Scoring formula

Sat Jul 30 07:15:52 AKDT 2005

On Jul 30, 2005, at 9:43 AM, Cameron Smith wrote:

>  Thank you for all your efforts & whatever you release will be
> appreciated.

There seems to be some collective amnesia regarding the matrix system 
and judge ranking.  Both were exhaustively discussed in the K-Factor in 
past years.

I published many discussions of the matrix system in the K-Factor since 
1997, usually just before the Nats, to allow competitors to know what 
to expect at the Nats.

Since development of the NSRCA judge ranking system was initiated at 
the 2002 Nats NSRCA board meeting and implemented late in 2003, after 
approval by the NSRCA board, Don Ramsey has updated the rankings as new 
data became available.  The ranking system requires at least five 
judges to be included in the ranking calculations and requires at least 
eight rounds of judging for a judge to be ranked with the top eight 
judges  This means that only the Nats Master and F3A finals data and 
F3A Team Selection data can be used.  There is a 'moving window' of 
allowable judging scores, which is included in the ranking, so that 
only current judging performances are included.

The judge rankings were published in the K-Factor before last year's 
Nats.  The top five judges were presented awards at last year's Nats.   
Judge rankings were published in the K-Factor after the Nats were over.
There were changes in the rankings among the top eight.  In particular, 
Don Ramsey moved ahead of Matt Kebabjian to take over the top spot.  It 
was after this list was sent to AMA president Dave Brown, who sent the 
top five names forward, that Don was selected by the F3A organizers as 
one of the judges for the 2005 F3A World Championships.

I hope this clears up some of the apparent confusion regarding the 
matrix system and NSRCA judge ranking system.

Ron Van Putte

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org 
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]
> On Behalf Of Don Ramsey
> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 10:26 AM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: Scoring formula
>
> I can't answer that just now.  Some issues to resolve unrelated to the
> judges.
>
> Don
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cameron Smith" <dentdoc007 at adelphia.net>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 9:06 AM
> Subject: RE: Scoring formula
>
>
>> Very Nice!  Do you think the ranking number spread could be made
> public?
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]
>> On Behalf Of Don Ramsey
>> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 9:59 AM
>> To: discussion at nsrca.org
>> Subject: Re: Scoring formula
>>
>> There will be judge evaluation done on the finals judges.  5 judges is
> a
>>
>> minimum  to do any kind of reasonable evaluation.  There are some
>> software
>> issues but they will be resolved and we will have numbers.
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Cameron Smith" <dentdoc007 at adelphia.net>
>> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 8:53 AM
>> Subject: RE: Scoring formula
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Where there any Judge ranking numbers produced from this years NATS?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
>> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]
>>> On Behalf Of Bob Pastorello
>>> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 6:10 AM
>>> To: discussion at nsrca.org
>>> Subject: Re: Scoring formula
>>>
>>> I remember a Nats (a few years' back) when I *was* the toughest judge
>> on
>>> the
>>> FAI line, both Prelims and Finals.  I know because the CD came up and
>>> told
>>> me "you're being too hard".  Okay.  After it was all done, my higher
>>> scores
>>> tracked the overall placements of the standings pretty darn well.  I
>>> felt
>>> pretty good about that, because there were some pretty high-falutin
>>> judges
>>> on my panel with me!!
>>>
>>> Then I learned - quite by accident - that my scores HAD been tossed.
>>> EVERY
>>> round that I sat there, doing my damndest to be consistent, fair, and
>>> downgrade by the rulebook....in the heat and wind, only to learn that
>> I
>>> DID
>>> NOT NEED TO BE THERE !!!!!
>>>
>>> Some stupid jerk actually had the gall to justify that by telling me
>>> "since
>>> your scores got tossed, that makes the other judges' scores more
>>> accurate".
>>> I didn't wring that guys' neck....but he also made it to my list of
>>> "persons
>>> likely to be left out of my will".... :-)
>>>
>>> Actually had someone ask me a couple years later, "Why don't you get
>>> certified, Bob?"
>>>
>>> I'll put my judging consistency and skill up against anyone's.....
> but
>>> not
>>> if it's gonna be thrown out later.  As difficult as it is to train,
>> and
>>> then
>>> *recruit* judges at big events, WHY would anyone want to toss their
>>> efforts
>>> in the trash????   Why bother to play at all, if there is no more
>> value
>>> placed on someone's best effort than that?
>>>
>>> Bob Pastorello
>>> www.rcaerobats.net
>>> rcaerobob at cox.net
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
>>> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>>> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 10:16 PM
>>> Subject: RE: Scoring formula
>>>
>>>
>>> I have to agree with Derek on this one, 100%.
>>>
>>> The conventional thought on "throwing out Highs and lows" is that
>> you'll
>>> get rid of the spurious ZERO from some Snap-roll nazi  along with the
>>> gift "10" that the pilot's buddy awarded him.   That could be true.
>>>
>>> But what really happens...the down side... Is that the toughest judge
>> on
>>> the panel...get's EVERY SCORE THROWN OUT...   He might as well pack
> up
>>> and go home.   Same is true for the "easy" judge.  Forget about the
>> fact
>>> that they're consistent...  Tossing Highs and Low's doesn't really
>> care.
>>> In fact...the more consistently "tough" they are...the more likely
>> that
>>> they wasted their time.
>>>
>>> TBL on the other hand looks at judges across the entire pool of
>> flyers..
>>> If a judge is consistently tough...fine.  But if he's tough on 8
>>> pilots...and easy on 2...it's going to catch it.  Same goes for the
>> easy
>>> judge that's suddenly tough.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
>> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]
>>> On Behalf Of Derek Koopowitz
>>> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 10:30 PM
>>> To: discussion at nsrca.org
>>> Subject: RE: Scoring formula
>>>
>>> There is a big difference between TBLP and TBL.  TBL does not change
>>> individual maneuver scores at all - it may change the overall round
>>> score
>>> for a judge based on how that judge has scored other pilots and
>> relative
>>> to
>>> that judges' scores compared to the other judges.
>>>
>>> I have given explanations of what TBL is several times - certain
>> people
>>> are
>>> set in their ways and will not open up their minds to understanding
>>> statistical methods.  I can equate TBL vs high-low throw out to
>> people's
>>> understanding of the impact on turnaround in pattern.
>>>
>>> The problem with high-low discard is that you are eliminating the
> work
>>> of
>>> 40% of your judges scores if 5 judges are used.  Is that fair to the
>>> judges
>>> and pilots?  TBL changes that by keeping about 90% of all judges
>> scores.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
>> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]
>>> On
>>> Behalf Of Grow Pattern
>>> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 6:13 PM
>>> To: discussion at nsrca.org
>>> Subject: Re: Scoring formula
>>>
>>> Check this out I was researching TBL formulae and I ran across this.
>> The
>>> parallelisms of the full-size aerobatic world to our world are pretty
>>> scary.
>>>
>>> _ Eric
>>> ================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.
>>>
>>> List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the
>>> list.
>>>
>>> =================================================
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the
>>> list.
>>>
>>> =================================================
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the
>>> list.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> =================================================
>> 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.
>>
>> List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the
>> list.
>>
>> =================================================
>> 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.
>>
>> List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the
>> list.
>>
>>
>
> =================================================
> 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.
>
> List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the
> list.
>
> =================================================
> 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.
>
> List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the 
> list.
>

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

List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the list.