|
The Original All Roller Talk Discussion Board Archive >
New World Cup Rule Proposals
New World Cup Rule Proposals
Page:
1
2
spintight
12 posts
Jul 11, 2004
11:12 PM
|
hello, here are a new set of WC rules I am soliciting on here to see what people think about them, They are ideas from several that have put in input, but let hear what you think?
Dave
World Cup Rule Proposal
Kit size. The kit size may range from 15 to 20 birds, but no matter the kit size at least 5 birds must ROLL together in order to score.
Panel Judging. A region can use panel judging in the regional pre-lims if they elect to do so by a simple majority vote from prior year participants, the Regional Director should either appoint at least 2 able judges that can dedicate to judging the entire region. Panel judging is performed by flyers within the same region and a simple average is taken of all the judges used to come up with an average score. Panel judging will greatly aid in the smaller regions who would find it not very feasible to bring in an out of the area judge with the expense, not to mention that all the flying could take place on the weekend when most are off work.
Time-in. The flyer shall announce to the judge(s) the number of birds that are being flown prior to the release of the birds. No additions or subtractions are allowed after the kit is released, however the flyer IS allowed to chase up any birds that are down or might’ve hit before time is called in. If MORE then 1 bird refuses to go up when time is called in this kit will be disqualified, except when a 15 bird kit is flown then ALL birds must be up flying when time is called in. The flyer has up to 5 minutes after release to declare “time-in.” If the flyer does not call “start” or “time-in” earlier then scoring shall begin automatically 5 minutes after release. Any interference with the kit after “time-in” may lead to a disqualification. Attempts to ward of birds or prey are allowed, but any direct related kit activity shall not be scored during this attempt.
Fly time. The kit is “in judgement” for 20 minutes after time-in or until a second bird lands, which ever occurs first. However, the kit shall be disqualified if more then one birds fail to fly for at least 15 minutes after time-in unless it is driven down by a bird of prey or extreme weather. A bird down by a bird of prey must actually be the bird chased in order to qualify; other birds that are simply spooked by the presence of the predator will not qualify under this ruling. A bird down that spontaneously crashes (after one bird has landed) shall be given up to 10 seconds to resurrect itself and resume flight or it will be considered a second bird down.
Bird-out. Except for a 15 bird kit, scoring shall continue if one bird leaves the kit. Scoring is suspended but timing continues if 2 or more birds are considered out birds. A bird is NOT considered out if it is returning directly from a deep roll or has been separated by extreme weather or chased off by a bird of prey – even if the pigeons lands or is captured. Example; If a bird hits a deep spin and pulls out and is chasing after it the kit it will not be considered OUT unless it turns away from the kit before making it back. Predator Example; if several birds are scared from the kit upon an attack by a predator only the bird that is actually being chased WOULD NOT be considered an out bird by these rules. It is advised that if more then 2 birds, as long as it’s not a 15 bird kit, are scared during an attack and end up leaving the kit that the flyer should call for a time out to allow the regrouping of the kit. Any bird that was directly chased out of the kit will NOT be considered out for 5 minutes, unless it lands. (if the bird lands it will never be considered out) If the bird(s) that were chased out don’t get back in 5 minutes scoring will be suspended. Upon this time the flyer can request a normal “time out” for up to 5 minutes.
Time-out. The judge(s) can allow for a SINGLE discretionary “time-out” for UP TO 5 minutes as described in the “bird out”, “fly time” rule from a bird of prey, a blow-away from extreme weather, or other whim of nature or act of God, the flyer must ask for the “time-out” and when ready ask the judge to put them back on the clock or after the 5 minutes has expired the kit will be automatically put back on the clock. Although the time period the kit is in the air is extended by such a time out, the kit must be judged on the clock for a minimum of 15 minutes to qualify a score.
Extra birds. If additional indistinguishable pigeons or rollers join your kit, a simple discount for the extra birds shall be made for each turn involved with extra birds. For example; if 2 extra indistinguishable pigeons or rollers are in the kit and 7 birds roll together, the judge would record a 5 for that break and not 7. These pigeons or rollers must not have been released from the kit or they’ll be disqualified as described in the “time-in” rule. If you can tell the extra pigeons from the rest of the kit then scoring will remain as normal, most strays birds won’t fly very long with your kit of rollers.
Scoring. It is mandatory that each region furnish a timekeeper or scribe for the fly-off judge for each finalist. The judge shall simply estimate and record the number of birds rolling instantaneously for each break involving 5 or more. “Instantaneous” means that all birds that score on each individual break should have started rolling together at the same time. The suggested minimum depth is 10 feet. Afterwards, the judge shall multiply those numbers by 1 for breaks of 5-9 birds, 2 for 10-14 birds, 3 for 15-19 birds and 5 if all 20 break together properly. Those results shall be added together to produce a raw score. The judge will use appropriate bonus multipliers to come up with a total score and announce the final score before leaving.
Minimum standard roll
A roller must be able to perform a minimum standard roll to be counted in a break; a roller must execute a clean straight roll with inconceivable rapidity for a minimum depth of approximately 10 feet. The bird must not deviate from this roll from beginning to end. The judge(s) will discount twizzlers, tumblers, flippers, loose sloppy rolls and any other performance that does not meet the definition of a minimum standard roll whenever the judge(s) are able to identify them. Example; if a bird executes a roll for 30 feet but ½ way thru this roll the bird turns sideways it should not be scored as it failed to meet the standard “straight and clean.”
Awarding Multipliers. Awarding multipliers will always be the opinion of our Judge(s) and these are only guidelines to work by. When awarding multipliers you must take an average from all scoring birds to come up with a specific multiplier. Example; If you just judged a kit and you felt that the average depth of the kit was 25 foot then you would give a 1.3 as a depth multiplier from the scale below.
