[ScottyE]

Reo shot a 342 in the first half of qualification but signed his score card and it said 242. He was given the lower score.

From the world archery twitter

Reo Wilde signed for a 242 score, instead of a 342. He appealed, the signed score as upheld (as per rule 14.4.1) and he dropped to 115th.

 

[teebat]

Wow.

 

[ScottyE]

Sorry it was the second half of qualification

 

[Onpoint85]

Dang, that's gotta hurt

 

[Beastmaster]

14.4.1. Each target will have two scorecards one of which may be electronic. If there is a discrepancy in the arrow values between an electronic and a paper score card, the paper card will take precedence.

The organisers are not required to accept or record scorecards that have not been signed, and/or do not contain the sum total, and/or the number of 10's and/or the number of X's (or 9s for indoor) and/or which contain mathematical errors.

The organisers or officials are not required to verify the accuracy of any submitted scorecard, however if the organisers or the officials note an error at the time of submission, they will ask the athletes concerned to correct such error and the result as corrected will stand.

Should a discrepancy be found in the sum total where:

-two paper scorecards are used, the sum total of the lower arrow scores will be used for the final result; if the score on a single scorecard (and in the case of double scoring, the score is the same on each scorecard), is lower than the actual score, the lower score on the scorecard will be used, and if

-one paper scorecard and one electronic scorecard are used, the sum total of the paper scorecard will be used for the final result unless the sum total reflected on the scorecard is greater than the actual score (in which case the lower actual score is used).

 

[TheElBow]

It seems that the same - 100 points less in 2nd half - even happend to No 116 and 117

 

[RickBac]

Hard lesson to be learned.

We will be using this as a lesson to our kids.

 

[shawn_in_MA]

To me this seems like a rule change in the making. Why can't we ever interpret the rules with a "what is the intent of the rule" mentality

 

[Azzurri]

Definitely a teaching moment because none of the three was even on the same bale (I checked out of interest, wondering if some dope had burned all the scores at his target with 200s math). That's the same mistake made independently 3 times.

 

[Azzurri]

To me this seems like a rule change in the making. Why can't we ever interpret the rules with a "what is the intent of the rule" mentality

The intent of the rule per its language is the paper still governs. And most scoring systems are that if there's an unresolved discrepancy you get the lower result. I get that in this case there is a reasonable explanation, but the intent of the rules is to be more mechanistic, since the people tallying scores don't necessarily watch you to know better. Does it match? Yes. Counts. Doesn't match? OK, throw out the higher. No subjectivity, no begging and pleading, which might give room for manipulation. It's cold-blooded but there are 100, 200 people in some of these categories.

 

[shawn_in_MA]

YOu are absolutley right by saying "paper still governs"...but if all the arrow scores are recorded properly (which they were) then why should a math error be playing any part in determining a world archery championship

 

[limbwalker]

Pro golfers have done worse, and it cost them a LOT more money.

 

[TomB]

Pro golfers have done worse, and it cost them a LOT more money.

In this case he took down his whole team which is what he likely feels the worst about.

 

[Jim C]

apparently he claimed he thought it was a three and that is what the score keeper said he wrote

 

[limbwalker]

In this case he took down his whole team which is what he likely feels the worst about.

That is unfortunate. Pretty unusual for such a veteran to make a mistake like that.

 

[RickBac]

If it comes down to a handwriting issue and not an addition issue, is it tougher to swallow?

If the writer says its a three and it was misinterpreted by the scoring entry people as a two, then what happens?

 

[Scipiotik]

Really need to see the score card to judge, but if it comes down to bad penmanship then that's just a stupid decision.

 

[Bigjono]

Tough break but you sign it you own it. I've seen a potential British Open winner disqualified for just this when leading after round 3, it must suck.

 

[Chris1ny]

Sorry Rio. I feel for you.

 

[kshet26]

Definitely a teaching moment because none of the three was even on the same bale (I checked out of interest, wondering if some dope had burned all the scores at his target with 200s math). That's the same mistake made independently 3 times.

Hmm. Does this happen a lot at this level but usually get corrected before signing? This happening to 3 different archers seems questionable.