Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Proposed Rule Leauge Amendment

  • 11-09-2007 9:02am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 84 ✭✭


    I would like to propose a change to the league rules for this year.
    Compound archers are now becoming more common in college archery
    clubs. The following colleges have compound archers available to shoot
    for them now DIT, UCD, GMIT, NUIG and DKIT. At the moment according
    to the below rule, only one compound score may be counted as part of
    the team score.

    Intervarsity Team and Individual Scores & Prizes
    (1) At each competition, the team score for each college will be the
    sum of the top five individual scores of members of that college team.
    At least four of the five scores must be from recurve archers. At most
    one score can be from a compound or longbow archer.

    I propose that the number of scores counted for the team is increased
    to 6, and then allowing a maximum of half the team scores come from
    compounds.

    It is clear from the league records that top recurve archers can and
    do equal the scores shot by compounds. The following are the records
    from the league comparing the top 3 recurve scores and the top 3
    compound scores.

    Recurve:
    557
    553
    552
    with a combined total of 1662

    Compound:
    564
    543
    543
    with a combined total of 1650

    The difference is very little therefore I do not believe that this
    change will make any difference to the leauge scores.

    Perhaps this rule should be introduced for the time being and then
    revised yearly. If trends in the IAAA are anything to go by it may be
    possible to set up a seperate compound and recurve leauge with in the
    near future.


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 743 ✭✭✭Renegade_Archer


    I would personally be against this amendment. 2 of the top 3 intervarsity recurve scores were shot by former junior euronations archers (myself and sinead), who started shooting back in 1997(e.g. we had been shooting 4 years before we hit university), and Noel was.. an anomaly. I suspect he's part-Chuck Norris or something.

    The top compound score was shot by MacDara, who took up compound after a couple of years of intervarsity recurve shooting; I don't think we have seen the full potential of compound scores in the intervarsity league.

    (I do not intend any offense, MacDara, you shot a good score)

    If this amendment goes through, in a couple of years once the compounds are organised, the intervarsity league will turn into an arms race.


    My 2 cents etc.,


    Ewan


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 154 ✭✭MicS


    I'm against the change as well, because a number of compound archers can skew the team results significantly.

    I understand that both recurve and compound shooting requires a lot of work to become good, but compound bow has a design which allows it to shoot more precise and it's easier to achieve high scores (500 and more). Sure, smaller 10 ring makes it more difficult, but it's becoming significant when scores are around 540 or more.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Panserborn


    Hi all

    I think its good that Doogal brought this up as I reckon a discussion on the compound-on-the-teams issue is no harm. Was never really a big deal as there were bugger-all of us but now things are a little different as the dark side is growing a little.
    in a couple of years once the compounds are organised, the intervarsity league will turn into an arms race.

    This is true
    MicS wrote:
    a number of compound archers can skew the team results significantly.

    As is this, but the one-compound-per-team limitation rule is convincing people not to take up compound even though they would like to. I can't speak for all clubs but I know this is happening in NUIG and it would be nice to have more compounds in the IVs. Surely we can come up with a compromised rule?

    Maybe something like, if there is one compound on the team then well and good. If there are 2, then either one or both get a 10% handicap on their score (only for the team score, not individual), and if there are 3 then the handicap is increased to 13%. This still limits the number of compounds, and has the added effect that if a squad loads the team with compounds the handicap increases accordingly, yet all can still take part.

    Just a suggestion
    (I do not intend any offense, MacDara, you shot a good score)
    None taken! Got tougher skin than that ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 486 ✭✭Aryzel


    Whatever about including more compound scores count, I wouldn't recommend increasing the number of scores used to make the team score from 5 to 6. Smaller teams and teams starting off already often only have 3-4 people for some competitions, especially towards the end of the year, increasing the number of people required for a team score doesn't help.

    Also having percentage handicaps will always turn out bad as they are an arbitrary numbers. They can work for a short time, as the people who introduce them are the ones that are effected, but once new people come along they will seriously resent having their score arbitrary reduced while others around them have their full scores count.

