Judging questions

[David Lockhart]

Point is simply that when 1 radius of 4 does not match, the downgrade is for one radii not matching - it does not matter which single radius did not match.

How about this scenario - an Intermediate pilot is cruising along and sets up for 2 horizontal rolls - ends up starting the maneuver late, gets blown in by the crosswind and then very abruptly pulls vertical into the Humpty Bump to avoid a box violation.  What next?  Attempt to make the top half loop and exiting quarter loop equally abrupt as the entry radius?  If I were the pilot in the scenario, I'd go for a "normal" radius on the top half loop and exiting quarter loop knowing that it presents better and I'm more likely to hit the lines.

Pet peave of mine - "smoothness".  An "abrupt" radius would not seem to be "smooth".  So if the pilot in the above example chose to make the 2nd and 3rd radii match (and abrupt), the radii would be geometrically correct (no downgrade, so still a "10").  3 abrupt (and equal) radii should score higher than mismatched (and smooth) radii because the book says geometry is the most important criteria - but most of us that have played the game long enough know 1 abrupt and 2 "smooth" radii are likely to outscore 3 abrupt radii.  So, what is the relative value of the smoothness downgrade vs the geometry downgrade?  No, I don't expect a real answer to this one - we all have our own opinions on what is/isn't smooth - and because we are all left to our own interpretations on smoothness downgrades.

Dave Lockhart


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: David Wartel 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 10:48 PM
  Subject: Re: Judging questions


  Although it is counterintuitive, I accept and, if ever asked to judge, will try to apply what Dave Lockhart and Scott have explained about this. Without this topic having come up, I would have compared all radii to the initial one in all looping maneuvers. It seems more logical to me.

   I can't envision attempting a square loop and saying to myself, "Oops! I made the initial radius too sharp. I'll just make the other three larger and hope I only lose one point." But the interpretation in question allows for this.

  Where do these rule interpretations come from? Who makes them? Are they in writing somewhere? Maybe there should be rule interpretaion addendum. Do all certified judges know about these? I just attended a seminar and I didn't.

  Other than snaps and spins (let's not go there!), are there other "secret" rule interpretations we should know about?

  No intention to be sarcastic here; I just want to play the game correctly.

  Dave Wartel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040804/5db8747e/attachment.html