[NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision judging?

Wed Oct 4 09:41:23 AKDT 2006

Holograms would give everyone the same persective and would be way kool..Constant speed would fall under the same thing as Smooth and Graceful, no judging guide.

Steven Maxwell

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Chris Moon 
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: 10/4/2006 11:55:48 AM 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision judging?

If we are to read the judging guide and go by the start with 10 and deduct 1 point per 15 degrees guide like it says, then where is the S&G downgrade or upgrade?  There is no guidance by the guide.  This has always bothered me since it is a criteria that has no "guidance". It is supposed to be there in order to get a 10, but the guide already say to start with 10 and deduct 1 per 15 degrees etc.  It sounds like its a purely subjective criteria with no set value either up or down.  But the truth of this whole discussion is that judging is a subjective issue and we can only offer guidance and specific criteria for some but not all of the factors involved.
So, we can fix this simply by getting together a few million dollars, create a system with transponders on each plane and some sort of laser grid 3-dimensional computer path generator on the ground.  The computer will compare the plane's track with the optimal version in it's programming and produce a score based on the degree to which your flight matches the optimal track in the computer.  Simple, and no human judges needed  :)
Or, we can keep hammering away to continually improve the accuracy of the humans (us)  in our current system.

Chris
PS- Please take a moment to thank Don Ramsey for all he does for us. Our judging may not be perfect yet , but its waaaaay better than it used to be.

DaveL322 at comcast.net wrote: 
Georgie is right that the subconscious element is one we can not control, and it manifests itself in several ways in our sport.  The best remedy for it is awareness, education, training, practice.  Particuarly relevant is the distinction between S+G and mushy and vague as Pappas pointed out.

I think Lance has a good perspective - essentially, S+G is a tool/resource of the pilot that can be used to present a technically perfect maneuver - and that is exactly what the top pilots do - do not confess errors - if you screw up, screw up smoothly, etc.

So in practice, S+G exists as a tool used by the pilots, and is a subjective (and largely subconscious) element which affects judges scores.  I don't see the need to list it as a specific judging criteria, opening the door for a more subjective scoring of the event.

Regards,

Dave 

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "george w. kennie" <geobet at gis.net> 

Even if the S&G criteria were removed from the rulebook, it would remain in the subconcious. There is just something in the depths of the human psyche that cries out for a way to award the performance accomplished with polish in a way that separates it from the one executed with mediocrity. That has to be IMPRESSION guys..........I think.................
G. 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Lance Van Nostrand 
To: NSRCA Mailing List 
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision judging?

I'm a ditto head to Dave on this one.  I can't imagine a situation where someone could fly perfect precision -  I mean  really perfect with all lines straight, radiuses matched, etc that should not get scored all 10s.  How would the pattern be flown differently to introduct S&G and maintain 10s?  Should a very smooth and graceful sequence flown with a bunch of 9.5 precision scores (actual defects that cause a .5 point downgrade) be given 10s?  If we were to eliminate S&G and have only downgrades for precision errors then judges must interpret S&G critically in that S&G flair can hurt but not help a manuver.  truth is, pilots will use S&G to mask precision errors, or to mask difficult timing and centering issues.  I watch pilots much better than me get away with murder but do it so purposefully and smooth that judges don't seem to even see it. 

Eliminating S&G from the judging criteria would not eliminate S&G from flying nor from judging, but it would weaken it as a reason to downgrade.  If all you can say is that the manuver seemed technically correct but there was "something" wrong, then what you are really saying is that it was not technically correct and you saw the downgrade but you just can't put your finger on it in your conscious mind.  I would be OK with admitting that was my limitation as a human judge and I will not penalize the pilot for it.

--Lance

----- Original Message ----- 
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net 
To: NSRCA Mailing List 
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision judging?

Technically perfect is well understood and can be objectively assessed.  Specific judging criteria and downgrades are well defined/documented in our judges guide.  Yes, gray areas do exist in which it is difficult to extract an exact point value downgrade from the rulebook, but guidance/basis is there, and it is the job of a judge to make judgements (and in my experience 90% of the time the answer to the gray areas is apply 1 point per 15 degrees).

Smooth and graceful (S+G) is subjective, and to date has never had a point value or downgrades associated with it.  The S+G criteria allows an impression judge to score a technically flawed maneuver higher than a technically perfect maneuver.

Should a sequence that is flown technically perfect be awarded the highest score?  

Should it be possible to outscore a technically perfect sequence with a technically flawed one that is "more smooth" or "more graceful"?

I don't think we should include (S+G) or pursue (Impression score) criteria which are ill-defined or purely subjective - pattern is about precision aerobatics which can be (is) well defined, and is a thing of beauty (to the select few that appreciate it) without the need for S+G, style, or impression points.

Regards,

Dave Lockhart
DaveL322 at comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "White, Chris" <chris at ssd.fsi.com> 

I’d love to hear some feedback to the following: (or maybe not, but it might help my understanding of what we’re trying to accomplish in our judging/flyingJ)

Question:
Isn’t clinical precision flying the only way to attempt to remove impression judging?  Shouldn’t the sequence itself if flown to precision “be” the art form?

Example 1: 
I saw one pilot fly the FAI sequence at our contest last June…. To me his flying was clinically precise without any “Style” of his own.  I mean that very much as a compliment.  The roll rates and radiuses and speeds to me were very consistent….his timing and flight line control were very “Clinically precise”  It struck me at that if a computer GPS link could have been flown with an autopilot laying out the perfectly executed sequence he would have been close.  The nearly perfect geometry of the sequence spoke for itself.

Example 2:
An example of impression that I can think of would be some of the point rolls that I used to see in the 70’s….the ones that kind of slip & lock into each point (exaggerated lock in), but I could not score them better than points that merely stop where they are supposed to with minimum fanfare…..could I? (In fact since one could argue that the roll rate changes to get that effect it could be downgraded more…..)  But I like it, its an individual preference, but to the letter of the law its incorrect.

Maybe we should judge by technical merit and each judge give an overall “Impression” rating someplace on the scoresheet???

(Wow I spent all this time trying to think of how to word this….Gee do I hit the send button…….??????  I hope this strikes a positive chord somewhere…okay my motive is to learn so I’ll send it.)
Chris White

_______________________________________________
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

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision judging?
From: "george w. kennie" <geobet at gis.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 03:08:44 +0000
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20061004/5160aaba/attachment.html 