Topic: TRTC Results and AAR

[Michael N]

Carlock/Carbon 59:58
Tom Hines/Dan 63:59
Russell/Findlay 67:33
Jones/Chapman 69:38
Team Rinebold 77:13
Team Wilson 85:33
Vickers/Garcia 88:11
Team Hamilton 89:30
Vitt/Larsen 90:35
Mullady/Alexander 94:16
Burch/Wirth 96:46
Grossl/Grieninger 131:28
Sprague/Mott 135:57
Team Tuttle 139:18
Wright/Campbell 141:25

[luckypunk]

umm....are we going to use this thread for an AAR/constructive criticism/stroking the ROs for the thankless job they did?

I didn't want to go first

[Michael N]

I figured this would be a good spot to share our collective happiness about the match . What would anyone have to complain or criticize about ... LOL

[EDGE]

The only bad thing about the match was waiting for our turn on Stage 7.  Other than that, it was great!

[Michael N]

Stage #7 became a bit of a logistical nightmare due to the extreme difference in times teams posted . I am not sure how to fix that but just to give you an idea the fastest time posted was 22min. 53sec. while the worst was 1hr. 29min.

Dad and I are scratching our heads on how we could fix this . This was the only stage that ran for the entire duration and still wound up being the last stage we finished for the day .We may have to trim it down to something like last years stage #7 or put a maximum time limit on a "Big" stage like this just to keep it from bogging us down . Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated .

[luckypunk]

Can't say enough about how I appreciate the ROs for what they did.

After seeing the teams, talking to them at the clubhouse for a glimpse of their expertise, I think it would have been interesting to RO and see how they operated, huge learning opportunity, (my learning curve seems to be a vert line).

Losers weepers I know, but to be brutally honest,

I liked the stories of enemy combatants to preface the stage.
I liked the props and the reactive steel

I didn't like the "free for all" to shoot a stage.  There could have been a shooting order/shotgun start....And due to the slightly limited ROs, once you shoot a stage, you could stay there to RO 1 following team....as the teams finish ROing, they move on to a stage they haven't shot yet? something like that?? ...tell me if I'm high

I didn't like that I missed my CB shot.

I didn't like the limited round count/no time limit. In effort to run a match quicker, and more "accurately" shot, you could have Par times.  say 40 min. for 7 to complete that stage, How about......Par times PLUS first round hits or follow up shots within (approx)1 min. on any one target otherwise a notification from the RO that the target has found cover/incur Failure to Neutralize Target time penalty/so move on.  but I suppose scoring could get FUBARd & ammo could get scarce.   WHat was the scrapped scoring plan "A"?


ETA:
Oh, and I REALLY don't like that this is apparently only once a year.

LP

[EDGE]

I am very appreciative to all the RO's and to the Match directors!  Thank you!  I know you all worked hard.

In my past match directing experience, Stage 7's popped up on me from time to time.  I just learned from them and moved on.  For that stage there are a couple of things that could have helped (par time, split the stage up, etc).

I don't like the time based scoring that well, because of the ability to "game" the stages.  Take stage 6 for example.  For those of us who tried hard to shoot through that small slit and hit the target we ate up valuable time.  Other's simply went up and shot their five rounds as fast as they could and took the 30 second penalty.  Thus some spent 3 to 6 minutes on that stage, where as others may have only spent 1 minute.  There should be a reverse par time on these types of stages, so that if you don't use at least 3 minute of time on it, you get penalized 5 minutes.

[Michael N]

Alternative scoring was still based on time but with a breakdown like this ....

1st round hit 90 second bonus
2nd round hit 30 second bonus
3rd round hit 00 bonus
4th round hit 30 second penalty
5th round hit 90 second penalty

Obviously we could tweak this but the 5 round limit last year seemed to be a compromise between the Sniper only getting to launch 15 rounds for the whole match and the teams with less experience getting a chance to hit the target at all .

We are going to assign team numbers next year ( I am guessing by order of entry) and try to use that to create a more orderly system . Ideas on this would be appreciated as well .

I myself am amazed by the number of misses on the Cold Bore shot but maybe its too tough a shot . The results were roughly the same last year with very few people making the shot . The appeal to me is that very few matches I have read about or attended have a CBS at long distance which is what Sniping is supposed to be all about . Should it be 400m and 200m ?

