[NSRCA-discussion] F3A news

[Matthew Kebabjian]

FAI scoring practice has bounced around more than it should have over the last 25 years. From half points to whole points, giving the lesser score, and now it seems giving the greater score.

It may be time for the U.S. Rep to the CIAM to sound off and strongly suggest they adopt the AMA scoring arrangement, as Verne suggested. I'd bet other reps are fed up with the nonsense also. Perhaps other reps can be polled and a united, well thought out recommendation can be made. 
Regads, 
Matt

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Ron Hansen via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> I'm not, in FAI any error has to be at least a 1 pt deduction. Now judges can be a little more generous and give one or more half point deductions. If an even number of half points are given out then there isn't any rounding. No matter how you slice it scores will trend up wards unless judges were ignoring minor errors which they shouldn't. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Jan 3, 2016, at 9:09 PM, chuenkan at comcast.net wrote:
>> 
>> Ron, why are you assuming only one 1/2 point (minor) deduction per maneuver???
>> 
>> Phil Spelt, KCRC Emeritus, Secretary
>> AMA 1294, Scientific Leader Member
>> SPA L-18, Board Member
>> (865) 435-1476v  (865) 604-0541c
>> 
>> 
>> Won’t this result in the scores trending upwards?  Before any infraction required at least a 1 pt deduction if the judge was following the rules now the judge can give a ½ point which will be rounded back up.
>>  
>>  
>> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion
>> Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2016 3:47 PM
>> To: General pattern discussion
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] F3A news
>>  
>> Not making a lot of sense. If the judge is required to operate in 1/2 point deductions, why can't the scoring program? I see no point in the judge needing to round to full points either up or down.
>> Of course, after considering positioning, size, smoothness and grace, distance out, etc you will be unlikely to round UP.....
>> 
>> 
>> John
>> On 1/3/2016 1:35 PM, Verne Koester via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>> It's a complete 180 from before. Until now, a judge was required to round down. Now we have to round up or let the scoring computer do it. Still inferior in accuracy compared to ama scoring in my opinion. 
>> Verne
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Jan 3, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Ed Alt via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>> 
>> It also means that just one minor infraction doesn't count at all.  It only counts when a 2nd minor infraction is observed.  The logic of that escapes me.  
>> 
>> On Jan 3, 2016, at 2:20 PM, Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> The purpose is now a minor infraction isn't the same value as a major. You can have two minors for the same price as a major. It allows the judges to be more accurate in their tabulation even if it is rounded up. 
>> 
>> On Sunday, January 3, 2016, Ed Alt via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>> So the first minor error observed is a freebie.  What is the purpose of that?
>> 
>> > On Jan 3, 2016, at 2:07 PM, Derek Koopowitz via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Some said it would never happen… well it did happen at the December CIAM meeting.  1/2 points are now effective in F3 aerobatics.  A special rule provision was made and voted on at the Bureau meeting and the following will become effective this year.  What this means is that for minor errors a 1/2 point deduction is given instead of the “traditional” 1 point deduction.  At the end of the maneuver, if the resulting score is a 6.5, the final score will be rounded up to 7.  The judge can do this automatically or can right down the 6.5 and the scoring program will round the number up.
>> >
>> > Questions?
>> >
>> > <86EC7BC7-B7ED-4241-B993-95EC9BCD7026.png>
>> >
>> >
>> > <86EC7BC7-B7ED-4241-B993-95EC9BCD7026.png>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Scott A. McHarg
>> VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
>> Texas A&M University
>> PPL - ASEL
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 12813 (20160103) __________
>> 
>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>> 
>> http://www.eset.com
>> 
>> 
>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 12813 (20160103) __________
>> 
>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>> 
>> http://www.eset.com
>> 
>> 
>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 12813 (20160103) __________
>> 
>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>> 
>> http://www.eset.com
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160104/0e1c0220/attachment.html>