Changwong - New finals format

[gn303]

The first World Cup for Rifle and Pistol has ended. For me it was also the first time to actually see the new final format shot. Although I do understand that the finalists start from zero, I have the impression that the elimination formula is counter-productive. As a spectator you just can see who risks being the next to leave the line. In the previous format, you could follow the change of order. I can help the feeling that the best shooter is not necessarily the one who wins. Another nuisance was the empty barrel indicators. I can agree that when an AP is ready to be stowed away, the indicator is put in place. But just before the start of the match, the gun put down, open lock, barrel in the direction of the targets? I don’t see any extra security value at all. A referee checking the conditions of the guns at that stage is just ridiculous. Permit me to have doubts on the spectator value of the present format.

[Gerard]

It was rather comical seeing in the official ISSF videos how the officials were repeatedly running out and pestering eliminated competitors to return to their stations and insert the weedwacker/CBI things. When a shooter has just been eliminated from the final, everyone has just seen him/her take that last shot and put down the pistol, is it really necessary to assure anyone's safety by inserting something into the known-clear barrel? As the rules for AP clearly state that multi-shot pistols are not allowed, how else would a pellet or any other object insert itself between the competitor putting down the gun with action open and walking away? Are they worried that someone else is going to approach the station and load a gun? If so, it would seem that the ISSF is concerned about air pistol obsessed terrorists more than they are about basic safety.

As for the finals structure and its effects on a 'right' outcome as in finding the best shooter... this remains to be seen, statistically. If the highest-scoring qualifying competitors in the long run (say, the entire 2013 season) are then being eliminated early in the finals, then it would seem that the new finals structure does not reflect the true nature of the shooters' skills. Rather it would demonstrate that a different skill set was required to successfully complete a final to 20 shots, as compared to shooting a normal 60 shot match. But we shall have to wait and see.

I've just registered for my first competition in this format, a recently announced match being hosted by a group normally hosting a pentathlon in Maple Ridge, BC. One of Canada's top shooters, Al Harding will also be attending. We're both pretty excited about finding out how the new format feels to shoot in competition, with an added twist that this match calls for 3 x 60 shot relays within 8 hours on the same day, followed by the final. Quite an endurance test, which might make for an especially challenging final. My guess is that the shot values in the final will be sub-optimal after 180 official shots prior plus sighting/warm-up shots, but again this is conjecture; no one knows until after the fact.

It certainly does seem to me to make for a more exciting final in some senses, but I also valued the jostling of scores back and forth with the old 10-shot finals format. Comparing the two, it seems somewhat obvious that an eliminations-based format would be more exciting or accessible for a non-shooting or a casual audience. So this is another unknown; will non-shooting or casual viewers come to the sport thanks to this new format? It would seem to depend in large part upon promotion... and I'm not sure what sort of budget the ISSF is willing to put into an international media campaign. We might not see the results of these changes in terms of audiences until after the next Olympics numbers are counted.

[Mike M.]

I honestly don't think the finals format matters. The big issue is publicity...and having intelligent color commentary. Which you won't get from most sports broadcasters. All they understand is moneyball.

[Gerard]

Since Greg brought up a new model .22" from FAS I got curious about their airguns, went to take a look, and found a petition regarding the new ISSF rules. Here's a translated version thanks to Google - not a terrible translation I think.
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... AnJn1QjxsA

Seems TT'ers aren't the only ones objecting to some of this here newfangled nonsense rules. Not that I'm objecting. Not exactly. Reserving judgement until the end of the season or so, while poking fun at the odd bit now and then before that.

[Joakim]

From a spectator viewpoint, the new final format has really been a great improvement. But that's when you're in the finals hall yourself, able to see all the shooters, all the targets, and all the scores simultaneously at all times. Replicating that on a TV production is difficult. Too much information and the screen gets cluttered (especially as the videos are often viewed on small computer/tablet screens). The ECH in Denmark tended towards this side. But too little information and it's totally impossible for the viewers to understand what's going on. The ISSF videos from Changwon were terrible in that aspect, only showing the results for the currently filmed shooter while all eight are shooting. (Compare with biathlon productions, for example: you film one shooter, but also show the reactions on all shooters' targets.) Plus there was not even an on-screen clock, although there was ample room for one—what's up with that??

Gerard also, of course, has a point that color commentary is very important. I've said it before, but I'll say it again: I was impressed by the guy from the London Olympics YouTube videos.

Obviously, even the ISSF videos pick up the pace when there are only two shooters left. The split-screen finish works really, really well, and is a great improvement over the old format when four or five or potentially all eight finalists were still in contention after nine shots. But this just goes to show that one-on-one shooting lends itself to the television medium, and that's certainly no surprise to anyone.

