PRS Talk Mulligans?....Really

[Feniks Technologies]

This happens in every match. Only one person is first on any stage. And everyone else gets to watch. And where you start is up to the MD. All luck of the draw. It’s a feature of the format and you know it going in.

You have a point on the wind. Hopefully the stages will be staggered so that wind will be a factor every second or third one.

But then a poorer shooter using a mulligan to reshoot a TYL is a counterpoint.

The issue is that someone is able to use prior knowledge to reshoot a stage. It’s clearly against the spirit of the sport and not something that is honorable. Especially for placement.

As for hunting, if it’s a high stakes hunt or any hunt, I will insist that my partner get his first. And that everyone else get theirs. I don’t see how it’s a mulligan unless I slip out before dawn and wait for that critter my partner patterned the day before. Or paid the pilot to come back the next day.

And again, we are back to there are much, much bigger things that matter.

You can go to a match where a top or close to top shooter is from the area. He shoots at a range all the time and knows the wind patterns or stages that MD uses.

So, he has prior knowledge. You’ve never shot there and have no idea.

Case in point, while it’s well known now, it wasn’t always well know. Rifles Only almost always does a 550 cord and other such stages. And it’s still not known by every shooter who doesn’t stay in the know about things.

So, you could go to that match with no idea. And other shooters have been practicing shooting off 550 cord with their prior knowledge.


I have 90+ matches attended in the last 3-4 years. I promise you, a mulligan is one of the absolute last things that’s going to change the order of the top.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

You also don’t get to decide what’s against the spirit of the match. You only get to decide what’s against your personal beliefs. And that’s it.

If PRS or NRL, or any MD out there decides to include something, it is by default in the “spirit” of the match.

 

[Mormegil87]

At the end of the day, the MDs get to decide how this is going to play out. I would imagine we'll have a definitive answer shortly.

 

[spife7980]

It’s clearly against the spirit of the sport and not something that is honorable. Especially for placement.

Who the fuck says that? I say it’s in the spirit of the sport.

Bam. Arbitrary point refuted about an arbitrary game.

So can we stop claiming what is an isn’t in the spirit of a game?

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Francis Colon won the first two days at the AG cup. Didn’t win last day so not the AG champ.

Ryan Cheney hit more targets than anyone at the King of 2 mile. But the winner hit a couple more shots on the 2 mile target and won despite hitting less overall.


Where’s the public outcry of the best shooter not winning a match? Isn’t that what this game is about?

It’s clearly not about the best shooter always winning.

 

[Mormegil87]

Agreed. You can't make conditions equal for all shooters, just like you can't make Lambeau Field 75* in January any more than you can make Raymond James Stadium in Tampa Bay -10* in September.

But no matter where they play, the rules are identical. Rodgers or Brady don't get a mulligan if they miss a pass.. That's, how I feel it should be for national matches.

That being said, I'm just one vote in the survey and one voice in the ear of my MD. Whatever the committee decides, that's what we'll go with.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Agreed. You can't make conditions equal for all shooters, just like you can't make Lambeau Field 75* in January any more than you can make Raymond James Stadium in Tampa Bay -10* in September.

But no matter where they play, the rules are identical. Rodgers or Brady don't get a mulligan if they miss a pass.. That's, how I feel it should be for national matches.

That being said, I'm just one vote in the survey and one voice in the ear of my MD. Whatever the committee decides, that's what we'll go with.

Same. I don’t care what the verdict of the vote is.

I’m just making sure the flip side of the coin is represented. As I understand both sides of the argument.

 

[Mormegil87]

I hear ya. I'm glad there is someone debating for the other side of the coin. Echo chambers suck.

 

[Aviatorfreak]

Mulligans shouldn't be allowed at any points matches of the two day variant or one day regional points matches. If a club is so money strapped they have to sell $10 mulligan to pay Ro's etc, then they need to rethink their range or business model.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Mulligans shouldn't be allowed at any points matches of the two day variant or one day regional points matches. If a club is so money strapped they have to sell $10 mulligan to pay Ro's etc, then they need to rethink their range or business model.

Could you post post the revenue you generated and your expenses for the matches you’ve successfully ran?

Many of us who were or currently are MD’s could greatly benefit from the example of how to optimize our profits enough to not need anything extra.

 

[Tx_Aggie]

Could you post post the revenue you generated and your expenses for the matches you’ve successfully ran?

Many of us who were or currently are MD’s could greatly benefit from the example of how to optimize our profits enough to not need anything extra.

How much of your support for mulligans is because of the revenue they generate?

 

[Tree]

Is this thread really still going on? Mulligans, no mulligans. Wind, no wind. Small targets, large targets. Field match,square range match. 90 second stages, 120 second stages.

A match is never the same between ranges or even days so “fairness” is a moot point.

Until someone can figure out an easy way to calculate match difficulty and apply scoring based on that there is zero point arguing about differences between matches in different locations.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

How much of your support for mulligans is because of the revenue they generate?

