|
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.
If the panel size was below or above the
CIVA standard seven members, the
event JRP is adjusted so the
contribution has the same value in every case. |
|
To
calculate the JRP from a range of
championships the judges JRP's are averaged to rank them from the lowest
(best) to the highest. |
|
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 however also be included for
selection in the subsequent
stages. |
| |
|
The
Ranking Index (RI) |
|
A judge who ranks every pilot in a programme
in the same order as the final Results before any
penalties are applied is considered to
have achieved the best possible standard
of performance and will have an RI of Zero (0.0). |
|
However:
When there are
differences between the judge's personal ranking of pilots
(calculated from raw grades awarded to
each competitor) and the
overall panel ranking (before any
penalties are applied) 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
used to calculate individual RI values which are
combined 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. |
|
● |
Larger rank
or score differences will make the RI 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
far 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 10-12 is considered reasonably good.
An RI from 12 up to 20
indicates a less acceptable standard of judging
where the judges
opinions are increasingly different
to the panel.
If the judge's 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. |
|
 |
