All-Star Suggestions For Improving Scoring

[newcheerdad]

3. It would also get rid of some people I think you would want to keep. I'd probably be ok doing the first competition for free in return for someone covering the expense of the certification and training, but I'm not sure I would go for significant up front cost in order judge.

I pay $75 each year for re-certification as a soccer referee - which includes a yearly one-day course and exam. Doesn't include any equipment I have to buy, like uniforms or linesman's flags. I expect to recoup my investment by working games. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask judges to pay for a yearly certification class with the expectation they'll recoup their investment by working at competitions.

I agree with the general idea that certifying judges makes little sense unless you have a universal scoresheet. As I said in another thread, that's the one thing that would exponentially improve scoring.

 

[lolsmileyface_backAGAIN]

so @Andre said that more people are in favor of keep results private than public.....

anyone on here so far that can prove this to be true?

 

[yojaehs]

id like for mistakes to get deductions and count off in execution.

That is a fine line bc in that case you can be hit in 3 areas for 1 mistake. 1. Deducted 2. Execution 3. Overall impression.
Doing this could essentially eliminate difficulty in our growth.

 

[yojaehs]

I'm going to bring up something @Andre brought up in a separate thread in response to judges being paid more (which seems to be a popular attempt at solving the poor judging problem). I am 100% in FAVOR of paying judges more, I'd be happy to pay more for a quality judge than a big backdrop, light show etc. etc. etc. Now with that being said, IF judges are paid more they should be required to be trained better, longer. That would eliminate the increased # of those that want to be judges. I would prefer an attempt at training similar to gymnastics judges (bc that's the only other requirements I'm familiar, don't know how ice skating etc etc do it) I believe longer, more expensive, more in depth training is a MUST, and if people don't wanna do it, they don't HAVE to judge. FEWER QUALITY JUDGES isn't a bad thing, I also think this might help LIMIT some garbage comps if they can't find the QUALIFIED judges!!!!

 

[King]

Just having a universal scoresheet will help quality judges. The same scoresheet multiple years in a row at many events is going to produce more and more consistent results. We reduce the quality of results (not the quality of judges) by having so many scoresheets. What eveeryone needs to realize is the system is broken. Judges take all the heat because we all think they are inneffctive at producing accurate results. In reality, a faulty system produces the bad results.

Looking at the 4 main events for 4 main scoresheets: NCA, Cheersport, jamfest, World's.

Of those 4 who produced the most accurate and reproducable results?

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

 

[yojaehs]

Just having a universal scoresheet will help quality judges. The same scoresheet multiple years in a row at many events is going to produce more and more consistent results. We reduce the quality of results (not the quality of judges) by having so many scoresheets. What eveeryone needs to realize is the system is broken. Judges take all the heat because we all think they are inneffctive at producing accurate results. In reality, a faulty system produces the bad results.

Looking at the 4 main events for 4 main scoresheets: NCA, Cheersport, jamfest, World's.

Of those 4 who produced the most accurate and reproducable results?

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

NCA

 

[BlueCat]

Just having a universal scoresheet will help quality judges. The same scoresheet multiple years in a row at many events is going to produce more and more consistent results. We reduce the quality of results (not the quality of judges) by having so many scoresheets. What eveeryone needs to realize is the system is broken. Judges take all the heat because we all think they are inneffctive at producing accurate results. In reality, a faulty system produces the bad results.

Looking at the 4 main events for 4 main scoresheets: NCA, Cheersport, jamfest, World's.

Of those 4 who produced the most accurate and reproducable results?

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

NCA. Not even close in my mind.

 

[King]

Worlds and Cheersport have a very similar scoresheet IMO. And I can see how they produce similar problems and difficulties in the results.

I do not know Jamfest's scoresheet that well. But I have heard it is over complicated. Anyone care to fill us in?

Now, if on the off chance someone from any of these organizations is reading let me state that though we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the scoresheets, it does not mean the rest of the events is top notch. Cheersport is a logistical master pierce, Worlds has flaws but has earned the prestige of being the season capping event, and Jamfest is a quality competition. But when it comes to scoresheets they are all weak.

 

[King]

Ok, read Jamfest's scoresheets. Seems like you get double difficulty for pyramids and stunts. There is a quantity score which I would be interested in how that works exactly. Because difficulty is kinda a double value quantity doesnt mean as much. Otherwise it seems very similar to NCA's.

Any thought on what skills should be worth more than others and why? I have seen people suggest that certain skills should be worth less than others and I am curious what is the reasoning behind this. To me all parts of cheer matter equally. It is kinda like special teams in football. Though they should be on the field probably the least amount of time out of offense, defense, and special teams, they can make the difference between the winner and loser if you neglect them. Touchdowns scored off of special tams are worth as much as ones scored when the offense is on the field. So why make jumps, dance, transitions, or any of the extras worth less than say just one categories... stunts?

