|
| Home Join Add A Story About FAQ Discs Contact | Welcome to Shrednow 09/02/10 5:00 PM |
MenuDon't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
Who's OnlineGuest Users: 8 |
Judging: The Severe Error
Authored by: Jan schreck on
03/31/08 6:40 AM
i like to add some thoughts to this ..
when i started competing a few years ago .. i was asked to judge and did not had a clue what i have to do .. i asked some other judges and got help but in the first years of competing my judging style changed a lot .. this is not only because of experience .. it is also because of knowledge about judging .. when we had the first German Open in 2005 Hartmut Wahrmann was giving a briefing on judging and this helped a lot to learn and understand what judging is about. since in Europe a lot of new Jammers appear i like to suggest that we do some judging teaching at the very start of a tournament.. this is not because I was unhappy with some judging decisions .. I think our sport lives from the different point of view that everybody has on the play of some one else .. It is because for me this would have been a great help and even today I think I can learn a lot about judging.. Big ZZZs Jan Schreck
Judging: The Severe Error
Authored by: michele on
03/31/08 11:22 AM
i agree with jan too. paganello 08 was my first tournament ever, and i didn't knew anything about judging. in the semis i was thrown in the judging pool, but cleverly Lui placed me in execution ;)
i think execution is not difficult for a newcomer (despite of arthur's clear reporting of some errors in the finals!), but how to manage if i was in artistic impression or difficulty? definitely a brief explanation of judging system before every tournament is what we (newbies) need! --- nOOb
Judging: The Severe Error
Authored by: Doug Korns on
03/31/08 3:51 PM
I've watched both videos now. It was clear to me in each video when a "throwaway" error occurred. I think I'm generally a pretty easy judge and I don't want to seem like a hard ass, but I would have given both of these errors the 0.5 deduction too. A more than usual loss of control occurred to me. Was it extreme enough?
The rules reads "... , such as, ..." and examples are given. A kick brush is not exempt just because it's not listed. Any pass that is wildly or completely out of reach of the intended recipient is a candidate for the 0.5 deduction, in my opinion. I can imagine a chest roll pass gone so bad that the receiver can't get to it, as well as other possible passes gone awry. Too often I see the ladies misfire on one of those chicken wing crank throws. I agree there usually aren't always (or many) severe errors in a round, but occasionally there are. Both of these passes in question went into the crowd untouched. While a crowd consisting mostly of disc players is not likely to be endangered and because of the small venue, the break in action was short, in my opinion, I think these were severe errors. I know I would have been embarrassed if I had authored either of these "into the crowd" maneuvers, more so than I'm embarrassed by my drops. In a close venue like this, one may need to dial back on the force applied to achieve the accuracy needed on a small playing site. Our sport demands good throwing and passing skills. Slightly off topic, I'm reminded of a freestyle ice skating performance where the skater was too close to the boards and actually went off the ice through a gap in the boards where a camera was while performing a multiple spin move. Funny as it looked, that was a severe error! I suppose a skater's fall would be like our 0.3 deduction, a two footed landing a 0.2 deduction and a balance or wobble error a 0.1. I'm sure, everything works differently in ice skating, but I'm trying to draw an analogy. There's also a point of consistency. Since all three deductions came from the same judge, this was his/her interpretation and was applied evenly to all teams they judged. I'll bet the third 0.5 deduction was a similar into-the-crowd, untouched pass of some kind (not a drop that rolled off the stage). I was always taught, when judging, to apply the same standards to all teams, even if it did not match that of fellow judges, who were being consistent within their own interpretation. There used to be some judging standard of all category judges being within a certain range of each other, I guess in an attempt to homogenize the scores. This is particularly hard in the AI and Diff categories. To me, if one judge has lower scores across the board for all teams than the other two judges, that's OK and it won't have a bad effect on the overall category when totaled up. Going a little beyond the execution category, if we had set scores for certain "book moves", and all judges knew the book scores for a move, then all judges scores would/should be close. Krae Van Sickle was a proponent of this type of scoring. This is similar to what is used in ice skating and olympic diving, where moves have an established difficulty. For example, a scare crow catch might be a difficulty 4.0, a spinning scarecrow (actually 1 1/2 spins) might be a 5.5, a double spinning scarecrow (2 1/2 spins) a 7.5, etc. If the disc is UD in any case, add another 0.3 in difficulty. If conditions are very windy, perhaps some moves would have another difficulty factor added. This is probably for the future, when we have retired players as judges and the scorebook for moves has been written. :-) My 2¢ Doug Korns
Judging: The Severe Error
Authored by: Laerbs on
03/31/08 4:35 PM
I think Arthur's write-up on severe error is right on - especially the section describing a throwaway resulting in a 0.2 - 0.5. Someone last summer in Italy asked me if it was common to give the 0.5 severe error, and I said it's very rare. The italian player said it's very common in Europe, so this discussion makes sense.
I feel these issues are rarely black and white and the judge should use discretion, keeping the essense of the rule in mind. Let's not discourage a player to go into the crowd to save a disc, as long as it's not reckless. That's excitement and getting the crowd involved (use of elements ?). But don't hesitate to give it when deserved - but make sure it is severe. Also other categories are probably docking the player for that move, so it's already being severely penalized even without the 0.5.
Judging: Severe Error and Difficulty
Authored by: Florian Hess on
04/01/08 3:29 AM
I have a question about Judging a throwaway in Difficulty.
In Germany we are often using the alternative Difficulty Judging System, where you judge each combo (from Throw till Catch) without the 15 sec Segments. In this case we have a big conflict between the categories Difficulty and Execution. --> How should we judge a Throwaway in Difficulty? Before 2 years Mark Regalbuti told me that he'll give a '1' in Difficulty for a simple Backhand throwaway. And if you'll judge consistent with that Judging System he is right I think. But what happens if you handle that Throwaway as a Severe Error? You get a 0.5 in Execution and a 1 in Difficulty?! Than you will be punished two times and that could affect the result of your routine in a dramatic way! Even if you give 0.3 in Ex the weighting is very hard! What do you think about that problematic? Should Thowaways be judged in Difficulty?
Judging: The Severe Error
Authored by: John Weyand on
04/02/08 6:01 PM
I've never given a .5 severe error, I think that giving this score for throwaways especially impacts the variety of throwing in a negative way. If we give that score for a bad throw then we really limit the types of throws jammers will attempt in their routines. I support Flo's interpretation of judging by combos , than the 15 sec diff segments.
If it hits the ground it is a .3 deduction. |
|
||