What if

[rehmwa 2]

you just moved the piece's center points around but didn't rotate the pieces - does it satisfy the inter requirement?

example Block 1 requires a relative 270 (I think) rotation between the piece center points - so....break to the 2 ways, drive the piece grips forward past the center points (grips), then over, and then back to pick up final grips - but hold the two pieces on heading the entire way.

Is that an inter bust, or is it just too much of what we do to some smaller extent but still meets the same intent? Do the individual pieces HAVE to show some individual rotation just to show you are attempting to meet the intent?

Oh - anyone that wants to write - "why would you do that?" without answering the question, I LOVE it when coaches do that, you learn so much.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[pr0ject42 0]

I'm going to hang it out there and say it doesn't show the intent of the block.

If you look at the divepool, it has a rotational requirement. Sure you can build the top and the bottom of the block, however the inter is considered another "point" you have to build to get the 2 points for the block.

[AMax 0]

Quote

Block 1 requires a relative 270 (I think) rotation between the piece center points - so....break to the 2 ways, drive the piece grips forward past the center points (grips), then over, and then back to pick up final grips - but hold the two pieces on heading the entire way.

Is that an inter bust, or is it just too much of what we do to some smaller extent but still meets the same intent? Do the individual pieces HAVE to show some individual rotation just to show you are attempting to meet the intent?

It is a center point bust. I believe the old block 12 (zipper-star) was eventually removed from the pool and replaced with bundy-bundy because of continuous issues with the center point busts. Usually the exact degree of rotation is not strictly enforced (for example you see a lot of 270's instead of 360 as defined in a pool ... and 180's instead of 270's) but the obvious lack of rotation will/should result in a penalty.

P.S. I am surprised that Ron still has not replied to this post, he must be away from his computer.

[rehmwa 2]

Yeah, but zip- star (and stardian - stardian also) was because the center points didn't rotate around each other. They crossed and came back and the center points didn't rotate around each other. This example the center points do make the entire trip......

Let's be more blatant on block one. don't do the vertical. break left, slide forward all the way until the feet of the point and tail pass each other - both pieces go around behind and on level - back up to grips.

(BTW, I'm in the camp that it doesn't show intent also, but the way it's flied now, Block one for us only has each piece rotating about 90 degrees relative to the earth and we definitely meet intent. If the centers are really aggressive and help the ends in their move, it's a little less even - so it's a blend of the full end rotation thing and the first static example I showed. and we don't cut it nearly as much as the pros do - you've seen the vids).

I know it's allowed, but I'm looking for how much can you push it before getting busted.

This is different than the zip-star, stard/stard center point discussion. that one was pretty clear about how to avoid it. This scenario does avoid that, but it's a bit weirder in the next stage.

Edit: in other words, I agree it doesn't show intent if-you-do-it-too-much. I don't agree with the center point violation comment. But that's just what I think. I'm wrong a lot on RW and judging stuff.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Ron 7]

Quote

you just moved the piece's center points around but didn't rotate the pieces - does it satisfy the inter requirement?

No, why would you do that?

Quote

example Block 1 requires a relative 270 (I think) rotation between the piece center points - so....break to the 2 ways, drive the piece grips forward past the center points (grips), then over, and then back to pick up final grips - but hold the two pieces on heading the entire way.

Major bust. With out any rotation you would not be showing "intent". Maybe even so far as calling it an "omission" and busting you three points.

Besides, I think it would be quite longer. "Rotation is faster than translation"---Joey Jones.

Quote

Do the individual pieces HAVE to show some individual rotation just to show you are attempting to meet the intent?

Pretty much you need to rotate and if you can reduce the rotation due to a vertical...All the better. However lets look at "8". In theory all you would have to do according to your wild and crazy dream is track the cat piece over the top and rotate both pieces 180. Ah, but here lies a few problems:

1. Serious center point violation.
2. You are not even TRYING to rotate really...So you did not show intent....Bad skydiver, do not pass go and do not collect 200 dollars.
3. The move really sucks and takes a bunch of time...Don't ask me how I know, just accept that it sucks.

Quote

Oh - anyone that wants to write - "why would you do that?" without answering the question, I LOVE it when coaches do that, you learn so much

Oh, uh, could you just ignore my first comment? Thanks, that would be great.

