Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

by **Founder** Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:20 pm

First topic message reminder :

Friends,

It has come to my attention that someone at NRA has authorized shooters to shoot in more than one Sectional match for the 2019 Sectional Championships. For those of you who don't know, the Sectional is a National Championship where competitors shoot the match, NRA records all the scores from all over the country over the span of a few months, and the highest score is the National Champion.

Somehow NRA has directed at least 1 match director to include the following statement in the match bulletin/program:
"ELIGIBILITY: A competitor (individual or team) may enter multiple NRA Conventional Pistol Sectionals during 2019. The highest score shot by an individual competitor firing in more than one Precision Sectional will be used at the national level to make up our final results bulletin. Competitors may also enter other types of Sectionals if eligible. Tournament officials (Rule 11) may not compete in the Sectional at which they are officiating."

This changes the entire tradition of the Sectionals and changes it from a National Championship to a re-entry match where competitors are allowed to try-try again to record their best effort.

This change isn't consistent with the current NRA Rules:
Rule 1.6:
(d) Regional and Sectional Championships - Arranged between the NRA and a local sponsoring organization.
These tournaments will be registered.
(f) Registered Tournaments - May be authorized by the NRA
after application has been filed by the sponsoring organization. Application forms are available from NRA on
request; National Records may only be established in
Registered Tournaments (Rule 17.1).
Rule 1.7:
(j) Re-Entry Match - A match in which the competitor is permitted to fire more than one score for record; one or more
of the highest scores being considered to determine the
relative rank of competitors. The number of scores that
may be fired and the number of high scores to be considered in deciding the relative rank of competitors must be
specified in the program. Scores fired in these matches
shall not be used for classification purposes.
17.1 Where Scores for National Records Can Be Fired - Scores to be recognized for National Records must be fired in NRA Registered Competition as defined in Rule 1.6, paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f). National Records must be approved by the NRA before being declared official. National Records may not be established during the re-entry matches.

so...

What we have here is a decision coming from NRA HQ that is a complete departure from the current rules. The rumor is that the reason for the change is that "numerous" competitors were looking for more opportunities to shoot and because they were only allowed to shoot in 1 sectional match per year that they were competing under alias.

Well, if that's the case, perhaps the NRA official should read the stinking rulebook:
9.23 Aliases - No competitor may fire under an assumed name nor substitute for another in a match; or register, enter, or fire in the name of another.
9.31 Suspension - For violations of these rules deemed so to justify, any competitor may be suspended from competition and/ or expelled from the National Rifle Association upon presentation of evidence and conduct of a hearing as prescribed in the Bylaws.

In summary, our NRA Sectional Championships have over 1000 shooters competing each year and somebody thought that it would help increase participation if they changed the rules to allow do-overs. However the rollout of the policy change didn't reach the match director for the Wisconsin NRA Sectional....What's up with that?!

What do you all think of this?

by JKR Fri Jan 25, 2019 6:38 am

cavedweller29 wrote:Sadly, I think the younger generations have lost the desire to take on long term challenges that require discipline and practice such as climbing the ranks of Bullseye. Bullseye, I believe, is the most difficult avenue of competitive shooting and younger people are used to being given very easily attainable goals and then being overly praised for reaching those small goals. There are no participation trophy's in bullseye and that turns off young people.

I've been a competitive shooter for many years starting with rifle in the 80's. I've been hearing this same argument about young people my whole shooting career.

The thing is, shooting has never been for everyone. It requires a great deal of time and with everything that goes on in their lives many young people just don't have the time to dedicate to the sport.

We must do what we can for those who are willing to enter competitive shooting and not worry so much about those who would rather do other things.

I would love nothing more than to start my grandson in service rifle or bullseye pistol. With school, basketball, football, job, girls, cars. etc... there's not enough time left to do it right. It takes a certain type.

Jim

by Slartybartfast Fri Jan 25, 2019 8:16 am

cavedweller29 wrote:Sadly, I think the younger generations have lost the desire to take on long term challenges that require discipline and practice such as climbing the ranks of Bullseye. Bullseye, I believe, is the most difficult avenue of competitive shooting and younger people are used to being given very easily attainable goals and then being overly praised for reaching those small goals. There are no participation trophy's in bullseye and that turns off young people.

