Judging at Worlds

Maraxus · Post by **Maraxus** » 04 Aug 2004 11:47

YAY HI RICKY

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 04 Aug 2004 12:48

Juana · Post by **Juana** » 04 Aug 2004 13:04

I have more to say, but no time until after I get off work. but I will say this real quick:
Not all judges place the best at the top and fit others around it...*unless* they are inexperienced and unqualified to be judging. These are the judges that cause enough standard error to skew results from what they should actually be. Judging is difficult. Here's what I do when I'm judging. First person to go (seeded the lowest in his/her pool) is #1 (of course he/she would be, no one else has competed yet, thus, no one has a higher score). I leave some padding on either side of each competitor's score so that as others have their turn, I can fit them in between the other players where they belong. the trick (which comes with experience) is to leave yourself enough padding so you don't have to start giving out .5's and .75's. etc when you didn't leave yourself enough padding and unexpectedly more players are doing exceptionally well or exceptionally poor. It's important though, when it comes to that, that you do hand out the fractions of points to make sure that people end up with the appropriate ranking. all in all, with the new system, it doesn't matter what the decimal point difference is, just the ranking order. but i begin with a double number before I correlate it to a rank. also, don't look at the other judges scores on either side of you...decide what score you deem fit...then maybe take a quick glance and see if you're way off or not from what other judges are marking (this doesn't mean change your score...this is just a check and important for novice judges to do because they might want to ask questions later about why their scores were so different from the rest...dod they miss something? see something the other judge didn't? not take an aspect of the routine into consideration? or was it just personal preference)

Also, correction, I think Jan meant World's 2003 when he said 2002.

At 2003, i watched 2 judges talk constantly and copy eachothers scores exactly. can you believe that?!!! Not to mention there were net players (old skool freestyle) judging technical cards on men's open. now, non freestylers/footbaggers scoring artistic merit is a good thing, having them judge technical merit is a joke! i mean, come on, can they really distinguish between symposium flurry and just regular flurry? no.

okay, back to work, more later.

Also, another thing I want to really talk about is how women's is judged on a totally different standard than men's. it's f-ed up! I have lots of examples and it's detrimental to the sport -- either men need to get less technical and more artistic for routine to do well, or women more technical and less artistic for routine. it has created a double standard and women and men are not awarded points for the same reasons. while i agree with Jan that routines are performance based...only to a certain extent -- let's not lose the point that this is an athletic sports event...should we really award points for what looks more like a drill team dance routine. most of your may not notice this problem because you're all competing in men's brackets, so you actually lose points for this because you could be packing adds in. Alex Zerbe would place high in women's...vasek would place low in women's. that's what I'm getting at. that's an exagerated example, but it demonstrates my point.

LameR · Post by **LameR** » 04 Aug 2004 14:45

Since I'm supposedly the only one with Nate's routine on finals, I'm doing my best to have my friend (who has the tape) get me the camera and tapes so I can cut the 2 hour tape down to Nate's routine. I may just have him do it. Either LameR or shredxor will post the video that I recorded of Nate's run as soon as possible. When I get the tape I'll do some more editing and post other runs as I finish the editing as well. Sorry that I'm so slow getting this posted =/

max · Post by **max** » 04 Aug 2004 14:56

Are you seriously saying that after each routine you have to judge him right then and you can't change your mind? I surely hope not. I must have misinterpretted something.

yes, that is what I am seriously saying.

Alex makes a good point about qualified judges, but one can't really call a judge qualified if the judging system changes every couple of years. I'm hoping the current system sticks and improves over the years. Just out of the couple of posts that have been made already I think that several things seem obvious:

- as Damon pointed out, individual scores should not be given straight after a routine, but rather all scores given at the end of the routine.

- as Jane pointed out with her fractions example, maybe we should score out of 10 and not 6, since only the rankings matter and not the actual score, this should leave more room to move for the judges.

