Performance Judging? (how did we get where we are)

[BUDDYonRC at aol.com]

Thanks Georgie
Just an effort to get people to honestly address the problem areas in  our 
system and think of ways to eliminate or reduce them. It would  sure be great to 
hear how good the judging was at a contest instead of the  many many post's 
about all the reasons for possible errors.
Buddy    
In a message dated 8/6/2005 8:04:04 PM Central Daylight Time,  geobet at gis.net 
writes:

Awesome  Buddy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  
BUDDYonRC at aol.com wrote:  
I believe that the present quality of  judging has / is improving except in 
some areas that inject a measure of  personal opinion driven by errors in 
interpretation and definition that tend  to magnify the error factor in contest 
scores.It seems to me that the  controversy about score differences was escalated 
when, a few years ago  people complained about weather snaps and spins being 
performed by FAI  pilots were to fast and the question arose as to weather 
they were not  actually doing a snap or just a fast roll. Much emphasis was 
placed on a  judging criteria to determine the correct methods to assure that those 
 particular maneuvers were judged correctly.Due to the human factor,  
inconsistencies filtered down to all classes and since most of the snap  maneuvers 
are high K-factor this fact has resulted in skewing scores to the  point where   
 the ability due to personal opinion for some  judges to accurately 
distinguish the correctly performed maneuver is  resulting in an error factor which 
decreases the probability of selecting  the proper results in a contest.This 
leads me to believe that the descriptions  of actual performance requirements is 
much better than the ability to judge  them correctly in many cases and makes 
me wonder if descriptions which fall  in this area are actually an obstacle 
that leads to a worse situation when  our goal is to determine the best pilot. 
Two choices exist to  minimize our situation, 1. Eliminate the problem 
maneuvers. The AMA rule  description is somewhat confusing at best and in fact 
incorrect or  misleading if taken literally I believe the FAI rules provide a much 
better  description ("At the start of a snap-roll, the fuselage attitude must 
show a  definite break and separation from the flight path, before the rotation 
is  started." ) instead of the AMA rule which says (" Since the maneuver is  
defined as a stall maneuver (induced by a rapid stall of the wing induced by  a 
change in pitch attitude"), The nose of the fuselage should show a  definite 
break from the flight path in the direction of the snap while the  track 
closely maintains the flight path. In reality the nose and the  tail should show a 
definite break in attitude (the angle of the model in  relation to the flight 
path) from the flight path.I think wording of the AMA rule  overlooking this 
reality is a primary cause which results in many of the  errors in scoring and 
in fact in relation to less experienced judges  actually foster it.2. Make an 
all out effort to correct the  description and judge training in this area.Many 
newly trained judges  actually award a higher score for a rapid barrel roll 
than they do for a  well done snap that is done at a higher speed and actually 
zero many if them  incorrectly.Likewise another area which results in large 
point spread errors  with less experienced judges is their lack of firmiluarity 
with the  geometric requirements of the maneuvers.Spin entry is another 
problem  area that must be addressed that is also a culprit that in many cases is  
judged incorrectly.We have a ways to go guys but the effort will be  rewarded, 
look where we were a few years ago and I believe you will agree we  have come 
a long way toward improving the system.Just a few of my thoughts and a  lot of 
rambling on in an effort to get you to thinking of solutions and the  means 
to an end.Buddy



 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050807/1d923b7c/attachment-0001.html