Mr Hopkins remarks about judging

[Jeff Ream]

Bring back balance....bring back the tic system.

no. average the GE captions.

the tick was no better...your tick may not be the same as my tick. there was no set rule for what is and what isnt a tick. it was as subjective as now

[Jeff Ream]

Go back to the "tic system" and you won't have this problem

see above

[dbc03]

It's hard to read the whole discussion here. Many of you speak of "judges" like they were doing this for the money (not!). Maybe for ego, a bit, but mostly because they want to give something back to the activity. Maybe you should try it. Seriously, if you can do better, call whoever runs this thing and get on board. Put up or shut up. Me? I'd be crazy to try to analyze these shows. I figure they're just applying the sheets the board of directors approve. Blame the board if you want.

I always hate this argument. I can't throw a football like a pro quarterback even on a horrible day, but I can tell when a pro quarterback is throwing poorly. A lot of the judges couldn't physically handle marching a DCI show, so by your logic they shouldn't be allowed to judge it.

[Bleu Raeder]

I will certainly agree that ticks were subjective to a point, but we are also talking a 'perfect world' scenario. I think that the way it is judged now leaves a lot more room for errancy (but it is way better than judging systems that use the I, II, III method) and that the biased judge has a lot more wiggle room than he or she would if ticks were still in the system. Even inspection (dating myself now) would certainly be subjective, your idea of polished brass would certainly be different than mine.

We still talk about the cleanliness of shows, how are we judging that in our casual conversation? Do you think that an unclean section will "count against" a corps? Or do you think that an unclean section will "not allow a corps to reach its full potential in that category"?

The tick system also had governors as many are apt to forget. For instance an m&m judge could only give one tick for a particular action/issue/problem every N counts. Exposure to error also acted as governor, the greater the exposure, the lesser the chance of tickage. For instance a company front moving at 160 BPM is a lot more exposed to error than the front moving at 100 BPM.

None of this (any system) removes judge bias. There is no system available that could truly judge the artform that would not be subjective. But if you want balance you have to introduce "less subjective" methodologies of scoring.

Edited August 17, 2006 by Bleu Raeder

[Spinner]

Bring back balance....bring back the tic system.

Unless you use computer enhanced imaging and all human vision, emotion and decision making taken out of it, the Tick system is JUST as subjective as the build up. Judges still had to decide whether the mistake was bad enough to count as a tick. If they had no tolerance level at all, every corps would have been zeroed out. And no two judges had the exact same tolerance level.

Also I can't imagine trying to handle a clip board while a moder corps was running at 180 beats per second around you and have any accuracy at all. Judges missed more mistakes than they caught while looking down at the board to put the check in the right spot. I remember watching a drum corps do a company front with two flags at each end draped to cover the lines from the end where the judge on the field would stand to judge it, to block it out. So it wasn't a mistake bacause the judge couldnt' see it?

People who say bring back the tick system have NO concept of the real idea behind the change. Do some research.

[mobrien]

You can NOT compare an objective sport like baseball to a subjective activity like drum corps.

Every home plate ump has their own call as to what's a ball and what's a strike, and we've all seen enough variations to know that there's a certain amount of subjectivity to their calls.

But MLB has a policy that makes arguing balls and strikes cause for immediate expulsion from the game for a manager. DCI should have a policy that discourages corps directors from publicly griping about the reactions of judges to their score.

The thing that makes me laugh on the Hopkins situation is that it seems he really doesn't know what the competition is doing. How many times do you think he watched Cavies or PR this year? And if he did, and still believes that Cadets were in those two corps' league from a design standpoint, what would that say about HIS judgement? B)

Edited August 17, 2006 by mobrien

[glory]

MLB does have a rule against arguing balls and strikes. But it also has immense tolerance for public disputes of the umpire's decisions.

Managers and players can and do argue on the field with umpires. They yell, scream, kick the dirt, rant and rave without any sanction from MLB. They can pretty much make fools of themselves and delay the progress of the game so long as they don't touch the umpire or use certain forbidden language. What's more they can and do go on television immediately after and repeat their disatisfaction. It's only when the postgame complaining passes some theoretical threshold that they're punished for the transgression (which, to be clear, isn't the complaint but the tone of the complaint).

Other sports are similar. Indeed, drum corps is similar too with a long history of directors and staff complaining to members, alums, fans and pretty much anyone who's listening about this or that official on this or that night. The only difference between drum corps and major sports is we have no regular television or newspaper coverage to record the complaints. But they're there. And most of us have heard them without any prejudice to the system.

