[NSRCA-discussion] Judging

Fri Oct 19 08:13:31 AKDT 2007

Ron

Thanks for the clarification - that's what I was referring to, but made it sound more limited than it is.I wish we could devise some way to encompass local judging experience and skill in some meaningful way. Maybe something along the lines of District Championships - points for judging rounds with higher classes being worth more points. This isn't the same as the official program and doesn't address the limited comps for stats, but it might generate more interest in judging.

While I guess it's OK for the NSRCA data to be available by request, I thing it would be more useful if posted on the website.

Earl
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ron Van Putte 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 10:52 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging

  Earl wrote that, "It would be nice to have some form of judge ranking system other than the limited ranking done for nomination of WC judges."  The fact is that the NSRCA judge ranking program evaluates EVERY judge who judges in Nats Finals (and semifinals in a Team Selection year), Master Finals and in F3A Team Selections.  This data is available to anyone who would like to look at it.  Judge evaluation/ranking is not done for any events which has less than five judges on the line.  This limits the events for which the evaluation/ranking is possible.  

  Ron Van Putte

  On Oct 19, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Earl Haury wrote:

    Some more thoughts on the variation between judges. 

    The NSRCA Judge Cert Program is an excellent base for ensuring that everyone is on the same page regarding the rules as applied to judging. The Program suggests practice judging sessions of actual flights with subsequent discussion of the scoring. Unfortunately, only a few Cert Classes actually do this. (The logistics of practice scoring sessions are difficult with most classes occurring in the off season.) This is sort of analogous to studying a sequence in the rule book, but not flying it until in competition. We are now practicing "on the job" training in many cases and this isn't fair to the competitor. 

    We need to find a way to better train / calibrate judges outside of competition. Flying sessions during Certification, where scores are discussed by maneuver within a peer group would be a very good start. Several flights are generally flown during WC judges practice and scores are discussed. We've done this at our Team Selections in the past. Unfortunately, we haven't incorporated this practice into the Nats. We fly judge warm-up flights before the Nats finals, but these are not for judge calibration. (At major events any such flying for judges practice requires flights by non-competitors which adds to the logistics.) We do little to none of this at local meets. The idea of pre-contest judging practice has merit. Often the sun precludes using the entire box, but several will practice at "off-box" angles and parts of sequences. Why not judge these flights and discuss the scores and reasons for downgrades? Probably best to not make these scores / discussions available to the pilot in competition - that's better left for training events.

    It would be nice to have some form of judge ranking system other than the limited ranking done for nomination of WC judges. Unfortunately, this is difficult to define and operate. The experienced based system used by the old USPJA was mostly without merit. When volunteers for Team Selection judges numbered in the 30's, the program participants voted for the judges that were used. That may work when a lot of reasonably qualified folks are available. One thing is for sure, presently it's hard to find enough warm bodies to fill the judging chairs.

    TBL and other forms of massaging the scoring data are fine, useful, and often necessary. However, they are post processing exercises to mathematically minimize the effects of inaccuracies in the actual scoring. It's much better to strive to ensure that the initial score is correct.

    Let's look at some common forms of judging variations (I apologize in advance if I step on any toes).  I suggest that there are two categories, those that are wrong and intolerable vs. those that are differences of opinion.

    In the first category we find the judge who observes no defects in a maneuver and scores it an 8 so as to have more room if something else is more appealing. Or the judge who sees a defect and scores a 10 because he gave the pilot the benefit of doubt. Or the judge who "overlooks" a major error because the rest of the flight is great. Or the judge that overlooks excessive distance because that's where he/she flies. Or the judge who fails to watch the maneuver from start to finish - including the exit. Or the judge who downgrades maneuvers for having different roll rates or radii than he/she prefers. Or the judge who recognizes he/she is more strict / lenient in a group of judges where scoring analysis will be applied and changes his/her practice. Or the judge who simply "likes" one pilot more than another and ensures the favorite scores best. There are other examples, but the best correction for this may be a cattle prod! Anyone guilty of this needs to seriously consider their behavior!

    The second category is (thankfully) more prevalent. Two judges observe a difference in radii - one deducts a point and the other two. Likewise, line length before and after roll elements, or changes in roll rate, or heading, or angle, or distance, or?  Given the difficulty of determining these criteria visually, there will always be some difference in judgment of the error magnitude. One judge will look tough (we rarely consider a judge easy - unless he/she's judging our competition), but may actually be the most accurate. There will still be some difference in the judges scores, scoring practice in training sessions would go a long way toward minimizing these differences.

    Earl

    _______________________________________________
    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/20071019/8dda299b/attachment-0001.html 