 

[MissBee]

Basically, the premise was to set a score for a specific skill. But, this was met with much disdain.

So, how about listing skills as A,B,C, and so on. Then designate a score for each level skill and execution of skill. Then train the judges to specifically judge to that standard and BAM judging is taken care of.

I would also have judges pay a certification fee. This may get rid of some of the coaches that judge just to see their competitor.

YES YES YES. Giving skills a set value is how it's done in gymnastics, and although it took an adjustment period for everyone (coaches, judges, athletes, fans) now that the dust has settled, it's a much more fair way of handling a subjectively judged sport.

As for the certification of judges, I think there needs to be a standard set (of course, this would require a TRUE governing body). Gymnastics judging is handled really nicely, you have to have competed at that level or passed the previous level judging course AND have judged the lower level for a certain amount of meets before you can take the test for the next level. This would pose a problem for cheer, because all level compete the same day. However, judges are paid pennies, PENNIES, for what they do. I'd gladly take $30 to judge one level and give up an hour of my Saturday than to be paid $150 to judge from 8am to 8pm everything from Tiny 1 to IOC6. Having judges that "specialize" in one level will mean that those judges know those rules and skill values inside out and upside down. Judges will know their level so thoroughly that there won't be any of those "missed" illegalities.

 

[cheerlove]

is there a list of what deductions equal what? i feel like there is so can anyone tell me where to find it? ( but if there is not there should be)

 

[King]

I don't think we should have a set value of what skills are worth at this moment in time. I think we first need the best universal scoresheet there is (I think my hint at NCA are coming through) and after some time and maturity with it we can look at setting values for each skill and how practical that is.

 

[Level5Mom]

I feel like this thread is taking on 2 separate topics now (1) certification of judges and (2) what should the universal scoresheet look like. Perhaps we should split it out into 2 threads?

Anyway I'd like to comment on (1). As a certified personal trainer I paid $300 up front and studied for months to pass an exam to become a trainer through the governing body. Every 3 years I have to pay around another $300-400 in continuing education courses in order to keep my certification.

I had to pass a written exam, and participate in practical applications with actual clients while being observed. It was hard, and some people paid all that money and didn't pass.

I glady paid for the certification because I wanted the great income that a trainer makes. This same system could work if a standard of excellence in certification was rewarded with a high level of pay. Thoughts?

 

[King]

I feel like this thread is taking on 2 separate topics now (1) certification of judges andt(2) what should the universal scoresheet look like. Perhaps we should split it out into 2 threads?

Anyway I'd like to comment on (1). As a certified personal trainer I paid $300 up front and studied for months to pass an exam to become a trainer through the governing body. Every 3 years I have to pay around another $300-400 in continuing education courses in order to keep my certification.

I had to pass a written exam, and participate in practical applications with actual clients while being observed. It was hard, and some people paid all that money and didn't pass.

I glady paid for the certification because I wanted the great income that a trainer makes. This same system could work if a standard of excellence in certification was rewarded with a high level of pay. Thoughts?

I think that makes perfect sense. But I think the judges certification and rigorous requirements has to come AFTER we set a universal scoresheet. If we get our ducks in a row on the scoresheet side and it is universal, then you suddenly increase the possible amount of judges for any event (since instead of dividing talents to a good judge on Jamfests scoresheet or a good judge on NCAs). Requiring a written test and paying a certain amount of money and making it difficult to be a judge is not a bad thing.

 

[JulieP]

Ok, read Jamfest's scoresheets. Seems like you get double difficulty for pyramids and stunts. There is a quantity score which I would be interested in how that works exactly. Because difficulty is kinda a double value quantity doesnt mean as much. Otherwise it seems very similar to NCA's.

I am confused how you come up with "double difficulty" on these scoresheets? Do you mean because pyramids and stunts are scored separately? Half of our competitions are Jam Brands, and I have always felt their scoresheets were pretty fair. Then again, we are in Wiscsonin and don't travel to NCA or Cheersport. Although I guess we do one UCA competition and I think the scoresheet is the same as NCA. I guess I have always felt like Jam Brands does a better job of addressing quantities. From my experience with UCA it is mostly based on difficulty for the majority of the team (half +1) and technique. Jam Brands gives a breakdown of quantities as it scores more specifically than half plus 1. So if you have 18 our of 20 kids throwing double BHS in a level 3 routine, then you would score higher than if you had 12 our of 20 doing it. Hope that makes sense.