put the light rings into the hunter face and score it 5-4-3-2-1! Make people PAY for a big miss that is in the "outer 4-ring". A possible 642 round doesn't make any more sense than leaving it alone and score 5-4-3-2-1. Same mentality is out there today...change the scoring because a minority FEW shoot 560 and somebody thinks a shoot off will occur if they CHANGE the scoring system...Bull Hockey. 
Just like in the 1975 time...let's make it tougher and LOSE MORE SHOOTERS!

This game is NOT about "perfect scores" the total number of perfect scores is so low based upon total scores shot on field and hunter rounds that it shouldn't even be addressed! This game is NOT about the PROS and trying to stop them from shooting perfect or even close to that. I would well imagine that Jesse's X-count is in the high 90's or even low 100's for the 112 shots; so the cream will rise to the top anyways.
Separation of scores between amateurs and pros? TWO scoring systems? The EXPERT scoring was used for awhile for the PROS only...they didn't like that either, cuz then their scores were lower and in some cases several "amateur scores" were higher cuz of the double standard.

WHY do we need a double scoring system? Everyone, to my knowledge puts on trousers in the same manner. 

The key is to get MORE people involved in the sport of field archery...it is DYING, and frankly, changing the scoring system now is making a quicker path to destruction. It is about the amateurs who pay the bills and trying to keep them in the game, along with bringing newbies into the game. Making the scoring TOUGHER is not going to accomplish it; neither is giving what amounts to a participation award where everyone (or nearly everyone) WINS something just for showing up. People want a sense of accomplishment, and 6-ring scoring is NOT going to give them that.
Bad enough now when a person shoots their first-ever 300 NFAA score indoors...and the first thing out of the mouths of their fellow competitors is, "How many X-s did you shoot?" BULL HOCKEY....That person then feels like crap cuz he only had 40 X's or something!!! Think about this when you hot dogs and your six ring scoring ideas and your already mid 550 scores on a field or hunter round are spoken to by a person shooting "only" 535? They feel rotten enough as it is, why make that worse?
Tired of hearing from newbies, "I'm intimidated by this, I don't stand a chance against you guys; I'll go shoot 3-D where there is some chance."
field14 (tom D)


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Kade said:


> How is changing the X to a 6 in field going to take away from this? If anything it will make the chance of a shoot off more likely. When was the last time there was a shoot off? I know on the state level all of the shoots I have been to in the past 8 years I have seen ONE shoot off.
> 
> BUT with the adding a 6 you have a chance to have that for the simple fact that someone can tie because they shoot more Xs then the person ahead of them. Just like in golf you can shoot a round with 17 pars and one birdie and I get 15 pars a bogey and two birdies and we tie and have to go to a playoff. Not very often will two golfers in a playoff have the same number of pars, birdies and bogeys.
> 
> ...


Could just about accomplish the SAME THING by utilizing the EXPERT SCORING for the field round....5-4-3-2-1, and then put the light rings into the hunter face and score it 5-4-3-2-1! Make people PAY for a big miss that is in the "outer 4-ring". A possible 642 round doesn't make any more sense than leaving it alone and score 5-4-3-2-1. Same mentality is out there today...change the scoring because a minority FEW shoot 560 and somebody thinks a shoot off will occur if they CHANGE the scoring system...Bull Hockey. 
Just like in the 1975 time...let's make it tougher and LOSE MORE SHOOTERS!

This game is NOT about "perfect scores" the total number of perfect scores is so low based upon total scores shot on field and hunter rounds that it shouldn't even be addressed! This game is NOT about the PROS and trying to stop them from shooting perfect or even close to that. I would well imagine that Jesse's X-count is in the high 90's or even low 100's for the 112 shots; so the cream will rise to the top anyways.
Separation of scores between amateurs and pros? TWO scoring systems? The EXPERT scoring was used for awhile for the PROS only...they didn't like that either, cuz then their scores were lower and in some cases several "amateur scores" were higher cuz of the double standard.

WHY do we need a double scoring system? Everyone, to my knowledge puts on trousers in the same manner. 

The key is to get MORE people involved in the sport of field archery...it is DYING, and frankly, changing the scoring system now is making a quicker path to destruction. It is about the amateurs who pay the bills and trying to keep them in the game, along with bringing newbies into the game. Making the scoring TOUGHER is not going to accomplish it; neither is giving what amounts to a participation award where everyone (or nearly everyone) WINS something just for showing up. People want a sense of accomplishment, and 6-ring scoring is NOT going to give them that.
Bad enough now when a person shoots their first-ever 300 NFAA score indoors...and the first thing out of the mouths of their fellow competitors is, "How many X-s did you shoot?" BULL HOCKEY....That person then feels like crap cuz he only had 40 X's or something!!! Think about this when you hot dogs and your six ring scoring ideas and your already mid 550 scores on a field or hunter round are spoken to by a person shooting "only" 535? They feel rotten enough as it is, why make that worse?
Tired of hearing from newbies, "I'm intimidated by this, I don't stand a chance against you guys; I'll go shoot 3-D where there is some chance."
field14 (tom D)


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

Rolo said:


> Tom...I probably should have reviewed the NFAA Constitution before typing this...but oh well...
> 
> Isn't the Sectional Councilman voted on only by the Directors in that Section? The Pro Rep doesn't have a specific Section that he/she belongs in/too.
> 
> Why should the Pro Rep get to have a vote on Sectional Councilmen, that are specific to a Section/region, if the Pro Rep doesn't belong to any one Section? Why should the Pro Rep get to influence who is the Councilman for all the Sections? A director from Wyoming doesn't get to help determine who the Councilman from New York is...


 the sectional pro rep is elected by the pros of that section. He is a voting member of the section. why limit his voting authority. You may 
say that he doesn't have many pros to represent, But there are states that only have 10-20 members & their directors have the same
weight as a state that has 499 members. There were 35 pros in the mid atlantic a couple of years ago. The National pro rep does not pick or vote on any other councilman in any other section. He only can vote for the sectional pro rep in his section. He then represents all of the pros at the national meeting. Some states can & do have their own state pro rep if they want to. It is up to the state. NJ is thinking about 
a state pro rep.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

field14 said:


> Could just about accomplish the SAME THING by utilizing the EXPERT SCORING for the field round....5-4-3-2-1, and then put the light rings into the hunter face and score it 5-4-3-2-1! Make people PAY for a big miss that is in the "outer 4-ring". A possible 642 round doesn't make any more sense than leaving it alone and score 5-4-3-2-1. Same mentality is out there today...change the scoring because a minority FEW shoot 560 and somebody thinks a shoot off will occur if they CHANGE the scoring system...Bull Hockey.
> Just like in the 1975 time...let's make it tougher and LOSE MORE SHOOTERS!
> 
> This game is NOT about "perfect scores" the total number of perfect scores is so low based upon total scores shot on field and hunter rounds that it shouldn't even be addressed! This game is NOT about the PROS and trying to stop them from shooting perfect or even close to that. I would well imagine that Jesse's X-count is in the high 90's or even low 100's for the 112 shots; so the cream will rise to the top anyways.
> ...


