Judge Caught Cheating- Press Release
Tracy Wiggins
administrator.
Tracy Wiggins
Black Gold 91-93
Freelancers 94
onthe...@my-deja.com
DRUM CORPS MIDWEST and the DCM Judges Guild
At the Drum Corps Midwest Championship this past weekend, there was an
incident involving the adjudication of the Friday night preliminary
contest. A judge on that panel acknowledged preparing a document, prior
to the event, which included scores and the names of the corps competing
in that contest. That act was absolutely unacceptable as a judging
practice and violated the important trust between the corps and the
judging community.
It CAN NOT and WILL NOT be tolerated.
The individual involved has already been disciplined. A resignation has
been received, all remaining DCM contest assignments have been rescinded
and the DCM Judges Guild will not entertain application for
reinstatement until at least the 2002 season. This swift, decisive
action was clearly necessary.
While it is considered a singular incident, a strong message is being
sent to all DCM Judges. Reminding them of the expectation that every
contest, and every corps performance, be evaluated and scored
independently on their own merits.
Every score must reflect the achievement of the performers at that
contest alone.
Drum Corps Midwest and the DCM Judges Guild regret this occurrence and
remain committed to providing their fans, performers and sponsors with
an outstanding experience consistent with the fine history of this
activity.
* * * * *
For further information:
P. Terry Anderegg
DCM Judge Commissioner
pte...@execpc.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
James and Jane Anello
motivation for preparing such a "document"? I'd like to think it was a
combination of the best of intentions and some really poor judgement, but
you never know. What do you think?
Jim Anello
Tom
I congratulate DCM for their swift and public action.
Tom Peashey
"James and Jane Anello" <ane...@ticon.net> wrote in message
news:396B5DDD...@ticon.net...
Idontwan2know
>
>I congratulate DCM for their swift and public action.
I both agree and disagree. Yes, what he did was wrong and he should be
punished. But at the same time, I bet this happens all them time and this guy
was just unlucky enough to have it exposed to the whole world. In that case,
I'd like to see a less harsh penalty for this one individual, and some action
taken towards moving the entire judging community away from slotting. I could
be wrong and it was a one time thing, but I bet it happens all the time...this
guy was just dumb enough to put it on a piece of paper.
Alan
>Tom Peashey
Bobby Patrick
>
Well, since I'm ill at the world and my wife doesn't need to hear it right now,
(she's in the floor working on my opener flags) I'll take it out on this:
It's Tuesday: When did DCI/DCM release this press release? If it was today, I
think it's late. Damage control: The faster, the better. At least they did make
a public statement. Like they had much of a choice. I'm glad they did address
this in a concise, yet informative manner.
Bobby
88 Florida Wave
"If you can dream it you can do it. Remember, this whole thing started with a
mouse."
-Walt Disney-
bugl...@my-deja.com
If most judges were totally honest they'd tell you that they do
sub-conciously slot corps in their mind. If you have a show where
there's, for example, Delta Brigade, Troopers, Bluecoats and Cadets
competing wouldn't YOU sub-conciously slot?
At finals most judges have already seen every corps show and have a good
idea of what to expect. When they assign a score in their caption they
have to realize there is a possibility that "X" corps drumline might
surpass "Y" corps drumline that night so they leave a little room either
higher or lower.
At finals if Glassmen come on the field as the 8th corps to perform out
of 12 and their drumline is absolutely piss clean and the book is really
tough and they deserve a perfect score do you think a judge will give it
to them or leave a little room for Cavies, Cadets, SCV or Devils to
better that score?
Just some thoughts.
In article <20000711224128...@ng-cg1.news.cs.com>,
idontw...@cs.com (Idontwan2know) wrote:
> >No Conspiracy... Motivation? Insecurity! Just plain Dumb...
> >
> >I congratulate DCM for their swift and public action.
>
> I both agree and disagree. Yes, what he did was wrong and he should be
> punished. But at the same time, I bet this happens all them time and
this guy
> was just unlucky enough to have it exposed to the whole world. In that
case,
> I'd like to see a less harsh penalty for this one individual, and some
action
> taken towards moving the entire judging community away from slotting.
I could
> be wrong and it was a one time thing, but I bet it happens all the
time...this
> guy was just dumb enough to put it on a piece of paper.
>
> Alan
>
> >Tom Peashey
>
>
NVRWLKALONE
going on for years always were flamed, but now it's out in the open and the past
flamers have to shut up and eat crow. I JUST LOVE IT WHEN I'M RIGHT.
Tom & Karen Peashey
But... recapping is done everywhere... but a certain amount of that is
just "smart" on the judges part (especially if they are judging out of their
area)... although I personally always avoided it... and requested any
judges working for me to do the same...
This guy seems to have written down his scores in advance... if so... he
got what he deserved... obviously, he also has a memory problem - hence the
need to write it down... good thing he isn't a bookie... he would be easy
to send to jail...
Tom Peashey
"Idontwan2know" <idontw...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20000711224128...@ng-cg1.news.cs.com...
Convismus
person just got caught.
brian_greer
>At finals if Glassmen come on the field as the 8th corps to perform out
>of 12 and their drumline is absolutely piss clean and the book is really
>tough and they deserve a perfect score do you think a judge will give it
>to them or leave a little room for Cavies, Cadets, SCV or Devils to
>better that score?
Damn right they will leave room, because they just aren't comfortable enough
with their own judging. They are afraid they won't work another Finals if
they give that Glassmen line what they deserve, when "good" lines may be
coming up after them, from much more powerful staffs/directors/corps (in
terms of politics).
There is no reason that it should happen. Perfect is perfect, whether you go
on at 2:30, 7:30, or 10:00. Judging should be equal for every corps at every
part of the day, and performance order should be entirely random with only
the reigning champion (if there is one) having a choice to be randomly
scheduled or go last (no other choice beyond those two). Slotting does go on,
it has been admitted by the judges. Now the only thing to try to decide is
how to get beyond it and get equity back into the judging system. It should
be obvious that, overall, the current system has failed.
Brian.
michael davis
Brian,
A judge has two primary responsibilities. The first is to rank
the groups in the order he/she deems appropriate. The second is
to rate the groups, which is the point spread. It was the mantra
of judging when I first started in the mid-70's, and it's the
same today from reading Jeff Mitchell's excellent posts on
judging in DCI today.
If a corps comes on relatively early in the show and gets a
perfect score, what happens if 3 or 4 more come out who are
better? Ranking and rating both go out the window, don't they.
If the judge then gave those other 3 or 4 groups perfect scores
as well, then people would be moaning about how the judges can't
make a decision.
