PDA

View Full Version : Aachen Trial Judging: Info from Days 1, 2, and 3



ShotenStar
Sep. 7, 2009, 09:05 PM
a copy-paste from RD's blog



September 7, 2009

Day 1 - Judging Systems Trials (http://doversworld.com/blog/2009/09/day-1-judging-systems-trials/)

It was a very long day of testing various methods of judging and scoring dressage, beginning at 9:00am for us, the FEI Task Force members and ending at 10:00pm. Thanks to the many riders who have volunteered to come and show in their full dress, despite the extremely hot and sunny weather (which I kept thanking GOD for!), as well as the judges and everyone from Aachen who are doing so much to make everyone feel welcome, as usual. It never ceases to thrill me to walk onto these show grounds, even when there seems to be only us very few fanatics instead of the 65,000 normally in attendance for a real show. There is truly no place that compares to Aachen!
The first test was devised by David Strickland and Wayne Channon and concerned separating the judging tasks into each only scoring 1 or 2 main parts of the training scale throughout the Grand Prix. 7 judges judged; the first scored Impulsion; the second, Rhythm; the third, Contact and Suppleness; the fourth, Precision;, the fifth, Submission; the sixth, Collection; and the seventh, Straightness. Once again, the results of this test will require some time before we can ascertain whether or not this method shows promise.

The second trial consisted of a comparison between 5 judges judging, 7 judges judging with all scores counting, and 7 judges judging with the high and low scores dropped out. Analysis of this trial will require a couple of days before we receive the data to determine what, if any, value might arrive from either change.

The third trial used a total of 10 judges, 5 who judged as normal and 5 who judged using .5 points. the logic behind using 1/2 points is that many times a judge would like to give a “big 7″ or a “little 8″ but they may not and they therefore stick to the rounded score. In many cases, being able to give the extra .5 would change a final score by several percentage points and therefore alter the placements of that competitor. Marabel Alonso, sitting at C, discussed her feeling with the audience saying that, although at the beginning it was a bit disconcerting to have to ‘think differently”, by the end she began to feel more comfortable with this method and could imagine judges getting used to giving half points and it becoming not a problem.

This took us to the dinner hour, after which Katrina Wuest first did a magnificent job of explaining, along with a wonderful presentation, how future judging of Dressage may work with dividing the tasks while using new formulas and technology to enable judging to truly move into the 21st century. It will require more time to work out the kinks and secure the software necessary for it to work, but shows amazing promise and the obvious countless hours of work she put into this. Katrina then used video of rides from the European Championships in Turin, Italy, to show how, using test sheets which she created and the Task force approved, judges could separate the technical from the artistic tasks, some only doing the one while others only do the other. The most positive thing about this is that those judges doing the artistic judging could, for the very first time, sit back and have the luxury of simply watching the entire test before giving marks for that part of the performance. With as many as 25 I and O judges in attendance, there was much very good discourse and tomorrow we will try this method using live horses and riders and see how it goes.
I will certainly report back tomorrow evening with all the news from the day. And now this jet-lagged lover of Dressage is going to sleep!
Cheers!
RD

Filed under: Uncategorized (http://doversworld.com/blog/category/uncategorized/) — RDover2 @ 4:59 pm

claire
Sep. 7, 2009, 10:16 PM
Star, Thank you for starting a new thread!

Reading this :


The first test was devised by David Strickland and Wayne Channon and concerned separating the judging tasks into each only scoring 1 or 2 main parts of the training scale throughout the Grand Prix. 7 judges judged; the first scored Impulsion; the second, Rhythm; the third, Contact and Suppleness; the fourth, Precision;, the fifth, Submission; the sixth, Collection; and the seventh, Straightness. Once again, the results of this test will require some time before we can ascertain whether or not this method shows promise.

The second trial consisted of a comparison between 5 judges judging, 7 judges judging with all scores counting, and 7 judges judging with the high and low scores dropped out.

Analysis of this trial will require a couple of days before we receive the data to determine what, if any, value might arrive from either change.


Maybe it is the way it is being explained here, but I am confused about the protocol of this trail/test/study?

Also, the sample size seems small, yet it appears that they will be "drawing conclusions" from these trails?

