Judges talking

I do not have a rulebook so I cannot check.

Isn't it illegal for a judge to be discussing manuevers during a flight? Performance, scores, etc.

It is not cosher. But, sometimes I think it is a good idea in some cases to discuss a manuever. But, never discuss what points you are giving during the flight. I have judged and thought I seen something and wanted an agreement, but, again no discussion on points. I hope this is right. Later,DOC:)

LAST EDITED ON Nov-09-04 AT 10:01 AM (CDT)
 
>I do not have a rulebook so I cannot check.
>
>Isn't it illegal for a judge to be discussing manuevers
>during a flight? Performance, scores, etc.

No rulebook in front of me, so I'm not 100% on this.

I think it's OK to discuss something that's completely objective in nature. Such as: Am I seeing things, or did Bob just do four inside loops instead of three? No discussion of the quality of the manuever there, just an objective yes/no that affects the score (pattern points, etc).

I don't think it's okay to discuss anything that's subjective. Such as: Boy, those inside loops sure stunk, didn't they? or Best hourglass I've ever seen in my life!

Edited to correct atrocious spelling.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-09-04 AT 11:30 AM (CDT)
 
>I think it's OK to discuss something that's completely
>objective in nature. Such as: Am I seeing things, or did
>Bob just do four inside loops instead of three?

Just curious. What if he did do four loops instead of three. Would there be a penalty for not seeing the exit or doing too many loops, or would there even be a penalty?

Z-I've got an idea! Next time we compete against each other, you do four loops so we can get this figured out! Hope the Impact is going together quicker than mine. Best regards, dale g

>Z-I've got an idea! Next time we compete against each other,
>you do four loops so we can get this figured out! Hope the
>Impact is going together quicker than mine. Best regards,
>dale g

Hi Dale,

That is exactly what I had in mind. Just for youthough.

I have the wings skinned and the tail started. Now I'm getting side tracked with work and buying a house.

'Zilla....
there is a rule book on-line.....
The CLPA rules, section 9 (page 51 in the greenie) "judges must not discuss the flier's pattern or divulge the potential score of the flier in any manner."............I find this especially interesting, because the above refers to a WARM UP FLIGHT, and I know that at the Nationals, warm ups are regularly flown prior to beginning the contest and that there is a judges "talk around" post flight....

14.7 Communication if judges, page 56 in the Baron section, 14.7.1: "It is permissable for judges to talk among themselves during actual competition provided the conversation is not of the nature to influence subsequent scoring of a flier or fliers; this would include discussing scores given and points about the pattern".
14.7.2 says that judges shouldn't talk to fliers about the pattern.

Good question here, Brad....it seems as if the last seven National Championships have started with a basic violation of the rules....

See Ya

The discussions are not allowed DURING the warm-up flights. The critiquing/discussions at the Nats are AFTER the warmup flights. Why else would you have warm-up flights if you didn't go over them before the competition flights started? Also, competitors are not allowed to talk to judges during flights. dg

Well, you are not allowed to talk to judges except to say, no flight. I've taken off and had some sort of problem and told the judges I'm taking an attempt. You also communicate with judges to tell them to move or to indicate where you are going to place maneuvers (in the case of questionable wind).

Dale...my re-reading the rule is that there should be no discussion of the flight among the judges ANYTIME....that a warm up just gets the judges attention, I guess.

I know that Brad should save up for a rule book, but it seems pretty clear to me...

See Ya

But one must see the intent of the rule. How absurd to have a warm-up flight to "warm-up" the judges, and then have them walk away with no comparisons made or critiquing of what they just saw. At the Nats, when the classroom discussions, lectures, judging seminars are over, the training culminates with the warm-up flights before the actual competitions-right? Or maybe I miss the point of the warm-up flight. As a Nats judge yourself, what do you all do during/after the warm-up? I've never judged at that level before- matter of fact, I've never judged a warm-up flight. (Only about five year's judging experience, anyway). About all I can say for certain is that judging is a tough assignment, and unless one has done it a few times, he cannot know what it's really like. Even though reams of print have been put forth about methods for judging, I've found there's really just barely time between manuevers to take a quick mental snapshot of what you saw and write down a number. Best regards, dale g

Dale:
I think that a "talk around" is a good idea...it sure seems to help get the judges onto the "same page", at least at the onset.
The warm up flights are typically flown by competitors, excepting Walker Cup day, when the #6 and 7 Open guys and runner-up Sr. are pressed into service.

I just happen to believe that all competitors are entitled to a fair and honest competition, and that THE RULES, as published, should be followed. We should try to eliminate the "gray areas".....

See Ya

The talking and discussion is in regard to a flyer in the contest doing a warmup flight. I believe that at least at the Nationals the warm up flights are not flown by competitors, so any discussion would be perfectly fine. Many times at a contest I've seen the judges do warm up by watching another category(expert, advanced, etc) or the warm up flight is flown by a flyer they will not be judging(another category).

As long as I'm on a roll here with this thread, I'll mention another observation concerning judges talking during a flight. There are a couple of judges whose "timbre" of voice is such that I can hear almost every word they utter during my flights. I should be concentrating to the extent that I don't hear anything, but I do. (Do hear things, don't concentrate!). Like, "Boy, he missed that one....!". Or, "it's way too lean, probably get an over-run...". So that's the reason for the earplugs even in the centre of the circle. Best regards, dale g

>As long as I'm on a roll here with this thread, I'll mention
>another observation concerning judges talking during a
>flight. There are a couple of judges whose "timbre" of voice
>is such that I can hear almost every word they utter during
>my flights. I should be concentrating to the extent that I
>don't hear anything, but I do. (Do hear things, don't
>concentrate!). Like, "Boy, he missed that one....!". Or,
>"it's way too lean, probably get an over-run...". So that's
>the reason for the earplugs even in the centre of the
>circle. Best regards, dale g

Dale-I never knew you had such good hearing. -DOC:)

If only my judges would talk loud enough to cover MY banter, which is remarkably similar, such as;
'Boy, I missed that one'
'Dang, can he get that engine ANY leaner?'
'Pardon me, but should you have learned that pattern BEFORE the contest?'
'Wow! Landed a little early did we?' this after slappin the Wichita ground on the second outside of the square horizontal eights.

