Judging behaviour

Fri Jan 24 06:34:22 AKST 2003

There you go...  If your not using a downgrade system that takes points away
when you see an infraction, you far behind the cure.  I suspect that flying
at 250 meters would not help much.

Tony Stillman
Radio South, Inc.
3702 N. Pace Blvd.
Pensacola, Fl 32505
www.radiosouthrc.com
800-962-7802
----- Original Message -----
From: <gene.maurice at attbi.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: Judging behaviour

> FWIW.................
>
> Quote from a judge (and Master pilot) at a local contest this past year:
> "I downgraded you because you were flying to close"
> So I asked:
> "Was I out of the box??"
> He replies:
> "Not really"
> So I queried:
> "Then why the downgrade? The rule book doesn't say anything about less
than 150
> meters." (BTW, I was flying over the poles)
> He retorts:
> "It looked hurried and rushed. There wasn't any time between maneuvers for
me
> think about a score"
> To which I was at a loss for words (a condition that very rarely inflicts
me)!!
>
> Go figure.......
>
> --
> Gene Maurice
> gene.maurice at attbi.com
> NSRCA 877
> AMA 3408
> > Peter:
> >
> > My background as a three-time USA Team Manager (now about to be four, as
I
> > will be TM for the USA this year in Poland...) and CD for the 1999 World
> > Champs, I have set through several Judge training sessions at the WC.
> >
> > To say I was disipointed would be a major understatement!  Many of the
> > judges only judge at one or two contests over a two year period!  Beside
the
> > lack of experiance, the questions that they asked during the training
> > session were those that you would expect to hear from a Sportsman pilot
who
> > has never attended a contest before!  A re-occuring issue was that most
> > thought that if you went out of the box, even just barely, it was a
zero!
> > Some didn't understand that the takeoff and landings were scored a zero
or
> > 10.  It was very sad.
> >
> > I can remember going back from a meeting to share what I had heard with
the
> > pilots and during the trip my assistant team manager and I decided it
was
> > best to not go into these details with them.  How do you prepair pilots
for
> > flying in front of judges who don't even know the basics of the job?  I
just
> > told them to fly their best, just as they had done at the team trials.
> > There were some specific items addressed at the meeting such as the
center
> > of a spin, but overall I was suprised by the lack of experience and very
> > basic questions presented by the judges to the Cheif Judge (which was
Ron
> > Chidgey).
> >
> > Ron spoke about distance, but it was very obvious that this was a "fine
> > point" to these judges, and Ron had much bigger "fish to fry" making
sure
> > that the got judging basics down.
> >
> > Now, with all that said, I don't have a lot of confidance in the overall
> > quality of judges used at at WC.  I would much rather have the group of
> > judges we use every year at our Nats for Masters and FAI finals!
> >
> > This gets us back to the distance issue.  It is touchy, but the rules
for
> > FAI are pretty black and white.  If the model is past the 175 meter
point,
> > it should be downgraded.  Figuring that distance may be difficult, but
that
> > is the rule.  The further out you go from there, additional points
should be
> > taken off.  If a pilot elects to fly at that distance, that's fine, but
> > there should be no question that he should have points deducted on each
> > manuever that he is past the 175 meter line.
> >
> > It is not easy to fly this kind of line, especially in wind, but many
can do
> > it and make it look wonderful.  It is easy to judge because you can see
the
> > model so well, even in the corners due to the close-in location.  The
people
> > that can do this should score better than those who can't, and the rule
is
> > there to back this up.
> >
> > Local events should be inforcing this as well, after all, the
contestants do
> > the judging and they need to follow the rule.  In many local events
everyone
> > is flying out.  That's fine, but be aware that the distance issue is
always
> > there, and should be accounted for.
> >
> > If you start using the throttle, you will find that you too can learn to
fly
> > in.  It takes practice, but it can be done.  I am still learning, and
I'm
> > not the best pilot out there, that's for sure!  However, during the NATS
> > last year, I was first up on my line.  A fellow FAI pilot and friend
Raiko
> > Potter took off first on the other line.  He finished the first center
> > maneuver before I was allowed to start
> > my airplane, and I finished the flight and landed before he did!  I was
> > flying at 140 to 150 meters, and Raiko always flies farther out.  I
didn't
> > mind, because I was not worried about a mid-air!
> >
> > Just my $0.02 worth....
> >
> > Tony Stillman
> > Radio South, Inc.
> > 3702 N. Pace Blvd.
> > Pensacola, Fl 32505
> > www.radiosouthrc.com
> > 800-962-7802
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Peter Pennisi" <pentagon.systems at bigpond.com>
> > To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 4:27 PM
> > Subject: RE: Judging behaviour
> >
> >
> > > I regard myself as an experienced flyer competing in F3A (note: I have
> > > not said that I am a competitive one at that). The judge from the
> > > experience I encountered remarked that my flight was too far out.
> > >
> > > I flew at a distance I felt was appropriate for the conditions at the
> > > time (that was my perception).
> > >
> > > Flying too deep in the box is a touchy subject at the best of time.
Some
> > > pilots naturally fly deep and fast while others may fly close and
slow.
> > > This has now becomes a subject of "style".
> > >
> > > I know the rule book says 150m, but I also think there is something
> > > about the model must be flown at a distance were it is clearly
visible.
> > >
> > > I was fortunate enough to go to the World Champs in Ireland in 2001
and
> > > some of the worlds best were flying at a distance well beyond the 150m
> > > mark, but I had no problems seeing their models and I guess the judges
