What did YOU think about the judging at Worlds?
The system used is still in its infancy. Do you think it works out ok? I jusged last year at Worlds and this year also. I never used the card-based forumla system although I've read up on it a bit, that sounded like a nightmare. The new system is fairly subjective. For those who don't know, each judge gives a grade out of 6 in two categories: Artistic Interpretation (AI) and Technical Merit (TM).
A bit like in ice-skating I believe.
The biggest flaw I can think of is this:
- It is too great an advantage to perform near the end of a pool.
Also, this year the head judges wanted the judges' scores to be inputed in the computer directly at the end end of each routine. I'm not sure that was such a great idea. It is probably best to put down comments for a routine, write a rough grade and have the possibility to slightly refine the results at the end of the pool if you feel you have to.
Judging at Worlds
-
max
- Australofrenchbrityorkus
- Posts: 3751
- Joined: 24 Apr 2002 00:12
- Location: Bondi Beach, Australia
- Contact:
Judging at Worlds
Maxime Boucoiran
French ConneXion
BFC
French ConneXion
BFC
I guess you're right about going at the end but don't the judges start off giving the 1st person a score with room to go up or down and then base the rest of the competitors around that? In theory it seems like it should work. What I didn't like were the seedings. The pool of death was such crap =/ Eh well, learn from the mistakes. Also, I know I have no room at all to talk because it takes a ton of organization to put this together, so no offense to all of the people who helped put it together.
-connor campbell
prosers-pros of the posers-
I like my sugar with coffee and cream.
prosers-pros of the posers-
I like my sugar with coffee and cream.
-
max
- Australofrenchbrityorkus
- Posts: 3751
- Joined: 24 Apr 2002 00:12
- Location: Bondi Beach, Australia
- Contact:
in theory yes, and that score is often low to anticipate the better scores of the better seeded players...don't the judges start off giving the 1st person a score with room to go up or down and then base the rest of the competitors around that?
Has a seeding system system been tried where the top seed goes last and all the others are randomly distributed in the pool?
Maxime Boucoiran
French ConneXion
BFC
French ConneXion
BFC
-
bigdirtyfoot
- Sloppy
- Posts: 3142
- Joined: 22 Apr 2002 12:30
- Location: NC
-
King Monkey
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2745
- Joined: 18 May 2003 04:39
- Location: Sydney, Australia
yeh judging systems are so whack... at aussie nationals i was judging open routines... and my score for my intermediate routine was only one or two points lower than jeremy's open routine which was obviously way better, longer, more technical and better coereographed...they were judged on the same set of criteria and stuff i didnt see how it could work.. but then i might just not have understood it all properly...
and this could be some stupid anecdote that is completely unrelated... eeeexcellent
and this could be some stupid anecdote that is completely unrelated... eeeexcellent
Ian Pritchard - http://www.ausfootbag.org
'People, just play Footbag and stop being dickheads!' - Michał Biarda
'People, just play Footbag and stop being dickheads!' - Michał Biarda
-
bigdirtyfoot
- Sloppy
- Posts: 3142
- Joined: 22 Apr 2002 12:30
- Location: NC
Just for everyone else and myself:
Scoring Systems
Shred30
Score = Total Adds + (Uniques X Add Ratio)
Your first add starts the clock and your first 3-adds (or higher) trick starts your score. For example, if you start with Toe Stall > Clipper Stall > Ripwalk, the clock will start on the Toe Stall, and you score starts counting on your Ripwalk.
The last move of your run will be the one last *set* before the buzzer.
Uniques are 3 adds and higher for all divisions.
A digital clock and buzzer will be utilized for utmost accurate time counts.
Routines
6 judges give a score from 0.0 to 6.0 for technical merit and artistic impression.
After all the competitors in a given pool have performed they are assigned a rank for each score from each judge.
The ranks are then added and the lowest rank total wins the pool.
Example:
The 6 judges award they scores...
----Technical Merit------ ---Artistic Impression---
Competitor A 5.2 5.0 4.9 4.4 5.2 5.1 3.0 3.5 3.3 3.4 2.8 3.1
Competitor B 5.3 5.3 5.0 4.7 5.0 5.2 4.8 4.8 4.2 4.0 4.5 4.6
Competitor C 4.5 4.2 4.0 3.9 3.9 4.0 5.2 4.6 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.5
Competitor D 3.0 3.1 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.3 2.0 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.9 2.5
The scores are then converted to a rank within that pool.
The ranks are added. The lowest total wins the pool.
----Technical Merit------ ---Artistic Impression---
Competitor A
Total rank score = 30
3rd place 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 4 3
Competitor B
Total rank score = 18
1st place 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2
Competitor C
Total rank score = 27
2nd place 3 3 3 3 4 4 1 2 1 1 1 1
Competitor D
Total rank score = 53
4th place 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4
Routines judging details
Artistic impression
o Choreography
o Variety
o Use of space, time, environment, and music
o Originality, creativity and new ideas
o Judge's overall impression of the routine.
Technical Merit
o Difficulty of tricks
o Difficulty of links
o Execution
Serious errors such as drops, wild kicks, stumbling or other major, unplanned breaks in play obviously detract from high-quality execution. More minor errors such as hesitation, awkward movement, resetting stalls, or loss of balance will also be considered.
This a more detailed document that is provided to the judges. The players are more than welcome to read it to beter understand how they are scored.
Ranked-Component Judging System
Official IFC rules
A. Presentation: judges will evaluate the competitors in the following four categories:
1. Artistic Expression: considers choreography, use of co-ops (for teams), use of music, and the judge's overall impression of the routine.
2. Variety: considers the range of possibilities of skills and combinations demonstrated by the players in each component of a move and/or combination of moves.
3. Use of elements: considers use of space, time, environment, and music.
4. Originality: considers creativity and new ideas.
B. Difficulty: Estimations of difficulty should primarily consider the relative risk of the moves attempted. That is, to what degree has the routine included techniques of play which other players in the contest would have difficulty completing without incurring execution deductions? Additionally, credit must be given for the difficulty of combining moves. The relative risk of a combination is greater than the total risk of all component moves.
C. Execution: Estimates of execution quality involve the amount of deviation from a flawless technique. Serious errors such as drops, wild kicks, stumbling or other major, unplanned breaks in play obviously detract from high-quality execution. More minor errors such as hesitation, awkward movement, resetting stalls, or loss of balance should also be considered.
506.02. Scoring Players:
Judges should give full, sincere attention to each routine being judged, ranking competitors relative to each other for the pool and factor being judged; with 1 being best, 2 being second best, etc. Guidelines to follow are:
1. Read the explanation of the aspects of play you are expected to judge.
2. Keep appropriate notes about each routine on your worksheet. Use any method of note-taking you wish, but be consistent.
3. Focus only on the assigned evaluation factor.
4. Be aware of your potential biases, and evaluate competitors as fairly as possible.
5. Review notes and give full consideration to all routines after all competitors have finished.
506.03. Tabulating Scores:
Each judge's score for each routine should be added together. The lowest total score takes first, the second lowest score takes second, and so on.
Resolving ties: If total scores are identical, the team with the greatest number of 1st-place rankings is to have the highest final rank among tied teams. If 1st-place rankings are identical, the comparison moves down to 2nd-place rankings, and on down until the tie is resolved.
Tournament directors notes:
Be consistent!
The actual scores do not matter. It is the rank within the pool that counts. Make sure you leave yourself breathing room when scoring the first competitor of a pool – especially the bigger pools (10 players or more)
Drops can affect all aspects of a routine. Th execution is of course not good. The overall difficulty of the routine can be lowered because the player has missed a move and then loses time – and adds – to pick up the bag. Likewise, the choreography can be affected by drops:
We are judging the players on what they hit, not what they tried to hit.
o example 1:Competitor A goes for a blurry whirl > spinning ducking whirl and barely misses the second move. He still has only hit one move and the dropped move will not count towards the total difficulty of a routine).
o Example 2: Competitor B has a routine filled with high difficulty moves. He drops almost all of them. The judges have to consider only the moves he has hit to determine the overall difficulty of the routine.
The routine starts with the competitors first move or choreographed element. That means that the routine can start before the player actually hits anything. The time clock judge is responsible for determining when the routine starts.
Trying to pick up the bag with your feet and missing is a drop. A missed hand catch is a drop. A hand catch is a drop unless it is obvious that it is planned in the choreography.
Scoring Systems
Shred30
Score = Total Adds + (Uniques X Add Ratio)
Your first add starts the clock and your first 3-adds (or higher) trick starts your score. For example, if you start with Toe Stall > Clipper Stall > Ripwalk, the clock will start on the Toe Stall, and you score starts counting on your Ripwalk.
The last move of your run will be the one last *set* before the buzzer.
Uniques are 3 adds and higher for all divisions.
A digital clock and buzzer will be utilized for utmost accurate time counts.
Routines
6 judges give a score from 0.0 to 6.0 for technical merit and artistic impression.
After all the competitors in a given pool have performed they are assigned a rank for each score from each judge.
The ranks are then added and the lowest rank total wins the pool.
Example:
The 6 judges award they scores...
