Fractured Axel

mobius wrote:

True.. but at least give em one point

I would ALWAYS make every effort to do this. At Berck we had a team whose cumulative penalties far outweighed their score so we simply combined a few penalties and handed them a bone.

There's no reason to be cruel. Earlier rules for compulsories had one (of three) missed Key Element missed meant a mandatory zero. Overzealous.

Mike.

Zippy8 wrote:

It can lead to some pretty disjointed routines though. IRB demands you construct something if you want a reasonable score. It seems to me that as long as you have the imposed tricks present and correct you can do well with bugger all in the way of structure in TP.

You can do well to a point - imposed tricks are only 40% of the total score. Here, "imposed tricks" refers to the non-ballet portion of tricks party, similar to IRB precision, but with tricks assigned instead of figures. within the ballet, the execution quality of the tricks you have elected to do is 60% of the ballet score.

As with STACK competition, a pilot's final standing is based on the combination of imposed tricks (40%) and ballet (60%). In some ways, this is much like the current approach to flying/judging precision figures. If you hit your 2 critical components, you can get a decent score, even if overall it was a lousy figure.

And it seems that part of the strategy of TP ballet is putting the emphasis on hitting the 9 (or 12) tricks in your program, even if the style/choreography score suffers. This is not so different from the current approach to flying/judging precision - if you nail the 2 critical components in a figure, you can get a decent score, even if from a holistic POV you flew a pretty ugly figure.

Maybe in the early days STACK penalty's sorted out the god's, nowadays
i tend to think, and see, it sorts out the risktakers and the non-risktakers.

in general i am tended to say it are the more boaring ballets that win with
Stack. a couple off years ago i spend a lot of time doing one single
backspin in my routine just to hear one of the judges say it was a nice
axel! So i changed it back to an axel in my opinion. STACK judges
are not tempted enough to become involved in what pilots try to acomplish.

i hear some STACK-judges say it,s all about technique, but how can you
judge that if you don,t know how far that techique is. As long as STACK
is based upon a penalty system, judges in that system have no urge
to learn what tricks we can do, as a result you don,t score with tricks
so you might as well leave them out. as i see it STACK is digging it's
own grave, no need from outside help at all.

For instance, how on earth is it possible that a competitor from Holland
who goes all the way to germany, fly's over the red line during practise,
get's Disqualified ??? If there is a lot of pricemoney involved i could
understand. But in this case it only distroyed a very expencive weekend
for a pilot. rules like this should have been abandoned somewhere in
1899. Making it next to impossible to change those rules is what is realy
amiss with the STACK competition.


Cheers Eddie

Zippy8 wrote:

mobius wrote:

True.. but at least give em one point

I would ALWAYS make every effort to do this. At Berck we had a team whose cumulative penalties far outweighed their score so we simply combined a few penalties and handed them a bone.

There's no reason to be cruel. Earlier rules for compulsories had one (of three) missed Key Element missed meant a mandatory zero. Overzealous.

Mike.

That is a problem i have seen before. did you from that point on combine
penalties for all the teams, also for the ones that went before? If not the
scoring isn,t correct, or did you make sure they ended last?


Cheers Eddie

Eddie Hillegers wrote:

one single backspin in my routine just to hear one of the judges say it was a nice axel!

Maybe your Backspin technique was just poor ? :-& Yes, it's true. There are some people judging in STACK that couldn't differentiate between a Backspin and a Spanish Omelette. They should be ashamed of themselves.

For instance, how on earth is it possible that a competitor from Holland who goes all the way to germany, fly's over the red line during practise, get's Disqualified ???

DQ lines came into existence for two reasons AFAIK. Firstly, have you ever been hit by a kite ? It's not pleasant and if it were to happen to a member of the public, there would be trouble. Secondly, to fix the amount of room you have to work, just like you can't run outside the lines of a football pitch.

You are right. It is is bitch to get DQed for something that may seem trivial and, if there's no-one in the vicinity, doesn't represent a danger. Perhaps ABW might have some insight into this matter ?

If not the scoring isn,t correct, or did you make sure they ended last?

Oh they made quite sure of that themselves

Mike.

Zippy8 wrote:

You are right. It is is bitch to get DQed for something that may seem trivial and, if there's no-one in the vicinity, doesn't represent a danger. Perhaps ABW might have some insight into this matter ?