If I had to put a value on it, 50/50.

However, I am no longer going to run matches. Mainly because of the headache and grief dealing with shooters (and it’s rarely the top shooters who bug you or complain about literally everything).

In some markets, the lesser skilled shooters really like having a mulligan. So that’s also important. Let’s be honest, you don’t attract and keep new shooters making normal matches difficult. Unfortunately, that’s just how humans are. It’s the very small minority who will stick with something that’s overly challenging.


I personally don’t care about except enough to debate the value (or at least the neutrality) of a mulligan. If they disappeared tomorrow, I won’t be in here complaining.

But, if it’s ruled out, and MD’s who normally sell mulligans increase their match fees……the same people who complained about mulligans better not complain when it costs more or less shooters start showing up.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

I’ve been down all these roads before. I used to bash PRS (I still think stuff like production class is stupid. And the trophy fiasco was absurd) and jersey shooters. Over time I learned it’s not that bad and regardless of what you do, the better shooters find a way to win.

I also went down the road of matches should mimic training and the real world. I made stages equally as difficult across the board for top shooters to score 80%. I would do stuff like no bag stages. Or only allowed one bag the whole day, what you start with you use. I was against mulligans, etc.

Well, when the top shooter got 80%, the mid pack and lower got destroyed. A large portion hated no bag stuff, etc etc. The “if you build it, they will come” philosophy didn’t work in this instance. Attendance feel noticeably.

When I changed it and did things similar to what people call “barricade benchrest” and made stages easier with some “separator stages”…….all of a sudden attendance went up and people were having more fun overall.

There’s nothing wrong with either approach. But one is definitely going to attract less people.

 

[iceng]

I had a think about this over the last 2 days.

Formula 1 this year was a fiasco. Merc and RB abused the radio / comms, to the point that I'm gonna guess that Michael Masi may not be race director next year.
When Masi exercised the rules on the last lap to allow the drivers to race, there was 2 damn protests.

Let's now translate this to PRS. SK is reaching out and trying to find a way to make the series better and more robust. Why the crap are a few internet keyboard warrior trolls getting air time ?

@Hoplite Arms said it best (I think it was him ?) That the top 20 are not complaining. It's wannabe's who probably don't even participate in the sport.

PRS is here to stay. Deal with it. If you wanna do better, then offer to buy the series out and implement your rule set, or become a HUGE major sponsor who may, or may not get Shannon's ear, but I doubt it.

Shut up and shoot, don't be shit. It's how you win. You don't win by being on the side lines hurling abuse. I don't care if Mulligan's exist for everyone but me, I'm still gonna smash steel and get a top 10 finish.

 

[Aviatorfreak]

Francis Colon even made the comment on the podcast with Shannon the other night that it needs to be uniform across the prs because some of the top shooters are only seperated by a shot or so. He isn’t for them either but regardless it just needs to be uniform in the rules.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Francis Colon even made the comment on the podcast with Shannon the other night that it needs to be uniform across the prs because some of the top shooters are only seperated by a shot or so. He isn’t for them either but regardless it just needs to be uniform in the rules.

That’s the funny part. It actually *is* uniform across the board.

They have been allowed for years. It’s at the MD’s discretion. Again, no different than target size.

If you’re good enough to be chasing points, you can easily attend matches that allow mulligans. Or you can easily attend matches that are known for big targets or low wind.

It’s not like rules in one area forbid something and rules in other areas allowed it.

If people really want uniform, then people should be making a huge shitstorm for standardized target sizes for distance and position.

Having rules that say “X range requires Y target size when it’s considered Z stability of rifle support.”

That would be a much, much bigger step in leveling the field than mulligans.

 

[Dead Eye Dick]

Criticism without solution is just bitching. The real problem is not alibis or mulligans, the real problem is maintaining interest. The solution is offering either two courses of fire one for beginners and one for the top shooters or have two different leagues, each catering to a different skill level of shooters (my choice)

At the matches I was privileged to hold, I wanted everyone to shoot good. I did everything I could do to help them equal or achieve personal bests within the letter of the rules. However, most of my shooters were already International class; shot International class scores and we were not giving out, points, qualifications or money. (Or prizes) Just a bunch of men and women wanting to knock down some steel that vaguely looked like animals that were a long ways away. I did have a smattering of class B and Class C shooters. To them, knocking down “a” target every now and then was quite an accomplishment.

And this is the problem with holding matches. It has to be contest or it is worthless. There has to be a line in the competition that no one can cross. But, the problem is some fellows who are lucky to score a 12x40 seeing a whole bunch of men and women scoring 40x40‘s over and over again, match after match. More sooner than later, they take their marbles (entry fees) and leave. (And don’t come back). So this is the problem that every competition has to face.

Never mind, that the International class shooters not only have the talent, but have made the sacrifices necessary to enabled them to be World Class Marksman. It still disgruntles the class c shooters.

