turkey buzzard
121 posts
Jul 08, 2009
4:28 PM
|
I heard there has been some discussion on another forum starting with an "E" that there are certain individuals who are in favor of using the NBRC fall fly as the regional qualifiers for the World Cup. Why would somone spend so much much time talking with others about this? What would there be to gain? Any thoughts from someone who is in the know!!! Please explain?
|
Scott
2331 posts
Jul 08, 2009
5:31 PM
|
Carl, every thing isn't as cut and dry as some think it is on how qualifiers are being chosen.
What is being dicussed is how to put the best over all teams forward and cut out the fat.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
bman
677 posts
Jul 09, 2009
4:48 AM
|
Scott,I have benn following this discussion, I would like to hear your take on it.
----------
Ron
Borderline lofts
|
turkey buzzard
122 posts
Jul 09, 2009
5:58 AM
|
So why not raise the entry fees to such that it pays for the WC and also try and raise the qualifying entries from 15 to 20 or 30 so that the smaller regions have to join up with one another to make bigger regions. How about this one, divide the USA into four regions and have the finials judge, judge those four regions? There are so many more viable things out there instead of taking another fly out of our hands.
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1956 posts
Jul 09, 2009
7:59 AM
|
Carl
I agree with you! All that is necessary is finding a way so that the best kits in the USA represent the USA in the finals. having 4 regions would accomplish that goal. But why not have a USA WC semifinals, and send only the top 10-20 to the finals? It would do the same thing but require another fly, another judge and a bit more money.
But then we have the TIMING problems and right now that seems to really be a tougher problem to solve.
BOPS , weather, heat, winds all can defeat the best of kits.
Lastly we may need a WC ruling on a formal definition of what is or is NOT, a waterfall break and do we score 5 bird breaks with in a cluster of smaller breaks? We need to separate a judge's personal preference from the fly rules if we want to be more consistant. JMHO.
Cliff
|
turkey buzzard
123 posts
Jul 09, 2009
8:44 AM
|
I guess that is why having the USA divided into semi-finial regions would help. No matter what, we are still having and are going to have a funding problem with the WC. How are the other countries going to vote on this WC issue affecting the USA?
I thought the 1/2 second rule was imposed to correct the water fall problem. It still did not correct that problem.
I have posted this question to several individuals, judges, and still have gotton so many answers that it's mind twisting.
Question: If you have a 20 bird fly, A BOP takes one of the twenty. After the mass confussion of birds you end up with two seperate kits of birds. A 9 bird kit and a 10 bird kit. You have called a 5 minute time out the judge agrees and it is granted. After the 5 minutes is up 5 birds of the 9 bird breaks with enough birds to score. The 10 bird kit breaks with 8 birds breaking enough birds to score.
Do you score the 9 bird kit?
Do you score the 10 bird kit?
Or do you not score any of the kits?
|
maxspin
362 posts
Jul 09, 2009
8:49 AM
|
Turkey,
I do not see this as a question. There is a kit of 10 with 9 out birds. NO SCORE.
Believe me I feel for the flyer. I live it.
Keith Maxwell
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1957 posts
Jul 09, 2009
9:31 AM
|
Carl,
No doubt, there are too many ambiguities and gray areas in the rules. But I agree with Keith. The rules are clear enough, in my opinion, for a judge to NOT score any breaks till 18 of the 19 birds kit. AND since a BOP took a bird.....that bird is not an out bird.....so once the birds re-kit, a kit of 18 can score.
I see nothing to make me believe a hawk attack should allow for judging as you have described. What if there was no attack, would any judge score these two kits?
Another question this brings up is, what if TWO birds are driven down by a BOP....or even ten....do the rules make allowances for more than 1 bird being taken by a BOP?
Cliff
PS Good luck, Keith...I know you've got it bad with the BOP problem.
Last Edited by on Jul 09, 2009 9:32 AM
|
Scott
2332 posts
Jul 09, 2009
10:52 AM
|
Carl,as the rule states the kit minimum is 15 , also no more than two out birds.
Besides the bottom line is they should have regrouped any way.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
Scott
2333 posts
Jul 09, 2009
10:57 AM
|
Ron, there is no anwser and I doubt that it will go any further than talk, but I sure would like to see a system where only our best go forward.
But also like I stated there is more to this than meets the eye and is something that we addressed 7-8 years ago, in other words we all may not be selecting our qualfiers the same way per the by-laws/rules , the problem is the old guard has changed and few realize this.
