[NSRCA-discussion] Judging Question

Mark Atwood atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
Fri Mar 2 05:41:02 AKST 2007 

That depends on where I have to wear it...

-M


On 3/2/07 7:51 AM, "Lisa & Larry" <lld613 at psci.net> wrote:

> Lisa said she would love toŠHowever, she is going to ask Mark wear the red
> bow...ha
>  
> Ok, maybe I¹ll talk her out of that. Not sure Mark in a red bow would be a
> good thingŠ
>  
> Larry
>  
> 
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Kane
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 11:47 PM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging Question
>  
> 
> Great discussion, Lisa can present this at the D4 Judging seminar next month
> . . . . . 
> 
> 
>  
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
> 
>  
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Lisa & Larry <lld613 at psci.net>
> To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2007 12:12:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging Question
> 
> Thanks Dave, Matt and KenŠ
>  
> I¹ll get some rest and work on my math before asking the next questionŠI was
> questioning myself on how I was reading it, glad I asked the questionŠ.
>  
> Larry
>  
> 
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Lockhart
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 11:04 PM
> To: ' NSRCA Mailing List '
> Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging Question
>  
> Larry,
>  
> The 4 hesitations should be at 90, 180, 270, and 360 degrees.  The total
> number of degrees of deviation from 90, 180, 270, and 360 would be the number
> of degrees of error.
>  
> If I understand your scenario correctly, the first point is 25 degrees off
> (115 ­ 90 = 25).  The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th points are on target at 180, 270, and
> 360.  You have a total of 25 degree errors in roll.  Applying 1 point per 15
> degreesŠ..you have 25 / 15 = 1.67
> point deductionŠ. =s 8.33 which rounds to 8.5 for AMA or 8 for FAI.
>  
> 25 degree errors in roll are quite large!!!  Penalizing the roll segment from
> 115 degrees to 180 degrees because it is less than 90 degrees of rotation
> would be double jeopardy.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dave Lockhart
> DaveL322 at comcast.net
>  
>  
> 
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Lisa & Larry
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 11:09 PM
> To: ' NSRCA Mailing List '
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging Question
>  
> OKŠHere is an interesting scenarioŠI¹m learning and wish to judge fairly and
> accurately, not trying to start a debateŠ
>  
> 4 point rollŠ1st quarter roll is 115 degrees (over rotated), second is 65
> degrees (corrected wings level), 3rd and 4th are 90 degreesŠ.No other visible
> downgrades
>  
> RCA-23 4-point downgrade 1 states, ³One-Quarter rolls more or less than 90
> degrees.
>  
> Based on how I read it, the maneuver is scored an 8 for two quarters not
> rolling 90 degrees even though the second quarter corrected to wings level.
>  
> The other interpretation would be the implication in item 1, is referencing 90
> degrees to a vertical or horizontal plain, and not rotation, resulting in a
> score of 9.
>  
> I¹ll apologize now in advance for where this may goŠ
>  
> Larry
>  
> 
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Lockhart
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 5:49 PM
> To: ' NSRCA Mailing List '
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging Question
>  
> The rules are ­
>  
> - 1 point per 15 (FIFTEEN) degrees. Summing partial points is allowable
> (recommended).
> - A ³perfect maneuver² is not necessarily defect free ­ it is free of defects
> that would warrant downgrading to a 9 (in FAI) or a 9.5 (in AMA).
> - when ³on the fence², round up.  Ie, a single 7.5 degree error in is a 0.5
> point downgrade, - the score in FAI is 10, not 9.
>  
> Regards,
> 
> Dave Lockhart
> DaveL322 at comcast.net
>  
>  
> 
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Del K. Rykert
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 6:30 PM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging Question
>  
> 
> I  whole heartedly concur Fred.  Thanks for your reply.
> 
>  
> 
>     Del
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> 
>> From: Fred Huber <mailto:fhhuber at clearwire.net>
>> 
>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> 
>> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 4:39 PM
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging Question
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> There's half-points... and while at FAI the half point doesn't go on a score
>> sheet... I still count them, and round down before putting the score on the
>> sheet.  9.5 becomes 9  7.5 becomes 7.  In your example.. he's going to have 3
>> or 4 half-points off for missing the points by appx 10 deg.  That puts him to
>> an 8. (with no other errors)
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> And again... the original said (paraphrased) "I can see a point, but can't
>> see deviation from the 90 deg incrimental orientations" Thats NOT
>> downgradable.  If its off from the 90 enough to downgrade, you will see it.
>> You're trying to compare apples and elephants.  If you see the point happened
>> and don't see the point being off orientation... you have given no reason for
>> downgrade.  Its a 10.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> You can SEE the wings being more than 5 deg off level...  If you can see