Some of us will never be PRS winners, due to age, (lack of) talent or constraints both personal and financial. No amount of alibis will never make them (including myself) winners. But giving extra shots in matches that matter, does not make champion’s, champions. Matters not if everyone does it or only some do it. It cheapens the effort. It destroys the value. It crosses the line.

Remember the Olympics of 1972, the officials gave the Russians an extra time at the end of the basketball final. That untold little favor, forever destroyed the credibility of the Olympic Games (when rampant cheating was already doing its best to destroy sport in general.).

I suppose my final thought is this, give all the extra shots you want, but when it gets dark, I’m going home.

 

[Mormegil87]

What some shooters don't understand or know and don't want to admit is that this sport/activity will not continue without the continued participation of the mid pack and lower shooters. If they all go home or stop shooting, there is fewer people paying match fees, buying barrels, custom actions, scopes, components/ammo etc.

I'm a consistent top 10 shooter at our one day matches. I try to keep in mind that myself and the others at the top are not and should not be the focus of the club. We are easily replaceable so long as there is consistent participation in the mid pack ranks.

I dont think mulligans are the answer. I feel there is merit in the two target system though I genuinely don't know how cost will affect MDs, especially regional MDs.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

What some shooters don't understand or know and don't want to admit is that this sport/activity will not continue without the continued participation of the mid pack and lower shooters. If they all go home or stop shooting, there is fewer people paying match fees, buying barrels, custom actions, scopes, components/ammo etc.

I'm a consistent top 10 shooter at our one day matches. I try to keep in mind that myself and the others at the top are not and should not be the focus of the club. We are easily replaceable so long as there is consistent participation in the mid pack ranks.

I dont think mulligans are the answer. I feel there is merit in the two target system though I genuinely don't know how cost will affect MDs, especially regional MDs.

The two target system as well as different time hacks is absolutely the way to go.

The logistics however make it very hard to justify the time and money involved. Along with the match day logistics of making sure people coordinated properly on who shoots what and how much time.

And then it will also slow match pace down.

 

[jcwarrior87]

Prs has always been about how a MD designs their cof.... if a MD has a good cof people come back. It is one of the great things about prs every match is a little different. I personally think mulligans just add to the game.... that is what prs is it is a game. Like any game it is about skill and strategy a mulligan just add to that strategy, use it and you might get a few extra points, you could loose them too.

Now my only grip about them is the pay extra for them. If you are going to add them into your cof add them for everyone. If you need the extra money for the match raise the price. No one is going to bat an eye at 200 or 210 for a match. When you make them a extra add on, we are only adding to the fire of the drama. O people can just by extra points, what's next "1 for 10, 2 for 50"(yes I have heard that out of a big name MD's mouth) but if everyone has one, then it is all just how you designed the cof, and the shooters play the game. Some times I think we want the drama and just add to it...


As for it bettering scores, the first time I saw them used was when jon p won the jc steel match at blue ridge..... he didn't use his mulligan and still won.... there where ALOT of good shooters at that match.

 

[Oldloser]

The two target system as well as different time hacks is absolutely the way to go.

The logistics however make it very hard to justify the time and money involved. Along with the match day logistics of making sure people coordinated properly on who shoots what and how much time.

And then it will also slow match pace down.

Agree. Change size and composition of the squads to moderate the pace as well. Let people pair up then assign them to squads based on par times so that entire squad has same aggregate par times. Randomly mix A B and C shooter pairs. Have minimum target sizes by class. You can shoot up but not down. A lot of individual sports already do this in their own way. Add a top team class as well.

 

[LV Precision]

Agree. Change size and composition of the squads to moderate the pace as well. Let people pair up then assign them to squads based on par times so that entire squad has same aggregate par times. Randomly mix A B and C shooter pairs. Have minimum target sizes by class. You can shoot up but not down. A lot of individual sports already do this in their own way. Add a top team class as well.

You should host a match and try these rules. Put your money where your mouth is.

 

[Tx_Aggie]

Bit of thread drift, but maybe for the better.

@Hoplite Ammo and Training @RoterJager

Do you think the PRS is mature enough (and large enough) to implement something like a simplified version of the USPSA classifier system? Or like the Cat (for category) system used in cycling.

Instead of requiring MDs to set up two sets of targets, and ROs to keep track of two different sets of par times, that is.

Class shooters on their ability, so they they compete within their division/class/category against others at the same level. Earn enough points, or place high enough consistently, and you move up a class. Each region could offer a couple of classifier matches throughout the year, say in conjunction with or in place of the current qualifier matches. Alternatively, a system similar to cycling wouldn't even require classifier stages, just yearly adjustments in class based on performance, something PRS is sort of already doing.

Currently, besides maybe a trophy at an individual match for the "high semi-pro," high marksman," etc. the PRS class system doesn't seem to track or reward shooter performance within a class, and I don't think there are class based awards at the regional level at all.