What if NONE of the following do a better job? Then all of the
subsequent numbers will be lower than they might have been
otherwise. Now folks will complain about the scores being lower
than they were 'yesterday'.
Basically it's a no-win situation. Someone will ALWAYS complain.
Of course, none of the above is any excuse for what the visual
judge did at DCM.
Mike
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Jeff Mitchell
bugl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Just some random thoughts....
>
> If most judges were totally honest they'd tell you that they do
> sub-conciously slot corps in their mind. If you have a show where
> there's, for example, Delta Brigade, Troopers, Bluecoats and Cadets
> competing wouldn't YOU sub-conciously slot?
>
> At finals most judges have already seen every corps show and have a good
> idea of what to expect. When they assign a score in their caption they
> have to realize there is a possibility that "X" corps drumline might
> surpass "Y" corps drumline that night so they leave a little room either
> higher or lower.
>
> At finals if Glassmen come on the field as the 8th corps to perform out
> of 12 and their drumline is absolutely piss clean and the book is really
> tough and they deserve a perfect score do you think a judge will give it
> to them or leave a little room for Cavies, Cadets, SCV or Devils to
> better that score?
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
First of all, Buglebear is an interesting handle. Don't know if I want to
meet someone named Buglebear in a critique or dark alley. :-)
If the Glassmen come out and play a great show with Cavies, BD, SCV, and
Cadets to follow, it's the type of situation that judges get paid the big
bucks to handle. While everyone is complaining of "slotting", remember if
you give the Glassmen a perfect score you have just told the corps yet to
play, you have no chance. That is unless you want to give out multiple
perfect scores and endure some ridicule for all time. This is what happened
in 1975, when 8 10's where awarded by the 3 GE judges in Finals. After that
perfect scores were only intended to be given to the last performing corps.
However it happens so infrequently it's not much of an issue.
So what's a judge to do? This situation happens all the time, but only in
shows with all the top corps such as Q-Finals, Semis, Preview, and Finals.
The judge, if he has managed his numbers correctly, should give the Glassmen
a score good enough for them to win the caption, but also allow for another
exceptional performance or two, based upon his understanding of the contest
dynamics.
So say the high score you have given to that point is a 19.1. What score do
you award? If you want to be daring, you might go 19.8 or 19.9, just in case
you need to put one more corps above. You might be a bit more conservative,
and go to 19.6 or 19.7 and still give the Glassmen a great chance to win the
sheet but also allow the rest of the corps to compete and fall above or
below as dictated by their performance.
Before anyone goes ballistic here, all of the scores (19.6-19.9) and
possibilities fall into the upper scoring range of Box 5. The judge uses
numbers as a tool to rank and rate the corps. That's the job. Rank being
first to last, and rate being the spread between the scores. You need to be
able to confront a variety of performance issues and "get it right", my
major aim when judging.
So in answer to your question, aside from the issue of piss-clean equating
to a perfect score, no the Glassmen would not and should not get a perfect
score. They should have the opportunity to win that sheet and the judge
should allow the rest of the corps to follow that same opportunity.
BTW, when this happens during a big show, a judge has about 1 minute to
figure all this out and get it right. The difficult aspect of judging is be
able to perform under tremendous pressue. Training, education, background
all come in handy, but nerves of steel are needed. So just remember as
people debate judge's decisions over the a period of years, they were made
in a fleeting moment of time. That ain't easy.
Hope that provides some insight,
Jeff, DCI Judge 1979-1999
michael davis
>
snip...
>
>If the Glassmen come out and play a great show with Cavies, BD,
SCV, and
>Cadets to follow, it's the type of situation that judges get
paid the big
snip
Hey Jeff!
Thanks for the unintentional backup. I used your name in my own
post that said pretty much the same thing!
brian_greer
>If a corps comes on relatively early in the show and gets a
>perfect score, what happens if 3 or 4 more come out who are
>better? Ranking and rating both go out the window, don't they.
How can anyone be better than perfection? Perfection cannot be improved upon.
This is not a valid argument. No corps should get a perfect score unless they
are PERFECT, not just the best of the night. The points should not be awarded
based off of how you rank against each other, they should be awarded based
off of how you perform.
>If the judge then gave those other 3 or 4 groups perfect scores
>as well, then people would be moaning about how the judges can't
>make a decision.
If they legitimately earned it, and the fans were there to see them perform,
it would be very easy to explain it. It's a matter of having confidence in
your ability to be a judge. If you aren't good enough to determine whether a
corps has truly earned the score you gave them maybe you shouldn't be judging
them...
>What if NONE of the following do a better job? Then all of the
>subsequent numbers will be lower than they might have been
>otherwise. Now folks will complain about the scores being lower
>than they were 'yesterday'.
Do they want 'score progression'? I thought the idea was to get away from
that now. You get what you earned tonight, not what you earned tonight based
against yesterday's scores. If I judged you, and you did a 13.1 performance,
then you got a 13.1, even if you earned a 14.0 last night. I will judge you
on what you did today. Everyone should be able to do that, it seems much
easier to do than to study recaps and try to remember the placements from the
last show...just go out and give them what they earned AT THIS CURRENT SHOW
and everything should be easy.
Why does this have to be made more difficult than it really is?
>Basically it's a no-win situation. Someone will ALWAYS complain.
True, but you advocate a system that insures it will never be fair, and
complaints will continue to be more valid than false. Just because someone
complains doesn't ALWAYS make them right. If you have the evidence to back it
up, a judge should stand up for his adjudication for the night and tell
everyone. If the Crossmen drumline comes out and really blows chunks one
night, they should get ripped rather than just dropped a tenth or two from
what they did last night.
>Of course, none of the above is any excuse for what the visual
>judge did at DCM.
You say that, meanwhile you state the whole reason for him doing it above
that (while insisting it is the right thing to do).
Brian.
Nikk Pilato
> There is no reason that it should happen. Perfect is perfect, whether you go
> on at 2:30, 7:30, or 10:00. Judging should be equal for every corps at every
> part of the day, and performance order should be entirely random with only
> the reigning champion (if there is one) having a choice to be randomly
> scheduled or go last (no other choice beyond those two). Slotting does go on,
> it has been admitted by the judges. Now the only thing to try to decide is
> how to get beyond it and get equity back into the judging system. It should
> be obvious that, overall, the current system has failed.
I have NEVER seen or heard a perfect performance, period. Oh, a
perfromance may get 10s on the sheet, but I have always been able to find
at least one mistake, one fuzzy attack, one fuzzy roll, one out-of-tune
note, one out-of-step member, etc.
Let's not be so arrogant as to assume there is perfection in corps. Hell,
even great orchestras like the NY Philharmonic and the CSo make mistakes
from time to time...you think we don't?
