|
The Original All Roller Talk Discussion Board Archive >
Should Judges Score Low Quality Breaks?
Should Judges Score Low Quality Breaks?
Page:
1
2
3
4
colinb
16 posts
Feb 22, 2008
7:58 AM
|
scott, the only competition were we have the split-second rule, is the World Cup. we dont use it in any other of our flys.
|
W@yne
1101 posts
Feb 22, 2008
8:51 AM
|
Colin
I think even in the UK the fly rules for the AERC should be a little more clarified and detailed for judges to follow regarding "Breaks" I think it is written on very basic terms.
Also i find that local club to local club in the UK have Different rules same as they do in the US making it confusing and harder for judges to get acclimatised to the new rules before a fly even our National rules are different from the AERC.
I think we in England should have one fly rule only.
----------
Regards
W@yne UK
Patience Perseverance Perfection
=====================================
|
nicksiders
2587 posts
Feb 22, 2008
9:02 AM
|
Will one of you expert judges answer my questions or have I become an invisable mass?
Nick Siders
|
Ballrollers
1044 posts
Feb 22, 2008
9:06 AM
|
Scott,
To me, the issue of how many birds roll in unison is a matter of judgement, perception, and eye-sight. We can never get away from those being the dominmant factors in judging rollers. However, there is no question as to whether or not only the birds that roll in unison are supposed to be scored. That is not so with other issues. For example we can define wing positions that qualify for scoring, but it is still up to the judge to identify, but we will be close. But if we haven't even qualified the acceptable performance, then we are way off the mark...light years away. Some will count axel rolling some will not...some will not even be able to identify it.
It is my understanding the NBRC EC agreed to delete wording describing only one wing position. The argument centered around the fact that NO WHERE in the fly rules are the wing positions addressed. If all wing positions were discussed and ranked from best to worst, then the EC could have made another decision in how best to address the Axle wing position. Besides, the NBRC flyers voted on this issue and the majority of men who voted, agreed to this deletion. There is a debate that the velocity of the spin should be the determining factor if the minimum depth was met. If your stances is that judge should have the discretion to determine quality, then this whole issue should please you no end. The judge is 100% in control as to whether he chooses to score an axle wing roller.
I believe the fancy should describe the wing positions, vote, and come to an understanding about how these position should be ranked best to worst. The fact is that a few Axle wing position rollers are very fast in their rotation and they do meet the basic standard to be scored. However, the judge may prefer to award them low quality marks and I think that is good for the fancy.
We often just avoid these debates when we should face these questions head-on.
You are a quality judge, discuss the wing positions, discuss your preference, see if we can reach agreement on a ranking of wing positions. If we can , then why is the NBRC not addressing this issue? What is more important than quality in our birds ? OH Right.... MBTA! I almost forgot.
YITS,
Cliff
|
Ballrollers
1045 posts
Feb 22, 2008
9:33 AM
|
Scott,
If you accept the statement that one of the factors describing a Birmingham roller is that it spins so fast you can not count the revolutions. It is my contention in the case of Axel-wingers, that if it spins that fast, it is not falling like a dishrag, not plate rolling and not twizzling. Therefore, if the bird in question, performs for a minimum of 10 feet, turns over fast enough you can not count the revolutions, then this bird has at least met the minimum performance standards to be called a Birmingham roller. BUT........ due to the wing position, namely Axle wing, this bird should lessen the overall quality awarded the kit. To be fair to all, the flyers ought to be voting on this aspect of the standard, as with the others, with the majority ruling.
Whichever way we look at it, the point is, Scott, we can agree that we are both disappointed with the lack of a positive discussion that describes and ranks the quality of wing positions.
Cliff
|
fhtfire
1255 posts
Feb 22, 2008
11:07 AM
|
I just feel that some things have to be defined and I understand Scotts point..to a point...about adding to much to the rules....but some things have to be defined or your people will come to there own conclusion....You can look in ANY rule book that has to do with comp...and they will define certain things that can have gray areas...Baseball defines what a strike is.....Gymnastics defines what certain types of flips should look like..right down to hand position.. body rotation etc......Diving defines certain types of moves....wrestling has photos and defines moves that are illegal and moves that look like they are illegal..but are legal....
We do not need to change the rules we need to define certain things...like what is a scorable roll....what does good quality look like.....does coming out backwards ruin the roll....and it is not coming out backwards..the bird turns away from the kit....the way a bird rolls it is almost impossible ... to come out backwards...anyway...that is something else.