- Mr Roboto's thought on smaller pools is also good imo.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 04 Aug 2004 15:23

Juana · Post by **Juana** » 04 Aug 2004 15:32

The only problem with watching them all and then ranking them accordingly is that if you have ever judged a large pool before, you have to pay such careful attention that it is difficult to even remember the first routines you watched earlier in the pool...even when you look back at your notes. Especially if you don't know the names to faces. I usually even go as far as writing down what the person was wearing next to their name just so that I can look back and visualize the routine better. For this reason, you kind of have to score as you go along...hence running into fractionated scores, etc. that's a good idea that max has...increase the scale from 6 to 10. A small simple change. it would only help a little, though it may help inexperienced judges a lot.

jon · Post by **jon** » 04 Aug 2004 15:41

What I would really like to see is bys into semis at worlds. Something along the lines of every major tourney having a by for the winner. This would encourage more people to travel to tourney and get rid of a lot of the qualifying for already amazing players.

On a personal note I think a lot of the artistic points seem kinda silly in my humble opinion. Up untill worlds I didnt know how much certain things contributed to a score. Before worlds I always thought it was lame when people stopped shredding and did a toe stall, looked at the audience, and waited for applause. Now I know this gets marks for "crowd participation". I know routines are not a 2 minute shred but I play footbag for the skill and the shredding and not for applause. I figure if i ever compete again I may just stop, walk down in to the crowd and start shaking hands, maybe that will get marks. I love to see long hard shred on beat that goes to the music but personally I could care less about crowd interation, artisic dancing on stage, and such. I know now that if I ever want to place well in the future I will have to do what is expected but if I had my way things would be different. I guess its good for everyone else that I dont :p

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 04 Aug 2004 15:43

King Monkey · Post by **King Monkey** » 04 Aug 2004 16:49

yeh i was gonna say a bit like what Damon just touched on.. is it really so hard or bad to record every routine on video, and have the judges retire to another room and review the footage? make new notes and critically compare the routines?
because this memory thing is really crap i think.. you are watching 2 minutes of constant movement, with carefully timed moves matched to the music.. it would be impossible to remember all the intricacies of one routine, let alone 6 or so routines one after the other in each pool. i would imagine things would start to look a bit 'same old, same old' towards the end of a pool.

would videoing the routines however, be somehow affecting the judges responses? is there some kind of rule or tradition that says that each routine must be judged on the spot and without seeing it again, like a 'first impression' type thing? in some ways this makes sense, but in alot of ways it doesnt, considering the complexity of what competitors are doing and the number of routines that have to be judged, and the high level of technicality involved and the very close competition between players, esp in the top ranks where there is pretty much one drop or so separating the competitors.

the questions i just asked are real ones, not rhetorical hahah.. id like to know if videotaping of routines and reviewing is allowed/should be allowed?

qphox · Post by **qphox** » 04 Aug 2004 17:20

Someone wrote:Most of the judges have personal connections to the players which affects the outcome.

This was pretty apparent actually...I think it was for Honza's routine. Honza or Ales. They got on stage, and Dexter stood up behind the judging booth waving around a shirt or a flag or something of that nature.

I kinda thought to myself, "Shows how unbiased he is."

cclaudia · Post by **cclaudia** » 04 Aug 2004 17:34

...scott davidson judged his wife.... i thought that was kind of strange.... i don't think he upped her score just because she's his wife or anything, just in competition i don't think that should have been done (even though i am completely trusting with the judication).

Juana · Post by **Juana** » 04 Aug 2004 20:25

the problem with recording routines and then watching later is that it defeats the purpose of the new system. The new system is designed to give quicker results...it makes routines more of a spectator sport. THe audience enjoys seeing how each player ranks almost immediately after she/he has performed. THe older system...while more thorough was extremely time consumptive. no audience would ever sit through 5-6 hours of routines so that the judges can sit around and discuss the results. it's a thought that is good for the players, but overall, not good for the audience and thus not great for the popularity of the sport if you would like to see it become more mainstream someday.

ShredPirate · Post by **ShredPirate** » 04 Aug 2004 20:39

in the judo nationals, if you lost to "person x", and "person x" won his next match too, you would get 1 more chance.

King Monkey · Post by **King Monkey** » 04 Aug 2004 21:12

Juana wrote:the problem with recording routines and then watching later is that it defeats the purpose of the new system........it's a thought that is good for the players, but overall, not good for the audience and thus not great for the popularity of the sport if you would like to see it become more mainstream someday.

this is a good point, i see what you mean as the sport is still very much under the radar and has a long way to go to achieve any kind of 'mainstream' status... but this is the WORLD championships we are talking about here... some ppl have devoted hours of their lives every day for the past year or more, to get themselves to a competitive level and prepare a routine etc etc... there is just as much devotion in these competitors as there is in competitive swimmers, runners etc etc... i would personally like to see these ppl rewarded for their efforts with the most effective judging system that can be divised, even if it meant judges reviewing their scoring and the results not being immediately available.

yes the audience factor is an important one, but the World championships is the most important event on the footbag calendar and performance here often reflects your level of play and ranking in the sport (if that means something to ppl)... so i think perhaps Worlds should be geared as much towards the player as possible, even if this does sacrifice some audience enjoyment.

i think the new system could remain valid, but perhaps used tournaments other than worlds. not that these tournaments arent important, but nothing is bigger than Worlds...

this is all opinion though, im not trying to convince the IFPA that this is how it must be done hahah.. heck ive never even been to Worlds

atze · Post by **atze** » 04 Aug 2004 23:31

First off: I love it when people in all these discussion boards complain about something and then go ahead to say "IFPA should fix this, IFPA should consider that", etc. Shows how much these people are really into the sport. Do you guys know at all what the IFPA is? What it does? Who's in it? Take a guess, why the "official rules of footbag sports" at footbag.org are dated from 1996! Because IFPA simply doesn't have the manpower to handle all the stuff it's actually supposed to be doing: governing the sport of footbag. And why is that? Because 99% of footbag players feel more comfortable in arguing about stuff on the internet than actually making an effort to change things and getting involved in the administration.

And then there's people who organize big tournaments like Worlds. I don't know how many people on this forum have ever actually run a tournament themselves. But do you guys realize what at sh-load of work this is? And do these people get paid for it? No! Do the judges get paid for their job? Do there travel expenses get covered since they volunteer for this hard task? Hell no! Can we therefore EXPECT them to be professional?
And now that worlds is finnished everybody goes ahead and bomb both the judges and the organizers about what a crappy job they did. Or how the IFPA is doing a shitty job with the judging system.
My best suggestion is: GET INVOLVED! If you're dissattisfied with something and think you have a sensible solution to the problem (one that is properly thought through and not just off the top of you're head) get yourself voted on one of the boards of the IFPA or just contact the IFPA rep. who's responsible for the issue and contribute something constructive.

Anyway, that was just a little rant in defense of all the footbag organizers out there who might be offended by some of the stuff that's always being written on the forums.

max · Post by **max** » 04 Aug 2004 23:55

hey Jan, I don't think anyone here is bashing organisers, it's just been another year and we're discussing where this new judging system is, where it seems to be going, and how people think it could be tweaked to make it better.

For those who don't know, Jan Zimmerman (atze) is Europe's Organiser Extraordinaire, and definatly one of the most active players out there. So he knows what he's talking about! Just check out his list of events in his .org profile to get an idea.

ptaku · Post by **ptaku** » 05 Aug 2004 00:07

I regret that I'm not able to write what I want. My english is too bad...

LameR · Post by **LameR** » 05 Aug 2004 01:38

ptaku wrote:I regret that I'm not able to write what I want. My english is too bad...

Tell it to someone else that you know that can type it for you =]

atze · Post by **atze** » 05 Aug 2004 05:10

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

Thats because judging is relative. A 6 in intermediate does not mean the same as a 6 in open.

Why not make more pools with
It won't take any longer, and makes judging easier and more accurate

That would make accurate seeding even more important (which is hard in freestyle) and lead to more "pools of death", because fewer people would advance out of a pool. i.e. it becomes even more important who's in the pool with you. A pool of six with Vasek where only two advance gives you less chances than a pool of 12 where 4 advance.

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?

Funny!

So judging really just means giving merit to those who have competed in the past.

That's seeding! The better you have performed in the past the better your chances not to end up in a first round pool with Vasek.

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?

Dude, at least try to think about what I'm saying! Again, seeding "praises" those who have done good in the past and holds them above others. And that is correct and proper. You'll find no other sport in the world that is compareable to freestyle routines, where this is not so. In fact you'll find no other sport in the world where a no name can just pop up at the world champs and expect to reach the finals. In all other sports people go through long series of qualifications where they make a name of themselves before going to worlds. but that's another issue.
I was saying, that we can't hold it against the judges, that big names influence their decisions. They're human.

Lets smoke weed, smile, and eat some skittles okay?

Yes, why don't we

My argument is to ensure that mistakes do not occur in the future and some other well-deserving player gets what he deserves.

Even better, organize the next worlds be the supreme head judge and make sure everything works out perfectly fine. And then of course we can go back to

smoke weed, smile, and eat some skittles okay?

Maybe non-footbag players could be hired to judge the artistic aspects?

We do this at FootJam and it works really well. But there we use the ranked comp. judging system. With the current worlds system it wouldn't work.

What's sad is that since it is a subjective competition, the judges IMO should be just as good if not better than the competitors

simply not true.

Wow, what a bummer for competitors. This sport is showing obvious signs of it's infancy.

And this comes as a surprise to you?

Popularity being an issue I have a suggetion. If you were at worlds last year and competed, you should have a rank. Like 5th, or 17th, or whatever. Even if you didn't make it past quarters. That way you can be ranked comming into the tourney like tennis, then get split into pools.

It's impossible to rank all players! How do you rank players who competed in different pools? There's no definition of what a score of 4.32 is as oposed to a 4.33. And I'd like to see anyone make an effort to try to seriously define a system like that. No chance!

Noone likes to see a newbie with good skills pitted against Vasek first pool. How ugly is that

But even worse is an oldie with good skill who's proven himself in various tournaments to be pitted against Vasek first round.

Basically make artist subjective and technical technical. This way the tech is just that and the art is also just that.

Agreed! and the current system tries to do just that. Only that n a few aspects (like control) you can't really separate tech and art. you need control for both.

Before worlds I always thought it was lame when people stopped shredding and did a toe stall, looked at the audience, and waited for applause. Now I know this gets marks for "crowd participation".

Sadly this is the cheapo "crowd part." version, just like split second lap stalls or 5second 2 bag juggling for variety or unusuals. It actually has nothing to do with a good presentation in my eyes, but is just a lame excuse for being uncreative.

... but this is the WORLD championships we are talking about here... some ppl have devoted hours of their lives every day for the past year or more, to get themselves to a competitive level and prepare a routine etc etc... there is just as much devotion in these competitors as there is in competitive swimmers, runners etc etc...

Not true! In any other "professional" sport people devote their WHOLE LIFE for a whole bunch of years to even have the chance of competing in a world championship.

yes the audience factor is an important one, but the World championships is the most important event on the footbag calendar and performance here often reflects your level of play and ranking in the sport (if that means something to ppl)

The audience factor is THE BIGGEST factor! specially in a world championship because this is the best chance you get at exposure for the sport. So you actually want crowds of spectators on site and behind screens to enjoy themselves. And it's the player's job as well as the organizers to make sure that they do. If this means that through some unfortunate circumstnce a player gets 12th place instead of 10th or even 8th, well, it's unfortunate and shouldn't happen, but if it happens its not such a huge deal either. OF COURSE it can be a big deal to the person involved (i.e. in this case Nate) and I don't think they have no right to be upset. But it's no excuse to dis the judges or the organizers or the IFPA or whatever.
But maybe I'm taking all of you too seriously and you're only trying to clap nate on the back and express how sorry you feel he was the vicitm of this mistake.
Anyway, how you rank at worlds (if you're not among the top 3) shouldn't be so important, because only about 1/4 of the good players show upanyway.
What should be more important to you is how you rank regionally, nationally, etc. If you win your towns championship, you're good. If you win your counties champs, better. your states champs, way to go. your nations champs, big respect, you're among the best players in the world and you should compete at the world champs and represent big time.
Wait! There are no city, regional, state championships around you? Well then you better get your ass off the couch and start organizing that shit.