TBLP

Mon Dec 13 16:35:34 AKST 2004

It's a matter of semantics, Bill.  I say potato... you say potato.  I don't
view TBL (or TBLP) as a judge rating mechanism - never have, never will...
and I wrote the scoring program, and I'm very familiar with the calculations
used and I totally agree with it, BTW.  I see it as a fair way to rate
pilots without allowing for judging bias to enter into the equation.
High/low discard does the same thing except it discriminates against all
judges if they are the high/low score - 5 judges scored - only 3 judges are
used - 40% of the scores are discarded.  TBL(P) takes care of that problem
and thus fewer judges scores are actually dropped.  Again, this is a moot
point because:

1.  TBL is not in use in pattern competition in the US
2.  TBL is not being used to evaluate the judges (as was inferred by Eric H.
in a prior email)

  _____  

From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Bill Glaze
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 5:27 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: TBLP

Well, I see TBLP as far more than simply discarding high and low scores.
The book describes it very  well.  To simply do this would not be
satisfactory in the case of the rigorous judging criterion set out in the
manual.  It may work satisfactorily for us, considering the usual number of
judges in actual competitions here, but, still and all, is certainly not the
same thing.  Even their book admits of some "fuzzy" areas.  If you simply
disqualify the scores of the high judge, then you may have another judge
nearly as, but not quite, as high, leading to errors of purpose.
 This discussion has, I am sure, put most of our participants on this list
fast asleep.
The only quarrel I had, initially, was the statement that TBLP was not for
rating judges, but for scoring pilots.  As I see it, that simply is not
true.
The explanation of TBLP itself, in the book, disputes the quoted statement.

Bill Glaze

Derek Koopowitz wrote:

Bill,

I'm extremely well versed in TBL and TBLP.  I don't need to read the book -

been there, done that... A long time ago.  :)

What I am saying is that if you characterize TBL as rating judges then you

have to characterize high/low discard as the same thing.

-----Original Message-----

From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On

Behalf Of Bill Glaze

Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 3:41 PM

To: discussion at nsrca.org

Subject: Re: TBLP

Well , you were the one who mentioned TBLP in the first place, (incorrectly,

in my opinion) not me.  And, I recall somewhere in the not too distant past,

you were involved in a discussion of  the possibility of using TBLP at

Muncie.  (Whether you were in favor or against, I don't

recollect.)

If you care to read the book describing TBLP, you will see that it is a far

more rigorous exercise than just a high/low discarding of scores.  

In fact, it takes up 2-1/2 pages of formulas and descriptions.

As far as throwing out the high and low judges, (as we presently do) the IAC

Rule Book says, (and I quote) "Excluding the highest and lowest judges does

not remove the second or third out-of-range or biased judges, and often does

remove judges who are the most rigorous with their scores."  Ibid P. 141

Read the book.  It's interesting.

Bill Glaze

Derek Koopowitz wrote:

F3A uses TBL not TBLP - a subtle difference.  As an aside to this... If 

what you wrote below is the case then in everyday Nats competition the 

judges are being judged as well - we discard high/low scores.  What's the

difference?

One other point - TBL (or TBLP) is NOT used in any AMA pattern event 

(to my

knowledge) so this point is moot. 

-----Original Message-----

From: discussion-request at nsrca.org 

[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill Glaze

Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 2:57 PM

To: Discussion

Subject: TBLP

A statement was made in this discussion group,  about the TBLP system 

not being for ranking judges, but for scoring pilots.  I believe this 

statement to be in error.

Either that, or I have misunderstood the meaning of the statement.

In actuality, it (Tarasov-Bauer-Long-Penteado) is used to determine 

which judges may or may not fall outside a "window" of scoring.  It is 

used to identify, in any given contest, those judges who are outside 

the "norm."  It is explicitly stated* that "In case you judges are 

concerned this process corrupts your rankings, when the scores are 

normalized in this manner to remove stylistic differences between 

judges, THE RELATIVE STANDING OF EACH PILOT IS NOT AFFECTED."  

(sic)(Caps mine)  It further states that "in world championships where 

ten (10) judges are used, it is not uncommon to see three (3) or even 

four (4) judges deleted from a pilot's flight scores."  I believe that 

these statements indicate that the judges are, in fact, the ones being

judged.

It is a fairly rigorous mathematical exercise and points out those 

judges who may not be scoring contestants in a manner consistent with 

good judging practices.

This book makes very interesting reading.  Underlying it all is that 

even with the full size aircraft, and  world class competitors, in a 

sport many years old, the participants and executives are still even 

now concerned with judging.  And wisely so.

*International Aerobatic Club Official Contest Rules (Red Book) 

appendix II, P. 141-147 As modified 1999

Bill Glaze

=================================================

To access the email archives for this list, go to 

http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/

To be removed from this list, go to 

http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm

and follow the instructions.

=================================================

To access the email archives for this list, go to 

http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/

To be removed from this list, go to 

http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm

and follow the instructions.

=================================================

To access the email archives for this list, go to

http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/

To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm

and follow the instructions.

=================================================

To access the email archives for this list, go to

http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/

To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm

and follow the instructions.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20041214/7de7fd3a/attachment.html