The scale below is a guideline to reference when awarding a Depth Multiplier. To obtain the highest multiplier in both Quality and Depth would be nearly impossible, and if you think about it realistically it will probably never happen. These are goals that can be obtained to one degree or another, but it won’t be easy and we’ll be able to use these standards for years to come.
Depth Scale
10 ft = 1.0
15 ft = 1.1
20 ft = 1.2
25 ft = 1.3
30 ft = 1.4
35 ft = 1.5
40 ft = 1.6
45 ft = 1.7
50 ft = 1.8
55 ft = 1.9
60 ft = 2.0
Quality Suggestions
The Quality Multiplier that is awarded to a kit is left up to the discretion of the judge. Quality means velocity and style in combination. You again simply use a scale based on 1.0 for minimum standard and 2.0 for truly phenomenal.
Integrity. The judge(s) will judge the event as closely to the World Cup Rules as written within the rules. A judge(s) will not discount kits that are flown that meet the description set by these rules as minimum standard. A judge(s) will use the bonus multipliers to separate minimum standard scoring kits from the best kits. This competition is for ROLLERS and not tumblers! Roller flying is a subjective sport and the judge may have to make allowances for extraordinary circumstances. In any case, the judge's decision is final and anyone verbally or physically attacking the judge will be disqualified from the fly and may be banned from future WC events by the WC committee
Last Edited by spintight on Jul 12, 2004 9:57 AM
|
Anonymous
Guest
Jul 12, 2004
6:54 AM
|
The rules are fine as they are,if it isnt broke why fix it.
|
spintight
13 posts
Jul 12, 2004
9:19 AM
|
who ever you are? the rule aren't fine. There is NO standard in which the judges to follow, they simply can do whatever they wish due to the current Rule 8.
|
Anonymous
Guest
Jul 12, 2004
9:52 AM
|
I'm fairly certain that is why he's called the "JUDGE" never can the rules take in every possible situation that arises,the rules are fine and work very well.
|
spintight
14 posts
Jul 12, 2004
10:05 AM
|
there are several issues under fire with the old ones, for 1 as I stated with the current Rule #8, the judge can pretty much judge them to whatever standard he thinks, loose or tight you might not EVEN have a gauge at what he was looking for with a real standard for minimum standard rolling everyone will KNOW what to expect, what they need in order to score and not score.
When you pick up the NBRC mag and see WC scores posted from 40 different regions you will have a good idea of what kind of birds were flown in these other regions not to mention you will take a lot of the stress of the judge for judgments they might have made by having a more detail oriented set up rules.
if you see that a certain flyers kit was awarded a 1.7 in Depth you would know that the average depth of his kit was 45 foot and that they didn't judge waterfall as all birds would have to break instantaneously.
By allowing judges to jude with NO standard they give some regions false reading on what their kit really is, not to mention that loose judges will often send kits to the finals that should not have made it because they judge ACTION and not roll.
I know the list of positives out weights all the negatives for any rule changes here.
|
Anonymous
Guest
Jul 12, 2004
10:46 AM
|
You can do put into the rules anything you want and the judging will still remain the same,some will be afraid to hurt somes feelings and or does'nt know what a good bird is to begin with as with many of the fliers,the regions just need to know who the judge is before they ask him in,oh but wait,another problem,many of the regions want these loose high scoreing judges,in the end it's allways going to come down to the finals judges hopefully giving us clarity,besides it doesn't take a rocket scientest to look at scores and multipliers to figure out what kind of judge it is,whats funny is these weak judges keep getting asked back over and over and many are pillers in the hobby,whenever you have so many different judges judging these regions your bound to be all over the board,but like I said before,the finals are judged by one judge and that judge is generally someone that earned the spot.the rules are fine and they fit the sport well
|
spintight
15 posts
Jul 12, 2004
11:06 AM
|
so what you are saying is you really don't care what happens? as you are tired of hearing about stuff like this?
if you can't help guys understand they way it should be it's not your problem?
we'll i bet that more would like to see some changes and we'll find out some enough.
|
Anonymous
Guest
Jul 12, 2004
11:21 AM
|
Another thought,both your suggested change and the current rules state "the judges call in final" bottom line is what is,is, you would be better off pushing for certified judges and somehow educating fliers on whats right vrs whats wrong,as it is many if not most in this country does'nt even know what a decent bird is,the current rules state "that a judge shall NOT score anything that does not meet his standard,again a rule that is well written,but the problem is with those judges that use no standard or thier standard is mere tumblers,the problem does'nt lay in the rules dave,the problem is those that have poor kits and don't even know it,and the judges that score these same kit's and either don't know or just want to make everyone feel good and in turn make fliers with poor birds and or kits think that they have something that they don't have either that or they just throw out points like it's nothing and in turn make what could have been a good fly look like a joke, EDUCATING is the key here not changing the rules,thats my opinion.
Scott Campbell
|
Steve Sissel
Guest
Jul 12, 2004
8:24 PM
|
List,Scott:
The proposal Dave Henderson has laid out here is Educational.
Now if the W/C committee and the NBRC would use these and educate the judges with these we all would benefit by them.
It lays out the standard to go by and a better set of rules that are explained in detail.
It also has a set standard for giving multiplier scores.
I thinks it is right on the money.