THAT'S why the judge has to leave some room. Hey, I know it's a flawed
system...I've been callin for change for years. But this particular
aspect is a necessary evil.
++
np
rsfc.nikknakks.net
read.the.damn.faq.newbies
"This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper"
-T.S. Eliot
brian_greer
>If the Glassmen come out and play a great show with Cavies, BD, SCV, and
>Cadets to follow, it's the type of situation that judges get paid the big
>bucks to handle. While everyone is complaining of "slotting", remember if
>you give the Glassmen a perfect score you have just told the corps yet to
>play, you have no chance. That is unless you want to give out multiple
>perfect scores and endure some ridicule for all time. This is what happened
>in 1975, when 8 10's where awarded by the 3 GE judges in Finals. After that
>perfect scores were only intended to be given to the last performing corps.
>However it happens so infrequently it's not much of an issue.
I notice the change from 'piss-clean/perfect' to 'great.' This is probably
the only way to rationalize this argument.
If the corps have earned it, I think they deserve it. If they didn't earn it,
then they shouldn't have it. End of story.
Not allowing a perfect score until the last corps handicaps everyone else.
You purposely punish any corps not going on last, while possibly handing the
last corps a gift from God which they haven't really earned. No corps should
get a perfect score unless they are just that : absolutely perfect. No score
should be based on ANYTHING other than what happened in that particular
performance. Not on a corps that went earlier in the day or anything else.
Maybe we need different judges, randomly chosen, for each corps at the big
shows. That way they aren't ranking anyone (as long as all scores/recaps are
locked away for no one to review and no allowance for discussion amongst
judges who have already judged a corps).
Brian.
brian_greer
>I have NEVER seen or heard a perfect performance, period. Oh, a
>perfromance may get 10s on the sheet, but I have always been able to find
>at least one mistake, one fuzzy attack, one fuzzy roll, one out-of-tune
>note, one out-of-step member, etc.
You made my point. If that judge saw any imperfection, he should be hung out
to dry for handing out that score.
I want to hear the tape, full of either silence or praise for each thing that
happens. I bet it didn't really go down like that.
Brian.
Marty McIsaac
personally didn't witness it but the individuals (all with decades of
teaching/marching experience) who have told me of this say it was legit.
According to them, after the judged portion of the show, while the corps was
playing it's closing fanfares (nomenclature from the past) the drum judge held up a
tickless sheet up to the crowd.
The audience all immediately knew what the gesture meant and just went crazy in
applause..........that was one hell of a drum line.
Marty McIsaac
Nikk Pilato wrote:
> Brian Greer, you must bring me......A SHRUBBERY!!!:
>
> > There is no reason that it should happen. Perfect is perfect, whether you go
> > on at 2:30, 7:30, or 10:00. Judging should be equal for every corps at every
> > part of the day, and performance order should be entirely random with only
> > the reigning champion (if there is one) having a choice to be randomly
> > scheduled or go last (no other choice beyond those two). Slotting does go on,
> > it has been admitted by the judges. Now the only thing to try to decide is
> > how to get beyond it and get equity back into the judging system. It should
> > be obvious that, overall, the current system has failed.
>
> I have NEVER seen or heard a perfect performance, period. Oh, a
> perfromance may get 10s on the sheet, but I have always been able to find
> at least one mistake, one fuzzy attack, one fuzzy roll, one out-of-tune
> note, one out-of-step member, etc.
>
strutta
partially resolved.
According to at least one judge on this post, a superior
performance in a caption will be influenced by when that corps
performs. It seems reasonable to leave some room at the top if a
later corps also performs in a superior performance.
However, is it not assumed that corps are going to perform
better as the season progresses? If so, why do the judges have
to continually give a higher score with each successive contest?
Doing so assumes that the judges are adjucating in the exact
same fashion at Finals that they did at the first show. The only
difference is how the corps performed.
My suggestion: Judges SHOULD expect improvement and therefore
should be MORE critical as the season progresses. So a 14 in
June could be the equivalent to say a 10 in August. This way,
the judge should not be lambasted at a critique because the
caption score of corps A went down-even though they may have
performed better than the last time the judge saw them. (I
realize this leaves a subjective aspect in the judging
ie. 'yeah, the corps improved but in my/the judges opinion they
did not improve sufficiently for this time in the year, thus the
lower score'-judging is subjective now anyway). AND, when in the
lineup a corps performs will have less impact on their
adjudication than how clean they are. Make the higher scores
more difficult to achieve!
Just a thought....I'm sure this suggestion has flaws so dissect
away!!!! (I miss the tick system, it wasn't perfect but it
seemed to be less subjective)
Another goofy idea...what about adding a degree of difficulty
multiple, like in diving.....just came to me....this could be a
whole new thread!!!!
michael davis
>michael davis <mdavisN...@ets.org.invalid> wrote :
>
>>If a corps comes on relatively early in the show and gets a
>>perfect score, what happens if 3 or 4 more come out who are
>>better? Ranking and rating both go out the window, don't they.
>
>How can anyone be better than perfection?
A perfect score in no way means that a performace is absolutely
perfect. There are always tiny flaws. That is the major flaw in
your thinking.
>Perfection cannot be improved upon.
>This is not a valid argument. No corps should get a perfect
score unless they
>are PERFECT, not just the best of the night.
Since it is virtually impossible for a corps to be absolutely
perfect as you are considering it, that entire premise falls
apart.
>The points should not be awarded
>based off of how you rank against each other, they should be
awarded based
>off of how you perform.
>
The basic score range a corps is scored in is based on the
defined judging criteria. Inside the range, the corps are grouped
against each other (rank) and with what the judge feels the
appropriate distance (rate) between them.
>>If the judge then gave those other 3 or 4 groups perfect scores
>>as well, then people would be moaning about how the judges
can't
>>make a decision.
>
>If they legitimately earned it, and the fans were there to see
them perform,
>it would be very easy to explain it.
Look at the thread going on right now about all the 10's awards
long ago.
>It's a matter of having confidence in
>your ability to be a judge. If you aren't good enough to
determine whether a
>corps has truly earned the score you gave them maybe you
shouldn't be judging
>them...
>
If you are not good enough to rank and rate them then you
shouldn't be judging them. Assigning 3 or 4 or 5 corps the same
score is an example of a judge NOT doing his/her job. Your job as
a judge IS to make a decision.
>>What if NONE of the following do a better job? Then all of the
>>subsequent numbers will be lower than they might have been
>>otherwise. Now folks will complain about the scores being lower
>>than they were 'yesterday'.
