All-Star 2016 Scoring...thoughts???

[KDCheerMom]

We are over half way through the season and past two of the three large national comps. I was wondering what people's impression of the scoring with the new rule changes this year.

Do the scores seem pretty consistent from comp to comp? Does there appear to be more subjectivity than in previous years?

Curious about people's thoughts...

 

[stcchamp]

From what I have seen with my own athletes' scores and divisions, I think scores are pretty consistent. Now, depending on the region of the United States you are in, the scores could differ. I noticed in the Northeast, scores are EXTREMELY low almost every weekend. However, they are consistently low, so you can still see improvements from comp to comp. But I have noticed that down south and out west, the scores seem to be inflated compared to up here. Others may have different experiences though. We have become accustomed to lower scores than we are used to and have adjusted accordingly.

 

[cheer25mom]

Judging just from what I am seeing from our gym, there is quite a bit of variability. It's not uncommon for a team to get scores almost 2 points apart for the same routine hit solid both times, in front of different judges. At Cheersport, in CP's division teams were scoring average of a point better day 2 on the same routine with the same level of execution. He team has had hit routines score a point and a half different in front of 2 different panels of judges in back to back weeks.

 

[KDCheerMom]

We have become accustomed to lower scores than we are used to and have adjusted accordingly.

Any clues as to why they are so much lower than previous seasons?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tumbleyoda]

There are scoring issues every year. Until we stop fiddling with the system and let it sit two or three years and then make adjustments, we are always going to have issues. Everyone from judges, coaches, EP's, athletes, parents, fans, etc. are
training on a new system each year with new expectations then once you get a handle on it, it gets changed again. Usually it is changed at the most inopportune time - after choreography or mid season. Which is simply maddening.

What is is worse is when deductions are missed that impact the true standings of divisions. Doesn't matter the level, division, age, or competition. Parents pay too much money and gym owners risk too much money for these mistakes to still be happening.

 

[f5forever]

I'm not a huge fan of the "comparative scoring" system. The teams that go earlier get scored lower even if they hit a great routine. And I can't blame the judges because they can't give BSB (for example) a perfect score if they know they still have other great teams in that division to see. The one thing I do like about it is that it allows for variety, instead of everyone hitting the same skills to hit what is exactly on the score sheet. I do miss the old days when you (as a coach) had a good idea of your raw score going onto the floor.

 

[tumbleyoda]

I'm not a huge fan of the "comparative scoring" system. The teams that go earlier get scored lower even if they hit a great routine. And I can't blame the judges because they can't give BSB (for example) a perfect score if they know they still have other great teams in that division to see. The one thing I do like about it is that it allows for variety, instead of everyone hitting the same skills to hit what is exactly on the score sheet. I do miss the old days when you (as a coach) had a good idea of your raw score going onto the floor.

Now you have no clue and it changes from week to week. One judge likes your stunt sequence, another hates it. One deems it is in the high range, another mid range. And the clarity in their explanations is as clear as mud.

Another problem with that is the lesser known, not heavily branded and hyped team, will usually always lose because it is comparatively expected that they are not as good as the great well known teams even before they step on the floor. So if I already know prior to an event I have little shot comparatively speaking no matter what is in my routine and how well I hit it, then how do I sell the idea of spending all that amount of parents money to go? If it is just to see those other teams - as it used to be argued years ago, I can watch them online. Save my parents money and go somewhere that they have a fighting chance to be competitive.

People are going to competitions knowing they have no chance to win but hoping to do well enough to get a bid, because the really great teams already have bids. Not sport, but business masquerading as sport.

 

[SarahS]

Now you have no clue and it changes from week to week. One judge likes your stunt sequence, another hates it. One deems it is in the high range, another mid range. And the clarity in their explanations is as clear as mud.

Another problem with that is the lesser known, not heavily branded and hyped team, will usually always lose because it is comparatively expected that they are not as good as the great well known teams even before they step on the floor. So if I already know prior to an event I have little shot comparatively speaking no matter what is in my routine and how well I hit it, then how do I sell the idea of spending all that amount of parents money to go? If it is just to see those other teams - as it used to be argued years ago, I can watch them online. Save my parents money and go somewhere that they have a fighting chance to be competitive.

People are going to competitions knowing they have no chance to win but hoping to do well enough to get a bid, because the really great teams already have bids. Not sport, but business masquerading as sport.

While I respect that this has been your experience, I have been fortunate to work with professionals all year who ignore the names on uniforms and score teams accurately regardless of gym. Do mistakes happen occasionally? Yes, as judges are human and not infallible. I just know that the vast majority of people I've worked with really, really want to get placements correct every single time. They care about the kids and the integrity of the sport just as much as coaches who put so much of their lives and souls into these athletes and routines.