Could you please explain? :confused:

ShotenStar
Sep. 8, 2009, 07:32 AM
Can I explain?

Nope. Sorry. Haven't got a clue as to what they are actually doing, what problem statements they are working against, what analysis techniques they are using, or even who they are. I have posted on RD's website to try and gain this information.

While I can make some guesses at what they are working towards, speculation in the absence of more data would not be productive.

*star*

egontoast
Sep. 8, 2009, 08:21 AM
If you want answers from the Buddha, you must climb the mountain

where did the emoticons go. I need the winky eye thingy.

hoopoe
Sep. 8, 2009, 09:06 AM
how is this going to trickle down to us lowly lot who ride in shows where there is only one or perhaps sometimes two judges.

The only thing mentioned in the OP that will "help" us is the use of the half point

I have sat with "old time" judges who used the (+) (-) on the score sheets to show big vs little value. Gave the rider a little extra info. One judge said the practice was actively discouraged, but he did it anyway.

full circle I guess

poltroon
Sep. 8, 2009, 05:38 PM
My sense is, reading between the lines, that the assorted people there (I'm not even sure who that is, other than RD) are going to try some different ways to judge, then talk amongst themselves, and see what feels right and is most satisfying to them when they are done. And then that will be the new Championship format. I'm not clear if this is for Olympics 2012 or if it would be used for WEG 2010.

The various arrangements they're considering, other than half points, have no application to lower levels, where we only have funding for a single judge.

ShotenStar
Sep. 8, 2009, 05:48 PM
From Day 2


September 8, 2009

Day 2 Of The Judging Systems Trials (http://doversworld.com/blog/2009/09/day-2-of-the-judging-systems-trials/)

The secnond day of the Dressage Judging Systems Trials held by the FEI Dressage Task Force in Aachen was another big success.

The first test was of dividing the tasks in the standard Grand Prix. Five judges scored exactly as normal, giving marks as well as collective marks for the purpose of a reference. Five other judges gave collective marks according to a newly designed test sheet.

The test was designed to determine:
a. If the total marks willbe higher or lower than in the case of the present way od judging
b. to determine if the variatiion between average marks for a movement and average marks for collective marks will be higher/lower than when judged in the present way

The next trial was that of dividing the tasks for the Freesttyle in which the Grand Prix level was used. In this test, 4 judges judged the technical part from H,C,M and B and, as always, were able to give “half marks” for final marks per movement. 3 judges sitting at E, between C and H and between C and M judged the artistic part with half marks as normal and have the possibility to give more detailed remarks to the competitor. This test was to determine if:
a. the total marks will be higher or lower than when judged in the present way,
b. if the variation between the average technical marks and the average artistic marks will be higher /lower than with the present system

The final trial was to see if judges sitting close together and therefore all having the same view of the riders would change positively or negatively the outcome. In this test, 5 judges were placed in booths side by side on the short side while 5 more were placed side by side with larger widths in between the booths on the longside. We also placed one judge in a new locatiion which was directly behind the letter M, where no judge normally sits. This test was to evaluate how much the placement of the judges truly enhances or detracts from there ability to see all positive and negative aspects of the rides, and whether or not this leads to faulty placements of the horses and poorer scoring.

We continued to have wonderful discussions between the judges, the Task Force and the FEI Staff, especailly with regard to the positive results of creating a Judges Supervisory Panel for major competitions which will offer oversight to ensure there always be fair, compitant and honest officiating.

tomorrow will be our final morning of discussions by the Dressqage Task Force and I will report on these directly after.
Cheers!
RD

Filed under: Uncategorized (http://doversworld.com/blog/category/uncategorized/) — RDover2 @ 3:58 pm

ridgeback
Sep. 8, 2009, 05:51 PM
I don't think you should be copying his info and posting it here:no:

Pony Fixer
Sep. 8, 2009, 06:55 PM
Actually, he encouraged her to do so.

It seems like a huge mess. I can barely read all the combos, much less fathom how this will make things better. But, as a glass half-full type, I am gonna hope it is just but one small step on the road to an improved judging system.

canyonoak
Sep. 8, 2009, 07:46 PM
Robert Dover has been generous to share all this with us. IIRC, the FEI release about the trials said that 'everyone is invited to attend the trials--there will be NO discussion of what goes on until conclusions have been drawn' -- except it was not that polite,LOL.

