|
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
kcfirl
329 posts
Feb 28, 2008
11:13 AM
|
Scott,
I think I am following you. you don;t want the rules locked in because then if someone doesn;t follow them you think there could be a byunch of trouble.
I just don;t undertsand ho having a wquality standard declared to be the gospel could cause more problems than having somehting so vague that guys can judge anything.
Man this car and blackberry just don;t go together.
Ken
|
Ballrollers
1065 posts
Feb 28, 2008
11:25 AM
|
Scott
The suggested 10 foot minimum is set in stone but the stone can slide up or down depending on what the judges estimate of what 10 feet is.
If you're scoring birds that you estimate are performing for 10 feet, you are following the rules. If you refuse to score birds that you estimate are performing for 10 feet and they are rolling adequately, you are not judging by the rules. True , scoring a short kit and an active kit, can be one of the toughest challenges facing a judge today. No one ever said it would be a piece of cake.
Maybe we are saying the same thing. I certainly hope so.
My recollection of the pre 2004 11 bird fly rules did not include 1.0 - 2.0 multipliers.
This may cause problems trying to take two different scoring systems and create one. When this board discussed the 11 bird fly, I thought it was you who described it as a "kiddie fly" and not worthy of support by true rollermen. Now , you sound like you might see the uniqueness of the quality standards employed by the 11 bird fly?
I am sure the results reported back from your regions flys using these new minimum standards, will be interesting.
YITS,
Cliff
|
Scott
127 posts
Feb 28, 2008
11:32 AM
|
"Scott,
I think I am following you. you don;t want the rules locked in because then if someone doesn;t follow them you think there could be a byunch of trouble."
Ken, not necessarily because smeone doesn't follow them, it could just be the perception of them not being followed, or it could be a grey area call situation,you know how it is,it isn't exactly cut and dry,again just thinking out loud here.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Feb 28, 2008 11:34 AM
|
Scott
128 posts
Feb 28, 2008
11:39 AM
|
Cliff, I'm not sure what that last post has to do with this topic, you know my feelings on the 11 bird fly and obviously I am not alone since it only gets half of the participation compared to the 20 bird ,the rules don't have anything to do with it, but that is another topic.
This min. standard isn't anything new Cliff,many abide by it as it is just nothing more than not accepting birds that roll with a fault,you take that standard, apply it to birds breaking together, and now you have a real team Birmingham Rollers being scored,but you would hear alot of crying by some when truely applied,trust me.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Feb 28, 2008 12:46 PM
|
Ballrollers
1066 posts
Feb 28, 2008
2:20 PM
|
Scott
I thought you said KGB was using the "old 11 bird fly rules" to develop a new improved minimum quality standard for the 20 bird fly? That is what the last post had to do with this topic.
I agree with you Scott that the Minimum depth standard (suggested 10 foot minimum) is not new , In fact it has been in use for quite a while AND ALL JUDGES SHOULD ABIDE BY IT, not just "many" as you stated. Every single judge should abide by the rules, score by the rules and do his best to do so. Nothing new here either.
Men are disgruntled by the judges when the flyers don't understand our vague, poorly written fly rules. That is not the judges fault, it IS the rules fault.
As long as every flyer understood the 10 foot minimum is the JUDGES ESTIMATE of ten feet, and that can vary from judge to judge. Where I see question arise, is from the use of the word "suggested" and some infer that the judge is within his powers to NOT USE 10 feet as his minimum. That is not the case and no judge has that power. He must score by the minimum 10 foot rule or he is not doing the flyers justice.
YITS,
Cliff
|
Scott
129 posts
Feb 28, 2008
3:09 PM
|
Flyers justice ? sheez , tell them the judges call is final and quit snivling.
I could give a rats ass about kicking the ball back and fourth over what the suggested 10' means, breed birds that can't be denied that they are doing the 10' and the problem is solved.
My money says that if someone was snivling it was because the judge thought that they were to short and the flyer disagreed,and my money says it isn't the first time they snivled about being cheated,either way I DON"T CARE.
Cliff, I wasn't talking about the 10' min not being new, you may want to go back and reread my post.
Cliff discussing this stuff here is nothing but guys discussing opinions,nothing more and nothing less.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Feb 28, 2008 3:59 PM
|
Ballrollers
1067 posts
Feb 29, 2008
9:03 PM
|
Scott,
The judges call is final and there is no going back to re-count, re-measure or recant.It's in the bag on the score sheet and down the road. 100% agreement on that issue.
Breed birds that go 20 feet and problem is lessened to a great extent. 100% agreement on that issue.
Don't score birds that roll with faults, hmmm. Ok, your opinion as to what is a fault , a fault that should keep a good spinner from scoring and my opinion as to faults that might keep a bird from scoring, might be a little different. Wingswitchers should not be scored, we agree. Birds that don't perform for 10 feet; that's a fault and they shouldn't be scored, we agree. Birds that come out backwards; it depends on the circumstances, but I think we might disagree. Axle wing rollers; here again we might disagree. It would depend on the bird, and the velocity of that bird. If the fly rules would discuss wing positions, rank wing positions, then maybe I would change my opinion. You never know.
On these key issues we agree more than half of the time. If all these different issues could be settled to where each of could feel they were right 50% of the time, we might all spend more time enjoying our birds and our friends than spending time trying to understand different men's opinions.
Please keep us in the loop as to how these new minimum standards work out for you. Until then, we will keep flying our birds for judges that do the best they can, with the same vague rules that have kept us interested in this sport for all this many years.
As always a pleasure.
YITS,
Cliff
|
Scott
130 posts
Feb 29, 2008
9:46 PM
|
Cliff I've always tried to judge by this standard, as did my local club and same with us in the central Ca. region (flying in N. region now) we allways seeked out judges that we hoped would judge by that standard, and there are other areas also,judging birds that are doing it correctly is nothing new Cliff.
It is nothing more than not scoreing birds that roll with a fault,and yes that includes birds that can't exit the roll correctly, and while on that, never will I purposley score such a bird,and I mean never,the reason is simple,it isn't correct and is a fault,the cause of it is due to having to fight to come out of the roll.
Cliff,like I said in another post,some areas absolutly do not want kits judged by a standard ,but I do appreciate what you are trying to do here.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Mar 01, 2008 5:49 AM
|
Shadow
112 posts
Mar 01, 2008
12:11 AM
|
Got to admire your persistence Cliff,you highlighted a lot of contenious issues regarding rolling ability,with so much different input,a lot of differing views expressed,but as Scott said earlier,its just discussion,which in itself is a good thing,again a kit of rollers working is a visual concept,and no pair of eyes are going to observe the same,I am inclined to agree you have got to have it carved in stone,whats acceptable,to eliminate grey areas,with a 20ft minimum,and a sliding scale say of 1 to 20 quality points per bird awarded to birds rolling correctly,the only grey area left,is do all these other type grey area rollers make break points,my answer personally would be NO,but looking at the bigger picture my answer would have to be YES,allowing for more input re more entrants,with the emphasis on points earning quality rollers,in our area here in Eire rollers from a somewhat dormant state,is again attracting interest from former keepers,with 7 established lofts,and a good deal more interested,we will begin our first series of flys in 09 and it will be along the lines mentioned,basically the pursuit of excellence All the Best.
|
sippi
82 posts
Mar 01, 2008
8:16 AM
|
I am new to comp flying. That is why I come to this site. I want to pick up info on comp flying because I plan on winning in 2009. I have read and reread the rules and there are some good point made in this thread. I have a few questions to ask of you more experienced flyers.
Do you actually think you can measure a half second and see a break of that speed?
When a region is judged does the same judge do all the region?
If you win a region then are you qualified to compete in the finals?
I saw on some score sheets where more than one person qualified in some regions and only one in others. What gives there?
Thanks for answering question for an old flyer new to comp.
Sippi
|
Scott
132 posts
Mar 01, 2008
8:37 AM
|
I am new to comp flying. That is why I come to this site. I want to pick up info on comp flying because I plan on winning in 2009. I have read and reread the rules and there are some good point made in this thread. I have a few questions to ask of you more experienced flyers.