USPSA breaks each division down by class, and that might be overkill for something as small as PRS. Especially since 90%+ of shooters are shooting Open. But allowing guys to compete against their actual peers, even if it's just for bragging rights and maybe a trophy, could do a lot to keep the mid-pack and lower level shooters entertained. Especially since, as you guys say, they're the ones paying to keep the lights on.

 

[Lowlight]

Funny how these threads drift to the point where it becomes a best practice discussion.

Basically everyone adds their experience from across the various matches, we note the inconsistencies and difference in experience, basically, here we did this, and their they did that... in order to form a better model

The process is sound and lucky for us we are not constrained by time. You can walk away, reflect, come back to revisit and then craft a response that fits the goal.

When you look at that process, or this process of identifying the needs, then crafting a solution, it's pretty obvious very little of this movement is happening on the PsR side of the house. We talk about it, I have been talking about a big and small, having a pro match inside an amateur event, so we can challenge the pros, help the amateurs and build up the mid pack center. Why do they never address this

Think about the guys who do participate pretty heavily in PrS here, who ever the years have pushed back against me, how I am just a hater, except I ALWAYS offer a solution the question is are you willing to make changes. I see with a clarity that happens from the outside in, having been on the inside previously. So I see things differently.

You all came full circle right back to the same place we always do, identified an area that needs change, identify the changes that would help, walk away because they SeRiEs don't care and repeating the same thing over and over is easier.

Think about the conversation, the ideas put forward, where are you ...

 

[sleeplz]

Funny how these threads drift to the point where it becomes a best practice discussion.

Basically everyone adds their experience from across the various matches, we note the inconsistencies and difference in experience, basically, here we did this, and their they did that... in order to form a better model

The process is sound and lucky for us we are not constrained by time. You can walk away, reflect, come back to revisit and then craft a response that fits the goal.

When you look at that process, or this process of identifying the needs, then crafting a solution, it's pretty obvious very little of this movement is happening on the PsR side of the house. We talk about it, I have been talking about a big and small, having a pro match inside an amateur event, so we can challenge the pros, help the amateurs and build up the mid pack center. Why do they never address this

Think about the guys who do participate pretty heavily in PrS here, who ever the years have pushed back against me, how I am just a hater, except I ALWAYS offer a solution the question is are you willing to make changes. I see with a clarity that happens from the outside in, having been on the inside previously. So I see things differently.

You all came full circle right back to the same place we always do, identified an area that needs change, identify the changes that would help, walk away because they SeRiEs don't care and repeating the same thing over and over is easier.

Think about the conversation, the ideas put forward, where are you ...

Ideas, talk, and solutions are easy. When will you @lowlight run a series or match that run your ideas? Show us how it's done and prove the concepts that you identify.

It's the same idea when people criticize your website, you tell them to go elsewhere and you run your shit. If you hate the site, stop using it. PRS/NRL are doing the same thing, running their shit.

 

[308pirate]

If PRS or NRL were to properly regulate matches they would need their own officials and such to be at every match in the country.

That all of a sudden creates a ton of salaries that need to be paid

USPSA has ONE match official on their payroll: the Director of the National Range Officers Institute. Everyone else is an unpaid volunteer.

However, at level II matches and above the Range Officers and other volunteer match staff are compensated for their lodging and match fees.

So there's some truth to what you say but the expense isn't as large as a full time salaray nor is it borne by the national organization. It's borne by the match's coffers.

 

[Oldloser]

You should host a match and try these rules. Put your money where your mouth is.

What is WYCo doing?

The rest is either logistics tricks or ensuring everyone gets to meet others.

 

[Oldloser]

USPSA has ONE match official on their payroll: the Director of the National Range Officers Institute. Everyone else is an unpaid volunteer.

However, at level II matches and above the Range Officers and other volunteer match staff are compensated for their lodging and match fees.

So there's some truth to what you say but the expense isn't as large as a full time salaray nor is it borne by the national organization. It's borne by the match's coffers.

It’s the same as tennis, bike racing, soccer, or basketball. Volunteers drive the officiating but get paid.

The difference here is that the ranges with few exceptions are private. And are truly scarce.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

USPSA has ONE match official on their payroll: the Director of the National Range Officers Institute. Everyone else is an unpaid volunteer.

However, at level II matches and above the Range Officers and other volunteer match staff are compensated for their lodging and match fees.

So there's some truth to what you say but the expense isn't as large as a full time salaray nor is it borne by the national organization. It's borne by the match's coffers.

I agree. However I’d think (I’m admittedly not well versed in uspsa) that the logistics would be fairly different for rifle matches. Just finding locations in certain areas and setting things up is more intensive and such.

Let’s say you are able to average 100 shooters for 40 matches across the country for $300 each.

You’re only looking at $1.2mil in revenue before everyone involved takes a piece of it.


But, despite my knowledge of uspsa, I’ve been telling people for a few years the rifle comp world is not very smart. There’s literally already a playbook written by organizations like uspsa. No neee to completely reinvent the wheel. Take what we can from them and modify it accordingly.