I think it is Robert Dover who insisted that he would go public with at least some of the background and methods tried.

I think the most productive results will come out the conversations and debates that go on at the trials and afterwards...I honestly do not think anyone believes that they are going to find the perfect let alone correct solution here, in two days, when the debates have been going on for so long.

BUT--it is a first attempt, and a worthwhile one at that.

Half points have been around, as already noted.

The decision to use more of the scale and remember that 8= Good and not 'you are one step closer to Dr. Klimke' (who hardly ever got 8s back then, and whose 70% GP score in 1984 was like a revelation) this is a good decision.

Down the line, I believe the FEI Judges Handbook will be expanded to include visuals to SHOW what the marks mean in real life, as well as what the faults look like.
That will probably be of great use to judges and riders and everyone.

ANd I can only hope it happens in my lifetime!

LOL

claire
Sep. 9, 2009, 01:34 AM
Astrid from EuroDressage has attended the trails and will be giving an update.

Also, later this month, at the Global Dressage Forum, many of the judges and scientists at this task force meeting will be attending and further discussing the Aachen trails. The Global Dressage Forum is open to the public and there will be reports from various sources that attend.

So, it does appear that studies have been being done for a year now, and, there will be other occasions that the FEI will be using to discuss and study the information gleaned from these trails this week at Aachen?

IOW, The FEI will not be having the Dressage Task Force make rulings or changes based on just these Aachen trails?

The Global Dressage Forum is always an interesting source of information with their format of opening the floor for questions and discussion after the presentations.

Hopefully, at the GDF David Stickland will be able to expand on the statistical aspect of the trails and answer some of the questions that have been brought up.

From EuroDressage:



Judging System Trails in Aachen

We just returned from the two-day Judging System Trials in Aachen and saw some very interesting things that can help modernize the dressage judging system. A complete report with photos is coming up tomorrow. Please be patient as we write up with the Dressage Task Force has been working on a whole year.

and



Judging Discussed at the 2009 Global Dressage Forum

New initiatives in dressage will be discussed at the 2009 Global Dressage Forum on 26 and 27 October 2009 in Hooge Mierde, the Netherlands. At the European Championships in Windsor the FEI Task Force announced some interesting new developments that will be proposed to the General Assemblee this year.

Some of the developments include changes in the system of judging.
An interesting try-out meeting will take place next week in Aachen. Different judging systems will be brought into practice. Judging with 7 judges, highest and lowest points taken away, different judging tasks for different judges, etc.

At the Global Dressage Forum FEI Dressage task force chairman Frank Kemperman and FEI sports director David Holmes will be present. Several experts will give presentations, including scientist David Stickland, who will present his statistical analysis of the judging in Windsor and FEI judge Katharine Wüst, who has made a proposal on a more objective way to define the degree of difficulty of a kür.
Don't miss out on this year's exciting Global Dressage Forum. For more information about the program and ordering tickets visit: www.globaldressageforum.com (http://www.globaldressageforum.com/)

claire
Sep. 9, 2009, 01:59 AM
Star, maybe you could change the title of this thread to include the further sources of information besides just RD's blog?
(like the EuroDressage reports and also the upcoming Global Dressage Forum)

Maybe, "New Initiatives in Dressage Judging: Aachen Trails"

Might be a better title that would keep the topic current and less polarized because of being associated with one person's blog/opinion?

Just a thought!

ShotenStar
Sep. 9, 2009, 07:28 AM
Good Thought !

Done !

*star*

ShotenStar
Sep. 9, 2009, 08:42 AM
From Day 3;


September 9, 2009

Day 3 - Judging Systems Trials (http://doversworld.com/blog/2009/09/day-3-judging-systems-trials/)

The final day of the FEI Judging Systems Trials concluded with a round table discussion including many judges as well as trainers, riders, and the FEI Dressage Task Force members and staff. My opinion is that everyone felt the 3 days brought extremely positive results, though no absolute conclusions may be made until the FEI receives and decides upon the merits of the report which the Task Force must deliver in approximately 6 weeks from now. Among our 5 tasks given to us was the one on “Judging” and this was the reason for our Trials event the last 3 days.

