Scott
2365 posts
Jul 14, 2009
1:18 PM
|
Cliff,I didn't expect the elimination of the 1/2 rule to have any bearing on anything as a 1/2 is a blink, it won't change the way I and many others judge one iota.
What we did hope to do was bring clarity to only score legit breaks. The word "unison" is clear , look it up, Cliff we can over think this to death all we want.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1976 posts
Jul 14, 2009
1:38 PM
|
Scott,
Yes, I know. I can be a pain in the butt and a stickler for detail. But if 14 birds are all rolling together, but only 8 broke together instaneously, we have judges that might call that both ways. With nothing more to guide us than the fly rules as they exist......we get inconsistancies in socroing and flyers are confused. Some are of the opinion that it is a waterfall...some are of the opinion there was a 8 bird break...some say a 14-bird break. Don't you think that is too much leeway? It depends on the judge's eye-sight; his interpretaion of what he saw; whether he was able to estimate 8 birds rolling in unison (all of which are part of the subjectived part of judging that we have no control over); and then his interpretation of the rules and how he applies his personal standard! That is the part we can clarify for all concerned. The fly rules are not giving us a clear-cut explanation, either way.
This is not about anyone being right or wrong, it is about a clear definition of a waterfall break and whether true a unison 5 bird break can be NOT SCORED because of birds that roll on either side of it.
Where I am from, common usage defines a waterfall break as when one or two or three or four birds, break together in unison, or singles or clusters, but never 5 or more in unison. Anytime 5 or more birds break in unison, meet the judges standard for depth and quality, they should be scored. Simple as that. But until we have a formal definition of a waterfall break, who knows who's opinion is best supported by the fly rules.
I agree a judge's estimate can be all over the board but we can't contol that. We can only control what we can and we need more education among the WC participants as to what is best for the WC when it comes to waterfall breaks.
Too bad all the other nations were not here when we had 1/2 turn scoring and what a fiasco that was. This too will shake itself out one way or the other. We may not all agree with the way it comes out, but at least we will all have the same definition to go by. AND THAT IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT.
You repeatedly state your disdain for "hyper inflated scores", Scott, but you refuse to take the time to write a simple rule to define what you mean. We have a need to define a waterfall break, written as a fly rule instruction to both judges and flyer. Give it your best shot! These fly rules are understood by way of the written word. Be as precise and to the point as you can. Fox trot anyone? Come on Scotty. Humor a tall skinny dentist! LOL!
Cliff
Last Edited by on Jul 14, 2009 1:43 PM
|
Scott
2366 posts
Jul 14, 2009
1:56 PM
|
Cliff, this is the best I can do for you -
( 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
|
macsrollers
135 posts
Jul 14, 2009
6:24 PM
|
I just had a debate with a fellow roller enthusiast. I say if 5 birds break in unison and another 5 break shortly thereafter this consitutes two 5 bird breaks. He says since the original 5 went and then 5 followed the second 5 shouldn't be scored because he says that would be a false break because they didnt' go in unison with the first break. To me the rule is simple- if 5 or more birds break in UNISON and meet the minimum requirement to be considered a roll, then that is a 5 bird break. Those birds wouldn't be considered out because they rolled out of the kit and are to allowed a reasonable chance to rejoin the kit until they would be considered out. Now if another group of 5 or more break in UNISON and to the minimum standard, even if it is a split second after the initial 5 birds went, then you have two scorable breaks. The debate is never ending and only a well trained eye and top notch judge would be able to reasonably score a double break like described. The word UNISON is the key so waterfall should not even come in to play. I think the best rule change would be to eliminate the double and triple points for the 10 + and 15+ bird breaks. A great acheivement to get the big breaks, but if 9 birds break correctly you get 9 points and if 10 go you get 20 points. If we just used a straight raw point system then the quality and depth multipliers more accurately can reward those attributes to the overall outcome. But then the next debate would be how we use the quality and depth multipliers! Until the some high tech guru comes up with super cameras and micro chips put on each bird to measure depth and velocity we will always be in a position of a discretionary judging system based on the judge's opinion of the rules and his style of judging. All that we can be hopeful is that the judge is consistent and close enough in interperting the rules so that the best team flown wins. Remember when the original Star Treck came out with all the high tech stuff and it was way out of this world. It wasn't that long ago and much of that out of this world technology has come true. So perhaps the microchip and high tech cameras on a computerized program used to judge rollers is not that far fetched as it may sound. But I like the old fashioned way as I think once you take the human element out of it you lose most of the fun- and besides then we would no longer have any thing to debate about regarding scores and judges! Enjoy your next fly! Don M.
