All-Star I Want You To Tear Apart This Idea And Find Every Hole You Can Find

[King]

I thought the scripts purpose was more to speed up the job of the difficulty judge, so they can verify rather than have to create a script based on watching

If there is no script there is no way to falsify or trick the difficulty judge to what is going on in the routine, but it possible takes a little longer

If there is a script it could speed up the judging process but there would have to be an accuracy score to ensure coaches do not cheat and try to say they have more skills being competed then actually were.

 

[CGAcheer]

If there is no script there is no way to falsify or trick the difficulty judge to what is going on in the routine, but it possible takes a little longer

If there is a script it could speed up the judging process but there would have to be an accuracy score to ensure coaches do not cheat and try to say they have more skills being competed then actually were.

I think if we slow the judging process it won't be practical. I'm fine with an accuracy score depends on how much it counts though. If there were a cop and the difficulty score were essentially set ahead of time, the difficulty judge's sole job is to verify the script and to note skills that stray from the script, then there isn't really a need for an accuracy score, since there is no reason why a relatively competent judge with 5 mins and a video shouldn't be able to accurately verify a script and note the discrepancies

 

[AScheer]

I think there should be more than one difficulty judge. I don't like that its all down to one person. One person that for whatever reason may have something against one team or another. We can't pretend it doesn't happen.

Another problem is that say a gym does invent a new skill. If there is a pre-set rubric with every skill what it's worth, then who determines what their new skill is worth and when does that happen?

I also don't know if I like that the live judges only score execution and impression, though I do think it would make their job easier and let them focus on what they're seeing. However not all live judges may even know the rules for the level they are judging, since technically they don't need to. I do like the possibility that a difficulty judge could be completely 100% knowledgable of the rules, and there isn't the issue we have now of some judges missing illegal things because they aren't knowledgeable enough or they're flipping between divisions and are distracted. I think it would be nice to take it a step further and have a Level 1 diff judge, Level 2 diff judge, etc. and the judge is trained and certified specifically in their level. This may only be possible at large events though, since at the regional level it would require a lot of judges and potentially not that many teams.

 

[BlueCat]

I think if we slow the judging process it won't be practical. I'm fine with an accuracy score depends on how much it counts though. If there were a cop and the difficulty score were essentially set ahead of time, the difficulty judge's sole job is to verify the script and to note skills that stray from the script, then there isn't really a need for an accuracy score, since there is no reason why a relatively competent judge with 5 mins and a video shouldn't be able to accurately verify a script and note the discrepancies

This assumes that the accuracy judge will always catch mistakes/differences from the script. If there is no penalty for purposely giving false information, it would be tempting for coaches to artificially "up" their numbers of skills in hopes that the judge misses those and gives them a higher score than they deserve. Everyone would have an incentive to give false information.

Any new skill would be a judgement call by the difficulty judge as to where it would fall in the difficulty spectrum. The next year, this could be included in the COP.

 

[12stepCheermom]

I'm still not sure I'm buying into the idea of deducting for an inaccurate script. Do they deduct in gymnastics for an incorrect start value or do they just adjust it? I know of many circumstances where athletes adjust on the spot. Maybe they tweaked an ankle in standing tumbling so they water down running. It happens all the time. If a full up falls, they recover but instead of switching up they go straight up. I think the difficulty judge should count the skills and adjust the difficulty value, but no deduction should be imposed. If faking a script is that big of a concern, have 2 difficulty judges and split the routine in half so they can take their time and count it correctly.

I was about to chime in with my opinion, but you changed it a bit here with this post.

i was thinking (originally) that whatever is in the script should be what goes and if it doesn't happen, it should be counted as an omission. My thinking there being, that the coaches shouldn't put it IN the routine if it's not competition ready. If you're ready to write it down as an expectation, then the judges should be able to expect it as well. Then if you know it was omitted, clearly there was some execution issue that made it not go up.

however, I get what you're saying here. What does it really matter what's on the script, it matters what what thrown. If they didn't throw it then their start value just drops to what the start value would be for what WAS thrown (if that makes sense). Deductions (like throwing the full but having hands down) comes off after that. That seems perfectly reasonable and less "punishing."

The key to this whole thing is having standard difficulty values for skills. Just like in gymnastics or figure skating etc. there are specific points values awarded for different skills. That's the key to making it work. Sure, an EP can do this in isolation, but that's probably my BIGGEST pet peeve in allstar cheer - the lacking consistency in scoring grids.

This would be easy to implement (i think) and be a lot easier for judges, more fair for kids and easier for parents to understand..."yes, our team hit clean in execution but our difficulty wasn't as high and this specifically is where we got outscored."

I love it. I'm all about making subjective scoring as objective and consistent as possible. i just don't know that the many hands in the allstar cheer pot will ever come together and agree on a standardized scoring grid across all competitions. How great would it be to put together one routine at the beginning of the year and get to work and drill execution and add difficulty as it gets clean rather than having to spend time wholesale changing routines between every competition to fit a scoring grid?

 

[King]

So let's answer some high level questions:

Is it possible for a judge to get difficulty right of all the skills thrown on the score while judging live?

