[NSRCA-discussion] D3 Championship - Scoring System Overhaul

[Mark Atwood]

The reality here it that the high variances fall into two camps.  Spurious
zeros awarded by ³Snap and Spin Nazi¹s² (not my term) which we all prefer to
avoid, some of which are valid, but personally I¹m an advocate (and would
love a rule change) to make most of those severe downgrades rather than a
zero,  and the other is wrong maneuvers that are flown, but get scored.
This is maybe the more painful error as everyone, EVERYONE is in 100%
agreement of what the score should be...  And yet TBL would normally throw
out the zero when the other 5 judges gave 8¹s.    The semi¹s at the nats
come to mind...but we wont go there.

It happens.  And I¹m betting we have ALL done it (given a score for a
maneuver that was the wrong maneuver...or missed that 4th spin), and we¹ve
probably all had it done too us.  I can hear my caller now...²Shhhhhh...just
keep flying...you¹ll get scored.²    To pretend we can completely eliminate
it is foolish, but to pretend that throwing out the odd low score is the
³right² thing to do is equally foolish.




On 10/18/07 1:23 PM, "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

> 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
> judge¹s 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 judge¹s 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
> ³averaging² the score also has no validity.
> b.      Why not just let each judge¹s 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 ³un-average² 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 ³turnaround² 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 wouldn¹t 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 Œround-drop¹
> 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 ³1000¹s²
> until the other pilot runs out ­ tie is now ³untied.²
>  
> 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
>  
> 
> OKŠI probably shouldn¹t start this, but I willŠ
>  
> I haven¹t 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 factŠ.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 isn¹t 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. I¹m 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 onŠ
>  
> 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] 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20071018/4b7f489a/attachment-0001.html