I think here in the US we tend to look at winning the W/C as more of a individule accomplishment rather than a nationial accomplishment, where another country looks at it more as nationial pride and uses a system to only choose their best to go into the W/C finals, personaly I would like to see us do the same.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Jul 09, 2009 11:13 AM
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1958 posts
Jul 09, 2009
11:14 AM
|
Carl
As far as funding goes, the largest single outlay of funds goes to moving the judge from qualifier to qualifier. The fewer the qualifiers, the less money used. If the USA WC qualifiers were reduced from 40 to 20 by use of a semifinals fly, you do the math. I think the semi would pay for itself....or at least break even and cut the finals judging time in half. The best of all worlds would be a re-organization of the USA WC regions to 15-20. Regions of 10-15 flyers requiring the finals judge, do not generate enough fees, anymore, to pay for the judge's flight, in many cases.
If we just use the rule of thumb to wait untill a region gets 5 qualifiers before splitting, we would not have the number of small regions that we do. CAN WE reorganize? WILL WE reorganize?
Ask yourself....How many regions, have sited the fact that they have more than 5 qualifiers as their reason to form a new region??? It's usually distance, squabbling between flyers and local clubs, inablitiy to compete with other flyers in the region, etc. that generates new regions. Was the quest for Master Flyer points also a reason to form a new region? Who knows?
Cliff
Last Edited by on Jul 09, 2009 11:14 AM
|
Scott
2334 posts
Jul 09, 2009
11:18 AM
|
Now we are trying to dummy down and make excuses of what should be scored, the best teams should be solid where this is a non issue,besides it is rare that you see a 5 bird hammer break within a cluster of smaller breaks anyway so it really doesn't matter in the bigger picture.
(Lastly we may need a WC ruling on a formal definition of what is or is NOT, a waterfall break and do we score 5 bird breaks with in a cluster of smaller breaks? We need to separate a judge's personal preference from the fly rules if we want to be more consistant. JMHO.
Cliff)
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Jul 09, 2009 12:28 PM
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1959 posts
Jul 09, 2009
1:29 PM
|
Scott
No one is trying to Dummy down anything. What we want to see scored needs to be defined specifically so their is no wiggle room from one judge to the next. Rare or common, it makes no difference if we have vague rules. I see no mention of "HAMMER BREAKS" any where in the rules. If that's what we want, then the rules should say so. All we see in the rules is 5 or more birds break in unison... The rules are in place so a man's OPINION of what is a solid kit, cannot be over-ridden by the kit with the highest mathematical score. If opinions were all that mattered, then we wouldn't even need mathematical scores.
All we want is to remove any doubt as to what is to be scored and what is NOT to be scored. How can that be a bad thing? How can that dummy down any thing? You, of all people, should be in favor of clear and concise rules in order to prevent scoring kits that flutter and flip.
You made a reference to addressing the rules 7-8 years ago in order to ensure that all qualifiers are chosen the same way, and now that may be a problem, again. Either the rule is too vague....someone is misunderstanding the rule......or someone is breaking the rule intentionally.
To avoid breaking a rule we must all understand the rule. To avoid misunderstanding a rule, it must be specific. It seems to be in the best interests of ALL WC flyers that we understand what is and is NOT scorable.
Please for the sake of discussion, write your understanding of what is and is not a scorable break. Be as clear as you can. If you want use words like "HAMMER BREAK" explain what is a hammer break first.
Write the rule as you feel it needs to be written to avoid confusion as to what breaks should be scored and what breaks or 5 or more birds should NOT be scored. That should make for some interesting discussion.
Cliff
Last Edited by on Jul 09, 2009 1:31 PM
|
George R.
22 posts
Jul 09, 2009
1:33 PM
|
if money is the issue then WHY is it that 90% percent of the things that are offered in the Auction come from U.S.A. ? do we always have to carry the Burden ???
ALL regions and participating Country's should contribute to the World Cup auction and we would not be having a MONEY problem . I know its very costly to ship Birds across the World BUT we could hold Several auction's at the same time depending on where the contribution comes from or Country's or we could encourage contribution items that CAN be shipped like the Bands that Adrian G. ( thanks ) contributed .
I am not pointing fingers or blame but if every Country , State, Etc. Contributed to the Auction we would probably not be having this Discussion about Money.
Every one should carry thier own Weight and help to continue this Great fly .
Just my Opinion
George
Last Edited by on Jul 09, 2009 1:34 PM
|
fhtfire
1999 posts
Jul 09, 2009
1:35 PM
|
I have a question about the Hawk attack....Does the rule state that any bird chased off by a BOP is not considered an out bird....I know the rule says a minimum of 15 birds in a team..but when a BOP attacks...it appears that the rules state that any bird chased by a BOP is not an outbird...then if you start with lets say 18 birds and then a BOP attacks ..the 15 bird rule is now out the window because no birds are considered out if chased or seperated by a BOP...so if a BOP attacks and voids the rule of outbirds...then technically according to the rule....the BOP addendum trumps any outbird rules...and you should score scorable breaks...that is 5 or more......if there are two teams..would you score the biggest team that comes together....