 Tom , I don't always agree with you, But putting a 6 ring in will do what happened when we went from the 5-3 face to the 5-4-3 face.
We went from approx 35000 members down to 18000 members in about 3years. archers egos got bruised That is about the time 3-d started to pick up. Most of the people on here don't go back far enough There are only a few old farts like us around to remember. we did get a 5-3 face back one year. We had states boycott the whole thing . it needed time to shake out. I guess every one figured we had to many 
archers at the shoots.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

brtesite said:


> the sectional pro rep is elected by the pros of that section. He is a voting member of the section. why limit his voting authority. You may
> say that he doesn't have many pros to represent, But there are states that only have 10-20 members & their directors have the same
> weight as a state that has 499 members. There were 35 pros in the mid atlantic a couple of years ago. The National pro rep does not pick or vote on any other councilman in any other section. He only can vote for the sectional pro rep in his section. He then represents all of the pros at the national meeting. Some states can & do have their own state pro rep if they want to. It is up to the state. NJ is thinking about
> a state pro rep.


Mike...I might be even more confused now...

Here is a copy of what F14 originally posted:

GL-1:"election of Sectional Councilman by Board of Directors of that sections which INCLUDES Pro Representative." 
Conflicts with:
SE-2: Pro Rep "shall be a voting member at the Sectional Board meetings"....on all business except the election of the Councilman."


So...are you saying that each section already has a Pro rep that is also a sectioonal councilman, or somehow attached to the section? Looking at GL-1 and SE-2 it looks like GL-1 is speaking to the election of the Sectional councilman, and would allow the pro rep to vote for the councilman. I understand the Directors from each state in a section vote for the councilman...so is there 1 pro rep per section, or one pro rep per state. 

Why would a sectional pro rep have a vote on who the councilman is? Isn't this person already a councilman? If he/she is not a pro director (since he/she is elected as the pro coucil rep) why should he/she be able to vote on the sectional councilman? Shouldn't that possibley be a vote of the sectional state pro reps/directors?

Which gets to SE-2...which makes more sense in light of the nonssense I posted above...cuz the pro sectional rep would get to vote on sectional issues, but the election of the sectional councilman would be left to the State Directors.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

Rolo said:


> Mike...I might be even more confused now...
> 
> Here is a copy of what F14 originally posted:
> 
> ...


AS it is right now , the book says that the pro rep is a voting member of the section, period. That means every thing. The councilman 
represents every one in that section. the sectional pro rep is supposed to get the input from his pros to bring to the councilman just as the 
directors do from their states. He then is supposed to moderate the info & have the directors massage every thing & vote where it is 
necessary . If he is a voting member, thats what he then should be. Do you think the directors would like to be told that they can vote on every thing except what pertains to the pros. I think not. This is all coming from some one who feels they have a burr under their saddle. One director refused to believe what the constitution said. It was read to him word for word. 
Not every section has a pro rep I believe. the mid Atlantic had one because I thought we needed one. i don't want to Pi$$ any one off, But i thought that I ran A pretty progressive section & with the help of my directors did a lot of thinking out of the box. we did a lot of firsts that 
other sections followed. We never failed to help any section that wanted it
WE did every thing that we thought would make a better NFAA.
GL1 only explains what is now law. SE 2 is trying to limit his vote.


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

oh this is just humorous......

to shoot (for awards) in a NFAA tournament, you have to be a member.
membership (theoretically) entitles you to a say on your district issues, state issues via district representation and section issues via district-to-state representation.

with me so far?

if a NFAA *MEMBER* feels they are good enough, they can apply to be a PRO.
after achieving the level of PRO, they are no longer entitled to the voice and benefits a *MEMBER* in good standing is.


IF, and that's a BIG if, the section is also a PRO, then he can vote on a PRO issue. if you dont belong to the mickey mouse club, you cant participate......plain english.

maybe those in charge are afraid that a PRO, and their influence over the bill paying joes is a threat to their position; then maybe those who feel threatened need to look elsewhere for their power trips.

i'm sorry if my small mind still wants to think that while you a are a PRO, you are still a bill paying *MEMBER*


*LOVE* the game, *DESPISE* the games


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

brtesite said:


> AS it is right now , the book says that the pro rep is a voting member of the section, period. That means every thing. The councilman
> represents every one in that section. the sectional pro rep is supposed to get the input from his pros to bring to the councilman just as the
> directors do from their states. He then is supposed to moderate the info & have the directors massage every thing & vote where it is
> necessary . If he is a voting member, thats what he then should be. Do you think the directors would like to be told that they can vote on every thing except what pertains to the pros. I think not. This is all coming from some one who feels they have a burr under their saddle. One director refused to believe what the constitution said. It was read to him word for word.
> ...


Thanks Mike...I think my beady little mind has it figured out.

Simplifying it...the pro rep is a "director" of sorts for all the pros in that section. It is not one pro rep per state within the section that votes for the councilman/council issues. Is that correct? If it is, or close to it, I agree with your assessment.


----------



## CHPro (May 21, 2002)

Now you've got it Rolo. The Pros in each Sectional can vote in a Pro Rep for their Sectional who then sits on the Sectional Board and has the same voting rights at the Sectional meetings as the State Directors for that Sectional. The NFAA Constitution already states the Sectional Pro Rep is a voting member of the Sectional Board. In another portion of the Constitution it states the Board will elect a Councilman for their Sectional. Someone apparently feels "Board" only applies to the Board of Directors for the Sectional and is exclusive of the Sectional Pro Rep.

Just an fyi on the proposed let-down rule, this only pertains to outdoor non-timed events. That is the only place the current 3 let-down rule is referenced and the proposal is to change the 3 let-down to 2 let-down. No need to get in a tizzy regarding the number of let-downs in a timed event, no reference in the rules for these events so the number is unlimited . And personally I do not feel a strong need to revise the Pros down to 2 let-downs only. Proposal is being raised to speed up the pace on the Pro range. However, if you ever attend an Outdoor National event and observe the registration desk where scorecards are collected you will unlikely see the Pro ranges turning in their scorecards last. With only 2 let-downs available and poor weather conditions I'd be willing to bet you will see a lot more waiting for little breaks in the weather before drawing back rather than chancing it and having to let down a couple times .

I do like the idea of being able to shoot the birdie/bunny targets in whatever order you like. I've found with my set-up that you can score a 4 and a 5 with a 53yd sight setting and a 36yd setting respectively (or vice versa, don't recall).....on the second spot up from the bottom on a first shot 11yd hunter birdie/bunny target . Unfortunately for now that only gets you a big, fat 0, lol!

