nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Classification Query

BountyHunter

Hi all,

What is the method of classifying people? As in A, B, C or D? For 50m smallbore..

Cheers,

BountyHunter.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

NTSA

Hi BountyHunter

People are classified on the basis of their two last recorded scores indoors. If they've only shot once their classification is provisional.

Classification is updated after each indoor competition.

It wasn't me!

Outdoor scores don't count? Awesome, my woeful outdoor scores won't drag down my ever so slightly less woeful indoor scores so.

IRLConor

I get a better crack at picking up some crystal in class B for a little longer then.

It wasn't me!

Yeah, but come the Autumn you're going to have to start doing some work! :pac:

IRLConor

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Yeah, but come the Autumn you're going to have to start doing some work! :pac:

Yeah. If I don't bring home crystal it's harder to get a day pass for the next competition.

Seriously though, are there any plans to start including outdoor scores in the classification?

It wasn't me!

Yeah, it seems odd that the outdoor nationals wouldn't count towards your classification.

IRLConor

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Yeah, it seems odd that the outdoor nationals wouldn't count towards your classification.

I think previously it was due to very irregular attendance at outdoor matches coupled with poor reporting of scores. Or maybe my mind is playing tricks on me.

Making a combined indoor-outdoor classification could be hard, it's a bit of an apples and oranges thing.

rrpc

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Yeah, it seems odd that the outdoor nationals wouldn't count towards your classification.

If outdoor scores counted many people would be in a different class every month!

The classification is based on actual averages achieved in indoor competition. Remember that classification is just a means of classifying competitors as fairly as possible for class prizes.

You win a competition, you win - wherever it is. You don't, you may get a class prize or not, but at least you're comparing apples with apples. You shoot in a selection match, you make the grade or not: class doesn't matter.

Sparks

It's a pity we couldn't have some sort of system like DURC uses (the ladder cards) for classification in all disciplines, but you'd have to report scores in from all over the shop every day. We don't have any system for that (which isn't to say we couldn't develop one if we had manpower enough), and not everyone would shoot a ladder card every time they come down to train either, so competitions always got used instead. And people just don't shoot enough competitions.

To be honest, I'd rather see work done on a national rankings system before we worked too much on the class system. And I'd rather we worked on running more matches before we worked on the national rankings

[Deleted User]

Correct me if I am wrong here but when I started:

Indoor and outdoor rankings were seperate.
Indoor was based on your last three (or something) scores but outdoor had a series of targets, eg once you shoor higher then 570 you went into A and you stayed in A. To go down, you need to ask NTSA.

That system was better as it was not possible to bandit a class.

Sparks

That's how it used to be run (except for the one-way trip into class A, I dont' remember that, and I do remember dropping out of A once or twice). Then we had a foot-and-mouth scare and to be honest, outdoor shooting still hasn't fully recovered from that. Certainly the number of 50m matches is nowhere near where it used to be. At the same time, don't forget, we've lost ranges since - Fassaroe had to move and aren't able to run competitions yet. BRC is running the nationals and hopefully we'll see more matches from there, same with the midlands and fermoy, and maybe we'll sort out the NI-ROI problem one of these days, but for now, we're way down on numbers.

IRLConor

Sparks wrote: »

And people just don't shoot enough competitions

Indeed, for the competitions I have data for (the last 9 25yd and 50m competitions with published scores on the net) only 50% of the shooters shot more than 2 matches. Only 1/3 shot more than half of the matches.

Here's the distribution:

Number of competitions|A|B|C|D|Unclassified|Total
9|0|1|0|0|0|1
8|2|0|2|1|0|5
7|2|1|0|0|0|3
6|1|2|2|0|0|5
5|0|1|1|0|0|2
4|1|1|2|1|0|5
3|1|1|1|0|0|3
2|2|4|2|3|1|12
1|0|0|0|7|5|12

Sparks

Yup. The problem's not trivial, it's a fundamental activity level problem.
Maybe we could try to run a national postal league or something of that nature, but again, you're into the manpower problems there. I tried to run a postal match before and it was sadly a disaster, the workload was just too high to run the match and be on the club committee and try to do the day job as well. You'd need a volunteer who wasn't doing anything and didn't mind spending four or five hours a week just scoring cards and collating results and sending a spreadsheet in to the NTSA.

[Deleted User]

Sparks wrote: »

Yup. The problem's not trivial, it's a fundamental activity level problem.
Maybe we could try to run a national postal league or something of that nature, but again, you're into the manpower problems there. I tried to run a postal match before and it was sadly a disaster, the workload was just too high to run the match and be on the club committee and try to do the day job as well. You'd need a volunteer who wasn't doing anything and didn't mind spending four or five hours a week just scoring cards and collating results and sending a spreadsheet in to the NTSA.