>
>Do they want 'score progression'? I thought the idea was to get
>away from that now. You get what you earned tonight, not what
>you earned tonight based against yesterday's scores. If I judged
>you, and you did a 13.1 performance, then you got a 13.1, even
>if you earned a 14.0 last night. I will judge you on what you
>did today.
OK. That's correct. Then if the first corps you mentioned gets a
score of 19.3 and the other 3 or 4 who might have been better but
actually were NOT receive scores below that, even though they
might have received a 19.5 yesterday, what's the problem? Score
ranges (e.g. 'boxes') can be determined fairly easily, but the
placement within those boxes is where the rank and rate job comes
in, which is what decides the order of placement.
>Everyone should be able to do that, it seems much
>easier to do than to study recaps and try to remember the
placements from the
>last show...just go out and give them what they earned AT THIS
CURRENT SHOW
>and everything should be easy.
>
>Why does this have to be made more difficult than it really is?
>
Well, it's NOT as easy as you make it out, first off. But, what
you are asking is what hopefully is being done in most cases.
That is why the scores will bounce around show to show and judge
to judge.
>>Basically it's a no-win situation. Someone will ALWAYS
complain.
>
>True, but you advocate a system that insures it will never be
fair, and
>complaints will continue to be more valid than false.
Just what is it you think I'm advocating? I advocate having a
judge doing the primary job they are hired to do: rank and rate
the groups performing on that night. If the scores are higher or
lower than last night, so be it.
> Just because someone
>complains doesn't ALWAYS make them right. If you have the
evidence to back it
>up, a judge should stand up for his adjudication for the night
and tell everyone.
Of course.
>If the Crossmen drumline comes out and really blows
chunks one
>night, they should get ripped rather than just dropped a tenth
or two from
>what they did last night.
>
Depends on how many and how large the chunks are, I guess. Of
course, using the philosophy of judges not reviewing recaps they
can blow chunks and receive a higher score. That would be OK as
long as the other corps in that show receive proportionally even
HIGHER scores. The raw number would not matter at all, just the
placement and spread.
>>Of course, none of the above is any excuse for what the visual
>>judge did at DCM.
>
>You say that, meanwhile you state the whole reason for him doing
it above
>that (while insisting it is the right thing to do).
>
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Is the above any
clearer?
Mike
michael davis
>
>Not allowing a perfect score until the last corps handicaps
everyone else.
>You purposely punish any corps not going on last, while possibly
handing the
>last corps a gift from God which they haven't really earned.
As long as the judge properly places all the corps, that won't
happen. It might mean that no corps gets a perfect score, which
is OK. If the 8th corps on was best, they get the highest score.
Period. If it's not a perfect score, that's OK too.
>No corps should
>get a perfect score unless they are just that : absolutely
perfect.
That's a common fallacy, that a perfect score means an absolutely
perfect performance. Once yo get over that concept, the rest is
more understandable.
snip
>
>Maybe we need different judges, randomly chosen, for each corps
>at the big shows. That way they aren't ranking anyone
Then you completely invalidate the entire competition. You'd have
no way of telling which corps did the best job and so on down to
the 12th slot. Judge A assigns corps W a score of 19.4; judge B
then assigns corps X a score of 19.5, even though W was in
reality better that show than X. You can't cut it that fine.
That's the job of the judge; to make the decision on the spot.
And that is where the guy at DCM fell down on the job.
Jeff Mitchell
Brian, Greer wrote:
> Jeff Mitchell <JEFFMI...@prodigy.net> wrote :
>
> >If the Glassmen come out and play a great show with Cavies, BD, SCV, and
> >Cadets to follow, it's the type of situation that judges get paid the big
> >bucks to handle. While everyone is complaining of "slotting", remember if
> >you give the Glassmen a perfect score you have just told the corps yet to
> >play, you have no chance. That is unless you want to give out multiple
> >perfect scores and endure some ridicule for all time. This is what happened
> >in 1975, when 8 10's where awarded by the 3 GE judges in Finals. After that
> >perfect scores were only intended to be given to the last performing corps.
> >However it happens so infrequently it's not much of an issue.
>
> I notice the change from 'piss-clean/perfect' to 'great.' This is probably
> the only way to rationalize this argument.
>
Judging is a rational act. :-)
>
> If the corps have earned it, I think they deserve it. If they didn't earn it,
> then they shouldn't have it. End of story.
>
I understand that viewpoint. But what if, big IF, the next corps is better? What
would you do? Maybe they can be double piss sterile clean after only piss clean.
God, drummers have a way with words. Brass judges need to work some of this into
the dialogues. LOL!
>
> Not allowing a perfect score until the last corps handicaps everyone else.
> You purposely punish any corps not going on last, while possibly handing the
> last corps a gift from God which they haven't really earned. No corps should
> get a perfect score unless they are just that : absolutely perfect. No score
> should be based on ANYTHING other than what happened in that particular
> performance. Not on a corps that went earlier in the day or anything else.
>
The awarding of a maximum score is intended to be for the best you have ever seen
or could imagine, at least that's what is said in the clinics. Your notion of
perfection and playing sematics with your response aside, no one will ever come
close to perfection. Not at least in my ears.
>
> Maybe we need different judges, randomly chosen, for each corps at the big
> shows. That way they aren't ranking anyone (as long as all scores/recaps are
> locked away for no one to review and no allowance for discussion amongst
> judges who have already judged a corps).
Maybe you could lock all the judges up in solitary confinement and only let them
out to judge. :-)
Jeff, retired and tired DCI Judge
S Muncy100
reflection as to the corps performance that nights as they are a reference as
to how they placed against other corps? If that's the case, why bother with
the numbers at all? just give each corps a placement in their captions and
assign a point value to each placement. Obviously this wouldn't account for
a large spread in the quality of two corps performance if they're just 2
places apart, but hey, isn't it already pretty well established that the
system we have right now isn't even close to perfect (maybe not even good)?
The whole idea of a tick/build-up system just seems more and more appealing
to me.
<BR>
Paul Muncy
LEG at cba
>personally didn't witness it but the individuals (all with decades of
>teaching/marching experience) who have told me of this say it was legit.
>According to them, after the judged portion of the show, while the corps was
>playing it's closing fanfares (nomenclature from the past) the drum judge
>held up a
>tickless sheet up to the crowd.
>The audience all immediately knew what the gesture meant and just went crazy
>in
>applause..........that was one hell of a drum line.
>
>Marty McIsaac
1975 CYO Nationals - snare line went tickless - I was in the stands - I think
the rest of the line had a total of 3 ticks (I'm at work and the reference info
is at home.).