As far as other governing bodies having different rules....WHO CARES...we need to focus on what we are talking about.....NBRC rules...
Wrestling for example...has folk style, free style, grecko Roman......the are all TOTALLY Different rules and some are the same...and I have seen the same refs....ref each style......with no problems.....it is up to the JUDGE to follow the rules and KNOW what he is judging...World Cup or Fall Fly or eleven bird etc...If a ref sucks....DON'T USE HIM OR HER....Other refs and judges usually have to take some sort of seminar, class or a test (situational).....then they are a CERTIFIED judge.....
Now I know that some are going to say being certified will never happen....BULL SHIT!!!! If you are serious about the sport and judging....then you will get certified..I am a certified wrestling Ref...and I had to take seminars...and then I had to take a test...and then I had to have a seasoned ref...actually watch me ref some matches..and he was the final dicision maker if I am ready or not.
The same can go for the NBRC..if we do not define some things, get judges on the same page and certified and have a seasoned judge watch you score a fly...then we will have this same problem over and over again..and the same complaining......trust me...you cant have just rules..but rules defined and a training program....then you will see the scores be about the same.......YOU NEVER SEE A 300pt NBA game...LOL!!...or a ref call a wrestling match for what he FEELS the rule should read.....you don't see gymnast judging panel have 5 judges score a 9-10 and one judge score a 2.4...why they are TRAINED and rules are defined...period...
If you are a judge or a ref you should never be able to say..."That is what I think the rule means"..."Or that is what I feel is a scorable roll"...it should be CUT AND DRY>>..now feeling or think should be in the rules....could
that is my two cents...Could a gymanast judge say..well..The landing was good..but her big toe stuck up in the air and I feel the big toe should be down..but the rules say...both feet should be planted with no bounce and no seperation of the legs when you stick the landing.....now if the gymnast stuck the landing...well that is that..the rules say nothing about big toes sticking up in the landing...lets say if they gymnast did a great uneven bars and wavered on the landing....would you not count the whole routine...or would you lower the score based on the lower QUALITY..LOL...anyway..my points may be totally retarded...but I have to say what I feel..
rock and ROLL
Paul
Judging and quality is suffering because there is no training and some rules are not defined..we are doing it to ourselves....
|
nicksiders
2589 posts
Feb 22, 2008
11:18 AM
|
OK, don't answer.
I didn't think you could put people on "ignore" in this forum.
Last Edited by on Feb 22, 2008 11:23 AM
|
Missouri-Flyer
1346 posts
Feb 22, 2008
11:20 AM
|
Paul said: my points may be totally retarded...but I have to say what I feel..
Paul buddy, I hate to agree with ya on this one, but I am gonna!..LOL
----------
Jerry
Home of "Whispering Wings Loft"
|
kcfirl
314 posts
Feb 22, 2008
12:35 PM
|
Nick,
I sure didn't mean to ignore you, nor am I an expert judge but here is my take:
You said:
1-The first kit being judged; how important does it become as the day(s) wear on as it relates to your scoring?
2-Where does your importance lay most heavely: the scorable breaks or the multipliers?
Nick Siders
To your first question: 1- Judges are human, therefore we feel different and perceive differently at different times. The most important thing a judge can do is to have a clear mental picture of what a scoreable roll is, and what multipliers he will award for differing quality and depths. Some judges do not have this mental picture set and tend to give 1.2 or 1.3 multipliers to the first kit and then go up and down from there. This is wrong.
the worst is when you get a judge and your birds are stiff so he takes his eyes off them for a bit and maybe jaws with some of the guys. My biggest breaks have happened on days when the kit was a bit stiff and judge needs to stay focused on the kit. sometimes, if a kit is 1000 ft up and unscoreable, I will ask the scorer to keep an eye on them while I stretch and rest my eyes for 30 seconds or so. I see no harm in that and in fact helps reduce fatigue so that if they come down within scoring sight, I am better able to judge accurately.
2-Without scoreable breaks, there are no multipliers. Lots of big breaks are the most important thing to have to score well. A 16 bird break is worth 48 points!
Secondly, high mulitpliers are important, but I feel most judges are too reluctant to go up the scale on the multipliers. I have awarded 1.6 x 1.6 to a couple of kits but today would probably have gone up to 1.7 or 1.8 on those kits.
