Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What allows judges to score in high ranges instead of low or medium is the "loosely" wording applied to the "most" and "majority" wording applied. If judges subjectively decide a pass is more difficult or more than one person per pass and timing, they can score in the higher ranges.
I really think this is the first year I've heard so much talk about questionable judging at NCA, across ALL levels.
I agree, and that is why worlds has implemented a large high range.Ok I can see going from an 8.2 to 8.4 because of synch, difficulty etc but to jump up to almost max??? And in this scenario there most definitely was not enough difficulty from these two teams to use that as an excuse for sure. Since low range specifies a low amount of doubles I can see them both placing in the low end of the medium range. But the scores they received were not right based on the scoring guidelines. Not even close.
What is the difference between counting from zero or deducting from a set number when looking for omissions?Possibly the better question is: is this difficult to do and why? if we knew why it was difficult we wouldnt ask for it anymore. But I see the desire for this growing.
What is the difference between counting from zero or deducting from a set number when looking for omissions?
This is my point in providing a form before performing with a set skill list. It takes too much effort in the review process.
I'm against forms.
Video replay. If you tell me you have 10 toe fulls in your opening I am going to go back and count them. Takes me 30 seconds to verify everyone is actually spinning. Same with the rest of standing. Give me maybe a minute to verify running. If I know the layout and skills in the routine ahead of time I know what to expect and and the video replay confirms it. Maybe give minor deductions for misrepresentations on the form.