<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>KEITH........................... your
hired!!!! </FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=tkeithb@comcast.net href="mailto:tkeithb@comcast.net">Keith Black</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, August 04, 2005 12:51
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Judging issues</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>OK, I'll jump in on the judging band wagon and
say what I've been resisting through this entire discussion.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>1. <STRONG>Quality of Judges:</STRONG> It's great
that we have judge certification, from what I hear this has GREATLY improved
things and I applaud those dedicated members that made this possible. However,
it's surprising to me that judges are being certified without being tested.
I've been involved in other sports as an official and in every case there was
a requirement to take a class, then <STRONG>PASS </STRONG>a test. With our
current system one could sleep through the class and still walk out a
certified judge. Our downgrade system is complex and it takes quite a bit of
memorizing to remember everything and truly understand everything. This
requires judges reading and studying on their own in addition to the class.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I understand we have a catch-22 in that we need
all contestants to be certified so we'll have enough judges. If it's too
difficult to become certified we won't have enough judges. However, if we
want to resolve our problems we MUST make sure judges in the chairs are
knowledgeable. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Think about it, can you imagine even at the youth
level going to a baseball, soccer, football, or any other game where the
officials weren't tested to see if they knew the rules? This just doesn't
happen, why should we allow this when deciding a National
Champion?.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>When I was involved in fencing we used contestant
judging at the local contests and judges were not required to be certified,
but at NATS you would never have an uncertified judge. In fact, there were
different levels of certification required for different level events
(Nationals, Circuit Events, International, etc.), and only the top level
judges would ever officiate at finals.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So how do we get people to "want" to pass the
certification. 1) Pay the judges, not just for extra duty, but for all
judging. If necessary raise the entrance fees a few bucks. 2) Those
who are not certified get double duty on other jobs and no pay. In other
words, the primo duty is judging. Non-certified pilots (i.e. those who
have not passed the test) get the grunt work. "BUT WAIT!!!!", Sputter,
stammer, turn red in the face, "that's not fair, that's showing bias towards
the certified judges, that's just not right!!!!". Too bad, pass the
test!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If we wish to slowly transition into this new
system require only finals judges to pass a test and pay only tested judges.
The first year or two allow judges with the current certification system to
judge prelims but pay any judge that is tested, even in prelims. This would be
a good incentive for people to get tested, especially since they'd have to
judge prelims anyways. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2. <STRONG>Specificity of the Rules: </STRONG>As
a software developer I live my daily life based on rules. Maybe it's this
perspective that makes me scratch my head when reading our rule book. Much of
it is very good, but other portions are way too nebulous. For example,
<EM>"<FONT face=TimesNewRoman size=2>Flying so far out as to make evaluation
of a maneuver difficult should be <STRONG>severely </STRONG>downgraded. ...
Maneuvers performed on a line greater than approximately 175 meters in front
of the pilot should be downgraded under any
circumstances...</FONT>"</EM> Hum... If you were designing a scoring
machine how would you interpret these rules? Exactly what does "severely"
mean? And exactly how many points would you have the scoring machine deduct
for flying beyond 175 meters? The rule book is full of this type of
language.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If the rules don't say specifically then how can
we expect even tested judges to all score the same?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Now on to the <STRONG>Smoothness and Gracefulness
</STRONG>issue. I don't think our rule book does a good job at quantifying how
Smoothness and Gracefulness pertain to scoring. I do believe this is a portion
of the sport that is extremely important, but I've not yet been able to nail
anyone down on exactly how to work this into the scoring. Each maneuver
begins as a 10 correct? So if a pilot flies a technically perfect maneuver,
but all corners, rolls, etc. are quick and not very graceful should we
deduct points? I don't think the rules are clear here. Then let's say another
pilot flies the maneuver perfect but gracefully, how should that pilot be
rewarded? If we couldn't find defects in the first pilot's
maneuver wouldn't he have a ten? Let's say on another maneuver a pilot
has defects totaling two points, but the maneuver was very graceful, should he
be credited back points because it was smooth and graceful? </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>I don't think the rule book is clear here and I know I
couldn't program the scoring machine with the current rules.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Just my two cents,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Keith Black</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>