JUDGING NUMBERS MANAGEMENT

[Jeff Ream]

If performing early is a disadvantage because the judges are afraid to score a corps as high as it deserves for fear of not leaving enough room, then I don't see how a random mix makes things any more fair because, being random, it might or might not benefit a given corps.

If there are two corps who are very evenly matched, then a random draw might have one perform early and one perform late, giving one an unfair advantage over the other. That seems to add much more unfairness. At least the current bias has the justification of arguably rewarding corps that have performed better over the season up to this point.

If not having enough room for scores is the problem, maybe the range they use should be adjusted downward, leaving plenty of room at the top and on the way to the top so every year is not a race to the mythically perfect 100 score?

usually in a random draw situation, usually you see numbers held down across the board.

every judge is given simple instructions before every show:

judge the show of the day.

[skevinp]

usually in a random draw situation, usually you see numbers held down across the board.

every judge is given simple instructions before every show:

judge the show of the day.

To me that suggests that holding the scores down was the key, not the random draw.

To me it seems like a lot of these problems come from the range being too small (or lacking granularity) and not having enough room for difference at the top. If a typical finals spread was more like 70 to 95 instead of 85 to 99, there would be more room to get things right.

[jjeffeory]

And how do you know they "get it right" anyhow?

Just once, I'd like to see Prelims judged normally, then Semi's order randomly drawn. They can go back to ranked order for Finals. But just one time I'd like to see it happen.

A 19.3 should be a 19.3 any day, any time, any corps.

1988. Madison won.

[GeneralTsoChicken]

In many band circuits and WGI circuits there are "ranges" given for contests. Although it has never explicitly been told to me, I believe these ranges exist within the DCI judging community. They are sometimes written down (KMEA is a good example of a band circuit that does this), sometimes just discussed by the chief judge prior (RMCGA is a good example of a guard circuit that does this). Ranges are important in winterguard circuits because they keep you from bumping groups that do not need to be bumped.

It is very important for people to feel like they are improving daily/weekly and with judges coming in and out and having first reads, these "ranges" help keep scoring more consistent.

There is a reason why a corps rarely jumps 10 points in a show and drops 15 the next, etc, etc.

SO, the question arises, "how do ranges work when there is a drastic difference between shows and the quality of groups at the shows". Well, often, these ranges are only for the top end. This means there can be whiplash in lower corps stuck with a top corps at a show and no middle ground. The judge pays a lot of attention to the top range, then organizes them below that and gives what they think the appropriate spread is. This means that it can be more fluid from the bottom tier in scoring than the top tier.

edit: a word

Edited June 27, 2014 by GeneralTsoChicken

[perc2100]

Usually by then, the judges for that class have seen every group they'll be judging at least a couple times via video, so the have a somewhat good idea of which groups are around each other. Are there surprises throughout the round of groups doing much better (or worse) than expected? Absolutely, so they score them as such. Usually though, if group X is seen in video to be in the top 3, they're not going to score them 10 points less than they deserve, just because they are performing early in the round. I hope that somewhat made some sense. My apologies if it didn't.

Wow, I wouldn't say that's the norm at all. Most judges I know (DCI and WGI, as well as local circuit judges) don't like to get a pre-conceived idea of a group's show before judging them. Some judges might look at recaps just to see where numbers are to try and get a ball-park starting point (for example, if groups are popping mid70's-mid-80s the couple weekends before, a judge doesn't necessarily want to give the winning unit a 61 or 98). I know some judges that don't even like to do that, because they want zero bias/perceived bias/ideas influencing where they judge. Judges I'm talking about have judged WGI Finals and DCI Finals week.

I don't know if I know of any judges in WGI or DCI who watch videos of groups they haven't seen yet to try to get an idea of slotting competitive tiers. If a judge is seeing a group they judged previously the judge might look at their notes to try and remember where their head was at last time they evaluated the group. Obviously that doesn't mean that sort of thing doesn't happen, but I would guess it's not the norm at all.

I agree with you about performance time not having a huge deal with good judges. It makes the adjudicator's job much harder, and it helps to be able to 'hold' scores for awhile to get a better idea of where groups are at their day.

[perc2100]

the sheets have criteria. if the unit meets the criteria for say box 5, then the judge determines what part of the box the score should be in. usually the boxes are broken into thirds....so if someone deserves mid box 5 in book, and low box 5 in performer, you're likely to see a score like a 19.3 on the sheet.

the biggest misconception people have about judging is the bottom number. You have to manage in the sub boxes too. the real key to understanding who goes where is to look at how the sub boxes break down, not just the final number

That is sooooo true, and I see rookie judges get in trouble because they have problems managing subs. It really is a learned skill that takes time to consistently understand and master!

[Jeff Ream]

To me that suggests that holding the scores down was the key, not the random draw.

To me it seems like a lot of these problems come from the range being too small (or lacking granularity) and not having enough room for difference at the top. If a typical finals spread was more like 70 to 95 instead of 85 to 99, there would be more room to get things right.

what happens you need to leave room because you're judging the show of the day. Someone could come out and seriously throw down....and what then? you end up with ties and stupid math

[Jeff Ream]

Wow, I wouldn't say that's the norm at all. Most judges I know (DCI and WGI, as well as local circuit judges) don't like to get a pre-conceived idea of a group's show before judging them. Some judges might look at recaps just to see where numbers are to try and get a ball-park starting point (for example, if groups are popping mid70's-mid-80s the couple weekends before, a judge doesn't necessarily want to give the winning unit a 61 or 98). I know some judges that don't even like to do that, because they want zero bias/perceived bias/ideas influencing where they judge. Judges I'm talking about have judged WGI Finals and DCI Finals week.

I don't know if I know of any judges in WGI or DCI who watch videos of groups they haven't seen yet to try to get an idea of slotting competitive tiers. If a judge is seeing a group they judged previously the judge might look at their notes to try and remember where their head was at last time they evaluated the group. Obviously that doesn't mean that sort of thing doesn't happen, but I would guess it's not the norm at all.

I agree with you about performance time not having a huge deal with good judges. It makes the adjudicator's job much harder, and it helps to be able to 'hold' scores for awhile to get a better idea of where groups are at their day.

I once judged a 23 unit prelims, and it was random draw. My highest number was in the middle of the show. Where it got tricky was the middle numbers....many very similar groups, and only so many numbers, but I had to leave room for what followed. this was before percussion added the extra decimal.

[GeneralTsoChicken]

what happens you need to leave room because you're judging the show of the day. Someone could come out and seriously throw down....and what then? you end up with ties and stupid math

That's the best part of being able to change numbers after blocks in WGI, now.

[skevinp]

What would be wrong with just leaving a buttload of room, such that the best performance expectable in a given category would be about 90% of a perfect score, such as 18.0 out of 20, and there would be room for the biggest throwdown imaginable without hitting the top?

Then you might have finals scores such as, for example:

   1980 DCI World Championship   Birmingham, AL                                                                                        1 Blue Devils                               90.60    2 27th Lancers                              90.25    3 Bridgemen                                 90.05    4 Spirit of Atlanta                         89.80    5 Phantom Regiment                          88.45    6 Madison Scouts                            87.05    7 Santa Clara Vanguard                      85.60    8 Crossmen                                  83.60    9 Cavaliers                                 77.40   10 Garfield Cadets                           76.45   11 North Star                                74.05   12 Guardsmen                                 72.90