[NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging

Keith Black tkeithblack at gmail.com
Mon Nov 20 19:22:54 AKST 2006 

Lance, you make some very good points. For me this is a tough issue with two
very strong arguments on opposite sides.

Simply put:

Pro>  If judges initials score sheets they'll be more conscientious about
their judging and less incline to gouge someone they don't like.

Con> If judges initial score sheets they may be hesitant to give deserved
low scores to big name pilots and may fear retribution when they fly.

I think the Con is probably the more persuasive of these two points, at
least at the NATS level, because when judges are required to put their judge
number they still know they're accountable, but will be comfortable giving
deserved low scores without fear of retribution.  Also, at NATS if you see
Joe Blow's name by some really low scores you receive and you don't know Joe
Blow human nature is to develop a bit of a grudge against Joe Blow. We don't
need this kind of ill will in our community. I for one tried not to pay
attention to who was in the judges' chair at NATS because I didn't want to
subconsciously start associating my scores with individuals.

At the local contest most people know each other and feel more comfortable
discussing things so this is a different story. I initial my scores at local
contests (when I remember). However, if a judge feels uncomfortable that Joe
Bigshot may grill them if they give a low score I don't think the judge
should have to give his initials as long as a judge number is used.

Keith

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lance Van Nostrand" <patterndude at comcast.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging


> Del,
> This is unfortunate and I've had a similar experience.  Still, arranging
our
> rules to avoid behavior that we all know is inappropriate is a disservice.
> I would propose that anyone motivated to discuss CHANGING a score should
go
> through the CD.  But there are other valid motivations:
> 1. To learn what downgrades, either specifically or in general terms, were
> applied
> 2. to understand a judges perspective and what they consider very
important
> (weight heavily)
> 3. others...
>
> This is not to question a score but to both learn what the pilot can do to
> improve and (of equal importance) to learn how other judges approach the
> evaluation.  One thing I've noticed is that the "judgement" part of
judging
> can influence scores and these flying defects are often just as
controllable
> as the hard and fast rules.  I recently was downgraded by a judge, whom I
> had a very friendly conversation with, because my center manuvers were not
> at the same altitude.  Many may say that this should not have been
> downgraded, but this judges point was that the pilot that controls the
> altitude better should get the better score.  Don't flame on this rules
> point!  My point is that knowing that this is a perspective of some
judges,
> and it is a thing that I can work on without disadvantaging myself was
very
> valuable information.
>
> We need to remember this is a fun hobby.  If we are not disputing a score,
> we need to approach judge feedback with modesty and a sense of humor.  It
is
> a time of gathering information, not of making a counterpoint.  Many times
a
> judge just can't remember, but I'm sure that they will remember more if
they
> know there will be no negative counterpoint.  I would like to see judge
> initials on the bottom of the score sheets, given these guidelines.
>
> --Lance
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Del K. Rykert" <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 1:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
>
>
> >I still remember the confrontation I experienced by the father of a local
> > competitor taking me to task on a maneuver that I gigged harshly and the
> > ensuing 30 minute debate with my finally pulling out my rule book and
> > showing him the paragraph and specific reasons his son received the
> > downgrades. Course he didn't agree the wings weren't level and the model
> > had
> > noticeable climb when it should have been minor or no climb before entry
> > to
> > spin. Wind was down the runway. Airplane fell out of spin in last 1/4 of
> > spin into spiral.
> >    Yes I could have reported this to the CD and made a bad situation
> > worse.
> > How does that encourage participation in the sport?  It did ruin the
rest
> > of
> > my flights as a contestant and left me with taste of why do I want to
> > subject myself to this kind of abuse.
> >    Some in the sport are wound to tightly and will use any excuse to try
> > to
> > increase their edge.  Thankfully it is the smallest of minorities but it
> > does still exist. For this reason I always have my rule book handy
> > whenever
> > I go to a contest and might be asked to judge. Shame the sport has been
> > reduced for some of us as defensive judging.
> >
> >                 Del
> >          nsrca - 473
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "george w. kennie" <geobet at gis.net>
> > To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 12:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on judge transparency
> >
> >
> >> In spite of the fact that when I sit in the chair I ALWAYS initial the
> >> score
> >> sheet at district events, I can state from experience that it's
probably
> >> not
> >> a good idea and I feel that the reason it's probably not done at the
Nats
> >> is
> >> due to a "been there, done that" previous learning experience.
> >> There is just too much competitive passion on the part of individual
> >> pilots
> >> to avoid personal conflicts escalating into personality wars with long
> >> lasting repercussions.
> >> Think about it,.........how many times have you heard it expressed that
a
> >> particular judge has a reputation as a tough or BAD judge?
> >> Too much knowledge can generate factional devisiveness which is
probably
> >> best avoided.
> >> G.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- 
> >> From: "Anthony Romano" <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
> >> To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 9:07 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on judge transparency
> >>
> >>
> >>> Hi Jim,
> >>> Good points. There is an easy way to start this. Every time you judge
> >>> legibly sign or initial your score sheets.
> >>> To the conspirists, remember when questioning judges a little respect
> >>> and
> >>> courtesy goes a long way.
> >>>
> >>> Anthony
> >>>
> >>>>From: "Jim Woodward" <jim.woodward at schroth.com>
> >>>>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>>>To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on judge
transparency
> >>>>Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 08:09:31 -0500
> >>>>
> >>>>I think posting judges names along with the scores is more than a fair
> >>>>idea
> >>>>and goes a long way toward increasing the transparency at a contest.
> >>>>When
> >>>>you increase the transparency, the "pilots" have a better
understanding
> >>>>and
> >>>>good time.  When the pilots are happy, they come back to the contests
> >>>>and
> >>>>maybe bring someone with them.  If you notice, after a contest when
our
> >>>>friend who did not makes it calls and asks, ". how was the contest,"
the
> >>>>next question is ". how was the judging."  Judging, or problems with
> >>>>judging, is such an intrinsic part of the pattern experience that you
> >>>>can't
> >>>>separate it from the "description" of how the contest went.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>1. What is interesting is that the "flight" takes place in a public
> >>>>forum - anyone can see it.  As we watch it, more often or not it is
> >>>>watched
> >>>>in small groups which include fellow class-competitors, or more
> >>>>experienced
> >>>>pilots pointing out to younger pilots errors to look out for.
> >>>>2. The judges for the round are public information.  IE - you can look
> >>>>out on the flight line and see who is judging
> >>>>3. The pilot for the round is public information.  IE - you can look
> >>>>out on the flight line and see who is flying.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Yet, "who" and "how" the scores were given remains a small mystery.  A
> >>>>lot
> >>>>of folks do not want to be known as the guy who goes to the CD and
asks
> >>>>questions about the scoring and such.  Or, is seen by their fellow
> >>>>competitors as being the CD hound.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Judge Training:  Most judge training takes place in practice and at
> >>>>contests.  There is no better forum for judge training than the
