<!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 6.00.2800.1458" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<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></BODY></HTML>