Finals

[ApocalypseTissue]

This is why I have a very big problem with The Cavaliers' 99.15 in 2002.

3 judges started scoring way too high that night and the final corps, The Cavaliers got that high score because of bad number management.

They should have won, but having 20.0 in 3 captions gives you no idea about the gap between scores. In other words, the cavies could have gotten a 20.3 or a 21.4, but no one knows because it'd have to cap at 20.0

[g0at]

good point... but on that same note, do you want judges to be scared about giving big numbers to corps , and wondering if they need to pace themselves?

I mean the end result is correct, numbers shouldn't really matter. I would sacrafice spreads to create a more honest judging anytime. If judges arn't allowed to put out big numbers when they feel it, it would be a wrose situation.

[OMello1]

Thank you. The tick system went out a long time ago. It's not about mistakes, it's about achievement.

Thank god...it is nice to see other people around that understand that the evaluation of achievement doesn't mean searching out errors. As it has been said, a 20 in a caption doesn't mean they were "perfect", whatever that would mean anyway. It means that they did one of 2 things (or both): they (1) were clearly achieving more than the 2nd place corps, who was also achieving at a very high level and earned a 19.8 or 19.9 and therefore the 20 must be awarded or (2) they achieved, at such a high level that weather or not the achievement level of the 2nd place corps (and 3rd, 4th, etc...) pushed the numbers up, they fully realized the criteria of the sheets and earned a pure 20. There is more than one way to get that 20...

M

Edited August 27, 2006 by OMello1

[OMello1]

This is why I have a very big problem with The Cavaliers' 99.15 in 2002.

3 judges started scoring way too high that night and the final corps, The Cavaliers got that high score because of bad number management.

They should have won, but having 20.0 in 3 captions gives you no idea about the gap between scores. In other words, the cavies could have gotten a 20.3 or a 21.4, but no one knows because it'd have to cap at 20.0

Well apparently the numbers management all season was poor, across all captions (save percussion maybe), because The Cavaliers outpaced all the other corps from a scoring standpoint all season. While there were times when they would drop a caption or two here or there, they were untouchable from day one. The 2nd weekend of competition, in Orlando, didn't they 3 point the 2nd place corps? (and EVERYONE was there...) Their 99.15 was a product of a remarkable, almost unprecedented season of competition. They posted the 2nd highest score EVER at quarter finals (98.7) and broke 99 at semis. To say their 99.15 was due to poor numbers management finals night is to undermine their achievement in 2002.

I'd also like to point out that 3 judges arrived at 'MAXIMUM' scores in their captions separately. Each caption in DCI has it own unique personality, people, philosophies and politics. Each caption is a mini judging world of its own...the general consenses among judges in the brass caption about a corps is likely to be widely different than that of another caption. So, lumping the the 20s together and calling that poor numbers management disregards the individual caption conditions, which we will NEVER be aware of.

M

[g0at]

Well apparently the numbers management all season was poor, across all captions (save percussion maybe), because The Cavaliers outpaced all the other corps from a scoring standpoint all season. While there were times when they would drop a caption or two here or there, they were untouchable from day one. The 2nd weekend of competition, in Orlando, didn't they 3 point the 2nd place corps? (and EVERYONE was there...) Their 99.15 was a product of a remarkable, almost unprecedented season of competition. They posted the 2nd highest score EVER at quarter finals (98.7) and broke 99 at semis. To say their 99.15 was due to poor numbers management finals night is to undermine their achievement in 2002.

I'd also like to point out that 3 judges arrived at 'MAXIMUM' scores in their captions separately. Each caption in DCI has it own unique personality, people, philosophies and politics. Each caption is a mini judging world of its own...the general consenses among judges in the brass caption about a corps is likely to be widely different than that of another caption. So, lumping the the 20s together and calling that poor numbers management disregards the individual caption conditions, which we will NEVER be aware of.

M

I agree

People just see 3 20's and have to assume there is somethign wrong, or a conspiracy!

[ApocalypseTissue]

Well apparently the numbers management all season was poor, across all captions (save percussion maybe), because The Cavaliers outpaced all the other corps from a scoring standpoint all season. While there were times when they would drop a caption or two here or there, they were untouchable from day one. The 2nd weekend of competition, in Orlando, didn't they 3 point the 2nd place corps? (and EVERYONE was there...) Their 99.15 was a product of a remarkable, almost unprecedented season of competition. They posted the 2nd highest score EVER at quarter finals (98.7) and broke 99 at semis. To say their 99.15 was due to poor numbers management finals night is to undermine their achievement in 2002.

I'd also like to point out that 3 judges arrived at 'MAXIMUM' scores in their captions separately. Each caption in DCI has it own unique personality, people, philosophies and politics. Each caption is a mini judging world of its own...the general consenses among judges in the brass caption about a corps is likely to be widely different than that of another caption. So, lumping the the 20s together and calling that poor numbers management disregards the individual caption conditions, which we will NEVER be aware of.

M

Judges have a meeting before each competition, where they do discuss the lowest range that they should give so that there are enough numbers to prevent capping. I'm sure the judges in 2002 could have done the same, noticed that the previous nights score of 99.05 with the Cavaliers in semifinals should have given them a red flag to bump some scores down. Scores on finals night can drop comparitive to semifinals, there are multiple examples of it.

