All-Star Competition Order Affecting Scores?

[Mclovin]

They would not all judge the same routine. If two groups of judges the groups would alternate judging teams in succession. ie. Group A would judge teams 1, 3, 5, 7... and Group B would judge teams 2, 4, 6, 8...

Oh, I gotcha. The only problem I have with that is that each judge has their own "opinion" of a team's overall impression/creativity/execution (subjective part of scoresheet, which I hate btw). If you have 2 different judges judging in the same division, you can't compare scores from Judge 1 to Judge 2 due to subjective opinions. That could help my team or really hurt us. But you would have people crying foul ALL the time.

I, do, however, believe you should have 2 different sets of judges judging from Day 1 to Day 2.

 

[Cheer Dad]

Oh, I gotcha. The only problem I have with that is that each judge has their own "opinion" of a team's overall impression/creativity/execution (subjective part of scoresheet, which I hate btw). If you have 2 different judges judging in the same division, you can't compare scores from Judge 1 to Judge 2 due to subjective opinions. That could help my team or really hurt us. But you would have people crying foul ALL the time.

I, do, however, believe you should have 2 different sets of judges judging from Day 1 to Day 2.

Agree with you on both comments

 

[L5cheermom]

As a side note, I have always felt like there should be a separate panel of judges that judge from outside the competition. When I say "outside", I mean truly outside. As in they are not in the arena so they cannot hear the crown noise at all. They judge the routine from large video monitor. In addition, NO MUSIC is played, so they are judging a totally silent performance based strictly on execution of skills. This way no subconscious emotion from crown noise or music choice can play a part in their evaluation.

I love this idea. This would take a lot of the emotion out if the judging.

 

[Kel Kell]

When I say "outside", I mean truly outside. As in they are not in the arena so they cannot hear the crown noise at all. They judge the routine from large video monitor.

This would be amazing. The only problem is logostically it isn't feesable to have a streaming video at another location. Most venues (including the two I work at) charge a lot for their streaming capabilities. An affordable option would be for them to be in a seperate room at whatever venue it is and just watch it silently through an in house feed, I think this would have the same results.
I'd be interested to see a trial of this and see how the scores compare to the judging system we currently have.

 

[Mclovin]

On another note, how do y'all feel about a judges ability to actually COUNT skills in order to give an accurate difficulty score? Is there anyone besides me who thinks this will be impossible to do without video playback? Some teams combine running and standing together to make it look like they have more standing...will judges catch that? Will judges catch that half the teams aren't throwing "level" appropriate skills when the entire squad tumbles all at once? Will judges catch that 2 of the 5 flyers on a small team didn't do the elite entry...etc., etc. I have to go back and watch a team sometimes 5 times to make sure I have my numbers right or make sure each stunt group actually did or didn't do the whole sequence...

 

[Cheer Dad]

On another note, how do y'all feel about a judges ability to actually COUNT skills in order to give an accurate difficulty score? Is there anyone besides me who thinks this will be impossible to do without video playback? Some teams combine running and standing together to make it look like they have more standing...will judges catch that? Will judges catch that half the teams aren't throwing "level" appropriate skills when the entire squad tumbles all at once? Will judges catch that 2 of the 5 flyers on a small team didn't do the elite entry...etc., etc. I have to go back and watch a team sometimes 5 times to make sure I have my numbers right or make sure each stunt group actually did or didn't do the whole sequence...

Have always wondered this. Not a judge but if I focus on counting then I miss other stuff, if I focus on other stuff I can't count. Video replay would be great for this.

 

[Jennie]

On another note, how do y'all feel about a judges ability to actually COUNT skills in order to give an accurate difficulty score? Is there anyone besides me who thinks this will be impossible to do without video playback? Some teams combine running and standing together to make it look like they have more standing...will judges catch that? Will judges catch that half the teams aren't throwing "level" appropriate skills when the entire squad tumbles all at once? Will judges catch that 2 of the 5 flyers on a small team didn't do the elite entry...etc., etc. I have to go back and watch a team sometimes 5 times to make sure I have my numbers right or make sure each stunt group actually did or didn't do the whole sequence...