Amax....Sorry, I was out playing. I don't sit in front of a computer all day anymore...Infact I will only work about 10-11 hours this week .

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[FeFe 0]

Bust.
Plus, as mentioned above, I seriously doubt it will be faster (at least with block 1).
Before Zipper-Star became a bust-collector for center-crossing, couple of teams tried to do some serious cheating with degrees of rotation (with a help of some creative cameraflying ) - it somehow worked for one meet (Malevsky 2003), but became an matter of special judges' attention in Gap 2003 and was busted.
Hardly an omission though.

[rehmwa 2]

Thanks to you all. It's pretty much the same answer that some of the teams got on Stardian-Stardian (they were just hopping over, then hopping back). The individuals have to at least TRY to turn a bit. So the shearing blocks don't turn that much - but they have to turn 'some'. (the normal 360 on block 6 is 180 for each piece......)

Block 8 - hop the pieces and only turn 180,,,,,, sounds like the intent of doing block 8 with a shear - which is legal. The only difference is the hop is done in two parts....

So is it ok if you turn 270?, what about 210? Is 181 ok provided the center points rotate relative to each other?

Judging shear moves is funny.......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

In theory all you would have to do according to your wild and crazy dream

Next thing you know, I'll be asking wild and crazy questions about shearing vertical moves to cut off the required angles. What a crazy thought?

1 and 18 are a bit unique to my question. And anyway, Why would anyone want to try that in the first place?

What this means, is that if my tail is a bit slow on the move on block 1, I (OC) have to be very careful if I try to assist my point in getting over for the vertical move - i.e., let the outsides cause a bit of rotation before I do a side slip over the top and then back on grips. Don't help too much. In the meantime, we just live with the learning curve until it's done right.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Thanks to you all. It's pretty much the same answer that some of the teams got on Stardian-Stardian (they were just hopping over, then hopping back). The individuals have to at least TRY to turn a bit. So the shearing blocks don't turn that much - but they have to turn 'some'. (the normal 360 on block 6 is 180 for each piece......)

Block 8 - hop the pieces and only turn 180,,,,,, sounds like the intent of doing block 8 with a shear - which is legal. The only difference is the hop is done in two parts....

So is it ok if you turn 270?, what about 210? Is 181 ok provided the center points rotate relative to each other?

Judging shear moves is funny.......

How about having the camera rotate so the picture shows rotation? Vidiot is part of the team, after all.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AMax 0]

Quote

your wild and crazy dream

that's what several months of bad weather do to people

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

How about having the camera rotate so the picture shows rotation? Vidiot is part of the team, after all.

That's hilarious because camera angles, etc, was tried on the zipper-star issue by one or two teams and it REALLY set off the judges. It might very well have been the final straw that resulted in pulling that block out of the dive pool.

Plus, if you get a new enough cameraman the picture is constantly turning all the time anyway

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

your wild and crazy dream

that's what several months of bad weather do to people

stupid clouds and rain

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[UDSkyJunkie 0]

Not being a judge, I could easily be wrong, but I vote it's legal, as long as you drive the peices forward on the opposite side that you end up picking up grips.

1) The compeition handbook says only that it has to be "relative" rotation. This meets the requirement, as any good engineer would tell you.

2) At great risk, I call BS on the centerpoint violation. Let's say for the 8 you track the cat and flip the peices... THAT's a centerpoint violation because they centerpoints cross. But, if you sideslide the cat, move it forward, sideslide the other way, move it back, and sideslide back into the slot, where exactly do the centerpoints cross?

Any judges out there who can weigh in on this?

In the end it doesn't matter, since it's obviously inefficient anyway.

Oh, one other thing... I was once on a (pretty "rookie") team who couldn't turn a 3-way donut backwards to save their souls. As the solo flier in block 2, I literally flew around the entire formation by myself while they attempted and failed to turn backwards... in the end, the peice moved not at all. They awarded points for both times that happened on that block on that dive.

"Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

[rehmwa 2]

Well, that's the argument. But nicely stated. I'll ask a judge next time I see one. FeFe might be one, I think though.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[FeFe 0]

Quote

How about having the camera rotate so the picture shows rotation?

those who dared to try keep on regretting it
get video of Croatia 2004 if you have a chance and have some good laughs

Quote

The compeition handbook says only that it has to be "relative" rotation. This meets the requirement, as any good engineer would tell you.

True. But let me share with you my favorite quote by one of the most respected FS judges Klaus Wellens - "judges are not stupid". They will notice .

Quote

2) At great risk, I call BS on the centerpoint violation

Also true in your scenario - but it's still a bust because you don't rotate pieces, and even the most creative cameraflier won't help you

Quote

As the solo flier in block 2, I literally flew around the entire formation by myself while they attempted and failed to turn backwards... in the end, the peice moved not at all. They awarded points for both times that happened on that block on that dive.

It's a funny way to cheat . I'm not a judge (despite what Bill thinks ) but I would suppose you could get away with it. Even though it does not make any sense timewise. I will ask and get back with it.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

"judges are not stupid". .

Oh, well, that changes everything.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Any judges out there who can weigh in on this?

Already did.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[FeFe 0]

re block 2 - according to the judges I was speaking to, going around is legal - since the relative rotation between the donut and the single flier keeps being 360 degrees, it does not really matter if the piece rotates or the flier goes all the way around (plus, depending on the video, sometimes it's just hard to tell the difference)

[TalbertGK4 0]

Besides, I think it would be quite longer. "Rotation is faster than translation"---Joey Jones.


"Just spin the f%$#er"---every GK, ever.

[Ron 7]

Quote

"Just spin the f%$#er"---every GK, ever.

My favorite GK piece of advice....I think Trinko or you gave it to me....."If you don't have a grip, get one! If you have one....Key it!"

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[TalbertGK4 0]

Quote

Quote

"Just spin the f%$#er"---every GK, ever.

My favorite GK piece of advice....I think Trinko or you gave it to me....."If you don't have a grip, get one! If you have one....Key it!"

Actually it was, "If your not in, get in. If your in, key it!!"

Which goes hand in hand with, "If you can't get in, take it out!"

[Samurai136 0]

Bill, I think you could argue it but it's probably not worth training Block 1 in this fashion unless you can do it in under 2 seconds.

Any team is at a potentially higher risk of an infringement [-1pt](centerpoints) or omission [-3pts].

I'd like to see the video footage you were talking about last Saturday in the Otter. All I have is the Deland Majik DVD. 2003 US Nationals, Round 6, Majik was averaging about 2.25 to 2.5 seconds for block 1 and they turned the sub-groups a complete 270 with the vertical.

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[jmpwme 0]

Lets not forget the every popular "Cover mistakes with blinding speed" Heard originally by me from Kirk Verner, but since repeated by many.

Steve
GT

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Bill, I think you could argue it but it's probably not worth training Block 1 in this fashion unless you can do it in under 2 seconds.

hey Ken - looking good in that new RW suit BTW

Clearly - this wouldn't be a centerpoint violation nor an omission. It would be the more vague 'showing intent issue'

And, who said anything about training it? It's a question rooted in cutting off angles during any shearing block and how far can you push it.

the footage is the GK 2004 DVD. Those guys are great and the rotations (actual, not relative) are very minimal. In the case of Block 1, the rotation (to me appears) is mostly from the original opening of the start, then seems to finish with a lateral 2 piece hop and backup/down to grips. Individual pieces certainly rotate the full 270 "relative to each other" (if you start sufficient enough to get the 2 sets of grips pasted each other), but relative to earth, seems less than 90

Maybe the question should be "how much rotation is needed to show intent when doing verticals on a shearing block move." I had forgotten to even ask Goz.

God, we had a good training weekend but a very crappy meet. Only one double digit dive and that had a crappy launch. But we did do a team record (32 from altitude and 19 in time) the day before. And it felt SO SLOW . I'm still excited about the prospects this season, but a little frustrated that we weren't perfect after 2 practices .

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Ron 7]

Quote

Clearly - this wouldn't be a centerpoint violation nor an omission. It would be the more vague 'showing intent issue'

Not showing intent *is* an omission. Since you omitted the inter.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334