ok, as this thread went in so many directions, let me ask a few things in regards to a meager little mid range steel fun match i do during the summer and for similar ones out there that may be interested in TRL:
my match has no affiliation or sanctioning to any other competition as many others are in the same boat; many / most of my target's MOA sizes at distance fall within the proposed sizes for their distance along with the positional shooting, barricades, etc. - in fact my already established match in it's sophmore season incorporates 11 out of the 15 point values proposed - so could this "fun match" be able to meet the criteria for a qualifying match for shooters for TRL and be used by TRL for standings / rankings in bigger comps?
i only get 12-15 shooters per match with maybe only 3-5 of them shooting the separate "tactical" styled side COF and the rest wanting to plink off the bench, but i believe that if it qualifies as a TRL match, more shooters will come out of the woodwork, and whatever the match in a box targets would be, would lead to more consistency across different types of matches held across the board, and that this TRL is a great idea.
i understand the MV BC thing, IMO it's a good for more or less putting in a handicap system that takes into account elevation and wind vs. shooter skill within the MV BC, leaving all those nasty equipment rules that leave alot of shooters in the cold out of the mix. shoot what you bring, either falls in one or another category with similar similar shooter's choices to use, just switch up ammo type if you want to do better. it may take a little homework on the MD's part to find both for joe blow shooter that shows up with factory non gucci ammo and no clue what BC means, but that's ok, google makes it easier. don't know why that was so hard to understand that concept. i do believe in bolt heavy barrel / sporter barrel and semi heavy barrel / sporter barrel divisions, don't know if the MV BC thing can filter out those rifle differences though.
i like the concept that a MD doesn't have to adapt their existing matches to meet TRL, just apply the TRL standards to what they are already doing, +1 on that! don't know why LL had to repeat that over and over and over again.
at first i missed the reasoning behind the number of shooters per match, but then found the reasoning a few posts back. just to confirm, it's to rank how good or how much a particular event sucks vs. other matches so a shooter can figure on which ones to attend? if so, a somewhat good idea to rate or value a match, but on the flip side contrary to some of the objectives on page 1:
1. may not promote smaller struggling "fun matches" to be attended by TRL shooters as a lower attendance brings down the match rating / value.
2. a limited amount of firing positions available or shooters that can shoot during match times may hinder it's growth for TRL based on attendance. good matches that have good COFs may get "penalized" just because they are held on smaller facilities with generally lower attendees.
i think that the shooter attendance "metric" may give a false value to the quality or lack thereof of the match's COF. in other words, a match with a good setup and the potential to be a great match to shoot by an individual may have a low shooter attendance and therefore making it appear less attractive to be attended by other shooters. IMO whether it's 3 or 300 shooters, a match value and a shooter's performance should reflect the quality of the match and COF fired, not how many folks attend it - it doesn't make sense to do so. of course by changing up the targets from match to match will indeed change the match value enough.
obviously a match's "value" will change by default if the targets are changed up a little, but IMO the attendance circumvents that value. sort of like having a 57 chevy convertable, you can fill it with blonde and red headed models for a few hours, when the chicks leave, the value of the car is the same.
i like the round count for different sized targets at several distances and positions (avg. distance factor) as the way of ranking the match value, but using the estimated round count as a stand alone metric is redundant as it's already being factored in on the "avg. distance factor". at that point a round count should be used as a guide for how much ammo to bring...the 15 ways of scoring gives a shooter a feel for what a match's value is based on shooting a perfect score & max round count anyway.
perhaps, and just a suggestion, that the shooter attendance "metric" be relooked to be omitted and maybe the number of targets / stages / distances / that are already incorporated are a more stable platform to be the "metric" for a match's "value"?
for shooter classification - as discussed before a 1 time classifier at a set range (suggested 100yards) will complicate and add another stage to an alreay busy MD's schedule. we all have an off or on day at the range, if the classifier as suggested is on either one of those days, it's not reflecting the shooter's true performance grouping a not so good shooter shooting with better shooters, or the other way around. if you already have a match value (or difficulty level) and a shooter's score, maybe a simple ratio between the two equals the shooter's temporary classification. maybe 3 scores in a row equals the classification, and you move up to the next higher classification when you shoot 3 scores in the next higher classification range, as in silhouette.
score alone can't be used as classification as the cross section of different matches shot will vary greatly and scores are depenant on the type of match shot. as many distances of matches a cross the nation can range from 400 to 1000 or more yards with various targets, some type of ratio of shooter score vs. course difficulty could make it a more level playing field too. a ratio (whether it's match value divided by shooter score, visca versa, or multplied by each other or something else) will be easier on everyone without adding small local matches to add yet something else, and can be performed on the existing COF of the match itself----just a thought.
i apologize for my ramblings and again i don't know my match or similar local matches qualifies, or that i may be missing something from the beginning, but i'm taking it as that the objective on page 1 is a shout out to start it's own entity / sanctioning type body (TRL) without all the BS most sanctioning bodies put into place that hinders growth in it's own sport.
if my humble little match does qualify, i would definitely....proudly like to include it in your TRL program.