Stuff like that constantly flaps from these stinkin Benedict Arnold lips of mine which is why most of the judges I've seen have a tape recorder with them. Seems they just add my coments to the list of things wrong I didn't see.

Someday by golly, some day.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-09-04 AT 04:37 PM (CDT)
 
>The talking and discussion is in regard to a flyer in the
>contest doing a warmup flight. I believe that at least at
>the Nationals the warm up flights are not flown by
>competitors, so any discussion would be perfectly fine.

Nope, I was asked in 2003 to warm up the judges on the first day of Qaulifiers. I declined to help steve get the GEE BEE running instead.

Dale,

I see exactly what Rich is saying. The warm up flights are too warm up the judges the day of the contest. They dont need to discuss anything. That should all be done a day prior to the contest. The flights are to get them warmed up in their OWN minds as to what they are getting ready to do. I dont see the need for them to discuss my errors amongst all of them right before I am getting ready to fly in the contest. Think about it he's making perfect sense. Same goes for TOP 5. All the siminars and clinics and all that is over at that point. The judges are there to write down what they as idividuals see. NOT as a whole. The morning of they should be warmed up and keep it to themselves and go from there. I am all for getting the siminars and all that stuff and simulators and all the different tools, but once the contest starts on Wednesday all that stops and the judges are on their own. Unless they want help or something but that is done off time. There is no need to discuss on Friday morning what they are seeing. They as individuals need to judge the same all week to be fair. A discussion on Friday morning could change something they have been doing all week and that is not fair to the competitors they have already judged. Can you dig it?

To answer Brad's question. HECK NO! Judges should NEVER talk about maneuver scores bewteen each other, EVER! If this is the case then we would only need one judge. You have more than one to get more than one score. Why have two if they are going to talk it over and make a score from there? Makes no sense.

ALSO it is VERY VERY POOR form for other people to stand around near the judges and say OUTLOUD "Oh he missed that" or "Uh he blew that" I see it all the time even at the TOP 5! IF YOU(you meaning anyone) STAND NEAR THE JUDEGS KEEP IT SHUT DURING THE FLIGHT!

AMEN Doug and three beers from the front pew!!
Bigiron

Well, there is evidence that the first flyer usually gets scored low- it's just what happens. So if the judges take in a warmup flight,or two, that would tend to help alleviate that problem. No discussions, just consider it a few practise swings, Yeah, Doug, I think I can dig it. This little green book sure causes a lot of gnashing of teeth to be so small. Rich said he thinks the Nats have been run contrary to rulebook in this matter for seven years. If it takes that long to discover an error, it can't be all that bad- it even may not be an error. I wonder what the intent of the ruleboook writer actually was? I always come back to the Ernie Gann statement- "rulebooks are made of paper..........". Thanks dale g

I find myself agreeing with Doug nearly to the letter.

Not being a nats competitor nor judge, and therefore being completely unbiased and objective:+ , I read #9 to mean that the judges are not to discuss nor divulge with the FLIER, but are free to discuss and divulge among themselves. To include the flier would give the flier an advantage, but I see no reason to restrict communication about warmup flights among the judges. Nothing is getting written down.

We'ns tend to take a few secs to draw a little sketch of the goofed up maneuver, or write "unequal rad corners", "intersections", "travellin'", "90+ degrees", "Overhead Clover", or something on the margin next to some maneuvers. Some, it's too hard to write, so some form of diagram is the best we can do in a few seconds. Contestants are encouraged to pick up their score sheets after the 2nd round.

I don't want to hear from the other judge, unless it's "What the heck was that", or "Wasn't that 4 loops?", etc. Sometimes, I do let out a "wow!" or "oh, my....", but try not to. Like Larry, I'm just there for the money and wimmin. Steve

I have been involved with training sessions for the judges at several Nats starting in 1974 and more than a few Team Trials since 1975. I have also conducted several clinics over the past several years. Regarding the matter about judges talking to each other, I think there are several things to consider.

First and foremost, I think the rule is clear that judges are not to discuss any maneuver or comment out loud on how a maneuver was flown that could be heard by another judge that could in any way effect the score of any maneuver during an official pattern by a competitor. At least that is what I believe the intent of the rule is. The fact that some judges might abuse this is not cause for other judges to do so.

Now, there are times when following this rule "to the letter" does not make sense and is not practicle. For example: A competitor omits a manuever or does not complete a maneuver as described by the rulebook. In this example, pattern points are lost and a zero score is recorded for the omitted maneuver or the minimum 10 points are awarded for an incomplete maneuver. After the flight, there is nothing wrong for the judges to discuss that they saw the same omission or incomplete manevuer and to be consistent on their score sheets what is recorded. That is one of the reasons there is a head judge to make sure that the score sheets are consistent on such errors. Same as to the official time when the head judge needs to make sure that scores are recoreded appropriately when the flight has exceeded the time limit. It is in these situations that I think it is entirely appropriate that the judges discuss the situation after the flight, before the score sheets are turned in. In fact, I think it is absolutely necessary that the judges discuss such matters. These duscussion should take place after the flight as there is normally not time to comment in any way between maneuvers during the flight.

