DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Roller Pigeons
HTML https://rollerpigeon.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 7880--------------------------------------------------
Re: Establish Professional Judges
DIR By: Fhtfire
Date: July 1, 2011, 12:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Cliff,
You cant put the cart before the horse...once you have a breed
standard set in stone....then the judging standard is irrelevant
....The rules will highlight the breed standard...the judge will
follow the rules and his or her standard will match the breed
standard. The funny thing is....the standard is pretty much what
most agree on..it will just be in writing....Cliff send me your
phone number again at my home email...I will give you a call and
kind of talk more about what I am going to do and how I am going
to do it...The standard will be everyones standard...I am only
putting it into words...
rock and ROLL
Paul
#Post#: 8028--------------------------------------------------
Re: Establish Professional Judges
DIR By: SpinCity USA
Date: July 8, 2011, 11:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hey Paul, how are you and the family? You are right about
putting the cart before the horse. I brought this up before the
forum at the LA convention. Maybe it was my presentation or
whatever but it was not well received by the panel. I thought
the convention was the perfect place to have a judging seminar.
Instead of bs'ing with with everybody on the fly those who want
to progress in their judging ability could sign up for a seminar
and go off with some instructors and find out how it should be
done correctly. On the last fly of the convention they could
take a visual test and a written test if they pass they could
get a NBRC certification. This would be your base judging pool.
If you are serious and it cost you a few buck you then have to
protect it by being honest and fair as the market will not
tolerate anything but what is the truth.
#Post#: 8035--------------------------------------------------
Re: Establish Professional Judges
DIR By: Paul Conway
Date: July 9, 2011, 9:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The fact that we have no written breed standard and no written
juding standard only shows me, as someone new to the sport, that
Pensom, et al, dropped the ball back then amd through the years
to now. Folks are stuck on the romantic notion that one
statement can be both a breeding and judging standard and that
everything else will work itself out. There seems to be a
certain pride taken in the fact that we do not have a written
breed standard or written judges standard. I believe this is
holding the competitive part of flying our rollers as a whole
hostage and, in turn, holding the sport back. That's my take
on it as new fella and since my dues are paid up I figured I'd
offer it. Keystonepaul
#Post#: 8036--------------------------------------------------
Re: Establish Professional Judges
DIR By: Cliff Ball
Date: July 9, 2011, 10:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Paul,
Good point. Some of the reisitance to a written standard comes
from guys who think THEY are the only ones who know what the
standard should be with regard to the breed and to performance.
They fear the standards will be set "lower" than what they want
to see.
Cliff
--- Quote from: Paul Conway link ---
>
> The fact that we have no written breed standard and no written
juding standard only shows me, as someone new to the sport, that
Pensom, et al, dropped the ball back then amd through the years
to now. Folks are stuck on the romantic notion that one
statement can be both a breeding and judging standard and that
everything else will work itself out. There seems to be a
certain pride taken in the fact that we do not have a written
breed standard or written judges standard. I believe this is
holding the competitive part of flying our rollers as a whole
hostage and, in turn, holding the sport back. That's my take
on it as new fella and since my dues are paid up I figured I'd
offer it. Keystonepaul
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 8037--------------------------------------------------
Re: Establish Professional Judges
DIR By: Tony Chavarria
Date: July 9, 2011, 10:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hey Paul C., there are rules for judging and it can vary from
club to club. However, it seems that much room is left for
judges to interpret what they believe they are seeing. This is,
I think, the crux of the issue, how much should be left to
interpretation and how much to objective reality as described in
a written performance standard? Its tough enough to watch the
performance of one bird let alone watch up to 20 birds perform
and objectively decide what you have seen in the space of half a
second or more... ??? and then be ready to for the next break
which can happen moments later while the human brain is still
processing what it thinks it just saw... :o
I think physical limitation of the human eye and processing
speed of the brain will always account for the need for the best
"guess" or "judgement" of the judge. Different ideas have been
offered in the past to compensate for these types of
shortcomings:
1: Better trained judges
2: Panel of judges
3: Judge single birds only
As for performance standard, we have a defacto standard that is
over one hundred years old, has been published many times and
few experienced and long term fanciers would disagree with the
following standard (not to be confused with turns and subsequent
quality in a comp kit):
.