Last Edited by on Jul 14, 2009 6:25 PM
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1977 posts
Jul 15, 2009
4:36 AM
|
Scott
Your definition seems a bit unclear but thanks for trying.
Cliff
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1978 posts
Jul 15, 2009
4:56 AM
|
Riddle me this guys....
What effect does 1 bird rolling adequately for 60 feet do for the Depth multiplier?
What effect does 2 birds rolling adequately for 60 feet do for the Depth Multiplier?
What effect does 3 birds rolling adequately for 60 feet do for the Depth multiplier?
What effect does 4 birds rolling adequately for 60 feet do for the Depth multiplier?
What effect does one bird blurring out for 60 feet do for the Quality multiplier?
What effect does two birds blurring out for 60 feet do for the Quality multiplier?
What effect does three birds blurring out for 60 feet do for the Quality multiplier?
What effect does 4 birds blurring out for 60 feet do for the quality multiplier?
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1979 posts
Jul 15, 2009
4:57 AM
|
Don
Good post. The break between 9-10 and 14-15 have always been a source of debate and your opinion has merits.Your opinion of this issue of waterfall breaks runs very close to mine.
Thanks for your ideas.
Cliff
|
bman
683 posts
Jul 15, 2009
8:25 AM
|
Cliff, I think you are trying to catch smoke in a bottle. Look at are judicial system to "interpert" the laws. You can't possibly write the rules to allow for every situation that might arise.
----------
Ron
Borderline lofts
|
Scott
2368 posts
Jul 15, 2009
9:59 AM
|
Exacty Ron, there is nothing cut and dry, for the multipliers all you have is the overall impression pf what was scored to go by, not every break is going to be the same depth or same quality over all.
Cliff, my definition is pretty clear, you are way over thinking this rhing, the fact is it is the rare fly where you even need to keep score to place the top kits in order.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1980 posts
Jul 15, 2009
11:22 AM
|
Ron
I am not trying to write a rule to cover every situation. I am asking for a clear precise definition of what is and is not a waterfall break. Care to try?
Maybe you were responding to my riddle. AND THE ANSWER IS..........................NOTHING! BIRDS THAT DON"T SCORE DO NOT EFFECT THE SCORE.....no matter how deep they are or how good their quality is. Birds that break, but do not score SHOULD NOT EFFECT THE MULTIPLIERS!
The timing of a series of clean breaks, scorable or non- scorable, should not preclude the scoring of any scorable break IMHO. Otherwise, how long should we have to wait between groups of 5 birds (or less)to breaking in order for anything to be scored? Unison breaks should only apply to breaks of 5 or more, of course. If they perform in unison and if they roll adequately, and if they meet the judges minimum depth standard, They should be counted.
If you want unison breaks, you score unison breaks anytime 5 or more perform in unison.
If we want to allow birds that don't score to adversely effect the scoring of breaks of 5 or more (because they roll before or after the break), then maybe we should consider letting birds that don't score, also to be considered in the D&Q multipliers. BOTH ARE STUPID IDEAS!
Cliff
Cliff
Last Edited by on Jul 16, 2009 5:11 AM
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
3460 posts
Jul 15, 2009
12:56 PM
|
HUH?
