I tried entering DPI1, RDG, RDGa, RDGb, SCP and ZFP and even though
unselected they all provide the same error (none of the other scoring
codes in my version caused an error). I agree with Tim that this is a
programming bug although there is an easy workaround - to make sure the
unselected box for the scoring code is blank (select, clear, then
unselect). I use version 2.9.7 but it sounds like the same issue arises
in later versions. Clearly, there is some flaw in the logic order which
causes an error when the problematic codes are entered but not selected.
10 - #248 - 0.308 [standard score for 10th]
10 - #89 - 0.269 [tied score for 10th; (10+11)/2]
Standard scores (0.077 between each place):
9 - 0.385
10 - 0.308
11 - 0.231
12 - 0.154
10+11/2 = 0.269
So, #89 is correct with the score for a place of 10.5 but #248 is
sometimes getting a wrong score of points for 10th place when some of
the scoring codes are in the space for scoring codes but unselected.
I’ve thought about this and I think it is questionable as to whether
redress (which is not relevant to the actual scoring) could ever provide
the scores produced (I’m pretty sure none of the other codes could).
Some thoughts on a hypothetical award of redress:
Assume #248 was 11th but gets redress to 10th (that would be consistent
with 1-9 and 12 not changing).
Option #1 - Assume the PC says nothing about changing the scores of
other boats so A6.2 applies and the score for #89 doesn’t change. Then
both boats get 0.308 points as the score for 10th. So, the produced
scores would not result.
Option #2 - Assume the PC says “scores can change based on the redress”
but fails to say what to do with the score for the existing boat in 10th
(#89). [As a scorer, I’d consider this an “oversight” or “mistake” by
the PC and go back for specific instructions on what to do with #89. RRS
A6.2 says the PC can “decide otherwise” but I think that means the PC
must be specific. They cannot just leave it up to the scorer to decide
on what score to give, the scorer doesn’t have that authority. So, I
don’t think the scorer can score without more information from the PC
about what to do with #89.]
A. One way to look at this would be to say “since other boats can change
#89 should move down to 11th with a score of 0.231.” Again, the produced
scores would not result. I should think this is the default but as
scorer I’d want to get confirmation from the PC as there are other at
least theoretical possibilities.
B. An alternative would be to say "since the scores of boats can change
as a result of the redress there are now 2 boats tied for 10th and they
should both get “tied points” of 0.269. The produced scores would not
result. This certainly seems a reasonable outcome but since it is
different from A (what I tend to think should be the default) I think
confirmation from the PC is definitely needed.
C. A third option would be to say “since the scores of other boats can
change then #89 is now tied for 10th and should get the tied points of
0.269 while #248 should stay at full points for 10th with 0.308 because
that is what the redress was.” This would result in the produced scores.
I think this kind of defies logic and I doubt any PC would actually want
this to happen though anything is possible. I think that as a scorer you
would absolutely need specific directions from the PC to so this.
The bottom line is that no “default” scoring with redress could result
in the produced scores. I think you’d need to have a specific direction
from the PC and I frankly think a PC would never pick alternative C and
would always go for either A or B. Personally, I think the general
assumption is that if “scores of boats can change” then A is what ought
to result - when #248 is given 10th then #89 should move down to 11th.
But, I think the PC has to be specific. And, as a scorer, I’d always ask
for confirmation. As a PC Chair (my usual role), I am always specific
about what to do with the score for #89 because a scorer should never be
faced with this quandary.
NOTE: The relevant rules on race ties and redress (A7 and A6.2) are
identical in the 2017-20 rules and 2021-24 rules.