Judging Idea

[Saab]

stiff in what way? If your jhoomer is stiff, and you have performed it a certain way and won with it a certain way, where is the catch in your mechanism to realize that your jhoomer was too stiff before the competiton. Did it look stiff in comparison to another teams.

Also, if the team that won first commits a multitude of mistakes and so do you, where was that line drawn in sand. There are way to many externalities in judging that comments based solely on your set won't be able to describe. Also, this doesn't account for the differences in judging. If everyone was judging the exact same way this would work but.....


What if teams got scanned copies of the score sheets and copies before the meeting....? It would combine both things and allow you to talk about specific comments.

 

[siddyp]

Good judging comments on the score sheet are more than enough feedback. I repeat, GOOD comments, not vague, incomprehensible ones. Just push the judges to be clear on their notes and comments.


If i place second, and my comments say "several mistakes noted, and jhummar form was too stiff," why isn't that enough? Do I really need a judge to explain that?

We can take those comments and improve in those areas, you are right. I think a bigger issue is, if those same statements can be applied to other teams placed ahead of you, then where was the line drawn? What was the separation factor? If it really was THAT cut and dry, then yes: feedback sessions wouldn't really be necessary.


EDIT: Saab and I posted simultaneously. My bad for the repeat of what he just said

 

[Kaur]

What if teams got scanned copies of the score sheets and copies before the meeting....? It would combine both things and allow you to talk about specific comments.

Notorious had the sheets ready for the teams to come in and look at, they were not allowed to take them but were able to look at them at the beginning of the meeting.

 

[Saab]

I mean pre-meeting. Scanned so they can prepare questions.

 

[siddyp]

I mean pre-meeting. Scanned so they can prepare questions.

*copied. i think you may be confusing people with your use of the word 'scan'

 

[faizan]

Having performed so many times, we just never ran into an instance where as a team, we diddn't know why we lost. We would go back to the hotel, watch the video, and say, boom, there it is, we could have done XYZ better than the team that won. End of story, now let's try harder next time.


Even when it was close. Take BDM for example. AEG lost to NJ by a couple of points. Sure we bitched, at the designating bitching session, lol, but then we went back to the hotel, saw the vids, saw why we lost, and made sure to fix our issues.


It's hard to articulate why a team lost to another one when it's close, other than, "dude, you were 8 points less than them, so you lost."


Judging is based on points, if you don't get more points than the other team, that team will beat you. Plan to get as many points as possible.

 

[Kaur]

Having performed so many times, we just never ran into an instance where as a team, we diddn't know why we lost. We would go back to the hotel, watch the video, and say, boom, there it is, we could have done XYZ better than the team that won. End of story, now let's try harder next time.


Even when it was close. Take BDM for example. AEG lost to NJ by a couple of points. Sure we bitched, at the designating bitching session, lol, but then we went back to the hotel, saw the vids, saw why we lost, and made sure to fix our issues.


It's hard to articulate why a team lost to another one when it's close, other than, "dude, you were 8 points less than them, so you lost."


Judging is based on points, if you don't get more points than the other team, that team will beat you. Plan to get as many points as possible.

Except for the times when diliberation comes into play then its not just points, but thats a different can of worms. I do agree with your first point though. Other then 2 competitions, we have always realized why we didnt win. The 2x we didnt and couldnt figure out why 1. the competition was messed up with crap judging and no explanation 2. there was tampering with scores. I guess the meeting would help out the newer teams though.

 

[Potvik2]

I'm not a bhangra dancer, but we have similar problems in the Fusion circuit. Judging is what it is, organizers should change it and make things more accessible for teams. One thing which I think would help A LOT is if teams on forums like BTF and DDT started acting like a community helping each other. When I was captain for the past three years I would watch my own videos, send them to alumni, and send them to certain people in the circuit who I thought had a good eye. Feedback does not only come from judges, it can come from the community.


I know that on DDT a few members and myself have worked hard to make sure that teams who compete get good reviews that whether good or bad get constructive criticism. Not just "your bhangra was wack" but more along "your bhangra can improve in xyz ways". I've read btf for a while and don't see that happening too much. I don't know how judges are chosen, but sometimes they are just out of touch with the circuit and so the best judges are really the people in the circuit who have been around for a while. Even if each team has their own styles, we have the basic knowledge to help each other out. This can mostly be facilitated in two ways:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Videos do not have to be a secret. I know some teams post their videos, and it might be more so in the fusion circuit, but everyone is so worried about some other team jacking their choreo or effects. I don't think that will actually happen. Plus if more videos are out and more people see them, then teams that "cheat" or "bite" will get called out more and will have to stop. I personally believe that releasing videos helps teams get better and challenge themselves.
[*]The bhangra community is HUGE. It dwarfs the fusion community and the wealth of knowledge that is on btf in dance experience and routine construction is underutilized if teams do not ask for critiques. Most competition reviews on btf don't say much more than "congrats" or along those lines. Even in the videos, I don't see too many good critiques.
[/list]
That might be a slightly distorted rant, but the point is that judges vary and the best way to get critiques is to search them out and allow others to look at your routine. Thats what I did as captain and instead of others stealing our ideas it made us work that much harder every week to make sure we making our routine better and better.


Cheers,


Saatvik A.
Ex- Captain BU Jalwa

 

[Sue Sylvester]

Even when it was close. Take BDM for example. AEG lost to NJ by a couple of points. Sure we bitched, at the designating bitching session, lol, but then we went back to the hotel, saw the vids, saw why we lost, and made sure to fix our issues.

Damn it, Lebron! Hit the road!

 

[faizan]

Lima Ohio was the real winner.

 

[rajkaran]

Faizan, while I understand the process is flawed and is currently unfavorable, the elimination of the feedback session in the present environment is not feasible. Even with the pre-judges meeting, the communication that commits the judges to the way they said they were going to judge is eliminated without the post judges meeting. It also makes it incredibly hard to place liability on the judges.

The community, at this point, would need a much more transparent and open communication process of judging so that teams should know exactly how judges and the competition itself are going to judge teams or how they want to judge teams.

Not sure if you saw my previous post on this same thread, but perhaps that "Judges Review Sheet" I mention can help teams better understand what to expect once judges are announced the few weeks prior to a competition. If, let's say, all three judges have been previously noted to take points off for "too many gimmicks", for example, an upcoming team can try to cut down on the gimmicks. Less surprises during the "bitch fest" lol

 

[Saab]

Faizan, while I understand the process is flawed and is currently unfavorable, the elimination of the feedback session in the present environment is not feasible. Even with the pre-judges meeting, the communication that commits the judges to the way they said they were going to judge is eliminated without the post judges meeting. It also makes it incredibly hard to place liability on the judges.

The community, at this point, would need a much more transparent and open communication process of judging so that teams should know exactly how judges and the competition itself are going to judge teams or how they want to judge teams.

Not sure if you saw my previous post on this same thread, but perhaps that "Judges Review Sheet" I mention can help teams better understand what to expect once judges are announced the few weeks prior to a competition. If, let's say, all three judges have been previously noted to take points off for "too many gimmicks", for example, an upcoming team can try to cut down on the gimmicks. Less surprises during the "bitch fest" lol

I understand your point, bit a lot of the bitching comes from relative placings and a "why did I not place philosophy". Sure gimmicks might be one things, but in terms of placings cleanliness, or the bar for cleanliness, is set by the cleanest team of the night. I am talking more in terms of scenarios where placings are close and things are a push ( this happens). If you don't ties teams then what's the dialogue. Again, a group discussion like what swi said would probably solve a lot of this as it removes the need to bitch and takes into account all of the teams.