People should really think back to their own youth and the games they enjoyed. Did YOUR parents approve? Or were they endlessly complaining about "the youth of today". Older people have been complaining about younger people for centuries.
Competition is competition. And ALL competition is pretty much an arbitrary set of rules to define and limit the contest. It just seems that this particular kind of competition isn't exactly popular with younger competitors. Not sure very many Bullseye competitors could walk in to a IPSC or IDPA and walk away as champions.
So disparaging the young, or trying to be elitist about your chosen sport really just starts sounding like grumpy old people and sour grapes.
As for the sacrosanct nature of bullseye, name a sport that hasn't had major rules changes. Sometimes the results are better, sometimes they are worse, sometimes it's a mixed bag, sometimes it's simply different.
Making something easier isn't necessarily a great way to improve a sport, but emotionally clinging to old ways and romanticising old records isn't a great way to keep a sport going or attract more participants either.

by jmdavis Fri Jan 25, 2019 8:48 am

Essentially it seems that the logic is that this cannot be a re-entry match because no limits were placed on the number of re-entries.

As to youth. I have one shooter who is very promising. She is seeing that her precision work brings dividends with USPSA and IDPA. I know teenaged highpower shooters who are High Masters. So they are out there. But overall, they aren't shooting in any disciplines.

On the other hand there are kids that want to shoot and lack opportunities. Most know nothing of competitive shooting.

by **Wobbley** Fri Jan 25, 2019 10:10 am

When Bullseye was in its heyday there really wasn’t the availability of all the run and gun events. And the whole “tacticool” nonsense hadn’t been invented. So people who wanted to shoot competitively using a pistol shot Bullseye. Now Bullseye has to compete with a lot of different disciplines.

by fc60 Fri Jan 25, 2019 1:42 pm

Greetings,

I agree with "Wobbley".

The local club hosts "Run and Gun" tournaments.

100 entries is not uncommon.

I do not participate so I cannot visualize the mindset for this endeavor.

Cheers,

Dave

by mpolans Fri Jan 25, 2019 8:06 pm

fc60 wrote:Greetings,

I agree with "Wobbley".

The local club hosts "Run and Gun" tournaments.

100 entries is not uncommon.

I do not participate so I cannot visualize the mindset for this endeavor.

Cheers,

Dave

The mindset is, "It's fun."
I enjoy USPSA shooting. I enjoy NRA bullseye shooting. I enjoy ISSF 10m Air Pistol shooting. I even enjoy trap, skeet, sporting clays, and occasionally when I'm feeling masochistic, bunker trap shooting. We don't increase participation in one shooting discipline by denigrating other disciplines. if anything, one might try encouraging crossover participation, since unlike going after shooting neophytes, you know you've usually got someone who is already willing to spend some time and cash on stuff to compete.

by TonyH Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:00 am

We don't increase participation in one shooting discipline by denigrating other disciplines. if anything, one might try encouraging crossover participation, since unlike going after shooting neophytes, you know you've usually got someone who is already willing to spend some time and cash on stuff to compete.

2019 sectionals - Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship - Page 2 3064385617

by TonyH Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:13 am

Luckily there are a couple young guys that just love guns and shooting

You young guys, go get more young guys engaged, and then get old together shooting on the BE line! We old guys need you youngsters to keep us on our toes!

by Mike38 Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:47 am

We old guys need you youngsters to keep us on our toes!

That and score targets for us. That 100 yard walk to and back at the long line is getting more difficult every year. Sad

by Slartybartfast Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:21 am

TonyH wrote:
We don't increase participation in one shooting discipline by denigrating other disciplines. if anything, one might try encouraging crossover participation, since unlike going after shooting neophytes, you know you've usually got someone who is already willing to spend some time and cash on stuff to compete.

Communication, promotion, cross-discipline cooperation/participation *10000.

However... "willing to spend some time and cash on stuff to compete" not so much. The easier the buy-in for the neophytes, the lower the hurdles in time and money, the more will choose to try it out. Similar even for the participants in other disciplines. They're already devoting lots of time and money to specialised equipment how much time and money do they have left?