> > > did not have a problem with it either as they scored very well.
> > >
> > > My point is some elements of our flying are subjective, unless a
> > > particular flyer is flying at 250m, then everyone is aware and he/she
> > > should be penalised for that.
> > >
> > > Forcing your opinion upon other judges because you felt a particular
> > > person was flying say at 175-180m I don't think is correct. If you
have
> > > problems with it make a comment at the bottom of the score sheet if
you
> > > feel you have to. Just don't try to persuade your fellow judges to
think
> > > the same way as they may be seeing something different.
> > >
> > > P.S Gray, My spell checker tells me that I have spelt behaviour
> > > correctly, but then it is Australian.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter Pennisi
> > > Pentagon Systems
> > > P.O Box 4280
> > > Eight Mile Plains
> > > QLD 4113
> > > Australia
> > > Phone:    61+0738414234
> > > Fax:        61+0733419203
> > > Mobile:   0408007206
> > > Email: pentagon.systems at bigpond.com
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]
> > > On Behalf Of Ed Miller
> > > Sent: Friday, 24 January 2003 07:45 AM
> > > To: discussion at nsrca.org
> > > Subject: Re: Judging behaviour
> > >
> > > I think I understand where Peter is coming from on this. In my
District
> > > we
> > > have gone to contestant judging in every contest except 2 that I am
> > > aware
> > > of. What I have witnessed happening is "lobbying in the pits" by
> > > contestants
> > > to other contestants that will be judging competitors in their class.
> > > "So
> > > and so's plane doesn't spin right" or "looks funny rolling", "he
always
> > > cheats the spin entry and gets away with it" are comments I've
> > > personally
> > > heard. Personally, although offended by these remarks, I've always
> > > judged
> > > everyone to the best of my ability and within the rules as I know
them.
> > > I
> > > personally have no problem being critiqued by a group of judges after
a
> > > flight, in fact I welcome it. However this "lobbying in the pits"
taints
> > > the
> > > contest experience. The "winning is the only thing" mentality should
be
> > > left
> > > at  the battlefield.
> > > Ed M.
> > > --- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Peter Pennisi" <pentagon.systems at bigpond.com>
> > > To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 9:42 AM
> > > Subject: RE: Judging behaviour
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I have no problems with post flight comments if the pilot asks,
> > > > especially if he is new to pattern and wants to improve his/her
> > > flying.
> > > >
> > > > Someone who may be struggling with a four point roll for example may
> > > ask
> > > > for some advice if the person who is judging is a more experienced
> > > > flyer.
> > > >
> > > > I guess what I am trying to say is if a pilot is struggling with
some
> > > > elements of his flight and concedes that he has, at the end of his
> > > > flight by asking for help then I have no problem with giving some
> > > > feedback.
> > > >
> > > > I feel my situation was a little different. I didn't ask. I guess he
> > > > could have expressed his view to the other judges if I wasn't there
> > > but
> > > > I can't stop that.
> > > >
> > > > The point I tried to make in my original post was judges and pilots
> > > need
> > > > to maintain some level of ethical behaviour at comps to say "keep
the
> > > > peace"
> > > >
> > > > I am the first to admit that criticism and comments are needed to
make
> > > > you
> > > > A better pilot, however there is a time and place for that and that
> > > > isn't on the flight line of a national championship.
> > > >
> > > > The old saying that "Money is the root of all evil" it is similar to
> > > say
> > > > that "judging is the root of most arguments at pattern competitions"
> > > > unfortunately, I don't think I am on my own here when I say this. By
> > > > keeping opinions to ourselves certainly goes a long way to keep
> > > harmony.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Peter Pennisi
> > > > Pentagon Systems
> > > > P.O Box 4280
> > > > Eight Mile Plains
> > > > QLD 4113
> > > > Australia
> > > > Phone:    61+0738414234
> > > > Fax:        61+0733419203
> > > > Mobile:   0408007206
> > > > Email: pentagon.systems at bigpond.com
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> > > [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]
> > > > On Behalf Of Dave & Sue Funk
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 23 January 2003 22:28 PM
> > > > To: discussion at nsrca.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Judging behaviour
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Rick completely. Comments from the judges is welcome.
> > > (POST
> > > > FLIGHT)
> > > >
> > > >  Dave
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Rick Wallace" <rickwallace45 at hotmail.com>
> > > > To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 5:41 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Judging behaviour
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I'm a fairly new pattern pilot, and welcome the comments of more
> > > > experienced
> > > > > pilots anytime I can get 'em, especially since they're  pilots
too,
> > > > and
> > > > are
> > > > > virtually always more experienced than I am.
> > > > >
> > > > > I look at immediate post-flight conversation w/ the judges as a
way
> > > to
> > > > > improve my flying. I'll routinely turn to the judges after I land
> > > and
> > > > ask
> > > > > them for their comments.
> > > > > Sometimes they'll let me know that they'd rather not comment, and
I
> > > > thank
> > > > > them and leave. Often, though, one or more will be willing to give
> > > his
> > > > > impressions and perceptions of the flight - this can be as
valuable
> > > as
> > > > any
> > > > > other input.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, if the next guy already has his engine running, and is
> > > > waiting
> > > > to
> > > > > step into the box then there's no discussion- -it's his flight