Now saying a good team will come back together...well yes...excepta BOP attack....I have had teams come apart and not come back for a day due to a BOP attack.
The way the rules are written..it appears to me that you would keep judging the biggest group of birds..count the breaks of the biggest group because the smaller group is not considered out.
This is why our rules are so GRAY....they really need to be written to cover all bases....and not up to the judge stuff..
rock and ROLL
Paul
|
Scott
2336 posts
Jul 09, 2009
1:37 PM
|
"HAMMER BREAK" It means breaking together in unison, Cliff none of this should need an explanation.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Jul 09, 2009 2:14 PM
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1961 posts
Jul 09, 2009
2:23 PM
|
Good point, George. Why is it that we don't see other countries bidding for birds that have been donated by their countrymen to support the World Cup?
Paul,
And therein lies the rub. I'm sure that's why Carl presented the question for discussion. The rule is unclear. The rule is written as "A BIRD" in the singular, but it is not spelled out to be one bird or how many birds the rule pertains to. I guess it depends on the judge and the situation he encounters at each loft. The flyers in hawk infested areas may have very different views than flyers with few hawk attacks. We have to make some allowances to see guys get a break if they are willing to fly, knowing they may get " HAMMERED". IN MY OPINION. and MY OPINION is not fly rules.
But hey, Scott says none of this needs any explanation! LOL!
Scott,
OK, good. Now we got Hammer Breaks. Now, what 5 or more bird breaks that perform in unison and spin adequately ARE NOT scorable? Take your time but be precise.
I understand that in a perfect world, it should be a given that all roller men should understand what constitutes scoreable performance. But if it was all that simple, we would have more consistant scoring accross the board, and little discussion about the judging and the interpretation of the rules after every competition.....and you wouldn't be complaining about the poor kits that are being scored.
Cliff
Last Edited by on Jul 09, 2009 2:29 PM
|
Scott
2337 posts
Jul 09, 2009
2:25 PM
|
Paul, it sates "have been chased off by a bird of prey" the 5 min rule is to give them time to regroup.
To me, chase off means just that,chased off,no I would most certainly not score them,for me to score them would just go agaisnt my grain.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
fhtfire
2001 posts
Jul 09, 2009
2:38 PM
|
and your grain is as rough as sandpaper...LOL...No problem....Like I had explained to you and you were witness to at my House...when my kit got hit by a Falcon and Coopers at the same time...I had a kit with about 12 bird and a small group of about 5...and 1 that came down with a torn up underwing..they never got back together...but the large group kept rolling there asses off with no score......when I felt that the 5 out birds would not have been out if a Falcon and hawk had not hit them......but I felt the rules stated the hawk caused the outbirds and they are not considered out....then the rest of the team should have continued to be scored...I of course was at a disadvantage only having 12 birds breaking instead of 19....but anyway....like I said..I felt chased off meant chased off.....how far is chased off...till you cant see them anymore....leave the area....leave the kit....real gray..LOL.....and I lost the chance to qualify by a fraction of some points.....but if they would have been counted still...I would have qualified...but just wanted clarification..
rock and ROLL
Paul
|
kcfirl
599 posts
Jul 09, 2009
3:08 PM
|
Hi guys,
I have a different take on this.
"A bird is not considered “out” if it is returning directly from a roll or it has been separated by extreme weather or chased off by a bird of prey - even if the pigeon lands or is captured."
If a hawk comes through a kit and busts it up, I would offer a time out to the flyer of up to 5 minutes. Once the timeout is over, I would score any break of 5 birds or better, regardless of whether 15 birds have regrouped if in my judgement, the reason the kit is not together was the hawk.
Best Regards,
Ken
|
Scott
2338 posts
Jul 09, 2009
3:13 PM
|
Paul, some situations are un avoidable and we are going to be burnt by them, I would rather take that than opening the door to weak minded birds given a pass because a hawk flew by and they seperate.
And as I stated, to me the rules are clear, they say "chased off" to be that means gone where they don't have the oppertunity to regroup.
Under your situation the fix would have been more than one 5 minute time out, but then a fly could go on a half a day.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
Scott
2339 posts
Jul 09, 2009
3:15 PM
|
That is a natual occurance Ken, they are most probably being kept out by a couple of weak minded birds that the flyer is allready aware of.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Jul 09, 2009 3:17 PM
|
j .wanless
854 posts
Jul 10, 2009
7:01 AM
|
hi all
shit+ heres me trying to get the uk to use the w/c rules.after reading all the above posts i think i will
stick with our own stupid rules lol.parts of our rules to me are stupid + need changing but they always seem to get voted in.if the kit splits we judge the biggest kit.or if its a even split the flyer can decide which kit to judge .me personaly i would not judge either until they all get back together.on a bop attack we give as much time as is needed for the kit to get back together.there is no time limit its up to the judge.
|
nicksiders
GOLD MEMBER
3535 posts
Jul 10, 2009
7:40 AM
|
These are two seperate events. Neither should be a percurser to the other one. Two seperate events; neither one has nothing to do with the other. The only thing in common is they involve roller pigeons. Neither one of these events have nothing to do with the ASRA flies. Neither event has nothing to do with the OPRA flies. The WC fly has nothing to do with the NBRC fly. The NBRC fly has nothing to do with the WC fly. End of story.
