The Scoring of an NJ vs. O (or I) according to US Rules

by Rob Work (FS Judge)

I respectfully disagree with Ted & Tim on their NJ viewpoint. Now they have assigned me a very difficult task; post my views on their web-site. I hold both of them in the highest regard, and consider both of them as gifts to our sport. But on this point I’m going to attempt to hold my ground.

The basic argument is regarding the issue of whether or not an NJ should be scored as a one point deduction (no credit for a formation), or be scored the same as an O and I, which is a two point deduction (no credit for the formation + one point deduction for the infringement).

As the US rules state now the NJ collates as a one point deduction (or, no credit for the formation). This is the way the 4 & 8-way events has been judged at the 2000 Nationals and the way I think it should continue.

These are the following US Rules that I will use to make my argument:

1. Section 5-1.15:A; "Each team will provide a freefall videographer who will provide the evidence required to judge each round."
2. FAI Rule 4.7.2: "Credit will only be given for formations, inters, or total separations if the video image is judgeable."
3. Section 5-1.9:A,1: "A team will score one point for each judgeable scoring formation performed…"
4. US FS Rules define NJ in Section 5-1.11:E,3 as "Formations, Inters, or Total Separations not judgeable."
5. Section 5-1.9:5: " It is the responsibility of the team to clearly present the correct scoring formations, inters, and total separations to the videographer and the judges."
6. Section 5-1.3:A: "4-Way: Each team may consist of up to six members, including a videographer…"
7. Section 5-1.10:D,2: "An infringement is one of the following: 1)An incorrect or incomplete formation… 2) A correctly completed formation preceded by an incorrect inter or incorrect separation;"

Based on the rules above, I believe two things need to happen in this very important order: First of all, the video evidence needs to be judgeable before I can make any determination of scoring formations, and separations. Secondly, the team must clearly present the scoring formations, inters, and separations to the videographer and judges (#5). In other words; How can I score something I can’t see? I need be given the evidence to see before I can judge it.

My Judging Assessment: Rules #1 and #2 apply first. Did the videographer provide evidence to judge the formation? NO… I can’t judge something I can’t see. Since I’ve now determined that it is not judgeable, I refer to rules #3 and #4 above. It’s certainly not a judgeable scoring formation (#3) and I mark it on my score sheet as on NJ (#4). I select "Video Framing" for explanation on the score sheet. Result: No point gained and no point lost.

Conversely, had the videographer got all the grips in frame, I would then determine the image to be judgeable. I would then refer to rule #5 above; Did the team clearly present the scoring formation to the videographer? YES… It is then a scoring formation.

Again…Did the videographer provide the evidence to judge the formation? NO…I can’t judge grips that I can’t see. I score exactly the same as above as an NJ based on the rule #4 above. Result: No point gained and no point lost. I select "Video Angle" for explanation on the score sheet.

I can’t judge something I can’t see. I don’t know how many points they are doing right now as I watch a video of the Perris runway. Again rules #1 and #2 apply. Lots of NJs. But, how many NJs to I apply?!? Well, I don’t know, let me see…the first judgeable formation preceded by complete separation is a meeker. Is it the fifth, tenth, 15^th, or 20^th meeker?!? I don’t know. But here’s the kicker… It doesn’t matter! Since they simply score what I see and don’t get penalized for something I can’t see, it doesn’t matter how many points they did during that missing image. After the judges have confirmed that the scoring formation they can see is a meeker, the event judge can estimate it to be the 10^th point. This is necessary so all the judges can collate. The next scoring time, all judges press 9 NJs immediately after the exit and begin scoring on the first judgeable formation (10^th meeker).

This happened during the Nationals in the 4-way event several times and they were judged the same way as above. The results: two points for two scoring formations in working time. The teams did not get any points that were not judgeable, and nothing was taken away.

What happens if the videographer fails to provide judgeable evidence near the end of working time? Can a judge penalize a team on points already scored if he doesn’t know how many times to penalize them?

The basis of my argument is that I can’t judge something I can’t see based on insufficient video evidence and I can’t penalize a team on their scoring formations based on something that I can’t see. No where in rule #7 above does it say that an infringement should apply to a non-judgeable formation.

Finally, we see judgeable video again 25 seconds into the dive, but we don’t know how many times Airspeed has gone through the dive during the unjudgeable video. On an all random, did they go through it two or three times? Again, it doesn’t matter. We won’t penalize them for the points we don’t see. We just won’t give them any credit. The chief judge guesses that they went through it twice, and every principal judge hits 10 NJs during the 15 seconds of unjudgeable video. The rest of the 20 seconds of judgeable video evidence is scored. They could feasibly still score high on 20 seconds of judgeable video.

Ted’s opinion is that if the judges can’t determine how many times the team went through the dive, they should receive an insufficient judgeable video, or the maximum penalty of a ZERO for the round. In other words, Airspeed just placed sixth behind the FX, PD Blue, Knights, Airspeed Zulu and Matrix.

Now let’s look at the collation problem of the NJs vs. the I’s & O’s. I think it’s been made clear that two J’s and one I can collate to a point. I believe that eventually the rules should equate 2 I’s (or O’s) and one J to at least a one point deduction (FAI:"...to the benefit of the team."), This is because three out of five judges have determined it is not there, judgeable or not. As of right now, it collates as a point. Until that change is made, I believe it the event judges’ responsibility to make it clear to the principal judges that we have a collation problem with NJ’s and I’s and on which specific point. As they watch the dive for the last time, they can decide whether to assign a J or I to the point.

Some of the 4-way statistics of the 2000 Nationals for all 4-way teams:

Number of teams:77
Number of team jumps: 644
Number of Collated J’s: 120
Number of Rejumps: 0
Number of Protests: 0

This is the first Nationals we have had no rejumps. Hopefully, the first of many to come. We never could have done it if we were penalizing the teams with non-judgeable video.

There were two instances of two J’s and one I collating to a point. Yes, that was two too many. The event judge might have missed them (they’re human too…especially when it comes to judging 644 jumps!). But, luckily it didn’t affect the team’s standings and they both happened to be near the bottom of the pack.

As far as judges making a decision on the judgeable angle of the video: yes, this is a more subjective call then a grip going off the screen. However, I've found that most judges can easily tell you if the video angle was sufficient enough for the team to be given the opportunity to clearly present the formations. In fact, it's not difficult at all. That discrepancy only came up twice.

Now, to the issue of the videographer as being part of the team. I earned my first World Championship as a cameraman. Tim Wagner was my cameraman when I won two more. Tim is a two-time World Champion. Anyone who’s been to that level will tell you the same thing. A team’s videographer plays a vital role on any team and he is part of that team.

However, as long as our rules include #1 and #5 above, they will always be differentiated as the videographer on the team. Therefore, they are not responsible for clearly presenting the scoring formations, inters, and separations to themselves, but they are responsible for recording their teams evidence and passing it to the judges.

The exit should always remain as a vital part of our sport. It is equally important for the team to launch a good exit as it is for the videographer to launch a good exit and capture the evidence. I think the teams and videographer will always work together to capture every point every jump.

If it’s said that it doesn’t matter if the grips were off screen or not, then we are saying that a videographer’s flying skill doesn’t matter. Therefore, we are saying that the best videographers in the world are not worth their weight in salt. I say they are worth their weight in gold, every ounce of it.

Rob Work
ne14rw@aol.com
8-way World Champion ‘91, 93, ’95
Co-event judge for 4-way at 2000 Nationals