Judges wandering on field

[garfield]

12 minutes ago, karuna said:

 

It's pretty easy to agree that no judge should be putting ANY performer at risk.  It's a pretty simple idea ; even a drummer can understand it  

Yes, and even the drummers will agree that it's NEVER HAPPENED.

We used to look for judges and keep track of points for hitting them.  Even today, the judge is at much more risk than the performers (or were, when they were allowed on the field, that is).

 

[skevinp]

1 hour ago, cfirwin3 said:

You are of the opinion that safety was an excuse used to actually employ a system by which drum adjudication could be less objective?  Like a conspiracy?... For what purpose, to what end and to the benefit of whom?

Did this ever get answered?

[cfirwin3]

37 minutes ago, Cappybara said:

At the expense of proper and accurate judging unfortunately 

Have you disagreed with the adjudication so far this year?

That's nearly impossible to demonstrate as it requires an assessment from outside of the range of view that the judges are in... in order to conclude that the judges have a poor range of view.

Ironically, fans are always contradicting the conclusions of judges... This mentality suggests that the judges are infallible, so long as they can pick each proverbial tree out of the proverbial forest.  By this perspective, fans have no room to contest the judges, really ever.

So the accusations are as follows:

- Judges can't properly adjudicate now

- The change was made so that judges can't adjudicate properly (although we don't know who this benefits, and why contending corps would vote for the change)

Is it possible... Just maybe, that the reasons given were honest?  I mean lets face it, if the accusation is that the best perspective is up close, then why would stadium seat fans have a better understanding than the on field staff... yet at the same time claim to have a vastly inferior perspective than on field judges?

Is it possible that we have a 'people are wimps'... coupled with a 'this stuff isn't harder than what I did' sort of complex?

While the logic for changing the system relies on cautious conjecture, at least it is rooted in the assertions made by liable parties and their observations.  It seems to me that the argument for the status quo prior to 2019 is in need of a credible advocate and a real victim (actual or potential)... I just don't see one there.

Edited July 4, 2019 by cfirwin3

[cfirwin3]

15 minutes ago, skevinp said:

Did this ever get answered?

No... That question will be ignored.  It requires the admission of a tin foil hat.

[karuna]

16 minutes ago, garfield said:

Yes, and even the drummers will agree that it's NEVER HAPPENED.

We used to look for judges and keep track of points for hitting them.  Even today, the judge is at much more risk than the performers (or were, when they were allowed on the field, that is).

 

Ridiculous.  Even Ream admits there is STILL risk; he just call it's "minimal".  As for actual collisions,  perhaps the number would be FAR different if like the FAA you started counting "near misses".   

Please explain why a judge should be permitted to put a performer as risk?  I've asked this question multiple times but no one ever seems to have a good answer.  Here's a hint:  BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE!  

Yes the hype tapes will be not be as MEGA-SUPER-HYPED.  But the judge can still rank and rate accurately.  

So sorry the days of "I hit a judge"  contests are gone. 

Change is hard.  

Personally I would have opted for "outside drill" but as we can see percussion judges  already have problems understanding two yards so that would probably not have worked.  

[cfirwin3]

Just now, karuna said:

Personally I would have opted for "outside drill" but as we can see percussion judges  already have problems understanding two yards so that would probably not have worked.  

This would have been a fine solution.  But risks were already being taken and the front sideline really prohibits a judge from making a 'mistake' that puts them in the drill.

[garfield]

2 hours ago, cfirwin3 said:

You are of the opinion that safety was an excuse used to actually employ a system by which drum adjudication could be less objective?  Like a conspiracy?... For what purpose, to what end and to the benefit of whom?

No, not as a conspiracy.  That's your word, not mine.

It's hard to claim "safety" as the issue when the issue being referenced has a history of 100% safety.

Taking the drum judge off the field has zero to do with safety, IMO, but it's become a convenient excuse for ulterior motives, again, IMO.

 

[Fran Haring]

1 hour ago, karuna said:

 the great and powerful Ream 

As portrayed by Frank Morgan in the 1939 movie. 😁

[garfield]

37 minutes ago, karuna said:

Ridiculous.  Even Ream admits there is STILL risk; he just call it's "minimal".  As for actual collisions,  perhaps the number would be FAR different if like the FAA you started counting "near misses".   

Please explain why a judge should be permitted to put a performer as risk?  I've asked this question multiple times but no one ever seems to have a good answer.  Here's a hint:  BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE!  

Yes the hype tapes will be not be as MEGA-SUPER-HYPED.  But the judge can still rank and rate accurately.  

So sorry the days of "I hit a judge"  contests are gone. 

Change is hard.  

Personally I would have opted for "outside drill" but as we can see percussion judges  already have problems understanding two yards so that would probably not have worked.  

The risk was always "minimal" and, in fact, zero, according to actual incidents.  But, yes, the future is as unknowable now as it's been since the beginning of field adjudication.

No judge should put any MM at risk and, apparently, according to all historic empirical evidence, they never have.

No, the judge can't "rank and rate accurately".  He can rank and rate reference between corps, but he can't get a good read on hands or individual musicality from two yards off the sidelines when the line is on the opposite hash.

Change is not really hard.  I've been through lots of change.

So, generally then and in your view, percussion judges aren't competent anyway so this is really about getting incompetence off the field, not percussion judges, right?

 

[karuna]

20 minutes ago, garfield said:

The risk was always "minimal" and, in fact, zero, according to actual incidents.  But, yes, the future is as unknowable now as it's been since the beginning of field adjudication.

No judge should put any MM at risk and, apparently, according to all historic empirical evidence, they never have.

No, the judge can't "rank and rate accurately".  He can rank and rate reference between corps, but he can't get a good read on hands or individual musicality from two yards off the sidelines when the line is on the opposite hash.

Change is not really hard.  I've been through lots of change.

So, generally then and in your view, percussion judges aren't competent anyway so this is really about getting incompetence off the field, not percussion judges, right?

 

Anyone who’s ever watched a percussion judge immediately knows the risk is not minimal. (In fact that’s what makes so many watch them make there daring escapes.  Same reason many watch motor sports).  

Judges can rank and rate accurately from the front sideline. Spreads and ranks matter and there’s nothing interfering with that assessment.  In fact front ensembles will now get much better reads because the judge won’t spend so much time “traveling”. 

Finally nice try.  Never said anything about the competency of DCI judges. But it is very revealing to see “top names” already wandering far past 2 yards. 

Edited July 4, 2019 by karuna