Search

[Phil Lewis]

Notaumatic calculates results as per FAI rules which state (in effect) that in the case of a dead heat the discarded flight is counted.

[brandon ransley]

Interesting to note that
1 if the FAI approved normalisation method had been used Gerhard would have won anyway with 2000 points. 
2 it looks like a different judging panel for round 2 and so that panel's scores were totally discarded in determining the top two.  Is it right that where you have different judging panels we should be using raw scores instead of normalised?  

[Phil Lewis]

Not sure I understand your points, we are using the FAI normalisation method i.e pilot with highest raw score scores 1,000 and other points a percentage of that i.e top pilots raw score divided by theit raw score X 1,000.

We aren't using raw scores at all in P and F to calculate scores, you can't as there has to be a equalisation of points between P and the F schedules, I don't understand the point you are making here.

[brandon ransley]

Not sure I understand your point Phil. 

Aren't we talking about a tie in the P only comp. 

[Graham Gooch]

Yes Brandon, both Gerhard and Dave were flying in P only so as per the results raw scores were used.

It is just purely coincidence that round 2 scores were dropped for both pilots, probably due to the weather conditions at the time the second round was flown. The wind strength and direction was very variable so possibly had something to do with it. I don't recall there being different judges for round two compared to the other two rounds so probably had no bearing on it.

As far as I am aware, the Notaumatics are programmed in accordance with FAI guidelines and UKF3A always drop one round in a competition.

Although both pilots final scores were 813.00 based on rounds one and three, the Notaumatic system used the scores from the dropped round to place the pilots in the order as per the results even though the scores were identical.

I hope this clarifies your question?

[brandon ransley]

Hi Graham

It doesn't answer my question at all (you must be a politician).

My question was: 

"Is it right that where you have different judging panels we should be using raw scores instead of normalised?"

According to earlier posts on this thread there was planned to be a different judging panel for round two compared to rounds one and three.  I was not there so I am not sure if the rota was followed.

Normalisation is used to overcome matters such as a harsher or more lenient judging panels.  It also caters for a round in adverse weather conditions.  Assume as you have said that conditions were more difficult in round two and scores were 10% lower.  Why drop that round?  Someone would have still won it; would have been the best flyer in that round would have coped with the adversity better than others.

What I am saying is that if normalised scores were used Gerhard would have won with 2000 points.

And my question was as above.

[Keith Jackson]

Hi Brandon & Graham,

Steve Burgess was due to judge in R2 but had to leave early due to ill health. Subsequently, Ross and I judged all three rounds for P-27 and A27. My understanding of UK F3A rules is that normalisation isn't an option for National League P-27 competitions?

I'm not sure this addresses your question?

Keith

[Graham Gooch]

Brandon, without wishing to open a potential massive "can of worms" as far as I recall, it was the same two judges, judging all three rounds of P-27.

Whilst I understand your point of normalisation to potentially rule out harsh or lenient judging, the reason Raw scores were reintroduced was to avoid any competitors gaining 1000 points in both rounds one and two and then not having to fly any further rounds as they couldn't be beaten.

Whereas with raw scores, the competition is still open until the end of round three in the case of a three round National League competition, meaning pilots have to fly in all three rounds before an overall winner can be decided upon.

Clearly normalisation has to be used where P & F schedules are flown in the same competition due to the differences in K factors.

[brandon ransley]

Hi Keith. 

Thanks for clarifying re the judging.  

As for answering the question, not really. It just tells me what the rules are. It is not a meaningful argument as why we don't normalise. If we change the UKF3A rules we can normalise.  

Graham. 

Yes. It is opening that can of worms.  As far as I can see it the only reason we don't normalise is so that the judges feel valued in round three. But is it the fair and appropriate method? 

Brandon 

[Stuart Mellor]

No Brandon - being fair to judges is not the  reason! Since when have we ever been fair to judges?

Its purely to be fair to competitors and it keeps the competition open until 3 rounds have been flown. That is fair & better for people moving up the P ranks.

Yes - in some circumstances normalising the competition would alter the result. But so what?

That would be simply applying FAI rules, tailored  for a multi round 2 flight line FAI competition, probably with many judging panels, flown over an entire week.. Ours is a 3 round competition, flown on the same day and I argue it's completely necessary that the 3rd round counts in all circumstances.

Counting the 3rd round can be a real incentive for people to produce a winning 3rd flight & the very essence of fair competition.

ps - the very term " raw scores" has always pissed me off. As if somehow they are imperfect & need to be modified by software. They certainly do not.

I know there will always be people who argue that normalising produces a better result.
It is completely necessary at WC & similar events - but in our case of 1 day P only events, I'm afraid it just takes away & adds nothing.

[brandon ransley]

Noted. 

[Mike Wood]

When the judging panels stay the same:

I think either way is fair and we select the majority preference.

When the judging panels change:

When we had two flight lines, imagine that, we "had" to normalise because the judges were different.

So I would say it can be unfair in a three round one day comp when judges change.

So ...

Judges stay the same, raw scores at the moment, judges change, normalise.

Mike

[Mike Pole]

I totally agree with normalising the scores when the judging panels are changed (as is now commonly necessary).
Surely when judges change it is the only means of establishing a fair result.
I agree with Brandon that it may also help with variances in the weather conditions between rounds.
I do understand the point made about how raw scores incentivise pilots for the third round but I don't think it necessarily leads to a fair result.

Mike P

[Adrian Harrison]

Hi Mike, That makes a lot of sense.

[Mike Wood]

When schedules or judges change, normalisation is the way to go.

When they don't then normalising can also be unfair, why should one pilot's
score affect another pilot's score?

In reality it rarely happens but one pilot suddenly flying their socks off can diminish another
pilot's best performance.

m