>>------->


----------



## south-paaw (Jul 3, 2006)

CHPro said:


> Now you've got it Rolo. The Pros in each Sectional can vote in a Pro Rep for their Sectional who then sits on the Sectional Board and has the same voting rights at the Sectional meetings as the State Directors for that Sectional. The NFAA Constitution already states the Sectional Pro Rep is a voting member of the Sectional Board. In another portion of the Constitution it states the Board will elect a Councilman for their Sectional. Someone apparently feels "Board" only applies to the Board of Directors for the Sectional and is exclusive of the Sectional Pro Rep.
> 
> Just an fyi on the proposed let-down rule, this only pertains to outdoor non-timed events. That is the only place the current 3 let-down rule is referenced and the proposal is to change the 3 let-down to 2 let-down. No need to get in a tizzy regarding the number of let-downs in a timed event, no reference in the rules for these events so the number is unlimited . And personally I do not feel a strong need to revise the Pros down to 2 let-downs only. Proposal is being raised to speed up the pace on the Pro range. However, if you ever attend an Outdoor National event and observe the registration desk where scorecards are collected you will unlikely see the Pro ranges turning in their scorecards last. With only 2 let-downs available and poor weather conditions I'd be willing to bet you will see a lot more waiting for little breaks in the weather before drawing back rather than chancing it and having to let down a couple times .
> 
> ...


eehhh... good way to confirm centershot is spot on !.... heheheee

==============

Thanks for filling in the void; with full explanation and intent of items... :thumbs_up:thumbs_up


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

Rolo said:


> Thanks Mike...I think my beady little mind has it figured out.
> 
> Simplifying it...the pro rep is a "director" of sorts for all the pros in that section. It is not one pro rep per state within the section that votes for the councilman/council issues. Is that correct? If it is, or close to it, I agree with your assessment.


Bingo


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

CHPro said:


> Now you've got it Rolo. The Pros in each Sectional can vote in a Pro Rep for their Sectional who then sits on the Sectional Board and has the same voting rights at the Sectional meetings as the State Directors for that Sectional. The NFAA Constitution already states the Sectional Pro Rep is a voting member of the Sectional Board. In another portion of the Constitution it states the Board will elect a Councilman for their Sectional. Someone apparently feels "Board" only applies to the Board of Directors for the Sectional and is exclusive of the Sectional Pro Rep.
> 
> Just an fyi on the proposed let-down rule, this only pertains to outdoor non-timed events. That is the only place the current 3 let-down rule is referenced and the proposal is to change the 3 let-down to 2 let-down. No need to get in a tizzy regarding the number of let-downs in a timed event, no reference in the rules for these events so the number is unlimited . And personally I do not feel a strong need to revise the Pros down to 2 let-downs only. Proposal is being raised to speed up the pace on the Pro range. However, if you ever attend an Outdoor National event and observe the registration desk where scorecards are collected you will unlikely see the Pro ranges turning in their scorecards last. With only 2 let-downs available and poor weather conditions I'd be willing to bet you will see a lot more waiting for little breaks in the weather before drawing back rather than chancing it and having to let down a couple times .
> 
> ...


 Pros are usually in before most of the shooters. 
the birdie should be be left as is.
as you say, if you forget to set your sight , you can catch a score. Besides skill, you also need to use your head when you shoot.


----------



## carlosii (Feb 25, 2007)

anyone else think this thread highlights the confusing structure and administration of NFAA? maybe its just me cause i don't find the politics of the organization all that interesting.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

I find it interesting that 'opinions' expressed by some of the Directors are likely contrary to what their constituents want, and as a result, the vote may well often be the DIRECTOR'S opinion rather than what the constituents tell them to do.

It is obvious with the "opinion" cast in stone earlier in this thread concerning the 20cm target face agenda item. As I said earlier, I submitted this same agenda item two years in a row (worded differently, but the same principle applies), and both times the same justification to turn it down was used.."you might forget to re-set or set your site and still hit one of the targets". Thus, they'll keep the confusion and arguing going based upon "local ways of doing things" with regard to bottom to top or top to bottom and people trying to give others zeroes if they choose to do it top to bottom while the others think you MUST shoot the danged thing bottom to top!
One arrow into each face in the order of YOUR choosing is sufficient.

Same goes with changing from top to bottom left to right or bottom to top right to left....after 14 targets? On a 28 target course, you ain't shooting the same 14 twice, so what does it matter if each shooter, at the beginning of the round picks a target they are going to shoot, be it top left, top right, bottom left, or bottom right and STAY THERE for the entire round? If on the 28 or 32 fan, if you are on the bottom, then simple...shoot two at the left bottom and two at the right bottom...and STAY THERE for the entire round. But no, we continue the antiquation. What with the level of shooter and the accuracy these days, it is entirely obvious when a person shoots an arrow into the x-ring, that that spot was where they were aiming.
Simplify the danged rules, remove the antiquated ones and modernize things.

Worry about SAFETY issues (sky-drawing, both indoors and out) and quit sweating about how many let downs a shooter does on a target or an end....that is what TIME LIMITS are for.

Don't exclude a Sectional Pro Rep from voting on his own sectional Councilman when that person can vote on everything else BUT that?

Get the electronic listening devices the same across the board for BOTH the cross-bows and the "regular bows". Shouldn't be taboo for one side and allowed on the other.

Then comes the NFAA being the ONLY organization in the world that insists on keeping the Senior's age limit at 55 and Master Senior at 65, when the rest of the planet has those at 50 and 60. This adds more to the confusion and "hate" of the NFAA and its stand-alone attitude. Once again, every time this is brought up the old guard (pun intended) circles the wagons and won't budge an inch on this issue to make it across the board for ALL the Archery Organizations to use 50 and 60 for those age breakdowns. KISS must not apply or something?

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Spoon13 (Feb 20, 2007)

I have to disagree with you a bit there Tom. We are required to shoot at a specific face at every target we address. Why make one target per half different?? Part of the intrigue of this game is paying attention to what you are doing and making sure you shoot the correct face whether it be left/right or top/bottom or, in the case of the bunny/birdie, shooting the row in correct order. It shouldn't be treated any different than another target.

Unless you are blessed with only 28 target ranges that idea doesn't work. Here in NC we have 4 ranges. 2 14 target courses, a 28 target course and a 28 target course with a separate 14 target Animal range. Some targets present an inherent advantage or disadvantage from one side to the other depending on target presentation or footing. Some depend on whether the shooter is right handed or left handed. The only way to make it fair and equitable is to make the shooters change sides at the half. It allows each shooter to make the shots from both sides so that one side doesn't gain any advantage. I can see your point on a 28 target course since the shooters never shoot the same target twice, but on a 14 target course, it can make a difference.

