Is this considered an "abnormal point?"

I also think they share a common base and are there fore abnormal.

 

They share a common base. Probably the best example or comparison can be made using the "King" buck from WI.

 

Here are closer pictures. Thanks for the comments guys! Like I said before either way I'm super happy with this buck high or low score!

 

Now it looks like normal points but still cannot see the inside base clearly to tell.

If you draw a line at the bases and they come out a figure 8 shape then they are separate points not abnormal but if they are oval or only one side has a indent then they would be abnormal.

 

I finally got ahold of someone at P&Y and they agreed the points should be considered normal and not abnormal! I was given permission to have the buck rescored! I will post back with the new score when it gets done.

 

YES!!!!

Good job and congrats! Can't wait to see the official score! Tell the wankers to do it right this time

 

Either way, I personally hate the way P&Y and B&C score their bucks. Every buck should be given credit for what they have grown, normal or not. Inch's are inch's in my book.

Great buck by the way.

 

EXACTLY!! Like someone else said earlier... Nets are for fishing

 

Not that it really matters, but they do share a common base and any panel of judges would score them as abnormal. The left side is beyond a doubt abnormal. The right side would be debatable, but then it would not match up to the left, so again it becomes an abnormal tine. If I were you, I wouldn't think any less of the rack just because it is scored differently.

 

guess I never replied to this post - you are correct in stating that Illinois is shotgun-only. However, you are incorrect in assuming it was shot in Illinois. This was a mid-Michigan public land monster.

That's awesome news!

 

Trust me I don't think any less of this buck at all! I would shoot him the first minute of opening day over and over again! The reason why I asked P&Y to have it rescored is because every other scorer I talked to besides the one that scored it said they should be considered normal. A couple of these were B&C scorers too.. According to the B&C measuring book, a common base point should be considered normal as long as the cross section of the point would be figure 8 shaped, and in this case each side has that figure 8 shape. Here is a picture I took directly out of the scoring manual that one of the scorers had.

 

fletch nailed it....it is a 150 inch class buck period in my book.

 

Just goes back to what I said in the threads third post so I guess what I was always told was true...as long as points are duplicate to both sides they aren't "odd points".

The controversy is silly anyway, obviously those points only share some minor webbing anyway, should never have even been an issue. Gross score is all that matters to me anyway, the net scores are unfair to the animals that grow a lot of junk. The net score is fine for consideration of a "beauty score" to reflect uniformity and symmetry but most folks are more concerned with sheer inch total and to me that's the fairest reflection of the vast majority of deer. Exceptions would be deer like the Hanson buck that are super both ways.

 

Fletch is off base in my opinion.

Those appear to be normal tines. The rules allow for some palmation to 'connect' the tines near the base.

 

If having a typical score is important to the OP, then I hope you are right. It does appear that there is more involved in this ruling than I was ever taught by any B&C or P&Y scorer. I look forward to learning more about this and applaud the hunter for killing a fantastic buck either way.

I was also using the King buck as an example that may or may not be an appropriate reference to this rack.