How many of you have gotten to the end of a major match and while reviewing scores noticed something that doesn’t seem right? Maybe it was a procedural penalty that you don’t remember or a miss or no-shoot that you can’t place. What happens when we find an error in a score that has already been approved by both the range officer and the competitor?
Major matches – those that are approved as Level II, Level III, or Nationals – have a mandatory review period after the completion of the match and before the results are deemed to be final. During this period, which is usually one hour though it can be reduced under certain conditions, competitors are expected to review their scores and verify that they are accurate before awards are handed out. With the advent of electronic scoring, it is less common than it used to be to find scoring errors during this review period, but it does still occasionally happen.
What do the rules say about modifying scores if an error is found? It’s a good question, and likely one that not everyone is familiar with. But first, let’s back up and talk about score approval. In the days before PractiScore, paper score sheets were used. The time was recorded as were the applicable hits, misses, and penalties. The range officer and competitor both reviewed and approved this score sheet by signing or initialing. When using PractiScore, it is important to remember that both competitors and ROs still need to approve the score. Rule 9.7.1 states that the RO touching the “Review” button constitutes his approval that the score is correct, and the competitor touching “Approve” is his approval and concurrence of the score’s accuracy.
A lot of competitors touch “Approve” without looking closely at their score. Maybe we look at the hit factor to see how we stack up compared to our buddies or the competition, but that is often the extent of the review. It is important that we look at the score summary closely for accuracy: are there misses that we don’t remember being called out, is there a no-shoot or procedural that we didn’t hear, does the time appear to be correct? Paying close attention to the score before it is approved saves both the competitor and the match staff a lot of headaches later.
As an example, let’s say that a competitor gets to the end of the match and during his review of scores sees that he was assessed a foot fault penalty that he is sure he didn’t earn. How do we fix this? Rule 9.7.4 states that the score is considered to be conclusive and correct once the RO and the competitor approve it. The score can then only be changed for certain things: correcting mathematical errors, adding penalties assessed under 8.6.2 (interference or unauthorized assistance penalties), due to an arbitration decision, or by mutual consent of both the competitor and the original range officer. This last reason is the focus of this article.
In cases like this, the Range Master and the stats guru will do what they can to determine whether or not the score should be corrected. They will talk to the stage ROs to see if they happen to remember the competitor or the score. Sometimes the staff will remember the exact situation and the score can either be verified or changed. However, if the competitor happened to shoot on day one of a three-day match, it is unlikely that the staff will remember something that specific. In that case, the competitor will end up “eating” the penalty because, after all, he touched the “Approve” button and by doing so was stating that he agreed with the score.
We all – competitors and staff alike – want to make sure that each score is accurate. It is important for both ROs and competitors to closely review the scoring before we touch “Review” or “Approve”. Doing so will save a lot of trouble, and potentially unearned penalties, later on.
How does an incorrect score get entered? It isn’t common but can be due to several different factors. Maybe the RO on the tablet misheard the RO calling the scores. Maybe the tablet RO did not hear a correction from the scoring RO. Maybe the tablet RO fat-fingered the screen while scoring. Fat-fingering is something that can easily happen if we are not paying close attention to how we handle the tablet. If you look at the way the scoring is set up in PractiScore, from left to right we have A-C-D-M-NS for each cardboard target. If the tablet RO is a little careless with his fingers, he may accidentally touch the no-shoot button without realizing it. This happened at a recent match for which I was the RM. Two competitors came to me during the review period and stated that they were assessed no-shoot penalties on a stage that didn’t have any no-shoots. It was a relatively easy fix, but still took some time to talk with the ROs (remember, they also have to approve any changes after the score is approved) and to work through it with the stats crew. And, yes, in a case like this the stage could be entered in PractiScore without enabling no-shoots. But what about a stage that does have them, and we inadvertently assess one that goes unnoticed until the review period? Chances are very good that the ROs will not remember one specific shooter in a big match, and whether or not he hit a no-shoot. In that case, the competitor will likely end up eating the penalty.
To badly paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, an ounce of review is worth a pound of corrections. Range officers and competitors both need to look at the scores closely before the score is approved.