[NSRCA-discussion] D3 Championship - Scoring System Overhaul
J N Hiller
jnhiller at earthlink.net
Thu Oct 18 13:06:19 AKDT 2007
I am of the opinion that the high score may be no more valid than the low
score and using an average reduces the effect. The only way to gain a higher
degree of accuracy is to use more judges.
True, a high difference between judges is cause for concern but often times
after judging several flights judges may not be able to recall the specifics
behind a posted score. Statistical evaluation by maneuver may be a more
valid assessment of judge training deficiencies rather than focusing on
individual judge's performance. Sanctioning a judge only encourages him to
pass on judging opportunities.
Tossing out high or low scores encourages 7,8,9 scoring making it
excessively difficult to get a separation between pilots of comparable
ability not to mention the insult to the judge.
As for using all rounds, that is a very unforgiving environment. I could
probably live in this world but a zero could put any close competitor out of
the game even if it was a judging error.
I am not in D3 and should probably stay out of this but I have seen judging
disapproval since I began flying pattern in about 1980. This is why some
capable pilots elect to compete in Pylon instead of pattern.
Jim Hiller
Spokane WA.
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Woodward, Jim
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 5:26 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D3 Championship - Scoring System Overhaul
Guys -
1. Why do we average judge's scores together?
a. The whole system is predicated on judges being
competent/consistent/correct/un-biased. If this first rule is violated
ranging from small to 100 point raw score difference, the idea of now
"averaging" the score also has no validity.
b. Why not just let each judge's score stand as is, unaltered, and
produce two normalized scores per round?
c. Averaging the scores together may be doing a disservice to
everyone.
d. You would basically have two sets of scores per round. IE you may
end up with 1000 points on one card, and an 800 on the other.
e. This would identify immediately any cause for concern.
f. Would it provide an immediate training tool back to our system of
pilots, judges, and CD?
g. Attempting to "un-average" the scores to determine what happened
takes place anyway on the flight line, after the scores are printed.
2. Are we asking too much from judges?
a. Is applying downgrades, then counting backwards from 10, in the
context of "turnaround" pattern where maneuvers can happen back-to-back
quickly, too difficult across the full spectrum of competitor/judges?
3. Dropping Rounds:
a. Is this still a good idea?
b. I wouldn't mind dropping one round, but it was explained to me last
night that this is an artifact from the days of when people would break a
prop on touch-n-goes, and in general lower equipment reliability.
c. In the age of higher equipment reliability, is the 'round-drop'
scenarios still good, left as is?
4. Dropping Rounds - Take 2:
a. In the context of point #1, maybe we should be allowed to drop the
lowest scored judge from each round, versus the entire round.
b. Why should the pilot drop the entire round, when one judge may have
scored him 1000 points, and the other 800?
c. If you end up with a tie at the end, you just keep counting "1000'
s" until the other pilot runs out - tie is now "untied."
I hope some smart guys can chime in on potential over-hauling idea.
_____
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Lisa & Larry
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 10:27 PM
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D3 Championship
OK.I probably shouldn't start this, but I will.
I haven't read all the threads, but I have read the ones below in this
series.
The NSRCA has already set the standard and a method to determine judging
bias and has held a NSRCA member accountable to this standard this year and
the AMA sanctioned the individual. This is fact..Agree with the method to
determine bias (or not) it was used to impose an AMA sanction on a member.
IMHO this discussion suggests that bias has occurred in the D3 championship
or possibly another at the same level FAI. If this is the case the NSRCA
must review this and apply the same discipline using the same measurables to
provide for the same sanctions.
If the NSRCA is unwilling to investigate or isn't willing to use the same
method to determine bias, then clearly we (the NSRCA and AMA) have
disenfranchised a NSRCA member and should rethink his sanction.
Our rules and penalties must check and balance. Then they must be applied to
all members equally regardless of status in membership. This is the only way
to reduce / eliminate bias. I'm also unwilling to entertain the thought the
District Championship is any less important to the NATS. They are both
sanctioned contests ran by a CD accountable to the AMA.
Flame suit on.
Larry Diamond
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Hester <mailto:kerlock at comcast.net>
To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D3 Championship
He's not alone. Although he probably should work on the delivery ;)
I would support any of the 5 proposals that Ryan listed. Judging FAI can be
frustrating enough, but to be told you're not getting it right when you're
already doing everything you know how to do, that's a hard pill to swallow
regardless of the statement's accuracy.