Regarding the discussions after the warm-up flights at the Nats and the Team Trials. These warm-up flights are not official flights. The rule does not apply in this sutuation because the fight is simply not official. The flight is assessed after the flight has been completed and discussed among the judges, maneuver by maneuver and each judge reveals the score he recorded for each. During these discussions, it has been helpful for all of the judges to hear what the others saw in each of the maneuvers and sometimes, these discussion reveal what some individual judge might have missed or be consistently missing or not properly assesing in his own personal scoreing system and alerts him to watch for that in future flights. Sometimes (like most of the time) these warm-up flights are flown by fliers who will be competing in front of these same judges. It has been my experience that the judges really do not personally take note that an individual flier makes a particular mistake and will be looking for it when his official flight is performed. After any numnber of flights in a day, a judge does not remember the specifics of any one maneuver or flight by a single individual during a warm-up flight.

Depending on the flight scheudle during the first round, I will volunteer to do the warm-up flight every chance I can get. It is a free practice flight in as close to contest conditions as you can get without it actualy being an official flight.

Several more points to be made here. It is perfectly acceptabel for the pilot to wave off a flight to advise the judges that an official flight will not be continued or that an attempt is called if the wingover has not been ccmpleted. This is polite and fair to the judges, otherwise, they are there watching every lap for a maneuver to start for up to eight maneuvers. (This has happened to me and it is not fun.)

And a few comments about making notes or notations by judges on individual score sheets. I think this is a very poor practice. Unless some notation is made why each maneuver was not given a perfect score and such notations are made for each individual competitor, an unfair advantage is given to some individual competitora, even if he cannot look at the score sheets until after the contest. (In this stuation, it is not fair either to the competitor to withhold his scroe sheets from his first flight during the contest - if thery are availble at all.) Even after the contest, a competitor will know what to adjust during the next contest when flying in front of that judge. Unless every competitor has such notations, one competitor is gaining an unfair advantage. This is not to say that any two individuals, one a flier and another who might be a judge at a contest cannot have training/coaching sessions. Howeer, such sessions should be outside the framework of actual contest conditions where the one indivicual is a judge. Nor is there anything wrong with a flier asking a judge after a contest what the judge saw or did not see in his flight and the judge responding if he can remember specifics on how the competitor flew.

Food for thought.

Keith...isn't the "talk around" in direct violation of section 9 of the rules?

See Ya

>Keith...isn't the "talk around" in direct violation of
>section 9 of the rules?
>
>See Ya
>
>Peabody

Rich,

How can it be a violation when the flight is not an official flight? There is no official score as a result of the flight. What is the violation? What rule is being broken?

Why have you not spoken up on this or raised this as an issue when you have participated in these talk arounds in the past?

Keith....
I must have been misinterpreting this rule previously. It's really pretty clear that the "talk arounds" are in violation of the section of the fifth sentence of Section 9. I think that it's wrong, and ought to be corrected.

See Ya

>Keith....
>I must have been misinterpreting this rule previously. It's
>really pretty clear that the "talk arounds" are in violation
>of the section of the fifth sentence of Section 9. I think
>that it's wrong, and ought to be corrected.
>
>See Ya
>
>Peabody

Rich.

You did not answer my question. The warm-up flights are not official flights. There is no official score. There is no placing determinined by any warm-up flight. So how can any discussion among judges in training or during warm-up flights be in conflict with the rules.

I will repeat. The warm-up flights are not official. The rule applies to contestants competing for a place in a contest when scores are being recorded during competition when scores determine the placing of each contestant.

Please explain yourr rationale on how such discussions about an unofficial flight, which is a flight that will never be considered as an official fllght, could be in violation of the rules.

>>Keith....
>>I must have been misinterpreting this rule previously. It's
>>really pretty clear that the "talk arounds" are in violation
>>of the section of the fifth sentence of Section 9. I think
>>that it's wrong, and ought to be corrected.
>>
>>See Ya
>>
>>Peabody
>
>Rich.
>
>You did not answer my question. The warm-up flights are not
>official flights. There is no official score. There is no
>placing determinined by any warm-up flight. So how can any
>discussion among judges in training or during warm-up
>flights be in conflict with the rules.
>
>I will repeat. The warm-up flights are not official. The
>rule applies to contestants competing for a place in a
>contest when scores are being recorded during competition
>when scores determine the placing of each contestant.
>
>Please explain yourr rationale on how such discussions about
>an unofficial flight, which is a flight that will never be
>considered as an official fllght, could be in violation of
>the rules.

Rich is dead on this one.

Section 9 starting with the third sentence.

....No judge should start the day "cold." Usually there are contestants available who are willing to fly a pattern for practice judging. If this practice procedure is followed, judges must not discuss the flier's pattern or divulge the potential score of the flier in any manner. If possible, judges.....

OK, that is what Rich is talking about. This is talking about day of the contest procedures. That says dont discuss the warmups before the contest starts. Pretty simple and straight forward. Wouldn't you agree? I would.

>Rich is dead on this one.
>
>Section 9 starting with the third sentence.
>
>....No judge should start the day "cold." Usually there are
>contestants available who are willing to fly a pattern for
>practice judging. If this practice procedure is followed,
>judges must not discuss the flier's pattern or divulge the
>potential score of the flier in any manner. If possible,
>judges.....
>
>OK, that is what Rich is talking about.

See other posts about *AMA rulebook* is *the rulebook*.