.
[center]"...roll with inconceivable rapidity through a
considerable distance like a spinning ball"
[/center][center] ;D
[/center]
#Post#: 8038--------------------------------------------------
Re: Establish Professional Judges
DIR By: Tony Chavarria
Date: July 9, 2011, 10:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Cliff Ball link ---
>
>
> Paul,
> Good point. Some of the reisitance to a written standard comes
from guys who think THEY are the only ones who know what the
standard should be with regard to the breed and to performance.
They fear the standards will be set "lower" than what they want
to see.
> Cliff
--- End Quote ---
Hey Cliff, are you implying that having a written standard would
be bad OR those with a learned opinion on the matter? In which
way might that be? I guess I really don't understand your post
or where it is coming from. Can you help me out and clarify it a
bit? Thanks! :D
#Post#: 8040--------------------------------------------------
Re: Establish Professional Judges
DIR By: samir
Date: July 9, 2011, 5:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Flight can be videorecorded and replayed by judge before score
card is finalized.
#Post#: 8041--------------------------------------------------
Re: Establish Professional Judges
DIR By: Paul Conway
Date: July 9, 2011, 8:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Tony, I do know there are written rules for competition and
have read them several times.
Here's an excerpt that makes little sense to me. I understand it
for sure, but as part of rules for competition it makes little
sense:
Next the raw score shall be multiplied by a quality factor of
1.0 for "adequate” to 2.0 for "truly phenomenal" based upon the
judges overall impression of the average quality exhibited in
all of the turns scored.
I will say that what came before and after the excerpt below
seemed pretty good, BUT who the heck puts the words adequate and
truely phenominal (which is slightly different than unbelievably
phenominal or Inconcivably phenominal and of course a bit
different than phenominal) in compeitition rules. Can you
substitute "beyond excellent" for "truely phenomenol"? I once
had one of my managers give me staff evaluations with "beyond
excellent" in the comments section. I much prefer things to be
more qualified, and, in turn, more professional. "Beyond
excellent" has no place on a staff evaluation, "truely
phenominal" has no place in competition rules of any kind. So
now judges can judge birds from adequate to truely phenominal
based on what?? There is no quantifying of this by the NBRC at
all. it's all up to judges interpretation. Judges
interpretation will play a big part in things regardless, but by
firming judging criteria up a bit the loose and the tight judges
will come closer to center.
Here's another thing that stood out to me:
Integrity
The judge shall not score anything that does not meet his
standard for adequate quality and depth or duration of
performance. 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 NBRC events.
I believe that first statement in the intergrity section should
read, "The judge shall not score anything that does not meet
NBRC standards". The last statement in the Integrity section
clearly says, "hey, your at an NBRC event", BUT the judging is
not to NBRC standards, judging is to the judges own personal
standards. If it said "to NBRC standards" it would necessitate
that there actually were NBRC standards- right now the NBRC
standard is that each judges standard of acceptance is the
standard with too few statements quantifying things. Maybe the
only thing that needs added is what exactly is a scoreable bird,
but if your going to make things more consistent and in turn
more professional we need to shift the focus from individual
judges to NBRC standards/rules. This would 1. necessitate the
expansion of the rules or standards that are written and 2.
require judges to be trained to judge to NBRC standards. Both
of which seem like they would be a terrific leap forward.
I own foxhounds. The number one thing we did (PA fox and coyote
hunters Association) was certify our judges. We have a yearly
one day training the includes classroom instruction/discussion
and hands on in the field judging. This training is based on
the National rules, which are explained and fleshed out. The
core training is the same each year with some additions to
accommodate the folks going through the second, third, etc time.
Those folks going through it multiple times take on expanded
mentoring roles as they and we feel comfortable and some of
those first participants in the training are now the ones that
help run it every year. Unbelievable the benifits this has
had, both measurable and unmeasurable, expected and unexepected,
etc, etc, etc, Our Judges have now been invited down south to
the heart and sole of foxhound field trialing and have garnered
the respect of those folks because of thier preparation and
training.