Later
Steve
|
Anonymous
Guest
Jul 12, 2004
9:11 PM
|
Steve first off I don't see a problem with what Dave has written and it's obvious that he's put a lot of thought into it,but the problem that I see is that by setting a standard in stone is that if the fliers and his buddies see it different then they can accuse the judge of not judging by the rules and basicly can blow a hole into the integrity of the fly,another is for instance is if as the rule is written it makes no mention of a bird comming out of the roll clean,I will not score such birds and if they can't do it on a regular basis then they are culls,this makes no mention of such,or if the kit is just a bunch of axle rollers,same thing,culls,but those same birds look good from the side,so if it's in the rules that you can't score as such are some judges going to go to far and say that the team can't be scored because he can't determine wing position,it all gets way to complicated trying to set it all in stone,judges go from weak to strong and everywhere inbetween,the worst thing that you can do to a judge that has a lot of judging experiance under his belt is to tell him how to judge,he will be a mess,those without experiance will be a bigger mess,but heres another fact,we have more qaulifiers in the W/C then any other country and we are getting our asses waxed (again) I see the reason for this is to many weak judges co- sighning to many kit's that basicly should be killed and buried and that includes everything that produced such birds,then on top of it you have hoards of people in this country mongralizing the breed for pretty colors and then passing this garbage along to the new fliers coming in,they don't do that in other countries,also many of the regions want these high scoreing weak judges,I just don't see the problem being with the rules,it stems much deeper than that.
|
spintight
17 posts
Jul 12, 2004
9:40 PM
|
thanks for the support on these rules steve but I had a similar discussion with scott not long ago that if I brought in a set of rules that would be stiffer and describe a minimum roll similar to the NBRC rules then Scott would support my effort 100%, however it seems he is flipping on his ideals now about the whole thing?
I mean I got the ideas on teh out birds portion due to predator from our discussion on the message board, from both you and brian. either one of you has acknowledged that in these rules.
Of course I put in the if chased bird is remains in the air you can judge the kit for 5 more minutes before it is called an out bird. It is very similar to what you guys described to me on teh message board of only allowing the chased bird the allowance to be considered in once it was chased. The spooked bird would be considered out.
hell by the current rules it doesn't even state the chased bird ever has to rejoin the kit and will not be considered out.
anyway I set up the depth multipliers on rick mee's idea.
Rick in montana even gave me the approval on the new set of rules in cluding the new flair on the predator attack portion.
I have yet to see any of you guys put a plan into works to get judges certified. I hear you talking about but where is the plan for all of us to see. I aggree that we need to educate the flyers more as judges and if you bring panel judging into your local club I garantee everyone will learn by your standards scott. We have been doing it here for 9 seasons now and it works perfectly.
try it and then tell me what you think? guys who really don't want to judge just let them practice, don't use their scores. let them do this each month for a couple of months at each loft they'll learn plenty and if you push off your solid ideals on them then we will have more good judges who are able to appreciate what needs to be seen.
I know my rules are not so strict that the judge isn't able to judge what he wants too but they give our judges good guidlines to follow. especially with the minimum roll standard.
well thanks again for your ideas scott
|
spintight
18 posts
Jul 12, 2004
9:42 PM
|
scott the rule states the bird must execute a clean straight roll from beginning to end, that tells me it has to enter clean and exit clean.
I made no mention to axel birds as to me these are the sloppy birds I make mention to. I can add that axel birds should not be judged if you like? I am looking for suggestions to make these rules better.
when you make note that these areas want these loose high scoring judges it always seem you make reference to me in these, like I want these judges by the looks of these in the making rules how can you keep saying this?
Last Edited by spintight on Jul 12, 2004 9:46 PM
|
Russ
Guest
Jul 12, 2004
9:50 PM
|
Dave, check your E-Mail tonight. I sent you a few lines to look over.
Russ
|
Russ
Guest
Jul 12, 2004
10:18 PM
|
As long as we are talking changes here I will stick my neck out and say that the system of awarding multipliers from 1.0 to 2.0 is flawed. A rating system from 1.0 to 5.0 would be more accurate and easier. For expamle a group of 10' rollers barely make the minimum and get a 1.0 for depth. then rollers rolling 15' have rolled 50% farther and should get a 1.5. A group averaging 20' have rolled twice the minimum and should be rewarded with twice the score 2.0 A group rolling 25' average would get a 2.5 A group averaging 30' would be three times the minimum and be awarded 3.0, etc... up to 50' or a 5.0
Similar multiplier from 1.0 to 5.0 could be awarded for quality. Example, the most common is the 'X' roller with a minimum score of 1.0 A high 'X' would get a 2.0 An 'H' would be the average and be awarded a 3.0 An 'A' would be a 4.0 And a balled up or ( ) would be a 5.0.
Some will disagree about the placement of the 'A' and 'H' rollers on the quality scale about which is better but it's only an example. Also, good velocity is assumed since it is the WC!
This is only MY opinion but I think this system is easy for everyone to understand and is more accurate than the present system.
Do the math, it works!
|
Anonymous
Guest
Jul 12, 2004
10:24 PM
|
Dave I'm not making referance to you at all Dave !!!!,there are many in your region crying about judges being to tough though,but I'm refering to several regions around the country that seek out the easy judges,Dave I would like to see such a standard in place but the problem is that I think turmoil will prevail but at the same time it may be easier to explain why particular breaks were'nt scored,like I said earlier Dave I don't see any problems with what you wrote for the most part,and I'm just kind of playing the devils advocate here,submit it to the committee and see what happens,maybe it's what we need but I still think that there will be weak judges with or without the changes.
Scott
|
Steve Sissel
Guest
Jul 13, 2004
11:22 AM
|
Dave,Scott, Russ,
Russ I think your multiplier Idea has merit.
After all the end tally will reflect the best kit no matter what the final # is.
It would make the system more simple to award the multipliers.
This is good for everyone to give their thoughts on the rules because more people are weeding through them helps to bring out a more clear standardized set of rules.
If everyone would make their issues clear on this the final results could be analized and brought together to make it happen.
I think the commitees for both flys could come to an agreement on a good set of rules.
Scott yes I understand that there IS and would be weak judges scoreing trash and overly hardheaded ones not scoreing 10 foot clean breaks too.
But a set of good understandable rules and ways to give multipliers would weed out most of this.