>....No judge should start the day "cold." Usually there are
>contestants available who are willing to fly a pattern for
>practice judging. If this practice procedure is followed,
>judges must not discuss the flier's pattern or divulge the
>potential score of the flier in any manner. If possible,
>judges.....

I haven't competed in fews years (OK decades), but as I recall, it was forbidden for ACTUAL CONTESTANTS to fly "warm up flights. The beef was that the guy who flew the warmup flight would effecively set the standard for correctness.

At one Nats I can recall, Bill Netzeband did all the warmups but did not enter.

I guess this is what y'all call the yak session after the warmup flight for the judges. It seems ok to me, up to the point where points are discussed. I don't want anybody telling me that some particular maneuver was done so well (or badly) that I must have been looking the other direction. Reason being, that my value judgements should be consistent through the day, but ya gotta expect that somebody else's influence on me will wear off, sooner or later. I'm always interested in learning, if I'm not seeing something the way the rules say it should be done. I won't bring up the subject of "contour flying" again! Steve

LAST EDITED ON Nov-10-04 AT 09:02 PM (CST)
 
>First and foremost, I think the rule is clear that judges
>are not to discuss any maneuver or comment out loud on how a
>maneuver was flown that could be heard by another judge that
>could in any way effect the score of any maneuver during an
>official pattern by a competitor. At least that is what I
>believe the intent of the rule is. The fact that some
>judges might abuse this is not cause for other judges to do
>so.

OK. So whose responsibility is it to put a stop to it? When judges do this they in direct violation to the AMA rules (the rules that govern our event, approved by the rules governing body of our sport the AMA). Since the flier is effected and sadly, he is too busy flying to monitor this behavior, who is left to protest?

What would be the ramifications of a judge being caught talking about maneuvers during a flight? Would the flight be thrown out?

This again, possible speaks to a hole in the rulebook.

>Now, there are times when following this rule "to the
>letter" does not make sense and is not practicle. For
>example: A competitor omits a manuever or does not complete
>a maneuver as described by the rulebook. In this example,
>pattern points are lost and a zero score is recorded for the
>omitted maneuver or the minimum 10 points are awarded for an
>incomplete maneuver. After the flight, there is nothing
>wrong for the judges to discuss that they saw the same
>omission or incomplete manevuer and to be consistent on
>their score sheets what is recorded. That is one of the
>reasons there is a head judge to make sure that the score
>sheets are consistent on such errors.

OK. I had this happened to me at the 2003 Nats. One judge said that I omitted one lap of level flight. The other judges said they did not see it. The one judge was adamant that I ommitted a lap. After a long discussion, this judge convinced the other judges to omit my pattern points. I would have rather had the scoresheets go to the tent as is, as I believe the one judge would have been outvoted without the vigorous debate at the circle.

So, in this case I believe the letter of the rulebook is absolute and would have served me better. If, in fact, there are situations that warrant the judges to be in direct violation of the AMA rulebook, shouldn't the rulebook be amended for these situations? In my mind the rulebook should never be violated for any reason, or for anyone. The flier ultimately only has the rulebook to protect him in the competition, and his only final resolution is always a protest to the AMA (this type of protest has overturned the decisions of the Nats staff and decided at least one new Nats Champion in the last decade). If the rulebook does not reflect actual practice it should be updated, not simply violated due to standard practice, for any reason. The *you know what rule* is a good example.

>Regarding the discussions after the warm-up flights at the
>Nats and the Team Trials. These warm-up flights are not
>official flights.

I do not care who talks about what if the flight is unofficial and is considered training.

>And a few comments about making notes or notations by judges
>on individual score sheets. I think this is a very poor
>practice. Unless some notation is made why each maneuver
>was not given a perfect score and such notations are made
>for each individual competitor, an unfair advantage is given
>to some individual competitora, even if he cannot look at
>the score sheets until after the contest.

I agree. Nationals competitions in particular are not the place for coaching. Best to keep everything even.

I posted this question because I have tapes from more than one contest where the judges can be clearly talking maneuvers in the foreground of the camera. I know it happens, but I do not think that it has been made clear that by the rules under which we currently fly, the behavior is in violation of the rules and could lead to an ugly protest, which nobody wants. Not to mention local contests where I guess talking by the judges is acceptable.

I think this is good place to say that the AMA rulebook is *the rulebook* and the *final say*. I know of no procedure stated in the rulebook that says that administrative staff of the Nationals (for example) can amend the letter of the CLPA rules under which this event is flown, either in practice or simply stating beforehand in the pilots' meeting.

This has also happened in recent years. In 2002, the pilots were told that all of their maneuvers would be measured from their level flight height. This was passionately argued that this was simply not stated in the rulebook, and *in fact* could be argued is in direct *conflict* with the rulebook. The pilots arguing against the rules change (which they should not be forced to do at a Nats piolot's meeting) were vetoed by the Nats admin staff (a power not afforded to them by the AMA rulebook). The only thing left to do would be to protest to the AMA, once again, something that nobody wants to do. No matter how vehimantly the fliers arguing may have felt that a violation had be implemented. What do you do? Protest the whole event?

If the Chief Judge, ED, or anyone else feels that the rules are in need of change to compete, there are measures in place to change the rules through the rules governing body, *THE AMA*.

Let me be clear. The AMA is the rules governing body for our event. No one outside the AMA rules governing body is allowed to ammend the rules without going through proper procedures. I think everyone needs to remember that. Just like the USGA and RAGA govern the rules for golf, not the PGA or European tours.