----------
Just My Take On Things
Nick Siders
Last Edited by on Jul 10, 2009 7:41 AM
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1962 posts
Jul 10, 2009
10:00 AM
|
j.wanless
Is that the judge's choice to judge a split kit or is it clearly stated in your rules? Interesting.
Cheers,
Cliff
|
j .wanless
855 posts
Jul 10, 2009
10:37 AM
|
hi cliff
cliff its stated in our rules its a rule i think is a joke but cant seem to get it over to every one.like the w/c we fly from 15 to 20 birds.so if either 15 or 20 split in half they still get marked.so for me thats not a 20 bird kit thats getting judged.in 2006 i managed to get the aerc to change thier rules to where less than 15 birds are in the air they dont get judged.ther by people will try + fly 20 as if only flying 15 + 1 lands thats thier fly over .
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1963 posts
Jul 11, 2009
9:26 PM
|
j. wanless,
I think that it is important that the rules be very specific. Whether or not they are appropriate to the situation, is another matter to be decided. By the way, Hannes showed me some of his photos when he stayed at my place and your mug was among them! LOL!He spoke very highly of you, by the way.
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1964 posts
Jul 11, 2009
9:27 PM
|
Carl
As far as doing away with the WC regional's, I see little hope of that happening. The WC rules seem clear enough to me that a WC regional fly, flown by WC fly rules, is how it is done now and should be done. It is only a suggestion, that if we want to send the best kits to the finals, we simply have a semifinals also flown by WC rules to get the numbers down to 20 or so.
I think Dave was just testing the waters, but unless a major change is made in the WC, his idea may not happen, but Anything is possible.
Cliff
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1965 posts
Jul 11, 2009
9:34 PM
|
Scott
" none of this should need an explanation"....
Well, it shouldn't but it does. Like Carl said, deleting the 1/2 second rule should have solved the problem, instead it created another problem. We have many eye witness reports where unison 5 bird breaks were not scored because birds also rolled before or after the break. I find no basis in the fly rules to not score a 5 bird unison break, if there was one or less out birds and the birds rolled adequately.
I guess you will just have to explain it to me, if you can.
Sorry to be such a pest but this needs an explanation for a few of us.
Cliff
|
Scott
2347 posts
Jul 11, 2009
10:16 PM
|
Oh stop it Cliff, unless a judge is scoreing everything that wiggles you will allways get guys second guessing the judge.
I probaby wouldn't score those crappy breaks that you are describing either, Cliff this Bullshit happens every time a good judge comes through,how about instead of making excuses or poorly executed breaks we try stepping up our game instead .
(We have many eye witness reports where unison 5 bird breaks were not scored because birds also rolled before or after the break.)
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Jul 12, 2009 12:18 AM
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1966 posts
Jul 13, 2009
5:54 AM
|
Scott,
Forget the WC fly for a minute, address this first.
WE are not talking about "CRAPPY BREAKS', we are talking about 5 birds or more, breaking in unison, that are rolling adequately. Just exactly what is called for in the rules. Some have the OPINION that these are crappy breaks, only because if a smaller or larger break occurs, just before or just after. That "FUZZY LOGIC" is NOT supported by the fly rules.
It is the job of the judge to count all birds that roll adequately, meet the judges estimate of 10 feet or better, roll in unison of 5 or more, have no more than one out bird. If you think there is more to this, share it with me. PLEASE.
When does the judge have the right to NOT SCORE birds that meet this criteria? Because the rules are vague. I'm trying to find some wording that will score what we want to have scored...and not score what we don't believe is scoreable, rather than leaving it up to every jduge to decide on his own....and thus bringing about the inconsistancies that spark these discussions. So far I'm not having much luck with that....
Cliff
Last Edited by on Jul 13, 2009 5:54 AM
|
Scott
2354 posts
Jul 13, 2009
6:42 AM
|
Cliff, the rules are clear when it states "the judge shall not score any thing that doesn't meet his standard" and again when it says"the judges call is final"
These rules above is so that no one can undermine his calls or the fly, any time you are judgeing to a standard you will get 1/2 the flyers sencond guessing your calls.