[renzo]

Since Greg brought up a new model .22" from FAS I got curious about their airguns, went to take a look, and found a petition regarding the new ISSF rules. Here's a translated version thanks to Google - not a terrible translation I think.
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... AnJn1QjxsA

Seems TT'ers aren't the only ones objecting to some of this here newfangled nonsense rules. Not that I'm objecting. Not exactly. Reserving judgement until the end of the season or so, while poking fun at the odd bit now and then before that.

Gerard:

That petition is months old, and it has been discussed here in TT, where - if you do a search - you'll find it already correctly translated to English.

Regards

Renzo

[gn303]

Sorry to disagree: the new format is a failure! I take your word that when you assist in the final hall, you have a different sensation that when watching on a computer- or TV-screen. But drawing interest of the media was at least one reason to invent the finals. Simple because a reporter could be spotting a potential winner, but in the end realized he had been focusing on the wrong athlete. (Remember the misfortune of Emmons at the very last shot!). Taking Matt’s misfortune as an example: he missed a medal in the old format. In the new format he would have won silver. Nevertheless, Emmons’ bad luck was exiting, at least for the viewers. David Levene mentioned the interest of many, also non-shooters, for the shooting event at the OG in London, so the ‘old’ format was not so bad. If a sport, (any sport), wants to draw attention it has to look easy, and shooting does look easy, and simple to follow. A score board, with the shooters name and line, where the order changes with almost every shot is easy to understand and to follow. Shooters leaving the line, obviously before the match is finished makes people wonder. We’ll see what the future brings, as Gerard said. Gerard also mentions the petition. Has anyone an idea what the outcome was, besides the 2000+ votes? Campriani is not just some back-yard shooter, did anyone from ISSF listen to him? By the way Gerard, you mention you registered for a competition in the new format. I would appreciate your impressions, as a participant.

[Gerard]

That competition is on the 27th. I shall certainly be posting about that, offering my impressions. It seems likely at least 3 much better shots than I shall be entered, so I'm quite curious how that will turn out and what their thoughts will be after the final.

[David Levene]

David Levene mentioned the interest of many, also non-shooters, for the shooting event at the OG in London, so the ‘old’ format was not so bad.

It's hardly a fair comparison I'm afraid.

1) The non-shooters didn't know what to expect and didn't know any better.
2) You could have sold out all of the tickets for a water pistol event at the Olympics.

What is important is that the final should be TV friendly. The only "new-style" final we had at the Olympics was the Rapid Fire Pistol. That proved that the concept, at least in the finals hall, was a success. What they need to do is convert the information that was available in the hall into a format that works on TV.

I saw it live and, later, the TV coverage. It was much easier to understand what was happening live.

It might take a few attempts to get the TV right but I'm sure they will get there.

[dschaller]

Obviously, even the ISSF videos pick up the pace when there are only two shooters left. The split-screen finish works really, really well, and is a great improvement over the old format...

Agree! And as I recall, Archery went with a one on one finals format, which I thought was WAY more interesting that the slow, confusing, dragged out finals I have seen with this new format. Even the rapidfire final took FOREVER!! Whoever came up with these new formats doesn't have a clue about how boring it looks on TV. Since they are so intent on totally changing how things work, why not just put the top three (after using decimal scoring in the qualifier to better select the best three) in a shootoff - ten or twenty shots from all three to determine the three medal winners? With only three, they should be able to have a split screen (certainly on widescreen HD) of all three shooters simultaneously, along with their targets displayed superimposed over the bottom of their pictures.

[bpscCheney]

Speaking of the new finals format, what's up with the points system we had before? Look at the ISSF breakdown, it's even more confusing now... -.-

http://www.issf-sports.org/results/wcf_ ... linkid=101

[David M]

After watching the Finals coverage a couple of things became obvious.
1/ The Free pistol final was the shortest at 24 mins. It appears to have been rushed by the R/O and not enough progress scores were shown so it was very hard to follow up to the first elimination.
The focus was on who was to be eliminated next with little coverage on the other shooters.
2/ The Air final ran 38 min. With similar format to the Free final but 14 mins longer, it had a better coverage and better commentary.
3/ The Rapid final was the longest at 46 min, hard to keep spectator interest for this long.

[renzo]

Finally, we started today the first national match with OF's in 3P under the new format at the club which I preside in paper targets.

As a simple first-hand purely personal opinion, I have mixed feelings towards the new rules, albeit I recognize this is a first impression, but I'm a long time FP and AP shooter and an ISSF judge, and I expose them for their value.

I'd also like to state "for the record" that the President of our National Shooting Federation (himself a former world class shooter), the coachs of both the National Rifle and Pistol teams, the head of the Judges' Comittee and other four ISSF "A" judges were involved, and a DISAG target machine was used for the finals.

Today we shot Rifle Prone, AP 60, AP 40, 3x20 and 3x40.

