Judging behaviour

[RC Steve Sterling]

My favorite reply to most comments is "show me in the rule book where ...."

Nothing I've seen about "rushed" or "time to score" downgrades.


-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of gene.maurice at attbi.com
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 7:05 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
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.
#