Watching Hannes judge I know now what kind of kit will win and I know what kind of teams are on the top, that is not always the case.
Cliff, I would probably consider what you describe a waterfall also, if it is a good kit that is on they won't do much of that crap so it is a non issue as it is the good kits that are on that we want to be sure is at the top.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Jul 13, 2009 6:53 AM
|
bman
678 posts
Jul 13, 2009
8:56 AM
|
Just my .02 but it sounds more like a timing issue. If a couple of birds roll and several seconds later you get a 5 bird break,sounds scoreable. On the other hand if the 5 bird break follows the first ones like pouring a glass of water I would call it a waterfall
(not scoreable)JMO. Also trying to learn.
----------
Ron
Borderline lofts
Last Edited by on Jul 13, 2009 8:58 AM
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1967 posts
Jul 13, 2009
8:59 AM
|
Scott
Well then, I guess you can't complain when you get a judge who differs from your opinion and scores all that fluttering and flipping because that's HIS standard. The only way to avoid this is that the fly rules must be the standard, NOT personal opinions. If we have a problem with the definition of a waterfall break, it needs to be addressed in the fly rules.
If a judge has his definition of a waterfall and most everybody else has a different opinion of a waterfall, we have a communication problem.
NOT judging a break because a judge feels it is a waterfall break, IS FINE BY ME, but FIRST the fly rules need to define what is a waterfall break. There is not a single reference to a waterfall break found in the FLY RULES. Why would anyone feel their opinion is supported by the fly rules one way or the other?
Again..... For the sake of discussion, PLEASE DEFINE for us what you think constitutes a waterfall break.
A judge's "STANDARD" needs to based in his (OUR) understanding of the fly rules, anything else is NOT in the best interests of all the flyers judged. If we accept your statements as fact, then we might as well have no fly rules. Let the judge score whatever however he pleases, score whatever turns his crank, and accept the results. BUT FIRST the WC and NBRC would need to delete all fly rules, so we all understand this is just a crap shoot.
I sincerely doubt the mention of "judges standard" was meant to be used to in this case, this way.
But I will concede that a waterfall break should NOT be scored, but once a formal definition is written into the fly rules, we will all become aware what is and is not a waterfall break.
Still waiting for your definition. While you are at it ....if you do, define a Popcorn break and a slinky break.
Cliff
Last Edited by on Jul 13, 2009 9:00 AM
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1968 posts
Jul 14, 2009
5:11 AM
|
Ron,
Yes......Not scoring that break because a couple birds rolled first completely eliminates the value of the phenomenon of trigger birds in our kits.
Cliff
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1969 posts
Jul 14, 2009
5:25 AM
|
Scott, I've been giving this some more thought:
7) Scoring...... "The Judge shall simply estimate and record the number of birds rolling adequately in unison for each break involving 5 or more......"
8) Integrity. The judge shall NOT score anything that does not meet his standard.......... for adequate QUALITY and DEPTH or DURATION of performance." HIS STANDARD FOR QUALITY AND DEPTH.
Now, how do we get from this, to NOT judging a scorable break because of if 3 go then 5 go then 12 go in unison and roll adequately in the space of just a few seconds?
The size or frequency of the brakes is NOT a factor of QUALITY or depth.
Quality is rotation, velocity, speed coupled with wing position. The size of scorable breaks is awarded in the numbers 5-9 X 1, 10-14 X 2, 15-19 X 3 and 20 X 4.
Frequency is a quality measured by the number of breaks estimated by the judge.
NOW, if we used "kitting points" as the English do, you may have a leg to stand on...... But the WC does not award points for kitting, they penalize a kit by not scoring breaks where 2 or more birds are out of the kit.
There is absolutely, no understanding written into the FLY RULES to give any judge the idea a break should NOT be judged because of what breaks occurred before or after, a scorable break. It is JUST NOT THERE. It is not expressly written or expressly understood. And no where does it give any judge a right to disregard the rules. These are ROLLERS not TUMBLERS. His "STANDARDS" are restricted to his estimate of 10 feet, his estimate of the quality and his estimate of the number of unison birds rolling adequately.
Show me in the fly rules differently..... NOT OPINIONS, written fly rules.
He is to MAKE ALLOWANCES for extraordinary circumstances. NOT ESTIMATING A SCORABLE BREAK has nothing to do with making allowances.
Flying Rollers is a subjective sport. NO DOUBT! But still the judge must adhere to the written fly rules.
Unless you have factual written fly rules to back up your opinion, or want to volunteer some definitions for the rules, I guess we're done with this.
Cliff
Last Edited by on Jul 14, 2009 9:24 AM
|
pigeon pete
331 posts
Jul 14, 2009
6:42 AM
|
I agree with Cliff that the rules need to be as specific as possible because if not then the judges will make the rules up as they go along, or at least bend them to their own standards.
