I am not really known/respected in the footbag community so I doubt people will take this seriously but I do think that there are some flaws in the judging system.
http://gymnastics.suite101.com/article. ... ing_system
Most of it can be translated into footbag terms. Obviously the "vault" does not translate. I am not sure if this is a good idea but...
Judging (Routines and shred 30)
We are trying to discuss an alternative way of judging routines.
The judging system is not really flawed. But a few tweaks could help.
Here is a link to the rules
http://www.footbag.org/rules/chapter/500#505
1.PRESENTATION
In my opinion the most important.
2.COMPOSITION
Certainly important. Variety is good.
3.DIFFICULTY
This is obviously needed.
4.EXECUTION
Kind of goes hand and hand with presentation.
Things I would change:
Player reveals routine to judge(s). This would give the judge(s) a sense of how well executed it was. A player would be caught if he used a janiwalker instead of a nemesis. (for example this deduction would be half that of a drop)
More emphasis on Presentation and cues. David Clavens' 2010 and Juho Marjo's 2009 routines are a good exampe of routines that had some really cool cues. Shouldnt that be factored into difficulty?
This can easily be translated into footbag terms. Footbag and gymnastics are both sports where you give a routine. That routine has to be judged on something. If a player steps down his level of play his score should reflect that right?
I am not sure if transitioning to this style of judging is a good idea or not.
ps I am not trying to reinvent the wheel. I just read the rules and did some reading and thought these would be cool to see in footbag.
The judging system is not really flawed. But a few tweaks could help.
Here is a link to the rules
http://www.footbag.org/rules/chapter/500#505
1.PRESENTATION
In my opinion the most important.
2.COMPOSITION
Certainly important. Variety is good.
3.DIFFICULTY
This is obviously needed.
4.EXECUTION
Kind of goes hand and hand with presentation.
Things I would change:
Player reveals routine to judge(s). This would give the judge(s) a sense of how well executed it was. A player would be caught if he used a janiwalker instead of a nemesis. (for example this deduction would be half that of a drop) More emphasis on Presentation and cues. David Clavens' 2010 and Juho Marjo's 2009 routines are a good exampe of routines that had some really cool cues. Shouldnt that be factored into difficulty?This can easily be translated into footbag terms. Footbag and gymnastics are both sports where you give a routine. That routine has to be judged on something. If a player steps down his level of play his score should reflect that right?
I am not sure if transitioning to this style of judging is a good idea or not.
ps I am not trying to reinvent the wheel. I just read the rules and did some reading and thought these would be cool to see in footbag.
I think not. I feel that if two competitors have an identical routine but with differing music (or even lack of music), then they should receive the same TM score.Footbagger007 wrote:
Presentation and playing to music cues are obviously a major factor in determining the artistic score for a routine. Indeed those are basically the only factors. I would briefly define the artistic part of routines being judged as a determination of the players ability to express the music in their routine.
Well that was briefJeremy wrote:edit, not worth it.
Jabs aside, regarding this article, it's interesting to see how forgiving we are as judges compared to how it is with gymnastics - the article describes dropping points off of technicality for extra hops, which could theoretically describe a plant during pdx. mirage, for instance.
It's kind of scary to think eventually, IMO, footbag will reach that level of near-perfection where every movement is critical.
Nicholas Laroche
Your point about deductions screams for a more refined system. I have advocated in the past the need to do several things in order for judging to be successful and more accurate. I will try to explain.
Shred 30
The formula for shred 30 is easy enough to follow. 2 main issues I see with shred 30 are the timing it takes to report the winners and the scores, and also that adds are still used to reflect a score that is not based on difficulty but rather on components within a given move.
Possible Solution:
Tivo - Video tape the routine while simultaneously having select judges watch the live routine in 4x slow mo on Tivo. This is already being done in millions of homes in the USA every Monday night during football games. It is a no-brainer solution to delivering timely results. You are only ever 2 minutes away from a score, and only 1 minute 30 seconds away from a score at the end of a shred 30 string. This is much faster than in the past.
Redefine difficulty - Laroche brings up a very valid point about deductions that occur in other sports. I agree with these types of deductions. His example was PDX Mirage, which has been highly debated over the years. The debate is whether a plant during a PDX Mirage negates the PDX add component. There is no answer to this debate only opinions on both sides of the argument.
I propose that instead of basing a scoring system around components (aka adds), base it on a true measure of difficulty - physics! We live in an age of science where even the very existence of a God is called into question daily. It seems foolish to ignore the facts that scientific information can lead to conclude. My proposal is that there be an agreed upon measure of difficulty and a system of measuring that difficulty.
For example:
Instead of adds, look at the forces of nature used to complete a move. They are: Timing, movement and energy. If we can determine (and agree upon) a way to measure these things collectively within a given move, we can then assign a point system that is based on a realistic model, rather than simply an add count. This will give tricks more accurate difficulty ratings and will make comparing moves easier in the long run. This is by no means an easy task, and I say physics because it is non biased in every way. The current DS attempt is based on personal understandings of moves and how they are hit, not on actual physical data to support a conclusion.