The UCESSA league works very well with only one admin person in the RoI.

Sparks

One in the ROI; several in NI; and somewhere around two decades of experience running the match. It's not trivial. Still though, were a volunteer to come forward...
...or maybe we should be sensible and just say "feck it, let's not reinvent the wheel" and really push people into the UCESSA league down here as well.

[Deleted User]

Sparks wrote: »

One in the ROI; several in NI; and somewhere around two decades of experience running the match. It's not trivial. Still though, were a volunteer to come forward...
...or maybe we should be sensible and just say "feck it, let's not reinvent the wheel" and really push people into the UCESSA league down here as well.

DURC had 10 entries or so this year, with the top shooter putting in the third highest score in the competition.

Over half of the shooters picked up some prizes.

Sparks

I know we usually have high numbers in the UCESSA Zara, we've done so since before I started shooting even, but 10 is way too low to try to help with the classification scores issue. I meant we'd have to have every shooter who ever even looked at a match entered into it, and preferably more. If you want classifications to follow a shooter's training and performance levels closely, you need more data points sampled, there's no way around that, it's a basic math thing. The more data points, the more accurate the classification.

IRLConor

The other problem with the UCESSA winter league is that there are only two ranges that I know of in the country that cater to that type of shooting, DURC and RRPC. Since DURC only has 2 lanes and is only available to students, staff and alumni you're really looking at RRPC as the only option for someone who wants to shoot the winter league from the RoI.

It's a fantastic place to shoot your cards, but not everyone can make the round trip frequently enough to make it worth their while.

[Deleted User]

Personally (my view on this):

Classification should come from matches and matches alone as it is very easy to alter scores in a postal shoot. Secondly, if people are being classified by matches, then everyone faces the same conditions and thats more fair then playing 'who has the best range'.

I shoot much better in postal leages because I am on my home range and much more relaxed then a match, plus its easier to do well for 10 shots rather then 60.

The way I see it - more matches, simple as.

Both air rifle and .22 matches are decreasing each year since I started shooting, and I see this as a NGB issue (although they say it isn't). I know a popular past time here is to take a pop at NGBs, but this is one area where I think the NTSA really fail (and I know they read this and I know they know who I am but **** it).

More matches, more experience, better scores.

Would a member of the NTSA be willing to come out (or email me) with the number of times that this issue has been discussed in the minutes of NTSA meetings?

Sparks

I know it was discussed every two or three meetings when I was on the committee, but the problem was always the same - the NTSA cannot order a club to run a match, their role is coordination of the calendars, collation of results, production of classification lists and so on. The NTSA has no range of it's own, so it can't run matches every weekend (the Nationals are the only matches the NGB runs, and it depends on hiring ranges from the clubs for those).

It's a case of both sides needing to push more, not just one.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

I know it was discussed every two or three meetings when I was on the committee, but the problem was always the same - the NTSA cannot order a club to run a match, their role is coordination of the calendars, collation of results, production of classification lists and so on. The NTSA has no range of it's own, so it can't run matches every weekend (the Nationals are the only matches the NGB runs, and it depends on hiring ranges from the clubs for those).

It's a case of both sides needing to push more, not just one.

It's not often I find myself agreeing with you wholeheartedly Sparks, but this is one of those rare occasions

The calendar is a big issue in all this as well. Sparks knows the kind of data we have to assimilate into the equation in order to avoid clashes with just about everything thrown into the pot. We still haven't got the timing right on the Air Nationals despite numerous attempts. It's still a problem (in my view) when the colours match gets more entries than the nationals.

In terms of the number of matches, it's slowly increasing as we bring more clubs on line. Myself and Kieran Barry brought back the Fermoy shoot, yet (take note those who are complaining) only six turned up to shoot in it.

As for the classification system, Conor is right. You just don't get enough reliable data from 50m shoots to classify on that basis and in any event it's only classification: A method of giving someone a chance to get a piece of glass or whatever. The more level the playing field, the less people that will feel hard done by.

Incidentally, the classification gives a national ranking, and has done since this time last year with changes highlighted with each issue.

But this is a good discussion and the type of one which I'd like to see more of on this forum. I'm always open to suggestions and when a good one comes along, I'm delighted to give it a try.

I agree that we need more matches, but we also need the kind of turnouts we saw at the last two in DRC for clubs to be motivated to run them.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

It's not often I find myself agreeing with you wholeheartedly Sparks, but this is one of those rare occasions

Though to be honest, we're usually at about 90% agreement and differ over the final 10%. It's rare for me to know you're utterly wrong

The calendar is a big issue in all this as well. Sparks knows the kind of data we have to assimilate into the equation in order to avoid clashes with just about everything thrown into the pot. We still haven't got the timing right on the Air Nationals despite numerous attempts. It's still a problem (in my view) when the colours match gets more entries than the nationals.

