posted Aug 13th, 2008 - There were times in Formation Skydiving competition when some teams were happy looking at the freeze frame image and others were not. It was in the judges' hands to decide whether this formation was complete and the other one was not, even though it may look so.

Teams, competitors and IPC members of the Formation Skydiving Committee did not like this uncertainty and made an effort to look for solutions and better ways to avoid the gamble and emotional rollercoaster at freeze frame time.

They were successful, found a better way and agreed on a new and improved procedure. It happened in steps.

Committee Chair Fiona McEachern, herself a current member of the Australian 8-way team that competes in Maubeuge, mentioned in her report to the IPC that changes were necessary. She filed the report on 11 November 2007 for the next IPC Meeting in 2008 in Paris, France:

"A competitor’s meeting held after the WC was attended by 3 committee members as well as competitors and Judges. Discussions were similar to those held at the previous meeting with not much support for the idea of half speed and some suggestions for improving freeze frame objectivity."

The NSL News coverage of the FAI World Meet 2008 is brought to you with the help of:

She represents the competitive Formation Skydiving community that she listens to at the meetings during A Category events and by other ways of communication. Her request for an improvement, filed on 6 November 2007, ended up on the official agenda for the IPC Meeting:

FORMATION SKYDIVING - OPEN MEETING 2008

Agenda

2. Proposed Rule changes

Examine ways to improve freeze frame objectivity.

The work of IPC's Fomation Skydiving Committee in France early this year was successful and productive. The committee came up with a new definition how to apply the freeze frame image:

Rule Changes - Summary 2008

add to 5.5: "For Judging purposes, the stationary contact of grips on the freeze frame will be assessed using only the two dimensional video evidence as framed."

The new definition was based on the requests of the teams and competitors and was supposed to make it easier for the judges, as well. It would not require the judges any longer to interprete any of the freeze frame images. They could just simply forget whatever happened before and what may happen after 35.0 seconds. If it looked like a complete formation, then it would be considered a complete formation, and it would be scored like a complete formation. Neither teams nor judges would be required to put anything more than that into it.

The judges never liked the idea very much. They did not feel like scoring a formation when they thought that the hand actually made no contact or not a stationary one on another arm or leg. They wanted their freedom of interpretation based on what they see before the freeze frame image and what possibly happened after it.

However, a better definition was requested by teams and competitors, and the IPC Committee was in agreement. The proposed change made its way into the IPC rule book for Formation Skydiving competition in Paris this year:

5.5. The Judges will use the electronic scoring system to record their evaluation of the performance. The judges may correct their evaluation record after the jump has been judged. Corrections to the evaluation record can only be made before the Chief Judge signs the score sheet. At the end of working time, freeze frame will be applied on each viewing, based on the timing taken from the first viewing only. For judging purposes, the stationary contact of grips on the freeze frame will be assessed using only the two dimensional video evidence as framed.

The foundation was there for a peaceful execution of the new rule this year. But it did not happen, the new rule has either been ignored or not understood by several of the judges in Maubeuge.

It is still a gamble at freeze frame time, and the teams were still stunned when they compared the outcome of the freeze frame evaluation. Some formations that looked complete by checking each grip counted as scoring formations, others did not. And there were many different examples for the inconsistent outcome of the freeze frame gamble.

The freeze frame image is obviously a stationary image. Teams, competitors, judges and the whole DZ-TV audience see the same image. The results of the evaluation whether it looks like a complete formation or not still often differs between the judging room and the rest of the audience. Nothing has changed.

The NSL News took on the project to find some of the questionable freeze frame images. The audience now has the opportunity to compare the first four freeze frame images with each other. They all look like complete formations, but one of these four images shows a formation that was not seen complete by the judging panel of five. It was a 4-1 decision.

Freeze Frame Judging
Which formation is incomplete?	Formation 1 Formation 2 Formation 3 Formation 4
	Current Results

There were several more occasions of the same scenario in Maubeuge, and there was disappointment that the freeze frame situation is still the same. Some competitors were unhappy to see that the judges don't seem to apply a written and defined rule. They all kept it quiet even though it is a perfect reason for a protest. Teams and competitors have to focus on the competition.

However, some of them said that is doesn't seem to be a fair game. The judges always ask the teams and competitors to know the rules and stick to them consequently, and then it doesn't seem to be the same the other way around. The issue may come up when Fiona McEachern calls teams, competitors and judges for the next open meeting.

In the meantime, and for the remainder of the World Meet 2008, some teams will still be happy looking at the freeze frame image and others will not...