The intent of the multipliers as the rules were originally developed was to balance the Q and D of the kit with the scoring of frequency and large break multiplication factors. too many judges want to be real hard asses and never go above 1.4 or so in the multipliers for top notch, outstanding, tight spinning birds going 20+ feet. This is as much of a problem as scoring sloppy or short birds in my opinion.
Regards,
Ken Firl
|
nicksiders
2590 posts
Feb 22, 2008
12:48 PM
|
Ken,
Thank you....very appreciated.
Nick
|
Ballrollers
1046 posts
Feb 22, 2008
1:59 PM
|
Well said Paul. That's my point, exactly. Why don't you take a shot at defining or re-defining some that are ambiguous as they exist in the rules, and let's kick it around on the forum, here, to get some opinions.
Cliff
|
Scott
78 posts
Feb 22, 2008
3:57 PM
|
Good topic guys, on wing position Cliff, I don't know anyone that doesn't consider axel wing a cull, but then in reality how many axel wing do you really see out there ? not many.
Another fear that I have as far as a fixed standard is what that standard would end up being, the ideal is the old 11 bird, a good start would be to make it a "suggested" standard.
As for myself if the rules ever say that I or other judges to have score cull such as birds that roll with a glitch,come out wrong, axel switch ect. then my comp flying days are over, and I would be far from alone.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
fhtfire
1260 posts
Feb 22, 2008
6:20 PM
|
Scott,
I do have to agree with you thinking...I would not score an axle wing AT ALL that bird should be on a pigeon ka-bob....Don't get me wrong about the coming out backwards....I do agree with you...my whole point..and I was playing the devil....is that the rules now are real veg and that it has a lot of "gray areas" or allows judges to put in there beliefs...or what they think....I think if we define the roll like we all know it should be ...or we all with half a brain..then it will be alot better and we would see the scores be a little close between judge to judge....anyway..rock and ROLL Baby
Paul the pirate..LOL
|
Scott
79 posts
Feb 22, 2008
6:41 PM
|
Paul, they are vauge and have gray areas for a reason I believe.
It is just to hard to lock in, besides there are some out there that think if it rolls it scores.
Which is why I'm afraid that there will be a compromise if something is locked in.
As it is regions can pick the type of judge they want,and then we hope for the best on the finals judge, some are going to be good quality judges while others are going to be poor, I think that is just the way it is.
In short, if the standard is high I'm all for it,if it isn't than screw locking it in, that is it in a nut shell
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
CSRA
1418 posts
Feb 23, 2008
8:06 AM
|
Very good post good job
|
quality
3 posts
Feb 23, 2008
8:06 PM
|
All birds must break in unison, this 1/2 second rule only takes away from the quality. I judge myself, if 8 birds break in unison & then 4 more go within a 1/2 second that break is scored 8. The birds must go in unison of the highest quality. High velocity "H" or "A", going in coming out in the highest quality, tight kitting, wing action. All aspects of the highest QUALITY.
If you go out on a fly day & the most frequent kit is giving you 3/4 turns of mediocore QUALITY, and a kit that gives you one 1/4 turn of the highest quality, and a bunch of kits in between. Who is the winner of the day the one 1/4 turn of the highest QUALITY.
Yes it is very hard to judge a 20 bird kit & yes mistakes are made, but this is where your quality factor comes into play.
In Ontario, Canada, we count singles & doubles, but they must be of the highest quality. Nothing else matters except QUALITY. The birds must roll the 10 feet, but again all judges account of 10 feet are different. When I first got into rollers, I had a judge come to the loft and did not score me anything, so asked why & he told me my birds were not coming deep enough. I then asked him what the hieght of the TV tower was. He answered 30 feet, & the trees, 60 feet.
The tower was 50 feet, the trees 100 feet.
Everyones interpretation of 10 feet is different. If you live in a city & watch your birds drop in front of an apartment building & they drop 2 floors, they are going about 16 feet. When your in the country like myself they are dropping in front of the sky, how far are they dropping. You could use time, they say 16 feet the 1st second, 32 feet the 2nd, 64 feet the 3rd but I have seen birds spin so fast they don't appear to be dropping. Should they not be counted? One such bird I witnessed spun so fast she did not appear to be dropping & everyone was watching this 1 bird. When she landed she had popped blood vessels in her eyes.
Anyways of the HIGHEST QUALITY is what matters the most.