It is, but the colours isn't actually under the aegis of the NTSA at all anyway, it's solely the domain of the college clubs (it only shows up on the NTSA calendar for completeness, same as some club shoots like the RRPC Turkey Shoot do). It's an interesting look at a different way of running matches and it highlights the problem - in the colours, you have two clubs that commit to that match from before the start of the academic year and train towards it for about four to six months or so, taking in complete newbies as well as experienced people to form two teams per club for the match. It's well-known within the club membership that this is going on - there's a block of time booked every week for training and that's visible to any other shooter who's booking a detail to shoot on. There's a lot of time and effort invested into the teams and a lot of bragging rights on the line. Which rather proves the point that the push has to come from the clubs and the high-level admin stuff just won't drive things along (it's necessary but not sufficient).

Incidentally, the classification gives a national ranking, and has done since this time last year with changes highlighted with each issue.

How does that handle the decay rate? (ie. how do you prevent someone shooting a 590+ score in one match and then holding the number one spot throughout the year even though they may not fire another shot in competition or training in all that time?)

[Deleted User]

RRPC - just got a tonne of worked dumped on me so this will be my last post until after 6!

This is a bit of chicken and egg situation.

The NTSA can't force clubs to run matches (allthogh it can stop them as DURC found out), but it can run them themselves.

RRPC - its great that you got the Fermoy shoot on but given that;

the majority of shooters are based in teh Dublin / Wicklow area, holding a match on in say, Balbriggan, would have probably have had a better result in terms of numbers.

I get really angry hearing people in the NTSA saying that 'scores are going down and matches are going down, but what can we do?'
Its the NTSA's job to try and fix this. I heard a lot of very, very good suggestions in a meeting in UCD two years ago and haven't seen any of them implemented appart from raising the qualifying score (which I agree with).

Where are the squad shoots gone? Where are the regional level coaches?

[RANT] When I was captain in DURC I was talking to the NSTA and saying that I have around 100 shooters who are reasonable plinkers and a very large number of air rifle shooters who were competitive shooters. I was asking was there anything the NTSA could do to help them - any plans for junior squad etc. No. Nothing at all. no contact from NTSA, no one from NTSA asking where there any good, potential new Susans among them, I heard nothing from NTSA apart from where was the clubs membership that year.

I was given out to by UCD for 'booking too many people in' and as result, half the squad couldn't shoot at matches.

I have heard much more from one club (no guesses which one) in terms of support and help in one year, then I have ever heard from the NTSA.

Now you can sit there and say 'what can we do', but when every shooter in our squad new the name of one club, and was greatful to that club for help and supprt, and where asking who the hell are the NTSA, that shows that something isn't quite right
[/rant]

Sorry for having a go but that really pissed me off at the time and is one of the reasons why I haven't been around for the last while (before the exam revision started)

IRLConor

rrpc wrote: »

But this is a good discussion and the type of one which I'd like to see more of on this forum. I'm always open to suggestions and when a good one comes along, I'm delighted to give it a try.

I've been playing around with some of the scores having a look at different ranking mechanisms.

So far I like weighted averaging (and not just because it tends to rank me higher!

) because it takes "trajectory" into account. Someone's recent form makes a bigger difference than their old scores. I've been using a pretty simple version. For example if a shooter has shot 4 matches: 570, 574, 581, 585 it would be calculated as follows:

((570 * 1) + (574 * 2) + (581 * 3) + (585 * 4)) / (1 + 2 + 3 + 4) == 580.1

A simple average would be 577.5. The higher weighted average reflects the fact that the shooter is on the way up in terms of scores.

A shooter with the following scores: 579, 580, 576, 565 would get a weighted average of 572.7 where their simple average was 575.

It still needs something in there to deal with people who don't shoot all that regularly. For example, there's at least one class A shooter who I haven't seen shoot since the last 50m nationals. He's a talented shooter, so bumping him down a class would be unfair on the class B shooters if he comes back. On the other hand, it's also unfair if he gets to stay artificially high in the list.

rrpc wrote: »

I agree that we need more matches, but we also need the kind of turnouts we saw at the last two in DRC for clubs to be motivated to run them.

Indeed, a big fear (certainly for DURC in the past) is that too few people turn up and the club makes a loss on the competition.

[Deleted User]

He's a talented shooter, so bumping him down a class would be unfair on the class B shooters if he comes back. On the other hand, it's also unfair if he gets to stay artificially high in the list.

Why - he just sits at the bottom of A then and doesn't start picking up B glassware.

Sparks

Deleted User wrote: »

Its the NTSA's job to try and fix this. I heard a lot of very, very good suggestions in a meeting in UCD two years ago and haven't seen any of them implemented appart from raising the qualifying score (which I agree with).