Larry "G"
Michael Cahill
michael davis wrote:
> A perfect score in no way means that a performace is absolutely
> perfect. There are always tiny flaws. That is the major flaw in
> your thinking.
Or perhaps the major flaw is in the current judging philosophy.
Mazur had the best response to the "perfect" score problem.
According to him, given that humans are markedly imperfect and
judges are human, a perfect score from one would make sense.
Cheers,
Michael Cahill
Michael Cahill
michael davis wrote:
> That's a common fallacy, that a perfect score means an absolutely
> perfect performance. Once yo get over that concept, the rest is
> more understandable.
It's true.
After this logic is swallowed the back of the sheets
actually start to make sense.
It's a frightening transition that seriously needs a
12 step group for support.
Kids, don't try this at home without parental/DCI support.
Cheers,
Michael Cahill
Marty McIsaac
9.9 on any given night and he keeps saying, "within today's system,
that's the way it is."
It's like our parent saying, "because I told you so."
"Why," I want to scream?
This system just doesn't work!
I'm trying to recall whether judging (then) had the impact that it
obviously does today. Whereas, I can distinctly remember contest result
controversies, they were all performance related. (i.e. American flag
penalties/bad performance issues) It just seemed like you as an audience
member/participant, knew essentially how you did. I mean in the stands,
you could see and hear the errors and the judges marking same
accordingly. Also with a tick system, the Cinderella corps could win a
show with the performance of their lives.
Marty McIsaac
brian_greer
>I understand that viewpoint. But what if, big IF, the next corps is better?
What
>would you do? Maybe they can be double piss sterile clean after only piss
clean.
Hmmm. I know what you're saying, but intentionally deflating scores because
you think big mama might come out later and kick the new flashy good
drumline's butt is a tad unacceptable. It just shows how, even if Dutch Boy
came back into Open Class with an absolutely great show next year, worthy of
the title, they wouldn't get it because they would go on way too early to
ever get good scores...while the other big corps would be kicking the Judges'
teeth in for the deflated scores...
This seems entirely possible within the current system (maybe not that DB
would come out and kick everyone's ass, but I'd love to see it!).
>The awarding of a maximum score is intended to be for the best you have ever
seen
>or could imagine, at least that's what is said in the clinics. Your notion
of
>perfection and playing sematics with your response aside, no one will ever
come
>close to perfection. Not at least in my ears.
True. I think that makes my point. If Corps A goes on really early and is the
best drumline that night, does that mean their performance was only truly
worthy of the 18.4 they get? It doesn't, but I bet if Corps X that went on
last pulled down a 19.9 they would parade that around the community like they
were the shit and they would be treated in all recaps like they were way
superior because of their high score (meanwhile Corps A at the other show may
actually be better, but gets stiffed because of where they finished last
year).
>Maybe you could lock all the judges up in solitary confinement and only let
them
>out to judge. :-)
Heheh. Jeff, I certainly don't hate anyone over this, and you come back with
some absurdity, which makes me realize how impossible it just may be to get
fair judging in the activity. I'm sure you did the best job you could every
night trying to 'get it right.' I'm glad you're posting in this group and
actually getting in on this topic...with some of us who are screaming
'REVOLUTION' and are ready to storm the Bastille...like me. :)
Brian.
michael davis
>So if I correctly get what Mike is saying, the numbers are not
so much a
>reflection as to the corps performance that nights as they are
a reference as
>to how they placed against other corps?
I think I said, or at least I hope I said, that it is a
combination of the two. The criteria for each 'box' decide in
general terms where a particular corps falls. Inside that box,
the placement (rank) and spread (rate) is determined by how well
corps A stacks up against corps B. It's still related to the
defined criteria within the box, but you have to make sure that
the corps are placed in the proper order. Maybe Jeff could
elaborate, based on his experience as a DCI judge. Most of my
judging has been in the band world.
>If that's the case, why bother with
>the numbers at all? just give each corps a placement in their
captions and
>assign a point value to each placement. Obviously this
wouldn't account for
>a large spread in the quality of two corps performance if
they're just 2
>places apart,
That's why, exactly. You totally lose the point spread in the
above scenario. Losing the point spread means that being VERY
strong (or very weak) in one area won't help (or hurt) at all in
the final result, as there is never more (or less) than a single
point between placements. If you are a teeny bit better in
caption A, you end up a point higher. If you are a LOT better in
caption A, you still end up only a point higher.
>but hey, isn't it already pretty well established that the
>system we have right now isn't even close to perfect (maybe
not even good)?
It's never perfect, but it IS good.......IMO
>The whole idea of a tick/build-up system just seems more and
more appealing to me.
>
Since ticks are no more objective than any other form of
eval;uation, and far less complete, I disagree. You lose FAR more
than you could potentially gain by going back to ticks.
brian_greer
>A perfect score in no way means that a performace is absolutely
>perfect. There are always tiny flaws. That is the major flaw in
>your thinking.
I know. I guess my point is that a corps shouldn't get a 20.0 out of 20.0
just because some earlier corps was so good that THEY earned a 19.9. Maybe
Judges need to better be able to determine just how good each line really is.
I just wish the criteria for a 19.5, an 18.0, a 13.1, and a 20.0 was the same
every night.
>The basic score range a corps is scored in is based on the
>defined judging criteria. Inside the range, the corps are grouped
>against each other (rank) and with what the judge feels the
>appropriate distance (rate) between them.
I've never seen the back of a sheet, or the fabled 'boxes', but I was told
about them when I marched. How we were 'box 4' here, and 'box 3' there, and
high 'box 4 here', and junk like that. All that I knew when it came to scores
was that our score hardly changed from early July until the end of the
season, while everyone else went on by. Only when we were in town having
all-days did I get to read about other corps shows/scores in this very
newsgroup back in 1993.
>If you are not good enough to rank and rate them then you
>shouldn't be judging them. Assigning 3 or 4 or 5 corps the same
>score is an example of a judge NOT doing his/her job. Your job as
>a judge IS to make a decision.
What if they really are equal? I've seen that before. I'd believe it. I don't
like the idea of having to keep the other scores there. Fill out the sheet,
write down the score, drop it into a box, judge the next corps. You know, in
your own head, if you saw a great performance. You can give it the points it
has earned without needing a cheat sheet to inflate/deflate based off of
another score from earlier in the evening. They get what they earned.
>OK. That's correct. Then if the first corps you mentioned gets a
>score of 19.3 and the other 3 or 4 who might have been better but
>actually were NOT receive scores below that, even though they
>might have received a 19.5 yesterday, what's the problem? Score
>ranges (e.g. 'boxes') can be determined fairly easily, but the
>placement within those boxes is where the rank and rate job comes
>in, which is what decides the order of placement.
