<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<BR>As usual excellent points Earl. Not sure if is in the rulebook or the judging video but it states when in doubt downgrade.<BR>
<BR>
Anthony<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR>
From: ejhaury@comcast.net<BR>To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:29:43 -0500<BR>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging<BR><BR>
<META content="Microsoft SafeHTML" name=Generator>
<STYLE>
</STYLE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Allow me to start a new thread for the purpose of analyzing the issues Jim and others highlighted in the D3 thread. Most of us have been frustrated over the years by inaccurate scoring, both high and low. Forget the notion that it doesn't matter if an inaccurate judge is consistent - that person is just consistently wrong and it does matter, the rules require both accurate and consistent scoring. I also don't believe that judging ability depends entirely on class flown, masters and FAI folks aren't inherently smarter than others. Experience does improve accuracy and it's important to know what maneuvers / schedule that will be judged (called preparation). However, it's not important what class is flying the maneuver - a half loop or immelman or stall turn is the same in intermediate as F3A. The NSRCA Judge Cert program has improved the quality of judging immensely! So - now that I've gotten these generalities out of my system, let's take a look at why F3A scores may vary a lot by judge / region.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I've heard the opinion expressed that the whole point scoring in F3A dictates that no downgrade is applied until an error of 15 deg or more is observed. Conversely, others feel that any error in F3A requires, at least, a one point downgrade. Hmmmm - that'll make a difference! F3A adopted whole point scoring in an effort to force judges to use the entire 10 - 0 range of scores, rather than the upper 3 or so as was typical. This is probably where the 1pt for any error notion comes from. But it was difficult to quantify how much to downgrade many errors, and a wide variation occurred between judges of equal skill, some saw a 5 deg error worthy of a point deduction - others would see a 30 deg error as worthy of only a point. Probably the most useful metric available to judges is the 1/15 rule! </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>However, the 1/15 rule fails to define just what should be done for errors of less than 15 deg. Honest differences of opinion exist and these become more important the better a maneuver is flown. I suspect that some evaluation of the wording of the rules might help. F3A requires "marking" (scoring) in whole points, but uses the word "downgrade" regarding the judges assessment of the "mark". While examples of egregious errors are noted in whole points, there is no exclusion forbidding the judge to use smaller downgrade increments to arrive at the whole point score. So why is the downgrade for errors smaller than 15 deg undefined? Well - pattern folks are certainly smart (or we wouldn't be doing this - right?) and have no problem recognizing the downgrade applicable to 30, 45, etc. errors basis the 1/15 metric, there shouldn't be any difficulty in the other direction either as 5 deg = 1/3 pt, 7.5 = 1/2 pt, etc. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>A problem arises when a judge is between whole points with the proper downgrades. (Things would be a lot easier if F3A adopted 1/2 pt scoring - I've made the arguments and some are listening - but don't expect a change any time soon.) The scenario might be a simple turnaround maneuver with a slight 5 deg error of some sort which deserves a 1/3 pt downgrade. Some will score this a 10, others a 9. The F3A rules dwell on major defects and leave these situations nearly unaddressed. Consider that a 9 is unfair - might as well make a 15 deg error. Some will say a 10 is unfair as the maneuver is imperfect and we are striving for perfection. OK - the F3A rules state "<SPAN lang=EN-GB style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'"><FONT size=3>A high score should be given only if no major defects are found and the maneuver is well positioned." <FONT face=Arial>You decide - I would probably go with a 10, as there's no "major" defect, and feel comfortable rounding to the nearest whole number. Unfortunately, unintentional bias (basis pilot reputation, quality of current flight, etc.) can slip in here and result in like maneuvers being rounded up and down for different pilots - here's a place where judge consistency must be applied. </FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN lang=EN-GB style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'"><FONT size=3><FONT face=Arial></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN lang=EN-GB style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'"><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=3>Centering is another area where downgrades often vary in that some focus on a center "key point" of a maneuver and downgrade heavily if that point is missed. F3A rules state "<SPAN lang=EN-GB><FONT face="Times New Roman">This may be in the range of 1 to 4 points subtracted" <FONT face=Arial>with regards to centering errors, without defining a metric. Most assume 1 pt / 25%. OK - the middle of the inverted portion of a 4 pt roll is way off - the 90 deg roll ends at the pole - most would ding this a couple of points. But, a 4 pt roll may be 1000 ft long, so a 2 pt downgrade would be appropriate for a 500 ft error, the example is probably less than 200 feet - so a 1pt downgrade would be more appropriate. If the overall length of a maneuver is considered, centering downgrades are often less than scored. This concept is even more important for "narrow" center maneuvers.</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN lang=EN-GB style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'"><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=3><SPAN lang=EN-GB></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN lang=EN-GB style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'"><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=3><SPAN lang=EN-GB>So - there are a couple of places where judges can disagree in scoring and these will generate large differences in scores by flight and, possibly, by region. Our NSRCA judging program has done and is doing a good job of ensuring we all recognize errors. The 1/15 rule provides a good metric and works well with the AMA 1/2 point scoring system. This same 1/15 metric leaves us hanging a bit in F3A when used with whole point scoring. Maybe a solution is for us to use 1/2 pt. scoring in F3A events in AMA contests. Certainly we might include direction in our judging program to ensure folks judging F3A handle this issue consistently.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN lang=EN-GB style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'"><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=3><SPAN lang=EN-GB></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN lang=EN-GB style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'"><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=3><SPAN lang=EN-GB>Earl</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><br /><hr />Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare! <a href='http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews' target='_new'>Try now!</a></body>
</html>