David Strickland did a wonderful job of presenting a statistical analysis of each of the trials tested and did a fantastic job making them understandable and visually clear.

Without Frank Kemperman the event could never have been such a success as his staff and the incredible Aachen facilities provided the perfect location for our needs, while also giving many riders and their horses a unique opportunity to “school” in the best show arena in the world!


Remembering that final conclusions from these trials and discussions must wait for some time to be determined, when I get home tomorrow from Germany I will give some of my own general opinions on things I preferred and those I did not.
Cheers!
RD

Filed under: Uncategorized (http://doversworld.com/blog/category/uncategorized/) — RDover2 @ 6:53 am

claire
Sep. 9, 2009, 10:22 AM
Astrid's report is very detailed and informative.

Looking forward to David Stickland's presentation at the Global Dressage Forum.


From EuroDressage: http://www.eurodressage.com/reports/shows/2009/sep_judgingsystemtrial.htm


2009 FEI Dressage Task Force Judging Systems Trials

One Step Forward Thanks to Judging System Trials in Aachen

The long-anticipated Judging Systems Trials, a brain child of the FEI Dressage Task Force, took place in the Deutsche Bank Dressage Stadium in Aachen, Germany, on September 7-9, 2009. This well-organized event, which was open to an audience and press, was a first concrete step forwards in the modernization of the dressage judging system.

A large number of especially Belgian and Dutch riders volunteered to compete their experienced and upcoming horses in this event. The trial was not a competition and the riders will not receive their score sheets. However, for them it was an exclusive once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to show in the famous Aachen ring. Unfortunately only one Olympic rider turned up, Imke Schellekens-Bartels.

The actual testing of the different systems happened on the first two days of the three-day event and it was separated into five trials. The entire trials were discussed on the third day amongst judges and Task Force Members. The actual results of the trials are not directly known as they are sent to Switzerland, where maths-wizard David Stickland will calculate the results of each trial and estimate the level of improvement of each system in comparison to the old format.

Half Marks and Bonus-Malus System To Improve the Sport
On Monday the first two trials tested various methods of judging and scoring dressage. Trial number one was a Grand Prix level test with the judges at different positions: five in the standard position (E, H, C, M, B), whose marks were used as reference scores, and two on the short side by A. They tested the effect of increasing the judges' panel from five to seven judges and investigated the effect of dropping the high and low score. Afterwards, four judges were asked to score each two components of the training scale: impulsion and rhythm, contact and submissiveness, collection and suppleness, and precision and straightness.

German judge Peter Holler commented that the component judging "very much corresponds with what I would do normally," but it still was "a different way of judging in the brain." Component judging posed the problem that some parts can not be separated from another or that "sometimes a horse can lose the rhythm but still have good impulsion." The advantage of this style of judging was that "you don't have to look so much at the mistakes. It is more like judging young horses," Holler confirmed.

An issue the judges also faced was the intertwining of the various parts. What is submission? Is it simply throughness, or also impulsion and contact?On Monday afternoon ten judges were seated round the show ring. Five of them gave the conventional marks as reference and five were allowed to use half marks. The idea of half mark judging was initially discussed by Wayne Channon on Eurodressage.com (http://www.eurodressage.com/editor/wayne/20080118_halfpoints-sequal.html) and accepted by the FEI Dressage Task Force to be tested at this trial following a request from the riders. Very often judges tend towards a "small" seven or a "big" six but in the end this problem could cause a 10% point difference in a test, because the panel is restricted to using full marks. The half-mark system would encourage judges to raise scores.


Task Force member Robert Dover stated that "it gives us a chance to get closer and closer to scores that are commensurate with the words of the judges. It will also be easier for the spectators." As the sport gets more challenging and top riders are scoring much closer together by riding "on the edge," the decimal system is probably the future. "One hundred of a second or of a point can make the difference," Dover added. Though it took some time to get adapted to the half mark system, the judges were very enthusiastic about it and considered it easy to apply to the current system at all levels.

On Monday evening, a closed session took place in which O-judge Katrina Wüst gave a very detailed presentation on how to quantify the degree of difficulty in the freestyle to music based on a newly invented "bonus-malus" system. On an artistic level, the choreography and music can be quantified by establishing a catalogue of movements which can earn bonus points depending on their difficulty.