I might answer one or two of these since I was one of the people pushing for that whole process to happen.

Where are the squad shoots gone? Where are the regional level coaches?

Squad shoots have collapsed. No argument there. However, the regional level coaches are incoming. Matt and Geoff have completed their NCTC coach tutor courses and are putting together the coaches course. That's going to be run before october this year and those who complete it will then be NCTC-qualified coaches. They're also working on a club instructor level course (The idea is that the instructor course is a subset of the coaches course) and that would produce people able to do basic instruction (think of one of DURC's Range Officers. They wouldn't be ROs though because outside of UCD and TCD, Range Officer is a safety role and Club Instructor isn't - it's only in the college clubs that they're combined).

[RANT] When I was captain in DURC I was talking to the NSTA and saying that I have around 100 shooters who are reasonable plinkers and a very large number of air rifle shooters who were competitive shooters.

And no transport. I remember having 400-odd shooters in DURC as well, but it's nearly impossible to transport them and the kit to any other club. Even UCD's a push. Getting everyone out to WTSC for colours was a major logistics effort. Even getting ten people out to DRC is an accomplishment worthy of a medal in its own right. And on top of that, no competition in DURC or UCDRC ever gets pushed to the level of the colours match.

I heard nothing from NTSA apart from where was the clubs membership that year.

The membership thing is a problem, but it's really a seperate one. Students can't afford much, so asking for 150 quid for a year's membership (which is the WTSC membership fee for adults this year) is out. Unless they have the Junior's setup (ie. Mommy and Daddy pay), you're down to asking for what they have in their pockets right there, and there are concerns over fairness if you have 400 people getting a vote in the AGM for the same price as ten people getting a vote anywhere else. It's a problem that's been there for years. There are possible solutions; I don't think they're going to happen fast because the FCP's sucking up too much manpower and fundamental problems like the membership take time to sort out - do it fast and you risk totally screwing everyone.

I was given out to by UCD for 'booking too many people in' and as result, half the squad couldn't shoot at matches.

That's not really down to the NTSA though

And if there's an Open run by a club and you've got 50 people showing up to shoot, it's the fault of the club running the match if they can't cope, not the NTSA. (You did book in at least a week early, right?

). And in fairness, I did say I'd put together a course on how to run the stats office back when I was running one every other week or so and that's never happened; but we've been overtaken by events with the introduction of electronic targets now in UCD and RRPC, and they reduce the workload by a degree that anyone who never ran a full match scoring everything by hand (as in, with gauges, not the scoring machine) just doesn't get on a visceral level.

Sparks

IRLConor wrote: »

So far I like weighted averaging

It also has the advantage that it's simple to explain and simple to do. Everyone thinks that there's no problem with using very complicated systems (hell, why not use an extended kalman filter to predict what the shooter's expected score is and use that as a classification? :rolleyes: ) but in practise, the simpler the better.

Indeed, a big fear (certainly for DURC in the past) is that too few people turn up and the club makes a loss on the competition.

Yes, but in DURC's case that's an artifically-imposed condition of the club's existance (for those outside colleges, if DURC ever finished a year in the red, even by a few cents, the college rules called for the club to be immediately disbanded, and their other accounting rules made - and still make - the financial operation of the club an exercise in advanced mathematics and theology).

IRLConor

Deleted User wrote: »

IRLConor wrote:

He's a talented shooter, so bumping him down a class would be unfair on the class B shooters if he comes back. On the other hand, it's also unfair if he gets to stay artificially high in the list.

Why - he just sits at the bottom of A then and doesn't start picking up B glassware.

In the current classification scheme of things he sits in A artificially increasing the pool of "A" shooters.

rrpc

IRLConor wrote: »

In the current classification scheme of things he sits in A artificially increasing the pool of "A" shooters.

Not artificially Conor. He or she has shot well enough to merit the classification and if they don't make the grade in the next competition they're out.

But really, classification is just a means to an end. It doesn't make you shoot better, it really exists as a means for shooters lower down the scale to measure their progress (or lack of it).

I don't think you could look at any of the classification lists over the last two years or so and see someone who doesn't deserve to be in class A. Sometimes people miss the cut to go up a class, but if they're going in the right direction, they'll get there.

Ideally, you win the class before you get promoted, but that's not always possible when you get banditas from DURC jumping straight into class B or A on their first competitive outing.

In the end, so long as it's fair and transparent, there's not a whole lot that would make it fairer or more transparent.

There's a time factor here as well. I use data for over a year in order to keep the classfications up to date. As it is, I have to have control totals and other checks to make sure I'm not including the wrong scores or have left something out. If you add more complexity, it will get easier to make mistakes which will cost time and effort.

At least I can get the classifications out the day after a match.

Sparks

We probably should put those classification lists up on the NTSA website, y'know...