Do you actually think you can measure a half second and see a break of that speed? ( i CERTAINLY CAN'T)
When a region is judged does the same judge do all the region? (YES , IT CAN'T WORK ANY OTHER WAY)
If you win a region then are you qualified to compete in the finals?
(YES)
I saw on some score sheets where more than one person qualified in some regions and only one in others. What gives there?
( YOU GET ONE QUALIFIER FOR EVERY 15 KITS IN THE W/C AND FOR THE NBRC YOU GET 1 QUALIFIER FOR EVERY 10 KITS, SOME REGIONS ARE LOADED WITH FLYERS WHILE OTHERS AREN'T)
(GOOD LUCK IN 09)
Thanks for answering question for an old flyer new to comp.
Sippi
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Mar 01, 2008 8:42 AM
|
Mongrel Lofts
534 posts
Mar 01, 2008
9:17 AM
|
Cliff, Ken F,
What I suggested as a minimum standard was nothing new or eye opening for most. Maybe in the area's and the men some have learned from. Expecting birds to have at least decent quality before scoring is new. I don't know? I and the guys I know have only been scoring birds that roll with this minimum quality since we started flying rollers. Cliff, both the old MRA, CCRC,CBRC and the IRC I fly with now only judge birds that meet this minimum standard.. It has been this way since the beginning of local competition for me. We started out not scoring junk! I wasn't suggesting any new standard for the WC rules. I was suggesting nothing less than that minimum quality be scored. It is already in the rules to a point. A judge should not score any bird that does not meet his standard. Is your standard wing switching and birds that pull out of the roll and drop 20 feet on their tail? Or birds that roll with their wings sticking straight out like a cob of corn? Of course not! In stead of scoring any junk that turns over backwards with stand out faults. I'm just suggesting that we only judge birds that meet the minimum standard of a decent roller as I suggested above. I suggest we only judge birds that meet a minimum standard and the above standard is the minimum that any judge should be scoring.. That is all I have suggested here.
Cliff, the guys around here have already been judging with this minimum standard and it works great. The best kits of rollers win. Frequent tumblers won't win locally or nationally using this minimum standard. Any judge worth his salt has been only judging birds of at least this minimum quality all along anyway Cliff. It's in the rules! KGB
PS. Cliff if any thing, Maybe we should just put this rule in as a suggested minimum for scoring a rolller in a turn and leave the rest alone.
Last Edited by on Mar 01, 2008 8:00 PM
|
sippi
83 posts
Mar 01, 2008
10:21 AM
|
Thanks Scott
Sippi
|
kcfirl
334 posts
Mar 01, 2008
5:29 PM
|
KGB,
I'm with ya bro and that's how I try to score rollers as well.
I want a minimum 1.0 standard defined so everyone can get on the same page with us and we can reduce the variation from judge to judge.
Regards,
Ken Firl
|
Ballrollers
1071 posts
Mar 04, 2008
11:50 AM
|
KGB
Hey, those minimum standards are fine by me. The only question is why they don't appear in the fly rules so we all can see and understand then the same way. We have a suggested minimum depth standard of 10 feet. All the other elements of a minimum quality spin are not adequately addressed. Don't you think we could do better if we all could READ a minimum quality standard?
If you "think" a minimum quality bird with "H" type wing position, performing for 10 feet should be awarded 1.0- 1.2, that is a wonderful opinion but do all judges see it the same way? Or should we all see it the same way? Maybe we should accept these extremes in judging and forget having any rules. Bit if we can't find a way to accept a written minimum standard, we will be hard pressed to find credibility in the way we arrive at any score.
I think the rules are good but without some better guidance in the fly rules... Looks like more of the same; inconsistency...extrememly high scores....extremely low scores.....and flyers who don't understand why. If that is what you want, that is what we will get.
