[NSRCA-discussion] Snap

[Vicente "Vince" Bortone]

Don, 



At the same time K factor needs be reduced to something like 10 times less that we have now.  



Regards, 

Vicente "Vince" Bortone 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don Ramsey" < donramsey @ gmail .com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org> 
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 7:01:59 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap 




Ok , how about this for the snap?   “If its not a barrel roll and not an axial roll, it’s a snap.” Maybe have the coning of the tail in the description. This eliminates about 90% of the judging differences. 



Don 




From: nsrca -discussion-bounces at lists. nsrca .org [mailto: nsrca -discussion-bounces at lists. nsrca .org] On Behalf Of Bob Richards 
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 8:09 PM 
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] basic judging question (warning 4 letter word) 



I think changing the judging criteria, just for the snap part of the manuever, would suffice. 

--- On Sat, 10/10/09, John Ferrell <jferrell13 at triad.rr.com> wrote: 




? 


I believe " We could fix most of that, by assigning a low K to snap maneuvers" is the only appropriate solution. If you cast them out, it is giving up. 





John Ferrell  W8CCW 
  

No virus found in this incoming message. 
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.9/2427 - Release Date: 10/10/09 06:39:00 
_______________________________________________ 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/20091011/6b8bb97d/attachment.html>