And yes slack judges take away from the birds, & no the rules should not have to be defined or eventually we will need a lawyer to decipher them. Rollers are a hobby, discussion is good, we need to learn from our mistakes.
Judging is much harder than it appears and many good judges have disappeared because of ridicule.
Yours in the Hobby Don Lunau
Pigeonpairadice Lofts
|
Velo99
1593 posts
Feb 24, 2008
6:47 AM
|
OK Don,
Firstly, the rules state that all birds that roll within one half second of a break must be counted.If you`re not doing this you`re cheating your fliers. Gotta judge by the rules.
Secondly your 16 feet for two stories is underestimated. Floor to ceiling is 8 feet,plus at least a 2x10 for the floor joists,so thats 9 feet minimum. I would say ten or more between floors of an apartment building because of the depth of the framing has to carry the weight of the entire building.
----------
V99
Keep the best. Eat the rest.
Last Edited by on Feb 24, 2008 6:50 AM
|
colinb
18 posts
Feb 24, 2008
11:03 AM
|
spot on don anyone seeing hi quality fast tight rollers break in unison are blownaway
ps we do not have halve second rule in UK
|
Scott
85 posts
Feb 24, 2008
1:32 PM
|
A half second from first to last bird is in measurable and is in "unison" and that is why it was put in, it wasn't put in as an excuse to count waterfall.
When I'm judging I want them banging together and never count waterfall.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
Ballrollers
1047 posts
Feb 24, 2008
2:46 PM
|
Scott,
I am with you buddy. I have not seen any fly rule that dictates how the judge should judge. I have seen nothing that says a judge should score birds that do not meet his standard. From what I read you will be judging for the foreseeable future.
YITS,
Cliff
|
Ballrollers
1048 posts
Feb 24, 2008
2:59 PM
|
Scott,
I bet if you were judging by the rules and you determined a kit had an average depth of 10 feet, you would probably award that kit a 1.0 D. If that is an average kit where you come from, I think you would be mistaken in your choice of words using average. Perhaps "minimum depth" or "shortest scoreable depth" would be a better description. To use the term "Poor" is not the same as minimum. Minimum depth is scoreable, if you score by the rules. Where as, a poor quality spinner, probably should NOT receive a score at all; but a minimal quality spinner SHOULD BE scored.
I am still wondering how any judge, scoring by the rules , would not score a bird turning over so quickly that one can not count the revolutions and the bird performs for at least 10 feet. (Is not falling like a dish rag, plate rolling or twizzling?) To me , this (the 10-footer with some degree of speed) would have met the definition as a scoreable roller. THEN I would take into consideration its wing position and score it up or down, accordingly. What you consider a cull in your loft could very well be minimal quality roller according to the rules. You have the right to maintain the strictest of standards in your own loft. But I would hold that when you go onto another man's property to judge his birds, as a judge, you must judge by the rules, and I please don't take this personal. I mean this for any judge, and am merely using you as an example, because it happens to varying degrees, all over the board, depending on the judge. And therin lies the problem. That's where the incomsistency comes in,and the disgruntled flyers who have one judge score certain levels of performance, and another judge not score it.
We have rules and then we have the judges personal preference. These two ideas can often confuse the purpose of evaluating another man's birds. The judge is not there to impose "HIS" strict personal loft standards on another individual. He "IS" there to score the birds according to the rules and evaluate the birds and give his honest opinion as the D&Q observed. Then he might encourage the flyer to adjust this or that and see if it helps if a problem is noticed. If a flyer asks for the judge to give him a depth in feet, the judge can give his "estimate". From this, the flyer should be able to acquire a better understanding of how this particular judge estimates depth.
Hope this makes sense...
YITS,
Cliff
Last Edited by on Feb 24, 2008 3:00 PM
|
Ballrollers
1049 posts
Feb 24, 2008
3:54 PM
|
Sippi
I don't think we have so much a problem with quality judges that make a few honest errors in judgement of counts and so forth. Where I see the biggest problems , is where we have judges that refuse to judge by the written rule, or get confused by which rules ( NBRC OR WC) apply, or apply the rules incorrectly.
