Finally -- a T1 Bit
Yes,
he's alive!!! And if you pause the ground video
coverage, you can find me on a frame here and there,
racing about helping judges and keeping a close eye on
the air-to-ground video operations. Now that the
semi-final rounds are in the can, I can report on a few
items, including a meeting I just attended with members
of the IPC's FS Subcommittee, chaired by Pål Bergan.
First,
I've got to second T2's comment about the judging.
They have been a tad lenient on the separations, but
they are consistent, which is most important. My
only real complaint is that, depending on who
the Event Judge is at the time, they take too long to
judge a skydive, which sometimes results in the next
(live) jump being missed. There is no excuse
for that; the Event Judge must be a firm and alert
leader in the judging room, and 210 seconds is more than
enough time to watch a skydive three times and be ready
for the next team.
And
watching the skydives three times each is happening way
too often; this is another area where I believe the
Event Judge must be a leader, and deny requests for
third viewings when the results of the first two (as
well as his or her own judgment of the skydive) indicate
a clean skydive. If there are no red marks
anywhere in the results after two viewings, or just one
or two singular judgment calls, what is the point of
taking the time with a third view? It never
changes a score; instead it just wastes time and makes
live judging more difficult.
And
now on to lighter matters ...
Some
of you may know about a discussion I had with the IPC
that originated when Andrew, an Australian judge,
reported "incorrect scores" posted at the U.S.
Nationals, where 3 of 5 judges had scored the last point
on the freeze-frame but disagreed on whether it was a
point or a penalty. Andrew stated that the final
formation should have collated to a point or a penalty,
because a majority of the judges had determined it to be
in working time. OmniSkore! does not do
this; if only three or four judges score the final
formation, OmniSkore! will only collate a
result if at least three call it a point, or at least
three call it a penalty. This is based on
Paragraph 5.7. of the 2000 IPC Formation Skydiving
Rules, which states Infringement marks will be
assigned to the respective formation, if it has been
penalized by a majority of judges observing the jump.
Now, to me, "the judges observing the jump" is
all five, not just the three or four who called the
final formation in working time. Therefore, if
three judges determine that the last formation is in
working time, and two of those judges call it an
infringement, then according to the rule, it cannot
collate as an infringement. OmniSkore’s collation
algorithm is based on this rule.
In
an informal meeting of members of the IPC's FS
Subcommittee this afternoon, this matter was discussed
again. German delegate Exi Hoenle suggested that
the rules be modified (at the next IPC meeting)
explicitly so that a point is awarded only when at least
three judges award a point, and keeping the same
requirement for a penalty. French representative
Jerome David further suggested that when any combination
of judgment calls -- Point, Penalty, and Not Judgable --
fail to contain a majority for Point or for Penalty
(e.g., two NJs, two points and one penalty, or two NJs,
one point and two penalties), that the result be called
"No Collation" or "No Majority" and
treated the way "Not Judgable" is currently
(no credit for the formation, but no penalty either).
I
like this idea; here is an example of what a collated
score would look like:
1 2 3 4
Judge 1 - - J -
Judge
2 - - J -
Judge
3 - - 0 -
Judge
4 - - - -
Judge 5 - - 0 -
RESULT - - # - 3
Here,
the "no majority" collation is represented
with a '#'. Under current rules, the score would
be a 2 (with a penalty collated for the third
formation); under the proposed rule, it's a 3.
A collation of 'J' would only appear when at least three
judges have marked it as 'J'.
Here are
two more examples, with a few more collation
examplettes:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Judge 1
- - J - - - -
Judge 1 J - - - J - -
Judge 2
- - J - - - Judge
2 - 0 J - - -
Judge 3
- - 0 - - - -
Judge 3 J - 0 - J - 0
Judge 4
- - - - - - 0
Judge 4 - 0 - - J -
Judge 5
- - 0 - - -
Judge 5 - 0 0 - - -
RESULT
- - # - - - # (5) RESULT
- 0 # - J - (2)
Your
opinions?
The
topic of live air-to-ground was discussed, and I am very
pleased that most of those present were firmly in favor
using live judging at the World Air Games (i.e., the
next World Championships) in Spain next summer. I
am not very optimistic that it will happen, however,
because the organizer is not currently planning on it,
and 4-way will be conducted from ramp aircraft (Casa
212s). More on this ongoing topic soon!
|