I hope to see more input on this issue from others.
Later
Steve
|
Russ
Guest
Jul 13, 2004
1:22 PM
|
Steve, I'm glad that you can see the simplicity, accuracy, and benefits of my proposed scoring system. With this system, anyone could look at the judges tally and know exactly how the kits performance was. Let's say a judge awarded a 3.0 for depth and a 3.0 for quality on any given fly. By looking at the multipliers awarded , we ALL would know that the judge saw 30' average depth birds and 'H' style average quality. Now that's a great kit! I thought about going a step further and breaking up the quality between velocity and style (which is how I personally rate my birds because you can have good velocity and poor style and vice versa) but I kept them together and assumed good velocity for the example I am trying to make. Change doesn't always have to be a bad thing as I am trying to show, and I think with a few minor 'Modifications' to the existing rules we can set a standard that everyone can benefit from. Please pass this on and feel free to contact me personally with any feedback, positive or negative. My E-Mail is r.d.dunagan@prodigy.net Thanks!
|
Anonymous
Guest
Jul 13, 2004
1:52 PM
|
Actually Steve we allready fly under a great set of rule's thats has and is being adopted around the globe,and I just can't see it being shit canned for another set of rule's,as for Russ's multipliers,it's to big of a leap unless you are scoreing anything and everything,I fell into this a bit judging the Calif. state fly by using a more liberal multiplier,in order to get into the 1.0 or 1.1 range basicly I had to score birds that normally I would'nt,just did'nt work,I don't see tight judges as an issue at all,if you have a judge not scoreing clean spinners then he's just a lousy judge and can't see and nothing more,again I see loose scoreing judges as being detrimental to the sport but at the same time thats what many if not most want,just hashing over the same stuff here now,and again what is needed is educating potential judges and fliers on what is right vrs'es what is wrong,but then again maybe I am the one out in left field and maybe all this garbage being scored is the way that most everyone wants,it certainly is a lot easier judging that way,then everyone's got a happy face and no one is ever mad at the judge LOL
Scott
|
Steve S.
Guest
Jul 13, 2004
2:17 PM
|
No Scott,
Garbage is garbage and should not be scored.
I have 2 neibors who won the W/C back in the early 90's and I know good rollers.
Every now and then I have had some LOL
I remember back when they scored different in the begining of the North West Invitationals and the W/C started from there.
It was hard for some to adjust when the rules were changed but it has been for the betterment of the hobby and we have moved forward and the quality of the Birmingham as been raised to a higher level.
If we have a set of rules that a judge can say I follow the rules verbatum, then NO one can get mad and say He was hard or he was a loose judge.
The kit birds have to meet a standard and be subjective to the rules and are scored as such.
Much easier to understand and comply to I think.
Yes the current rules are as good as what we have to go by but they have loop holes and are not clear in some areas and can be made more simple.
Later
Steve
|
Russ
Guest
Jul 13, 2004
3:13 PM
|
Scott, the point I am trying to make is not about scoreing anything and everything or lowering the quality of scoreable birds or liberal judging, etc.... The point is about adopting a precise mathematical scoring system that is directly proportional to the kits performance. Doesn't it make perfect sense that a 20' roller should get twice the multiplier of a 10' roller, or a 30' roller should get three times the multiplier of a 10' roller? Or a 40' roller should get four times the multiplier of a 10' roller? That's it plain and simple! That's the only point I'm trying to make! One benefit I would see is that we would all know exactly what type of kit was scored just by looking at the multipliers awarded. Was the kit a bunch of 'high X' rollers that only rolled 10'? ,or were they a group of 25' balled up blurs? The multipliers would tell you that because they have a definite description and proportional value. If the judge can judge depth within reason and if the judge can spot the difference between an X wing roller or an H wing or a blur, then he will know 'Exactly' which multipliers have to be used (and so will everyone else), and then it's a matter of adding up the score. All the guesswork has been removed and the score is what it is. Period. This would be a positive benefit for everyone! Russ
|
Anonymous
Guest
Jul 13, 2004
3:54 PM
|
Russ wasn't meant as knocking your post just my take on it is all,Russ it's all educated guess work,allways has been allways will be,there's just to much that goes on in a team and on breaks,birds spinning,birds faking it,birds holding back,you name it,and some going various depth's and every break different,some judges count it all and others try to sort it out as they should,some judges could'nt sort it out if they tried,then on top of it you have judges that just want to make everyone happy and are worried about hurting someones feelings,and then on top of that some just can't analize the breaks or even a single bird for that matter,it's just far from cut and dry,and then on top of it some just can't see the flaws and plus everyone see's depth differently,Russ you will never be able to look at these regions and get a clear picture from so many judges,it's impossible,also with most regions they are spread far and thin and many cover many state's and pulling judges in is very difficult,we are consolidated in our region and getting the right judge in is hard and you can easily end up in a situation where you just get what you can get as is the case of many of these regions,but at the end of the day it's a rare thing when the best teams don't shine well above the rest
Scott
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
98 posts
Jul 13, 2004
4:49 PM
|
In reading all of this and others on other sites about this topic, I have come to several conclusions. First is that in the big picture, most all would like to see symetrcial judging across the board. The differences are the thought and personality path that each takes to get to that point. I think it is clear that a variety of ideas have been spawned and there is no doubt that a think tank can be productive, in not on some cases, enlightening. I still stand on that our current rules are a good guidelines. But the best thing I have heard didn't come from this post line, but something someone posted some time ago. It could have been you Steve S., I truly can't remember who it was. But it was instead of changing the rules to clarify instances and issues, adopt a sub-directory which specifies the intent of said rules and gives adaquate examples of how, when or why a rule(s) is intended to be used. It was said there were loop holes in the current rules, and I don't disagree. It seems the discontent is with clarification so I would think that sub chapters expressing such would be an option, probably even a more viable option than changing rules outright.