But this industry is odd. We definitely like to work harder rather than smarter.

 

[308pirate]

But, despite my knowledge of uspsa, I’ve been telling people for a few years the rifle comp world is not very smart. There’s literally already a playbook written by organizations like uspsa. No neee to completely reinvent the wheel. Take what we can from them and modify it accordingly

This is the most maddening part

There's literally a blueprint to follow. Adapt the best and modify it to suit.

The people who think they need to invent it all from scratch are literal idiots.

 

[308pirate]

The difference here is that the ranges with few exceptions are private.

That's not a difference. Every single club that hosts USPSA matches in my area, and almost all around the country, are private

And are truly scarce.

That is true, no getting around that.

But still, USPSA is successful. Find out why and replicate those conditions as much as you can.

 

[BisSilent]

 

[JMGlasgow]

What is WYCo doing?

The rest is either logistics tricks or ensuring everyone gets to meet others.

I shot 14 WYCO PRL matches this year, and knowing the two founders quite well, all target sizes across all classes are the same for the match. A, B, and C classes are strictly based on match scores. This past season you shot 3 matches to get classified, and you could move up if your scores reflected improvement. You could class down with permission from WYCO on a case by case basis. Rules are evolving since this format is very new, but the intention is to keep improving the league. Any and all feed back is taken into consideration.

 

[sleeplz]

The whining and pussification of this thread shows that cancel culture is alive and well on the right wing.

Let me complain about another organization until they do what I want. I don’t really wanna do anything but complain.

 

[accurate obsession]

^^^^^^^
Well there you have it, for the high crimes and misdemeanors of sharing opinions, ideas and maybe learning something about the workings of a match we have been outed as cancel culture.
Funny, it's usually the canceled who recieve the label (pussy, whiner, racist, homophobe, nationalist) and cancelors who fling them in order to show it's time for us to STFU.

 

[BisSilent]

Mulligans are like sleeping with your sister if you are from West Virginia....allowed but not legal(in the PRS rules).

P.S. I apologize to those that are from WV

 

[Emerson0311]

^^^^^^^
Well there you have it, for the high crimes and misdemeanors of sharing opinions, ideas and maybe learning something about the workings of a match we have been outed as cancel culture.
Funny, it's usually the canceled who recieve the label (pussy, whiner, racist, homophobe, nationalist) and cancelors who fling them in order to show it's time for us to STFU.

I’m a prospective PRS shooter. I agree. People like me pay the $$$ and get some practice is about it. I can do that with local friends I pick too. Like drinking at home with friends instead of hitting a nightspot. The problem with these shooting based orgs seems to be that the profit margin just isn’t there, and there are not enough true shooting geeks, at least spread evenly nation wide, to pay the way.

 

[Voroshilovsky]

I’m going to jump unwisely into this fray, set aside all the other points made (pussification being the most salient), and raise a point about statistics.

It seems to me that, ceteris paribus, a mulligan would tend to shift the distribution of total scores at a given match by lumping some band of shooters more closely together. I would guess the low edge of that band is at or a little above the level of shooters just good enough to ensure their second attempt is better than the first more than half the time. I don’t know where the top edge would be, but it’s probably at or close to the top level of shooters. (It partly depends on the hit ratio of the very top, obviously.)

Would it not be undesirable to tighten up the distribution of scores in this group? Sure, the mulligan might make some individual shooters happy, but it tends to make this whole group less differentiated, especially based on their shooting skills. That makes the proper use of the mulligan even more important.

Thus, one could argue, the mulligan contributes to pussification.

It’s a valid point that the mulligan is a mindfuck that challenges the shooter by distraction. But shouldn’t mindfucks have some rational relation to shooting? It might be a useful fundraising tool, but the mulligan creates no value as part of a shooting problem/solution.

Of course, I’m better at using random Latin phrases than at statistics, so I could be wrong.

 

[LV Precision]

I’m going to jump unwisely into this fray, set aside all the other points made (pussification being the most salient), and raise a point about statistics.

It seems to me that, ceteris paribus, a mulligan would tend to shift the distribution of total scores at a given match by lumping some band of shooters more closely together. I would guess the low edge of that band is at or a little above the level of shooters just good enough to ensure their second attempt is better than the first more than half the time. I don’t know where the top edge would be, but it’s probably at or close to the top level of shooters. (It partly depends on the hit ratio of the very top, obviously.)

Would it not be undesirable to tighten up the distribution of scores in this group? Sure, the mulligan might make some individual shooters happy, but it tends to make this whole group less differentiated, especially based on their shooting skills. That makes the proper use of the mulligan even more important.

Thus, one could argue, the mulligan contributes to pussification.

It’s a valid point that the mulligan is a mindfuck that challenges the shooter by distraction. But shouldn’t mindfucks have some rational relation to shooting? It might be a useful fundraising tool, but the mulligan creates no value as part of a shooting problem/solution.

