Good Judging

[Earl Haury]

All

I believe that our judging is the best it has ever been. I've been around long enough (pattern since 1974) to be familiar with the variety of judging practices in place over the years.

Certainly there was a time when club judges were pretty good, but then each club had a number of good pattern flyers to draw from. Sort of a form of contestant judging, as most of these folks were competitors in their own rite. Hard to pull this off now with only a few pattern folks in a club.

The larger meets used "pro" judges (who later formed the USPJA ). Some of these folks were very good and very dedicated. In my opinion their shortcoming was the lack of a good training program for growing the numbers of new judges. Eventually the number of skilled folks dwindled and their replacement with under-trained staff caused the quality of work to suffer.

Three things got us to where we are. First, the acceptance of the notion that contestants could compete and also judge. Most contestants are dedicated to the game and are more knowledgeable of the rules / judging techniques than the lay club member generally is. Second, the AMA judging video that graphically explained judging concepts and details that are difficult to describe via the printed word. Thirdly, the NSRCA Judge Certification Program (and importantly the requirement that Nats judges be certified) that provides a requirement that the "old pros" refresh their training and gives new enthusiasts an opportunity to learn both how to judge and what's expected of their flight efforts. Importantly, the training process is dynamic and works to ensure everyone is on the same page.

If a club has the resources to provide knowledgeable (trained) judges for a contest, then I for one will enjoy the time off from judging for relaxing conversation. On the other hand, if the club judges aren't skilled enough to measure the quality (lack) of maneuvers - what's the point of the competition, it has become a fun-fli.

Contestant judging makes a competition a whole lot more work for the competitor. It is as much work (more) to do a good job judging than to do a good job flying. I find that most take judging seriously, some are better than others, but that applies to flying also - if we were all capable of totally perfect performance there would be no need for competition! A plus from this locally is that one will fly in front of nearly the same judges during the season. 
This allows one to monitor scores during the season and get a good handle on what is OK and what needs work.

I have worked with judges at numerous Team Selection Tournaments, the Nats, and a WC. This includes many hours of judge meetings and training. I have always found that everyone works hard to understand the process and methods of application. Competency is high, as is effort. My point being that judges for large events take the job seriously and work hard to get it right. Of course individuals may view the quality of any given maneuver differently, that's why we use more than one judge. 

With participation in many rounds of Nats contestant judging to draw upon, I believe the same effort and professionalism exists there. Often I've been in a group of judges that included a "name" flyer. I will tell you that these guys are generally as accurate (in my view) in judging as they are in flying. It makes sense - they know what they're doing! I have never been aware of anyone intentionally under (or over) scoring anyone. Sure scores differ, even the best judges will differ some - there're are always subjective issues like "smoothness and gracefulness" where judgmental opinions will vary. I am afraid that if I were aware of any sort of definite "retaliation" judging that some form of assault would be likely. I suppose that biased judging has / does occur and retaliation is one possible reason unique to the contestant / judge, but such despicable behavior is likely very limited.

Of course one way to minimize the effect is to pitch statistical outliers. Unfortunately this can penalize the one judge who may have been the only one to get it right. Additionally, stats become very unreliable as the sample number diminishes to the range normal for scores even in large meets. Best not to create a big problem trying to solve (I hope) a small one.

Sorry for the long reply, but quite a few good  folks have worked hard to bring judging to the level that it is today. While bad apples should not be tolerated, giving the impression that this may be becoming the norm is unfair to the many dedicated folks that strive for professionalism every time that they sit in the judges seat. For those who have seen injustices in a few instances, please work to correct them and consider the generally good state of the overall picture.

Earl Haury
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040521/96141e37/attachment.html