So, does that mean that the best line was a 19.3 though? Or was their number
artificially deflated because of the Judge's fear that several of the next
six drumlines were going to be better and he wouldn't be able to 'slot' them
properly?
>Well, it's NOT as easy as you make it out, first off. But, what
>you are asking is what hopefully is being done in most cases.
>That is why the scores will bounce around show to show and judge
>to judge.
I don't know how particular captions may have bounced around, but our overall
score stayed roughly the same for a long time. I have a hard time believing
much bouncing around was happening...at least for us. Maybe we were just
terrible to everyone that saw us.
>Depends on how many and how large the chunks are, I guess. Of
>course, using the philosophy of judges not reviewing recaps they
>can blow chunks and receive a higher score. That would be OK as
>long as the other corps in that show receive proportionally even
>HIGHER scores. The raw number would not matter at all, just the
>placement and spread.
Maybe. I just see cases where drumlines go out and end up higher than they
should be, based off of how they were doing going into the show. This is
particularly true at the Championships / Nationals. I find it hard to believe
that some lines are good enough to pull down high numbers in their captions,
and then take huge hits on them when they hit Nationals, while others stay
relatively the same or go higher. Is this 'ranking' them? To me, it sounds
like either the Judge at Nationals is high, or all of the Judges in the shows
leading up to Nationals were idiots and tossing out inflated numbers.
I just wish a 19.9 performance was a 19.9 performance any day, any time,
everywhere. I just wish the system wasn't so subjective. It is subjective to
the point of being unfair and indicating that the actual score doesn't mean a
damn thing. I think the score should mean everything.
Brian.
HYMELAND
important. Now that you listened very carefully sit back and THINK about this
concept,it is VERY simple. Larry Hyme
brian_greer
So, why have the numbers? Why not just 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and so on at the end of
the show?
Brian.
michael davis
>michael davis <mdavisN...@ets.org.invalid> wrote :
>
>>A perfect score in no way means that a performace is absolutely
>>perfect. There are always tiny flaws. That is the major flaw in
>>your thinking.
>
>I know. I guess my point is that a corps shouldn't get a 20.0
out of 20.0
>just because some earlier corps was so good that THEY earned a
19.9. Maybe
>Judges need to better be able to determine just how good each
line really is.
Without pre-judging, how does that happen? If corps A was given a
19.9, and corps B is just a bit better, they SHOULD get the 20.0,
IMO.
>I just wish the criteria for a 19.5, an 18.0, a 13.1, and a 20.0
was the same every night.
>
That's absolutely, IMO, impossible. So many factors make up a
performance (one of the major problems with ticks, IMO) that you
can't say that THIS is an 18.3, and THAT is an 18.7; different
combinations of strengths and weaknesses can end up in the same
place, score-wise.
>>If you are not good enough to rank and rate them then you
>>shouldn't be judging them. Assigning 3 or 4 or 5 corps the same
>>score is an example of a judge NOT doing his/her job. Your job
as
>>a judge IS to make a decision.
>
>What if they really are equal? I've seen that before. I'd
believe it.
Of course, if you-as-judge truly find them to be equal, tie them.
I don't think that will happen very often, but I guess it can
at times.
> I don't
>like the idea of having to keep the other scores there. Fill out
the sheet,
>write down the score, drop it into a box, judge the next corps.
Well, with 5 or 6 or even 10 corps at a show, you can still
remember pretty well who got what. Also, what you are suggesting
is eliminating the first two jobs judges are taught to do (and
have been since I started in the 70's): rank the corps in order
and rate them by point spreads.
>
>
>So, does that mean that the best line was a 19.3 though?
You are hung up on knowing to the tenth what a score really 'is',
while it just can't be determined that finely, given all of the
variables to a performance.
>Or was their number
>artificially deflated because of the Judge's fear that several
of the next
>six drumlines were going to be better and he wouldn't be able to
'slot' them
>properly?
>
'Artificially deflated'? Again, I don't agree with that concept.
If you truly want the corps to be placed in order from first to
???? then the absolute number shouldn't make all that much
difference in a given show, as long as they are 'boxed' properly
and then ranked/rated inside their boxes. A few tenths up or down
shouldn't, IMO, make any difference.
snip of stuff about your own situation, which I have no way of
knowing. Wish I could help you there!
>
>Maybe. I just see cases where drumlines go out and end up higher
than they
>should be, based off of how they were doing going into the show.
Well, what determines how high they 'should be'? Is that your own
determination? Are you talking raw score or ranking?
>This is
>particularly true at the Championships / Nationals. I find it
hard to believe
>that some lines are good enough to pull down high numbers in
their captions,
>and then take huge hits on them when they hit Nationals, while
others stay
>relatively the same or go higher. Is this 'ranking' them? To me,
it sounds
>like either the Judge at Nationals is high, or all of the Judges
in the shows
>leading up to Nationals were idiots and tossing out inflated
numbers.
>
That's why judging IS a tough job to do well. Also, at champs
time it is the first time ALL of the groups are together, so that
ranking and rating must now be done to a larger number of corps.
Can the numbers get juggled more than at other shows? Sure. Can
you really relate earlier shows to champs? Probably less than you
are trying to thinnk possible. If the judging mantra of
"rank/rate is the primary job of the judge" is deemed to be the
'way to go', then when there are a large number of corps, some
will score lower or higher than at other shows, to make sure that
at champs time they are placed properly. I'm not a DCI judge,
but in the band circuit I judge with, it is published
up-front that champs scores are NOT comparable to earlier shows,
for just that reason. You want to make darn sure that every band
is placed properly, with the proper spread. Hopefully DCI
operates the same way. Comments Jeff (if you are reading this)?
>I just wish a 19.9 performance was a 19.9 performance any day,
>any time, everywhere.
See above about splitting the hair that finely. :-)
>I just wish the system wasn't so subjective.
It's always been just as subjective. As long as it's people
deciding who-gets-what it will be subjective.
>It is subjective to
>the point of being unfair and indicating that the actual score
doesn't mean a
>damn thing. I think the score should mean everything.
>
Well, it still does mean something, but only within a narrower
context than yo are considering.
Plus, we haven't even discussed the way different judges may view
the same set of corps and how their scores will vary. :-)
michael davis
Brian,
They DO announce "In 6th place....etc".
The problem with only assigning a placement like that is that the
rating, or spread between corps on a given caption, is lost.