I can argue both side of the X=6 change. A 558 should beat a 557. However the opportunity to "make up" points based on Xs may very well make the game more intriguing. But only if it is a universal change and not just for the Pro Class.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Well, on the bunny face, you are actually, with the new rule or without...aiming at a different face for ALL FOUR ARROWS on that target, when for the other 13 targets, you are really only aiming at ONE face for all four shots...so the target is ALREADY DIFFERENT from the rest anyways! Same goes on the Hunter round, the only difference being that all four shots are from 11 yards, and on the 28 and 32 fan you shoot 2 on the left and two on the right target...bottom or top, depending upon where you are for that 14 targets.

I agree with you about having to shoot the SAME 14 target unit twice, but that rarely happens at sectional shoots and NEVER happens at National events....so...why not pick one and stay there for the entire round.

It is so easy, on a local shoot to just tag somebody new with the BAD START that will carry over to the next 14, simply by you knowing the course and TAKING first pick of the target, left top, right bottom, or whatever to insure YOU have the advantage throughout...seen it done many a time in the past.

Lighting changes throughout the day on a field course...and the above "advantage" can be taken easily by a person on his/her home course or that knows the course and lighting conditions, etc.....

I just think that the rule about changing sides and targets after 14 targets is simply antiquated; just as I think that the days of the FANS are numbered; due mostly to arrow damage from the angles involved, along with the space and safety zone requirements increasing the amount of real estate taken up by a fan target.
I also find it sad indeed that places set up the course to shoot 4-abreast...and we have people out there that absolutely REFUSE to shoot 4-abreast, and DEMANDING to shoot only two abreast.and some are stead-fast at shooting ONE AT A TIME...>GRRRRRR. On the fans, I"ve seen groups do the same danged thing....they will shoot one at a time and step across following the first shooter...rather than each person getting their tails on a stake, shoot their arrow, move to the next stake and rotate thru the positions! Quadruples the amount of time for shooting that ONE target; and it is ludicrous! I've been on courses where people will REFUSE to shoot on the right or left (where they are supposed to) stake because one of the two isn't 'good footing'...so they shoot cross bale on that target, and you are down to shooting ONE AT A TIME from the stake...two of which are, by rule from the WRONG STAKE and should be scored as zeroes! Yeah, right.

I also well remember when I started this game in the late 60's, it was taught that on the hunter round, on targets such as the 23-20...we would shoot two from 23, and then CROSS OVER to shoot the 2 from 20 yards. If you were on the left for the 23, you moved to the right stake for the 2 arrows at 20 yards...in retrospect, this made sense, since then, all the arrows were in the target at pretty much the same angle! Of course that seems to have fallen by the way-side, excepting the 28 and 32 fans where you shoot 2 from the 2 left stakes into the left target and 2 from the right stakes into the target on the right.

field14 (tom d.)


----------



## rpdjr45 (Jul 28, 2007)

This has been a great read. One learns a great deal about how the rules evolved over the years. My wish would be to keep it as simple as possible, and use common sense. If we really want to change up the game, why not reverse the scoring and play with the low score winning? So an X would be a 1, and increasing after that. A perfect score would be 112, if I added correctly. Then the Xs really would not be a major problem. Scoring would be 1,3,5. That ought to give real incentive to hit the center. Just an idea to bandy about. Still, when reading these great, and I really mean great discussion points, I think about that beer commercial, "Great Taste!" "Less Filling!" Same beer though. Honestly, now, it was the easy opening cans that stole the show. (That was Bubba Smith, for those old enough to remember.)


----------



## Spoon13 (Feb 20, 2007)

field14 said:


> Well, on the bunny face, you are actually, with the new rule or without...aiming at a different face for ALL FOUR ARROWS on that target, when for the other 13 targets, you are really only aiming at ONE face for all four shots...so the target is ALREADY DIFFERENT from the rest anyways! Same goes on the Hunter round, the only difference being that all four shots are from 11 yards, and on the 28 and 32 fan you shoot 2 on the left and two on the right target...bottom or top, depending upon where you are for that 14 targets.
> 
> I agree with you about having to shoot the SAME 14 target unit twice, but that rarely happens at sectional shoots and NEVER happens at National events....so...why not pick one and stay there for the entire round.
> 
> ...


Not really. You don't walk up to the 20 and just start banging arrows into whatever face you feel like. You have a specific face that you are supposed to shoot. The fact that you shoot the same face for all 4 arrows doesn't matter. You still have a specific face you are supposed to shoot. Why change that for one target?? I just don't see the point in it. Sure you can get lucky and hit the wrong dot for score if they change the rule, but that would create an inconsistency. What happens if the same thing happens on the 32 Fan?? A big fat "0" goes on the card. Keep it the same throughout the entirety of the round. Don't change it for one target.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

You only get that particular top or bottom target for 14 targets right now, and then you gotta change. Why? I don't know, Who's On First, What's On second, and frankly, I don't give a darn." What did you say, I said, "I don't give a darn." Oh, that's our shortstop." GRRRRRR.

You already have the option of top to bottom (in order) or bottom to top (in order), so that is a CHANGE...and I've seen so many arguments during rounds among a group because of local differences in "how it is done"...some places only do top to bottom, and others do bottom to top, while others KNOW THE RULE and you shoot either way, but in order.
I think the clarity of the rule by allowing ANY ORDER YOU WANT as long as ONE arrow is in each of the 4 targets in the VERTICAL row stops the confusion and "local rules". In fact, even a HORIZONTAL row, one arrow in each target in any order would be an option...at the discretion of the GROUP, would work.
Especially since I, personally, have even shot more than one tournament over they years and in different locales, where the local rule was HORIZONTAL ROW, in spite of the "book" saying it to the contrary! This happened more than once, too...some places it was HORIZONTAL left to right (but at least in order), and another place did the HORIZONTAL thingy..but right to left...and you either did it THEIR way, or no way (took zeroes regardless of arguing!
field14 (Tom D.)

YOUR CHOICE of a VERTICAL row and any order only makes good sense to stop this local stuff; or at least reduce it.
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Spoon13 (Feb 20, 2007)

So you want to change the rule because local clubs/Associations aren't following the rules to start with?? Now THAT doesn't make any sense.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

No. That is NOT the intent of the Agenda item concerning the 20 cm face shooting order. The "localisms" for all sorts of things have been occurring for as long as I've been shooting field archery; some from mis-interpreting the rule(s); others in open defiance of "stupid" or "vague" rule(s); and still others to try to prove a point at how antiquated some of the rules have become.

Offering shooters a choice of how they would shoot the 20 cm face is likely the point of the agenda item. Chances of a mis-set site giving you a dead-x on the "wrong" face are slim...you might score, but hitting a dead x? Highly unlikely. You are allowed to shoot the vegas face in any order (excepting during certain phases of shoot-offs at certain events), and you are allowed to shoot your 5-spot face in any order you please on the NFAA 300/360 round...so WHY not give the option of shooting your VERTICAL row in any order you so choose, and even allow HORIZONTAL if the "group" you are with decides it that way? Why? cuz, like the silly 2-let down rule AND a time limit...somebody might lose a two-bit trophy to somebody that likes to shoot top, then bottom, then 2nd from bottom and finish on the 2nd from the top on a VERTICAL row cuz they like it that way? So? YOU too, would have a choice, and if it is top to bottom in order, so be it. Matters not as long as ONE arrow ends up in each of the 4 spots. On the bunny, a person would risk a kiss out by putting two or more arrows into the same spot anyways.
field14 (tom d.)