I am in no way a judge but I am forever wondering about that. When a Large Senior L5 team has lots of people doing standing tumbling at once I personally wouldn't notice the 6 or so people that did layouts instead of fulls/doubles. Coaches do a great job of 'hiding' the skills that aren't level appropriate making it much more difficult to take this into the consideration of their standing tumbling score which adds greatly to the argument for having video playback for the routines with the camera positioned up high so you can see every skill.

 

[mollymags]

Large Senior division...
Team A takes the floor. Judge Panel A (x # of judges) scores the routine.
Team B (same division) takes the floor. Judge Panel B scores the routine.
Team C takes the floor. Judge Panel A scores the routine.
Team D takes the floor. Judge Panel B scores the routine.
etc.

I wouldn't want to see this, ever. Even if you are able to perfectly control your difficulty scores, there's always so much room for variation in execution and the other "subjective" part of the scoresheet between different panels. If one judge on a panel is consistently low, that could drag the scores down for the teams in that division judged by that panel. That's the same reason I always hope all the Worlds divisions at a bid competition are judged by the same panel... To attempt the most consistency between scores throughout all divisions and hopefully ensure that you're awarding the best teams bids (if you're going by scores).

 

[John Butler]

This would be amazing. The only problem is logistically it isn't feesable to have a streaming video at another location. Most venues (including the two I work at) charge a lot for their streaming capabilities. An affordable option would be for them to be in a separate room at whatever venue it is and just watch it silently through an in house feed, I think this would have the same results.
I'd be interested to see a trial of this and see how the scores compare to the judging system we currently have.

A separate room in the venue would work too. Just something to eliminate the crown noise and music and judge the routine solely for execution of skills. Replay should be allowed as well.

 

[Tosh]

They would not all judge the same routine. If two groups of judges the groups would alternate judging teams in succession. ie. Group A would judge teams 1, 3, 5, 7... and Group B would judge teams 2, 4, 6, 8...

Nice Idea; however, for this to work, group A and Group can not be competing with each other. Now they have teams alternating, so Group A is Level 1 and group B is level 2, etc. I believe this is already commonly done. But to have Level 1 split in a group A and Group B, I believe would be very unfair.

The reason I am saying this, is because at the end of the day, Judging is very subjective, as indicated in the "overall impression" score. So spliting the levels will cause commotion, because an individual judging Group A might love Rock and Roll and a judge in group B might like old school music, or may favor one body position in the air vs another one, even though they are at the same score level.... the overall impression score will not be the same coming from two different individuals.

Also, personally think I never want to go first.....nor do I want to be at towards the end. Towards the end of a session, everything starts to look the same and boring, even the great prymid that team B did in the beginning that was so excited and new, is now old and boring because 5-6 other teams have done the same or similar one since then and even if Team B has a much better execution, they may get a lower score just because the judge is now bored with seeing the same thing over and over......I get to the point that I will say if I see that stunt one more time I will kill myself, or even the music starts to get repetative and I say the same thing with that song that is in every other routine......

I AM NOT A JUDGE! But have been in the sport for several years now and I believe that this is just a relastic view and naturally how human beings are, for the most part.

 

[coachbd]

AASCF is most definitely not our version of USASF, they are an event provider and that is it... They do not govern Australian cheer, they may throw their weight around is all.

And the scores for AASCF differ per division, even within the same level. So the highest point award is not accurate either.

The conversion is also misguided because two different score sheets are used, level 1-4 and than. A level 5 score sheet.

They are a bit more than simply an EP in my opinion, they also act as a form of governing body for cheer in Australia, along with other Australian organisations. It is definitely a different structure to what they have in the US, and that was merely what I was trying to explain so as to contextualise my response to BlueCat. I also never said that the highest point award was accurate or anything of the like, I didn't even bring that up, I was merely mentioning that the scores in each division, and for each category, are published, that is all.