line.
> > > > > Otherwise, why not get the mini-critique?
> > > > >
> > > > > By the same token when I judge, when a competitor *asks* for
> > > feedback
> > > > (and
> > > > > only then) after his flight, I'll give it (usually deferring to
the
> > > > more
> > > > > senior judge if there is one) when there's time before the next
> > > > pilot's
> > > > up.
> > > > > I trust the other judge not to be influenced (not to be swayed in
> > > his
> > > > > judgiung the rest of the round) by my comments, as I try not to be
> > > > swayed
> > > > by
> > > > > his comments.
> > > > >
> > > > > We pattern guys don't fly together enough as it is, and should
take
> > > > max
> > > > > advantage of the chances to help each other and to be helped.
> > > > >
> > > > > My $.02 -
> > > > > Rick
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I recently attended a competition in which the conduct of a
> > > > particular
> > > > > >judge
> > > > > >left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. As I turned towards the
> > > > judges
> > > > > >after
> > > > > >completing my flight this particular person (experienced F3A
judge)
> > > > made
> > > > a
> > > > > >number of comments about my flight being flown too far out and
that
> > > > he
> > > > > >docked several points per manoeuvre. These comments were made in
> > > the
> > > > > >presence of the other two judges.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I am not going to argue that I was or wasn't. The concern I had
> > > with
> > > > this
> > > > > >behaviour was he could have influenced the other judges to think
> > > the
> > > > same
> > > > > >as
> > > > > >they had less experience. This type of conduct should not be
> > > allowed
> > > > to
> > > > > >happen. Judges should be able to judge a flight based on their
own
> > > > > >perception and interpretation of rules etc. If this particular
> > > person
> > > > > >thought that I should be docked 2 points per manoeuvre then that
> > > > should
> > > > be
> > > > > >his opinion only.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >The issue here is that most of us on this list judge and fly
> > > > aerobatics.
> > > > > >Everyone deserves to be judged fairly and unbiased by people who
> > > have
> > > > their
> > > > > >own perception on how a flight should look and should be flown.
Why
> > > > have
> > > > 3
> > > > > >or 5 judges?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >If you looked at this incident from another angle some of my
> > > > competitors
> > > > > >may
> > > > > >say that I was being coached by a judge which could raise another
> > > set
> > > > of
> > > > > >problems.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >All in all, the fact he said anything was wrong.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Just my thoughts
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Peter
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >***************************** Disclaimer
> > > > *****************************
> > > > > >
> > > > > >The contents of this electronic message and any attachments are
> > > > > >intended only for the addressee and may contain privileged or
> > > > > >confidential information. They may only be used for the purposes
> > > for
> > > > > >which they were supplied. If you are not the addressee, you are
> > > > > >notified that any transmission, distribution, downloading,
printing
> > > > > >or photocopying of the contents of this message or attachments is
> > > > > >strictly prohibited. The privilege of confidentiality attached to
> > > > > >this message and attachments is not waived, lost or destroyed by
> > > > > >reason of mistaken delivery to you. If you receive this message
> > > > > >in error please notify the sender by return e-mail or telephone.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Thank you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >=====================================
> > > > > ># To be removed from this list, send a message to
> > > > > ># discussion-request at nsrca.org
> > > > > ># and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> > > > > >#
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
> > > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> > > > >
> > > > > =====================================
> > > > > # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> > > > > # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> > > > > # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> > > > > #
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > =====================================
> > > > # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> > > > # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> > > > # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> > > > #
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > =====================================
> > > > # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> > > > # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> > > > # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> > > > #
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > =====================================
> > > # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> > > # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> > > # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> > > #
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > =====================================
> > > # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> > > # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> > > # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> > > #
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > =====================================
> > # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> > # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> > # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> > #
> >
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
>
>
>

=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to 
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#