----------



## Kade (Jan 11, 2011)

I love being in groups that refuses to shoot a fan at the same time, every time I have been guess who shot at the same time? Or people that don't want to shoot on a side of a lane because of footing differences. They get three options. ONE man up and shoot your bow from that spot, TWO find a better spot for you to stand or get to digging on that side of the line this ain't 3D you don't have to touch the peg but you can't shoot from over here, unless you want option THREE which is a ZERO. 

I don't mind the changing sides thing. There really isn't that much of a difference to make it matter. Yes you may have better footing on a 25yder then I have but I probably have better footing on another target. They offset each other. It's like playing golf hit it were it is and move on. 

I've shot a ton of ranges and could careless if your footing is better then mine. It's outdoors make it better. I wouldn't have a problem with getting rid of the top/bottom change though. That really serves no purpose. 

I don't have a problem shooting 4 across, I do hate shooting the walk ups one distance at a time though. If we can't shoot four across i prefer to shoot all four of mine and then let the other two shoot. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

The old excuse to shoot on the "other side": "You are in the shade and I'm out in the sun, that isn't fair."...bull hockey...this is field shooting, and sooner or later it is ME that is going to be out in the sun while you are in the shade, duh! Same thing with the footing thing...tough beans; again this is field shooting, and you are supposed to learn how to deal with bad footing; if you can't, then go back indoors where footing isn't a problem, hahahaha.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Kade (Jan 11, 2011)

field14 said:


> Could just about accomplish the SAME THING by utilizing the EXPERT SCORING for the field round....5-4-3-2-1, and then put the light rings into the hunter face and score it 5-4-3-2-1! Make people PAY for a big miss that is in the "outer 4-ring". A possible 642 round doesn't make any more sense than leaving it alone and score 5-4-3-2-1. Same mentality is out there today...change the scoring because a minority FEW shoot 560 and somebody thinks a shoot off will occur if they CHANGE the scoring system...Bull Hockey.
> Just like in the 1975 time...let's make it tougher and LOSE MORE SHOOTERS!
> 
> This game is NOT about "perfect scores" the total number of perfect scores is so low based upon total scores shot on field and hunter rounds that it shouldn't even be addressed! This game is NOT about the PROS and trying to stop them from shooting perfect or even close to that. I would well imagine that Jesse's X-count is in the high 90's or even low 100's for the 112 shots; so the cream will rise to the top anyways.
> ...


I know you can accomplish the same thing going to that scoring. That's not my point. Either scoring will work and wouldn't matter. I was simply explaining how what i quoted didn't really hold any water. 

But really in most cases IMO anyway and at least as far as the groups that would really see a benefit from a scoring change the X as a 6 would be a better route. The lower scoring shooters are going to have the same results either way. Those that play in the three ring and outside the Pro line. BUT the others, most 530 shooters and up but really the 540 and up shooters would really gain zero as far as a scoring change if it was not a change that made the X a 6 for the simple fact that unless they have a major oops none of them are shooting outside of the Pro line anyway. I am not a great shot by any means but I hang in the 540ish range. It's a rare day that I shoot an arrow outside the Pro line and even more rare to shoot more then one out there unless I forget to move my sight or have an oops with my release. But then it's still usually just a four. 

As for the change that "ran the world off" maybe it did back in the day. But are you not going to drive down the road that you got a flat on before just because you got a flat before? Most of the people that "left" probably would have left any way. Just like how they all left 3D when I first started shooting back in the 90s I could go to regular a 3D shoot and there would be 50-100 people no matter the weather or the day. State shoots used to have tons of people. I remember one shoot that had 30 targets with a shotgun start of 6 people on each target with god knows how many groups delayed to get on. Now you get 20 people if your lucky for the same shoot. There was not a rule change and the people are gone. 

I think it's time to let the "well back in 1432 we only had water as when Coke came out the world stopped" argument die. Like was said most of those people are still gone or don't shoot or the rest don't remember it. The 12 and 11 ring killed 3D...wait it didn't. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

field14 said:


> No. That is NOT the intent of the Agenda item concerning the 20 cm face shooting order. The "localisms" for all sorts of things have been occurring for as long as I've been shooting field archery; some from mis-interpreting the rule(s); others in open defiance of "stupid" or "vague" rule(s); and still others to try to prove a point at how antiquated some of the rules have become.
> 
> Offering shooters a choice of how they would shoot the 20 cm face is likely the point of the agenda item. Chances of a mis-set site giving you a dead-x on the "wrong" face are slim...you might score, but hitting a dead x? Highly unlikely. You are allowed to shoot the vegas face in any order (excepting during certain phases of shoot-offs at certain events), and you are allowed to shoot your 5-spot face in any order you please on the NFAA 300/360 round...so WHY not give the option of shooting your VERTICAL row in any order you so choose, and even allow HORIZONTAL if the "group" you are with decides it that way? Why? cuz, like the silly 2-let down rule AND a time limit...somebody might lose a two-bit trophy to somebody that likes to shoot top, then bottom, then 2nd from bottom and finish on the 2nd from the top on a VERTICAL row cuz they like it that way? So? YOU too, would have a choice, and if it is top to bottom in order, so be it. Matters not as long as ONE arrow ends up in each of the 4 spots. On the bunny, a person would risk a kiss out by putting two or more arrows into the same spot anyways.
> field14 (tom d.)


Tom I strongly disagree with you about shooting the birdie horizontally . It was my agenda that got it changed to what it is now. It was done to level the playing field on that target. On an up hill birdie, I would rather have the bottom row rather than the top row. The same holds 
true for shooting a down hill birdie . Then I would want the top row. Now every one has the same level of difficulty


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

Kade said:


> I love being in groups that refuses to shoot a fan at the same time, every time I have been guess who shot at the same time? Or people that don't want to shoot on a side of a lane because of footing differences. They get three options. ONE man up and shoot your bow from that spot, TWO find a better spot for you to stand or get to digging on that side of the line this ain't 3D you don't have to touch the peg but you can't shoot from over here, unless you want option THREE which is a ZERO.
> 
> I don't mind the changing sides thing. There really isn't that much of a difference to make it matter. Yes you may have better footing on a 25yder then I have but I probably have better footing on another target. They offset each other. It's like playing golf hit it were it is and move on.
> 
> ...


If you shoot mechanicsburgh next year for the NFAA nationals, 98% of all the targets can be shot 4 across.


