D
dleonard3
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-07 AT 04:57PM (MST)[p]Here's a tough one for all of you experts out there. How would you score this Coues shed? Would you do it like this first scenario?
D
dleonard3
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-07 AT 04:58PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-07 AT 02:34?PM (MST)
Or would you score it like this second scenario?
Maybe you would even consider the G4 point to be a non-typical branch off of the G3 point and would then be considered a deduction for a typical. Too many options here. Let me know what you would consider the proper way to score this shed
Or would you score it like this second scenario?
Maybe you would even consider the G4 point to be a non-typical branch off of the G3 point and would then be considered a deduction for a typical. Too many options here. Let me know what you would consider the proper way to score this shed
D
deadhead
Guest
In almost all cases with a point being that much shorter, the point you are calling a G-4 would count as a non-typical point, and the point you're calling the G-5 would be the G-4,and the last mass measurement would fall at the smallest point between G-3 and G-4. Just my 2 cents.
B
balz
Guest
How ever he scores he is a bruiser nice find man
D
D13er
Guest
deahead is exactly right. The only way that point would be a g4 would be if it had an exact match on the other side. Even then it is questionable because it looks more like a common base point with g3.
It is abnormal in almost all cases and your g5 would be g4.
JB
It is abnormal in almost all cases and your g5 would be g4.
JB
D
dleonard3
Guest
So you think it should be scored like this?
I've got a great discussion on scoring this shed on the NASHC website right now. Here's the link http://shedantlers.org/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=5572 go check it out and give me your opinion.
I've got a great discussion on scoring this shed on the NASHC website right now. Here's the link http://shedantlers.org/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=5572 go check it out and give me your opinion.
D
D13er
Guest
I am an OM for B&C and I have no question that that is correct as long as there is not a matched point on the other side.
JB
JB
D
dleonard3
Guest
What if nobody knows what was on the other side? Check out the link to the NASHC website a couple posts up and read about all of the variables. It can be scored correctly several different ways, but I think it should be scored exactly as it is (a single shed) without any regards for what may or may not been present on the other side. Thanks for posting your thoughts.
D
D13er
Guest
OK, score it how you want. B&C doesn't care how you score sheds.
JB
JB
D
dleonard3
Guest
That may have come across the wrong way, and I didn't intend it to sound rude in any way.
Sheds are supposed to be scored exactly the same as B&C scoring, except for obvious reasons they don't include a spread. Also, if we were dealing with a rack or matched set, we would want to score it in the way that yields the highest correct score - in that case the short point would be considered abnormal and a deduction. But in this particular case, where there is no other side, the highest correct score would come from the point being considered typical - as long as it is in line off of the main beam.
Sheds are supposed to be scored exactly the same as B&C scoring, except for obvious reasons they don't include a spread. Also, if we were dealing with a rack or matched set, we would want to score it in the way that yields the highest correct score - in that case the short point would be considered abnormal and a deduction. But in this particular case, where there is no other side, the highest correct score would come from the point being considered typical - as long as it is in line off of the main beam.
D
dleonard3
Guest
After a lot of thought, I've decided that:
Scenario one is incorrect because it gives credit for the point length past the webbing AND the inflated mass measurement. You can't have both.
Scenario two would be the most correct for this single side and gives appropriate credit for everything.
Scenario three would be correct IF both sides were present and the other side didn't have a matching point.
Now, wasn't that fun? Feel free to change my mind.
Scenario one is incorrect because it gives credit for the point length past the webbing AND the inflated mass measurement. You can't have both.
Scenario two would be the most correct for this single side and gives appropriate credit for everything.
Scenario three would be correct IF both sides were present and the other side didn't have a matching point.
Now, wasn't that fun? Feel free to change my mind.
