New judging idea

[Shahrukh]

After all the teams are finished performing, and the judges are in their meeting room, the comp should let them know the top 3 teams. At that point the judges should watch each of the top 3 teams performance video once. re score the same judging rubric they scored the first time. It would take around 30 minutes (7-10 minute long videos) to watch each video, and i think this would help determine placings more effectively. By getting a second viewing the team that went 1st that the judges were too scared to score high OR the team who goes after a really messy and weak team do not get an advantage or disadvantage. You have the top 3 videos, and you get to watch them again(the view would be from the balcony) and if you were on the edge or forgot about details from a certain set or whatever you get a second look and a more reassured response to the teams who placed letting them know "hey you were messier i just saw the video or you were cleaner or you danced for 5 minutes and the other team danced for 8 etc........


What do you guys think??

 

[Gabbah Shareef Bhalwan]

Are you serious? Because you sound serious, and yet....

 

[voxanimus]

it seems like there's a lot of personal motivation behind this mechanism

 

[Shahrukh]

Are you serious? Because you sound serious, and yet....

I am serious? is it really that bad of an idea?

it seems like there's a lot of personal motivation behind this mechanism

not at all, had a random hour long convo last night with an old friend on virsa and we just thought of it. Is it that bad of an idea?!?!?! jeez

 

[Basim]

Sounds like a good idea, but I doubt organizations will adopt it. It's simply not practical.

Let's say we take a typical competition (if you have the top 3 teams, then that's 6 teams TOTAL - live & music). You're talking about 6 teams x 7 minutes per performance = 35 minutes at the MINIMUM!

On top of that, you need to factor in the time the organization spends bringing the judges to a "special area" to view the videos without interruptions & where it's quiet. Let's say this takes another 5 minutes to get started.

After that, you need to factor in the additional time to review and tabulate results from a 2nd set of score sheets. Not sure if you want to "average" the 1st score sheet with the 2nd score sheet, but that would take additional time too. Let's say this whole process is done super efficiently and takes another 5 minutes.

So basically you are adding 45 minutes (at the minimum) to the run time of a competition. Now let's think of your typical Uncle + Auntie + family audience member who simply came to be entertained. Would they really want to wait an additional 45 minutes for something that they could care less about (this "judges second chance review process")?

Most bhangra organizations already can't stick to the start & end times that are specified in their promotional material. Competitions have so much packed into a 3 hour window - I highly doubt they want to spend an additional amount of time (45 minutes+) devoted to judging.

My two cents,

~ Basim

 

[J-Skeet]

I think it actually makes good sense. Also doing the review on the top 3 teams does sound practical...at around 10 mins a pop that's 30 mins max. I mean a comp usually knows who the top 3 teams are...the deliberation is usually between them anyway. Instead of using the time to deliberate..they could watch the performance again. Base everything on scoresheets so that it becomes quick and efficient. At the end stall with an ending exhibition performance and some singing. It's definitely manageable.

 

[Shahrukh]

Sounds like a good idea, but I doubt organizations will adopt it. It's simply not practical.

Let's say we take a typical competition (if you have the top 3 teams, then that's 6 teams TOTAL - live & music). You're talking about 6 teams x 7 minutes per performance = 35 minutes at the MINIMUM!

On top of that, you need to factor in the time the organization spends bringing the judges to a "special area" to view the videos without interruptions & where it's quiet. Let's say this takes another 5 minutes to get started.

After that, you need to factor in the additional time to review and tabulate results from a 2nd set of score sheets. Not sure if you want to "average" the 1st score sheet with the 2nd score sheet, but that would take additional time too. Let's say this whole process is done super efficiently and takes another 5 minutes.

So basically you are adding 45 minutes (at the minimum) to the run time of a competition. Now let's think of your typical Uncle + Auntie + family audience member who simply came to be entertained. Would they really want to wait an additional 45 minutes for something that they could care less about (this "judges second chance review process")?