Of course, I’m better at using random Latin phrases than at statistics, so I could be wrong.

Might want to lay off on that second pot of coffee in the morning.

 

[Tree]

Still going.

 

[DocRDS]

Mulligans are like sleeping with your sister if you are from West Virginia....allowed but not legal(in the PRS rules).

P.S. I apologize to those that are from WV

Dammit Bette you're drunk tweeting again.

 

[Birddog6424]

As a Pro Series MD who is in on the vote for this, and an MD who has used Mulligans at my match, I have a few things to add.

They are going away, I get that. I wont be doing them anymore. But once they are gone, then maybe shooters will stop having knee-jerk reactions to them like the last 4 pages have been, and we can address the elephants in the room.

First of all, I dont have a 100+ shooter match. I used that money to pay my ROs a little extra for their time. They are the guys that help pull this together.

Secondly, as already mentioned, a Mulligan does nothing to change the season long standings. Its one stage, and just as often as a shooter improves their score on a stage, they make it worse. And according to the rules of a Mulligan, they have to take the worse score.

Thirdly, and here's where we really get to the elephant in the room... the season long points race is effected FAR more by match level difficulty than it is by one Mulligan. My match was the 4th most difficult match of the season. All those people who shot my match and grinded out their score with a Mulligan on board still didnt do as well in the national points race as the people shooting the other 36 matches in the season that were easier than mine.

Let's be honest guys. There's some meatball matches out there that allow the guy in 20th place to pocket a 94%. The hardest 20 matches spread the scoring out, the guy in 20th gets 80% to 85% on average. The bottom 20 easiest matches is more like 90% to 95% for the same placement. And if you guys really want to cry bullshit over Mulligans, then the fair thing to do would be to address the HUGE scoring discrepancy in match difficulty! This has a HUGE impact on the national points race, yet no one says anything about it, we are complaining about Mulligans.

And fourthly, the monstrous white elephant in the room... Mulligans exist everywhere, for every shooter. Think about this..

You need 3 scores to qualify for the Finale, your 3 best. So why are guys allowed to shoot 4 matches? What is that exactly but a $250 to $300 Mulligan? You are paying to improve your score!! But its better than a Mulligan, because if its worse you don't have to take it.

Shooters who shoot 4, 7, or 9 matches (or more) have a huge advantage over those who shoot 3. Every match beyond 3 is a Mulligan to improve their points. Not everyone can do it, so how is that fair. Its not capped, you can shoot as many matches as you can get to.. Those guys aren't taking their top 3 and walking away. How many times did someone say over the last 4 pages that you have to take your stage, like it or not. You only get one try so accept it. But we arent doing that. We arent taking our 3 matches and accepting it. Shooters are shooting more matches, improving their score. Ive heard it dozens of times " I gotta try to get to one more match to improve my xx score".

Thats a Mulligan. By any definition. Its a do-over. That match didn't go as planned, just like that bad stage. So I'm going to do a "reshoot" at another match to try to improve it.

Think about it guys.. and be honest.. how on earth is this a fair across the board playing field. And how on earth, after seeing the elephants in the room, are Mulligans honestly that big a deal...

 

[LV Precision]

As a Pro Series MD who is in on the vote for this, and an MD who has used Mulligans at my match, I have a few things to add.

They are going away, I get that. I wont be doing them anymore. But once they are gone, then maybe shooters will stop having knee-jerk reactions to them like the last 4 pages have been, and we can address the elephants in the room.

First of all, I dont have a 100+ shooter match. I used that money to pay my ROs a little extra for their time. They are the guys that help pull this together.

Secondly, as already mentioned, a Mulligan does nothing to change the season long standings. Its one stage, and just as often as a shooter improves their score on a stage, they make it worse. And according to the rules of a Mulligan, they have to take the worse score.

Thirdly, and here's where we really get to the elephant in the room... the season long points race is effected FAR more by match level difficulty than it is by one Mulligan. My match was the 4th most difficult match of the season. All those people who shot my match and grinded out their score with a Mulligan on board still didnt do as well in the national points race as the people shooting the other 36 matches in the season that were easier than mine.

Let's be honest guys. There's some meatball matches out there that allow the guy in 20th place to pocket a 94%. The hardest 20 matches spread the scoring out, the guy in 20th gets 80% to 85% on average. The bottom 20 easiest matches is more like 90% to 95% for the same placement. And if you guys really want to cry bullshit over Mulligans, then the fair thing to do would be to address the HUGE scoring discrepancy in match difficulty! This has a HUGE impact on the national points race, yet no one says anything about it, we are complaining about Mulligans.

And fourthly, the monstrous white elephant in the room... Mulligans exist everywhere, for every shooter. Think about this..

You need 3 scores to qualify for the Finale, your 3 best. So why are guys allowed to shoot 4 matches? What is that exactly but a $250 to $300 Mulligan? You are paying to improve your score!! But its better than a Mulligan, because if its worse you don't have to take it.