The mass of any sport must be focused on the grass-roots. If that grass-roots is self sustaining, the organising bodies can focus on the elite and high-end competition. If it isn't, the organising bodies need to focus more on supporting and promoting entry-level participation.

by hengehold Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:39 am

I am a new BE shooter and have no emotional attachment to previous rules or traditions. Consequently, the decisions you posted from the NRA (allowing entry into more than one sectional) sound great to me.
-Trevor

by L Valdez Wed Jan 30, 2019 7:27 am

It's refreshing to hear a new shooters opinion. The older shooters never come up with ways to increase participation, and are the first to cry out when ever the NRA trys to figure out how to get new shooters interested in Bullseye shooting.

One poster said it will give the NRA more money from the additional entry fees. The NRA needs money to fight all the anti-gun battles across America.

by CR10X Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:24 am

So, how would you feel if you shot in one Sectional Match (because that was the only one within 2 days drive) and then got beat out for your class or even the overall title by someone that shot 4 Sectional Matches (because they are in a area with more Sectionals) and only beat your score one time?

More matches shot by the same people is not the same as more participation. And when you are talking about a National Championship title, well it seems the argument gets a little weaker. More matches are great! But there should be only one title round.

Sometimes a thing can be good and fair. Sometimes not.

by Slartybartfast Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:53 am

CR10X wrote:So, how would you feel if you shot in one Sectional Match (because that was the only one within 2 days drive) and then got beat out for your class or even the overall title by someone that shot 4 Sectional Matches (because they are in a area with more Sectionals) and only beat your score one time?

More matches shot by the same people is not the same as more participation. And when you are talking about a National Championship title, well it seems the argument gets a little weaker. More matches are great! But there should be only one title round.

Sometimes a thing can be good and fair. Sometimes not.

Take all this as you want. Think of it as the view from the outside looking in. The only match I'm going to isn't NRA. I travel 3.5 hrs each way and stay overnight in a ratty motel to keep costs down for shooting two days. Next year will cost me more than double because the wife wants to come along and refuses to stay at the ratty motel ever again. And I do all that knowing I have no real hope of doing anything other than meeting new people and having a bit of organised fun with firearms (while also keeping the wife happy).

The definition of "good and fair" isn't really all that easy to nail down. Competition is really just random rules and constraints. In general "fair" is simply everything that abides by the rules, everything that clearly breaks the rules is declared "unfair" with little heat or noise, and something that is unclear by the rules or cuts the letter of the rules close but in-bounds generates immense heat and noise and protests of "unfair". And no matter what the rules, it's never "fair" to everyone.

Limiting it all to the question of repeat participation, is it fair if you have a nice easy day of competition and beat out someone because of stress and issues they faced at their match? Yours was 5 guys, a slow day, glorious weather with no wind. The guy you beat by 2 points faced dozens on the line, multiple stops and problems, torrential rain and gale force winds.

Is it fair for you to win on one fluke incredible performance way above your usual average?

I'll admit my club competition used to annoy me. Ran over a month, highest shot scores stood for standings. I could get to the range twice, the retired guys could be there all day everyday. The usual club winners were there shooting to try and beat their last score and always ended up with scores higher than their running averages. Meanwhile, the times I made a great performance and beat my average by miles didn't matter if I was in the ballpark of their average performance of not. Wasn't going to catch them with their best scores of the month. My best score or two might have been better than a dozen of their lowest scores, so if we had been on the firing line together with one chance at a good score I might have been able to win or place.

"More matches shot by the same people is not the same as more participation."
It's not more participants, but it most certainly is more participation and more money in the pockets of organisers and the NRA.

Until firing lines are overstuffed and too large to be manageable, encouraging more participation is a good idea IMO.

Seems to me the challenge is to encourage repeat participation by making it meaningful, while not making it risk free. Even simply averaging scores removes the "they won on a fluke" complaint.

Perhaps some way to weight the additional scores. Worse hurts you double or better only advances you by half.

Or last match shot stands.

Or maybe just declare which match is for standings before the first registered match occurs. Miss the match declared as the one that counts and you're in the same boat as the shooter with only one nearby match. Out-of-luck too bad. Then, each participant could choose the best match/date for their score attempt (which is what they do if they can only participate in one) and then they can choose how many others as they would like to fill their calendar or train.

Regardless, it seems to me to be a no-brainer that if there's space on the line and no one who hasn't registered a score yet to fill the space, there should be strong encouragement/incentives for people to participate even if not being counted towards standings.

A really basic problem that I see is that "National Champion" isn't decided at a single championship but compares scores. The best championships aren't just an exercise in comparing scores, but competition on the same playing field with as many variables equal as possible.

by SMBeyer Wed Jan 30, 2019 2:51 pm

There is so much going on in the above post i will only attempt to respond to a couple items.

Is it fair for you to win on a fluke incredible performance? Are you kidding me? Absolutely its fair! It's called I have been working very hard to improve and I'm seeing the payoff for that hard work.

This match is the National INDOOR sectional. Wind and rain is not a factor.

No the match is on completely even playing field. Some ranges im sure are nicer than others but we do what we can with what we have. As is there are 1200ish participants. If this was shot on the same playing field I bet you'd be very lucky to get 100. And I actually think you get better scores the way it is now. MOST shooters are shooting at a range they are familiar and comfortable with.

by chopper Wed Jan 30, 2019 7:27 pm

Isn't there only one MLB championship "The World Series", NFL has "The Super Bowl", or the NHL "Stanley Cup". Every one of these requires top scores in seasons performance to advance to the championship. You don't get do overs so you can place higher in your divisional playoffs or make it to the playoffs.
In Iowa this year the State Indoor Championship is at 2 separate ranges, but the only score that counts is the first one shot. I have to travel over 3 hrs for the closest one and about 4.5 hrs for the second one. I'll shoot the first one because it's closer, the 2nd one is in Illinois. Personally I see no reason for two separate ranges when they rarely fill up on both Saturday and Sunday.
So was it fair in the NFC playoff that LA wins over New Orleans because of a no call by officials. It's happened before many times in other games, officials don't always see what you or I see, that's why I don't like instant replay and reviews. By the way I could care less what team you like or despise, I quit that when I played Fantasy Football and picked the players instead.
Stan

by Slartybartfast Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:28 am

SMBeyer wrote:There is so much going on in the above post i will only attempt to respond to a couple items.

Is it fair for you to win on a fluke incredible performance? Are you kidding me? Absolutely its fair! It's called I have been working very hard to improve and I'm seeing the payoff for that hard work.

This match is the National INDOOR sectional. Wind and rain is not a factor.

No the match is on completely even playing field. Some ranges im sure are nicer than others but we do what we can with what we have. As is there are 1200ish participants. If this was shot on the same playing field I bet you'd be very lucky to get 100. And I actually think you get better scores the way it is now. MOST shooters are shooting at a range they are familiar and comfortable with.

I don't mind been shown to be wrong. The indoor point escaped me or got lost because I'm in too many conversations at once.

I find it funny that a fluke performance that is way off past and future average might be considered fair, but the main complaint about reshoots seems to be that a single fluke performance might be the only one to beat other registered scores.

In essence:
- Competitor goes to ONE competition and miraculously scores 20 higher than they ever have before? "Are you kidding me? Absolutely its fair! "
- Competitor tries again and miraculously scores 20 higher than they ever have before? "No way! Unfair! How dare they win over my miraculously 20 point higher one time score!"

IMO it's all just drama really. The vehement support or opposition based mostly in emotional connection to the way things are. Distracting from the question of the health and future of the sport (participation, promotion, and number of participants).

A big point I've made in many discussions around rules is that it's important to recognise that so much emotion is being spent around essentially arbitrary decisions/rules. And the biggest complaint against, looked at from the outside, is that it is change (and think of the history!). No more, no less. Fluke random chances under the current rules is fair, a fluke random chances under new rules is unfair. Playing barely within the rules or exploiting loopholes is fair, attempts to close loopholes or making the rules specific to remove advantages (say specific power factors for cartridges) are vilified.

Comparison with MLB, NFL, or NHL isn't exactly right. There's a whole process during the season to qualify for the finals and an elimination process to get to the final winner. Seems the sectionals lack all that. Anyone can shoot in the sectionals, anyone could feasibly win National title. But considering them made me think the following:

How many sectionals are there? (Franky, I find it very difficult to find a single source of information for anything competition related. Before f'n with the rules, it should be made so that it's easy for any idiot to find rules, competition structure, competition schedule, and contacts)

Sponsor the top two from each to a National final. Qualify the top 10-20 from each. 100 positions available, registration priority by sectional score.

"If this was shot on the same playing field I bet you'd be very lucky to get 100."

The above could guarantee a reasonable field (through sponsorship), the possibility of a really good field and possible upset winner (through qualification), and a real national champ finals.

Again, from the outside, whether the rules let a shooter shoot one or more sectionals, and whether scores are counted or not is really moot. Either way, it's the system under which I would be happy to compete.

But, more opportunities (even if I didn't get them) would be far better than less. And if there were multiple opportunities I would love to be able to have as many chance to compete as possible and be judged on my best performance (fluke or not) and not a single bad performance (fluke or not).

5 years on into a rule change, the only effect on the world is whether there is more participation (and hopefully participants, but increased participation is a noble goal on it's own IMO) and the possibility of an asterisk in the record books.

by SMBeyer Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:22 pm

How could a "fluke" performance, as you put it, be called unfair? If it was "legally" shot during the match, and no cheating took place what is unfair? The competitor came shot his/her best and when the score was added up it is what it is. A great score! The shooter stood next to every other shooter that day and they all had the same opportunity to excel and didn't but the good shooter should be penalized because it's not their "norm"? How would anyone ever move up in class if their break out score is considered "unfair"?

The whole qualifying for the Nationals scenario sounds really fun! But I question even that way how real of a national championship you would have. We are not paid shooters. We don't get travel expenses or many of us don't even get paid time off from work. One of the best shooters in the country (John Bickar) doesn't come to Perry from California for his own reason's so those that go to Perry don't get to compete against him. Set up the way the Sectionals are when the results are FINALLY published we did get to compete against John. And to me thats pretty cool!

by rreid Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:15 pm

Here's my problem with the new rule change I live out here in flyover country ,and there's not even a sectional in my state. There is one in a state next to mine that I have gone to every year since 2008. The next closest one is over 4 hours away. The next 2 closest are over 5 hours. If I were so inclined, there's another one 7 hours away. So, how am I supposed to compete against someone who has 3 or 4 sectionals within 2 hours drive?

by chopper Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:08 pm

rreid wrote:Here's my problem with the new rule change I live out here in flyover country ,and there's not even a sectional in my state. There is one in a state next to mine that I have gone to every year since 2008. The next closest one is over 4 hours away. The next 2 closest are over 5 hours. If I were so inclined, there's another one 7 hours away. So, how am I supposed to compete against someone who has 3 or 4 sectionals within 2 hours drive?

Ralph, I have to agree with you there, because you can't compete against shooters which can pick their best scores out of several chances. I think the best option is to only count the 1st sectional match shot. I also think by shooting several sectionals you might be preventing another shooter from getting his only chance at competing, because you filled the match up and he can't enter.
We all compete against ourselves shot by shot and string by string. Whether you flinch, fart, or fire a shot off the target isn't any ones fault but your own and we all can have a bad day or exceptional day.
Stan

by john bickar Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:16 pm

rreid wrote:Here's my problem with the new rule change I live out here in flyover country ,and there's not even a sectional in my state. There is one in a state next to mine that I have gone to every year since 2008. The next closest one is over 4 hours away. The next 2 closest are over 5 hours. If I were so inclined, there's another one 7 hours away. So, how am I supposed to compete against someone who has 3 or 4 sectionals within 2 hours drive?

SMBeyer wrote:How could a "fluke" performance, as you put it, be called unfair? If it was "legally" shot during the match, and no cheating took place what is unfair? The competitor came shot his/her best and when the score was added up it is what it is. A great score! The shooter stood next to every other shooter that day and they all had the same opportunity to excel and didn't but the good shooter should be penalized because it's not their "norm"? How would anyone ever move up in class if their break out score is considered "unfair"?

The whole qualifying for the Nationals scenario sounds really fun! But I question even that way how real of a national championship you would have. We are not paid shooters. We don't get travel expenses or many of us don't even get paid time off from work. One of the best shooters in the country (John Bickar) doesn't come to Perry from California for his own reason's so those that go to Perry don't get to compete against him. Set up the way the Sectionals are when the results are FINALLY published we did get to compete against John. And to me thats pretty cool!

That was pretty much what it was. I've shot shoulder-to-shoulder with the best in the world at the highest levels, so I'm familiar with what "fair", "fluke", "legal", etc. are all about.

I shot an outlier in the Sectionals last year; it was a personal best of 891-31x. I sent it in and waited to see what it would do against everyone else. My numbers held up. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The Sectionals are fun, and it's nice for those of us in "flyover country" (yeah, I live in a state with damn near 40 million people but I had one Sectional within a day's drive last year, and I believe zero this year) to get a chance to put up numbers against our brethren from around the country. It's a postal match, but changing it to a re-entry match disadvantages everyone who doesn't live within a 600-mile radius of Camp Perry, Ohio.

I like the Sectionals because I get to see names of so many people that I've met over the years, and I get to mail in numbers and talk shit.

(BTW, the NRA still has sent me absolutely bupkis for winning the whole damn thing last year, so don't spend too much time getting wrapped around the axle of what the NRA says they are or aren't going to do.

Even if you're the winner, you're still a loser.)

by Slartybartfast Fri Feb 01, 2019 10:12 am

SMBeyer wrote:How could a "fluke" performance, as you put it, be called unfair? If it was "legally" shot during the match, and no cheating took place what is unfair?

My point is that people are only screaming unfair if the fluke happens in 1 out of two or three attempts instead of from a single attempt.
And the only reason to call it unfair is because that's the way it has always been.

SMBeyer wrote:I question even that way how real of a national championship you would have. We are not paid shooters. We don't get travel expenses or many of us don't even get paid time off from work.

Have a look at what golfers go through to qualify and compete.
And that's why I would propose sponsorship for the top qualifying shooters at each regional. The sponsored spots guarantee a reasonable minimum participation. In other serious sports what separates the amateurs from the professionals is the devotion to attaining the championship and unpaid time of work.
And if all results are posted, can still compare yourself to all the shooters in the country. Heck, if the organisation was better you'd be able to tell where you stand nationwide based on monthly club matches.

rreid wrote:So, how am I supposed to compete against someone who has 3 or 4 sectionals within 2 hours drive?

The same way competitors in sports that have qualification events. Make your one chance really count, or make the sacrifice to travel if it doesn't.
Everyone is wed to an emotionally fixed on how current rules are "fair" only because they are the rules everyone is used to.

chopper wrote:I also think by shooting several sectionals you might be preventing another shooter from getting his only chance at competing, because you filled the match up and he can't enter.

That's the easiest to address issue. If competitions are actually filling up to their max capacity a very simple registration deadline and removal of entries based first on people who have already registered scores and after on chance or distances or additional possibilities.
The words several keeps being used. I'm thinking the more appropriate wording might be "a couple of".

by Slartybartfast Fri Feb 01, 2019 10:23 am

And all rules discussions aside, this is the real issue:

john bickar wrote:BTW, the NRA still has sent me absolutely bupkis for winning the whole damn thing last year, so don't spend too much time getting wrapped around the axle of what the NRA says they are or aren't going to do.

Even if you're the winner, you're still a loser.

The NRA is doing a better job than anyone up here in Canada, but it still seems to be a really piss poor and badly focused job.

For participation:
- Tools
- Resources
- Support
- Promotion
- Recognition

In a sport with large grassroots support, focus on the elite.
In a sport with floundering or low participation, focus on the base.

All shooting sports seem to be suffering because all the various organisations that still cling to power are focused on the elite (and finals/nationals) as their base has evaporated. They're deluding themselves into believing that the reason there's less participation at the high end is because fewer people are choosing to "move up". Fact is, percentage wise, MORE people are probably choosing to move up. Trying to attract even more from a dwindling base or squeezing more out of those that currently fully participate isn't a viable longterm solution.

by Sponsored content

Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship

Re: Disturbing NRA Changes for 2019 Sectional Championship