Worst case reaction time error should be in the 30-50 millisecond range. Combining the start and stop errors should reduce this significantly.An "unexpected" event would be if you are watching television and a meteorite comes crashing through the roof into your living room. Reaction time decreases as the expectation for the event increases.but for the students, especially in trial 5 the student is given a range it can be in but doesn't know exactly when it is so wouldn't that count as an unexpected event
In this event, both the start and stop signal are certainly expected by the contestants. In fact they should be focusing their attention on that expectation in order to reduce their reaction time as much as possible. Since the reaction in both cases is in response to a stimulus, they should offset each other, reducing the overall error.
It is also important to keep the event simple for judges to run and score. This simplicity also serves to reduce scoring errors. The complexity of the event rules was one of the reasons for the backlash against Mission Possible.one possible solution is to add bonus points for certain aspects like output mechanism or being able to start and stop it.
This falls under the category of "they ain't gonna do it". It is pointless to write requirements in the rules that will not be followed. Many tournaments just don't have the manpower and other resources. Rule complexity is also an issue here.if the middle one is the most accurate then have three timers and use the middle one, don't have just one timer.
understanding the way it works is the judge tells everyone to start, then when the desired time for him is reached he calls stop as he stops his watchThe rules do not state what type of signal will be given. If I were running this event, I would use signals produced by the master timer itself, not verbal. There is no requirement (or need) to stop the master timer.At the start time the event supervisor will simultaneously start a master timer and give a
signal for the teams to start their timing device.
It is expected that event supervisors will understand (or will investigate) the subject matter and the problems involved with implementing the event. Providing that understanding is beyond the scope of the rules.
Of course not. I suggested that the judges should use electronic means to reduce human error and responsibility on their side. If an electronic timer buzzes to signal the students to start and stop, then nobody can argue that the judge did not signal correctly.but the problem is you can't use electricity.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests