[SPAM] Re: Scoring formula

[Chris Moon]

I agree 100% with Verne.  In fact, I would absolutely agree to judge 2 
days at the NATS instead of the 1 day if that meant we would have a 5 
judge panel for all rounds in all classes.  As it is, one judge CAN 
affect and change the outcome of the contest.  This should never be the 
case.  The guys flying advanced this yr need only look at what happened 
in round 5 to see that one judge can change the contest.  If we are 
going to Muncie to just have a contest, then leave it at 3 judges, but 
if we really want to make sure that we have accurately and fairly 
chosen, then we need 5 with the high and low dropped per maneuver.

Chris

Verne Koester wrote:

> Eric,
> I doubt that it's in the AMA rules. It's just the way it's always been 
> done. Otherwise, there's no need to bother using 5 judges.  I think 
> it's probably in the FAI rules somewhere, but I suspect that's for 
> World Championships which wouldn't apply here. However, we've always 
> used 5 for them as well and dropped the high and low, and again, if we 
> don't, why bother using 5 judges. You can use 2 or 3 or 5 or 7 and one 
> cheater (or bad judge if you choose) can tip the scales in any 
> direction they choose, whether to make sure someone wins or someone loses.
>  
> My purpose in pointing this out is to prevent it from happening in the 
> future. I think it would be a huge mistake to do anything that changes 
> the posted results from this Nats. The outcry could only damage our 
> credibility and attendance at future Nats would suffer. There'd be 
> sour grapes from those who got moved down as well as from those who 
> moved up.
>  
> On the other hand, there was a lot of buzzing going on amongst the 
> Masters competitors all through the Nats about the scores one 
> particular pilot was getting. I wasn't made aware of it until Tuesday 
> and then I started paying attention as well. Most thought the guy 
> wasn't flying well enough to make the Finals but everyone knew he 
> would with the scores he was getting. Most figured the system 
> (dropping the hi/low) would finally do him in during the Finals and 
> he'd probably finish last in that group. You know the rest and his 
> caller's scores put him very near the top since they weren't dropped.
>  
> I think I speak for everyone when I say we only want a fair shake and 
> the closest we can get to that is the traditional method of dropping 
> the hi and low with 5 judges. Take that away, and I don't see much 
> sense in going through all the time and expense it takes to be 
> competitive in that arena. Having said all that, I still emphasize 
> what a mistake it would be to change the posted results from this 
> year. We just need to make sure it doesn't happen again.
>  
> vk
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: Grow Pattern <mailto:pattern4u at comcast.net>
>     To: discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
>     Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 7:02 PM
>     Subject: Scoring formula
>
>     Verne,
>                 I could write the following and say it as an answer to
>     almost everything I had to get working this year. "Nothing is
>     written down", [It will not be like that next year believe me!]
>      
>     It may be somewhere, but I find myself asking for help to find it..
>      
>     In this case the "it" is, where can I find the rules on five panel
>     judging or larger panels for AMA contests? Dave G. is looking for
>     the FAI rules.
>      
>     If you know "where" for either please point me. Spent a fruitless
>     day chasing this ghost.
>      
>     My plan BTW, is to re-crunch the numbers with high and low scores
>     dropped per maneuver because that is what was done last year.  May
>     have to update Gene's program as well.
>      
>     Regards,
>
>     Eric.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050729/62826252/attachment.html