Shooters who shoot 4, 7, or 9 matches (or more) have a huge advantage over those who shoot 3. Every match beyond 3 is a Mulligan to improve their points. Not everyone can do it, so how is that fair. Its not capped, you can shoot as many matches as you can get to.. Those guys aren't taking their top 3 and walking away. How many times did someone say over the last 4 pages that you have to take your stage, like it or not. You only get one try so accept it. But we arent doing that. We arent taking our 3 matches and accepting it. Shooters are shooting more matches, improving their score. Ive heard it dozens of times " I gotta try to get to one more match to improve my xx score".

Thats a Mulligan. By any definition. Its a do-over. That match didn't go as planned, just like that bad stage. So I'm going to do a "reshoot" at another match to try to improve it.

Think about it guys.. and be honest.. how on earth is this a fair across the board playing field. And how on earth, after seeing the elephants in the room, are Mulligans honestly that big a deal...

Amen.

 

[BisSilent]

As a Pro Series MD who is in on the vote for this, and an MD who has used Mulligans at my match, I have a few things to add.

They are going away, I get that. I wont be doing them anymore. But once they are gone, then maybe shooters will stop having knee-jerk reactions to them like the last 4 pages have been, and we can address the elephants in the room.

First of all, I dont have a 100+ shooter match. I used that money to pay my ROs a little extra for their time. They are the guys that help pull this together.

Secondly, as already mentioned, a Mulligan does nothing to change the season long standings. Its one stage, and just as often as a shooter improves their score on a stage, they make it worse. And according to the rules of a Mulligan, they have to take the worse score.

Thirdly, and here's where we really get to the elephant in the room... the season long points race is effected FAR more by match level difficulty than it is by one Mulligan. My match was the 4th most difficult match of the season. All those people who shot my match and grinded out their score with a Mulligan on board still didnt do as well in the national points race as the people shooting the other 36 matches in the season that were easier than mine.

Let's be honest guys. There's some meatball matches out there that allow the guy in 20th place to pocket a 94%. The hardest 20 matches spread the scoring out, the guy in 20th gets 80% to 85% on average. The bottom 20 easiest matches is more like 90% to 95% for the same placement. And if you guys really want to cry bullshit over Mulligans, then the fair thing to do would be to address the HUGE scoring discrepancy in match difficulty! This has a HUGE impact on the national points race, yet no one says anything about it, we are complaining about Mulligans.

And fourthly, the monstrous white elephant in the room... Mulligans exist everywhere, for every shooter. Think about this..

You need 3 scores to qualify for the Finale, your 3 best. So why are guys allowed to shoot 4 matches? What is that exactly but a $250 to $300 Mulligan? You are paying to improve your score!! But its better than a Mulligan, because if its worse you don't have to take it.

Shooters who shoot 4, 7, or 9 matches (or more) have a huge advantage over those who shoot 3. Every match beyond 3 is a Mulligan to improve their points. Not everyone can do it, so how is that fair. Its not capped, you can shoot as many matches as you can get to.. Those guys aren't taking their top 3 and walking away. How many times did someone say over the last 4 pages that you have to take your stage, like it or not. You only get one try so accept it. But we arent doing that. We arent taking our 3 matches and accepting it. Shooters are shooting more matches, improving their score. Ive heard it dozens of times " I gotta try to get to one more match to improve my xx score".

Thats a Mulligan. By any definition. Its a do-over. That match didn't go as planned, just like that bad stage. So I'm going to do a "reshoot" at another match to try to improve it.

Think about it guys.. and be honest.. how on earth is this a fair across the board playing field. And how on earth, after seeing the elephants in the room, are Mulligans honestly that big a deal...

I'm tracking with you up until the point that you get to the regional finale that has Mulligans that is worth 200 points toward a perfect 700 championship points. One regional finale has a Mulligan and another doesn't. That is the point that Mulligans aren't equitable.

Do you agree?

 

[Feniks Technologies]

I'm tracking with you up until the point that you get to the regional finale that has Mulligans that is worth 200 points toward a perfect 700 championship points. One regional finale has a Mulligan and another doesn't. That is the point that Mulligans aren't equitable.

Do you agree?

I don’t agree.

1: the other regions could have incorporated a mulligan. They chose not to. Whether they didn’t know or understand they could or they don’t agree with them. They didn’t exercise the option.

2: The same shooters would have likely ended up with the same perfect season score. They were the top shooters all year. It’s not like someone who doesn’t win used a mulligan to somehow pull off a win and big score. They same guys who win…..won.

3: back to the same point being brought up……what if A region had hurricane winds and B region had calm winds on their finale dates? That is absolutely not equitable.

But I promise you people will say “well, everyone at the shot in the same conditions.” Which is the exact same scenario. Everyone at the mulligan match had the exact same opportunity.