Russ, on the multipliers I do understand your method of thinking and the approach you have taken to not only disseminate value, but also paint a picture of what the judge "thought" he saw. I could see where that has some definite merit. But would you still be able to draw the same conclusion if a judge were to score any kit wiggle as we saw this year in a region? Obviously he was under the impression he was seeing some scorable roll and of depth enough to score. To him they might have been 3.0 x 3.0, but to you they would have been something entirely different. I know not all judges are really that out of touch with reality, but the problem is that different personalities paint different pictures sometimes. So would a new scoring method be a fix? Not sure that it entirely would. I have been part of many friendly arguements over how far a bird rolled as well as even some true veterans asking me to prove to them what makes an H roller better than an X roller. It boils down to a matter of percieved value. Problem is when you are dealing with a variety of personalities and methods in which some folks view the world, including the way a group of rollers roll, the perception can be quite varied, probably more often than we would like to accept.
I have one question about the multiplier method you have presented Russ. If a kit were judged and it had 20 five bird breaks where nearly most of the time two birds were going 40 feet while the other three were pretty much only 10-15 feet, what would your depth number be? And, would it, on paper, be indicative of what the kit was doing in a manner that would give you an idea of what they were really doing? I would guess you would average it right? Say 2.5 or something to that effect. If I am reading your position correctly, on the score sheet it would appear he had 25 footers for the numerical value is in this case suppose to be indicative of the scored depth correct? Same can be said for quality. Two ball it up while three were X rollers. There you have a spread of 1.0-4.0. So the average would be 2.0-an H roller at best according to the way you intend for your chart to be read. So when you read the report, the guy had a raw score of 100 points, D-2.5 and Q-2.0 equalling a score of 500 points. Maybe this is a mute point, I am just curious to hear a little more beyond your take on it.
Brian.
|
Steve S.
Guest
Jul 13, 2004
5:25 PM
|
BMC,
I did post on the NBRC site once when this subject was being talked about, make a statement to the effect a Concordance to the rules need be printed with examples to each rule and examples to clerify the issuing of multibles for both quality and depth.
Like if 5 birds are going on the breaks then 1/4 th of the kit is what the multipliers should be based on.
Later
Steve
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
99 posts
Jul 13, 2004
6:16 PM
|
Sorry Steve, but I don't quite fully understand what you are saying in regards to the multipliers. Can you clarify? I think all would agree that quality multipliers are only given to scored birds. You lost me on the 1/4 of the kit thing. LOL.
Brian.
|
Russ
Guest
Jul 13, 2004
6:48 PM
|
Brian, I have been thinking about that all day. It would be easier to use averages when dealing with group performance but I would be inclined to base the multipliers on what the majority of birds were doing on the breaks. If 3 out of 5 were 15'rollers then it's a 1.5 for depth but there certainly should be a bonus awarded for the better and deeper performers. A bonus multiplier of .25 or .5 would be appropiate for the deeper and better quality birds and would be a better indication of the kits actual performance.
Great question!
|
viper
20 posts
Jul 13, 2004
7:01 PM
|
Just my take but I was glad to have the so called tough jugde come by to open my eyes and keep me from wasting my timeon years of breeding that would not pan out.The kit I flew this year was a good kitting very active kit to cut it short if they would have had the depth 28 more scorable breaks than the 5 breaks I got.It opened my eyes to find out that the birds didn't have it so I am going to try a new family start all over agin.It don't matter what you feed or how you feed if they don't have it they don't have it.You can't take crap and make it smell like roses.Lick your wounds move on.Like I said I was glad someone told me they was not really that good.
|
Anonymous
Guest
Jul 13, 2004
7:32 PM
|
Dave,
Why post something like this here. if you don't like the rule change than do something about it. Take over the W/C director spot and then ask all the lads to give there view. Why bring it here where there isn't to many W/C flyers on here. Would you like to go to a show roller convention and ask them if they would like to vote on the new rules on what a kit should look like? Take it to the W/C website I'm sure there is plenty of people on there that would love to give there 2 cents worth.
And if your the only one that wants to change the rules well I guess you will have to live ith them or don't fly. Or maybe get a fund raiser started and get members to fly in the W/C and have them vote your way.
|
Steve S.
Guest
Jul 13, 2004
7:58 PM
|
BMC,
Russ is onto the 1/4 kit thing.
Say 1/4 kit =.25 1/2-kit =.50 3/4 kit= .75 and the whole kit is breaking a= 1 added to the first number.
This is given by a set of pre-determend multipliers as Dave Henderson outlined for quality and depth.
Hope this is clear Brian LOL
Also I would like to say to the Anonymous post about just Dave Henderson being the only one wanting a change, and that Just don't fly statement was un-called for.
Alex Hamilton of Texas is over the Fall fly and he asked for a change of rules that everyone can understand and have a set of standardized scoreing methods.
He explained it to me months ago so there must be a need for such rules as other people were requesting a change.
Later
Steve
|
Anonymous
Guest
Jul 13, 2004
8:20 PM
|
Steve if you change these rules then someone will want to change those rules LOL ,send over to the committee,this is like the armchair generals on CNN during the Iraq war LOL,the rules are well thought out and cover a lot of ground and there will allways be gray areas due to a 10001 senerios,and thats why we call the judge the judge,it all comes down to the qaulity of the judge thats asked in.
Scott
PS. and no it wasn't me that wrote that last one LOL
|
spintight
19 posts
Jul 13, 2004
9:12 PM
|
I personally don't see the clarifications to simply some parts of the current WC rules that big of a change in terms of content. They are mostly just clarifying some of the current rules better.
I don't know about you but I think the change from breaking together within 1/2 second to "instantaneous" breaking is a bad thing and the description of minimum standard roll, is this not a good move either, do you think that most will not understand that?
