[SPAM] Re: Displacement during snap rolls (was Why is it so quiet?)

[rcaerobob at cox.net]

Yep. It's TOUGH in the "chair".... <VBG>
> 
> From: Bill Glaze <billglaze at triad.rr.com>
> Date: 2004/12/29 Wed PM 03:05:54 EST
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: Displacement during snap rolls (was Why is it so quiet?)
> 
> Sheesh, Bob!  You're asking ME? <vbg>  bg
> 
> rcaerobob at cox.net wrote:
> 
> >That means my interpretation of correct presentation of a snap can be that offset is perfectly acceptable.  If you're in the chair NEXT to me, judging the same guy, and you hammer him for it, does that mean BOTH of us are correct?
> >  
> >
> >>From: Bill Glaze <billglaze at triad.rr.com>
> >>Date: 2004/12/29 Wed PM 02:12:03 EST
> >>To: discussion at nsrca.org
> >>Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: Displacement during snap rolls (was Why is it so quiet?)
> >>
> >>Matt:
> >>There's always the old subjective, indefinable word: "presentation."  
> >>Still usable.  Bill Glaze
> >>
> >>Rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>In a message dated 12/29/2004 1:55:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> >>>rcaerobob at cox.net writes:
> >>>
> >>>    This is another example of the intent of a thread wandering far
> >>>    afoot....as the original questioner, I'd like to refocus my point.
> >>>    Simply put - according to our CURRENT rules, there is NOT a
> >>>    downgrade criterion for offsetting of the track during a snap
> >>>    maneuver.
> >>>      I understand the "more skillful" guy should get a point reward
> >>>    (by not getting a downgrade that others may receive), but my point
> >>>    is ----
> >>>      What is the rule basis for the downgrade?
> >>>      And since I'm specifically talking about LATERAL track offsets,
> >>>    not vertical or angular, there aren't "general" guidelines to
> >>>    handle this.
> >>>      My point being that there SHOULD NOT be a scored difference
> >>>    between the line that shifts and the line that doesn't, all other
> >>>    factors being identical between the quality of the two
> >>>    snaps.....simply because we don't have the criteria identified.
> >>>
> >>>    Or am I just being logical again?
> >>>
> >>>The basis for the downgrade is smoothness and gracefulness, not any 
> >>>other spelled out criterion. If one looks for a specific, spelled out 
> >>>rule, it does not exist. Dean threw out half a wing span displacement 
> >>>in pitch or yaw as acceptable. That's reasonable if not a bit much. 
> >>>Anything more than that is grounds for downgrade. Not a zero mind you, 
> >>>just downgrade, and in some cases, severe downgrade that may result in 
> >>>a zero.
> >>> 
> >>>MattK
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Bob Pastorello, El Reno, OK, USA
> >rcaerobob at cox.net
> >www.rcaerobats.net
> >
> >=================================================
> >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.
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 

Bob Pastorello, El Reno, OK, USA
rcaerobob at cox.net
www.rcaerobats.net

=================================================
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.