If we want the rules to be a certain way then we tend to 'See' it in the rules.
Like Cliff stating - (His "STANDARDS are restricted to his estimate of 10 feet, ) No Cliff his standards are not restricted to his estimation of 10ft, he may well set a standard minimum depth of 20ft or 6ft, it's his call under the rules.
Very clearly many fanciers want a minimum depth standard, but according to the WC rules the standard is set by the judge, and there is a "suggested 10ft minimum", yet the majority of posts will talk about them having to roll 10ft to score under the rules when the rules do not state 10ft or judges estimation of 10ft as a mandatory minimum depth.
Obviously Cliff, you are a clever guy, misenterpreting the rule yourself to prove the case you are putting forwards,lol
Pete.
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1970 posts
Jul 14, 2009
9:32 AM
|
Pete,
You are right about your opinion that the rules state only that it is SUGGESTED as a minimum depth. But it does not say the judge may use any other depth as his suggested minimum standard. Therefore it logically follows a prudent and fair judge would do as SUGGESTED. There is no challenge to enforcement of any fly rule, correct? We can only hope a judge would follow what is suggested. Based on your logic, we would find no grounds to challenge it, if a judge decided that his personal standard was to score ONLY HALF TURNS, then would we? So if that extreme is unacceptable, then so it must be at the other end of the spectrum with the suggested 10 ft minimum.
Personallu, I would recommend that 20 feet be the minimum, and it not be "suggested" but "mandatory" as the standard for a judge to use his best estimate of 20 feet and be done with the grey area. All flyers should strive to place 20 foot or deeper birds in his kit to avoid this minimum 10 foot suggested controversy , if at all possible. As I have said before, the rules should not "suggest" anything....they whould state them clearly and specifically! But we are not really addressing that question in this thread are we?
We are addressing why a judge would not judge a break, a scorable break of 5 or more birds rolling adequately meeting the judges minimum depth estimate and rolling in unison. If all birds are in the kit, what possible reason can you find not to judge such a break? How can a smaller break , a non scorable break affect the scoring of a scorable break a second or two behind or a second or two before? The answer can only be found in the varied definition of what constitues a waterfall from jduge to judge. That is why I have been exploring (unsuccessfully) how flyers would define what a waterfall is. What are your ideas on this subject? Do you find any thing in the "fly rules" to "suggest" to you, a reason to not score a break because of what goes on before or after...because of birds that may roll before or after the break? Is that a waterfall in your mind? If so, how many? If one bird goes before and one goes after the break, is that also a waterfall? 2 on each side? 3? Or do the rules need to specify that only instaneous breaks will be scored rather than defining scoreable performance as 5 birds that break in unison?
Cliff
Last Edited by on Jul 14, 2009 9:37 AM
|
j .wanless
862 posts
Jul 14, 2009
10:03 AM
|
hi all
cliff a non scorable break should have no affect what so ever on a scorable break.for instance if say 5 or 6 birds put a waterfall sort of break in then the rest of the kit explode say a 10 bird break they should be scored the 10 + then doubled as the others were not out birds as they were rolling.the only way the waterfall birds would stop the 10 birds scoring is if they flew away from the kit + became outbirds.
because the 1st break was classed as a waterfall the judge should egnore them totaly + mark the 10 birds .
something ive noticed a lot over here is if the kit breaks + the birds are not all close to each other they dont get scored which is also wrong in my eyes.
say for instance theres a few birds to the left of the kit + 1 or 2 towards the back + maybe 1 at the right side of the kit they never seem to mark them.and to me thats still a break just because theyre not all right next to each other doesnt mean they should not be scored.
Last Edited by on Jul 14, 2009 10:07 AM
|
Scott
2358 posts
Jul 14, 2009
10:05 AM
|
Scott, I've been giving this some more thought:
7) Scoring...... "The Judge shall simply estimate and record the number of birds rolling adequately in unison for each break involving 5 or more......"
8) Integrity. The judge shall NOT score anything that does not meet his standard.......... for adequate QUALITY and DEPTH or DURATION of performance." HIS
STANDARD FOR QUALITY AND DEPTH.
Now, how do we get from this, to NOT judging a scorable break because of if 3 go then 5 go then 12 go in unison and roll adequately in the space of just a few seconds?
(Cliff, ONLY the judge can dertermine if they went in unison or whether it was a waterfall, you and I can second guess all we want and go back and forth until the cows come home, myself I was tinkled pink to see his quality of judging)
The size or frequency of the brakes is NOT a factor of QUALITY or depth.
Quality is rotation, velocity, speed coupled with wing position. The size of scorable breaks is awarded in the numbers 5-9 X 1, 10-14 X 2, 15-19 X 3 and 20 X 4.
