21st Cent.

Hopefully this will answer your questions, although one will remain a non-answer.

#1. No, the wording in the up-coming yearbooks addresses the issue the same as in years past. It does give guidelines,but not in the specific mannor you are addressing.

#2 The rules package in question contains a variety of issues still under discussion. Speculating wether or not any or all of them may or may not apply to this or future years is therefore premature. However, as ej noted,changing horses midstream is usually not the option of choice.

#3 As noted.

Now, as a matter for discussion or debate, lets look at this rule for a minute. First off, let me just say, I understand your point and concern very clearly. The wording whichRudy posted wasone version submitted for consideration. This would address your immediate conserns rather well, it would seem.What if, however, this person with less than ethical intent, merely decided to play that perticular game in reverse. Errant mistakes to the low sidecould then be used to handicap an opponent.

Either way you establish a hard and fast protocol could be manipulated if someone was intent on doing so. That returns us to careful consideration before any additions or modifications are made. As for my own opinion, I will only say that if I had to choose between option A or B I would choose that which would tend to make the entire shooting group more diligent in the accurate recording of scoresrather than a cavalier "No Harm - No Foul" approach.

Chris Turner
IBO Director

fasstfletch,

In regards to your last post, I unapologetically must say I dissagree.

The following will be written not to prove who may be right or wrong, but to give my reasoning for what maysimply be a philosophical difference.

You wrote
"If a governing body makes new rules or considers revising established rules such considerations must be for the benefit of all concerned contestants not for a few individuals that may be trying to change an outcome of a contest using dishonest methods."

When someone is using dishonest methods it affects all (weakens the integrity), and the rules should be revised/established for the sake of the majority, the honest players. Pronouncements of punishment are intended for the dishonest, but rules are intended to maintain integrity.

As an exampel (far from the subject of archery). We as a society have rules/laws that make it illegal to rob banks.Should we as a society have never established/revisedour bank robbing lawssince only a very, very small part of the population is inclined to rob banks?

You also wrote;
Of the unwritten rule you are master, the written rule is master of you.

It is my opposing belief that the opposite is true. I feel that a group of people that are not governed bya setof rules/guidelines/laws will find themselves enslaved to anyone in that group of people who decides that their interestare above the rest. I could use countless numbers of exampels such as the Bible, U.S constitution, or any unimaginable host of others. Since I hold a degree in Accounting, I will use General Accepted Accounting Principals (GAAP) to make my point. GAAP is established to ensure thatthe playing field is leveled and that when there are conflicts in the scorecards (financials) it is handled in the same manner regardless of the player or group of players. If GAAP was not established, everyone would/could do whatever makes their bottom line (score) appear most attractive. In light of the above it is my belief that the rules/guidelines/laws are to be viewed as protectors of integrity.When rules/guidlines/laws are established people make decisions to be or not to be governed or subjected tothem, so I cannot see how the rules could ever be considered to have mastery.

Just my opinion.

Bluejacket,

Thanks for addressing my questions.

In regards to your #1 answer, Where is the guideline given? Iwill notsay that it is not there but I am saying that I have searched and have not seen it.

From what I have read, any manner for resolving score card conflict can be decided on by the group, because none fall outside of any guidline that I have read.

I am not trying to advocate thatone way is better than the other, but I do know from personal experience that it is not consistent.


I can understand that changing horses midstream is usually not the option of choice, but nothing is learned by merely putting the horse back in the barn.

21st Cent.

The guidelines which I refer to include; rule #1 which requires all groups busted and the outside person being one of the scorekeepers, rule #2 which requires cards checked and turned in at the completion of each range as well as assigning sole responsibility for the accuracy of the scorecard to the respective shooter. It additionally details how any corrections should be marked on the cards. Rule #7 directs that targets must be scored by both scorekeepers before arrows are pulled.

Now "if all groups are properly busted and scoring responcibilities properly assigned, and "if" both scorekeepers record all scores before any arrows are pulled, and "if" all shooters make sure that all scores are recorded accurately and in completion, then in theory all issues have been addressed and no mistakes will be made.

As I indicated, the current rules do not directly address the question as you pose it. That is one reason why it is currently being reviewed, but I would not presume to predict what the outcome of that review will be, nor any timeframe when or if any changes may be implemented. I would not, however disagree with you on the current ambiguity of how a group should decide if presented with the circumstances you describe.

bluejacket,

Thanks for answering my questions, and I am certain that you did so sincerely believing that the rules that you quoted in some round about way addresses the issue in question.



The following is sarcasm that is intended to emphasis a point:

In theory the IBO rules could be condenesed into only two.

1. Do not cheat.
2. Do not do anything or participate in any activity that will give you an unfair advantage over someone who may beyour competitor.

More sarcasm

1. All scorekeepers and competitors will swear an oath to be truthful before shooting. Since some may not take their vow seriously, then:
2. All scorekeeper will be required to take and pass a polygraph prior to turning in score cards. And to ensure they understand what they will be tested on:
3. All shooting groups must make a provision for the motorized transport of a copy of the new 127 pound all inclusive IBO rulebook which will have a rule to cover every past, present and future possible incident that may or may not arise.

This will certify anyone winning to be a real world champion deserving of their buckle. Enjoyment level should shoot way up also.

Steve

Sorry fellows but I am fast looseing interest in this thread for a vaariety of reasons. I guess that I live in a different world and have too many years in this game to think that you have to live guarding against a few people that may want to win at any cost. During my 50 years in archery I have seen this same thing happen before countless times. By that I mean that some people will try to beat you with a pencil or rule book when they have no chance of doing it with skill. When Archery becomes a game that pays large sums of money then and only then should we be concerned about the few individuals that want to steal from the people that shoot because they enjoy the game. For now lets throw out the cheaters and work hard to establish the games as games that are played by ethical people. Lets never let the silent majority be overpowered by the vocal few.
Good night and God Bless.

"For now lets throw out the cheaters and work hard to establish the games as games that are played by ethical people."


The above is the reason for this thread, and if it was not worth the effort there would be no reason to be vocal.

[quote]ORIGINAL: fasstfletch

21st Century,

There have been some suggestions here and I think that everyone is honest when they are competing at these shoots. In a group there has to be trust and the group must have a majority agreement or it is possible to call a referee. When a mistake is made on the course it should be resolved by the persons shooting to everyone satisfaction for they are the only ones that have a honest view as a witness. o be fair to everyone.

Good Luck

AMEN

fasstfletch,

I am not sure if there is a need to start reposting our previous posts, but you forgot to include all of the one that you did repost. I included a portion of the omitted part for you and added the emphasis.

You included the word AMEN, which means "so be it". The word amen is used at the end of a prayer or to express approval.

"Have fun shooting this game and if a person is cheating or thought to be cheating it is our responsibility to point out what they seem to be doing that is not according to rules. Then we must eliminate any doubts to be fair to everyone." fasstfletch.

AMEN !