SEN 2144
- Details
- Category: Archive Jan-Nov 2016
- Hits: 907
Table of Contents - SEN 2144
SZABÓ MIKLÓS MEMORIAL OF HUNGARY ,
SALONTA, ROMANIA, MAY 8
There were some problems with the Hungarian organisation of
this competition. Most significantly the decision was made to
have a 10 minute flyoff for F1A. After that, when some models
had flown a long way, competitors asked the CD if there would
be another flyoff and told that there would not be another one.
When some got back from the long flights they were surprised
to find that another flyoff had been held and the 4 competitors
who had not returned were shown tied in 8th place.
Nobody protested at that time, but complaints were made after
the event. The definition of a jury is that is dissolved after the
results have been presented and the event closes, leaving no
room to use the jury to reconsider the results. However a
complaint was made against the inclusion in the World Cup. A
panel of 3 members of the CIAM FF Subcommittee considered
that if the second flyoff was discarded it would penalise
competitors who had flown it, but if it was retained it penalised
the ones who had no opportunity to fly in the second flyoff.
The solution devised by the panel was to award the points for
the places obtained by those who flew in the second flyoff and
the points which would have been shared between all 11 flyers
if not second flyoff had taken place. It is the fairest solution to
a problem that has no clear answer, and is shown in the
following table:
Editor's comment. While the exact circumstances of the event are not known - for example was the jury available when the decision to fly the extra fly off flight was taken. But a lesson to be learned, not only from this event but others where there has been some contraversy after the event is that the time to lodge a protest and contact the jury is during the event not afterwards and that it is important to lodge a formal protest.
On Selecting Our Teams
From: Aram Schlosberg
Currently, we select a USA team in a single Finals that consist of two contests: Day 1, Day 2. The winner of Day 1 AND the winner of Day 2 are on the team plus the flier with the lowest sum of ranks on both days. (If a day winner declines, the next lowest ranked flier will replace him etc.)
In practice, the two day winners were actually lucky – selected by mother nature in the last daily flyoff. Boulder City illustrated that morning thermals can be highly turbulent and that the lake bed stores heat overnight.
But switching to a system were all team positions are selected by ranks also has drawbacks. Being a pure merit system, teams would have a low turnover, as the best fliers would usually be on the team. Another problem is that any error such as a miss-timing or a malfunction would eliminate the chance of making the team. Fliers would probably retire after their first drop. It’s a zero error approach.
A better idea is to combine the two approaches. Suppose that only the Day 2 winner makes the team, and that the other two slots are granted to the fliers with the lowest sum of ranks. Here, even if one drops on Day 1, there is still a ‘1/N’ chance of making the team on Day 2, where N is the number of fliers on that day. So, whether you are an average or excellent flier and you happen to trip on Day 1, you might still make the team on Day 2. A case of an equal second chances for one team position.
It would be useful to gauge the support for this idea on SEN.
Each cycle a new program is voted on by the participants a few months after the Finals. But setting thing in stone almost two years ahead of the next Finals might be too rigid. If there is enough support for modifying the formula of selecting the team, it would make sense to have it voted on by the participants BEFORE the next Finals. Why wait till 2018?
Aram
Ranking Reminder
Just a reminder that the rolling Ranking of FAI Freeflight sportsmen is at:
http://www.freeflightnews.org.uk/ranking/RANK1605T.HTM
......................
Roger Morrell
- Szabo Miklos Update
- On selecting USA Team
- Ranking Reminder
SZABÓ MIKLÓS MEMORIAL OF HUNGARY ,
SALONTA, ROMANIA, MAY 8
There were some problems with the Hungarian organisation of
this competition. Most significantly the decision was made to
have a 10 minute flyoff for F1A. After that, when some models
had flown a long way, competitors asked the CD if there would
be another flyoff and told that there would not be another one.
When some got back from the long flights they were surprised
to find that another flyoff had been held and the 4 competitors
who had not returned were shown tied in 8th place.
Nobody protested at that time, but complaints were made after
the event. The definition of a jury is that is dissolved after the
results have been presented and the event closes, leaving no
room to use the jury to reconsider the results. However a
complaint was made against the inclusion in the World Cup. A
panel of 3 members of the CIAM FF Subcommittee considered
that if the second flyoff was discarded it would penalise
competitors who had flown it, but if it was retained it penalised
the ones who had no opportunity to fly in the second flyoff.
The solution devised by the panel was to award the points for
the places obtained by those who flew in the second flyoff and
the points which would have been shared between all 11 flyers
if not second flyoff had taken place. It is the fairest solution to
a problem that has no clear answer, and is shown in the
following table:
points points points
incl FO2 for FO1 only awarded
1 J Nyhegn DEN 58 32 58
2 P Findahl SWE 43 32 43
2 F Aberlenc FRA 43 32 43
4 K Huber SWE 33 32 33
5 B Pouzet FRA 28 32 32
6 V Bajorat GER 27 32 32
7 E Ragot FRA 26 32 32
8 B Trachez FRA 23 32 32
8 A Notaros HUN 23 32 32
8 D Vlad ROU 23 32 32
8 J Valo FIN 23 32 32
Editor's comment. While the exact circumstances of the event are not known - for example was the jury available when the decision to fly the extra fly off flight was taken. But a lesson to be learned, not only from this event but others where there has been some contraversy after the event is that the time to lodge a protest and contact the jury is during the event not afterwards and that it is important to lodge a formal protest.
On Selecting Our Teams
From: Aram Schlosberg
Currently, we select a USA team in a single Finals that consist of two contests: Day 1, Day 2. The winner of Day 1 AND the winner of Day 2 are on the team plus the flier with the lowest sum of ranks on both days. (If a day winner declines, the next lowest ranked flier will replace him etc.)
In practice, the two day winners were actually lucky – selected by mother nature in the last daily flyoff. Boulder City illustrated that morning thermals can be highly turbulent and that the lake bed stores heat overnight.
But switching to a system were all team positions are selected by ranks also has drawbacks. Being a pure merit system, teams would have a low turnover, as the best fliers would usually be on the team. Another problem is that any error such as a miss-timing or a malfunction would eliminate the chance of making the team. Fliers would probably retire after their first drop. It’s a zero error approach.
A better idea is to combine the two approaches. Suppose that only the Day 2 winner makes the team, and that the other two slots are granted to the fliers with the lowest sum of ranks. Here, even if one drops on Day 1, there is still a ‘1/N’ chance of making the team on Day 2, where N is the number of fliers on that day. So, whether you are an average or excellent flier and you happen to trip on Day 1, you might still make the team on Day 2. A case of an equal second chances for one team position.
It would be useful to gauge the support for this idea on SEN.
Each cycle a new program is voted on by the participants a few months after the Finals. But setting thing in stone almost two years ahead of the next Finals might be too rigid. If there is enough support for modifying the formula of selecting the team, it would make sense to have it voted on by the participants BEFORE the next Finals. Why wait till 2018?
Aram
Ranking Reminder
Just a reminder that the rolling Ranking of FAI Freeflight sportsmen is at:
http://www.freeflightnews.org.uk/ranking/RANK1605T.HTM
......................
Roger Morrell