>> it... its worth a half point downgrade at least.  the knife is a little
>> harder to see being off, especially when its centered.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> If you are consistant... you can count tenths of a point errors if you
>> want... then round according to your own method for a score that meets the
>> whole point or half point incriments that get put on the sheet.
>> 
>>  
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> 
>>> From: Del K. Rykert <mailto:drykert2 at rochester.rr.com>
>>> 
>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> 
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 1:51 PM
>>> 
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging Question
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Hi Fred. 
>>> 
>>>     Do I assume 3 flyers you are judging doing point rolls, if all elements
>>> are done correctly, except for the points or a point, does pilot "A" who
>>> under rotates by  10º and pilot "B" who over rotates in a point by 10º and
>>> pilot "C" who nails the point @ 90º all get a 10 score?  All other elements
>>> are done perfect. Not typical real world but have been their and had to
>>> score as I interpret the rules.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>     Del
>>> 
>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> 
>>>> From: Fred Huber <mailto:fhhuber at clearwire.net>
>>>> 
>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>> 
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 9:56 PM
>>>> 
>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging Question
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> The original description said the points were noted.
>>>> 
>>>> No downgrade for lack of points.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> The original description just complained "I couldn't see if the point was
>>>> ON the 90"  Well that means it was less than 15 deg off because you WOULD
>>>> see 15 deg off.
>>>> 
>>>> No downgrade.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> No downgradable item was noted in the initial point roll description.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Its a 10
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> 
>>>>> From: Del K. Rykert <mailto:drykert2 at rochester.rr.com>
>>>>> 
>>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:58 PM
>>>>> 
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging Question
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> I sure concur Gene .
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>>         Del
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: Gene Maurice <mailto:gene.maurice at sgmservice.com>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> To: randy10926 at comtekmail.com ; 'NSRCA Mailing List'
>>>>>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:38 PM
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging Question
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> If the points are so fast as to make it indiscernible what angle they
>>>>>> occurred at, then I would tend to doubt whether the point occurred at
>>>>>> all. Score 0. It is the pilot¹s responsibility to present the maneuver in
>>>>>> such a manner to demonstrate that the maneuver has in fact been done
>>>>>> according to the rules. I sincerely doubt that a 4 point can be done in
>>>>>> 1.25 seconds with defined stops in the roll every 90 degrees. But it
>>>>>> remains that if, as a judge, you cannot clearly see the relevant elements
>>>>>> of any maneuver being performed, then you should assume that IT HAS NOT
>>>>>> been performed. The elements must be demonstrated not assumed.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Don Ramsey, can you clarify?
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Gene Maurice
>>>>>> gene.maurice at sgmservice.com
>>>>>> Plano , TX
>>>>>> AMA 3408, NSRCA 877
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Glenn
>>>>>> Hatfield
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 10:24 AM
>>>>>> To: nsrca-discuss list
>>>>>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging Question
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ok time to get back to our favorite list questions.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This comes from a real life judging problem.  The question is about the
>>>>>> 4-point roll.  This what I am seeing.  A 4 point roll that takes less
>>>>>> than 1.25 second to complete.  You can see 4 very short pauses.  The
>>>>>> manever appears to be centered.  I see no change in height or coming in
>>>>>> or out.  It appears to be between 150M and 175M.  But the pauses are so
>>>>>> short that I cannot really tell if the rolls between pauses are 90
>>>>>> degrees.  So I cannot see what the 1 point per 15 degree down grade
>>>>>> should be.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What would you do?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Randy 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.4/705 - Release Date: 2/27/2007
>>>>> 3:24 PM 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.5/707 - Release Date: 3/1/2007
>>> 2:43 PM 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>  
>  
> 
> 
> Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43909/*http:/mobile.yahoo.com/mail>  and
> always stay connected
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43909/*http:/mobile.yahoo.com/mail>  to friends.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20070302/7a830aec/attachment-0001.html

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list