When one judge calls the show

[Jeff Ream]

8 hours ago, Chief Guns said:

Here is a interesting scenario for the experts......................

Hypothetically speaking..............Let's say a corps goes into finals week 20th, but their percussion is #1. 

Quarterfinals.............the drumline is smoking and nails their show. How would the drum judge go about scoring this particular corps? 

Does he give them a 19.7 immediately.........................or knowing he has 19 corps left to judge, he gives them a 17.5, then at the end of the night, he makes adjustments to the scores including this 20th place corps drum score?

 

in the old days, he'd have to leave room just in case. now with being able to hold scores ( though usually not for the whole show) he'd have wiggle room.

 

Phantom 2010...corps was 6th maybe, with incredible percussion. judge went 99/99 with 5 corps to follow. and i don't know if at that point DCI allowed numbers to be held.

[karuna]

28 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

well he didn't fall!

You sure about that?

 

[waliman4444]

Stanley Kubrick !!  

[cixelsyd]

On 4/25/2023 at 12:58 PM, ContraFart said:

I'm literally being gaslit here. People are thinking I'm crazy because I don't think a visual judge should give a 20 (the only 20 of the entire competition) to a group where somebody falls down. If they got a 20 in GE or music, this would be a different conversation, but a major mistake such as falling down does not deserve the maximum score in any context, especially when the top of the competition is so tight.

Where am I wrong?

Two places.

1.  The real problem here is that the scores are too high.  No judge should EVER have to give a 20.  Period.  

Every time a judge gives a maximum score, it leaves the rest of us wondering whether the point spreads at the top are accurate, or whether the judge got trapped at their ceiling.  Maximum scores are evidence of a number management failure.

2.  The real gaslighting starts when someone tries to explain why scores need to be so high.  Scores are merely subjective numbers used to rank and rate performances at the contest of the day.  They are not absolute-value measures of achievement.  That is why we always hear how you cannot compare numbers from one show to another. 

So why do scores need to be so high that they cause number management issues?

[ContraFart]

Then I guess I am completely wrong. Falling is completely irrelevant to the visual performance score and should just be ignored in the realm of competition. 

[Chief Guns]

2 hours ago, ContraFart said:

Then I guess I am completely wrong. Falling is completely irrelevant to the visual performance score and should just be ignored in the realm of competition. 

Not entirely true. Once again it's about the recovery.

Only example I can think of off the top of my head was 2009 finals night, Cadets percussion. 

Quarters/Semi's Cadets percussion was 3rd. Finals night they had a really bad fall that nearly took out half the snares, and i remember the recovery being pretty bad..........they fell to 7th in percussion. Cadets took bronze that night, .3 away from Crown in 2nd (97.50-97.20). An argument can be made that the visual accident in the snare line costed Cadets the silver medal, and the scores from the week appear to back that up. 

[skevinp]

3 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

Two places.

1.  The real problem here is that the scores are too high.  No judge should EVER have to give a 20.  Period.  

Every time a judge gives a maximum score, it leaves the rest of us wondering whether the point spreads at the top are accurate, or whether the judge got trapped at their ceiling.  Maximum scores are evidence of a number management failure.

2.  The real gaslighting starts when someone tries to explain why scores need to be so high.  Scores are merely subjective numbers used to rank and rate performances at the contest of the day.  They are not absolute-value measures of achievement.  That is why we always hear how you cannot compare numbers from one show to another. 

So why do scores need to be so high that they cause number management issues?

I agree the problem would be solved if they just just defined scores so as to leave more room at the top. 

Current scoring creates the illusion that everyone is seeking some perfect accomplishment by the end of the season, a level that can’t be any better.  Does anyone think they wouldn’t keep getting better if the season could be a week longer?

Most of us accept it because the relative differences among competitors are what matter in a competition, and they have that covered.  And we know you can’t compare shows from panel to panel, let alone from year to year, especially in an activity that has gotten better and better over time.  

But it is still kind of annoying to play along with the illusion.  And it makes it harder to explain to people new to the activity.  

If we applied a standard such that a performance that would get a 20 today gets a 19 instead, we wouldn’t run out of room, have to play the game of communicating a facade, confuse new fans, or talk anyone who takes it way too literally off a ledge.

Maybe they think people would have a problem with final scores going down by 5 points or so but I think most of us would be OK with it.  

In 1973, SCV took the gold with an 88.65.  Yet DCI has managed to last another 50 years.

There are bigger problems in the world, though.  And I will keep watching no matter how they are scored as long as they are entertaining.

[ContraFart]

1 hour ago, Chief Guns said:

Not entirely true. Once again it's about the recovery.

Only example I can think of off the top of my head was 2009 finals night, Cadets percussion. 

Quarters/Semi's Cadets percussion was 3rd. Finals night they had a really bad fall that nearly took out half the snares, and i remember the recovery being pretty bad..........they fell to 7th in percussion. Cadets took bronze that night, .3 away from Crown in 2nd (97.50-97.20). An argument can be made that the visual accident in the snare line costed Cadets the silver medal, and the scores from the week appear to back that up. 

In your example things worked as intended.

It just boggles my mind that 2 groups that are nearly equal, one has a fall, the other doesn't and the one who has the fall still scores a 20. Everyone is saying " recovery is in the sheets, falling is not" but that doesn't explain an obvious differentiation between the 2 groups. 

I feel for the performer who fell. I actually crashed into a judge marching backwards when I marched, fell down, lost my Aussie and got right back up and ran. (This was at a show mid season right after a change was put in) Crap happens. It sucks when it happens on finals night, but I just feel it shouldn't be ignored. Even though the point of the current judging philosophy is to maximize the content you are performing and reward based on that achievement, in the end, it is still a competition and differences like one group having a fall and the other not falling matter to me. Why does that make people think I'm crazy?

[denverjohn]

12 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

because VK doesn't do WGI and Father Ryan wasn't out this year

 

[Jeff Ream]

23 hours ago, karuna said:

You sure about that?

 

well he had a lack of gravity to work with, so the demand was off the charts