As you have heard right here, we have judges who don't agree with the rule as written and judge to their own standard. Some men prefer a loose standard that allows a judge's discretion in order that they might impose their own standard on the flyers they judge. Yes, a judge should not judge anything that is not within the standard but we have way too much latitude in what is the "STANDARD". I had a judge tell me he would not score any bird that did not perform for 20 feet. I asked him why. He said according to the rules, he did not have to judge anything that did not meet "HIS" standard. The same erroneous logic applies in cases where judges refuse to score a bird that "comes out backwards", or one that spins with velocity but the judge does not approve of a certain "wing position". For Me, I don't care one way or the other except for all flyers and judges to understand the rules the same way. If the fancy wants to accept certain wing positions and not others, put into THE FLY RULES what positions are acceptable and what is not. If the fancy wants to not score a bird that comes out backwards, PUT THAT IN THE FLY RULES, so we all know the rules.
I heard it stated that the rules are fine but that the new guys need to learn the rules. Hell, how can they if the rules do not tell them the whole story? The better we can define our standard for performance, the better rollermen will be able to breed the birds to perform to that standard.
YITS,
Cliff
|
Scott
87 posts
Feb 24, 2008
4:08 PM
|
Cliff, the rules simply state that we are are judging "birmingham Rollers" and the judge shall not score anything that does not meet his standard, those are the rules.
I am assuming that we are talking about Axel wingers, Cliff, I honestly have seen very few out judging,I have bred a few here that were culled.
I think the only way that you would see them in numbers is if someone honed around a few axel wingers and it was set into the family,if I was scoreing a kit and the majority were axer wingers in the breaks , would I score them ? No. Neither would most that judge by a standard as most consider them culls,so why would we score a cull ?
There is one family that has the reputation of being axel wingers
But I havn't seen them, I do know that the original breeder of that family says that he only cared about speed and could care less about wing position.
Cliff there is a min standard in place allready and it has been used for a very long time by many, it is what we have always used as a guideline around here,and it is the same that is universal.
It is the pretty much the same as the old 11 bird standard,as for the 10' average ,wouldn't average mean half are just under 10 ft ? sorry had to throw that in LOL
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Feb 24, 2008 4:26 PM
|
Scott
88 posts
Feb 24, 2008
4:24 PM
|
Cliff, the rules state the 10' min as "suggested" , unless they changed it recently, if not he was well within the rules.
The problem is with short workers in the 10' range it is hard to fige out which ones are actualy going 10',it is just to close to the edge.
As for coming out wrong or sloppy,that is part of the roll, and birds that can't exit properly are culls, why would you score a cull ?
That is the crux Cliff, I would never score such birds,same with axel wingers which are also culls,same with birds that wingswitch even slightly, culls also.
Birds that roll so slow that you can count the revolutions,culls, again why would you score a cull?
Cliff, the standard for performance isn't anything new,some just don't know what it is or want to dummy it down to meet thier birds is all.
Like I've said before,if the rules state that these culls "have" to be scored, it will be all over as many will bail out of flying if they know year in and out a shitty judge is coming to town, as it is it is hit and miss
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Feb 24, 2008 4:28 PM
|
Ballrollers
1050 posts
Feb 24, 2008
6:25 PM
|
Scott,
Yes, that is the rule, but what do we do when a judge's "STANDARD" is not the same as the rule's standard?
You are advocating that the judges standard trump all the other rules, apparrently because you are concerned that the rules that are passed might not meet your standard. That is understandable. But then, why even have rules?
You insist that a certain wing position is a cull, even though it is not mentioned in the current rules. Why would you NOT think it advantageous to educate the flying members to all wing positions; which are best, which are average and which should not be scored at all? I am not disagreeing with you presumption that certain wing positions are better than others. I am questioning why this information is not found in the fly rules. If it is not important enough to be written into the fly rules , why do you feel so opposed to allowing the judge to make up his own mind as to whether the bird in question meets the performance standard to be called a Birmingham roller and score that bird?
YITS,
Cliff
|
Ballrollers
1051 posts
Feb 24, 2008
6:40 PM
|
Scott,
I am not advocating judging loose sloppy birds that fall out of the roll. Where on Earth did you get that idea? I said a bird that rolled fast enough that you couldn't count the revolutions, and did NOT plate roll or twizzle at the end. That statement describes a bird that DID finish properly. OK? Did roll with speed.
And if said bird performs for a suggested minimum of 10 feet ... then it may be scored as to it's wing position. What is wrong with that?
I never said I wanted poor rollers scored. I want rollers that perform to minimum standards to be score per the rules. Minimum standard 1.0 1.0 D&Q Poor quality rollers do not deserve a score at all.
I am playing devil's advocate, here, for the sake of the discussion, and recommending that minimum standards be adopted and defined, as well as average and superior quality performance......not advocating scoring a loose sloppy roller. So let's try to keep it on track, OK?
