[NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format

[Vicente "Vince" Bortone]

33.33%.  Just guessing. 

Vicente "Vince" Bortone 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Burton" <burtona at atmc.net> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 12:30:58 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format 

What's the probability the zero was the correct score???????? 

-----Original Message----- 
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill's Email 
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:24 PM 
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format 

Wayne Galligan wrote: 
> Verne, 
> 
> What about the occasional 9-0-8.5 score 
> 
> ooops!!!  Did I just open up a snap controversy? 
> 
> Wayne Galligan 
This is was why there at least 2 or 3 judges, rounds are normalized and 
low rounds dropped. It tends to smooth out the inconsistencies. 





_______________________________________________ 
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/20090731/e93d78be/attachment.html>