A rider would have to indicate the degree of difficulty of his freestyle beforehand and the judges will score this using the catalogue. A 6 would be the neutral score if a rider has ridden all the requirements once. "He can then build up the degree of difficulty on the condition that it is well executed. He then gets a score between 6 and 10," Wüst explained. "If it is badly executed, he gets malus points. Riders should not over-ask their horses because they will get malus points for incorrect execution, or it is unbalanced." The new freestyle scoring system is an attempt to reduce partially the subjectivity of the judging. "Riders will know what they can do to get good points," Wüst added. "It is no longer a finger in the wind," Davison quipped.

The Dressage Task Force also expressed its interest in splitting up the tasks between judges: some scoring the technical part of the test, others the artistic part. Wüst showed a video of the 2007 European Championships in Turin to demonstrate how judges could divide tasks by using newly designed test sheets. "The most positive thing about this is that those judges doing the artistic judging could, for the very first time, sit back and have the luxury of simply watching the entire test before giving marks for that part of the performance," Dover stated.

New Angles Explored
Tuesday morning started off with a trial to split up the technical and collective marks. A panel of ten judges divided tasks. Five gave marks for the movements, five for the collectives using a newly designed test sheet. This trial challenged the variation between the average marks for movements and for collectives, which were separated in five categories: walk trot canter, submission, execution of the movements, rider's seat and overall performance. Would it be higher or lower?
Wüst's freestyle ideas were put to practice in the fourth trial in which four judges at H, C, M and B marked the technical part using half marks and three judges at B, between C and H and between C and M scored the artistic part with half points.

In the afternoon the final fifth trial examined the effect of putting the judges closer together. Five judges on the short side and five on the long side all had to mark an Intermediaire I test. Stickland unofficially confirmed that the scores were much closer together with the judges all having the same view. The variation of angles was also assessed by repositioning two judges' boxes at M and H on the long side instead of the traditional short side corner spots. FEI Dressage Director Trond Asmyr stipulated that "the public looks at a test from all angles, so why not judge from the same angle as the public."

Judges Supervisory Panel
In the background of the trials in the main ring a side project was being tested which delighted many officials attending: the Judges Supervisory Panel (JSP). A panel of three (retired) judges would follow on a tv-screen the running scores of their officiating colleagues and flag on screen any major discrepancies between the scores for a movement. They can decide for themselves whether the difference was acceptable. The idea is that these judges could overrule a mark and correct it so major mistakes would no longer happen. How often do we see one judge scoring a movement a 4 while the others give it a seven, or the other way round, when one judges missed a mistake and gave an 8 while his colleagues marked it straight 4s.

O judges Uwe Mechlem and Eric Lette and trainer David Hunt carried out this peer review on both days. "Any error could be redressed and it will only make the sport more fair," Richard Davison summarized. Elisabeth Max-Theurer confirmed the importance of the JSP: "We need to get the JSP to avoid nationalistic judging. It is a way for fairness in the future."

A few issues need to be taken into consideration. It will be necessary that the marks flashing on the tv-screen will be anonymous so that JSP panelist will not feel pressure to overrule a mark. The educational value of this system is immense as it can help in the instruction of the judges. Furthermore, judges who messed up too much could run the possibility of getting demoted. At the moment the technology is not up-to-date yet to implement it in the current system, but this is definitely something which will be worked on. Robert Dover suggested that the JSP should not only include judges, but could also have riders or trainers in it.

Positive and Appreciative About the Judging System Trials
The Tuesday Trials came to an end with a press conference in the main building on the Aachen show grounds. The entire FEI Dressage Task Force, including David Holmes (FEI Executive Sports Director) and Trond Asmyr (FEI Dressage Director) briefed the press, consisting of a mere five journalists and two photographers that were on assignment to report on this historic event.

DTF chair Frank Kemperman informed that changing the judging system is only one of the many tasks the DTF has taken at hand for the betterment of the sport. The results and analyses of the scores will be gathered in one big report which will be first presented to the FEI at the General Assembly in Copenhagen, Denmark, November 15-20, 2009, before it is released to the world.
Wüst stated that "our aim is to stop the criticism on the judging. We don't think the system is bad but we try to be pro-active and modernize our system."