----------



## Unclegus (May 27, 2003)

Kade said:


> I could go to regular a 3D shoot and there would be 50-100 people no matter the weather or the day. State shoots used to have tons of people. I remember one shoot that had 30 targets with a shotgun start of 6 people on each target with god knows how many groups delayed to get on. Now you get 20 people if your lucky for the same shoot. There was not a rule change and the people are gone.
> 
> The early ninties were the days when 3D was on fire and heavily promoted and you saw pics on the covers of magazines of people winning four wheelers and pick up trucks. When the average archer finally realized they weren't going to be the ones to win the trucks and four wheelers or the big cash, they went fishing ...... When they changed to the target we shoot now from the 3/5 and a lot of 550+ shooters became 520 shooters, rather than take their game up a notch or three, they went too......


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

brtesite said:


> Tom I strongly disagree with you about shooting the birdie horizontally . It was my agenda that got it changed to what it is now. It was done to level the playing field on that target. On an up hill birdie, I would rather have the bottom row rather than the top row. The same holds
> true for shooting a down hill birdie . Then I would want the top row. Now every one has the same level of difficulty


I agree with this, Mike....but tossed it out there as food for thought...since I've been to tournaments where the "locals" actually ignored the rule about verticality, and said "they" shoot it their way...and it is HORIZONTAL, left to right, in order. No kidding, and that wasn't the first place I'd seen this being done.
I've also been to places where the locals insist that the vertical row IS shot top to bottom, putting that 20 footer as a downward angle...even on a flat and level target. I've always shot mine bottom to top, and in order...unless the locals were being a pain in the butt about doing it their way.
However, I'm in favor of giving the SHOOTER the choice of order and simply making sure, to get a 20...said shooter has ONE arrow in each of the targets in THEIR vertical column of target faces.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

Unclegus said:


> Kade said:
> 
> 
> > I could go to regular a 3D shoot and there would be 50-100 people no matter the weather or the day. State shoots used to have tons of people. I remember one shoot that had 30 targets with a shotgun start of 6 people on each target with god knows how many groups delayed to get on. Now you get 20 people if your lucky for the same shoot. There was not a rule change and the people are gone.
> ...


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

brtesite said:


> Unclegus said:
> 
> 
> > Kade said:
> ...


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

field14 said:


> This could be interesting. First off the conflict concerning the voting rights of the Pro Representative. There are two conflicting agenda items:
> GL-1:"election of Sectional Councilman by Board of Directors of that sections which INCLUDES Pro Representative."
> Conflicts with:
> SE-2: Pro Rep "shall be a voting member at the Sectional Board meetings"....on all business except the election of the Councilman."
> ...


Hi Tom -

Just started going through this thread so... apologies if this has already been dealt with.

Voting rights - yes there seems to be some confusion to how this rule has been interpreted and applied. There are currently two different camps of opinion... as you can see there are two different items to consider. One to allow a Sectional Pro Voter on this matter, one not to.

The 2 letdown rule was specifically addressed for ONLY outdoor events. Nothing to do with indoor...It was brought up by one particular Pro for the Pro Class only. It was sent out for survey and supported by the majority. (NOT an issue or rule for General archers)... we were just trying to take some of the heat off regarding the perception that "Pro's take too long"...thats all not a giant deal.

Dress Code... I put it in for the Pros, same thing...weve discussed it until we are blue in the face. We should look the part, always

Chuck


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

FV Chuck said:


> Hi Tom -
> 
> Just started going through this thread so... apologies if this has already been dealt with.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the clarification, Chuck. The thing about voting rights for the Pro Reps is very confusing.

RE: the 2 let-down rule. In MY experiences, normally is is NOT the Pros that are taking too long. Most all of them are experienced enough that they pretty much KNOW how to handle the situations out on the course. However, hunting for missing arrows, using electronics for every single site setting for every target, ogling the target with binocs (even after the last arrow is in the target already), and him-hawing around cost way more time than those let downs.
I see the need for the Pros to perhaps take a "lead" on some of this stuff, but in this case, the let-down rule would be applying a special set of standards for "pros only", and IMHO, that isn't exactly what should be done.

We both know that the past several years, we hear tripe about "taking too long" from one side of the fence; and yet, on the other depending upon where the National Tournament is held, you hear, often times the SAME people that griped one year about it taking too long...will reverse course and say that it was so much fun being out there 5, 6 or even 7 hours during those days!!!

I know the agenda will be followed and however it comes out will become the latest rule of the day. I do still obviously feel that either a 5 or 6 hour total time limit for a 28 target field/hunter round would be so much easier to ENFORCE and there would be less quibbling about that. It then wouldn't matter how many let downs were performed by whomever...as long as the time limit is complied with.
I agree that some group needs to take the lead with the dress code issue. I also agree with you that the "Pros" should look the part, but also that in a public setting EVERYONE should look the part and not look like "bumpkins" or whatever.
Be that as it may, I guess the final vote and discussions will rule.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

field14 said:


> brtesite said:
> 
> 
> > Unclegus said:
> ...


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Yes, and I know it makes no "mention" of the 672 becoming the total possible score...but...that is how things will end up being compared, or if Florida's proposals pass, then that becomes the new total possible score. 
FL-*‐3 50 Comp/Equip x-*‐ring scored as 6 Field Round
FL-*‐4 51 Comp/Equip x-*‐ring scored as 6 -*‐Hunter Round x-*‐ring scored as 6
FL-*‐5 54 InComp/Equip X-ring scored as a 6 - Indoor Round. 
http://www.fieldarchery.com/depot/documents/1195-20111212-2012 Agenda Items Summary.pdf
It clearly, at least from this source, doesn't SAY for "Pros" only, although i thought it was mentioned somewhere that the intent was for PROS only. 
The PRO-1 proposal says to add X-count to the FINAL SCORE, which doesn't mention who for, although I guess it is obvious it is PROS ONLY.
Florida wants 6-ring scoring across the board, Pros want X's added to the final tally.

That concerns me because of a double method of scoring, if Pro-1 goes thru, one for "us" and one for the PROS. Double standards just never seem to work, is all. The "for the PROS", but only for the pros, is problematical. Also don't see a "need" for the 6-ring scoring outdoors It would be easier, IMHO, to just use the EXPERT SCORING of 5-4-3-2-1 and put those lines into the hunter target faces to match the field scoring lines. 
Thus, we agree to disagree, since I'm "Opposed" to changing to 6-ring scoring for anyone, pros or otherwise, and obviously, since you apparently submitted the agenda item, you are in favor of it, apparently just for the pros only. We'll have to wait and see how it goes.
T


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

Tom -

I'm not one to write novels here on AT, but you've really struck a nerve with the us vs them thing. It is not an attitude I approve of from the pros, and I dont want it to be allowed to foster in any other manner either.

Sooo

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree, but I'll also ask you to not place words, innuendo, or inflammatory direction into something that clearly is not intended to be that way.

