[NSRCA-discussion] Judging Question

[Jeff Worsham]

Hi Don- three points I'd like to make in response:

1) A quick search of the rule book for the words "double" and "jeopardy"
turned up zero hits.
2) It's my understanding that as a judge, I'm supposed to apply downgrades
as I see the errors occur (one of the reasons given as a plus for the
automated scribe system).
3) Also from my perspective as a judge, when I'm in the chair analyzing
what I see (whether a downgrade should be applied and how much, all very
much in real-time as it's happening), I personally don't believe I have the
mental processing power to also analyze root cause for what I just saw,
subtract out any "double jeopardy" affects, and all the while continue
judging the next maneuver (including lines and whatever else happens in
between!).  Judging root cause for single or multiple errors falls into the
category of coaching.  When we are judging, I think we often keep our
coaching hats on at the same time and that's not a good thing for overall
judging quality of the round in question.
Just my opinion,
Jeff


On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:22 AM Stuart Chale via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> Unfortunately FAI does give those percentages.
>
> 1. Geometrical accuracy of the manoeuvre; (weighting approximately 60%).
>
> 2. Smoothness and gracefulness of the manoeuvre; (weighting approximately
> 20%).
>
> 3. Positioning of the manoeuvre within the manoeuvring zone; (weighting
> approximately. 10%).
>
> 4. Size of the manoeuvre; (weighting approximately 10%).
>
> 5. Proportion of the manoeuvre outside of the manoeuvring zone (in
> addition to the above)
>
>
> So to answer your question 20% for smoothness and gracefulness. :)  How do
> you figure that into your non subjective downgrades and providing a final
> score for a maneuver ???????
>
> Stuart C.
>
>
>
> On 8/15/2019 11:01 PM, Anthony Frackowiak via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>
> It would be hard to write a more unclear paragraph then 5B.9. It says
> flight speed. Is that airspeed, ground speed, what? Radii performed very
> tight or very loose. What exactly does that mean? A loose radius would be
> less smooth or graceful? Huh? Extremely subjective and not really a good
> way to judge. And then what percentage of a maneuver score should be
> Smoothness and Gracefulness? I have always thought accurate Geometry should
> was the primary importance.
>
> Tony Frackowiak
>
>
> On Aug 15, 2019, at 7:27 PM, Vicente Bortone <vincebrc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is from FAI rulebook
>
> 5B.9. SMOOTHNESS AND GRACEFULNESS OF THE MANOEUVRE
> Concerns the harmonic appearance of an entire manoeuvre; i.e. *maintaining
> a constant flight speed throughout the various manoeuvre components,*
> like in climbing and descending sections contributes significantly to
> smoothness and gracefulness. Radii performed very tight or very loose,
> though being of equal size within one manoeuvre may be subject for
> downgrading Smoothness and Gracefulness.
>
> For AMA is smoothness is not well described.  However, I think the first
> sentence is equivalent to FAI or try to make it similar:
>
> b. Smoothness and gracefulness
> *A most general definition would relate to providing a smooth, flowing,
> polished appearance in flight. *A perfect set of consecutive rolls should
> have a constant roll rate from start to finish. A perfect loop must have a
> constant radius defining a perfect circle. It cannot be made up of a series
> of straight flight increments joined with sudden angular jerks. Rotations
> in the pitch axis of the model should be made evenly, and show a constant
> radius as the model transitions from line to line. Higher marks should not
> be awarded for flying tight, high-g corners.
>
> I don't think it is incorrect interpretation of the current rulebook.
>
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:28 PM Anthony Frackowiak via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
>> Agree with Jerry. No downgrade for difference in aircraft speed. If you
>> have been judging for constant speed that is incorrect.
>>
>> Tony Frackowiak
>>
>> On Aug 15, 2019, at 6:54 AM, John Decker via NSRCA-discussion <
>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>
>> The only reference to center in the list of downgrades is the point of
>> hesitation. Presentation would be poor if asymmetrical in my opinion, hence
>> I believe it would be a downgrade in addition to the change of roll rate
>> which is a listed downgrade. .
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Thursday, August 15, 2019, 08:15:26 AM CDT, Don Ramsey via
>> NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I finally have the World Championships posted on my site in an easy to
>> read pdf format.
>>
>> http://pages.suddenlink.net/donramsey
>>
>>
>>
>> An interesting judging question came up the other day and I would like to
>> get some feedback from the group.
>>
>>
>> Are rolling maneuvers, like the current Masters 2 slow rolls reversed, an
>> asymmetrical maneuver?  If the maneuver finishes the first roll just before
>> center (as it should) then changes the roll rate causing the line length of
>> the second roll to be different from the first, should this be considered a
>> centering error in additon to the change in roll rate.
>>
>>
>> Don
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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/20190816/2d692345/attachment.html>