The only problem with time limits for me is that I generally have no idea how long a stage should take . I just throw out an idea , we design it and we have a stage . Figuring out a par time can be an SOB . I guess coming from an IPSC background Timers make me hurry and time limits frustrate me when I cannot complete a stage in the alloted time . I think most stages ran OK but #7 could definitely have used a limit of some sort , I just don't know how to figure it so that teams can make it in the alloted time .

Stage 6 actually was not gamed by anyone that I saw , the teams that did it fast read the instructions and moved forward with full confidence that they had located the correct targets . The slow teams generally argued with each other over which target was correct rather than launching a shot . We actually expected people to turn their rifles sideways and use the Windage knob for elevation and the elevation for windage but many were able to rest the barrel on the ledge and see partially out of their scope to make the shot .

This is good stuff LP and Edge we can use all the feedback we can get .

[luckypunk]

I liked the diversity of the stages, they were different & challenging enough. 

Figuring par times with guesstimates for reading comprehension/target acquisition ect. could be tough, it may require to do a timed dry run, (by someone making honest efforts for 1st. round hits).  BTW It was SOB for me to locate stage 7 target 1 and read the pastie #s in the morning sun, Fidel & I shot it 2nd

Can you post a spreadsheet of the stage #s/descriptions and times individually?.....when you get a chance

[EDGE]

Mike,

I've never been able to attend any of the "big" rifle matches around the country, so I'm basing my thoughts solely on what I've read and experienced here locally.  And what I say is trully constructive.  I really had a good time at your match and learned a lot.

To me the time based scoring system only encourages bad shooting practices.  If I come to a stage that is complicated and I know will take me over 1 minute to shoot, then why not just take my firing position and shoot my five shots as fast as I can and take the 30 second penalty?  In the long run, I would win.  I did see one team do this on Stage 6 (spotter) and thought I heard another do the same thing.  I'm fairly certain this was done on other stages as well.  You stated that your IPSC background makes you hurry.  To me, a sniper/spotter team should not be rushed.  Yes there are certain situations where you need to, but good marksmanship should be encouraged.

I'm not saying this because I'm mad, because I'm very pleased with my results.  I'm saying this because to me a sniper and spotter should at least try to hit what they are aiming at and the scoring system should try to encourage hits.  Does this make sense?

[Spiff]

I for one, do not like the idea of time limits. RG and I spent a lot of time shooting, as is evidenced by our score, but it was my first time and his second (hell, its the first time I've even really used mil-dots!! and yes, this is the last excuse you'll hear!). If we were to shoot another match I'm positive we could carve at least 1/3 of the time off. Time limits would do nothing but frustrate the shooters new to this game. If there were time limits imposed you'd want to make sure that newer shooters at least had a chance to finish. In my opinion 40 minutes is to short for a stage like #7. Although for the life of me it did not seem like RG and I spend 48 (or whatever) minutes on that stage. Time sure flies when your getting your ass kicked!! 

RG and I did not have a great deal of difficulty in spotting the targets, except on #1. The spinner eluded us for a few minutes. On #4 RG spotted the target before I did and had to talk me into it. #7 was difficult because the compass would not work properly surrounded by the metal of the tower, should have GPS'ed it but in the stress of the situation I did not think of it and in looking back I'm not sure RG had his GPS. We were teased about not using the string to drag the instructions up to RG (on #7), but it really did not slow us up much having me yell them up to him.

We spent some time in trying to range targets as some courses specified that you could not use a laser range finder, and other courses did not lend themselves to using them. This however is solely an experience thing.

The RO's did an excellent job. If I had any criticism at all it would be that some tried to help the shooters (at least in my experience) more than they should have. I expected to walk up to a stage, have the RO say: "Here's the instructions, tell me when your ready". And this is not really a criticism it's more an observation. Also I do realize however that there were a few "gotchas" on some of the stages like the compass bearing on #6.

LP's idea of using shooters to RO a stage has some merit. The only stumbling block might be if the people shooting the stage complained that there was unfairness going on because a competitor was judging them.