Cliff
|
Ballrollers
1052 posts
Feb 24, 2008
6:48 PM
|
Scott,
Are you saying if a judge IGNORES the( suggested) 10 foot minimum fly rule and decides to make 20 foot his minimum, that is alright with you? Hey I am all for making 20 foot, the minimum But gees , don't you think it a good idea to tell the men in the fly first?
"New fly rule: Only the judge will know what the minimum depth will be."
"Next new rule: The 5 bird break will no longer be acceptable, from now only 10 birds or better."
"One other new rule: Only birds who look like hard balls with no hole showing will be scored. (And don't tell anybody till AFTER the fly is over.)"
Scotty , I think you better reconsider this idea . I don't think it will fly. Pardon the pun.
Besides that , I thought the NBRC members are supposed to all get a chance to vote on fly rule changes. No one person or group (even the EC) gets to dcide. This sounds like a fly rule change to me, my friend.
YITS,
Cliff
|
Scott
89 posts
Feb 24, 2008
7:17 PM
|
Cliff, never did I sugest that you wanted poor birds scored,I was just explaining why I would never do so, in fact I was getting the feeling that we were on the same page.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Feb 24, 2008 7:18 PM
|
Scott
91 posts
Feb 24, 2008
7:23 PM
|
Cliff there is not a single performance standard in the rules, other than it states that we are judging Birmingham Rollers and that the judge must not judge anything that does not meet his standard,and it also states that the judges call is final, end of story.
Think of the problems that could be exploited if written any other way, which is why I said "suggested " standard.
There is nothing else except for the guide lines of the fly itself.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Feb 24, 2008 7:34 PM
|
Scott
92 posts
Feb 24, 2008
7:30 PM
|
Cliff, I am not even going to comment on what the judge said as I don't know the context,maybe he uses that to be sure not to count birds under 10' , not sure.
But the rules are clear as it being "sugested" and nothing else, the fact is it is our jub to do our homework on the judges that we ask in.
But I do know this a short working kit in the 10' range is going to have a problem due to trying to determine which went 10' and which ones didn't.
More times than not though I see birds being counted in breaks that didn't go 3' let alone 10', these guys aren't useing the suggested depth either, nor are the ones when it comes to breaks whether it be the half sec. from first to last or in unison,or the judges scoreing tumbers when in fact it states not to,Cliff the fact is judges do the best that they know how and we can't expect any more from them.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Feb 24, 2008 7:39 PM
|
Shadow
94 posts
Feb 25, 2008
12:04 AM
|
Some great insight in most of above posts,but a lot of beating round the bush,VELOCITY ROLLING IN UNISON with QUALITY if its present score it accordingly,to persist in rewarding those so many other type of crocks,that in the main resemble some kind of frenzied activity,when they break,is not only the slippery road,its total freefall,most of us know what rolling is,once you have seen a good roller/s,you never never forget it,this is the basic,anything else is just,pretense,or whatever you wish to label it,consisting of traits that you hope to eradicate,being rewarded in other quarters,they are roller/s doing it correctly,or not,anything else is just delusion for whatever reason.
|
Scott
93 posts
Feb 25, 2008
6:17 AM
|
Shadow you are right, to simply put this, if it rolls slow and or with a fault it shouldn't be scored as it is a cull
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
maxspin
191 posts
Feb 25, 2008
7:55 AM
|
Cliff and Scott,
I wanted to thank the two of you for your debates. I find them to be very educational, and am sure that many others also get a lot of insight from reading the two of you.
Keep up the good work
Keith Maxwell
|
Ballrollers
1053 posts
Feb 25, 2008
8:13 AM
|
Keith,
Thanks, buddy. I think we all learned a little from this open and honest discussion that took place without trashing anybody for their opinion!!
Scott,
I agree that most judges are doing the best they can. Judges are not perfect and never will be. But the rules that "guide " our judges CAN be improved on. We can delete words or phrases that simply confuse issues, we can clarify rules by adding examples or explanations. We can define both upper and lower quality standards better than what we have now. We can make sure that judges know the rules and how they should be interpreted. That will help judges do a better job.
OR we can do nothing and continue to flounder in ignorance, misunderstandings and scores that lack credibility.
