[NSRCA-discussion] Judging Question

Fri Aug 16 04:21:36 AKDT 2019

I agree that double jeopardy is not in the rulebook.  My question was do you downgrade one error multiple times?  I think the first radius rule in FAI was a terrible rule that dictated one error should be downgraded multiple times, as in a square eight.  If first radius was different from the other 7 then there should have been a 7 point downgrade for one radius error.  Thankfully they have corrected that logic.  

I’m seeking information here more than making a statement for any one point of view.

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Worsham via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 6:41 AM
To: Stuart Chale; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging Question

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 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/20190816/f428dc28/attachment.html>