Electronic Scoring

I would agree that the Orion system is efficient.....however, in my mind, efficiency is the least significant variable when scoring a match.

At this time, Orion is not even close to the accuracy of a plug for the round nosed pellets that we shoot. Accuracy is going to have to match or exceed the current system of plugging for me to get excited about using it.

Mike
 
From a shooters point of view,

There is nothing wrong with the plug. We see it now in IBS. The problem comes in the decision where the center of the hole is, be it electronic or the eye of the human centering the hole. A plug, of the right dimension, will center the hole without any discretion. I think it Is pretty tough to make a properly constructed plug do something evil.

It could be that using a .177 plug may be an answer but shooters want what they earn, not what some software decides is appropriate. One of the issues, Sport wide, is the lack of a written protocol and training for people who score. I have scored hundreds , if not thousands, of targets the conventional way. Rarely is one of my call overridden. Do something long enough and one will become competent. I don't understand why a .177 plug isn't used. I do understand why folks resist the electronic systems.

Pete
 
electronic scoring

Gentlemen, you do understand Monday morning quarterbacking is always easier than playing the actual game.

So I am going to attempt same; IF Garrett and his boys(who obviously put all their hearts into this) had used plugs at the Nationals this conversation would be no where as controversial OR EVEN AN ISSUE on this forum.....and as for Steve's statement as Orion being as good or better than plugging, that can't be true or we would not be having this conversation........ Then to be fair we must also reason the fact if Orion obviously takes points away....it surely must add them also.
In my judgement Orion electronic scoring SHOULD NOT have been used at a national venue.......... It sounded good but at the time unproven.

My logic dictates it should have been refined by Garrett's group at their LOCAL MATCHES perfecting it there and then with all the bugs out and some history.........used at next years Nationals.

Frank
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Both plugs and electronic scoring have specific problems. These problems may be realistic or in the minds of individuals. Develop a scoring system that everybody can use and just use that one - everywhere. Think it out.

Does every range that will schedule matches have the equipment to score?
Do you actually need multiple methods of scoring?
Will the multiple methods produce different scores?
Which method produces more competitors (difficult question)?

It's not wrong to go in any direction until you discover that it's wrong.
 
Here we go...

We are in the process of compiling raw data to release. This information will be both good and bad for both electronic, AND plug scoring. Neither system is perfect. They are different. You WILL get different results with both. That is a FACT. Plugging has MANY pitfalls despite how simple it seems. Electronic has pitfalls despite how mysterious it seems.
The most important thing we have discovered after scoring over HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of bulls, is that there is NO WAY to compare the two. Yes, it's that simple. Really? Yes. Clearly different results will occur with each, AND BOTH WILL BE RIGHT! How you ask? The easiest answer, plugging rips the paper, but electronic chooses the best center of shadow, which CAN easily be different than the plug. The best shadow may not be the correct center, where as the plug can push itself into a position that is totally incorrect depending on where the tears are weakest.
The worst possible scenario is comparing the two. That was our mistake. We released the targets for transparency. And in doing so people did exactly the worst possible thing... Plugging and comparing. Doing so without thorough understanding of each system created doubt. Doubt undermines the trust. And trust is the foundation and pillar of officiating.

Unfortunately, the outcome to this discussion will not be won by any side if you compare one vs the other. Any system can only be validated by the accuracy seen within each system.
Read that again.
Yes that is hard to swallow. So what needs to be done, is for objective information validating a hole to represent exactly what it is. A hole, it's inner edge,and it's distance from the line. Yes that is hard to do when a plug is your only means of doing so. And yes, it is even harder when that is all you know. Just as in Plato's Allegory of the Cave. No condescending meant.
The system was ready for a national venue, the big question is... At what point will the shooters be ready for a new scoring system?
The electronic scoring system will NEVER provide the SAME results as plugging. That is the first step one must accept before moving forward. Yes there will be errors. From our experience, less on the electronic side. There are advantages to each. Find what works for your group, and use it.
It's like the age old debate on Chevys vs Fords. Nikons vs Cannons. College football vs the Pros. Each has their purpose, find it, use it, and be happy.
 
Last edited:
Can we agree

That scoring needs to be one way and not the other within a particular sanction?
 
When I shoot a card..... I would say that probably 90% of the time the score I think I shot through the scope matches the score verified with the plug. It's only 90% because sometimes I land a pellet right smack on the middle of the 9 ring line and without the plug I can't exactly say if it's a 9 or 10. I know that if more of the pellet is inboard of the 9 ring.....it will score a 10. If more is on the outside.....it will score a 9. I have never once had a situation where the majority of the pellet was on the inside of the 9 ring line and the plug said it was a 9.....likewise I have never had a situation where the majority of the pellet was on the outboard side of the 9 ring line and the plug called it a 10. I don't think it is a coincidence that the visual cues that we use to score a target through the scope are exactly what is reflected with the use of a plug.

