[NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-3 In my defense.
Grow Pattern
pattern4u at comcast.net
Fri Jun 22 11:51:40 AKDT 2007
Fortunately for me, I still have one of the yellow note pad sheets from my one round of judging effort last year. I keep mentioning that I judged one round. This is a big factor when you try and do any analysis or mathematical evaluation of a judge.
Pilot 615 628 626 614 607 609 610 606 627
2. Humpy w/snap 7 7 7 8 6 8 6 8 6
3. Goldfish 8 6 6 8 6 6 8 8 7
4. double avalanche. 9 7 0 6 4 0 7 7 5
5. Half square. 8 7 5 5 7 6 8 6 9
6. Rolling figure S. 7 5 1 8 4 5 9 9 6
7. Negative snap-roll. 9 6 5 9 6 0 9 9 7
8. Slow roll.- KE 9 5 7 6 8 9 9 9 9
9. Top hat. 8 6 7 7 6 8 8 8 9
10. Rolling circle 9 4 1 7 4 5 8 8 5
11. Humpty bump 7 5 7 9 8 8 10 8 8
12. 2 ½ neg. spins 0 0 6 8 7 3 9 9 6
13. 1/2 squ. on corner 8 5 8 9 6 7 8 8 8
14. Reverse triangle 7 4 6 9 8 6 9 9 9
15. Rolling half loop 9 6 0 9 4 7 9 8 9
16. Four-point inv. 9 3 5 8 6 8 8 8 9
17. Stall turn, 4/8-pt 8 8 8 7 8 7 8 9 8
18. 45 1 ½ snap 9 5 5 9 9 7 8 9 8
Time 7:22 7:15 7:42 6:43 7:15 8:12 6:47 6:07 7:29
The pilot in this bunch who complained was #609. The complaint was that I scored him too low based upon what the other judges scored. The claim was that I had scientifically scored him low due to personal bias. Who has time to figure all that out when you are judging a fast moving flight like an F-07? Beats me where they get off making these claims!
I can't show you the other judges' numbers. We are not supposed to know them anyway. I never saw them and have never seen them. I was never questioned on my numbers to see if there were any transposition errors either. The pilot that I scored the highest in this batch was Peter Collinson. The pilot that complained was # 609 Dave Lockhart. Based upon what I can remember I did not see a break in a couple of his negative snaps. Where is the crime in that???
What the NSRCA did was take an extraordinary step. A program was created to produces graphs that compare my scoring with the other four judges. They will tell you that it clearly shows that I scored the two pilots that complained, (Dave Lockhart and Dan Landis), lower than the other judges. I have not seen this data but you don't need a program to see if you scored differently to other judges. The NSRCA officials' time would have been better invested in getting the scoring to run smoother so that results would come out quicker and with fewer errors.
I gave Chip Hyde a zero for a 90 degree under rotated spin - I would love to see how many of my peers caught that one. Chip said that they missed it!!!!!
I do know that Dave Lockhart averaged 947 in the prelim scores that counted. Dan Landis averaged 910. The top two pilots averaged in the 990's.
The NSRCA concluded that I was biased against these two pilots and voted, as a board without ever contacting me. THEY SENT ME A LETTER AFTER THEY HAD MADE THEIR DECISION to ban me from judging for two years. (BTW - one of the voters was one of the other judges!)
At this point in time I STILL don't know if I am being accused of being biased on every maneuvers or specific maneuvers. I am sorry if I find it hard to get my mind around being told I was guilty when I was tried without any representation. That just does not seem right in any book!
If it is a case of a spin-entry or a snap zero, then that will always be a judgment call.
If my scores are lower than the other judges for all of the maneuvers, it could well be that I saw stuff that they did not see. I had a scribe they did not. They looked down a lot
The NSRCA judge training system has no way to test the performance of a judge against what was actually being flown. There is an open book test that takes an hour or two to go through. This is to learn how to judge a routine that takes minutes. This routine is made-up of maneuvers that take seconds and contain components that can take a fraction of a second.
For the NSRCA to take this stance means that are all now in the situation that if we judge a round, we can be judged after the fact, and held hostage to a standard that punishes us if we are different from the average.
Maybe I was a poor judge and I did not do a good job when compared with my peers. Maybe I was an experienced judge that was better prepared than my peers. In the end, it does not really matter. I have been tried and condemned by "numbers" that can in no real way be related to actually what was flown in front of me. The reason that I was the chief judge on that line was that I was the most experienced judge!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know, it is more than possible to give a zero for a maneuver that contains a snap, even if the snap was just fine. A real example that I do remember was when Dan Landis flew his center maneuver, a Humpty with 4/8 up and positive snap down. Here is what I saw and how I scored it.
Airplane flew past center on maneuver entry before pulling. -1
First 3 points were under rotated; last point instead of 45 degrees was a make up of the first three under rotated Total 30 degree error. - 2
Two different roll rates. - 1
Push over the top was almost as soon as the last point ended Out of a possible 2, 3 or 4 point downgrade. Could have been -4, I gave -3
Flat line back to center half way through top half loop. Segmentation. deduction. -1
Long down line followed by late snap in down line. -2
Tight radius in push out compared with other radii. -1
Entry and exit heights different. -1
Total deductions 12. Score -2
Of course the pilot would never see it this way. But if that is what I saw I was obligated to score it that way. I had the confidence of a trained and practiced judge. I did not know then that I would be hounded for doing it right. I could never judge again with this type of threat over my head.
You all know what could happen to you. I can't tell you what to do but take care my friends, and use your own judgment.
Regards,
Eric.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070622/24c35719/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list