This link you have shared goes to a "summary page"...I'm not sure who created it. It was not a part of the official Directors packet mailed to all of us who will be in Vegas for the meeting. I think it's somewhat helpful, but at the same time I think it leaves quite a bit open to intrepretation. Some of it clearly not in a very positive light.

Let me post here EXACTLY what I submitted. As you read through it you'll see that this was not an us vs them attitude. I was very clear that this needed to allow for even comparison between the Pro Scores and anyone else. The double standard feeling your trying to create is divisive and harmful, and I dont really appreciate it. None of us do.
In fact not one single person I have spoken to came back at me with a Pro's vs Everyone else attitude. I have not been trying to foster that mentality and I haven't seen it from others so I wonder if it's something that you specifically are experiencing somewhere or somehow?. I haven't seen you on the road at any major event for several years now so maybe it's really just an experience you have at local events which I would class as more personal than nationwide feelings.

The TRUE reason I did not submit it for the entire NFAA is I had been told repeatedly that trying to change the game would not be received well by the membership. Since I don't have that desire, there is no reason to submit it for all of the membership. I looked at it like golf and basketball... longer tees (same game), higher nets (same game)...this is merely an extension of that. Same game, same score.. except for counting X's as a way to add excitement...(everyone likes a come from behind last second win right?)
I offered it as a trial to see how it went, and also to see how the general membership would receive it... if it fails it's easy to undo because it's just the Pro's, not everyone...
It's critical to remember that at any one point there are about 275 of us vs the almost 15,000 general members. For the most part we are literally at your mercy. You should look at it as I did, a small test group easy to control and easy to analyze.

So you see Tom, I did think long and hard about the general membership, what their thoughts would be, how I could possibly do something without offending or "changing" the inherent spirit and nature of the game, without making long held records invalid or without a way for comparison for the everyday archer.

*Heres my Submission as I sent it to NFAA:*

There is a perceptual clog at the top of the scoreboard in field shooting in the PRO division. The skill and
effort of the elite in the game essentially determine the final outcome of the event long before it’s over. Often
it’s possible to make educated and likely correct guesses at the winner after only 2 rounds. Generally it’s
professed that only a very select few even have a chance to win, place, or show.

After an online survey of the Pro membership it was largely agreed that for PRO’s, scoring should be
changed to allow the X to be scored as a bonus point. The per target score would be 20+4 vs. 20 and a
perfect round would be 560+112= 672.
Impressively it is supported by Jesse Broadwater, winner of the last 7 National Titles in a row, and the
holder of the most perfect scores record. 4 options were presented, 1)Count X as a bonus point ~ 2)Track
X’s only for tiebreak, ~ 3)Count X as 5 and rest of dot as 4, ~ 4)No change. The vote came in 41%, 29%,
14% and 14% . In the new process the archer will score the round as normal, yet add a column where X’s
are counted and ultimately added to the final score. It allows Pro and Amateur archers to still accurately
compare raw scores in a way that’s equal, understandable and non divisive. A 560 would still be a 560.

The expected benefit will be to add excitement and competitive interest to the NFAA Field game, especially
in the Pro division. Excitement is generated as shooters can actually make up ground on others based
on skill and accuracy. This may eventually carry over to general classes if proven successful, popular, or
well received. This should be viewed as a progression and extension of adding the small dot in the animal
round, used to add interest and a sense of urgency and commitment to every shot.
It would apply to any State, Sectional, or National NFAA Field event for the PRO Classes only.
Again, this proposal is for the Pro’s only, and we would like at minimum a 3 year trial period.

Respectfully; Chuck Cooley, Professional Chairman


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

field14 said:


> Thanks for the clarification, Chuck. The thing about voting rights for the Pro Reps is very confusing.
> 
> RE: the 2 let-down rule. ........I see the need for the Pros to perhaps take a "lead" on some of this stuff, but in this case, the let-down rule would be applying a special set of standards for "pros only", and IMHO, that isn't exactly what should be done.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


You literally have managed to contradict yourself in one sentence here Tom... Im not sure it was your intention though.

FWIW... Yes I want us as pros to take the lead and be good archery citizens, sometimes however when you give too much lead the horse will run when he knows he shouldn't. Look at this as just a little snug on the free will and wide open time frames.... It's our opinion there should be a liiiiitle more sense of urgency to make a good shot. It's not an all day practice session, it's a tournament.

And. ... why shouldnt Pro's be held to a higher standard?? I along (and I think) most of the membership agree that we should be. 

They put a clock on golfers, good weather or bad - it's time to play... seems in line in my opinion

Chuck Cooley
NFAA Pro Chair


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

brtesite said:


> Unclegus said:
> 
> 
> > Kade said:
> ...


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

Kade said:


> As for the change that "ran the world off" maybe it did back in the day. But are you not going to drive down the road that you got a flat on before just because you got a flat before? Most of the people that "left" probably would have left any way. Just like how they all left 3D when I first started shooting back in the 90s I could go to regular a 3D shoot and there would be 50-100 people no matter the weather or the day. State shoots used to have tons of people. I remember one shoot that had 30 targets with a shotgun start of 6 people on each target with god knows how many groups delayed to get on. Now you get 20 people if your lucky for the same shoot. There was not a rule change and the people are gone.
> 
> *I think it's time to let the "well back in 1432 we only had water as when Coke came out the world stopped" argument die. Like was said most of those people are still gone or don't shoot or the rest don't remember it. The 12 and 11 ring killed 3D...wait it didn't. *


:thumbs_up:hello2:


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

FV Chuck said:


> Tom -
> 
> I'm not one to write novels here on AT, but you've really struck a nerve with the us vs them thing. It is not an attitude I approve of from the pros, and I dont want it to be allowed to foster in any other manner either.
> 
> ...


Chuck,
The link I gave was the one on this thread, since the MAIN LINK does not work and you get a 404 message if you try it. Thus the only source was what I posted just at 8:50 this morning. Had the first link worked, then that sure would have been better....since as of right now our only source is the link I used. I sure agree it leaves a lot open to interpretation...and I'm wondering WHY the paid membership doesn't have access to the correct link to se the entire enchilada???

You misinterpret by saying, "the PROS vs "us" thing...I'm concerned about more segregation and separatist type things by havin a set of things for Pros only and then something different for amatuers (trophy shooters). By the way, I think the basket height in high school, college and pro basketball is 10 feet, but the 3-point line differs by quite a bit.

I see what you are trying to accomplish with this, and can now see from the explanation that it is better to TRY something and not cram it into EVERYONE"S quiver as the only way it will be. A 3-year trial period for this doesn't sound all bad.