Most bhangra organizations already can't stick to the start & end times that are specified in their promotional material. Competitions have so much packed into a 3 hour window - I highly doubt they want to spend an additional amount of time (45 minutes+) devoted to judging.

My two cents,

~ Basim

how many comps have a separate live category, and place 3 live teams out of that category? its usually one placing maybe two, and even then there are only a few comps who even have live categories.


so for 3 of the 15 comps in a year the judges deliberation will have 40 minutes of watching a video.


yeah aunties uncles audience members sitting around for 45 minutes isnt gravy i get it but maybe have an intermission type thing for them? grab food grab drinks meet dancers dance on stage have a performer its not hard to kill 45 min to an hour after the last performance iv been to numerous comps where we end up waiting an hour/ hour and half waiting for placings anyways.

I think it actually makes good sense. Also doing the review on the top 3 teams does sound practical...at around 10 mins a pop that's 30 mins max. I mean a comp usually knows who the top 3 teams are...the deliberation is usually between them anyway. Instead of using the time to deliberate..they could watch the performance again. Base everything on scoresheets so that it becomes quick and efficient. At the end stall with an ending exhibition performance and some singing. It's definitely manageable.

exactly! just another look to strengthen the judges position on each of the top 3 teams. Placings are usually announced 45 minutes after the last team performs anyways so i dont see it as a problem, the audience came to watch a show, if they dont want to stick around for the placings because it might take an additional 30, than what? i am pretty sure 90% of the teams would appreciate the fact that the organizers and judges are taking extra time to deliberate placings. How many audience members are gonna be like "they took way too long to announce the placings i am not going to this comp next year" They came to watch the show, which they watched in a timely manner, unless they have family/friends who performed then they might not wait, heck i have had my family leave blowout before the placings plenty of times and then i just texted them later the placings. They get to watch the show i dont think this would have a negative effect on the comp and it would make teams happier.

 

[Saleem]

Often times there are 4 teams that are very close in score and perceived rank. What if the fourth complains that they were left out of this deliberation? What if, due to the caliber/nature of the participating teams, there are 5 "top" teams vying for the 3 placings. I've definitely had it happen more than once in my judging history. How many teams are we rewatching?

In practice, since the performance is no longer a reveal but a rehash of what you saw an hour ago, you'll end up focusing more on synchronization and pointing out stuff like "see! the guy in the back wasn't as clean as the guys at front". And then placings would be even MORE based on an arbitrarily high bar of cleanliness rather than creativity of choreo or other aspects. Therefore backfiring (in my opinion, though some people like it).

Plus Basim mentions the time issue. Now you have 15 minutes for calculating the top 3 (4? 5?) and initial deliberation, 5 minutes to argue with the judge who says girls shouldn't do bhangra, and another 40 minutes to watch videos. Then 10 minutes to discuss further and get the final placings. 10 minutes for shuttling judges around the venue and getting teams on stage. An hour and 20 minutes before starting to announce the placings (don't forget time for sponsors).

 

[faizan]

No instant replay in bhangra!


SRK, you trying to go to the after party at 2 am?

 

[J-Skeet]

^ that's when half the people show up anyway

 

[Govind]

I second the issues Saleem mentioned. Most importantly, the fundamental shift in what aspects of a team's performance were emphasized upon rewatching (cleanliness vs. all the other aspects of the rubric). Now, perhaps if the deliberation could be done in the next door IMAX theatre in 3D it'd be like reliving the performance all over again!!!.........Then again, I have always opposed judging teams by video...they are not the same. Not to mention, what is the point of having an panel of judges if they aren't going to bring experience to the table or if they are people who forget about that first performance.

 

[Shahrukh]

Not to mention, what is the point of having an panel of judges if they aren't going to bring experience to the table or if they are people who forget about that first performance.

I agree.

 

[Arjun Barua]

I share FIFA's stance on this issue.

 

[Saab]

I share FIFA's stance on this issue.

You advocate goal line tech?