I certainly am speaking out of turn in terms of my experience
with pigeons and especially competition rollers, but, likewise,
am certainly not speaking out of turn in terms of competition,
judges training, rules interpretion, rules verbage, etc,
etc,etc.
Respectfully, Paul Conway.
#Post#: 8042--------------------------------------------------
Re: Establish Professional Judges
DIR By: Cliff Ball
Date: July 9, 2011, 9:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I like to compare scoring rollers to scoring gymnastics in the
Olympics. Both are basically aesthetic interpretations of a type
of performance. Yes, in both cases, the "physical limitation of
the human eye and processing speed of the brain will always
account for the need for the best "guess" or "judgement" of the
judge", as Tony said. Yet in gymnastics, they have a standard
for how each event is to be scored....what it is supposed to
look like....something for the competitors to shoot for and
train toward.....and they are not afraid to award a 10.0 when
somebody does it right. There is also a system to over-rule the
judge, when and if, he lets politics and/or national pride get
in the way of proper scoring. There is no reason that we cannot
standardize roller competition ina similar fashion. We simply
have to be willing to make a change for the better. Roller
competition will always be subjective and depend on the eye of
the judge. But we are so far from standard scoring that judging
our competitions is pathetic. Can you imagine the chaos in the
Olympics if they let the judge score each performance according
to his own standard? LOL! And the "standard" that Tony
quoted......well... that is about like having the standard for
the balance beam read simply that the performer should be
straight and tall without wobbling during the performance of the
routine. It speaks to the performance....but there is so much
more to it!
Cliff
--- Quote from: Tony Chavarria link ---
>
> Hey Paul C., there are rules for judging and it can vary from
club to club. However, it seems that much room is left for
judges to interpret what they believe they are seeing. This is,
I think, the crux of the issue, how much should be left to
interpretation and how much to objective reality as described in
a written performance standard? Its tough enough to watch the
performance of one bird let alone watch up to 20 birds perform
and objectively decide what you have seen in the space of half a
second or more... ??? and then be ready to for the next break
which can happen moments later while the human brain is still
processing what it thinks it just saw... :o
>
> I think physical limitation of the human eye and processing
speed of the brain will always account for the need for the best
"guess" or "judgement" of the judge. Different ideas have been
offered in the past to compensate for these types of
shortcomings:
>
> 1: Better trained judges
> 2: Panel of judges
> 3: Judge single birds only
>
> As for performance standard, we have a defacto standard that
is over one hundred years old, has been published many times and
few experienced and long term fanciers would disagree with the
following standard (not to be confused with turns and subsequent
quality in a comp kit):
> .
> .
> "...roll with inconceivable rapidity through a considerable
distance like a spinning ball"
>
> ;D
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 8043--------------------------------------------------
Re: Establish Professional Judges
DIR By: Cliff Ball
Date: July 9, 2011, 9:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Tony
No...defintiely, not bad.....I was just trying to explain to
Paul one of the reasons why we do not have a standard yet in
this sport. I believe some of the resistance to writing out a
minimum judging standard is due to the "FEAR" some individuals
have expressed, that it may be lower than "their" standard, plus
some in our ranks believe that only they, know what a good
Roller looks like.
A written standard would be good for every flyer and judge
alike.
Cliff
--- Quote from: Tony Chavarria link ---
>
> [quote author=Cliff Ball link=topic=593.msg8036#msg8036
date=1310225193]
>
> Paul,
> Good point. Some of the reisitance to a written standard comes
from guys who think THEY are the only ones who know what the
standard should be with regard to the breed and to performance.
They fear the standards will be set "lower" than what they want
to see.
> Cliff
--- End Quote ---
Hey Cliff, are you implying that having a written standard would
be bad OR those with a learned opinion on the matter? In which
way might that be? I guess I really don't understand your post
or where it is coming from. Can you help me out and clarify it a
bit? Thanks! :D
[/quote]
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page