I guess in summation, it is all of our duty to make sure events (in particular National events) should be run in accordance to the letter of the rulebook (no exceptions). If you see a rule being violated, it is you duty to police the event for yourself and everyone else flying. If you see a rule being violated it is your duty to say something or you yourself would be partially responsible for the violation (at least morally). I know this is not easy, since there are many common practices being used that are in violation of the letter of the AMA rulebook. I struggle with this issue myself, and have taken steps to address issues that would ultimately not be pretty if protested.

The rule does not apply in this sutuation
>because the fight is simply not official. The flight is
>assessed after the flight has been completed and discussed
>among the judges, maneuver by maneuver and each judge
>reveals the score he recorded for each. During these
>discussions, it has been helpful for all of the judges to
>hear what the others saw in each of the maneuvers and
>sometimes, these discussion reveal what some individual
>judge might have missed or be consistently missing or not
>properly assesing in his own personal scoreing system and
>alerts him to watch for that in future flights.

This is where I HIGHLY disagree with you! I want the judge to judge me and everyone else the same all the way through the week. Isnt that what multi round qualifiers is all about, consistancy?!?! You should not have a judge getting pointers after the contest has started. This could promote a change in how he is assesing maneuvers. Wether he is wrong or right is his interpretation after the contest starts. I cant beleive you would want these guys to possibly change mid stream. The way the book is written at this point there is no right or wrong way. There is no judge criteria so however they come up with the score on day 1 is how I want them to come up with it on day 2,3, and 4. I cant beleive you dont think the same way. I just cant beleive what I am reading.

Sometimes
>(like most of the time) these warm-up flights are flown by
>fliers who will be competing in front of these same judges.
>It has been my experience that the judges really do not
>personally take note that an individual flier makes a
>particular mistake and will be looking for it when his
>official flight is performed. After any numnber of flights
>in a day, a judge does not remember the specifics of any one
>maneuver or flight by a single individual during a warm-up
>flight.

Why even give them the chance? Makes no sense, none. I fully beleive in warm up flights. I think they should warm up in front of fliers they will not see that day. And not discuss what they see. That way there is virtually no way what you describe above could happen. I still cant believe this.

>Food for thought.

I have been thinking.

>
>The rule does not apply in this sutuation
>>because the fight is simply not official. The flight is
>>assessed after the flight has been completed and discussed
>>among the judges, maneuver by maneuver and each judge
>>reveals the score he recorded for each. During these
>>discussions, it has been helpful for all of the judges to
>>hear what the others saw in each of the maneuvers and
>>sometimes, these discussion reveal what some individual
>>judge might have missed or be consistently missing or not
>>properly assesing in his own personal scoreing system and
>>alerts him to watch for that in future flights.
>
>This is where I HIGHLY disagree with you! I want the judge
>to judge me and everyone else the same all the way through
>the week. Isnt that what multi round qualifiers is all
>about, consistancy?!?!

I change my stance if you are speaking about coaching judges after the first qualifiers are flown. At that point Doug has hit the nail on the head.

I see nothing wrong with the warm up flights for the judges clinic early in the week.

>>Food for thought.
>
>
>I have been thinking.

Yes, he has. I think we all have.

I gotta agree with Doug on the fact the Judges should NOT be talking after the Qualifying rounds have begun for the warm-up flights. This could skew the way a Judge sees a stunt between rounds and therefore the scores will be skewed too.

SO.....at my little contest that has ten people flying and I'm judging and i can't say "Hay how's the wife?" or "Dang Joe Just just put in a really good flight!" or "That engine worked good in the overheads!" or "that was the best landing today!" Your telling me it's WRONG!!
I can see it at the NATS and the WORLDS but not at the local level.

Scott(I like having fun)Riese

I will try to explain the purpose of the warm-up flights at the Nats and the Team Trials and the talk around discussions that follow each of these flights.

Prior to these warm-up flights, there are long discussions, normally one or two days prior to any warm-up flights or any official flights, among the judges regarding emphasis that are to be made while judging during the upcoming contest. All of the parameters of each maneuver are discussed as well as the general emphasis throughout the pattern on sizes, shapes, intersections and bottoms. The warm-up flights serve as a calibration tool to get all of the judges on the same page regarding how each maneuer is to be flown. I have seen responses from judges during these session that indicate that they need to be sensitized to the fact that intersections are to be scrutinized perhaps closer than they have in the past. I have also seen judges in these sessions react as if they are surprised that a horizontal eight performed within the prescribed 90-degree segment of the circle really is small and that the normally seen horizontal eights that approach 120-degrees or more should not receive a particularly high score. I am not saying that these sessions are an attempt to get every judge to award the exact same score as every other judge on any specific maneuver. These sessions do tend to sharpen the fine points of how an individual judge views every part of the pattern and hopefully will help each judge to more consistently asses how each pattern is flown within that individual judge's framework of how he (or she) views each maneuver of each pattern.

Neither am I saying that this system is perfect, but I beliee it is a useful tool to get the best judging corps available and to prepare them for their job of evaluating the performance of each contestant at these events.

I will ask the question again on how the rule that judges are not to discuss specific maneuvers and the scores awarded to a warm-up flight since it is not an official flight that will determine the placing of the pilot in the contest? I have not seen in this thread the rationale that judges cannot discuss amongh themselves any unofficial flight. Or put another way, how can the rulebook be interpreted to control the actionss of any judge or set of judges durig an unofficial flight?

Now regarding the comments that have been made in this thread regarding the scoring of omitted laps or manevuers or incomplete maneuvers. These questions need to be resolved on the score sheets among the judges after the flight but before the score sheets are turned in to tabulation. That is one of the responsibilities of a head judge that is assigned to each circle during the Nats and Team Trials. It is understood that decisions that are renndered, and sometimes dictated by a head judge, may not always be correct. If a competitor feels that the assesment was incorrect, he has every right to question the decision through the event director and can ultimately protest the score using whatever information that might support the competitor's position.