Giving three 20.0s is pretty bad number managing there on three accounts. Those three judges did not start low enough with the beginning of the lineup to give room. In judging a lineup, it's better to start lower than higher.

[profhill]

Giving three 20.0s is pretty bad number managing there on three accounts. Those three judges did not start low enough with the beginning of the lineup to give room. In judging a lineup, it's better to start lower than higher.

Just because you give out the highest possibly score doesn't mean you mismanaged your numbers earlier in the night.

Remember the 12th place corps in 2002 was probably the best 12th place corps EVER!!! (At least to that point, Spirit the last few years may give them a run for that honor.) So, the judges were forced to give Seattle a number about 85. The Cavaliers were that much better than them, so the judges were forced to give them those numbers.

Also, the second place corps in each caption was given a score and then The Cavaliers were at least .2 or .3 better than that score. So the judges had to give them that score.

To call giving the highest score possible in a caption (or subcaption) numbers mismanaged shows a gross misunderstanding of the judging system.

Was 2005 numbers mismanagement? No, that was a result of 9 judges trying to call the show for The Cadets.

[ApocalypseTissue]

Thank god...it is nice to see other people around that understand that the evaluation of achievement doesn't mean searching out errors.

For DCI errors and flukes are completely different entities. Flukes are told to be ignored. Errors, also known as, breaks in the ensemble are considered when judging. Breaks/Errors can be due to poor achievement and training. The dci performance value base is to tell the quality of training and excellence in each category.

(Flukes: Not considered): A guard member drops a toss which the judge considers to be a fluke. The idea is that drops happen even with the most well trained of members.

(Break: Considered): A unison quad toss of several members in which many members have incorrect posture, hand coordination, or bad timing. Though only 3 of the 15 rifles dropped, the judge will comment that those three dropped because of their training and that the other 12 caught it poorly with bad training.

So in sum, ticking is not gone, ticking when there is training issue is in the performance captions.

It means that they did one of 2 things (or both): they (1) were clearly achieving more than the 2nd place corps, who was also achieving at a very high level and earned a 19.8 or 19.9 and therefore the 20 must be awarded or (2) they achieved, at such a high level that weather or not the achievement level of the 2nd place corps (and 3rd, 4th, etc...) pushed the numbers up, they fully realized the criteria of the sheets and earned a pure 20. There is more than one way to get that 20...

Box five describes a range of scores that apply to consistency and mastery of a technique, where breaks in the ensemble are quick, almost unnoticeable. The actual number itself, when being given reflects how much they are better or worse they are COMPARED to the other corps in the same competition.

In any type of judging, giving the full score is described, right off the bat for the judge to have been "boxed in"

Lets show an example of 2002's music ensemble score of the top 4, which are all box 5 scores that demonstrate consistency and mastery of that caption.

4th (19.3) - The Cadets

3rd (19.5) - Santa Clara Vanguard

2nd (19.7) - Blue Devils

1st (20.0) - The Cavaliers

Even though this corps, even in my opinion had great great music ensemble, giving a 20.0 was forced because Blue Devils already achieved a 19.7. The judge was forced to give The Cavaliers a 20.0 because, the cavies gap in their music ensemble score was possibly 0.3+ (could have been 0.4, 0.5, etc...) points better than the Blue Devils' music ensemble score. Why not give them a 20.2, or a 23.6? Well because the maximum score is a 20.0, and the judge was literally boxed in, or forced to give a perfect score because there was no where else to move.

This is why it's better to start lower in numbers so that you are given some room to compare. Without comparison, no judge can just jut a number out on a sheet. This goes a little beyond the matter in that we are all human, we make mistakes, The Cavaliers' guard did as well, so a 20.0/20.0 is not fitting for such a title.

(I'm just using 2002 Cavaliers as an example, they deserved the title, however I'm commenting on the judges handling on the sheets)

[ApocalypseTissue]

Also, the second place corps in each caption was given a score and then The Cavaliers were at least .2 or .3 better than that score. So the judges had to give them that score.

Exactly, the fact that you can't tell a number is mismanaging. Also remember that This year's 97.200 Cavaliers, in 2002 could have been a 99.15. And last year's Cadets could have been a 96.525 in this year's competition.

Just because you give out the highest possibly score doesn't mean you mismanaged your numbers earlier in the night.

Remember the 12th place corps in 2002 was probably the best 12th place corps EVER!!! (At least to that point, Spirit the last few years may give them a run for that honor.) So, the judges were forced to give Seattle a number about 85. The Cavaliers were that much better than them, so the judges were forced to give them those numbers.

Judging number recommendation, don't compare scores from different nights. Division 2/3, and even division 1 is a great testament to that. Gaps are what you should compare not the numbers.

But only with the same corps in the same competition.

If you go to judges training, you are warned multiple times to avoid giving a full score multiple multiple times.

Edited August 27, 2006 by ApocalypseTissue

[raphael18]

I'm sorry, but unless they're out there doing the most mindblowing thing ever, NO ONE ever deserves a perfect score in anything. Comparative judging or no, no corps is perfect, and it is just silly. Why didn't they get a 20.5 if they're so much better?

Heck, let's just turn it up to 11, because that's the kind of mentality your expressing. By awarding such high numbers in the past, the numbers have come to mean less and less. Yes, I understand what is really important is the spreads, and even those can be pretty curious on occasion.