Without being able to create spreads, it doesn't matter if your
drum line, for example, is a teeny bit better or a whole lot
better than the other guy's drumline. It also means that when
the scores are all added up, a very strong section that might
have opened up a large enough spread to push your total score up
a notch will not be able to help you anymore.
michael davis
>Thanks Michael. I keep asking M. Davis how a filthy CBC line can
get a
>9.9 on any given night and he keeps saying, "within today's
system,
>that's the way it is."
Since when is the CBC's line 'filthy'?
Given the box system and it's criteria, how will a filthy line be
assigned a 9.9? Or as it is oday a 19.9?
Maybe it's your understanding of what constitutes 'filthy' that
needs some re-evaluation. Most folks I've read here are saying
the the CBC field percussion section is performing well.
>I'm trying to recall whether judging (then) had the impact that
it
>obviously does today.
Of course it did. It's not all that different in that area.
>Whereas, I can distinctly remember contest result
>controversies, they were all performance related. (i.e. American
flag
>penalties/bad performance issues)
To relate one example from long ago, my own corps in 1970 nearly
didn't make VFW finals due to being unfairly scored by a few
judges who were listening to Tony Schlechta of the VFW. He said
we didn't deserve to even BE there, merely because we were doing
a peace sign on the field, and some judges just dumped us to
please Mr. Schlechta.
>It just seemed like you as an audience
>member/participant, knew essentially how you did. I mean in the
stands,
>you could see and hear the errors and the judges marking same
>accordingly.
And you could see the times they let errors go floating on by if
it was one of their favorites. There were poor judges then as
now...just as there are great judge now as there were then.
brian_greer
>That's absolutely, IMO, impossible. So many factors make up a
>performance (one of the major problems with ticks, IMO) that you
>can't say that THIS is an 18.3, and THAT is an 18.7; different
>combinations of strengths and weaknesses can end up in the same
>place, score-wise.
I'm beginning to believe that it is impossible, but I wish it wasn't.
>Of course, if you-as-judge truly find them to be equal, tie them.
>I don't think that will happen very often, but I guess it can
>at times.
Not often, but I'm sure several corps have nights where they tie other corps
in the same captions. I *think* I remember it happening when I marched.
>You are hung up on knowing to the tenth what a score really 'is',
>while it just can't be determined that finely, given all of the
>variables to a performance.
I know, but I wish it was like that. Feed in the data, and get a number back.
Stick the same data in each time, and it gets the same thing back, no matter
who does it. When I'd go to shows, I'd throw out a completely subjective
"overall score" for each corps, and would usually forget what I gave the
previous corps (especially if it was a big show). While several of the
placings were usually the same as the "real" judges, there were some
surprises even for myself at the end of the show. I should go dig up my 1994
program from Boston that has my scores from Quaters, Semis, and Finals in it.
That's the only year I attended the champs, other than 1993 when I marched.
>Well, what determines how high they 'should be'? Is that your own
>determination? Are you talking raw score or ranking?
Sometimes ranking, often the raw score. In the end, I guess it is still good
if you get the ranking right...but I might not agree that a certain corps
deserves a 15, rather than a 14 (which they had been getting), or dropping
from a 16 the week before to a 14.
>It's always been just as subjective. As long as it's people
>deciding who-gets-what it will be subjective.
Yeah, you're right. I work with computers all of the time and sometimes
forget that people don't live in a box waiting to do things objectively and
even everytime. Drum corps is an emotional thing for most people, probably
judges too, and emotions cloud the judgment often.
>Well, it still does mean something, but only within a narrower
>context than yo are considering.
I see. At least you've been willing to discuss this with me. I appreciate it.
Brian.
michael davis
>
>>Of course, if you-as-judge truly find them to be equal, tie
them.
>>I don't think that will happen very often, but I guess it can
>>at times.
>
>Not often, but I'm sure several corps have nights where they tie
other corps
>in the same captions. I *think* I remember it happening when I
marched.
>
Sure, it can and does happen. Hopefully it's the exception and
not the rule for a particular judge. Funny story: I taught a GSC
corps in the 70's. We went to a GSC show where we competed
against 6 or 7 other corps. At that time, I think percussion
execution (ticks) was 12 points. The judge was doing his first
job ever (later became a very good DCI percussion judge. BTW, who
did finals many times). He gave every corps but one a 9.8 (22
ticks). The other corps got a 10.something. Of course that was
just silly. The spread should have been between 3.something and
6.something, based on all the other shows during the year, with
my corps in the 5 range (probably 3rd or so best line of the
corps at that show).
>
>I know, but I wish it was like that. Feed in the data, and get a
number back.
>Stick the same data in each time, and it gets the same thing
back, no matter
>who does it.
That's the problem. There are SO many variables it is an
impossibility. Even in the day of ticks, judge tolerance played
such a role that at one show the high might have been, say, a 10
while at the next it may have been a 4. Another story: one of MY
instructors told us a story of how he judged a show with the BS
Golden Knights, Garfield, St Lucy's, and other east coast corps.
Now, BS probably had the best line on the east, and maybe the
country. At the meeting they almost RAN in and started yelling at
my instructor because he gave them a 3.something, when they were
used to receiving 17's. He calmly asked them what the problem
was, as he had them high for the show!
>
>Sometimes ranking, often the raw score. In the end, I guess it
is still good
>if you get the ranking right...but I might not agree that a
certain corps
>deserves a 15, rather than a 14 (which they had been getting),
or dropping
>from a 16 the week before to a 14.
>
It's tough to look at individual shows like that and find
complete agreement, whether it's today or 30 years ago. Score DO
tend to bounce around, and performances bounce around, esp early
on. I'd rather see what you say happens than to have judges
slavishly adhering to 'what they got yesterday' plus a tenth or
two so that the scores just keep moving up and up, regardless of
performance quality.
Take care,
Jeff Mitchell
Brian, Greer wrote:
> Jeff Mitchell <JEFFMI...@prodigy.net> wrote :
>
> >I understand that viewpoint. But what if, big IF, the next corps is better?
> What
> >would you do? Maybe they can be double piss sterile clean after only piss
> clean.
>
> Hmmm. I know what you're saying, but intentionally deflating scores because
> you think big mama might come out later and kick the new flashy good
> drumline's butt is a tad unacceptable.
My first job would be to determine where on my judging scale that performance
fit. If it is upper box 5, which is the top of the scale, it allows me to score
from 97-100 for each subcaption. So a 98+98=19.6 is not a deflated score. It is
within the scoring range of that box, just like the 100+100=20.0. The judge has
to determine where to position the corps in the top of box 5, to allow for others
to fit in as well. So what I suggested was to leave room above and below to
properly give the remaining corps their chance on that given night.
We are largely in agreement. You just have to remember a perfect score denies
everyone left the chance to win that sheet. And that is slotting, to use RAMD
slang.
