ot rules
- Thread starter ips
- Start date
Help Support :
PhilR
Well-known member
Cos he didn't win it outright. He had the highest score in the 'qualifying rounds'. Or as an athletics analogy he set the fastest time in the heats getting him into the semi final. Sounds he didn't hit enough in the semi final to get through to the two medal matches. It's harsh now and this is one of many instances where the highest scorer in the qualifiers has gone no further than the semi final.
Paul120
Well-known member
7 - 1 springs to mind.
I watched the final today and can categorically say it was as boring as $#!t and took forever.
anyway there's bigger things to worry about. See Tinks ISSF thread.
watchman
Well-known member
Ah I see! These new rules are purely to make it in some way more appealing to the viewing spectators though are they not, to add a bit of drama to something that 95% of people think is something like watching paint dry. In many ways a bit like repechage, you shot crap in the qualifying round and scraped through by say one target but the slate is wiped clean and you get to go again shooting a lot better to win. Fair enough though the rules are the same for all.
And they wonder why people don't want to shoot fast trap! Fast trap of any sort seems to be the target of the meddlers, even ABT is no longer as it was for some reason, but I will resist getting onto my soap box again about that one!!!
watchman
Well-known member
ips
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 15,642
I think we would be hard pushed to find anyone who thinks the current system for ot finals is a good idea. Also if its for the benefit of spectator appeal, were and who are these spectators as even shooters don't generally bother staying too watch a final ?
I agree, its a kind of silly system. You could win the shoot, then win the semi-final, and still only get silver if you lose that shoot-off.
Whenever I watch the GPs on the issf youtube channel, I always think "So that guy won even though he hit 3 less than the poor sod who finished 5th?"
If you want to make it entertaining, get a proper commentator and better camera angles. The American lady (Hillary Russel) who does it normally is not very good. The pro-guest commentators they get are ace, especially Susan Natrass. And its the kind of sport that you could use Picture-In-Picture, e.g. show shooters face, clay breaking and view from behind all at once.
HDAV
Well-known member
jake.keeling
Well-known member
I'm afraid it's all designed around 1 day every four years, and the rest of us have to shoot it like that or change disciplines.
http://www.tirovesti.co.uk/
http://www.tirovesti.co.uk/
Well its no loss to the sport, but I'm one that is moving back to something that does not get changed on a whim! DTL may be slow and mind challenging, but it is at least something that has been around for a long time without too much interference from the meddlers!
Paul120
Well-known member
P
** Pending Removal **
Guest
Correct me if I am wrong....but London was on the new rules. The 6 went into the final on zero and they shot it to find out the 2 who were in the Gold / Silver medal match and the 2 who were in the Bronze match. Single barrel. That is how I remember it and I was there.
Or is there a newer newer set of rules...?
Me thinks the gin has started to take effect. Old rules I'm afraid Tink. Six highest qualifiers went into the single barrel final. The chap going into the final with the equal lowest quali score (Cernogoraz) actually went on to win gold in a shoot off with Massimo Fabbrizi (silver). Diamond went into the final having shot a perfect 125 but came away with nothing after a shoot off for bronze with Aldeehani.
I think it might be the shoot-offs for both gold and bronze medals that you remember as being medal matches.
DT
I think it might be the shoot-offs for both gold and bronze medals that you remember as being medal matches.
DT
Last edited by a moderator:
