SCAYT Scoring System

1. Scoring prior to the tour finale.

Whenever an archer attends a tour event, they get an ‘event score’ of 1, 2, or 3 points. Archers score 1 point for participating but coming outside of the top 3 places in their age-gender-bow type category. They score 2 points for coming either second or third. They score 3 points for winning their category.

As the tour progresses the individual event scores for each archer are translated in to a ‘tour points score’.

For an archer with 3 or fewer event scores, the tour score is simply equal to the sum of their event scores.

For archers with more than 3 event scores, only the 3 highest event scores they have achieved are counted in full. One quarter of their 4th highest event score is then added, one fifth of their 5th highest event score is added, one sixth of the 6th highest score is added, and so on until all the archers events scores have been weighted to contribute to the tour score. 

More formally (for those who like maths):

  • At any point in time an archer has n event scores, S1, S2, S3……Sn.
  • The n event scores are arranged in magnitude order, largest first, smallest last: M1, M2, M3….Mn.
  • The tour points are given by M1+M2+M3+(1/4* M4)+(1/5* M5)+…+(1/n*Mn)

2. Scoring at the tour finale.

At the tour finale, the event points available in each age-gender-bow type category are doubled for all places (except for coming third). That there are 2 points available for participating, 3 points for coming third, 4 points for coming second, and 6 points available for winning a category. These points are added to the archer’s tour points score in full.

The reason points for coming third are increased by 50% (rather than 100%) is so that performance between second and third places is distinguished at the finals, which may be important should archers begin the final on equal points. At other shoots on the tour second and third places are given the same tour points.

3. Why is the scoring system complicated?

It would be simpler to have the same points for every shoot and simply add them up. But it would not clearly be fairer, and nor would it clearly encourage junior archers to participate in more shoots, including the SCAYT final.

A key issue is that the distribution of shoots around the region is not even, and juniors are typically dependent on their parents/guardians for transport to shoots. Hence geography alone may make it a lot easier for some archers to participate in a high number of shoots than it is for others.

The scoring system has been calibrated so that an archer who wins their category in three tour shoots should usually expect to be in contention to win the tour if they perform well at the final. To be more specific, they would be able to catch up and overtake an archer who had won six shoots, provided they can win their category at the final.  An archer can always add to their points total by participating in more than three shoots before the final, but by an ever diminishing amount as their number of shoots rises. This helps keep archers’ scores in each category close together, while the double points available at the final provides an opportunity for archers to catch up.

If the scoring system was unweighted, an archer with easy access to shoots could win their category in the tour simply by winning at a lot of shoots early in the tour and establishing a large lead. Should one archer do that, there would be little incentive for other archers to enter shoots or attend the SCAYT final, at least with regard to winning the tour. This why an archer’s three best event scores always count in full, but when an archer has more than three event scores they start to be down-weighted.  

An example of how this works in practice

Here we consider a junior archer who participates in 6 tour events and then the tour finale.

1. The archer attends their first SCAYT event and comes 3rd in their bow category. They gain a 2 point event score, and then have an overall tour points score of 2.

2. The archer attends another SCAYT event and wins their bow category. They gain a 3 point event score, and now have an overall tour points score of 5 (2 from the prior event, and 3 from this one).

3. The archer attends a third SCAYT events and comes 4th at the shoot. They gain a 1 point event score, and now have a tour points score of 6.

4. The archer attends a fourth SCAYT event and wins their bow class. They gain a 3 point event score. The archer now has 4 event scores: 2,3,1,3 in the order scored. If we arrange these scores in magnitude order (largest first) they are: 3,3,2,1. The archers tour points score is now calculated as 3+3+2+(1/4*1) which gives 8.25 points. Note that the tour points score has gone up, but not by the full 3 points they scored at this 4th event, because the number of shoots they have attended is now more than three.

5. The archer attends a 5th SCAYT event and wins their bow class. They gain a 3 point event score. Their event scores are now 3,3,3,2,1 in magnitude order. The archers tour points score is now calculated as 3+3+3+(1/4*2)+(1/5*1) which gives 9.7 points.

6. The archer attends a 6th SCAYT event and comes 2nd. They gain a 2 point event score. Their event scores in magnitude order are now: 3,3,3,2,2,1.  Their tour points score is calculated as 3+3+3+(1/4*2)+(1/5*2)+(1/6*1) which gives 10.1 when rounded to one decimal place.

7. The archer attends the SCAYT finale and comes 2nd. They gain a 4 points event score (as double points are available at the final). Their tour points score becomes 10.1+4 which equals 14.1 points. That is their score at the conclusion of the tour and the basis upon which their elligibility for a gold, silver or bronze tour award will be judged.