You guys out there do need to realize these guys can fly...and are very
good...problem is they're flying against this Jason dude, travels a lot,
flys all the time, might even have a national title or 2 along the way, not
sure. I'm sure you know the type. *ahem*
Because my wife generally keeps scores in D3, we have some pretty good
access to each and every score entered. I can tell you guys without a doubt
at times there are some SERIOUS differences in scores between judges on the
same round. I don't mean a little, I mean like 100 points on the RAW score.
Even if this Jason character was flying straight 10s, the differences if you
work them out mean the others are barely flying a straight line....and
that's not the case. I have no doubt these guys don't think they should be
beating Jason in a 6 round contest where 2 of the rounds are "F" rounds, but
I am sure most people would agree the scoring could use some improvements.
Being one of these evil incompetent D3 masters judges *ahem* I would
certainly support more of a cooperative effort than some kind of protest. I
have been very supportive of all the FAI guys and especially the scoring,
and am usually the guys everybody throws something at during a judging
seminar because I'm trying to clarify something that effects mainly FAI.
I think to identify the "problem" will take a willingness to recognize that
the situation is caused by a LOT of factors, not any one or two. If anyone's
interested, I'll outline the ones I see clearly.
I'm not sure if this will all have the intended effect that jim was looking
for in the end, but if nothing else it does draw some attention to a
situation and we should have a closer look.
As for me, soon I'll be practicing, bracing for the onslought of FAI pilots
come to masters to punish me =)
-Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: McLaughlin, Ryan (FRS.JAX) <mailto:ryan_mclaughlin at ml.com>
To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D3 Championship
I didn't want you to stand alone in this...it's too important.
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Woodward, Jim
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 1:31 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D3 Championship
Ryan M.,
I think this takes the cake as a first time nsrca-list email. Thank you for
the support.
Jim W.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and proprietary information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient(s),
please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the
original message.
_____
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of McLaughlin,
Ryan (FRS.JAX)
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 1:19 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D3 Championship
This is my first post to the NSRCA list as I am a bit 'internet shy', but I
thought I might be able to add some value to the FAI judging discussion Jim
W started. Although I tend to err on the side of diplomacy : ), I believe
the feelings Jim expressed are legitimate and shared by many FAI competitors
throughout the country. As a long time participant, I realize that bias is
not a new problem but I do not think we should accept this is as a "fact of
life" and move on. I think we have an excellent opportunity here and we
should make the most of it.
The primary issue to address in my opinion is not disparity in judging
standards between judges, though as Earl points out, this is important.
Rather, it is the different standard applied to pilots within one score
set--i.e.. scoring a pilot lower or higher based on who he is. Our penchant
for creating "superstars" is the most discouraging aspect of FAI
competition. To remedy this, we must all make a conscious decision to
change a long established tradition in our sport. Are we ready to take this
on?
Complaining isn't the answer and neither is staying quiet, a mistake that
has made the FAI competitors as responsible as anyone else for the
situation. To this end, I submit for your review the following ideas to
specifically target the FAI bias issue:
1. Sacrifice one FAI round per contest to serve as an "open" round for all
contestants expected to judge FAI during the event. Allow everyone to
compare notes and use this as a coaching opportunity.
2. Drop one FAI pilot to Masters at each contest to serve as a judge for
all rounds and use volunteers from other classes to serve as the others.
This would have to be an agreement made among FAI pilots.
3. Extend the pilots meeting to go over specific issues, maybe a new one or
two every meet rather than just pointing out the landing zone, etc. Make a
"mini" judging seminar mandatory each contest.
4. Certify judges for FAI on a volunteer basis and only use "certified"
judges in the contest.
5. Utilize peer judging, in other words, have FAI pilots judge themselves.
If a pilot is not flying, he is judging his fellow competitors.
Some of this may seem radical, but I believe there is room for a bit of
this. Pattern belongs to us right? I welcome any ideas or critique anyone
can offer. I will clarify any of the above upon request.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ryan McLaughlin
Eustis, Florida
_____
This message w/attachments (message) may be privileged, confidential or
proprietary, and if you are not an intended recipient, please notify the
sender, do not use or share it and delete it. Unless specifically indicated,
this message is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of any investment
products or other financial product or service, an official confirmation of
any transaction, or an official statement of Merrill Lynch. Subject to
applicable law, Merrill Lynch may monitor, review and retain
e-communications (EC) traveling through its networks/systems. The laws of
the country of each sender/recipient may impact the handling of EC, and EC
may be archived, supervised and produced in countries other than the country
in which you are located. This message cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
error-free. This message is subject to terms available at the following
link: http://www.ml.com/e-communications_terms/. By messaging with Merrill
Lynch you consent to the foregoing.
_____
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
_______________________________________________
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/20071018/62ff87c1/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list