When one judge calls the show

[ContraFart]

7 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

mybe but depending on my sheet, would it help me? if i am on an upstairs sheet, and multi cam is the only options to watch....does it help? field level doesn't help me. if i am a field level judge, does hi cam help me? Maybe before the limitations on where judges could go on the field. 

 

but watching on Flo or even the Fan Network you get what the producer wants you to see. sitting in the box, you get what you see. and something could happen that could pull your eyes away and make you miss something.

an example i always remember is Magic in 2002 when the tenor player bit it backing into the mounted drum on the rack. my friend was watching something on side 2 and totally missed it. only realize it happened when i said "oh ####", and by then the kid was getting back up and thankfully not hurt.

 

the same could happen to a judge upstairs

What happened with Magic 02 happened on side A near the sideline almost behind the pit. So from a side B vantage point, I can understand how it might have been missed.

I think that scenario is less likely on a basketball court when you are sitting center.

[Jeff Ream]

7 hours ago, wilme861 said:

Obviously the judge disagreed. It could just be that everything else throughout the show outweighed that incident and the judge was marking them down but got back to a 20 with the rest of the performance.

I think that believing a 20 is more "special" or reserved for special moments is a belief that those that have been around in the activities longer tend to gravitate more towards than those that haven't been around lets say 20 years or so that believe a 20, while rare, isn't a "OMG can you believe someone actually got a 20!!!" type of deal.

I've seen Blue Devils in DCI get a 20 in a caption even with errors but I had 0 problems with the 20. I want to say 2014 they got a 20 from the Visual judge even though a member completely missed a step off or a direction change while the corps was in a block. Very obvious error but the corps itself warranted a 20 in my opinion.

must have been Chumley

[ContraFart]

1 minute ago, Jeff Ream said:

whats hard to understand is you refuse to listen when someone explains ranking and rating. the number is placed to determine the ranking. the judges in question gave a 9.9 to Broken City in the Comp Box....so he/she deemed BC the second best in that box that night. then said judge gave Pulse a 99 in the Performance Box. in their view based on the performance they saw and the criteria on the sheet, they felt RCC was best. so the 10/10. so in order to rank, the rating ended up how it did. 

the number is available as an option. the judge chose to use it to get the rankings they felt was merited.

Why can't 2 groups get the same number? If the number is irrelevant, why not just use ordinals?

[Jeff Ream]

7 hours ago, ContraFart said:

I fundamentally disagree. The show is a single entity, you cant lose a 20, then get back up to a 20 in the course of a single show. That mindset is lunacy to me. A mistake is a mistake. Sure we dont need the tick system, but a maximum score is not warranted IMO when there is a egregious mistake, such as missing a step off. 

As per my previous example, overcooked potatoes dont ruin the dish, but they also are part of the whole and should be scored as such, and not higher than the chef who doesn't overcook their food. 

I wouldn't have this issue if the 20 was in music. A layman wouldn't know if a couple notes are missing, but they can sure as hell see a 22 inch drum player fall down plain as day. 

contact the judging coordinator of WGI. i'm sure they'd be glad to discuss this with you

[ContraFart]

23 minutes ago, resipsaloquitur said:

Cooks are not judged by the WGI sheets. Cooks rarely are able to "recover". Except maybe Wolgang Puck. lol

Do you cook? There are many ways to recover in cooking.

 

[Jeff Ream]

11 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

I understand the how's and why's. I just think they are stupid. Basically what everyone is trying to tell me is that you don't judge the show in front of you. You sort into similar groups and assign numbers based on ordinals and the actual number means nothing.

well then you think they're stupid. and 200+ units went to Dayton disagreeing with you, in addition to the who knows how many others that participated in regionals without going to Dayton and the many hudreds more participating in local circuits using the WGI sheets and philosophy. 

 

and no one is saying that. not at all. Your refusal to listen to any viewpoint not agreeing with you is making you miss the forest for the trees as someone said several posts ago.

[Jeff Ream]

13 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

Which makes the score all the more egregious 

no, because one moment in time, compared with ranking and rating deemed the moment nowhere near as significant as you do.

i see your signature, and i mentioned Magic 02 and the tenor player wipe out earlier...did the visual judges slam the corps for that one moment in time that night?

[ContraFart]

49 minutes ago, resipsaloquitur said:

I think you're missing the forest by looking too closely at the trees. Which could be why you are not a judge. Instead of starting from the top and working down, judges reward what is being done on the floor, from both composition and execution perspectives. Like DCI, WGI scoring is not a tear-down system....which meant one drop, one fall, and there goes a tick....not playing in tune was two or three ticks. The problem was the lack of focus on the achievement of the members and more on mistakes....which is why the judging has evolved over the years.

I think what fries you is there is no "Fallen Down Deduction" or "Didn't Move Feet in Unison Deduction" or "Not Enough Cowbells Deduction". Until those deductions exist, there is no deduction for things that you are wishing for a deduction. These things don't take away from the enjoyment of the show. Nor of the scores. From my understanding, perfect visual score does not mean every single move was perfect, but it means that the proficiency and understanding of each visual aspect from the group itself was perfect. 

Kudos to the performers. Don't let that one errant music judge (or DCP ppl who like to pretend to be a visual judge) ruin an otherwise well-performed, super enjoyable show. 

So by your definition falling down means nothing 

[ContraFart]

Just now, Jeff Ream said:

no, because one moment in time, compared with ranking and rating deemed the moment nowhere near as significant as you do.

i see your signature, and i mentioned Magic 02 and the tenor player wipe out earlier...did the visual judges slam the corps for that one moment in time that night?

Actually we dropped a place I believe

[Jeff Ream]

11 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

What happened with Magic 02 happened on side A near the sideline almost behind the pit. So from a side B vantage point, I can understand how it might have been missed.

I think that scenario is less likely on a basketball court when you are sitting center.

and if you're looking to the other side of the floor following the ending of the moment preceding it? you may have missed it entirely.

 

i'm a bass drummer...i went down in a show once. 15 counts into the show no less, no one in the corps in front of me.....just me sliding on wet grass with a 28" drum on, and nothing to hide me from anyone in the stadium.

 

and even in 1989, not one judge caught it or commented on it. when staff mentioned it in critique the whole visual panel were like "when did that happen?"