Jeff
> It just shows how, even if Dutch Boy
> came back into Open Class with an absolutely great show next year, worthy of
> the title, they wouldn't get it because they would go on way too early to
> ever get good scores...while the other big corps would be kicking the Judges'
> teeth in for the deflated scores...
>
This is false. DCI arranges the order for Championships based on the scoring in
the focus shows. So if Dutch Boy tears it up next year, which would be wonderful,
they would have a chance to move towards the back of bus, so to speak as the
season progressed.
>
> This seems entirely possible within the current system (maybe not that DB
> would come out and kick everyone's ass, but I'd love to see it!).
Me too. They had a unique style.
>
>
> >Maybe you could lock all the judges up in solitary confinement and only let
> them
> >out to judge. :-)
>
> Heheh. Jeff,
I don't like the sound of that laugh. :-)
> I certainly don't hate anyone over this, and you come back with
> some absurdity, which makes me realize how impossible it just may be to get
> fair judging in the activity. I'm sure you did the best job you could every
> night trying to 'get it right.' I'm glad you're posting in this group and
> actually getting in on this topic...with some of us who are screaming
> 'REVOLUTION' and are ready to storm the Bastille...like me. :)
>
Thanks for having an open mind and some interesting replies.
Jeff
Trip Steel
> best drumline that night, does that mean their performance was only truly
> worthy of the 18.4 they get? It doesn't, but I bet if Corps X that went on
> last pulled down a 19.9 they would parade that around the community like they
> were the shit and they would be treated in all recaps like they were way
> superior because of their high score (meanwhile Corps A at the other show may
> actually be better, but gets stiffed because of where they finished last
> year).
OK, I'm starting to get sick of all this crap about slotting and
judging. Granted that slotting has its potential pitfalls, but I don't
think history has shown that the judges are as mechanical or as "dumb"
as people are saying. If you look at past recaps, you will find plenty
of examples of where a corps that went "early" got a very high score,
even though theoretically the corps that came after it could have beaten
it.
Cases in point:
1998. Carolina Crown goes on first at Finals, and gets a 9.0 in
percussion. That may not be a 9.9, but that judge clearly believed that
he was witnessing a Top 8-caliber drumline, and had the courage to score
them accordingly.
1991. Blue Devils is seeded FIFTH in Finals, and yet they are given
9.9's in Ensemble Brass AND Ensemble Visual, even though there were FOUR
more corps yet to perform (in my opinion, the 9.9 in Visual was
unwarranted).
1987. Cavaliers, seeded fifth, get a 9.8 in Field Visual. Clearly this
would not leave enough room for the remaining four corps to outperform
them, without resorting to ties.
1986. Cavaliers, seeded fourth, and who have NEVER broke Top 3 in DCI
Finals up to this point, get a 14.8 in GE Visual AND a 9.8 in Field
Visual.
So, it seems that a lot of the discussion about the "unfairness" of
slotting might *possibly* be unsubstantiated, when compared to the
facts.
Jeff Mitchell
Trip Steel wrote:
> > True. I think that makes my point. If Corps A goes on really early and is the
> > best drumline that night, does that mean their performance was only truly
> > worthy of the 18.4 they get? It doesn't, but I bet if Corps X that went on
> > last pulled down a 19.9 they would parade that around the community like they
> > were the shit and they would be treated in all recaps like they were way
> > superior because of their high score (meanwhile Corps A at the other show may
> > actually be better, but gets stiffed because of where they finished last
> > year).
>
> OK, I'm starting to get sick of all this crap about slotting and
> judging. Granted that slotting has its potential pitfalls, but I don't
> think history has shown that the judges are as mechanical or as "dumb"
> as people are saying. If you look at past recaps, you will find plenty
> of examples of where a corps that went "early" got a very high score,
> even though theoretically the corps that came after it could have beaten
> it.
>
Sometimes slotting seems to be a recognition that no judge on the planet will give
you the score, you feel is deserved. Rather than thinking, they might have a point
and perhaps the corps ahead of us are better, they think are unfairly placed every
evening.
From my marching days, pre-DCI for the young at heart, nearly every post-show
speech for a whole season began with, "We got screwed tonight...." The odd thing
was the corps never felt that way for the most part. We knew our drill was bad, we
changed it every week. Yhe judges knew our drill was bad, but the staff had no clue
or didn't want to acknowledge their failings due to ego or a desire to keep their
jobs.
>
> Cases in point:
> 1998. Carolina Crown goes on first at Finals, and gets a 9.0 in
> percussion. That may not be a 9.9, but that judge clearly believed that
> he was witnessing a Top 8-caliber drumline, and had the courage to score
> them accordingly.
>
> 1991. Blue Devils is seeded FIFTH in Finals, and yet they are given
> 9.9's in Ensemble Brass AND Ensemble Visual, even though there were FOUR
> more corps yet to perform (in my opinion, the 9.9 in Visual was
> unwarranted).
>
Hey, thank you! That's was my 9.9 in Ensemble Brass to BD. They really, really cut
one loose in Dallas that night in 1991. I can still "hear" the first phrase from
the "Adventures in Time" and recall thinking they were beginning a special
peformance that evening. BD was the real deal that night. I was more nervous than
a long tail cat in a room full of rocking chairs, putting down that 9.9. But BD had
just given everything they had and it was difficult to imagine anyone being more
"on" than that. However, the 10.0 was available, if needed.
> So, it seems that a lot of the discussion about the "unfairness" of
> slotting might *possibly* be unsubstantiated, when compared to the
> facts.
The real problem is that for every corps that moves up another corps has to move
down. EVERYONE can not jump up the standings. There is only one first place and
sadly, always one last place. Someone will finish 13th this season and feel
disappointed. For every corps that beats another by a tenth, there is one that
loses by a tenth.
So with the battle of 7-12 for 2000, someone will be seventh and someone will be
12th. The seventh place corps will likely feel great and the 12th place corps feel
that they should have been higher. Yet there is only one 7th place, one 8th,
etc.... Everyone gets a spot and some spots are less desireable than others. Again
it never concerned me who came in where. When you got done performing, your score
went on the sheet in a position from first to last. This is the way the vast
majority of judges operate.
Jeff, DCI Finals Judge 1991 (plus 85, 94, 95, 98)
Michael Cahill
HYMELAND wrote:
>
> OK listen very carefully---The number is irrelevant-only the ranking is
> important. Now that you listened very carefully sit back and THINK about this
> concept,it is VERY simple. Larry Hyme
Then give out placements rather than scores.
But get the story straight.
You've just said IT'S RANK
Others say it's rank AND rate.
Which one?
Cheers,
Michael Cahill