As I said if you think it would be applicable I will add in that axel birds should not be judged.
I think the description in the quality multipliers is good enough as it would be much to difficult to tell a judge who likes X style birds to suddenly like the Ball type now better, even if he may not have even ever seen a ball type?
Well I again just don't see the modications I have set for to the current rules as a major change in teh entire concept, except for clearing up mis interpreted areas that don't give a straight answer, just like with our discussion of the predator spooking or chasing out birds from the kit we had last week.
well I will try to copy the these modications to the rules at the WC site and see if they have a message board like this?
as I said I already sent a copy to every RD out of the US and forwarded an article with the same rules to the NBRC for publishing.
Dave
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
100 posts
Jul 13, 2004
9:34 PM
|
Steve, I think you confused me even more..lol. So now we are talking about the original 1/4, /1/2, 3/4, full turn scenarios? So if a team scores (5) 1/4 turns, (5) 1/2 turns and (2) 3/4 turns that equation is? I think I like adding up numbers better...lol. Maybe this heat is jackin' with my head!
Russ, I think I get how you would award in the scenario I presented, but I would have to ask, if you didn't see the kit, would the numbers reveal to you what the kit looked like? I think that is basis for your formulas correct? To better understand what it was the judge was scoring? Please correct me if I am wrong. I can absolutely see how your multiplers could work, but what I am not clear on is how much different the end result is compared to the current multipliers, disregarding the obvious massive increase in the overall point total.
Brian.
|
Russ
Guest
Jul 13, 2004
10:54 PM
|
Brian, that big point gain can be corrected by a slight modification that will enable the quality to be rewarded more than depth. after all I think that we all agree that quality is more important. What I mean is that the depth multipliers could be changed from whole numbers to decimals such as 10' rolls are awarded .10, 20' rolls are awarded .20 , 30' rolls are awarded .30 ,etc... The quality scale could be rated from 1.0 to 4.0 with a 'high X' the minimum requirement for a 1.0 (no low X or axle rollers being scored), an 'H' would be a 2.0 , an 'A' would be a 3.0 , a balled up ( ) would be a 4.0 (this order of styles is for illustration only). Now assuming the raw score of 100 with a 20' depth, the score for depth would be 100 x .20 or 20 points. Assuming minimum quality 'high X' , the score would be 100 x 1.0 or 100 points. If the points are simply added together then the total score is 120 points. Now take the same raw score with the 20' depth (20 points) and the quality was 'H' style this time, for a 2.0 multiplier (200 points), then the overall score is now 220 points and the quality is rewarded rather than the depth. As the quality increases so does the score but the higher score is because of higher quality not more depth. Isn't this what we are after? The higher quality kit should be scored better!Also notice that the scores are more in line. The system could be implemented with ease. Brian, I guess it's just easier for me to understand because there is a more definite description of exactly what is scored and how it is scored. I know that judges will vary in what they saw or think they saw, etc... but this can be said of any scoring system I think, however this shouldn't stop us from trying to improve when we can. Russ
|
spintight
22 posts
Jul 14, 2004
3:51 AM
|
part of not seeing or knowing COULD be the fact that some are just blind! and can't see what people are talking about and or are too proud to admit they are blind.
Modifications to these rules in certain areas will be a move for the better I feel and as it appears several think the same. I hope we can get some better feed back from the other RD's out there.
The World Cup has no message board to discuss topics like this.
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
102 posts
Jul 14, 2004
11:51 AM
|
Russ I can see you have put a great deal of thought into the mathmatics and formulas and I respect that as there is no doubt it would work. Something stood out to me when I read your analogy on the kit. Disregarding depth, or giving it a much lesser point structure to let quality sing, makes one very disturbing result, which is sort of what we deal with already. Frequency wins. We can fly 20 guys in our club and based on the 1.0-4.0 for quality scale, most would either be 2.0 or 3.0, most being 2.0. If depth were only considered a percentage point such as say average 20=.20 then how do you figure it into the overall score? With the current you multiply the QxD, here if you multiply .20x2.0 you get .4 which if then multiplied by the raw of 100 (since we both have been using that for raw) the score is 40 points. Hum, doesn't sound like the formula I want to see. I think you would have to got back to your 1.0-5.0 depth for the numbers to work out more accurately and to keep the flys from becoming even more of a freq-fest. I can say across the board that most guys in my area will get really close to the same quality mark, depth is more diverse than quality here, therefore though you would like for quality to be the icon for the scoring, the depth seems to be an important factor in the equation, otherwise the most frequent kit wins.
Brian.
|
Mother lode lofts
45 posts
Jul 14, 2004
2:21 PM
|
Dave like I said before I have kind of been playing the devils advocate here,now I'll give you my opinion,over all it's written pretty well but you are biting off to much and adding and or changing to much wording on far to many rules which in turns means new rules,this will kill it without a doubt as the entire format of the old rules will have to be deleted and the new wording be debated dicussed and voted on each, and every rule which would be done piece by piece,it just won't happen,Here's what I would suggest doing though,I suggest leaving everything as it is and trying to add the Min. qaulity for scorable,this I think is needed and a good step and will draw in the interest (and votes),as for the 1/2 sec rule,I see that you eliminated it and I like that but also we tried to get it dropped last year and it was shot down,as for the "bird Chased off" as it is it's up to the judge to determined weather such a bird was even chased or if the hawk just made a pass at the bird,this needs to be left in the judges hands as it is now to make the call,there's just way to many senerio's that can happen there and the judge needs the flex to call them on a case by case basis,I'm not sure how I feel about the depth chart scale,you can ask 5 different people how deep a bird is and you'll get 5 different answers,again Dave my opinion is that unless you hit on just specifics it will never make it past first base in the committee,we don't take changing anything lightly and when we have, it was disected and put under a microscope and that was only for "one" rule,it was like pulling teeth,basicly if you change just one word in a rule it can change the whole dynamics of that rule and and the same time opens up new windows within that rule,there's a whole lot that needs to be looked at,what you are basicly doing here will mean throwing out the current rules and starting over,yes they may be along the same line but still different,Dave it's just not going to happen I don't think,like I said though I would try to inject the Min. qaulity standard in and that alone will be a major step in the right direction and at the same time I would think have the interest in the committee,another stab at the 1/2 sec would'nt hurt either,just my opinion.