Cliff
|
Ballrollers
1072 posts
Mar 04, 2008
12:03 PM
|
KGB
I got to thinking about what you said about the 11 bird rules.....Not only do the 11 bird rules clearly state a minimum depth for the 3 basic categories but it also states a maximum. Then, it goes on to state several examples of faults that should keep a bird from scoring and what is acceptable performance. If the 11 bird rules can accomplish this, why can't the 20 the rules do something similar?
The fancy has grown to a point where the different opinions need to be discussed, voted on, and accepted into the written fly rules......by both the NBRC and the World Cup. But it's a big job and nobody seems to want to take it on....Even then, will it stop poor judging ? It may help, but due to the extreme subjectivity of this sport, nothing will make the judge's calls universally accepted. Like Scott said, there will always be those who disagree with the judges call on something.
For example:
After time is called at the 20 minute mark, the judge continues to observe the kit for a few minutes before writing down his multipliers. The 20 bird rules seem to state that only birds that score in a break should be used in the average to compute the multiplier. OK, that's fine but DOES the trash that is not scoreable also come into the judge's computations? After time has run out, is it fair for the judge to have observed and to consider birds that were definitely not scoreable and add their performance into his mental computations? How does a judge not, inadvertently, observe birds with faults that are not scoring, and not let that affect his D&Q multipliers? Or do you think that some judges might consciously compute the D & Q average of the entire kit....scoreable and unscoreable...on purpose because of misunderstanding of the rules?
The rules seem to say one thing, but human nature seems to dictate another. Once a judge has seen something....anything.....he can't get the toothpaste back in the tube. Right or wrong, the genie is out of the bottle.
Comments?
YITS,
Cliff
Last Edited by on Mar 04, 2008 12:10 PM
|
Ballrollers
1073 posts
Mar 04, 2008
12:14 PM
|
One more thing Ken, please post us the fly rules for the MRA, CCRC, CBRC and the IRC when you get a chance. I'd like to see how they managed to get it in writing, the minimum standard, that is. This should go along way to helping us all see what it CAN look like. The NBRC 20 fly rules are a good start but there may be a few areas that need some further explanation.
How the local clubs address this question, successfully, could help us understand how it needs to be handled on a national scale. Thanks.
Cliff
|
nicksiders
2607 posts
Mar 04, 2008
1:11 PM
|
Is "quality" only limited to subjective evaluation?
Can anything that is judged be judged totally objectively?
_________________________________________________________
Definitions - SUBJECTIVE is proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world.
Only existing within the experiencers mind.
_________________________________________________________
OBJECTIVE is having actual existence or reality that is uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. It is based on observable phenomena; presented factually.
Something that actually exists.
_________________________________________________________
There will always be a difference from one judge to another. I don't care if the judge is very tight or loose as long as everything being judged by that judge is on a level playing field. In other words; nobody is given an advantage due to relationships within the organization.
As long as the best kit wins I don't care if it scores 79 points or 790. The only thing we can ask for is fairness.
I also believe the true education and training has to be taking place with the fliers. The judge cannot be held responsible for improving the quality of rollers he judges. That is the fliers burden and not the judges.
Nick Siders
Last Edited by on Mar 04, 2008 2:00 PM
|
Ballrollers
1074 posts
Mar 04, 2008
1:49 PM
|
Nick
Your last statement is most pertinent to this discussion. And I believe you are correct, that the thrust of better-written, better-understood fly rules , is to educate the flyers. Most all judges come from the ranks of the flyers, so educating the flyers IS educating future judges.
I don't think we are currently discussing how to breed better birds, just trying to define the fly rules better, as to a minimum standard in the 20 bird fly. You have been around long enough to have an understanding about the fly rules. According to the 20 bird fly rules, what is the minimum standard for depth and quality, in your opinion?
I believe you already know the answer to your first question. At least I hope that you believe that quality performance is objective...."something that actually exists"...rather than subjective...."something that exists only in the experiencers mind". Unfortuantely, the rules as they currrently exist, lean toward the latter.....and that's exactly the point I hope that I have made.
YITS,
Cliff
Last Edited by on Mar 04, 2008 1:52 PM
|
Post a Message
|
|
|