Indeed I do. First STACK competition I ever entered, I was DQ'd for flying over the boundary. This was after I had finished competing and was flying my kite out of the arena. The judges didn't see it, but a fellow competitor grassed me up (and no, we're not talking a quick safety meeting) to the judges.

Thing was, the only people in the cowpat-ridden field were the competitors and judges. There were no spectators and no-one near the arena. There was no chance of me hurting anyone, but they DQ'd me anyway.

The point about having a well-defined arena would be valid if kites remained inside and spectators outside. But at most festivals there's nothing to stop a spectator being hit by a kite from behind, being flown outside the arena by Joe Public. In fact, I often made a point at subsequent kite events to stand outside the arena (as a non-competitor) and fly my kite over the arena boundary. Rather childish, I know, but I was making the point that the STACK boundary regulation does nothing (or rarely does anything) to protect the safety of the public. I see it as another one of the trivial rules that typically make the competitors' job more difficult.

Tricks Party is much better in this regard. The boundary is for guidance, and you are not supposed to fly over it. But it's not an automatic DQ if you do. Instead, you get DQ'd for dangerous flying or unsportmanslike behaviour, which may or may not include flying over the boundary. There's much more scope for the application of common sense, IMHO.

Having said all that, Andy P was telling me that the IRB doesn't specify that you must have an arena at all. But if you do have an arena, then you must apply the boundary rule.

..just like you can't run outside the lines of a football pitch.

Indeed. But it would be rather silly if the offending team automatically forfeited the game if they did so.

A

abw wrote:

Rather childish, I know, but I was making the point that the STACK boundary regulation does nothing (or rarely does anything) to protect the safety of the public.

The actual point is not so much that it increases safety as decreases liability. These are rarely one and the same thing.

So another point for the IRBC is to reduce/remove the boundaries. Or at least make this the default scenario.

Mike.

Zippy8 wrote:

...just like you can't run outside the lines of a football pitch.

The ball has to stay withinin the lines - the player doesn't necessarily have to (albeit coming on from behind the opponents goal line whilst tying one's laces to subsequently score was a bit cheeky of Chelsea in the 03/04 season - but I digress...)

erm... where was I... Oh yes - if the ball does cross the line it doesn't stop the game outright - just allows it to be 'played' back in...

Odd perhaps - but is it a reasonable analogy as to what, perhaps, could happen with STACK comps?

*NB: Speaking as one with no competitive experience (unless you count VF)

Davey wrote:

The ball has to stay withinin the lines - the player doesn't necessarily have to

IIRC any player who leaves the field of play is required to ask the match referee for permission to re-enter the field but I digress even further

Odd perhaps - but is it a reasonable analogy as to what, perhaps, could happen with STACK comps?

It was suggested that if you cross the outer boundary that your routine is ended at that point and judged accordingly. It struck me as about right but do remember that there really are other pressures and other voices, some of them rather loud and very convinced that they are right.

Mike.

Zippy8 wrote:

IIRC any player who leaves the field of play is required to ask the match referee for permission to re-enter the field but I digress even further

Quite right - but to keep with the digressions it didn't seem to affect that player in question Parallel being that there's an allowance that doesn't need the match to end prematurely.

Davey wrote:

Quite right - but to keep with the digressions it didn't seem to affect that player in question

I'll see your digression and raise you a tangent.

The fault lies with the match officials then who should have spotted the offence and applied the appropriate ruling.

(Mike struggles to place this in a kiting context....)

Much like abw's example. He would have escaped sanction if he hadn't been "grassed up".

(phew, that was close).

Mike.

Zippy8 wrote:

Much like abw's example. He would have escaped sanction if he hadn't been "grassed up".

Perhaps the linesman was also "grassed up"? The fact that the player had trangressed the boundary, digressed from the point, and shot off at a tangent simply slipped through the holes in his short term memory.



It's OK. I already have my coat on...

A

abw wrote:

...something...

erm...

zippy8 wrote:

...something else...

I had thought of something to say - but now my head hurts... Something transgressed my transectioned tangent leading to my boundary being crossed - and now I'm confused...

But I reckon that if I hadn't initially transgressed the topic with my tangential digression we'd be all back on track now with the initially discussed discussion.

Moral of this story is - we still came back to win the game 2-1 - Go on the Gunners

old news davey! apparently 'blue is the colour' the time round!

Hmm.... the tangent crossed the centre circle and struck a chord, perhaps?

<grins, ducks & runs, very very fast>