AD's adding correct weights in results

from http://www.nasgaweb.com/about.asp

NASGA Does Not:
	Hold or sanction competitions Have any members Collect dues Control any competitions or athletes Certify Judges

Irony - a wonderful free service provided by NASGA who does not sanction games or controls competitions, would end up doing just that all-for-the-sake of getting a precious mark in the database and it’s “flawed” ranking.

----------------------------------

The database only instruction on the Legal Implement check box is: Include in rankings (implement was legal) -- nowhere is a guideline given as to what is legal – Nowhere!

Kilted Canuck wrote:

Legal weight for Women's Braemar Stone is 13-18 lbs must be at least 13lbs to be legal

I have some non standard view of implements used in the Women's division, but I uncheck the legal implement box when Women Masters throw the 8lb sheaf. I do not enter the scores of a Scottish Light (9lb) Hammer. I used the 12/16 hammer at last QC games to give the women who another mark in that damn database. I play by the rules and I run legit game with implements measured and weighted before each event. With that said, if it was not for the rules in this area, I would have found a 13lb stone or used my 14lb stone for Women Braemar. The simple fact is that the 12lb stone is legal in this area and not just at games I AD.

So we have a lot of things going on here

* In an exchange of PMs, Karyn communicated to me about a year ago that the minimum Braemar weight is 13lb stone. She further communicated to me that this limit was set as the legal minimum when the database was set up and further stated that this was agreed upon by the big games associations at that time. I do not know if that is true as it was the first I heard of this. This tid-bit maybe of interest as background to what is legal and what is not.

I did ask for a source, published reference, or where is the list that defines the minimum weights for the database on NASGA. I was and I am still looking for something besides a message sent by PM as I received no response back upon my request for something more definitive than a PM.

During this exchange, I pointed out that RMSA and some large independent Midwest games allow 12lb stones. Her reply was dismissive and seemed to indicate that RMSA and the big independent Midwest games rules on legal implements were meaningless in this matter .

No reference - no guideline - no defined list of minimums. I went with what is legal in my area since NASGA does not sanction events or competitions and there was no other guidance given by NASGA website for database use. Thus, the 12lb stone was used and treated as a legal implement. (this is equivalent to a men's 24lb Braemar stone)

NASGA FAQ:

What weight of stone and sheaf are those rankings for?
All weights. All distances and heights are included in the rankings regardless of the implement weight.

In the below section of her post, she indicates that the 13lb stone weight is about fairness.

Kilted Canuck wrote:

Because Nasga does not have a pro rated scale for weights in the stones.. when women who throw the average 14-16 Braemar.. have no chance against Braemars that are as light as some of our open stones...

Yes it is unfair. Is it not unfair for those in the Southeast who throw the 121lb sheaf to compete against those who throw the 10lb sheaf?, -- Its unfair when a games uses a 12lb open stone and others use an 8lb stone. maybe everybody should increase their open stone and sheaf weights so people who throw at games with heavier implements are treated fairly. ..... In the end, the fairness argument used with NASGA database does exactly what NASGA does not do.... it indirectly sanctions the weights of implements

Or maybe the AD of games should be more proactive and find new stones --- but that would undermine field records, which has more meaning than a database score or maybe the AD should borrow somebody's sweet open and Braemar stone if they cannot afford to buy new stones (or why should they buy new stones) or or or ?

I have argued fairness in women hammers as well as providing empirical evidence and showed why the 12/16 hammers are different events than the 16/22 for men (no contrast between a speed and strength event, just two strength events) --- the tack taking by some female throwers was to turn it into a gender issue by calling me sexist <gee that was clever intelligent response> --- With that back ground, I can't help taking a shot at the fairness argument when applied elsewhere.

* Perhaps the advice given to others who want to improve their marks are applicable here: Maybe women should travel to games that have lighter stones if they want to improve their marks in the database. That is the cold callus advice/solution that people have given to lightweights when they complain about the few number of LW events in their area. That is the solution that pros use when they want to improve their rankings. They would pick a game with a 22lb Braemar over one with a 30lb Braemar.

* 12lb Braemar stones IS legal in a large area of this country -- As stated earlier, RMSA and some large Midwest independent Games allow it as a legal stone. There is nothing in the database area or on NASGA which lists what is legal for entering in the database and what is not as most implements are well defined. Repeating 13lbs minimum enough times does not remove the fact that the 12lb stone is legal weight stone. The logic behind your argument can be applied by an AD were the 12lb sheaf is legal, and thus 10lb sheafs are not.

BUT None of this matters as the marks are now done -- what matters to me is to get a clear concise definition of what will be used in selection for the women's championship so next year there will not be this problem, and the talented women throwers get marks that matter in the selection of the Women's championship so it can be the best possible event drawing the top women. But this does not fix the other rankings problems -- Mathematically, when one uses the Mens North American record as a base of the rank, a person who ties the women's heavy hammer record would get 793 points and a women who ties the lwfd record would get 950 points in the ranking. Where is the fairness there? There are other complaints about using the best throw rather than the average ......

I believe the people/person who have a say on what is legal for women's ranking, besides the Pauli's and/or their representative, is the person who uses those rankings for selections – that would be the AD of the Women's National Championship.

---------------------------

* Now to the person who unchecked the legal implement box for several of my games results: If you choose to unchecked the legal implement box for any event other than the one you are an AD for then you are being a weasel (and I am being kind) when you do this without giving the AD a chance to do this let along not informing the AD that you are doing this --- YOU ARE EXTREMELY DISRESPECTFUL.

If you want to know who did this, NASGA provides a log of database changes -- go to the games of interest (Central Iowa Celtic Festival, Iowa Irish Fest, Celtic Festival and Highland Games of the Quad Cities) , open the results and under each division is a hotlink "View the log of these results" and you will see a list of those who have edited the results. I believe you need to be logged in to see this log -- I get a VBscript error, so I do not know but I have a good idea.

Being an AD sucks -- the meetings suck, the fighting for money to do it right sucks, buying equipment because the games can't or won't sucks (I own all of QC games equipment .. that was foolish), ..... it is done for the love of the sport and/or the love of the heritage behind the sport. I will now add being shit on because some one gets bumped down the database rankings to the list of why it sucks to be an AD -- fortunately, the appreciate of the crap the AD takes is still there among most throwers

---------------------------

I am still debating on whether to re check the legal box for my 12lb stone. I have not for several reasons but .....

Mark McVey

Edited by McSanta - 10/20/12 at 9:28am