1 / 26

Race Review 2012-2013 Ensuring Fair, Consistent and Representative Results

Detailed analysis of 2012-2013 race results, point improvements, penalty reviews, and identification of exceptional races, all aimed at ensuring fair, consistent, and representative outcomes. Includes statistical data and penalties evaluation.

tillmand
Download Presentation

Race Review 2012-2013 Ensuring Fair, Consistent and Representative Results

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Race Review 2012-2013Ensuring Fair, Consistent and Representative Results Classification Committee May 16, 2013

  2. Agenda • 2012-2013 Race Results • Average Point Improvements • Minimum Penalty Review • Identifying Exceptional Races

  3. 2012-2013 Race Results • The 2012-2013 database contained 58,000 starts for FIS and USSA across all disciplines and gender. To improve the reliability of the statistics, certain data was excluded. • Races with fewer than 16 finishers • Athletes with seed points greater than 200 • DH, SG and combined disciplines were excluded Filtered file contained 526 races and 36,800 starts

  4. 2012-2013 Race Results Results* are consistent year over year. Low penalty races show no advantage to scoring a result. M M W W All GS SL GS SL 2009-2010 17.60 2010-2011 17.00 2011-2012 17.50 2012-2013 17.59 19.46 18.18 16.55 17.80 *Average point improvement for a racer that scores a result

  5. 2012-2013 Race Results Upper Limit

  6. 2012-2013 Race Results

  7. 2012-2013 Race Results

  8. 2012-2013 Race Results

  9. Minimum Penalty - Standard Races MP prevented results above control limit

  10. Minimum Penalty – Sub Standard MP prevented results above control limit

  11. Minimum Penalties • The minimum penalties are fair in that they do not add excessive points to the penalty. Most importantly, they prevent the occasional extremely high results.

  12. Identifying Suspect Races • Research over the last four years has culminated in a method to identify races where the athletes score point improvements far beyond expectations. These are the five filters to identify these races. • Point improvement greater than 95% confidence interval • Low point racers (pace) finish 6 through 10 • Greater than 22% of the field scores a point improvement • Early season vs. spring race date • Athletes never ski close (20 points) to the results earned in other races

  13. Identifying Suspect Races Four races had an unusual high point improvement

  14. Identifying Suspect Races Four races with point improvement higher than upper control limit. % CodePenaltyPt ImpScoring W SL U0739 46.34 40.38 31 W GS U0285 34.44 36.91 54 M SL U0456 52.37 41.86 28 M GS U0225 31.98 45.33 50

  15. W SL U0739 Average Point Improvement 40.38 Percent of Field Scoring 31.00 Pace Finish Top 5 Race Date Dec 14 Ski to Points in Other Races YES An early season race the results of which were achieved in other races. Normal Race

  16. W SL U0285 • Average Point Improvement 36.91 • Percent of Field Scoring 54.00 • Top 38 racers scored except • four pace athletes • Pace Finish 30 pt racers place 5 and 20 • Race Date Mar 30 • Ski to Points in Other Races NO • Closest result entire year for racers with large point improvements, i.e. the racer’s next closest result was higher by: • 35 18 30 72 17 57 20 • None of the top 38 came close to the result earned in this race Exceptional Race

  17. M SL U0456 • Average Point Improvement 41.85 • Percent of Field Scoring 28.00 • Pace Finish 4 in top 5 • Race Date Jan 15 • Ski to Points in Other Races NO • Closest result entire year for racers with large point improvements, i.e. the racer’s next closest result was higher by: • 18 72 2 11 28 46 -30 More Analysis Required

  18. M SL U0225 • Average Point Improvement 45.33 • Percent of Field Scoring 50.00 • Pace Finish 4 in top 5 • Race Date Jan 18 • Ski to Points in Other Races NO • Closest result entire year for racers with large point improvements, i.e. the racer’s next closest result was higher by: • 16 16 2 -6 6 -2 53 • 1 0 50 34 More Analysis Required

  19. Request to Increase Penalty Ski Club Vail has requested the Classification Committee to increase the penalty on two races they hosted. M GS U0404 16.25 M GS U0406 26.61 The reason stated in the letter was that the pace athletes did not ski close to their potential.

  20. M GS U0404 GS Spectacular U0404 Upper Limit

  21. M GS U0404 GS Spectacular Applying the Filter • Penalty 16.25 • Average Point Improvement 26.26 Within limit • Percent of Field Scoring 36.00 High • Pace Finish 7, 10, 22, 24, Extremely unusual • DSQ1 • Race Date April 6 • Ski to Points in Other Races NO top5 of 7 did not

  22. M GS U0404 Top Finishers Red line identifies pace. Other pace athlete DSQ1.

  23. M GS U0406 GS Spectacular Upper Limit U0406

  24. M GS U0406 GS Spectacular Applying the Filter • Penalty 15.00 • Average Point Improvement 13.73 Normal • Percent of Field Scoring 22.00 Normal • Pace Finish 1, 3, 5 DNF, DNF • Race Date April 7 • Ski to Points in Other Races YES top5 did • -2 0 -28 -6 13 30 0 0 33 Result of top 21

  25. M GS U0406 Top Finishers Red line identifies pace. Other pace athlete DNF.

  26. Revised Penalty for U0404 11.25 pts higher

More Related