----Technical Merit------ ---Artistic Impression---
Competitor A 5.2 5.0 4.9 4.4 5.2 5.1 3.0 3.5 3.3 3.4 2.8 3.1
Competitor B 5.3 5.3 5.0 4.7 5.0 5.2 4.8 4.8 4.2 4.0 4.5 4.6
Competitor C 4.5 4.2 4.0 3.9 3.9 4.0 5.2 4.6 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.5
Competitor D 3.0 3.1 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.3 2.0 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.9 2.5
The scores are then converted to a rank within that pool.
The ranks are added. The lowest total wins the pool.
----Technical Merit------ ---Artistic Impression---
Competitor A
Total rank score = 30
3rd place 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 4 3
Competitor B
Total rank score = 18
1st place 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2
Competitor C
Total rank score = 27
2nd place 3 3 3 3 4 4 1 2 1 1 1 1
Competitor D
Total rank score = 53
4th place 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4
Routines judging details
Artistic impression
o Choreography
o Variety
o Use of space, time, environment, and music
o Originality, creativity and new ideas
o Judge's overall impression of the routine.
Technical Merit
o Difficulty of tricks
o Difficulty of links
o Execution
Serious errors such as drops, wild kicks, stumbling or other major, unplanned breaks in play obviously detract from high-quality execution. More minor errors such as hesitation, awkward movement, resetting stalls, or loss of balance will also be considered.
This a more detailed document that is provided to the judges. The players are more than welcome to read it to beter understand how they are scored.
Ranked-Component Judging System
Official IFC rules
A. Presentation: judges will evaluate the competitors in the following four categories:
1. Artistic Expression: considers choreography, use of co-ops (for teams), use of music, and the judge's overall impression of the routine.
2. Variety: considers the range of possibilities of skills and combinations demonstrated by the players in each component of a move and/or combination of moves.
3. Use of elements: considers use of space, time, environment, and music.
4. Originality: considers creativity and new ideas.
B. Difficulty: Estimations of difficulty should primarily consider the relative risk of the moves attempted. That is, to what degree has the routine included techniques of play which other players in the contest would have difficulty completing without incurring execution deductions? Additionally, credit must be given for the difficulty of combining moves. The relative risk of a combination is greater than the total risk of all component moves.
C. Execution: Estimates of execution quality involve the amount of deviation from a flawless technique. Serious errors such as drops, wild kicks, stumbling or other major, unplanned breaks in play obviously detract from high-quality execution. More minor errors such as hesitation, awkward movement, resetting stalls, or loss of balance should also be considered.
506.02. Scoring Players:
Judges should give full, sincere attention to each routine being judged, ranking competitors relative to each other for the pool and factor being judged; with 1 being best, 2 being second best, etc. Guidelines to follow are:
1. Read the explanation of the aspects of play you are expected to judge.
2. Keep appropriate notes about each routine on your worksheet. Use any method of note-taking you wish, but be consistent.
3. Focus only on the assigned evaluation factor.
4. Be aware of your potential biases, and evaluate competitors as fairly as possible.
5. Review notes and give full consideration to all routines after all competitors have finished.
506.03. Tabulating Scores:
Each judge's score for each routine should be added together. The lowest total score takes first, the second lowest score takes second, and so on.
Resolving ties: If total scores are identical, the team with the greatest number of 1st-place rankings is to have the highest final rank among tied teams. If 1st-place rankings are identical, the comparison moves down to 2nd-place rankings, and on down until the tie is resolved.
Tournament directors notes:
Be consistent!
The actual scores do not matter. It is the rank within the pool that counts. Make sure you leave yourself breathing room when scoring the first competitor of a pool – especially the bigger pools (10 players or more)
Drops can affect all aspects of a routine. Th execution is of course not good. The overall difficulty of the routine can be lowered because the player has missed a move and then loses time – and adds – to pick up the bag. Likewise, the choreography can be affected by drops:
We are judging the players on what they hit, not what they tried to hit.
o example 1:Competitor A goes for a blurry whirl > spinning ducking whirl and barely misses the second move. He still has only hit one move and the dropped move will not count towards the total difficulty of a routine).
o Example 2: Competitor B has a routine filled with high difficulty moves. He drops almost all of them. The judges have to consider only the moves he has hit to determine the overall difficulty of the routine.
The routine starts with the competitors first move or choreographed element. That means that the routine can start before the player actually hits anything. The time clock judge is responsible for determining when the routine starts.
Trying to pick up the bag with your feet and missing is a drop. A missed hand catch is a drop. A hand catch is a drop unless it is obvious that it is planned in the choreography.
judging presentation has and should be subjective. how else?
once you put everything in writing routines will all start to look the same (which they kind of already do today, but only because nobody is actually *performing* footbag. its mostly only variations of shredding to the beat)
Jane got "scorched" ONCE! Had she competed this year the scorching of last year and subsequent fear of the judges of scorching her again would have given her an edge over all other competitors and most definately won her the title.
scores in judging are always relative. so of course an intermediate player can get the same marks as an open player in their respective pools. but a score of 6 in intermediate is not the same as a 6 in open.
once you put everything in writing routines will all start to look the same (which they kind of already do today, but only because nobody is actually *performing* footbag. its mostly only variations of shredding to the beat)
Jane got "scorched" ONCE! Had she competed this year the scorching of last year and subsequent fear of the judges of scorching her again would have given her an edge over all other competitors and most definately won her the title.
scores in judging are always relative. so of course an intermediate player can get the same marks as an open player in their respective pools. but a score of 6 in intermediate is not the same as a 6 in open.
I haven't seen anything on video yet, but let me tell you it is easy to say somebody should or should not have advanced and something completely different if you actually have to judge on site.
watching routines, simultaneaously taking notes and after 8 routines still remembering what the first competitor did...its frekin hard!
Plus no matter how good you are, as a "no name" at your first Worlds (i'm assuming), being seeded as one of the last players, you shouldn't get your hopes too high of advancing, no matter how good you perform. It's just the way it is.
But be sure that at future tournaments the name Nate Linscott will ring a bell and give him an edge over other competitors who have not been discussed publicly. And THAT could take him straight to the finals at worlds next year.
So if I were Nate, I'd be really happy that I performed so well and everyone is clapping me on the back and look foreward to my next chance of proving everyone that they kicked me out of the pool.
watching routines, simultaneaously taking notes and after 8 routines still remembering what the first competitor did...its frekin hard!
Plus no matter how good you are, as a "no name" at your first Worlds (i'm assuming), being seeded as one of the last players, you shouldn't get your hopes too high of advancing, no matter how good you perform. It's just the way it is.
But be sure that at future tournaments the name Nate Linscott will ring a bell and give him an edge over other competitors who have not been discussed publicly. And THAT could take him straight to the finals at worlds next year.
So if I were Nate, I'd be really happy that I performed so well and everyone is clapping me on the back and look foreward to my next chance of proving everyone that they kicked me out of the pool.
-
shreddaily
- Flower Child
- Posts: 1665
- Joined: 03 Sep 2003 16:56
2 things, there were 9 players in my pool, and only 6 in pool four.
I wasn't seeded because I was not checked in properly.
I would have liked to have just switched into pool 4 where 2 competitors had dropped out, but Yacine said that couldn't happen, witch I understand. However instead of adding me to a unfilled pool he added me to an over booked pool and switched Jorden Moir(who was in the pool of death) into pool 4, the one with 6 competitors and 5 advanced
Anyway I'm realy not extremly worried about it, because I'm going to FUNTASTIK, where I made a name for my self last year
But just to prove that reputation does matter, as I was going on stage I thanked one of the organizers for letting me compete and he said qoute "why, so you can get spanked". ouch
AND back on the topic of judging: its hard.
I wasn't seeded because I was not checked in properly.
I would have liked to have just switched into pool 4 where 2 competitors had dropped out, but Yacine said that couldn't happen, witch I understand. However instead of adding me to a unfilled pool he added me to an over booked pool and switched Jorden Moir(who was in the pool of death) into pool 4, the one with 6 competitors and 5 advanced
Anyway I'm realy not extremly worried about it, because I'm going to FUNTASTIK, where I made a name for my self last year
But just to prove that reputation does matter, as I was going on stage I thanked one of the organizers for letting me compete and he said qoute "why, so you can get spanked". ouch
AND back on the topic of judging: its hard.
-
bigdirtyfoot
- Sloppy
- Posts: 3142
- Joined: 22 Apr 2002 12:30
- Location: NC
-
MrRoboto
- Shredalicious
- Posts: 112
- Joined: 12 May 2003 16:02
- Location: Tar Ponds, Nova Scotia
- Contact:
So your saying that it's all right that popularity should in any way affect competition? Jonny Newguy performs a routine that might have gotten any of the big names in the top 5, but due to it being his first time he doesn't even advance to semi's? I don't think footbag should be about competition as much as it is, but I do see how it is the best way to help it grow. Can't we at least try to make it an actual competition.atze wrote:
Plus no matter how good you are, as a "no name" at your first Worlds (i'm assuming), being seeded as one of the last players, you shouldn't get your hopes too high of advancing, no matter how good you perform. It's just the way it is.
