[NSRCA-discussion] Zero Judges at WC's

[John Fuqua]

Was there an issue with zero's???

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 14, 2017, at 3:46 PM, Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> Judges are the single largest expense for the host country.  They are required to cover all of their costs (airfare, local transportation, lodging, meals, etc).  For a 10 day event, that’s roughly $4000-$5000 PER judge.  So for a 20 judge panel, plus 2 alternates, you’re looking at ~$100,000 in expenses JUST for judges.  The sporting code only requires 20 judges if there are more than 80 pilots at the event.  It drops to 10 below that.  Both South Africa and Switzerland had less than 80 pilots but chose to have the full 22 member judge panel.  Argentina was probably smart not to do this.
> 
> As someone already mentioned, with 20, you can divide up the work load and make it reasonable.  With ten that’s more difficult, but i think most would agree (especially after this event) that 9 judges and a zero judge is a better allocation than 10 straight judges.
> 
> 
> MARK ATWOOD
> o.  (440) 229-2502
> c.  (216) 316-2489
> e.  atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
> 
> Paragon Consulting, Inc.
> 5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
> www.paragon-inc.com
>  
> Powering The Digital Experience
> 
> On Nov 14, 2017, at 4:36 PM, arturo zapata via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> No enough number of pilots for 20 judges
> 
> 
> 
> From: Maureen Dunphy via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> To: Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 4:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Zero Judges at WC's
> 
> Why were there only 10 judges?
> 
> On Nov 14, 2017 3:00 PM, "Derek Koopowitz via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> Typically there are 20 judges at a WC.  During the finals, 5 judges are used to judge the left turnarounds, 5 different judges judge the right turnarounds, and the 10 remaining judges judge the center maneuvers.  It is a lot easier to judge unknowns when one has time to study the maneuver before judging it and can reflect on what one saw after it is complete – remember, a judge will have time to reflect on this because they aren’t judging every maneuver.  When only 10 judges are used (as in Argentina), all the judges will judge ALL maneuvers so there is a lot less time for judges to think about what they just saw (or will see) unless they really know the sequence well.
>  
> From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces@ lists.nsrca.org> on behalf of NSRCA List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca. org>
> Reply-To: Jeff Worsham <jeffryworsham at gmail.com>, NSRCA List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca. org>
> Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 11:20 AM
> To: "cahochhalter at yahoo.com" <cahochhalter at yahoo.com>, NSRCA List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca. org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Zero Judges at WC's
>  
> Obviously I don’t know squat about the whole process, but was just wondering-  if there’s a 10 judge panel, why can’t 2 of them be zero judges.  I understand if running 2 lines, 5 judges per line, there would need to be 4 more judges paid for.  But aren’t the final rounds flown on one line only with all 10 judges?  If so, why can’t 2 of them be zero judges?   
>  
> From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces@ lists.nsrca.org> on behalf of Charles Hochhalter via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca. org>
> Reply-To: "cahochhalter at yahoo.com" <cahochhalter at yahoo.com>, General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca. org>
> Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 12:12 PM
> To: "nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca. org" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca. org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Zero Judges at WC's
>  
> The cost to add zero judges would be around 4 -6 grand each unless you pulled from contestants... which probably  wouldnt happen. 
>  
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>  
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Jeff Worsham via NSRCA-discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca. org> wrote:
> What would it take for FAI to require a minimum # of zero judges at future WC’s?  IE: at least two designated zero judges required for every semi’s and finals round.  With the increase in complexity of maneuvers in F and unknown sequences, sounds like the judging load may be exceeding what even the most experienced of judges can keep up with at a WC.  On top of increased judging load, add poor visibility, poor conditions, etc and the chance for error goes up even more.  
> Jeff
> ______________________________ _________________
> 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
> 
> ______________________________ _________________
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171114/3ec8f6c5/attachment.html>