JMHO,
Cliff
|
Ballrollers
1054 posts
Feb 25, 2008
12:25 PM
|
Mr Shadow
No one advocates judging kit "activity" but sometimes it happens. The fact is ,we have a range of acceptable scoring depths, speed and styles. We all know what the ultimate high quality roller definition is. But that is a very small example of what we are flying in competition. We must define the entire range of scoreable rollers. If one man "says" that in his loft, a certain type of performance is a cull. How does that define anything?
What Paul and Scott and I are trying to discuss ( without much result) is how to define ALL scoreable rollers from the best to the minimal scoreable roller, not the "POOR" quality rollers, not the dishrags, not the plate rollers, not the twizzlers and not the rollers that are so slow in revolutions that they cannot be counted; but the entire range of scoreable rollers. The rules make reference to the minimal standard in quality and depth. In depth it is suggested that 10 feet be considered as a stating point. From where I stand, that means since NO depth can be estimated with 100% accuracy.... IT IS SUGGESTED. It does not mean that if you estimate the depth at 10 feet you ignore the rule and change the rule to mean 20 feet or 5 feet. Whatever the judges estimate of 10 foot is, that is what he uses for the duration of the kits judged. Is that clear? Or do we have room for debate on this issue?
YITS,
Cliff
|
Scott
99 posts
Feb 25, 2008
8:24 PM
|
The first kit being judged; how important does it become as the day(s) wear on as it relates to your scoring?
(sorry nick but I had you on my ignore list LOL , the first kit doesn't mean anything to me,it is judged by the way I always judge, it doesn't set the tone if that is what you are asking)
Where does your importance lay most heavely: the scorable breaks or the multipliers?
(there is no importance for me either way,what is,is, but first they must be scoreable, from there the multiplier is added and is determined by style and speed, Scott)
Nick Siders
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Feb 25, 2008 8:28 PM
|
Shadow
96 posts
Feb 26, 2008
1:44 AM
|
Mr Ballrollers
We know what a High Quality roller,we have small example in comp kits,
This says a lot really,Active kits regardless of rolling ability appear to be more the norm,rather than "sometimes"
Get an active kit 100ft + in the air,visual impossibility to fairly asess,if required to only go 10ft,likewise quality of rolls with any degree of certainty,aparently these are the type of kits that are now capable of racking up big scores,
As for different style roller/rolls,their is class/very good/
and good/based on quality and ability,other types of roller/roll are just not doing it correctly,we can cosmetic them/rolls with any name we like,they are still crappy rolls/rollers,all the debate, reasoning,in the world wont change this fact.Again I state what is the requirements of a good kit in my opinion is/Velocity/Acceptable Depth approx 20ft plus,frequency,kitting,with a second Judge awarding overall quality points I to 10 re each bird in kit,definitely no half second allowed,they must go together re breaks,a short fast roller will do ten feet in less than half a second,to reward others is a regression of the roller game,and not eveloution,these are the only aspects of this great hobby/sport thats acceptable to myself,but again Cliff these are my opinions,all the best.
|
Scott
100 posts
Feb 26, 2008
6:26 AM
|
Thats it Cliff,you made me slam my head into the monitor again lol , there is no rule for depth, only a suggested min.
I also think that you cannot lock it into a solid rule without creating potential problems, what if you have 5 guys in the yard throw a stink because they didn't think in thier minds the judge scored birds that went 10'? or in thier minds birds weren't scored that they "thought" were ten ft? what then? stop the fly and have an executive meeting on the judge ? that is why I fear locking in anything other than guide lines for the fly , I still remember one new flyer raising a stink that went all the way back to the director because a judge wouldn't score a cull that came out backwards in the 11 bird fly.
That is the potential problem that you face by locking this stuff in and making it cut and dry .
Also what if you get birds faster than snot that can spin for a second and a half or more and only drop a questionable 10ft.?
Cliff my position is clear, I am done beating this dead horse.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Feb 26, 2008 6:31 AM
|
kcfirl
320 posts
Feb 26, 2008
8:28 AM
|
Scott,
your position in this debate is illogical.
You say that locking in rules would create problems and then go on to give us an example of a "problem" that came up even though we don;t have definitive rules.
Havin a better defined standard describing what is an acceptable, scoreable roll, would be a step forward.
I beleive your only concern is that then you would be forced to score birds that today you do not.
The real issue is that we can;t get everyone to agree on what a scoreable roller is, not that having such a rule is a step backward.
Your position actually exacerbates the discrepency that exists today in scoring rollers -= the very thing you say you seek to improve!