Secondly, once the difficulty is determined, then we must agree upon what define an actual trick. Is PDX Mirage without a plant considered a CLEAN PDX Mirage? While planting is a crutch that deducts points? Or is planting a different move altogether with a different difficulty rating?
Routines are a bit harder to break down in this fashion, but certainly this would make judging the difficulty portion of routines a lot easier. It would also help define what CLEAN looks like, so deductions can be made in routines as well.
Just my 2 cents
Shred 30
The formula for shred 30 is easy enough to follow. 2 main issues I see with shred 30 are the timing it takes to report the winners and the scores, and also that adds are still used to reflect a score that is not based on difficulty but rather on components within a given move.
Possible Solution:
Tivo - Video tape the routine while simultaneously having select judges watch the live routine in 4x slow mo on Tivo. This is already being done in millions of homes in the USA every Monday night during football games. It is a no-brainer solution to delivering timely results. You are only ever 2 minutes away from a score, and only 1 minute 30 seconds away from a score at the end of a shred 30 string. This is much faster than in the past.
Redefine difficulty - Laroche brings up a very valid point about deductions that occur in other sports. I agree with these types of deductions. His example was PDX Mirage, which has been highly debated over the years. The debate is whether a plant during a PDX Mirage negates the PDX add component. There is no answer to this debate only opinions on both sides of the argument.
I propose that instead of basing a scoring system around components (aka adds), base it on a true measure of difficulty - physics! We live in an age of science where even the very existence of a God is called into question daily. It seems foolish to ignore the facts that scientific information can lead to conclude. My proposal is that there be an agreed upon measure of difficulty and a system of measuring that difficulty.
For example:
Instead of adds, look at the forces of nature used to complete a move. They are: Timing, movement and energy. If we can determine (and agree upon) a way to measure these things collectively within a given move, we can then assign a point system that is based on a realistic model, rather than simply an add count. This will give tricks more accurate difficulty ratings and will make comparing moves easier in the long run. This is by no means an easy task, and I say physics because it is non biased in every way. The current DS attempt is based on personal understandings of moves and how they are hit, not on actual physical data to support a conclusion.
Secondly, once the difficulty is determined, then we must agree upon what define an actual trick. Is PDX Mirage without a plant considered a CLEAN PDX Mirage? While planting is a crutch that deducts points? Or is planting a different move altogether with a different difficulty rating?
Routines are a bit harder to break down in this fashion, but certainly this would make judging the difficulty portion of routines a lot easier. It would also help define what CLEAN looks like, so deductions can be made in routines as well.
Just my 2 cents
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
I've never been convinced a deduction style system is the answer for footbag - I think it works well enough in gymnastics because the routines are not as dense component-wise (ie. in gymnastics there are less judgable components presented to the judge per second than in footbag) and the variety is not as high within individual routines or between individuals' routines. Also, in gymnastics the whole sport is geared towards executing things in the one style, while footbag is not - this difference makes the deduction style of scoring less appropriate for footbag. I think the real problem for technical scoring has been the rate of progression rather than the accurate assessment of diffculty.
To me it would be more productive to working towards clearer and more consistent artistic scores across competitions and across years. I think it's best achieved by having detailed and meaningful discussions about specific routines and their scores.
Just as a general comment - and admittedly it is only based on cursory viewing of the routines online - not a detailed study and not having been at the events - taking worlds finals routines as the sample - the difficulty ( a key component of technical scores) of routines has increased greatly since Vasek's first title. Meanwhile - no comparable change in the level of artistry has occurred. So while a technical score of 5.5 in finals of 2003 means something different to a 5.5 in 2010, the artistic scores should mean largely the same thing across the years. This makes it more difficult to achieve consistent judging on the technical side, but on the artistic side there's no such excuse. I'd be interested to know if people think the artistic scores over the last decade or so have been accurate and consistent - particularly for the top places.
To me it would be more productive to working towards clearer and more consistent artistic scores across competitions and across years. I think it's best achieved by having detailed and meaningful discussions about specific routines and their scores.
Just as a general comment - and admittedly it is only based on cursory viewing of the routines online - not a detailed study and not having been at the events - taking worlds finals routines as the sample - the difficulty ( a key component of technical scores) of routines has increased greatly since Vasek's first title. Meanwhile - no comparable change in the level of artistry has occurred. So while a technical score of 5.5 in finals of 2003 means something different to a 5.5 in 2010, the artistic scores should mean largely the same thing across the years. This makes it more difficult to achieve consistent judging on the technical side, but on the artistic side there's no such excuse. I'd be interested to know if people think the artistic scores over the last decade or so have been accurate and consistent - particularly for the top places.
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.
Dylan Govender.