Sorry Dean, but you have yourself all twisted up here. First, I did the reference card and I know the how and why of what is in it. The "added" line you talk about is there to make this very topic clear. THERE ARE NO DOWNGRADES IN THE RULES FOR DISPLACEMENT DURING THE SNAP. I simply cannot make it any clearer. Email Fred Johnson and Wally Pitts if you think I am off base here. It was their decision to "add" the clarification to the judging summary card. I agreed with it as well.

It is your statement that has no basis in the rules. PLEASE find me where it defines a downgrade for being displaced during a snap roll. It does not exist. You are using this theoretical "perfection" ideal that Brian talks about. That's fine, but you have to go back to the rules and actually find the defined downgrade, and it is not there.

To do what you (and Brian) are talking about WILL require a rules change since it will require adding verbiage to define the downgrade that you so dearly want to use. I know that Brian does not agree with the rules as they stand now, but there it is. I am sure that this topic will come up as we move forward with the next rules cycle, but for now you simply cannot apply a downgrade that you think exists without being able to show the defined downgrade in the rules.

Once again, the reason for this is that a snap is a stalled figure, the plane is not fully under the pilot's control during the snap (stall and autorotation) and therefore IMAC allows the track to displace during the snap. However, the track prior to and immediately after the snap must be parallel. In other words if the plane finishes the snap and is climbing at 10 degrees, and is 20 degrees off the yaw axis, THEN those ARE downgrades. But if the two lines are perfectly parallel, then there are NO downgrades.

Again, if you are having trouble with what I am saying here, please email Fred Johnson or Wally Pitts about it. They will refer it to the IMAC Rules Committee for review and comment.

Bill Malvey
Chairman - IMAC Rules Committee