Performance Judging? Trial Balloon

[Wayne Galligan]

I think that trial balloon could float.   Good thoughts Jim.

Wayne Galligan
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jim_Woodward at beaerospace.com 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 7:36 AM
  Subject: Performance Judging? Trial Balloon



  Trial Balloon Email (beware) :) 

  Hi All, 

  I'm going to propose a different way of looking at judging.  Of course, the pilot is the "performer" that is on stage for all to see, however, at the same time the judge(s) are performing as well.  At the US Nationals, the judging committee is calculating persons judging marks, and continuing to rank the judges.  Thus, the judges are performing at the same time as the pilot.  However, we typically do not ever get to see how the performance of the judge ranks against the pilot, or peers in an open forum.  The current atmosphere is sort of  hush quiet, or a "don't tell" type in regards to what judge gave what score.  Almost as if, its considered good pilot etiquette not to ask judging questions.  Many judges do not like to be approached after a round to discuss scoring.  Instead of this, we could turn the tables completely 180 degree around.   

  Judging could be made to be a completely open from start to finish of the contest.  Perhaps within the scoring system, after each round, judges scores for all pilots are posted (tear sheets essentially) at the same time as the round postings.  The posting of side-by-side scores, could become a POWERFUL training tool for younger pilots (judges).  Currently, there is no award for the "performance" of judging.    Flyers go to a contest to fly, yet the task of judging takes double or more of the combined numbers of people than contestants (at least in total effort).   

  If we acknowledge that in the current local contest and Nationals setting, there is already volumes of discussion going on between pilots regarding scoring (is there any bigger topic with 90% of the pilots?), we can then foster an environment which turns what is currently ambivalent or negative judge critiquing, into one in which takes these volumes of discussion and focuses on "constructive" or "objective" results - results beyond simply complaining amongst each other (avoid the misery loves company syndrome). 

  Doing something like this will address two important issues.  1.) The contestant should feel more "in-tune" with scoring, and perhaps use this feedback to better their own flying and judging.  2.)  The judge should feel satisfied in knowing at the end of a round, whether or not his/her "calibration" is more or less correct (I'm tending to think that within a few posted rounds of these scores, judges will "self-correct" any trends without asking if such a trend has become obvious).  Individually, I hope each judge feels compelled to "talk" to pilots about the round if asked.   

  Finally, recognizing that judging is an important criteria, I recommend a "District Award" for the top 1,2,3 persons who performed the most amount of judging in the district (or most accurate if possible to calculate).  Also possibly a District award for the "team" that performed the most contest scoring. 

  Key thoughts: 
  1.  Contestants are more in-tune with total system of contest running/scoring, etc. 
  2.  Judges (or CD's???)  offered an avenue to "self-correct" if & when necessary (... could happen to anybody) 
  3.  District awards for the massive judging/scoring effort already taking place. 
  4.  Re-focus the INCREDIBLE VOLUMES of discussion already taking place regarding scoring into a beneficial training event 
  5.  Possibility:  Upon the conclusion of Saturdays competition, the CD could offer an open-discussion or review of the days scoring and judging  - read as, a quick pilots meeting that gives folks the open forum to discuss anything - which can also be viewed as mini-judge-training-event. 

  Anyway - just thinking of ways to take the effort that is already going on, and refocusing into beneficial paths.  Definitely open to other ideas and suggestions. 

  Jim W. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050802/5e895f4d/attachment.html