The mistakes that I saw the Orion system make were not "close calls". The were blatant mistakes that most experienced people would not even need a plug to verify. If somebody just couldn't bear to push a plug in the hole for fear of the massive paper tearing that could ensue, they could have used an Eagle Eye and it would have been a "no brainer" call. If that wasn't acceptable.....a pair of calipers would have sufficed. It's funny that four methods of judgement that would have yielded the same result are now rendered "antiquated" and unreliable with the Orion system being the new self proclaimed standard.

It won't be long before they change the targets so that visual cues and plugs cannot be used at all. Just watch......they will remove all of the rings and just give you a dot to aim at.

I guess I'm just not ready for the mushroom treatment that the makers and supporters of the Orion system wish to dole out. I prefer to call a 10 a 10.....and a 9 a 9.

If a system cannot be trusted to make obvious calls (like the ones that don't even require a plug to see)......there is no reason that it should be expected to make the proper choice on calls that actually require some care.

Mike
 
Garrett,

I agree with parts of your assessment, and I'm not against electronic scoring. Rim-fire BR has been using electronic scoring for some years with great success. I also feel electronic scoring programs using a scanner accomplishes the same thing within the different systems used.

The difference may be the scoring holes. A .22 cal rimfire bullet makes round holes with very few if any rips, it will be much easier to score electronically. The .22 cal domed pellets have a tendency to shred the paper, more so from brand to brand and will be more difficult to score electronically. I do not see many rips with .177 cal pellets.

I have never seen a plug, plug a hole and rip a target. The rips I see are present around the hole after a pellet hits the target especially with .22 cal pellets. A flimsy backer with cheaper quality paper will be even more apparent.

We are testing higher density paper with more rigid backers to help with issues I see scoring some of these targets using a plug.

Regards,
Joe
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see someone dispute an Optical CMM

http://www.ebay.com/itm/DPC-Digital...253?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item540cbf6b1d

or cheap but large

http://www.ebay.com/itm/GSI-Lumonic...993?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2c861ab021

but then again I would like to see a screen shot of the disputed bulls from Orions scoring to see just how it determined the score. A dot in the center of the bull and a dot in the center of the hole and see if the software picked the correct center or any where nere it. You would be suprise just how your eye will pick up the off center if the image is enlarged enough.
 

Attachments

  • cmm.jpg
    cmm.jpg
    31.8 KB · Views: 207
Last edited:
At our club.....we use fresh cardboard backers for each card, or we at least shift the card so that it has a fresh area.

We use our phones when we have a hole that look like it's going to be close. I don't know what the zoom on an iPhone is, but it does a great job of magnifying and taking a picture of the hole in question. The picture then becomes a great reference if someone wants to dispute the hole without putting a plug in a second time. Pretty much everyone has one of these in their pockets these days.

We zoom in on the hole with the plug inserted and take the picture. After taking the picture we can zoom in further on the screen.

Take a look at this questionable call from a little while back.

This forum seems to downgrade picture resolutions when importing them.....so hopefully everyone will be able to see the same thing I see here before the import.

Mike
 

Attachments

  • Mag1.jpg
    Mag1.jpg
    19.5 KB · Views: 253
  • Mag2.jpg
    Mag2.jpg
    20.1 KB · Views: 264
Yes, they are real.......But I agree.....these are actually the BIPM targets that were mailed to me. They look fine to the naked eye.....but pretty bad when magnified.

The USARB targets I print here for our local matches are nice and round with very good resolution and consistent line thickness. After we saw how ugly these were under magnification, we decided to no longer use them.

Mike
 
electronic scoring

When Mike came down to my place to shoot he showed me this very camera shot and asked my opinion of the score. I have scored many thousands of targets and my immediate observation it was a very close ten. However I would have scored it a nine. Then upon blowing the image up for closer examination a couple of unexpected things became VERY apparent. First, the printed hole it's self was NOT round. Two, the printed line it's self was NOT consistent in thickness and three, it definitely was a TEN. Very educational to say the least but then Michael has this tendency to educate us all.....................In fairness to the competitor who has spent thousands of dollars and time perfecting their sport with a record or championship hanging on one shot maybe severe optical magnification on questionable shots or records are yet another option for us to consider.