Frequency is a quality measured by the number of breaks estimated by the judge.
NOW, if we used "kitting points" as the English do, you may have a leg to stand on...... But the WC does not award points for kitting, they penalize a kit by not scoring breaks where 2 or more birds are out of the kit.
There is absolutely, no understanding written into the FLY RULES to give any judge the idea a break should NOT be judged because of what breaks occurred before or after, a scorable break. It is JUST NOT THERE. It is not expressly written or expressly understood. And no where does it give any judge a right to disregard the rules. These are ROLLERS not TUMBLERS. His "STANDARDS" are restricted to his estimate of 10 feet, his estimate of the quality and his estimate of the number of unison birds rolling adequately.
(Cliff, my experiance has shown me that many judges score tumblers and short birds often , why aren't we discussing these ? )
Show me in the fly rules differently..... NOT OPINIONS, written fly rules.
He is to MAKE ALLOWANCES for extraordinary circumstances. NOT ESTIMATING A SCORABLE BREAK has nothing to do with making allowances.
(again, only the judge can deem it scoreable , and you are right it is subjective)
Flying Rollers is a subjective sport. NO DOUBT! But still the judge must adhere to the written fly rules.
Unless you have factual written fly rules to back up your opinion, or want to volunteer some definitions for the rules, I guess we're done with this.
Cliff
Last Edited on 14-Jul-2009 9:24 AM
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Jul 14, 2009 11:03 AM
|
bman
679 posts
Jul 14, 2009
11:39 AM
|
"Yes......Not scoring that break because a couple birds rolled first completely eliminates the value of the phenomenon of trigger birds in our kits."
Cliff, with the elimination of the 1/2 second rule I would think it negates the value of your trigger bird!!
----------
Ron
Borderline lofts
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1971 posts
Jul 14, 2009
11:47 AM
|
Ron,
So if one or two birds roll through the kit and stimulates an eight bird simultaneous break, are you saying that it is your opinion that the 1/2 second rule has voided that break?
When the NBRC eliminated the 1/2 second rule a few years back, do you think the USA experience any change in how the breaks were scored? Did anyone raise these same questions about waterfall breaks? I don't remember any...I never heard or saw these questions about judging in the NBRC after the 1/2 second rule was eliminated. Did you? The only thing I saw was a better interest in unison breaks by both the flyers and the judges. I feel that was the intended purpose with the WC as well. But this is the first judge (and he is from another country) that I have heard of preferring to only score instantaneous breaks....and even his opinion on the subject appeared to vary as the fly has progressed.....assuming we are all understanding him correctly, which could be in doubt.
Cliff
Last Edited by on Jul 14, 2009 12:53 PM
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1972 posts
Jul 14, 2009
11:51 AM
|
Scott
We have no disagreement regarding the fact that only the judge can estimate the number of birds that went in unison.
We have a question as to what to do if 5 or more go in unison, are estimated rolling adequately, a few birds roll before or after the break and whether it should affect the scoring of that scorable break?
What is there written in the rules that tells us that a waterfall is, and what is and is not scorable?
You do an excellent two step around these questions. Have to auditioned for DO YOU THINK YOU CAN DANCE? I'd vote for ya!
My experience tells me, we have judges whose depth estimates, you disagree with. That is the subjective part. The issue again is when a 5 bird break, rolling adaquately, meeting the judges estimate of HIS minimum standard, and he actually estimates 5 birds..... he sees all this , he is positive 5 birds broke that he deems scorable but does NOT score that break becasue other birds rolled on either side of the break. He sites that it was a waterfall break.
Since nowhere, is a waterfall break defined in the fly rules, I am asking for your definition of a waterfall break.
A one ana two, a one ana two...... Take it away FRED.
Cliff
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1973 posts
Jul 14, 2009
12:19 PM
|
j.wanless
I agree...that's how I would score it, too. But the rules are vague on this issue. It says waterfalls whould not be scored, but a waterfall is not defined.
Now that other deal you described is strange! As long as the birds are in the kit, they can break regardless of their position in the kit, and still should be counted; all other requirements for scoring being met, as in your example. This is not the two kits example is it? LOL A judge only has two eyes, he has limitations as to birds kitting . They can't be all over the sky and break and he be expected to see everything. Maybe the issue was that the judge thought the kit was too spread out. I have seen good judges not score a break in a kit because it was too spread out, and I have no problem with that.
I suggest we look at all nations 20 bird fly rules and see if we can take the best from each and produce something better than what we have, something easier to understand , easily interpreted , something where the flyers as well as the judges are all on the same page and within standard limits written into the fly rules.....SOMETHING without unwritten secret fly rules and opinions that many of us have never heard of. BIG GRIN!