Scott Campbell
Last Edited by Mother lode lofts on Jul 14, 2004 2:26 PM
|
Tony
Guest
Jul 14, 2004
3:05 PM
|
Does the commitee meet once a year to discuss rules and possible changes in an ongoing effort to improve the integrity of the WC judging and other matters, say like some professional sport leagues do? If not can they? Tony
|
Mother lode lofts
46 posts
Jul 14, 2004
3:53 PM
|
Tony we use a private E-mail list,the committee consists of the regional directors and and the officers(treas. and such) the regions are left to sort out thier own problems and we don't step in unless it affects the rules or bylaws,when something is summited it's put out to be discussed first,and then voted on to either continue on or throw it out,as for the integrity of the finals judges,thier calls are final and are backed and never undermined,"never" can they be undermined and such people will suffer the wrath of such,it just cannot nor will not be tolerated,we had a few that were publicly attacking a judges call here a while back and steps were close to being taken to eliminate these fliers from participating in future flys for attacking the judge,nothing will kill the W/C faster than this type of behaviour towards the judge and is very damaging,without a judge thats willing to take 3 mo. out of thier live's to do this thankless job we have nothing.
Scott Campbell
|
Mother lode lofts
47 posts
Jul 14, 2004
4:38 PM
|
Dave you made mention of sending this stuff to oversea's RD's,Dave thats why we have steps for submitting such things is to stay away from the old days of one sided campaining,these things need to go to your RD,his job is to submit it no matter what he thinks about it,he MUST submit it!!!! or you allready know the other procedure of signitures and subitting,but this back door campaining just may bite you on the ass and is the WRONG way to go about it,like I said earlier Dave there's some things in there that I like and I would truelly like to see them implimated and on top of it I think that the min. qaulity standard would grab the attention of many and it has a shot,I strongly suggest you take a look at my recomondations and go about this the correct way,as for the NBRC well thats your opinion and on you,all that I can see come out of it is turmoil though as there are 1,000 different views and your intent can be turned around everywhich way.
Scott
|
Russ
Guest
Jul 14, 2004
5:14 PM
|
Brian, I never have understood the reasoning of multiplying the multipliers for Q and D together. In my system I don't multiply them together, I would add the separate point scores for quality and depth together for the final tally. Try your calculations again without multiplying the multipliers together and let me know how it stacks up. Unfortunately any system of scoring kits that is based on raw points and then calculated with multipliers will reach a point where the frequency factor will affect the outcome.
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
105 posts
Jul 14, 2004
8:54 PM
|
Okay Russ, I'm yer huckleberry...lol. Got a few results for you based on the same scenario I last presented. Instead of multiplying, I added the 2.0 for quality and .20 for depth (20ft average) equalling 2.2. Now what do you suggest, add them to the raw, or multiply them to the raw (still using 100 as a raw)? If you add them, the total is 102.2, which doesn't award much at all for quality or depth, only frequency. If you multiply the 2.2 x 100 raw you get 220. I thought, okay now I can see where quality could be rewarded, but what if the next guy had the same depth and raw, but got a 4.0 for quality, which would be a damn fine kit to watch. 4.0 plus .20 for depth equalled only 4.2 which when added to the 100 raw only gives you 104.2, again, a more frequent kit could win and there isn't much separation between the H roller and the () rollers as far as rewards go. But if multiplied you end up with 420, which really puts substantial separation between the kit with average rollers and the kit with great balled up rollers. Before you jump for joy, check this out. The next guy has a super frequent kit of 2.0 rollers and racks up a raw of 200 points. His depth was .20 also therefore the same 2.2 as the other guys. If you add the 2.2 to 200 raw you have 202.2, which means frequency won based on adding over multiplying, while if you multiply the 2.2 you get 440, which not only means that he wins, but his frequency beats the guy with far greater quality too. Whadda think?
Brian.
|
Russ
Guest
Jul 14, 2004
10:09 PM
|
Brian, I think I need a beer! LOL You got it right when you added the multipliers together and multiplied it by the raw. 2.0 + .20 = 2.2 (2.2 x 100)= 220 points. To be honest, most of my calculations were based on a raw score of 100, which works good in favor of quality. When I saw your example of twice the raw score with lesser quality actually having an advantage something clicked. There must be some sort of safety net of sorts to prevent frequent low quality birds from getting the advantage. Maybe a check and balance ratio of frequency to quality. At a certain point where the frequent low quality kit begins to have an advantage, there must be some sort of ratio that can be applied to the score to ensure that lower quality frequency is not rewarded the same as higher quality. A penalty of some sort if the frequency/quality ratio is not within a specific range. Damn! I was hoping to get to sleep early tonight! I knew I shouldn't have checked the *$@@#** message board. LOL I will keep crunching the numbers. If I can crack the ratio code thing, would you say this system has a chance?
Later,
Russ
|
spintight
23 posts
Jul 14, 2004
10:22 PM
|
Scott,
I have emailed a copy of these proposals, as you mention it's not likely that the way it is written will pass so write soliciting ideas like we have done here on the message board. Like I said if we don't know what the "entire" committee will tolerate in modifications then a lot of propossals would be merely a waste of time.