I wonder how many have seen the REAL agenda items so that they could guide their Directors on how to vote for each? Again, All I've seen is that "summary .pdf" that was on this thread, period.
I can now see your point about the x-count in field/hunter, especially since the 360 round appears to be catching on for competitive tournaments and is seen as a way for somebody that shoot's a "blue" to still be in the hunt. It is especially interesting in the tournaments like the Iowa Pro-Am and others that shoot 360 and then Vegas 330 rounds. The 330 round will make you or break you that second day.

Thanks for clearing a lot of this up...I can relate to this much better now. Sure would like to see the full proposal and reasoning on the 20 cm target face and voting thing?

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## fmoss3 (Apr 20, 2003)

How about changing the scoreing for the pros only to score a "X", it has to be inside out!
Pros diffenetly need a dress code. especially at state and national levels. and world levels also. Last years olympic team was a disgrace.
Frank


----------



## fmoss3 (Apr 20, 2003)

When shooting the "bunny" target.....If you have to shoot two people at a time....first two up shoot the MIDDLE two collumns..last two shoot the OUTSIDE two collumns....When you shoot 4 abreast first archer shoots collumn one.. second archer shoots collumn two..archer three shoots the third collumn and the last archers shoots the last collumn......this falls into when shooting the 35cm target with 4 faces....first two up shoot bottom and last two shoot top....when shooting 4 abreast..outside shoots top and inside shoots bottom.
On the bunny it shouldn't matter order of shooting (bottom to top or viceaversa) You're going to switch after half a round any way.


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

fmoss3 said:


> How about changing the scoreing for the pros only to score a "X", it has to be inside out!
> Pros diffenetly need a dress code. especially at state and national levels. and world levels also. Last years olympic team was a disgrace.
> Frank


Frank, right now we don't even track x's at all so that's a double rule change. 
thanks for the support on dress code but the Olympics has nothing to do with NFAA. It's USA Archery, they have all their own rules etc.


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

Tom- 
Yeah your right with basketball. I was close the idea, but at 5'8" not much of a player LOL. 
As for the separation, yeah I kind of see your point but if the only thing that's different is the work we have to do ourselves and it has no other impact on the field or the shooters in the trophy classes then its hard for me to find an objection.

As for the full agenda items... If anyone at all wants to have a copy of what I submitted send me a private EMAIL not a pm, and ill send it along. I'm very open to explaining any aspect of why or what I sent in. 

[email protected]

Chuck Cooley
NFAA Pro Chair


----------



## nock tune (Jul 5, 2009)

The X should be worth a point if not do a way with it!


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

FYI, complete agenda items are now posted on the NFAA site. http://www.fieldarchery.com/about/documents.cfm

Item PRO-6 has been added, which basically would turn control of pro division rules/by-laws over to the Council and out hands of the BOD.


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

TNMAN said:


> FYI, complete agenda items are now posted on the NFAA site. http://www.fieldarchery.com/about/documents.cfm
> 
> Item PRO-6 has been added, which basically would turn control of pro division rules/by-laws over to the Council and out hands of the BOD.


Yes, The idea here is to allow us easier ability to add things like the dress code... since the push is to go to a 2yr Meeting schedule it would be glacially slow to get virtually anything to the board. 

Chuck Cooley
NFAA Pro Chair


----------



## Rattleman (Jul 6, 2004)

I read most of the stuff printed. 1st I feel much like Chuck when it comes to participation. In the 60's Archery was king. The kings (Men) did as they wanted without having Momma ***** and complain. Today, momma, unless she participates, makes dad stay with the family on the weekends. The kids are way to busy with other activities. This unfortunately is a major reason why the participation is down. Look around and you will see the vast majority of archers are in their 50's or older. The younger shooters are mostly single. The younger shooters (20 thru 30) back in the 60's were the kings of their castles but not today. This brings me to the dress code issue. Why in the world would you want to put more rules on something that is really just for fun. If you place these dress codes I feel that you will see a dramatic drop in attendance. Lets face it, archery is a boring sport unless you are participating. I don't ever envision archery to be a main stay on TV. I do feel that the PROS should adhere to a dress code. Not for public opinion but for the archery community and sponsers. NEXT. The bunny target should be left alone, period. I have seen and I have also shot the wrong target by mistake (forget to set my sight) while on the bunny. The new rule would not have penilized me but I would have deserved it. Part of the game is mental. If you take out the thinking portion of the game what have you accomplished? I would support however, a rule telling what row of bunny targets to be shot by each archer (like 4 face targets where the first up on left shoots the bottom left) Keep the walkups and fans. If not lets just move out into a field and shoot "V" rounds. Nothing is more boring except for indoor 20 yards IMHO. I do not like 4 across. I want to enjoy the day.
Last but not least. Whenever something like this comes up it seems that the same old people chime in and make it there mission to make all these changes. Well for your information most of the archers I have spoken with really don't care about any of these rule changes. They don't mean anything to them. They come out and shoot but mainly they are here to see friends and to compete against themselves. Last time I went to a state shoot I don't remember any money being given out for awards. Most shooters won't even accept awards. Awards are only clutter in their eyes. So if you want to make this an elitist group and drive away what you have then by all means start changing the rules. I can always sell my archery stuff and pick up the Clubs again. Fishing is something that I was thinking about getting into. I'm getting a headache....good night to one and all.


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

Ed-

First, Thanks man for the kind words...

You know I put in the dress code JUST for the Pros right?.... I dont have any desire whatsoever to ruin a nice walk in the woods for the rest of the group, but shouldn't we as Pro's look the part??

Chuck


----------



## Rattleman (Jul 6, 2004)

Chuck-

I agree. In reality what you guys/gals do should be what you feel is the right thing to do. I dont think we as Joes should have the right to decide what you should wear.


----------



## FV Chuck (Dec 11, 2004)

Rattleman said:


> Chuck-
> 
> I agree. In reality what you guys/gals do should be what you feel is the right thing to do. I dont think we as Joes should have the right to decide what you should wear.


Thanks Ed.... seems logical right?  
I wish it was that easy LOL!


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

So what happened at the meeting?


----------



## r49740 (Dec 7, 2006)

From what I had heard, guests are not allowed moving forward. However, "participants" that are there to check it out and shoot can do so just not for awards. So kind of a guest, but a "participant" instead of guest.

Could be off a bit, but thats what I heard from our state director.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

r49740 said:


> From what I had heard, guests are not allowed moving forward. However, "participants" that are there to check it out and shoot can do so just not for awards. So kind of a guest, but a "participant" instead of guest.
> 
> Could be off a bit, but thats what I heard from our state director.


That's fairly accurate...a guest is no longer a guest (at least if not an NFAA member)...they are now participants who exist only in the living, but not according to the NFAA or any records that would verify their human existence...

IMO a silly resolution to a rule that was unneeded...cuz the rule forbid guests from "participating" in the NFAA sanctioned shoot, but said nutt'n abouut them shootin their bow at a bale while an NFAA shoot was also occurring...i.e. if they weren't shooting 'in' the shoot, they were neither a guest or a participant...they were simply someone shooting a bow...


----------