OF's in Prone and both AP's were highly entertaing, suspenseful and in any way better than the old format, part due to the fact that the score differences were erased and part due to the elimination system. Both shooters and non-shooters enyojed them, and followed the up-and-downs of the scores closely.

Having said that, I must also conclude that the three position finals is pure murder if accomplished with paper targets. We had a dedicated operator for each target and -as I said - an electronic scorer, so the culprit was not on the control side: it is simply TOO long.

I cannot imagine what is achieved with a 3 x 15 shot format that couldn't be had with a 3 x 10 shot routine, and believe me, it would be far more pleasant for everybody. I asked opinions from everyone I could, and the consensus was that it was boring watching an 1,30 hour final, most of the public wandered through the range until the elimination shots began.

Neither shooter nor finalists nor public nor range officers enjoyed the ordeal, and by the time the standing shots began we were only asking for the proceedings to end.

So, this can (or could) be entertaining at WC's and other upper-level matches with SIUS equipment, but at club level this is not funny.......

My two cents.

[conradin]

I like the FP and AP finals, with a slight disagreement of how it should be done.

I think instead of 3+3 then everyone eliminated by 2 shots. we should go back to the 10 shots finals. However, to make it interesting, we will only have 4 finalists. That means everyone except the loser (4th place) will get a medal.

In this case, after the 8th shot, the "loser"(4th place) drop out. after the 9th shot, the bronze is decided. the 10th shot becomes the gold medal shoot.

this is of course depends on whether someone has a run away score or not.
It is possible that the result is pretty much set before shots are taken. a 10 shot final makes it unlikely, a 20 shots final, however, will create a situation that the bronze medalist have been decided even if he did not bother to shoot.

A 20 shot finals really drag things out without much time improvement., A 10 shot finals make more sense for the audience. After 7 shots, suddenly the audience will realize it is a one shot shoot out for elimination, as opposed to 2 shots. Also at that point, make sure the one who has the lowest score shoot first. That will almost guarantee it is impossible to create a situation that the positions have been decided before any shots have been fired.

BTW I absolutely hate the SP format. The dual is very confusing. If they are going to give points for counting series to series, then it is much simpler that ONLY if you win a series will you get a point. Its too complicated for 2 points for a win 1 point for a tie.

[Joakim]

I think instead of 3+3 then everyone eliminated by 2 shots. we should go back to the 10 shots finals.

10 shots starting from zero? I think you'll find it very hard to gather participant support for that.

However, to make it interesting, we will only have 4 finalists. That means everyone except the loser (4th place) will get a medal.

I like this, it's much easier to cover on TV. But then it's almost necessary to add semi-finals (and possibly quarter-finals, etc), just like in ski sprints or short track speed skating or BMX or whatever. Or otherwise somehow make the qualification round more interesting. I'm afraid only being able to show four shooters on TV at an Olympic competition will limit the TV network interest to… pretty much four countries.

Also at that point, make sure the one who has the lowest score shoot first. That will almost guarantee it is impossible to create a situation that the positions have been decided before any shots have been fired.

This is a good idea. Ideally, such a situation should never arise. And if it's only done on the last shot, it wouldn't even affect overall time too much.

BTW I absolutely hate the SP format. The dual is very confusing. If they are going to give points for counting series to series, then it is much simpler that ONLY if you win a series will you get a point. Its too complicated for 2 points for a win 1 point for a tie.

Yes, point only for a win is much simpler, like the medal matches in running target. I assume that the fear is that too many tied series would drag the final out forever. Of course, with only two shooters going at the same time, and good TV graphics, it might be possible to follow decimal scoring, which would all but annihilate the possibility of tied series.

[paw080]

As someone who may never make any final; I've gotta vent my opinion.

First and foremost, I think the new finals format is completely unfair to the efforts

made by the competitors during the 60 shot qualifying. The idea of zeroing the

the final eight shooters' score is just why I think USA NASCAR is the most boring

and idiotic racing ever concieved. for those of you unfamiliar with NASCAR, every time

there is a race stoppage, and there are many; the drivers all line up in current

place order, are then positioned bumper to bumper, even if the race leader is over

half a lap ahead of the next place. I see no difference between this and zeroing the

8 finalist's scores.

In the earlier format, the better and most consistant finalists, would usally work

their way up to somewhere on the podium at the end of 10 shots.

well that's enough of my thoughts about the new finals format...what do I know,

anyway?

Tony

[Gerard]

By the way Gerard, you mention you registered for a competition in the new format. I would appreciate your impressions, as a participant.

Well this little local competition using the new finals format was done today. I came away with a 'silver' though with only 3 men showing up, that isn't saying too much, especially considering my rather weak performance in the 120 shots leading up to the final. The organizer dropped the third round at the request of another competitor so we didn't end up exhausted... There were also six girls/women shooting so we got to see how eliminations worked out there a bit more.