 

[Cheer Dad]

Nice Idea; however, for this to work, group A and Group can not be competing with each other. Now they have teams alternating, so Group A is Level 1 and group B is level 2, etc. I believe this is already commonly done. But to have Level 1 split in a group A and Group B, I believe would be very unfair.

The reason I am saying this, is because at the end of the day, Judging is very subjective, as indicated in the "overall impression" score. So spliting the levels will cause commotion, because an individual judging Group A might love Rock and Roll and a judge in group B might like old school music, or may favor one body position in the air vs another one, even though they are at the same score level.... the overall impression score will not be the same coming from two different individuals.

Also, personally think I never want to go first.....nor do I want to be at towards the end. Towards the end of a session, everything starts to look the same and boring, even the great prymid that team B did in the beginning that was so excited and new, is now old and boring because 5-6 other teams have done the same or similar one since then and even if Team B has a much better execution, they may get a lower score just because the judge is now bored with seeing the same thing over and over......I get to the point that I will say if I see that stunt one more time I will kill myself, or even the music starts to get repetative and I say the same thing with that song that is in every other routine......

I AM NOT A JUDGE! But have been in the sport for several years now and I believe that this is just a relastic view and naturally how human beings are, for the most part.

I think John Butler 's intent was that the judges would be alternating between the same division and I agree with you, not the ideal way since part of scoring is subjective.

 

[John Butler]

I think John Butler 's intent was that the judges would be alternating between the same division and I agree with you, not the ideal way since part of scoring is subjective.

Yes, this is the question I put out there. I agree that this would create an even greater variance in scores and would not be fair.

IMHO, Ultimately the most fair way to judge these large competitions is to have as many judges as possible isolated for individual judging elements. The more judges you have in each category, the better chance of finding an "average" that would constitute the true mean of the score.

I would propose a minimum of 5 judges per judging category (ie. execution, choreo, skills, overall impression). Elimination of the top and bottom scores would create 3 scores per category that would then be averaged to create the final score. The more judges you have the better chance of getting to a true consensus score.

I still feel the idea of having a "silent judging panel" that is located either off site or in another room that judges solely on execution would be beneficial as well. It would truly be interesting as an experiment to compare the scores of the judges who judged without sound and crowd noise to those who judged it live!

 

[Mclovin]

Yes, this is the question I put out there. I agree that this would create an even greater variance in scores and would not be fair.

IMHO, Ultimately the most fair way to judge these large competitions is to have as many judges as possible isolated for individual judging elements. The more judges you have in each category, the better chance of finding an "average" that would constitute the true mean of the score.

I would propose a minimum of 5 judges per judging category (ie. execution, choreo, skills, overall impression). Elimination of the top and bottom scores would create 3 scores per category that would then be averaged to create the final score. The more judges you have the better chance of getting to a true consensus score.

I still feel the idea of having a "silent judging panel" that is located either off site or in another room that judges solely on execution would be beneficial as well. It would truly be interesting as an experiment to compare the scores of the judges who judged without sound and crowd noise to those who judged it live!

It's funny that you mention having a set of judges judge the routine from a silent room. When I'm at work, I watch all the videos on mute because I always have students in my office. It's amazing how much you can actually SEE when you're not paying attention to voiceovers, or crowd response.

 

[Cheer Dad]

Yes, this is the question I put out there. I agree that this would create an even greater variance in scores and would not be fair.

IMHO, Ultimately the most fair way to judge these large competitions is to have as many judges as possible isolated for individual judging elements. The more judges you have in each category, the better chance of finding an "average" that would constitute the true mean of the score.

I would propose a minimum of 5 judges per judging category (ie. execution, choreo, skills, overall impression). Elimination of the top and bottom scores would create 3 scores per category that would then be averaged to create the final score. The more judges you have the better chance of getting to a true consensus score.

I still feel the idea of having a "silent judging panel" that is located either off site or in another room that judges solely on execution would be beneficial as well. It would truly be interesting as an experiment to compare the scores of the judges who judged without sound and crowd noise to those who judged it live!

Not positive but this sounds a lot like figure skating scoring, right? Multiple people per criteria section and high low scores get tossed.