David Holmes explained that prior to the trials in Aachen, the FEI thoroughly researched judging systems of different sports and had met with representatives of ice-skating and gymnastics. "The key thing that came out of both sports is their evaluation panel," Holmes confirmed, which valorizes the installment of the Judges Supervisory Panel.

Before the trials there was a subdermal fear that the judges would not comply to a new system. "We were not sure how they would take to it and adapt to some very radical ideas. Before they were iffy, but afterwards they got more open-minded and were able to pick out the positive sides," Davison admitted. "They judges became very open and were ready to embrace improvements."
In conclusion Davison specified that "the system needs to get better, not the judges."

CatOnLap
Sep. 9, 2009, 10:33 AM
Wüst stated that "our aim is to stop the criticism on the judging. We don't think the system is bad
I sincerely hope that quote is wrong or taken out of some other context. Surely their main aim is to improve judging and the fairness of competition, not to "stop the criticism of the judging". Because you know, in a subjectively judged sp[ort you are never going to achieve that aim and efforts towards that goal will risk missing the point of "modernizing the system" altogether.

claire
Sep. 9, 2009, 11:46 AM
Sorry, this is a loose translation, maybe Coreene or someone fluent in Dutch could give a better translation or correct any errors?


From the telegraaf.nl. http://www.telegraaf.nl (http://74.125.91.132/translate_c?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://www.telegraaf.nl/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbokt.nl%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4SUNA_enU S297US300&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhgjgHJ80b2ku05_4IrkzCFvKwyLMQ)



I am curious what will come out. The past two days there in the competition area of Aachen tested with different jury systems. The past two days there in the competition area of Aachen tested with different jury systems. Dressage The Task Force is now all findings of this test event collection and use in a list of recommendations. Dressage The Task Force is now all findings of this test event collection and use in a list of recommendations. From next year we basically like all the riders first see changes in our competitions. From next year we basically like all the riders first see changes in our competitions.

Somehow I remain critical. Judging people still work. Judging people still work. What rules or changes you apply, preferences of judges, disagree or even mistakes can never completely exclude. Therefore, we must also accept that there is always a hint of subjectivity on the dressage.

But it can and must in any case much better than the current system.
It is unfortunate that such a view is still not a universally worn. It is striking how quiet these days remains from several other top countries. The sport is there for fifty years and lived in the same way as it is to them, remain so. In the Netherlands there is a totally different atmosphere. Perhaps that is in our nature. We are progressive, want to innovate and are always looking for new developments, at any level whatsoever. We are progressive, want to innovate and are always looking for new developments, at any level whatsoever. Since the reforms fit within the natural system in dressage. Since the reforms fit within the natural system in dressage. Where the opponents to find anything, because we jump. Where the opponents to find anything, because we jump.

Without going into all the different systems, in recent days have been tried in Aachen, I am personally convinced that the system will work much better if you bijschoolt better judges and guides. The differences are now very often inexplicable. The differences are now very often inexplicable.

We really just need a professional system. But you work with professionals, then you treat them so well. You can no longer jurors for an apple and an egg question a major international tournament title to judge.

Their daily allowance is currently far too low. This is better. This is better. That way you also give expression to their work that you deem important. It will not succeed them in permanent employment to take the FEI, but the rights of the judging corps may be better represented by the International Equestrian Federation. That is certainly a start.

This should be a system that seeps through to the lower levels. International judges have their national counterparts to help better.
That is already happening, but that should happen much more widely. With better trained judges and a better system, the sport clearly to the public. With better trained judges and a better system,

Clearly the sport to the public. Because that is ultimately to do. We sell the sport as possible. Of course my criticism always maintained that the opinions remain divided. But you know when a jury sport. That's not bad. If you only reduce to a minimum.

Anky van Grunsven.

ShotenStar
Sep. 14, 2009, 09:36 AM
More from Dover:


September 13, 2009

Catching Up Is Hard To Do! (http://doversworld.com/blog/2009/09/catching-up-is-hard-to-do/)

So here’s the thing - I’ve been home for 2 days and I’m just now having the first moment to go on Dover’s World to talk to my friends! Is cloning really that complicated?
As I said when I was there, Aachen, for me, was a huge success. Now, that is not to say that every trial was a perfect 10 (Remember, a 10 is only “Excellent”, anyway), but even the gorgeous weather seemed to be an omen of great things to come for the sport of Dressage. I will predict now that several of those items tested will become standard for our sport in the near future. But since I am a member of the Task Force and understand that our report must first go to the FEI Executive Board as well as the full membership at the General Assembly in November, the best I can do is tell you to guess which ones you think “passed the test” and I’ll nod my head if you’re right. OK?