I am not trying to argue here. I am presenting the realities that are faced during the training of judges and preparing them for the task of assessing the skill of a large number of contestants and then to perform their duties in the most professional manner.

Simply, there is nothing in the rules that prevents judges from talking to each other as long as the discussions do not pertain to any specific part of any official flight.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-11-04 AT 10:45 AM (CST)
 
Keith:
I agree wholeheartedly as to the benefit and purpose of the warm up flights and "talk arounds".....

Nonetheless, those conducted on days when official flights are going to take place, using entrants, are clearly against the rules. I am surprised that you support such a clear violation of the rules.

See Ya

The warm-up flights are NOT OFFICIAL. How can the rule be made to apply to an unofficial activity?

>The warm-up flights are NOT OFFICIAL. How can the rule be
>made to apply to an unofficial activity?

Keith,

Please consult your RB.

Section 9 starting with the third sentence.

....No judge should start the day "cold." Usually there are contestants available who are willing to fly a pattern for practice judging. If this practice procedure is followed, judges must not discuss the flier's pattern or divulge the potential score of the flier in any manner. If possible, judges.....

IT CLEARLY STATES THAT IF THE PRACTICE PROCEDURE IS FOLLOWED THE FLIGHT IS NOT TO BE DISCUSSED. It is very clear on this. I took this right out of the RB and you will notice it is talking directly about practice flights NOT official flights at this point.

Dougie, could the author of the phrase "judges must not discuss the score...of the flier in any way" mean that judges are not to discuss the score with the flyer who is putting up the practise flight? That's my take on it, although it can certainly go either way. But I think Marvin is right, this could be clarified with a rules rewrite, one way or the other. Best regards, dale g

Dale:

I just re-read the judging parts of the rule book several times end to end. I agree with you and , I believe, with Keith. It seems to me the guiding thread of the rules is to provide even and consistant judging from the first to the last flight of each judged session, not to isolate and preserve differing viewpoints of what is correct during the judging process. The wording of section 9 is not clear as to "with whom?", but I think we all agree that it AT LEAST prohibits communication with contestants.

If you say they can't speak substantively to each other during warmups, isn't it just as improper to do so during judging clinics, training sessions etc? Everyone will have a slightly different interpretation of what is right. This isn't a freedom of thought civil rights question. Judges need to get as close to agreement with the rulebook as is possible, right up to the first official. At that point we build a wall, but not before. As a contestant, if my judges are not in agreement on what I should do, how can I do what they want? Good for one will be bad for the another. Individuality is not a virtue in subjective judging.

I wholeheartedly agree with Keith's interpretation of the process and if a poorly written rule sentance in the book needs to be changed to clarify and improve it, so be it!

>If you say they can't speak substantively to each other
>during warmups, isn't it just as improper to do so during
>judging clinics, training sessions etc?

Let's get something clear. Warm-ups are NOT clinics. They are NOT training sessions. They are warm ups to get the judge (singular) in judging mode so he/she can be ready when the first flier goes.

Training and clinics well sure you have to talk and get input. BUt this should NEVER be done on the day of the contest with pilots who are to be scored later that same day.

Everyone will have
>a slightly different interpretation of what is right.

You are right and that should stay that way throughout the contest not each session. That will never give the all pilots a fair shake across all the rounds. A judge at the nats wont see all pilots in one session so it is GROSSLY unfair to have him change his perception mid stream. How can you not see that?

This
>isn't a freedom of thought civil rights question. Judges
>need to get as close to agreement with the rulebook as is
>possible, right up to the first official. At that point we
>build a wall, but not before. As a contestant, if my judges
>are not in agreement on what I should do, how can I do what
>they want?

You are not doing what they want. You are doing what the RB says you are to do and they determine wether you did that to the best of their abilities. Their "want" is supposed to be insignificant.

There are so many aspects of each maneuver that you can have widely varying scores on your sheet and all the judges still be looking for things in the RB that you were supposed to do in your flight.

Good for one will be bad for the another.
>Individuality is not a virtue in subjective judging.
>
>I wholeheartedly agree with Keith's interpretation of the
>process and if a poorly written rule sentance in the book
>needs to be changed to clarify and improve it, so be it!
>
>Jeff W
>
>
>
>

Yep I think I will do that.

>Dougie, could the author of the phrase "judges must not
>discuss the score...of the flier in any way" mean that
>judges are not to discuss the score with the flyer who is
>putting up the practise flight? That's my take on it,
>although it can certainly go either way. But I think Marvin
>is right, this could be clarified with a rules rewrite, one
>way or the other. Best regards, dale g

How did you come up with this? It simply says that there is to be no discussion. That means simply that you dont discuss it with ANYONE! Seems very direct and to the point. Since the rule doesnt specify either or you are to take it as it is written. It is written so that you are NOT to discuss the pattern or potential score with anyone no matter who they are. Pretty clear to me. The rule writter knew this and stated it so!

There is no need for clarification. It is very clear that you are NOT to talk about the pattern or score with ANYONE. Why the need for a proposal?

The new guide states it differently anyway so it wont matter unless the new guide and section 9 are left in there. Then there is a direct conflict.

>
>.... If this practice procedure is followed,
>judges must not discuss the flier's pattern or divulge the
>potential score of the flier in any manner. ...>

>IT CLEARLY STATES THAT IF THE PRACTICE PROCEDURE IS FOLLOWED
>THE FLIGHT IS NOT TO BE DISCUSSED. It is very clear on
>this. I took this right out of the RB and you will notice
>it is talking directly about practice flights NOT official
>flights at this point.