Your friend,
Ken
|
Sandy91, SA Region 3
202 posts
Feb 26, 2008
8:42 AM
|
Why do we have a quality factor if all rollers must be perfect? Is the quality factor not there to seperate the good from the not so good performers? According to the rules the quality is detirment by the judge according to the birds performance, but if a judge should score only good quality breaks how will he determen the quality between only good kits? If low quality breaks arent scored then the quality factor can just aswell go away because all kits should get the same quality..
Hope you understand what I'm trying to say...
Last Edited by on Feb 26, 2008 9:53 AM
|
W@yne
1120 posts
Feb 26, 2008
9:58 AM
|
Sandy this will give you an idea where the quality scoring comes into play
----------
Regards
W@yne UK
Patience Perseverance Perfection
=====================================
|
Sandy91, SA Region 3
203 posts
Feb 26, 2008
10:13 AM
|
W@yne thank you. So according to those types of rolls should a bird be scored 1.1 to 1.9? No one can identify 10+ birds rolling similtainiously, you can only keep your eye on one or two for a specific break. I can see what you showed me but I think there should be another methode used to determine these factors more accouratly. Its possible to count birds rolling incorrectly with birds rolling correct in a break.
Last Edited by on Feb 26, 2008 10:17 AM
|
W@yne
1125 posts
Feb 26, 2008
12:57 PM
|
Sandy
That is just a detailed chart of the wing positions of a roller when in roll.
The marks are 1.0 to 2.0 the chart is there to give you a good idea what to look for when scoring from very bad style to an excellent style.
axle wing and low x wing in my opinion should not be scored even x wing is poor but in my opinion the standard has to start somewhere to justify the 1.0 to 2.0 quality system.
Sandy also if 10 birds go together the bad ones will stand out like a sore thumb the quality birds in the kit are the easiest birds to judge.
----------
Regards
W@yne UK
Patience Perseverance Perfection
=====================================
Last Edited by on Feb 26, 2008 12:58 PM
|
Sandy91, SA Region 3
206 posts
Feb 26, 2008
1:02 PM
|
I got it just testing you... LMAO
I just talk to John Wanless and he invited me to visit him in July when Johnny and the guys go over to England. If I can get enough money you guys wil see mee there....
Thys
|
nicksiders
2599 posts
Feb 26, 2008
1:18 PM
|
Wayne,
Can you email that diagram to me? It is the best quality diagram I have seen. Or, you can tell me where you found it.
nsiders203@sbcglobal.net
Nick Siders
|
fhtfire
1261 posts
Feb 26, 2008
2:18 PM
|
The fact of the matter is that we need to define the min quality...and define a min scorable roll...if we defined the rules and made them understood by all..we would not have the debate....
we are debating on our "feeling" or our individual "standards"....What is "Judge them to the standard of a Birmingham Roller"....What is that standard...who defined that...did Pensom....rolling like a spinning ball..is what I have heard....
The fact is...we need to define....and define we should...and define what most of us feel is the "Minimum" Standard....not our individual standards...that is why we have 200scores and 2000 scores....everyones "standard" will differ unless defined....
Hell my standard is to drive 90mph...but the law or rule is defined as 70mph....lol
rock and ROLL
Paul
|
Missouri-Flyer
1381 posts
Feb 26, 2008
4:43 PM
|
Paul,
90 mph?...Didnt know a fire truck could go that fast?..we know you didnt mean in your personal vehicle!..LOL
That is some good info there.. I agree, but as they keep saying, it will work itself out like it ALWAYS HAS.
----------
Jerry
Home of "Whispering Wings Loft"
|
Scott
102 posts
Feb 26, 2008
5:58 PM
|
Thats it Ken F, you have left me no choice , I'm gona have to kick your ass
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
Scott
103 posts
Feb 26, 2008
6:03 PM
|
"Why do we have a quality factor if all rollers must be perfect? Is the quality factor not there to seperate the good from the not so good performers? "
Sandy, they need to have the capability not to roll without a fault,if they can't they are a cull.
The quality multipliers is used (or should be) for style and speed, good style and speed = quality and they come in different degrees.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
Missouri-Flyer
1385 posts
Feb 26, 2008
6:04 PM
|
LMAO,
You get him Scott...Even if he does speak the truth..LOL
----------
Jerry
Home of "Whispering Wings Loft"
|
Post a Message
|
|
|
