Scoring Vs Judging

[jed241 at msn.com]

John,

Thanks for your response...

Let me make sure that everyone understands...,"I'm not attacking the judging in any way". This was only intended to spark discussion about the scoring and how it roles up. I thought I understood it correctly. I may have sparked some nerves which was not my intent...

However, I'll engage in debate...

***Each round is normalized to the high raw score in each class. That makes each round a "mini-contest".***
This would only be true if the number of rounds won was the deciding factor. Since the sum of the normalized rounds determines the winner, it is possible that the winner actually has a lower raw score total. As Matt stated, it's not probable that this would be the case. However, as the difference between two scores decrease, the potential becomes more likely.

***The most harsh set of judges have no more influence on the outcome than a more lenient set.***
This can't be a correct statement if my theory and math is correct. The importance of consistency from judge to judge should be the priority in my opinion. I believe this is the focus of the NSRCA judging committee.

***We admit the judging process is flawed when we use two or more judges.***
Actually, I think the "low average round" phenomena risk is reduced when using more than one judge per round. The averages should reduce the variance.

Larry
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Ferrell 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:06 PM
  Subject: Re: Scoring Vs Judging


  Some comments in CAPS embedded in your post...

  Each round is normalized to the high raw score in each class. That makes each round a "mini-contest".

  The most harsh set of judges have no more influence on the outcome than a more lenient set.

  We admit the judging process is flawed when we use two or more judges. After all, if they were all perfect we would only need one per flight!

  We are always looking to do better in the judging & scoring department.

  John Ferrell 
  6241 Phillippi Rd
  Julian NC 27283
  Phone: (336)685-9606  
  johnferrell at earthlink.net
  Dixie Competition Products
  NSRCA 479 AMA 4190  W8CCW
  "My Competition is Not My Enemy"

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: jed241 at msn.com 
    To: NSRCA 
    Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:02 PM
    Subject: Scoring Vs Judging


    You need to blame this e-mail thread on two things. One is the post that said it was quite; and two, you will soon see I have too much time on my hands...<VBG>

    Before reading any further, I'm only trying to drum up trouble <VBG> I could be way off base here....I really don't know...

    Due to my competitive nature (certainly not my flying ability) I have given thought to the relationship of judging, scoring, and the potential outcome of a certain phenomena called a low average round (aka...a typically low scoring set of judges by nature)...

    I could be wrong on this so please correct me if I'm wrong...Here we go...I'm putting on my flame suit as I type...

    Theory:
    Since the scoring procedure is to normalize each round, a set of judges that scores low by nature will have more influence on the outcome than a set of judges that scores higher by nature.

    Data:
    I pulled a spreadsheet together and came up with the following numbers (rounded to the nearest .01):

    Sportsman - Total KFactor points per round is 19. This translates a perfect round that each raw score is worth 5.26 normalized points per raw point (19*10*5.26). A round with an average of 7.5 KFactor points has a normalized value of 7.0 normalized points per raw point.

    If this is true (not claiming it is, cause I don't know) and two pilots are close (separated only by 1 raw point per round). It's possible that the pilot winning the lower averaged round could win even though they share the same exact raw score. This wouldn't be the case if they scoring system normalized the combined raw scores for all rounds to determine the winner. This may be the case but I'm just trying to start trouble...<VBG>

    YES!

    Average for rounds one and two per KFactor point is 8; Rounds three and four is 7. Who should win?

    Raw Scores:
    Pilot One (R1-152; R2-152; R3-132; R4-132) = total of 568
    Pilot Two (R1-151; R2-151; R3-133; R4-133) = total of 568

    Should this be a tie?

    Nope, cause when you normalize by the round and add individual rounds together you get the following results. (assuming the formula is -->1000 / Highest raw score for the round X pilots raw score for the round)

    Normalized:
    Pilot One (R1-1000; R2-1000; R3-992.5; R4-992.5) = total of 3985
    Pilot Two (R1-993.5; R2-993.5; R3-1000; R4-1000) = total of 3987

    Pilot two wins due to the influence of the lower average scoring rounds.

    I don't know how the scoring system works to compute the winner, but would be interested to know if it is by the sum of the normalized rounds or by normalized total of the raw scores per round.
    NORMALIZED TOTAL OF THE RAW SCORES PER ROUND

    If you really want to complicate things, just start thinking about the shift of the outcome on Masters Maneuvers with high KFactors when the difference between two pilots is only separated by 1/2 point on a given maneuver.
    TRUE!

    Conclusion:
    Consistency of scoring from judge to judge is just as important as judging each pilot in a round. Unless again the total raw score is normalized to define the winner.

    Now as my favorite comedian always says, "This is only my opinion, I could be wrong". I also admit that I may not know what I'm talking about cause I don't understand the math behind it. Not meant to be sarcastic, cause it could be true.

    If you actually got to this point, you are truly as demented as I am...LOL

    Larry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20030609/90e2ce51/attachment.html