If you’re looking for equitable in a shooting sport, you’re in the wrong hobby.



I’ll take people seriously when they start complaining about target size and difficulty being equitable. Until then, it’s just people being distracted by some shiny (in this case, a mulligan).

 

[Birddog6424]

I don’t agree.

1: the other regions could have incorporated a mulligan. They chose not to. Whether they didn’t know or understand they could or they don’t agree with them. They didn’t exercise the option.

2: The same shooters would have likely ended up with the same perfect season score. They were the top shooters all year. It’s not like someone who doesn’t win used a mulligan to somehow pull off a win and big score. They same guys who win…..won.

3: back to the same point being brought up……what if A region had hurricane winds and B region had calm winds on their finale dates? That is absolutely not equitable.

But I promise you people will say “well, everyone at the shot in the same conditions.” Which is the exact same scenario. Everyone at the mulligan match had the exact same opportunity.

If you’re looking for equitable in a shooting sport, you’re in the wrong hobby.



I’ll take people seriously when they start complaining about target size and difficulty being equitable. Until then, it’s just people being distracted by some shiny (in this case, a mulligan).

Exactly...

 

[BisSilent]

I don’t agree.

1: the other regions could have incorporated a mulligan. They chose not to. Whether they didn’t know or understand they could or they don’t agree with them. They didn’t exercise the option.

2: The same shooters would have likely ended up with the same perfect season score. They were the top shooters all year. It’s not like someone who doesn’t win used a mulligan to somehow pull off a win and big score. They same guys who win…..won.

3: back to the same point being brought up……what if A region had hurricane winds and B region had calm winds on their finale dates? That is absolutely not equitable.

But I promise you people will say “well, everyone at the shot in the same conditions.” Which is the exact same scenario. Everyone at the mulligan match had the exact same opportunity.

If you’re looking for equitable in a shooting sport, you’re in the wrong hobby.



I’ll take people seriously when they start complaining about target size and difficulty being equitable. Until then, it’s just people being distracted by some shiny (in this case, a mulligan).

I'm gonna drink

 

[Rob01]

Mulligans are for pussies. Shoot the stage and take your score. Don't bother trying to change my mind. You won't.

 

[Hollywood 6mm]

As a Pro Series MD who is in on the vote for this, and an MD who has used Mulligans at my match, I have a few things to add.

They are going away, I get that. I wont be doing them anymore. But once they are gone, then maybe shooters will stop having knee-jerk reactions to them like the last 4 pages have been, and we can address the elephants in the room.

First of all, I dont have a 100+ shooter match. I used that money to pay my ROs a little extra for their time. They are the guys that help pull this together.

Secondly, as already mentioned, a Mulligan does nothing to change the season long standings. Its one stage, and just as often as a shooter improves their score on a stage, they make it worse. And according to the rules of a Mulligan, they have to take the worse score.

Thirdly, and here's where we really get to the elephant in the room... the season long points race is effected FAR more by match level difficulty than it is by one Mulligan. My match was the 4th most difficult match of the season. All those people who shot my match and grinded out their score with a Mulligan on board still didnt do as well in the national points race as the people shooting the other 36 matches in the season that were easier than mine.

Let's be honest guys. There's some meatball matches out there that allow the guy in 20th place to pocket a 94%. The hardest 20 matches spread the scoring out, the guy in 20th gets 80% to 85% on average. The bottom 20 easiest matches is more like 90% to 95% for the same placement. And if you guys really want to cry bullshit over Mulligans, then the fair thing to do would be to address the HUGE scoring discrepancy in match difficulty! This has a HUGE impact on the national points race, yet no one says anything about it, we are complaining about Mulligans.

And fourthly, the monstrous white elephant in the room... Mulligans exist everywhere, for every shooter. Think about this..

You need 3 scores to qualify for the Finale, your 3 best. So why are guys allowed to shoot 4 matches? What is that exactly but a $250 to $300 Mulligan? You are paying to improve your score!! But its better than a Mulligan, because if its worse you don't have to take it.

Shooters who shoot 4, 7, or 9 matches (or more) have a huge advantage over those who shoot 3. Every match beyond 3 is a Mulligan to improve their points. Not everyone can do it, so how is that fair. Its not capped, you can shoot as many matches as you can get to.. Those guys aren't taking their top 3 and walking away. How many times did someone say over the last 4 pages that you have to take your stage, like it or not. You only get one try so accept it. But we arent doing that. We arent taking our 3 matches and accepting it. Shooters are shooting more matches, improving their score. Ive heard it dozens of times " I gotta try to get to one more match to improve my xx score".

Thats a Mulligan. By any definition. Its a do-over. That match didn't go as planned, just like that bad stage. So I'm going to do a "reshoot" at another match to try to improve it.

Think about it guys.. and be honest.. how on earth is this a fair across the board playing field. And how on earth, after seeing the elephants in the room, are Mulligans honestly that big a deal...

A-fucking-men, dude.