I will analyze what you wrote earlier on your experiences and then put several scenarios together,
do you think some depth multipler scale might be considered?
hope to hear more from you.
Last Edited by spintight on Jul 14, 2004 10:26 PM
|
Russ
Guest
Jul 14, 2004
10:23 PM
|
Brian, I looked at your last example again and was wondering how you would have scored it under the current system? Using my system,if the frequent kit would have scored 190 raw instead of 200 then the quality kit would have still won. Would the current system have placed the quality kit as close? What are you figuring for multipliers?
Russ
|
spintight
24 posts
Jul 14, 2004
10:36 PM
|
Russ and Brian,
a kit that possess enough quality as you mention and out scores a kit that only had 1/2 the breaking ability should win under those circumstances.
I do think that maybe the depth and quality should both be set with guidelines but in terms of quality you would have to give a loose scale something like "X" style birds would be minimum style and that "()" ball type would be ideal in style. However where can you properly reprent velocity in this? I think that with some thinking that both style and velocity should probably be in separate multipliers,this might be the breakign point to give the quality kit the advantage? as they would have speed and good style and not just good style and mediocre velocity?
Maybe 3 catagories all 1.0 to 2.0 catagories?
Well I really apprecaite the effort you guys are going in these posts. This will be very beneficial to the hobby, you need to get the WC into putting a similar message board on their site for this type of discussions.
|
Russ
Guest
Jul 14, 2004
10:59 PM
|
Dave, what you describe is how I rate my individual birds. Quality is made up of rolling style and velocity and should be separate. I agree with you.
Russ
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
107 posts
Jul 14, 2004
11:17 PM
|
Fun stuff huh Russ..lol. I used 200 simply because it is possible, therefore showing that frequency can still be a determing factor even against the system you have described which should reward quality. Now in terms of the current system we will have to do some guesswork because, well, what I think is an H and what someone else thinks is an H in terms of quality points is pretty much going to be hit and miss. But for the sake of conversation this is what I came up with. The 100 point raw kit with () rollers (I am going to assume that all were () and with really nice speed) I would give a 1.8, but then most of them would have to be that way. Depth at the same 20 ft is a 1.3 in my book. Okay that is 1.8x1.3=2.34. 100x2.34=234. Now the frequent kit of 200 raw and H rollers I would give a 1.4, if all were doing an H. Probably would be more like 1.5 if they had good speed too, but let's go with 1.4 for quality. The depth at 20ft is 1.3. 1.4x1.3=1.82. 200x1.82=364. Frequency wins.
|
Mother Lode Lofts
Guest
Jul 15, 2004
12:56 AM
|
Dave you kind of have to think out of the box a bit here,here's what I'm talking about "you have a depth scale and the judge calls the average depth at such and such,then you have some joker that was sitting there with a range finder and brings up a more accurate determination of depth,now what do you have ? you have a problem,Dave there has to be simplicity and judges call,if you have to many cut and dry rules it just opens up more room for judges to make a bad call and then be accused of not following the rules,when this happens and the integrity of the judges calls can be scrutinized under a microscope the integrity of the fly is there in question by people that saw it different and it all goes down the tube,here's an example that I ran into a few years ago under "the bird chased away rule" I had a kit that had one bird that stayed down and the kit elevated,in the kit was another bird that kept doing the in an out thing,everything was fine then a RedTail swooped on the kit,the RedTail did a few second chase on that particular bird,I'm not sure if the bird was slightly out or if it was coinsidence that he chose that bird either way it was a half hearted hailmary type chase that RedTails do,the RedTail split and after a few minutes the kit regrouped all except this one bird,this one bird stayed right with the kit only out of the kit much like it had been doing prior only now it would'nt bounce in and out the way it was,in other words this was a problem bird,I called it out and in turn it kept this flier out of the finals,Dave this is what I'm getting at,the rules must give some flex to the judge to make case by case calls and they must be fairly simple and a general parameter in which to judge a team by,starch rules work only where you have cut and dry situations and time to look at the rule book on the uncommon issues,take archery for example,I shot it competitivly for a lot of years,it was simple,you were either cutting the line or you weren't everything was covered in a book as far as rules,and nothing could be bent around,you either stepped over the line or you didn't,you were either in or you were out,you get my point they were all cut and dry situations,we don't have that luxery in this sport,what we have is a judges opinion with guidelines and nothing more,nore can we have more without implodeing,who would the hell want to judge under such conditions where you could be so easily accused of not following the rules when you have so many varibles happening with and around these teams ,it's just the nature of our sport.again just my opinion,and again it's a rare thing when the top teams don't shine above the rest,and here's something to think about 99 0/0 of the time the best kits could be put in the correct order even without judging with a score sheet,chew on that one LOL,keep it simple
Scott
|
jim
4 posts
Mar 13, 2006
11:07 AM
|
THE RULES WERE NEVER ANY GOOD
TO MANY MULTIPLIERS
ASS END JUDGING
SIDE VIEW JUDING REQUIRES 5 MULTYS
DEPTH THE SAME YOU WONT SEE A KIT50 FT MAJORITY
QUALITY IS THE SAME 5MULYS
CIRCULAR FORM IS THE NAME OF THIS GAME. YOUR RULES DONT JUDGE IT
h style is hell i didnt know better
Last Edited by jim on Mar 13, 2006 11:08 AM
|
fhtfire
360 posts
Mar 13, 2006
11:17 AM
|
Jim,
Could you be any more positve! LOL!..Welcome to the site...but it just seams to me that you are coming out of the gate on the wrong foot. It could be me..but it seems that your posts are kind of negative. There are a great bunch of guys here with great information. Smile...be happy!
rock and ROLL
Paul
|
knaylor
73 posts
Mar 13, 2006
11:36 AM
|
Jim, can you explain better. I could not understand your post. Thanks, Kevin
|
Post a Message
|
|
|