My impressions:

- With retrieval of paper targets and a bit of scrambling as the officials tried to keep things moving smoothly under the new finals format, it feels like an awful lot is going on compared to a conventional final. I'd suggest to anyone managing a paper target based competition be prepared well ahead so there's no confusion about marketing shooter numbers on targets so as to prevent it being a scramble. This obviously wouldn't be a problem with electronic targets and scoring.

- The first 2:30 for 3 shots went by a bit more quickly than I expected. Guess I ought to have trained with a timer a couple of times to get a sense of how quickly time flies here. The second round of 3 shots I settled in slightly better...

- But then the 3rd round we were asked to shoot 2 shots in 50 seconds, which was alarmingly fast. As these rounds went on there were several instances of 3 or even 4 competitors getting their last shots off within a second or two of time being called. I think we needed better clarity on permissible loading times, as some were fumbling to load the first pellet after the clock started (I know I was!). Looking up the rules on finals structure this evening I see rule 6.17.2 which states:

The Finals consists of two (2) series of three (3) MATCH
shots each fired in a time of 150 sec. per series or 100 sec
per series for 50m Rifle Prone (3 + 3 shots). This is followed
by fourteen (14) single MATCH shots each fired on
command in a time of 50 sec. or 30 sec. for 50m Rifle Prone
Eliminations of the lowest scoring finalists begin after the
eighth shot and continue after every two shots until the gold
and silver medals are decided. There are a total of twenty
(20) Finals shots.

So obviously there was some confusion; we ought not to have been shooting 2 shots in 50 seconds, but rather 1 per 50 second interval with a short break then another shot, in sets of 2 to eliminate each finalist. An easy mistake to make perhaps. I wasn't sure about this rule in the context of shooting the final so I didn't challenge it but will email the organizer and let them know for future matches.

- The time constraints made for some significant and unfamiliar sort of stress in me. The tension among most of the shooters was palpable. Even in an informal setting like today's match, the prospect of being eliminated is not a happy one, has a certain finality to it. Under the old system a bad shot or two might be caught up, depending on how other shooters were doing. I'm not saying the new format is worse, just rather dramatic in nature and potentially disruptive of the plans of inadequately prepared competitors. The final did not feel at all like the qualifying matches. And perhaps that's a good thing. Certainly exciting anyway.

Officials at this match were parents volunteering at the last minute, not a lot of fussy attention having been paid to examining the rules. But it seems a good idea to rehearse every detail under the new rules carefully, for both shooters and officials, until the structure is familiar. Some competitors will be going on to ISSF World Cup events - the gold medal winner today, Allan Harding, will be shooting at Fort Benning next month - so it's important for those especially to be properly prepared. It seemed especially important to have a sense of how long one really needs to execute a solid shot before time runs out. For me it felt like I needed at least 20 seconds, with 25 perhaps being a more solid bet just in case of a need to drop the pistol and regroup for a quick last-second shot. I look forward to further experiences with the new format, especially with the rule bugs worked out.

[Sparks]

Finally shot a finals under the new rules in the Irish air pistol nationals recently and placed fourth. If I was on the fence before, I'm sure now - that new ISSF finals format is Shite with a capital S. There's no way I should have been anywhere near fourth, but I was in first place for most of the finals despite my qualifying score being thirty-odd points behind the top three shooters, all because of the start-from-zero nonsense. That's not merely embarrassing, it's cheapening the whole thing.

The decimal scoring, that's a good idea. The combined sighting and prep times, well they work and they're easier for spectators and they don't hurt too much. But the finals are too long, too boring, you can't watch an underdog fight up through the rankings anymore, and it adds too much random chance to the placings.

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that nobody sat down before they drew up this idea and analysed it properly - ie, took the random nature of the shots (as we're out at the edge of what the firearms can do) into account and tested the sensitivity of the final rankings to that random nature under both systems.

And that's only the criticism from the "is it fair" viewpoint - from the "will it attract TV viewers and ad revenue" viewpoint, please. London's OG proved the format is not the issue there.

[EJ]

A post that put numbers on part of the subject:
https://airrifleshooting.wordpress.com/ ... king-list/

It's not perfect but provides some insight into what happens during a final under the old format.

[IPshooter]

I don't like to be negative, but logging onto the SIUS live scoring site and seeing the final scores at Benning is, for lack of a better word, disgusting. Here's why I say that:

1. You don't see the 60 or 40 shot scores required to get into the finals, so you have to dig into things to find it. And, the only way to compare current performances to previous history is via these scores.

2. The way the final results are shown must be like reading a foreign language to anyone not extremely familiar with how the new final works. Is this what the ISSF really wants? Casual visitors will take one look and navigate away from it.

I guess I just don't get it.

Stan