2017-2018 QFG Program

Quest For Gold Update


2016-2017 Year’s Program Info


The QFG Nominations:

The 2016-2017 Quest for Gold Nominations

Nominated athletes have to Jan 25, 2017 to complete their online application at http://www.questforgold.ca.


The Athlete Handbook:

2016 – 2017 Quest for Gold Card Athlete Handbook


Appeal Process

As detailed on page 49 of the QFG athlete handbook (above link), the Appeals Process is the same as last year.  Before an athlete can file a Notice of Appeal, they should first ask their PSO for reasons explaining why they were not nominated for an Ontario Card.  If the athlete is not satisfied with the PSO response, they may submit a Notice of Appeal, using the template included as part of the draft list announcement.


Application Details

Quest for Gold is an athlete assistance program for athletes in Ontario.  General program information can be found here on the Quest for Gold website.

This is the 2016-2017 Q4G Athlete Selection Criteria.

This is the 2016-2017 Q4G Application Form.


Quest for Gold Athlete Ranking Clarification

Athletes are ranked in descending order based on the following criteria:

  1. Number of times the SFC development team cut score was achieved (in the submitted scores)
  2. The average number of points above the SFC development team cut score.

The word “percentile” used in the documentation is not used in the correct context as to the intended calculation process. Please ignore the use of this word.


Three male junior air rifle shooters submit the following scores:

Athlete A Athlete B Athlete C
591.2 592.2 592.3
590.5 589.0 588.2
593.7 591.2 589.6
588.0 590.6 590.7
591.0 590.3 590.5


For the above sets of submitted scores:

  Athlete A Athlete B Athlete C
SFC junior dev team cut score 590.0 590.0 590.0
Number of times above cut score 4 4 3
Average (of 5 scores) 590.88 590.66 590.26
Average points above cut score 0.88 0.66 0.26
Integer average points above cut score 1 1 0

As illustrated above, we have a tie between Athlete A and B.  So according to section “7.0 Breaking a Tie”, we will now reduce the data set to average the top 4 submitted scores.  Athlete C automatically ranks the lowest because he only submitted 3 scores above the cut score.

  Athlete A Athlete B
SFC junior dev team cut score 590.0 590.0
Number of times above cut score 4 4
Average (of top 4 scores) 591.6 591.08
Average points above cut score 1.6 1.08
Integer average points above cut score 2 1

From the above calculation, this will be the final ranking.

  1. Athlete A
  2. Athlete B
  3. Athlete C

Now, if the above example had resulted in Athlete A and B tied after the averaging to 4 top scores, then we would have looked at the 2016 National Championship results for men’s air rifle to determine who had the higher score from the qualification round.




Q. The age requirement talks about 23 or over for adult and under 22 for juniors. Does this leave out 22 year olds for either group? Also is this the age they reach during the calendar year or as of what date?

A. There was an error made in the age references and should read “23 or over for adult” and “22 or under for juniors” – this is because it’s a backward funded model and therefore refers to athlete performance from the year previous when the junior was still competing at 21.


Q. It refers to appendix A. Is this attached somewhere?

A. Appendix A is the Application and example attached thereto.


Q. In the document it refers to basing things on percentile ranking with an asterisk but no clarification. How does decimal vs whole number scoring fit in and do you have a formula for in mind for this?

A. Again, the conversion is referred to in the Application document and also refers to the calculations as made by the SFC. This process remains unchanged from last year’s calculations.