...snippage due to irrelevance....

Cheers!
RD

Filed under: Uncategorized (http://doversworld.com/blog/category/uncategorized/) — RDover2 @ 2:47 pm


Can't say that this gives me a good feeling about the statistical rigor of the test design and analysis process in play here ....

*star*

rebecca yount
Sep. 14, 2009, 09:48 AM
I think Astrid's discussion is much more coherent and sounds like it might be more accurate than Dover's. Anyone else think this?

At least she isn't mixing up "test", "trial" and "task" so much, and she spelled Stickland's name correctly.

Ridgeback, what are you, the "Robert Dover's Website Police"?

This is the FEI and it will probably take a long time to trickle down to us. I think they are talking here about judging PSG and above, right? Or do we think the USEF will automatically and quickly adopt, for us all, what the FEI ends up doing?

I don't think they are making any changes until at least a year out?

RY

hoopoe
Sep. 14, 2009, 10:17 AM
the USEF usually adopts FEI changes ASAP and have them in place as soon as the FEI rule goes into effect.

J-Lu
Sep. 14, 2009, 10:43 PM
How much would this cost? Has this analysis been done? Does it really require 7 FEI-level judges, or 5 FEI-level judges and three FEI-level retired judges watching a TV screen, to properly judge a dressage test? What if judges simply disagree about how to score something or what is most important in a movement? And if their salaries should be raised, as Anky seems to suggest in the babelfish-like translation of her words, how much will it cost to compete in a CDI? How does this make dressage a more inclusive, rather than exclusive, sport at the International (i.e. Olympic) level? It will cost a fortune to participate at the FEI level.

There may be very good answers to these questions but I have not yet come across them I am not sure what necessitated a closed trial at Aachen (yes, reporters were there but the discussion, methodology, and interpretation seems to be closed to the public for some reason). Following, I can see why most Olympic riders didn't show up (relating to a comment in Astrid's article). I wish the process was more transparent, especially the methodology. I also agree that I have a better grasp of the concepts of the trial after reading Astrid's article.

J.

claire
Sep. 15, 2009, 01:46 AM
I will predict now that several of those items tested will become standard for our sport in the near future. But since I am a member of the Task Force and understand that our report must first go to the FEI Executive Board as well as the full membership at the General Assembly in November, the best I can do is tell you to guess which ones you think “passed the test” and I’ll nod my head if you’re right. OK?

Cheers!
RD


Mr. Dover's "report" makes it sound like TPTB have already decided on a course of action and the Task Force is just rubber-stamping their decision.

Were the Aachen trails just a PR maneuver?

Or, is this just RD's sense of humor and I don't get the joke?

"Guess which items will be passed and I'll nod my head if you're right" :rolleyes:

DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"
Sep. 15, 2009, 02:19 AM
So - was there anyone there with appropriate expertise in design of such trials and analysis thereof?

Plantagenet
Sep. 15, 2009, 07:23 AM
I wonder if they'll actually go to a degree of difficulty for freestyles.

I think this would be a great thing: it might encourage folks to take chances to get better scores and make the Kur even more exciting if they take a chance and can't do what they've listed. It could make it more about who's able to get their horse to the highest level on that day and less about who is the most recently crowned 'chosen one.'

They could reward those who do difficult freestyles well and not give those who do a mistake free freestyle with low DOD such high scores (but perhaps halo points?)

....and you Dutch people know who you are

ShotenStar
Sep. 15, 2009, 02:02 PM
So - was there anyone there with appropriate expertise in design of such trials and analysis thereof?

Don't know. The FEI / Dressage Task Force have been a bit ... shy .... about providing detailed information.

We do know that David Stickland, a CERN physicist, is doing the actual analysis. But his background, so far as we know, is not in process engineering and process improvement, which is what this is all about.

*Star*