Indeed, the rulebook states that the "judges must not discuss the fliers pattern or divulge the potential score of the flier in any manner." To me, this clearly means that the pattern or potential score is not to be discussed with the flier in any manner.

The rulebook is far from perfect and a change could easily be proposed to clarify this seemingly simple matter in the next cycle which will start in 2005.

I read it as DO NOT DISCUSS IT. The whole thing says the flier's (pradtice flyer) score shall not be discussed. (PERIOD) that means, do not discuss it!! Don't talk about it!! SHUT UP!!!
Do we want ALL judges scoring every flight and every maneuver EXACTLY the same??? I think not. HOWEVER, that might not be such a bad thing we would need only one judge per event and we could even change judges during any single event with no problem!!
Yeah!!! right!! Uh-huh sure!!

Bigiron

Keith, I will quote an old reply of your and Brett Buck in past discussions on such heated subjects. SUBMIT A RULES PROPOSAL TO MAKE IT LEGAL!!!!

Bigiron

After reading all of the stuff since my first post on this, I guess Sir Richard says I can not thank the judges after my last flight of the day. I have been a judge and competed. I agree that on the scale and level of the Nats and Worlds, no person that will in the competition should do the warmups. I am sure there are individuals that will not be flying in competition to do the warmup. Or does it have to be a top five pilot to do the warmup? Enough,DOC:(

I think this thread has wandered off a little from the original question. If I am judging an official competition flight, should I discuss it with the other judge or anyone else. Of course not. Being human, we occasionally stray from what we should do, but, if so, we should do our best to be unaffected.

On the question of warmup flights for the judges. What is the benefit if the flight is not discussed among the judges?

> Keith, I will quote an old reply of your and Brett Buck
>in past discussions on such heated subjects. SUBMIT A RULES
>PROPOSAL TO MAKE IT LEGAL!!!!
>
> Bigiron

Marvin,

I guess I did not know that this was a "heated subject". Thanks for letting me know.

This does show that rules, no matter how well intended or how much thought (or sometimes how little thought) was put into the writing of the rules can be interpreted in different ways. I can see how this rule can be understood by someone to mean something entirely differently than what I have read it to be along with all of the other Nats and Team Trials Event Directors and head judges since 1974 when I know we started the talk arounds when PAMPA first provided the personnel for the AMA to run these events.

I have no problem with this rule as it is now written. Evidently, others do. Anybody can initiate a change if they so wish.

I find it interesting that on one hand, people do not want judges to score exactly the same. On the other hand, I hear large howls from those who do not understand how judges score and how their scores determine the placing of individual competitors when there is a wide variance in the total score from two judges on one individual's single flight. As I have tried to explain previously, the talk arounds between the judges after a warm-up flight helps every judge calibrate what to look for in the succeeding patterns and how he should score using whatever system he has developed for his own personal use.

>I find it interesting that on one hand, people do not want
>judges to score exactly the same. On the other hand, I hear
>large howls from those who do not understand how judges
>score and how their scores determine the placing of
>individual competitors when there is a wide variance in the
>total score from two judges on one individual's single
>flight. As I have tried to explain previously, the talk
>arounds between the judges after a warm-up flight helps
>every judge calibrate what to look for in the succeeding
>patterns and how he should score using whatever system he
>has developed for his own personal use.

Judges coaching and evaluation should not be done during the contest. I have never agreed with this practice. Just like fliers should not be coached at the contest. Judges should be coachad and evaluated beforehand and then the decision should stick for the duration. Judges should not be tweaked in the middle of a contest. The rule says this pretty clearly. I find it hard to believe that this point requires argument. The rule appears clear that judges should not be talking to anyone.

As I have tried to explain previously, the talk
>arounds between the judges after a warm-up flight helps
>every judge calibrate what to look for in the succeeding
>patterns and how he should score using whatever system he
>has developed for his own personal use.

As I have stated above Warm-ups are just that Warm-ups. They are not clinics they are not training sessions they are only Warm-ups.

Talking and calibrating and coming to conclusions should be done prior to any warm-up flight. After the warm-ups start there should be no more outside influence to change the judges perception during the contest. I still have absolutely no idea how you can think it is fair for a judge to possibly have is mindset changed mid stream. I am dumbfounded but what I am reading. There is no way that a judge should change his perception during the rounds, that includes days if it is a large contest. This falls right in line with the later part of section 9. It states that the same judges are to be used throughout the entire rounds. Not to change mid round. This would ruin the consistancy. Well changing his perception from 1 day to the next at the Nats is NOT fair to the pilots he has seen and the ones he hasnt. I cant believe what I am reading.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-12-04 AT 01:10 AM (CST)
 
I've really tried hard not to comment on 'zilla's threads since I agreed not to a few weeks back. Thus, this is not a comment about the merits of one side of this discussion or the other; only an informed statement about where the warm-up flight for the judges originated. If it sounds like an opinion, I apologize up front.

Over the first decade or so of my regular participation at the nats a common topic of conversation was the effect the flight order might have on the outcome. A constant refrain was the perceived negative effect of "flying first". In fact, now that I think of it, it was a subject of conversation at my first Open Nats in 1967. I was dumb enough to ask to fly first because, in my naivete, I thought the judges would get tired, bored and hard to impress later in the day. I learned later that my request was considered by most to be pretty silly. The outcome appeared to prove them right...although it might have had something to do with my "modest" performance.

The logic was that the judges were unsure of what might follow the very first of 50 or a hundred entries so there would be a tendency to be cautious about awarding "high" scores for manevuers that were obviously good but might at some point in the round be determined by the judge to be inferior to an even better maneuver later in the round. The concern among flyers was that this effect would artificially lower the scores of early flyers accordingly.