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
bman
684 posts
Jul 16, 2009
3:44 AM
|
Tony,Cliff missed his true calling. Should have been a lawyer.LOL
Seriously no matter how much you write or don't write into the rules it still falls on the judges interpetation of the rules. Back to square one!
----------
Ron
Borderline lofts
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
3461 posts
Jul 16, 2009
4:49 AM
|
Ron, I was just like, what? LOL Step back and I see hair splitting to the nth degree? You know me, I like a good debate, but my head hurts trying to follow this thread. LOL
Don, I like your post #135. makes more sense to me.
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1981 posts
Jul 16, 2009
5:19 AM
|
Tony
The point I am trying to make is a fine one to be sure.
If all judges/flyers agree that the rule is: only unison breaks are scorable.The rules have been successfully written.
That said, we have no control over the judges actual perception of how many birds rolled in unison. That falls under the subjective part of the fly rules. The judges "ESTIMATE" if you will. OK so far?
What is not refutable is: 5 or more birds rolling adequately and in unison, is scorable. But does "in unison" mean that they were the first and only birds to initate rolling in order to be scored? "Waterfalls", which are not to be scored, are simply not adequately defined and I am trying to get some ideas as guys' opinions as to what constitues a waterfall and what constitutes scoreable performance in this instance. That has been the issue in this year's WC judging. Is that better?
Cliff
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1982 posts
Jul 16, 2009
7:09 AM
|
Ron,
The judge and those being judged, must be on the same page as to what is expected. Would you go to Vegas and play poker not knowing if 3 of a kind beat 2 pair? Or if sometimes it did and sometimes it did not?
The WC just made a change in the fly rules to eliminate the 1/2 second rule, so we all need to understand what is expected, both for the judge and those being judged. This could directly affect the selection of birds for our teams. As we move forward with better written fly rules, adding here , deleting there, we hope to get more of the flyers and judges on the same page.
With this year's WC fly, a new twist has been added, a question raised, and it will fall to the WC EC to consider what is the best way to define, what is to be scored and what should not be scored.
Yes, it will always fall to the judge and his interpretation of the fly rules , but the effort is to guide all flyers/judges in the same general understanding. And we do this by way of better written, more clearly understood fly rules.
The effort to delete the 1/2 second rule to eliminate waterfalls seems to have moved us two steps backwards instead of one step forward. Whatever the outcome, at least we will better understand what is and is not a scorable break.
Cliff
Last Edited by on Jul 16, 2009 7:09 AM
|
bman
685 posts
Jul 16, 2009
8:56 AM
|
Cliff thanks, your last post makes way more sense.
For ME in MY backyard. If there is a noticeable seperation (time/distance) between the unscoreable & the scoreable break I would count it. But if 2 birds go then three and then 5 more in a continous cascade
I would not score them. For me it is all about the seperation.Hope this makes sense!
----------
Ron
Borderline lofts
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1983 posts
Jul 16, 2009
12:05 PM
|
Ron
Makes perfect sense to me.....So what would you say characterizes "noticeable separation" in time.....1 sec?....2 secs? 5 secs? What about "noticeable separation" in distance? 10 ft? 15 ft.? 20 ft? The more precisely we can define it, the easier it is for judges to duplicate it in their judging. And, using your example, if the last 5 rolled in unison and rolled adequately, what information, found in the fly rules, would you use as a reason to NOT count a 5 bird break? Or is your own personal standard as to what constitutes a waterfall? Therein lies the loophole. Because another judge with a different standard might count it. I'm not discrediting your standard in any way, Ron...just being devil's advocate, here, and trying to point to the variablity in scores based on inadequate wording and definitions in the rules as they exist.
Of course it would be difficult for some judges to observe what is going on, to see the separation. But what is your reason (supported by the fly rules) to not score the 5 bird break?
Thanks for your participation.
