Case Studies

[johnske]

Just about time to get my answers for the latest case studies in, so I suppose I'll have to put some time aside to look at the questions - but then I remembered the last time I put some time aside for case studies and the response we all got...

"56/1: Since Ed likes the Indoor scenarios – here is another one, but with only three arrows shot this time: During a major Indoor tournament vertical triple faces are used. An archer shot his first arrow touching the line between the 10 and the 9 in the upper face, his second arrow in the 8 on the bottom face, and the third arrow in the 9 of the middle face. During scoring another archer on the target calls you and claims that the arrows have not been shot in the correct order. How would you score this end?
Everyone agreed that Arts. 8.5.1.6 and 8.6.2.3 meant that “when triple faces are used, arrows may be shot in any order” and so the score would be 10 9 8.
This was just too easy, wasn’t it? 100% success rate! Well, not quite. You see the question did not actually stipulate whether the archer concerned was shooting recurve or compound. Consequently, we need to provide two answers here – 10 9 8 (recurve) and a 9 9 8 (compound – Art.8.2.1.3)"



The thing is this - this is quite correct on one point, compound or recurve was not specifically mentioned in the question, but anyone is quite entitled to assume that "between the 10 and the 9 actually refers to "between the 10 and the 9 scoring zones" (as noted, in point of fact all but two judges did so) absolutely no mention was made of either the inner 10 or outer 10 scoring zones or of 'gold' and 'red'. Also the question itself strongly implies it's about an issue of the "correct order of shooting".

Now, if it was a compound this judge is adjudicating for in real life, the line around what is the recurves inner 10 scoring zone is actually the line between the 10 and the 9 scoring zones, {Art 8.2.1.3 For the Compound Division only the inner ten (10) ring will score 10, the rest of the yellow scoring zone will score 9} on the other hand, if it was a recurve this judge is adjudicating for in real life, the line around the outer 10 scoring zone is the line between the 10 and the 9 scoring zones - 10 and 9 was all that was mentioned - and all that was really required to give a correct answer.

If you want a trick question with two separate answers for compound and recurve without being specifically asked, then the question should have specifically read "the line between the outer 10 and the 9 scoring zones".

We can become involved in semantics if we want but robbing all the responding judges of points by giving poorly worded questions and then saying "that's not what was meant" is just wasting our time - time that we could all be better off using for other things.

All of which makes me wonder whether I should even bother responding to the latest case studies. Along with many others I don't have any real NEED to be a judge, I'm only doing it to help out and don't like being f***ed around like this for doing so. I'd really like to see all the judges that responded to this be given full marks for their answer to that question, then I just may consider spending even more of my time filling out the Judges Reaccreditation form. By the way, there's only 10 lines on that form for tournaments officiated at - I really don't think there's enough room for me to write them all down on the form...

[Ed]

Your comments will be acknowledged in the next Judges Newsletter since you were by no means the only one who felt that this was a bit of a trick question.
Of course you would look at whether the shooter was a compound or recurve archer and make your decision accordingly. This was a FITA Judge question originally and I think they were trying to see whether judges would make the distinction. Don't take it too much to heart.:thumb:

[Marcus]

I use to wonder why some judges make major simplistic screw ups in competitions, but if they spend hours working on case studies with misleading questions and are constantly looking for a trick answer then it's hardly a shock.
Correct answer would be "All three arrows are scored as normal" ;)

[Ed]

I use to wonder why some judges make major simplistic screw ups in competitions, but if they spend hours working on case studies with misleading questions and are constantly looking for a trick answer then it's hardly a shock.
Correct answer would be "All three arrows are scored as normal" ;)

A lot of the FITA judge questions we get asked to rule on refer to indoors or to individual or team matchplay situations. In all my years I can state categorically that I have NEVER witnessed any single one of them - they are all hypothetical and I don't believe any one of them would occur in "real life!"

[tropicalshot]

. In all my years I can state categorically that I have NEVER witnessed any single one of them - they are all hypothetical and I don't believe any one of them would occur in "real life!"

then please go easier on us in the judges newsletters, my old grey matter getting too spongy for indepth trick questions.:thumb:
:rofl: :rofl:

[Ed]

then please go easier on us in the judges newsletters, my old grey matter getting too spongy for indepth trick questions.:thumb:
:rofl: :rofl:

We do not make up the actual questions - these are supplied either via FITA Judge Newsletters or by individual judges who have personally experienced situations. If anyone has a scenario they'd like to send from "real life" we'd be only too happy to make it into a Case Study for future issues.

[Ed]

I use to wonder why some judges make major simplistic screw ups in competitions, but if they spend hours working on case studies with misleading questions and are constantly looking for a trick answer then it's hardly a shock.
Correct answer would be "All three arrows are scored as normal" ;)

Marcus - we don't really spend "hours" and it is pretty uncommon for there to be any "trick" questions. The one referred to above is just that - ONE - out of many.
There are 12 Case Studies put out over the course of the year - 3 per quarter.

Over a 4-year period you need answer only 12 of these as part of your re-accreditation - that's only 3 per year - hardly too taxing. Originally the Case Studies were to help judges in more 'remote' areas to gain re-accreditation points due to the paucity of events at which they could officiate.