[SPAM] Re: Scoring formula

[Chris Moon]

I typo'd and meant round 3 instead of round 5.  Almost any Advanced guy 
can look at his tear sheets an know what I am referring to.
Chris

Chris Moon wrote:

> 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/20050730/f99db724/attachment.html