    Ye can keep the number of compounds at 1, or increase it to 2 or 3 (or remove the limit completely), but I wouldn't make changes any more complicated than that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 419 ✭✭toxof


    Remove the compound cap completley!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Panserborn


    Not sure about removing it compleatly,

    As renegade said, it could become an arms race! Indoors, a good recurver can beat a good compounder because of the X-ring, but a start-up compounder will always beat a start-up recurver.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 743 ✭✭✭Renegade_Archer


    toxof wrote:
    Remove the compound cap completley!!!


    You fool, you'll kill us all!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 344 ✭✭Cosine


    Recurve:
    557
    553
    552
    with a combined total of 1662

    Compound:
    564
    543
    543
    with a combined total of 1650

    From looking at the previous years results the top 3 (of dozens) male recurve archers were shooting an average of 520 versus the top 3 (of 5) compounds scores of 530-540.

    Personally I have mixed feelings on this whole matter. I don't like the idea of any aspect of archery being neglected because of overzealous recurve shooters but I don't want to see clubs being handicapped because they don't have compound shooters either. Should the cap be increased significantly or removed all together then clubs who don't have compound shooters will be put under pressure if they want to compete to the same level as the compound clubs.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,773 ✭✭✭connemara man


    With the increase in compound archers the rule as is isn't really fair on them. so maybe increase the cap to two so the team score is still angled towards the fact that there is more recurve shooters in the league.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 486 ✭✭Aryzel


    The rule was originally created with the intention of limiting the number of compounds, by not encouraging people to use them. Compounds will in general produce higher scores, which in itself isn't a problem, but there were two main reasons why we didn't want alot of compounds around.

    - Compounds are expensive, a couple of colleges will be able to afford a good few compounds increasing their team scores, but most colleges will not be able to afford it. Also you then need the knowledge of maintaining/adjusting the compounds and training people to use them. Having half trained college people adjusting compounds can be dangerous.

    - If you start getting the compeititions dominated by compounds, recurves are at a disadvantage, do you then give bonus points to people who choose to shoot recurves?

    - National Archery is mainly recurve based, it is sensible to train college archers in the same style.


    In fairness I think the limit on compounds could be increased to 2 (maybe 3) and still prevent encouraging widespread use. If ye are happy to see teams scores to consist of 3-4 compounds and 1-2 recurve then you can remove the limit completely. Also you will come to see that the best begginers will all be compounds.

    Remember the consequences of encouraging compounds will take time to appear, 5-10 years probably, but once done it can't really be undone, the colleges will have invested too much money in the equipment to change.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 486 ✭✭Aryzel


    Oh, and for anyone about to say that compounds haven't come to dominate National Archery, the reason for this is that National Archery does not encourage compounds. It does this by having split categories, compounds only compete against other compounds. And because the largest category is already recurve then recurve, clubs teach new people to use recurve and actively promote that category above all others.

    College archery is different, in that the primary focus is on the Team score, which combines compound and recurve. If there is no limit on compounds in the team score, then this pushes teams to shift focus from recurve to compound, it might happenly slowly but it will happen.

    If ye do decide to remove the limit, I suggest ye do it over time, increase it by 1 every two years. So next year the limit is 2, and two years later increase it to 3, and so on. This will allow teams to buy compounds for beginners abit more slowly, 1 every year or two. Also teams should focus on getting the compounds for beginners (the ones that show promise) as this is where they will have their biggest effect. You will probably eventually end up with 30% of your clubs shooting compounds, but they will make up 70% of the prize winners/team score.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 84 ✭✭doogle deegan


    'National Archery is mainly recurve based'
    this trend has changed recently with almost equal numbers of compound and recurve.

    'And because the largest category is already recurve then recurve, clubs teach new people to use recurve and actively promote that category above all others'

    This is not the reason that recurve is taught to beginners. The skills learned from shooting recurve are essential for any archer intending to shoot compound. It is easier to learn to shoot recurve and then progress to compound then it is to start shooting compound from the beginning.

    I agree with Aryzels's idea to gradualy increase the number of compounds able to shoot for the team. It may be a better solution then introducing t all at once.


Advertisement