I hope this little dance that Scott and I are involved with is showing how our fly rules may need adjustments in the definitions department. Scott is not wrong with his statements made , he just has not addressed the definition of a waterfall break and how that relates to the written rules. He has his opinion and I have mine but do the fly rules actually support either of us? When is a scorable break NOT SCORABLE and why? As things are currently written, it's up to each individual judge.
Scott... can you polka?
Cliff
Last Edited by on Jul 14, 2009 12:21 PM
|
bman
680 posts
Jul 14, 2009
12:26 PM
|
Whoa Cliff, you might want to consider switching to decaf.lol I would rather see them break together but as far as wether or not they are scoreable??????????
That's is what I want to know. Once again I am trying to learn. Right now I just put them up for the judge to decide! I am of the opinion it is like critizing the cook,if you do you'll be doing the cooking.
----------
Ron
Borderline lofts
|
Scott
2363 posts
Jul 14, 2009
12:28 PM
|
Cliff there is no dance, nor is there cut and dry where these birds are concerned, the only way to answer your question is by standing under kits.
But I will tell you this, a good solid break from a solid team has nothing rolling before of after, giving this some thought for definition, I would say if all were in the roll when it happened it would be a waterfall break.
If two rolled out,stopped, and were returning when the others broke that it is clear where the rules are concerned and a legit break.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Jul 14, 2009 12:34 PM
|
bman
681 posts
Jul 14, 2009
12:31 PM
|
Cliff, this brings up another question. If the premise is to put the best possible kits into the WC finals,why score anything that even resembles a waterfall? If the other countries are looking for "unison" breaks do you feel that such a kit stands a chance? Don't kill the mesenger it is a legitimate question.
----------
Ron
Borderline lofts
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1974 posts
Jul 14, 2009
12:43 PM
|
Ron,
I have not been addressing where I, personally, think the bar should be set. If it is instaneous breaks that we want, then the rules just need to say that.....and define that if any birds roll before or after, then the break is not scoreable. (But believe, me, if we do that we are going to see A LOT MORE zeroes on the scoreboard. And that has a lot of other ramifications for the WC fly in general.) I'm just trying to see rules defined that are clear enough to eliminate some of the wiggle room that allows various judges to score different levels of performance differently. If we want only instantaneous breaking of all birds intiating the break at the same time in order to be counted, then the rules should say it that way. If we don't want to score waterfall...define what that is. That's all I'm saying. Good discussion.
Cliff
PS You talk like the US is not also looking for unison breaks! Remember it was the NBRC that first dumped the 1/2 second rule to encourage judging unison breaks. But in the last few years , I have not ran into the word waterfall breaks used as it is now.
While I like clean breaks as well as the next flyer, I am not so sure that a 5 bird unison break should NOT be scored because a few birds misfired right before a scorable break. If this is the decision of the WCEC, I will have no problems with it but first I want confirmation that we now are going to not score a unison break because of a smaller break before or after.
I am just not so sure all the other countries are correct in their interpretation of the elimination of the 1/2 second rule. If it was a logical assumption, I would think the NBRC would have experienced several questions along the same lines since the NBRC got rid of the 1/2 rule. As national fly director, I have had no such enquiries.
Never shoot the messenger, I have a rule and a few scares to prove it does not always work.
Last Edited by on Jul 14, 2009 1:41 PM
|
Scott
2364 posts
Jul 14, 2009
12:45 PM
|
Ron, good point, obviously it is much more difficult to breed,select and fly a solid team of birds where the breaks are clean and defined, why shouldn't we be setting the bar high ? Is it because it mocks these silly hyper inflated scores that we have been seeing ?
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1975 posts
Jul 14, 2009
1:06 PM
|
Scott,
PS.
Yes! I want to emphasize that I agree that this judge is a quality-minded judge with high standards. His estimated counts are on the money. I didn't always agree with the D&Q multipliers he gave, becasue he seemed to evaluate the entire kit, not just the birds on the break, but he is a super nice guy and a judge who is committed to quality performance.
However, he made some interesting comments to different RDs and some interesting calls that gave rise to a few questions, the answers to which are not well-defined in the fly rules. The South African flyers (and maybe other countries, as well) got together and set the bar at requiring instaneous breaks, apparently. And now this SA judge is imposing that personal standard of his country on the other countries, (and the rules do permit that leeway), but the rules do not provide the specific definitons in the rules to really back him up. It has raised questions in the mind of flyers, so in my opinion, the WC should address the definition of a waterfall break, and decide whether the WC rules will reflect a desire for instantaneous breaking. This is not a slap at the judge or anyone else. It is just a question that needs answers.. that's all.
This is the first year after a fly rule was changed (eliminating the 1/2 second rule) and we should expect to see some unexpected results or discussions as a result of that change.
Cliff
Last Edited by on Jul 14, 2009 1:14 PM
|