Thus was born the concept of "warm up flights" for the judges. To get them into the flow of analyzing performance and awarding points before their analysis was "official".

Whether or not any of that was true or realistic wasn't the issue nearly as much as the perception that the poor slob who drew first flight might get a fairer shake in the evaluation as a result.

Was it true? Who knows! What we do know is that warm up flights for the judges were instigated more to assuage the concerns of the competitors than to effect the judges.

Having said that, there appears to be the possibility of potentially valid--although perhaps not--merit to the suggestion that flyers who shall compete during the round probably shouldn't perform warm-up flights for the judges for many of the reasons postulated in this thread. Early on at the nats it was common for the event director or other non participant to fly the warm ups. (I remember in particular one year when Lanny Shorts was the ED and borrowed my Imitation to do the warm ups. Darn thing got blown out of his van afterwards and got broken in two...hate it when that happens!) To the extent that such an individual is available it is likely a good suggestion. The person selected should, of course, be reasonably competent so that the judge's exposure during warm ups will reflect the type of scoring he/she is apt to encounter during the comp itself.

Once again, if any of this appears to reflect a point of view, I apologize. It is presented for historical perspective only.

Ted

p.s. It is only fair to point out that every year the head judge pretty much has to beg someone to fly the warm-ups. That appears to indicate the competitors might not think of doing so as an opportunity...or, maybe they do and only want to make it seem like they don't. Sorry, I'm getting confused.

p.p.s.Yes, the judges do discuss their assessment after the warm up flights. This sounds naughty but, on the other hand, given the level of animosity regularly addressed to their efforts it is sort of easy to understand why they try their best to insure that the 12 or 16 or so judges appear to be a single individual. Sorry, that just slipped out.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-12-04 AT 10:07 PM (CST)
 

>p.s. It is only fair to point out that every year the head
>judge pretty much has to beg someone to fly the warm-ups.
>That appears to indicate the competitors might not think of
>doing so as an opportunity...or, maybe they do and only want
>to make it seem like they don't. Sorry, I'm getting
>confused.

I have seen Gary hunting around for fliers before. I have been told on several occasions. "Dont ever fly warm ups." Why I asked of these known fliers. "You dont want 16 guys talking your pattern over before they are going to judge you." I still did it Adv many times. Took it for extra practice. Did it hurt me? Who knows.

>
>p.p.s.Yes, the judges do discuss their assessment after the
>warm up flights. This sounds naughty but, on the other hand,
>given the level of animosity regularly addressed to their
>efforts it is sort of easy to understand why they try their
>best to insure that the 12 or 16 or so judges appear to be a
>single individual. Sorry, that just slipped out.

Sounds naughty nahhh...just directly against the way the RB reads, that's all.

PS I was very enlightened after a local contest this year when one of my maneuvers was scored a 28 on one sheet and a 34 on the other. I immediatly went into "What in the wide wide world of sports is going on here" mode. After conevrsations with the two I found that using either of the judges methods would be within the book and their scores were correct for the way they watch the maneuvers. Very enlightening. Really puts the one judge idea to reast for me. Until there is a set criteria for all to follow it will read quite up and down on the sheets on the same maneuvers.

>Thus was born the concept of "warm up flights" for the
>judges. To get them into the flow of analyzing performance
>and awarding points before their analysis was "official".

I have no problems with practice flights for warm up. The rulebook addresses this practice. It is a good practice.

The rulebook also says the judges should not talk during or afterwards.

I like Doug am a little shocked that this whole thing is up for argument. The rulebook is very clear.

The fact is that judges talking during the warmups is against the rulebook and should stop. Period. This goes double for during the contest.

As far as I am concerned, like Ted, this is a statement of fact, not opinion.

Keith:

Beautifully stated! I'd only add that the need is even greater at smaller contests where the warm ups often are the only chance to get everyone pulling the same direction.

Consistancy is what we all want when we are judged right?

OK well how in the world is a judge going to be consistant from one day to the next if he is constantly getting pointers and input from other judges as the contest moves along? This will no doubt change the way he scores throughout the contest and this in itself is very UNFAIR to all pilots AND the judges.

To back this up here is a normal conversation you would hear at almost any contest.

Pilot A says..."Man he sure scores lower than everybody else."

Pilot B says..."Yes but if he is that low all across the board then it is fair." Standard answer you hear all the time.

Well after warm ups on Friday, AFTER 2 DAYS OF FLYING OFFICIALS, a judge says something that changes this judges perception just a bit. Now he sores differently than he did the two days prior and it is NOT CONSISTANT in any way. I am not saying that this does happen but why give a chance to happen in the first place? This is an absolute open hole for judging inconsistancy.

To those who read there is no discussion between the pilot and the judge after the warm up. If you will read it AGAIN you will see that there is NO distinction made. Pilot or judge or other judges or by-standers or runners or parents or children or ghosts or dogs or cats or.... It simply says NO DISCUSSION!

Now all this is for NOT. The F2B guide says that they should discuss the pattern but not a score that could be given. Still it affects the way the judge is coming up with a score and should NEVER be done once the day of the contest has arrived. Looks like I will have to wait to the next change cycle to propose a change on this. I cant very well propose on something that isnt there yet and the counter proposal time has passed.

How on earth does something like this get in the book in the frist place?

The original rule writter knew what he was doing when he wrote that rule.

If you cant see how it is a TOTAL conflict to coach a judge after the contest is already running then I guess you dont care about consistancy.

Amazing, simply amazing.