Cliff
Last Edited by on Jul 16, 2009 12:05 PM
|
bman
686 posts
Jul 16, 2009
12:31 PM
|
Cliff, for me a second or ten feet is pretty close to what I use. In other words the non-scoreable birds would have to seperate from the kit before the scoreable break started. As far as the rules I imagine it is covered by the part that says the judge shall not score what in his opinion is not acceptable.
Not an exact quote but you know the wording.
----------
Ron
Borderline lofts
|
bman
687 posts
Jul 16, 2009
1:41 PM
|
Cliff, first why is just you & me?? lol
I given this some more thought. If the judge can't discern where the the "sroreable" break starts or stops then to me that would be not scoreable.Regardless of time or distance, if there is no seperation than there is no break. That is the way I see it anyway. I really don't think the rules can written to take the subjectivity out of them. If you want something that is subjective try bird dog field trials! No points.no scoring the dogs are placed simply in the order that the judge thinks they should rank! I have never judged and probably never will so my opinion doesn't carry any weight. but that is the way I see it.
----------
Ron
Borderline lofts
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1984 posts
Jul 16, 2009
7:49 PM
|
Ron,
Must be a boring topic to the others! LOL!
Hmmmmmmmm. Are you saying that nothing in the fly rules gives you cause to NOT score 5 birds rolling adequately in unison except...." The judge shall not score anything that does not meet his standard for adequate quality and depth or duration of performance"?
So you understand quality, to include how breaks are timed and executed?
Two more questions? Have you always had this understanding or did removal of the 1/2 second rule have anything to do with this understanding of quality?
Correct me if I am wrong, but is it your opinion, that the integrity clause gives the judge the right to use his personal preference to guide him in matters concerning adequately quality and depth? Correct?
Thanks for you help here.
Cliff
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1985 posts
Jul 16, 2009
7:53 PM
|
Ron
Try this example: You see 4 five-bird breaks, boom boom boom boom. You are the judge and you count 5 birds rolling adequately, meeting your minimum depth; boom, 5 more.....you count 5 doing it right again, and again and again. There is a definite pause between each break but not enough to measure, a blink at best.
To you , is this a waterfall break....or are these 4 five-bird unison breaks that are spaced very close together and scorable? If the integrity statement was not there, how would you be guided by the fly rules as they are?
Cliff
|
bman
688 posts
Jul 17, 2009
4:21 AM
|
Ok,here it goes.
"Have you always had this understanding or did removal of the 1/2 second rule have anything to do with this understanding of quality?"
No for the 1/2 second had nothing to do with it.
"Correct me if I am wrong, but is it your opinion, that the integrity clause gives the judge the right to use his personal preference to guide him in matters concerning adequately quality and depth? Correct?"
Correct
"Correct me if I am wrong, but is it your opinion, that the integrity clause gives the judge the right to use his personal preference to guide him in matters concerning adequately quality and depth? Correct?"
For me a "blink at best" is NOT a definite pause,
I don't think you would be adequately evaluate the performance.............waterfall.
Once again this is MY understanding and how I evaluate my birds.
----------
Ron
Borderline lofts
|
bman
689 posts
Jul 17, 2009
4:32 AM
|
Cliff, let me add couple of things here since I feel a little bit like a "hostile" witness being cross examined. I truly beleive it is impossible to clarify the rule enough to cover every single instance that might arise. Subjectivity is built in no matter how hard you try to "write" it out. You have a couple of options;
1) judge certification program........probably won't happen.
2) panel judging.......again not likely since we seem to have a shortage already.
3) judging seminars at the local/regional level conducted by local clubs and sponsored thru the NBRC & WC with both the local clubs and the sponsoring organization/s sharing the cost.
Just my thoughts.
----------
Ron
Borderline lofts
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1986 posts
Jul 17, 2009
9:10 AM
|
Ron
Actually, you are NOT a hostile witness and you are being very helpful. I am not concerned in writing a rule to cover every situation, we just can't do that anyway. Subjectivity will always play a big role in how we use the fly rules. That said, a few basic understandings may be improved on.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Cliff
|