 

[12stepCheermom]

So let's answer some high level questions:

Is it possible for a judge to get difficulty right of all the skills thrown on the score while judging live?

I don't think so, especially in elite teams where 4 things are going on at one time in opposite corners of the mat. A video helps but something like this would at least give them a place to start and likely cut down errors that human eyes just won't catch in 2:30.

 

[King]

I don't think so, especially in elite teams where 4 things are going on at one time in opposite corners of the mat. A video helps but something like this would at least give them a place to start and likely cut down errors that human eyes just won't catch in 2:30.

If a human eye cannot catch the difficulty in a routine judging live (which I don't think is a characteristic unique to level 5. A well made level 1 routine has a lot going on) then difficulty should no longer be judged live.

Do we think when it comes to execution, creativity, and performance of a team a judge can accurately judge a team live?

 

[12stepCheermom]

If a human eye cannot catch the difficulty in a routine judging live (which I don't think is a characteristic unique to level 5. A well made level 1 routine has a lot going on) then difficulty should no longer be judged live.

Do we think when it comes to execution, creativity, and performance of a team a judge can accurately judge a team live?

I absolutely agree with both parts of what you said. Difficulty should be static and set according to your routine and not judged live. Performance, execution and creativity absolutely can and should be judged live (and will probably be judged more fairly/consistently if your attention isn't split to trying to catch difficulty as well).

 

[King]

I absolutely agree with both parts of what you said. Difficulty should be static and set according to your routine and not judged live. Performance, execution and creativity absolutely can and should be judged live (and will probably be judged more fairly/consistently if your attention isn't split to trying to catch difficulty as well).

That is the grand revelation I came up with last week between CHEERSPORT and NCA.

Though I think difficulty could be comparative within the division instead of a COP. That way there is always room for growth.

 

[BlueCat]

I can see both sides of the relative vs absolute scale of difficulty. On the plus side, a relative scale can fairly easily adjust to every event and every level. The downside is that it can potentially magnify/skew differences between teams if you are at an event that is does not have an even/normal distribution of talent level.

Hypothetical: Teams A, B, and C all have 24 members and 8 true coed toss awesomes. Team D (also with 24 members) has only 7 toss awesomes. Those are the only teams in the division and those are the only stunts they do. Should Team D score at the bottom of the range for stunts because they had 1 fewer toss awesome? They should definitely be scored lower, but should they be a full point (or whatever the range is) lower because they had the lowest difficulty in the division? You have just made a single awesome be worth a TON of points.

I don't have the perfect answer, but perhaps a hybrid of the two types would work best?

 

[King]

I can see both sides of the relative vs absolute scale of difficulty. On the plus side, a relative scale can fairly easily adjust to every event and every level. The downside is that it can potentially magnify/skew differences between teams if you are at an event that is does not have an even/normal distribution of talent level.

Hypothetical: Teams A, B, and C all have 24 members and 8 true coed toss awesomes. Team D (also with 24 members) has only 7 toss awesomes. Those are the only teams in the division and those are the only stunts they do. Should Team D score at the bottom of the range for stunts because they had 1 fewer toss awesome? They should definitely be scored lower, but should they be a full point (or whatever the range is) lower because they had the lowest difficulty in the division? You have just made a single awesome be worth a TON of points.

I don't have the perfect answer, but perhaps a hybrid of the two types would work best?

My idea I talked about last night with some peeps was the range of comparative scoring should be low middle high. Depending on what you are competing would put you in the low middle or top third and then the comparative happens in there.

But also I think it would provide a bit more strategy depending on the competition you go to as to who you are competing against.

Remember, even though a team is attempting more skills doesnt mean they are hitting them.

 

[JUSTICE]

I believe this would also increase the speed at which a team is scored. A live judge could see the most amazingly hard skill ever in front of them and the live judges have NO clue what it is, but they can make an assessment on how well it was executed and how creative it was and how well it was performed. Top Gun could invent the Triple Lindy on the floor and perform it well and they can be 'free' to just reward the execution of it.

Later on the difficulty judge can determine that the Triple Lindy is legal in level 2, was performed first in 2001, and really their grandma could do it and its not that difficult. (this is JUST an example)

How could a judge make an assessment of a skill that they have, as you put it "NO clue" about or what it is???? There is no way that they could accurately determine how well it was executed or performed??? If you know nothing about a skill, how then could you judge it effectively????

 

[King]

How could a judge make an assessment of a skill that they have, as you put it "NO clue" about or what it is???? There is no way that they could accurately determine how well it was executed or performed??? If you know nothing about a skill, how then could you judge it effectively????

It isn't hard for a judge to know if it was done well and it was entertaining. That is basically the idea. If it is a stunt I have never seen before and it is performed well and pretty I will be able to do. As well if its the most insanely hard thing ever and new and NOT performed well the live judge doesn't have to care. If it looks ugly it looks ugly, and the score will reflect that.

 

[BlueCat]

So let's answer some high level questions:

Is it possible for a judge to get difficulty right of all the skills thrown on the score while judging live?

No. Larger, elite teams present an impossible challenge to get right on 1 live viewing - even if ALL you were doing were counting skills.