Originally Posted by neilL
Interesting comparison, Shaun.
My only thought is that when there is a %age difference of less than 0.01% (e.g. 0.05 as a percentage of 581 is 0.0086%) between two it is perhaps too small. Perhaps consider a future method which relies less on such a small mathematical difference by adding in a secondary way of splitting the two (or three, etc) when they are within 0.1% (no idea what but total targets or drop highest and lowest or rather than count 6 best count all to give a better split, etc, etc). Did the points system have similar too close to call conclusions?
Whichever way there may still be years when two people are just too hard to split and you have a joint 2nd or such. And of course, too complicated a system just makes way too much work for you and the team (again many thanks for all the work). Whatever - that was the system everyone started out with so as Rob said above - "you just need to be thinking about flattening all 50"
It was fascinating to see the way that the final positions could change in each grade though. Huge thanks to all who contributed to making the events happen.
Neil, one problem with points was that shoot offs for end of season places was common; there were no shoot offs needed this year. I expect it is unlikely that shooter would tie.that it was close meant a shot here or there meant a change overall; I liked that!
On Sunday there were 9 AA shooters who could have won. I found it exciting but then I dol like some data.
I have no plan to propose a change.