-
max
- Australofrenchbrityorkus
- Posts: 3751
- Joined: 24 Apr 2002 00:12
- Location: Bondi Beach, Australia
- Contact:
no, Jonny Newguy, or Murphy as was case at this years Worlds DID go through to the semis (he was in the "pool of death").Jonny Newguy performs a routine that might have gotten any of the big names in the top 5, but due to it being his first time he doesn't even advance to semi's?
But I have to agree with what Jan is saying, all footbag abilities aside, popularity will give you an advantage. That advantage could be for example that the crowd cheers you on a lot more, and crowd reactions count somewhat in judging..
Maxime Boucoiran
French ConneXion
BFC
French ConneXion
BFC
-
MrRoboto
- Shredalicious
- Posts: 112
- Joined: 12 May 2003 16:02
- Location: Tar Ponds, Nova Scotia
- Contact:
Yeah, sorry about that, I should have been more clear. I didn't really want to talk about anyone in particular, just the notion that popularity should/should not come into it.
And anyhow I was off kinda topic anyway off topic. Back to the actual judging.
Like Atze said, big pools are hard to judge. Why not make more pools with
It won't take any longer, and makes judging easier and more accurate.
And anyhow I was off kinda topic anyway off topic. Back to the actual judging.
Like Atze said, big pools are hard to judge. Why not make more pools with
It won't take any longer, and makes judging easier and more accurate.
What exactly are you taking notes on? What color socks and how hygenic the competitors are? Or are the judges so stoned that their short term memory is non-existant? The people can be the judge when it comes to this one, I'm awaiting vids as much as you all are.atze wrote:I haven't seen anything on video yet, but let me tell you it is easy to say somebody should or should not have advanced and something completely different if you actually have to judge on site.
watching routines, simultaneaously taking notes and after 8 routines still remembering what the first competitor did...its frekin hard!
I like your disclosure, "It's just the way it is." Wow, cool. So judging really just means giving merit to those who have competed in the past. Wow, their goes any hope of footbag's future. LETS GIVE IT TO THE POPULAR PLAYERS. And what the fuck, Nate got shafted really... if I was not seeded, had to go out of my way to actually be entered, and I paid money... shit would fly. Like world champions and BAP haven't been inducted from those entering their first time. (I'm not saying Nate deserved either of these but what he paid for wasn't a platter of shit.)Plus no matter how good you are, as a "no name" at your first Worlds (i'm assuming), being seeded as one of the last players, you shouldn't get your hopes too high of advancing, no matter how good you perform. It's just the way it is.
But be sure that at future tournaments the name Nate Linscott will ring a bell and give him an edge over other competitors who have not been discussed publicly. And THAT could take him straight to the finals at worlds next year.
What the fuck. Why? To make up for the World Organizer's mistakes? This is a competition have you forgotten? Those who have demonstrated themselves in the past should be praised but never held above those who have not. It's what is hit, and what is not hit on stage. Am I wrong? Is this how Worlds is organized?
Lets smoke weed, smile, and eat some skittles okay? Do you think any of this has to do with just Nate? Hell no. Nate is just an example. My argument is to ensure that mistakes do not occur in the future and some other well-deserving player gets what he deserves.So if I were Nate, I'd be really happy that I performed so well and everyone is clapping me on the back and look foreward to my next chance of proving everyone that they kicked me out of the pool.
bodybuilda
-
Zerbalicious
- Multidex Master
- Posts: 215
- Joined: 02 Dec 2002 21:22
- Location: Olympia, WA
- Contact:
In my opinion the problems with the judging system are...
Practically no truely qualified judges.
Because our sport is so young there is a serious lack of experienced judges.
Most of the judges have personal connections to the players which affects the outcome.
Although most judges have a good understand of the technical side of footbag many of them don't have to tools to judge the artistic aspect properly.
The only way the subjective (current) system will work is if we have outstanding judges. We don't have this so I personally think we should adopt a more quantifiable system.
But then again the old system was a huge pain in the ass so go figure!
Practically no truely qualified judges.
Because our sport is so young there is a serious lack of experienced judges.
Most of the judges have personal connections to the players which affects the outcome.
Although most judges have a good understand of the technical side of footbag many of them don't have to tools to judge the artistic aspect properly.
The only way the subjective (current) system will work is if we have outstanding judges. We don't have this so I personally think we should adopt a more quantifiable system.
But then again the old system was a huge pain in the ass so go figure!
Last edited by dblthnk84 on 07 Feb 2011 15:33, edited 1 time in total.
-
StickyRicky
- Shredalicious
- Posts: 82
- Joined: 02 Sep 2003 12:06