|
How to understand CIVA Judge Analysis: |
 |
|
The Judge
Rank Position (JRP) |
|
At the end
of each championship the judges RI's
from all flight programmes except the
Final Freestyle are consolidated to
derive their final RI at that
event. |
|
Judges can
now be ranked from
the lowest final RI (best) to the
highest final RI to give
their Judge Rank Position (JRP)
at that event. |
|
The judge with the
lowest final
RI has a JRP
=
1.0 and the JRP for the other
judges will be set to 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 etc up to
the panel size. |
|
To
calculate the JRP from a range of
championships the judges JRP's are all
averaged to rank them from the lowest
(best) to the highest. If the panel size
was below or above seven members the
event JRP is adjusted so the
contribution is the same in every case. |
|
In the first stage of
judge selections by the CIVA Judging
Committee each year, only those judges
whose JRP calculated from the preceding
three years is up to 5.0 are
included. |
|
Judges with a higher
JRP
and judges who do not yet have a CIVA record
can also be selected in the subsequent
stages. |
| |
|
The
Ranking Index (RI) |
|
A judge who ranks every pilot in a programme
in the same order as the panel before any
penalties are applied, is considered to
have achieved the expected standard of performance and
thus has an RI of Zero (0.0). |
|
However: if there are
differences between the judge's ranking of pilots and the
overall panel ranking then the quality of
the judge's performance is less acceptable.
For each pilot the judge has ranked "incorrectly" the rank difference and
the score difference between the judge and the panel are
combined to calculate individual RI
error values which are added together to
give the
judge's Ranking Index: |
|
□ |
If the rank difference or the score
difference is small then the contribution to the
judge's RI will also be relatively small. |
|
□ |
Bigger rank
or score differences will make the RI
even larger, in other words the judge's
performance is increasingly
unacceptable. |
|
□ |
If a judge
should have given a Hard Zero
but failed to do so, or did give an HZ that was not confirmed
by the Chief Judge, the RI contribution can be
much more significant - these are
considered to be serious errors. |
|
|
RI values - |
|
●
●
● |
At major events with 20+ pilots and
a full panel of
judges an RI below 10 is considered reasonably good.
An RI from 10 up to 20
indicates a less acceptable standard of judging
where the judges
opinions are increasingly different
to the panel.
If the RI is over 20 there must have been major differences
between the judges marks and the rest of
the panel, and the reasons for
these differences should be carefully investigated. |
|
□ |
In each of
the above instances however the
FairPlay System will have resolved all
significant errors in the final
results. |
|
 |