contest
> >>>>environment.  When the tear sheets are posted for each round with
judge
> >>>>identification, you can go and ask ". I watched that and wondered why
> >>>>you
> >>>>gave it xyz score."  This is an incredibly valuable moment when all of
> >>>>us
> >>>>are gathered we do more to get the most out of it.  As it stands,
after
> >>>>the
> >>>>round is posted the next comment is, ". well, I guess the judges
didn't
> >>>>catch that zero.. (and similar comments)."  These conversations are
> >>>>already
> >>>>taking place at the contest.  Posting the tear sheets for everyone
would
> >>>>bring these conversations into the open as a positive element of the
> >>>>experience, and not add to the conspiracy theorists ammunition (every
> >>>>district has a prime person/competitor who is a judging conspiracy
> >>>>theorists).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Last thing, there are two judges for every 1 pilot, thus, there is
100%
> >>>>more
> >>>>judging work taking place than piloting work.  We are there to fly,
but
> >>>>the
> >>>>performance of the judges is every bit on display as the performance
of
> >>>>the
> >>>>pilot.  In the US we also tally the judges performance and keep track
of
> >>>>them on the national scene.  Posting the tear sheets with judges names
> >>>>would
> >>>>help this effort, allow for a GREAT training tool to be available to
the
> >>>>CD
> >>>>and fellow pilots, and become a "self-correcting-tool" to those
persons
> >>>>who
> >>>>to judge with bias (intentionally or not).  As a judge, at the end of
> >>>>the
> >>>>round it would be great to know how my scores compared to the other
> >>>>judge.
> >>>>Each judge could discuss the round.  When the tear sheets are posted
in
> >>>>the
> >>>>open, it will "promote" this conversation and I believe, help on many
> >>>>levels.  Also, if you as a judge know the scores and names will be
> >>>>posted
> >>>>after a round, I bet a lot of judge-lazy behavior will go away, like
> >>>>when
> >>>>they/we have our head down and write scores, thus missing 30% or more
of
> >>>>maneuvers.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Just some ideas.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Jim W.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>   _____
> >>>>
> >>>>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >>>>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Wayne
> >>>>Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 11:37 PM
> >>>>To: NSRCA Mailing List
> >>>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on judge
transparency
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Fred,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>my point is post them...not leave loose tear sheets on a table for
> >>>>pilots
> >>>>to
> >>>>take away from the table. This has been the practice at the NATS. They
> >>>>need
> >>>>to be posted in some way. Not just tossed as loose sheets for the wind
> >>>>and
> >>>>pilots to remove from the public view
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>That is all my point was. I had a conversation with an FAI pilot back
> >>>>after
> >>>>the NATS and he has been advocating this the past 3 years yet still
not
> >>>>happening.
> >>>>
> >>>>----- Original Message -----
> >>>>
> >>>>From: Fred Huber <mailto:fhhuber at clearwire.net>
> >>>>
> >>>>To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>>>
> >>>>Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 8:13 PM
> >>>>
> >>>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on judge
transparency
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>To me, "public" can be debated somewhat....
> >>>>
> >>>>Its probably adequate to post them on a table where anyone WHO WANTS
TO
> >>>>can
> >>>>see them.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>All the Pattern contests I have been to, the scores have been taped to
a
> >>>>table where anyone who wanted to look had access.  Good enough.  Don't
> >>>>make
> >>>>it harder than it has to be.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>----- Original Message -----
> >>>>
> >>>>From: Wayne <mailto:Whinkle1024 at msn.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>>>
> >>>>Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 8:21 PM
> >>>>
> >>>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on judge
transparency
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Public is not left on a table....Public is posted for the world to
see.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>check out the awesome job done by the Swiss at the last Euro Champs.
Too
> >>>>bad
> >>>>we in the USA with more pattern flyers than anywhere else can't get
with
> >>>>the
> >>>>program.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>http://www.em06.ch/ranking_preliminary.asp
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Wayne
> >>>>
> >>>>----- Original Message -----
> >>>>
> >>>>From: Lance Van <mailto:patterndude at comcast.net>  Nostrand
> >>>>
> >>>>To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>>>
> >>>>Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 6:17 PM
> >>>>
> >>>>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on judge transparency
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>To all rule-meisters,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>I know there are some on this list that have deep insight into the
> >>>>intent
> >>>>and history of the F3A sporting code.  I hope to either get a solid
> >>>>answer
> >>>>or pointed in the right direction.  This is not an idle request.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Part 5.1.8 Marking - last sentence
> >>>>
> >>>>The scores given by each judge for each competitor shall be made
public
> >>>>at
> >>>>the end of each round of competition.
> >>>>
> >>>>What level of transparency is mandated?  Is it enough to report the
> >>>>scores
> >>>>from judge 1-4 or is it expected that the identity of the judge be
known
> >>>>as
> >>>>well?
> >>>>
> >>>>--Lance
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>   _____
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >>>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>   _____
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >>>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>   _____
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >>>>Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.7/537 - Release Date:
> >>>>11/17/2006
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>   _____
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >>>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >>>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>
> >>> _________________________________________________________________
> >>> Get free, personalized commercial-free online radio with MSN Radio
> >>> powered
> >>> by Pandora http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list