HH

[dbc03]

The thing that makes me laugh on the Hopkins situation is that it seems he really doesn't know what the competition is doing. How many times do you think he watched Cavies or PR this year? And if he did, and still believes that Cadets were in those two corps' league from a design standpoint, what would that say about HIS judgement? B)

He probably saw them more than you would think. Also, if he still believes that the Cadets were in those two corps league from a design standpoint it says that he believes in their show. However, he even admits in his blog that they had design issues. That doesn't change the fact that a GE judge that makes absolutely no mention of the characters or all the pink tables on the field is not even attempting to properly evaluate the show. It also doesn't explain discrepancies in performance captions.

[MikeD]

I will certainly agree that ticks were subjective to a point, but we are also talking a 'perfect world' scenario. I think that the way it is judged now leaves a lot more room for errancy (but it is way better than judging systems that use the I, II, III method) and that the biased judge has a lot more wiggle room than he or she would if ticks were still in the system.

It was very easy for biased execution judges to add or not add ticks as their bias dictated. Happened ALL the time.

The tick system also had governors as many are apt to forget. For instance an m&m judge could only give one tick for a particular action/issue/problem every N counts. Exposure to error also acted as governor, the greater the exposure, the lesser the chance of tickage. For instance a company front moving at 160 BPM is a lot more exposed to error than the front moving at 100 BPM.

How did added exposure REDUCE the chance of error...more difficult material was more apt to have an execution issue.

[rut-roh]

He probably saw them more than you would think. Also, if he still believes that the Cadets were in those two corps league from a design standpoint it says that he believes in their show. However, he even admits in his blog that they had design issues. That doesn't change the fact that a GE judge that makes absolutely no mention of the characters or all the pink tables on the field is not even attempting to properly evaluate the show. It also doesn't explain discrepancies in performance captions.

Stop. Just...stop.

The show in question to which those comments were made was Drums Along the Rockies.

The GE visual judge at that show...one of the judges who would have been responsible for commenting on the things George wanted comments on...was giving the Cadets a first read on effect at that show. He had previously judged them on color guard, but never on effect. Giving a first read on a caption is difficult enough. It's especially difficult with this particular Cadets show, which had so much going on at once that it's nearly impossible to comment on everything. The visual performance and visual ensemble judges...who would also comment on those things...were also giving first reads at that show.

So George puts out a show that deliberately has twenty things going on at once...and at that point in the season, the multiple focus issues were magnified three fold over the final product in August...and he gets upset that the judges didn't comment on the things he wanted them to comment on. That's life, George. Sometimes the judges don't comment on that which we want them to...and sometimes, THAT IS THE FAULT OF THE DESIGN OF THE SHOW. Notice that much attention was paid to fixing those issues by the end of the year. And they did a good job of fixing much of them.

Still, as much as George wants to paint this as "thinking out loud, innocent questioning, pondering" or whatever, his public comments were the following: "We had some adjudicators who just did not make an attempt to get the show." Sorry, but that is a direct attack at the integrity of those judges...who do not have the ability to defend themselves on George's blog. Isn't it possible that the faulty design of the show may have led those judges ....who were giving first reads... to not be able to comment on everything he wanted them to? George didn't seem to think so. It's not his show's fault. The judges made no attempt at getting it. Whatever.

This is an issue about professionalism, pure and simple. The judges did their job. He didn't agree with them. Fine. Nobody is saying that the DCI judges are infallable. But we either live with the decisions of the judges and support their efforts or we don't. If we disagree, there are avenues to address those issues. In critique to the judge's face, to the DCI Judges Administrator, or at the DCI meetings which address adjudication. NOT by posting them in a blog and linking it to the main YEA site. It's bush league. Someone of George's stature in this activity should know better. And he DOES know better...he preaches it to the Cadets all the time...take your problems to someone who can do something about it. Anything else is a waste of time and energy.

Interesting counterpoint on all of this. I was browsing the BD Forums today and someone had started a thread wondering how BD didn't win percussion considering all the I&E winners they had. An innocent enough topic, though not without its potential to degrade into a slam-fest against Phantom Regiment. Obviously, on a BD site, one would expect a lot of support for the BD drumline and some negativity directed towards whoever beats them. Here is what BD percussion caption head Scott Johnson wrote about it:

OK Guy's,

Congrats to Phantom, Paul and the rest of his staff.

They were obviously very consistent the last 3 nights, and deserved the title.

What we do at BD, has nothing to do with what Phantom does.

Our competition every year is with our self’s. We have no control over other lines, only our own.

The 06 BD Perc. ensemble was incredible this year. We had a phenomenal season, and an unbelievable last show.

If you are part of DCI, you have to respect the judging system and live with their decision.

Thanks for all of your kind words.

And again...Congrats to PR... It was a great year for Percussion.

ScoJo

Class. Professionalism. Respect.

Was he upset that they lost? Probably. Has he made some private comments perhaps on the staff bus about it? Maybe. Does he undermine the entire DCI judging system and attack the integrity and motivation of the judges by posting whatever criticisms he has online?? NO. End of story.