Scoring Vs Judging

[Bill Carpenter]

Sometimes perfect isn't what the sport wants.  I remember when video cameras
were placed directly over home base in baseball, and showed strike calls
that were a foot off the plate.  Needless to say, the cameras disappeared
quickly.  If we didn't have the judges to complain about, what would we have
to fill all those idle hours between flights?

----------
From: "RC Steve Sterling" <rcsteve at tcrcm.org>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Subject: RE: Scoring Vs Judging
Date: Tue, Jun 10, 2003, 12:37 AM


Compare it with other sports that require refs or judges that have to make
complex, on the spot judges. Basketball comes to mind right now, but soccer,
hockey, all those don't have as good as system as we do. And who wants to
get ranting about the Olympics, horse or dog shows. Makes our system look
perfect.
-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On
Behalf Of jed241 at msn.com
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 6:45 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Scoring Vs Judging

I agree...

If we have consistent judging, then the low average round becomes a product
of the environment for the round. More difficult environment should produce
a lower scoring round and the weight of the raw point should then be
rewarded for doing better than the other pilots.

I'm not worried about winning right now. I feel like I've had a real good
flight when I survive to fly the next round...

Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: WHIP23 at aol.com <mailto:WHIP23 at aol.com>
To: discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: Scoring Vs Judging

In a message dated 6/9/03 5:05:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jed241 at msn.com
<mailto:jed241 at msn.com>  writes:

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>

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.

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.

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


I'll chime in here a little.  I'm sure we can find problems with the scoring
and judging in any given situation, but remember our flying is not perfect
and the judging and scoring will never be perfect.  I think if you work it
through you will find that normalization solves more problems than it
introduces.  That said, we need to continue the current trend towards
better, more consistent judging, it's come a long way.  And, I'll add that
if you are winning or being beat by a point or two then you don't really
know won anyway, all you know is you had a good fight (I mean a good time
:-)  )  Solution, beat the "sucker" by a 100 points :-)

Bob

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20030610/6e26ce7e/attachment.html