All-Star Idea For How To Score Better

[King]

Right now we ask trained judges to, via at the moment and by eyesight, to judge all the parts of difficulty AND exeuction/performance at once. Well... sometimes easy skills are performed so well and with such flair they seem more difficult. As well sometimes hard skills that are insanely harder than everyone elses struggle a hair with execution and are therefore rewarded less.

Then you throw in the smoke and mirrors of how many people actually do a skill to how many are on the floor.

So, what if we did this:

There are 3 judges (just a number that popped off the top of my head) that judge the execution of every category, performance, and creativity of the routine live. And that is it. They do not do difficulty. Then a separate judge later looks at a video and goes through and rewards the skills difficulty wise more objectively. HD video is easily possible (we already do it for legalities). If you do 5 standing fulls in a group of 15 people to try and make it look like more someone could actually count.

Reasons I like this idea:

The high energy performances of the routines would not be lost while judging. In fact judges would have only one piece of the puzzle that have to worry about. How well did they do what they attempted to do. They don't care how easy or how hard. Strictly based on how well it was executed.

Difficulty would no longer be hidden or covered. If you have a faker you wont be rewarded because there is video evidence of it. Ratios would actually matter and all the fake stunts that we hope people dont notice would finally matter.

If a team was improperly rewarded for difficulty it could actually be argued, but performance/creativity/all that stuff that can only be done live would not be changed.

Thoughts?

 

[yojaehs]

I like where you are going. However, I still feel that you have to be careful that the whole routine isn't a "video" review. I still stand firm that if I tricked a judge with a faker than "I win" if they catch it "they win". I discussed this with a few people this weekend, about "What's the point of a regional/local/small competition". The reason WE do it is to get out in front of an audience as well as "test" the routine. I feel that the EP should be held to some sort of standard at THOSE competitions. There is still money spent and if legalities and "ranges" aren't going to be correct and consistent then why go?

 

[OkCheerCoach]

I like this idea....

 

[SarahS]

I like this idea. I think difficulty should absolutely be an objective score, and performance/creativity/etc subjective. Practically, would it add a ridiculous amount of time to the judging, rewinding the tape multiple times to make sure you got the scores correct?

 

[King]

The reason I like this is you are now separating out the objectivity and the subjectivity parts of the routine. Does tricking a judge mean you should win? IDK how I feel about that.

 

[MissBee]

Right now we ask trained judges to, via at the moment and by eyesight, to judge all the parts of difficulty AND exeuction/performance at once. Well... sometimes easy skills are performed so well and with such flair they seem more difficult. As well sometimes hard skills that are insanely harder than everyone elses struggle a hair with execution and are therefore rewarded less.

Then you throw in the smoke and mirrors of how many people actually do a skill to how many are on the floor.

So, what if we did this:

There are 3 judges (just a number that popped off the top of my head) that judge the execution of every category, performance, and creativity of the routine live. And that is it. They do not do difficulty. Then a separate judge later looks at a video and goes through and rewards the skills difficulty wise more objectively. HD video is easily possible (we already do it for legalities). If you do 5 standing fulls in a group of 15 people to try and make it look like more someone could actually count.

Reasons I like this idea:

The high energy performances of the routines would not be lost while judging. In fact judges would have only one piece of the puzzle that have to worry about. How well did they do what they attempted to do. They don't care how easy or how hard. Strictly based on how well it was executed.

Difficulty would no longer be hidden or covered. If you have a faker you wont be rewarded because there is video evidence of it. Ratios would actually matter and all the fake stunts that we hope people dont notice would finally matter.

If a team was improperly rewarded for difficulty it could actually be argued, but performance/creativity/all that stuff that can only be done live would not be changed.

Thoughts?

I'm a judge, and I approve this message.

 

[King]

I like this idea. I think difficulty should absolutely be an objective score, and performance/creativity/etc subjective. Practically, would it add a ridiculous amount of time to the judging, rewinding the tape multiple times to make sure you got the scores correct?

I actually don't think so. But I think it would mean one person is doing difficulty and working with the math.

 

[MissBee]

The reason I like this is you are now separating out the objectivity and the subjectivity parts of the routine. Does tricking a judge mean you should win? IDK how I feel about that.

It's like saying "it's only cheating if you get caught"

 

[BlueCat]

I think there is definitely some merit to the concept. I think that judging a routine live has gotten to be too difficult - particularly for the upper level divisions and teams. There is simply too much happening for a single person to possibly see, remember, and evaluate everything.

I do think that a huge part of our sport are the creativity, performance, and energy elements, so those should still be rewarded and be an integral part of any scoring system. However, the difficulty side of it should be much more standardized and objective.

There were, I assume, very experienced judges watching routines last weekend. Some of the comparative difficulty scores, however, were simply impossible to defend when you watch videos. When we have the ability to dramatically improve how accurate the difficulty scores are, I believe we should take steps to do it.

 

[yojaehs]

There is a big difference between cheating and hiding an element well.

 

[BlueCat]

I actually don't think so. But I think it would mean one person is doing difficulty and working with the math.

I still think coaches should turn in a list of skill elements, in order, prior to performance. The team should then get deductions if they stray from the scripted routine. The skills judge could then compare the performance to the routine script.

 

[King]

The thing I also like about this idea is it specializes a judges job. I think for the subjective part an average of 3 judges scores makes a lot more sense, and when those are finished they cannot be touched. Difficulty could be written on a sheet and handed back to each coach to let them know how they arrived at their difficulty scores.

 

[yojaehs]

I am all for separate judges for difficulty and execution, the video review is the part I'm not sure of.

 

[BlueCat]

There is a big difference between cheating and hiding an element well.

There is too much basic, pure luck involved in "hiding" skills. Much depends simply upon where the judge happens to be looking in a big group of tumbling, for example.

 

[StarshipTrooper]

Some of the comparative difficulty scores, however, were simply impossible to defend when you watch videos. When we have the ability to dramatically improve how accurate the difficulty scores are, I believe we should take steps to do it.

Absolutely true from looking at the scoresheets of the 5 divisions my gym's teams competed in and i know they use the best judges available. Some really head shaking stuff.