I also liked the use of reactive targets. There was not much doubt or discussion needed about hits on the target. Although I guess this is not really true. JR had a shooter argue with him over several shots, and RG called a hit on a shot of mine that the RO called a miss. JS also called a hit on a target that I did not see through my scope, he later told me it was not a solid hit but that he did see the target react.

Waiting was a pain, though I had a good time yakking with people. As usual all the shooters were damn good people (could have used a few more gals , that one guys wife probably got tired of being eyeballed by everyone). Not sure what could have been done about the wait. If you had more RO's you could have ran more stages concurrently, but then you take the chance of shooters right next to each other figuring out their next stage by watching whats going on next to them.

[Orbital-Burn]

I've got another idea for your next match.  Have a stage that guys can shoot during their down time of a 5 shot group at different distances.  On paper that has their team number on it or something.  That way when they've been sitting on their asses waiting for stage 7, they can shoot their group.  Other than tightest group, any other ideas on awarding points for it?
(something like prone unsupported, or however they want, as long as they don't use a shooting vice???)

[Spiff]

I didn't like that I missed my CB shot.

LP

Same here, but I enjoyed the stage. I've never really given much thought to a cold bore shot, but in the world of the sniper, it would seem to be magnitudes more important than you'd originally think. If you've been sitting in a hole for two days waiting for a shot, when the shot comes it will be out of a cold bore, and you'd damn well better know where it's POI is going to be!!

[Michael N]

What about a scoring system that went something like this for the Sniper ....

1st round hit 3 minute bonus
2nd round hit 1 minute bonus
3rd round hit 1 minute penalty
4th round hit 3 minute penalty
5th round hit 5 minute penalty

I think all the feedback is excellent so don't take my posts as being defensive . Just trying to explain how and why certain things were the way the were . Again the time based scoring is simply because we felt that the best team in real life would be the one who could get in , get the job done and get gone the quickest .

[Spiff]

I think a scoring system that gives bonuses/penalties based on the number of times it takes to hit a target would go a long way towards preventing people from gaming stages. Gaming as in purposefully rattling off shots to finish the stage faster without thought as to whether they are actually making hits or not. Especially if there were substantial times added or subtracted for getting first round hits or last round hits/not hitting at all.

So did any of the RO's actually witness anyone "gaming" the stages? Or think that it might be going on? Something like this would be hard for an RO to prove.

[EDGE]

Mike,

I like that.  Stage 6 would have worked perfectly for this type of scoring, because you would be encouraging the spotter to make a good hit.  On the down side it may make that stage take a lot longer to shoot.  (dare I say a par time to encourage the shooters to not take all day)

Gaming isn't necessarily a bad thing if that is what the intent of the shoot is, take IPSC for example.  For long range riflery, in my mind, shots count more than time.  Stage 7 would possibly be an exception, because it seemed to be set up more for fun than anything else, and was more of a run and gun stage than the other stages were.

Also regarding par times.  It may discourage some new shooters, but at the same time they need to be encouraged to move a little faster.  My team shot stage 7 in just over 26 minutes, before penalties.  That stage shouldn't have taken much longer than that, even for new shooters.  I'd like to see the times that each team had on this stage if you get a chance Mike.  I think a 45 minute par time would have been more than generous and would have sped up that bottleneck.  If it wasn't for Stage 7, we probably would have been done with the match by 3 pm.

Devin

[Michael N]

Sorry , In my last post I meant that the scoring would be for the Sniper . On stage 6 it could have been used for both shooters .

[Spiff]

Sorry , In my last post I meant that the scoring would be for the Sniper . On stage 6 it could have been used for both shooters .

I see no reason why the scoring could not apply to both. Neither the sniper or the spotter shot at the same time as the other, so it would have been relatively easy for the RO to score.

Devin, I believe that RG and I had 48 or 49 minutes on #7 before penalties, and we had about 8 minutes worth of penalties as we missed our long range shots, and for some reason I thought that a target with one hand painted on it should not be shot.............. .

[Nomad]

Keep the scoring on the next shoot on the QT until its all over. Pick just a couple for score and dont tell anyone.
 Many thanks for the match the Neffs and RO's did a great job...