Frank
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Look around at venues that are successful (to some degree) and see how they do it. I know you have already done that...so I'm asking why anybody would choose differently given thoughts of the very many "what ifs" that exist. I'll ask one now...What if a club didn't have power at the range - or loses power during a match?
 
I have TDS here at home......and I can tell you that TDS's ability to accurately judge where the center of the hole on a wadcutter hole vs a domed pellet hole is not even comparable.

It does a pretty good job on wadcutters. It does a rather poor job on domes. The reason is very clear.....wadcutters make a very nice round hole. Domes do not. The problem is amplified when the target is scanned because the dome leaves pie cut sections of the hole intact and when the page is scanned.....these rear protruding pieces are pressed back into the place where the hole began. The software then looks for a trace of the hole and makes its best guess on the center of said hole by what it can see. Often, what it sees are radial tears in the paper on one edge that exceed the diameter of the pellet. The ends of these tears then become the outlying edge of its placement.

I have no doubt that any current electronic system is very accurate in judging the radial distance of the perceived hole to the center of the bull. The problem lies in the detection of the center of the hole.

Orion recognizes that it's system cannot always make a good judgement. It calls this an OBVIOUS ERROR. They make it clear in their outline of procedure that OBVIOUS ERRORS are to be made known to the match director......at which time, if he agrees that an error was made (big "if" there), he will make a manual correction to them within the software. After the correction is made.....the software will rescore the hole based on the radial distance to the corrected location. That seems like a sensible way to do it. The only problem is that all of the automation and unbiased judgement which has been touted to make the electronic system superior is now relegated to a personal judgement by one guy. It also states that OBVIOUS ERRORS are not to be considered protests. The have pictures of properly and improperly scored wadcutter holes on the site to show examples of this sort of thing.....so clearly it happens even with the superior holes made by wadcutters.

I would bet that if the time was actually taken at the nationals to allow people to make light of the OBVIOUS ERRORS and seek correction......there would not have been any time saved over plugging. I saw 5 OBVIOUS ERRORS on one card of one competitor. How many cards were shot?

The Orion site also warns that the rings of the target are only for sighting purposes, and should not be used in any protest resolution because they are prone to induce error of their own. The rings are the only dang thing available to the competitor to diagnose if an OBVIOUS ERROR has been made by the software in its recognition of the hole center. What else are we supposed to use if the rings can't be trusted? Doesn't Orion use the rings to determine where the center of the target is to make it's radial measurement?

The Orion site also states that it is "Unsportsmanlike" to protest the electronic system.

Let's see......

1. Plugs cannot be used to verify a hole.
2. Overlays cannot be used to verify a hole.
3. The rings cannot be used to verify a hole.
4. Any other manual means cannot be used to verify the hole.
5. It's unsportsmanlike to question the Orion scoring system.

That's quite a system of checks and balances, don't you think?

Mike
 
Last edited:
Folks keep mentioning tears or rips in the paper as a problem for scanning, as well as plugging targets. I have found that using much heavier paper than typical eliminates any tearing and also allows domed pellets to make a much rounder hole. The obvious solution to concerns about a .22 cal. plug ripping a .177 hole is to use a .177 plug for .177 holes and a .22 plug for .22 holes. There should be no ripping at all. Since there have also been posts about matches getting to the point that the only way to settle some is X count, I would also suggest that using .177 plugs for .177 pellets would solve that problem, for a while. The are almost no .22 cal. guns in benchrest anyway, and it would provide for much more honest scoring. Probably not a popular position, as I'm sure there would be no 250's or 750's and the scores would be a good deal lower.

Electronic scoring is an answer to a problem most small clubs do not have. It doesn't take long to score/plug cards for 5 to 10 shooters, which looks to be typical, based on match reports.

Gary Palmer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wilbur said:
Look around at venues that are successful (to some degree) and see how they do it. I know you have already done that...so I'm asking why anybody would choose differently given thoughts of the very many "what ifs" that exist. I'll ask one now...What if a club didn't have power at the range - or loses power during a match?
Click to expand...

We have generator back up! We actually have that present during a regional or other large venue. It can actually run off of an inverter attached to a car. ;)
 
fgpalmer said:
Electronic scoring is an answer to a problem most small clubs do not have. It doesn't take long to score/plug cards for 5 to 10 shooters, which looks to be typical, based on match reports.

Gary Palmer
Click to expand...

Not coming down on one side or the other but the WBSF held a World Championships in France recently (Rimfire) – 63 shooters and what looked like three scorers using a plug.

Individual target scores were on the internet almost in real time, the complete listing for the days shooting out around two hours from end of competition.

As far as I’m aware there were only two protests, both rejected.

Brian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top