 

[tumbleyoda]

While I respect that this has been your experience, I have been fortunate to work with professionals all year who ignore the names on uniforms and score teams accurately regardless of gym. Do mistakes happen occasionally? Yes, as judges are human and not infallible. I just know that the vast majority of people I've worked with really, really want to get placements correct every single time. They care about the kids and the integrity of the sport just as much as coaches who put so much of their lives and souls into these athletes and routines.

It has and it has been the experience of many. I have coached or worked with cheer in three states and seen it in all three. Judging is hard. I know I was a gymnastic judge for years. I respect what cheer judges do and would never try to do it. Unfortunately when judges or Ep's tell you they cant correct their errors because it will not be fair to one team and basically tell the team that was scored wrong our fault but so what, then that is what is aggravating. I also know that most judges are also fans of the sport. Which is wonderful, but on that weekend they are judging, they must put that aside and get it right. Do most do that? I am sure they endeavor to. But there are still issues.

I am in the minority on this but I would like a code of points for cheer. Tell me what the skill is worth. Then I know what I am dealing with. Then if judges take the appropriate technique deductions across the board on every team regardless to name, branding, etc., there should be little issue. It removes the what they want to see vs what the teams can actually perform that is truly level appropriate. There is no reason IMO a crappy whip thru to low height piked over layout should score higher than a head height front thru to head height layout. None. A BHS with no hands is not a whip, yet the technique points are not taken on it. For a couple of years the whip is seen as a true Level 4 skill even if thrown with horrible technique whereas the front tuck is seen as a level 3 skill. So now I have to violate proper tumbling progressions to teach a whip before a full in order to score decently because a pass that is a level 4 pass doesn't get the same credit as a bad technique level 4 pass. Because that is what they want to see but it is not codified anywhere as truly a higher skill set than a front thru.

So this is an area we just take a hit on because I refuse to jack up a kids knees, ankles and wrists as well in teaching a skill before its the right time. If any of our level 4 throw a whip you better believe they already have a full and understand the difference in setting for each skill. Because I wont allow it otherwise.

 

[cheer25mom]

It has and it has been the experience of many. I have coached or worked with cheer in three states and seen it in all three. Judging is hard. I know I was a gymnastic judge for years. I respect what cheer judges do and would never try to do it. Unfortunately when judges or Ep's tell you they cant correct their errors because it will not be fair to one team and basically tell the team that was scored wrong our fault but so what, then that is what is aggravating. I also know that most judges are also fans of the sport. Which is wonderful, but on that weekend they are judging, they must put that aside and get it right. Do most do that? I am sure they endeavor to. But there are still issues.

I am in the minority on this but I would like a code of points for cheer. Tell me what the skill is worth. Then I know what I am dealing with. Then if judges take the appropriate technique deductions across the board on every team regardless to name, branding, etc., there should be little issue. It removes the what they want to see vs what the teams can actually perform that is truly level appropriate. There is no reason IMO a crappy whip thru to low height piked over layout should score higher than a head height front thru to head height layout. None. A BHS with no hands is not a whip, yet the technique points are not taken on it. For a couple of years the whip is seen as a true Level 4 skill even if thrown with horrible technique whereas the front tuck is seen as a level 3 skill. So now I have to violate proper tumbling progressions to teach a whip before a full in order to score decently because a pass that is a level 4 pass doesn't get the same credit as a bad technique level 4 pass. Because that is what they want to see but it is not codified anywhere as truly a higher skill set than a front thru.

So this is an area we just take a hit on because I refuse to jack up a kids knees, ankles and wrists as well in teaching a skill before its the right time. If any of our level 4 throw a whip you better believe they already have a full and understand the difference in setting for each skill. Because I wont allow it otherwise.

I would love to see codified points system come into play for stunt and tumbling elements so there is no more debate over "which is worth more" ect. You KNOW what the skills you are putting on the floor are worth and can plan accordingly. ITA that it varies from event to even as to how comparative difficulty is being assessed, at least in my experience. CP's team is seeing that difficulty scores for the same set of skills can vary pretty much across the entire range those skills put them in depending on the panel of judges that day. Technique scores seem to be widely different as well. What one judge says is a 4.0 another has at 4.3 or 4.5.

 

[catlady]

What is is worse is when deductions are missed that impact the true standings of divisions. Doesn't matter the level, division, age, or competition. Parents pay too much money and gym owners risk too much money for these mistakes to still be happening.

This^^^. Only speaking from my own kids teams I have noticed one comp will call a stunt attempt to cradle a BF and yet another will call it an omission and take it off of execution. In actuality, the outcome may be correct and lead to the same score but, it is those inconsistencies that cause the social media drama and bitterness. I know cheer isn't gymnastics but, I would love to see a system where they score and rank certain skills and combinations and you would know going in what your routine would score if executed perfectly at every single competition across the nation. If you make changes, they would have to be submitted for reevaluation prior to competing. Then have a deduction system from there based on 0-Excellent, 1-2 Very Good with a couple of "checks", 3-4 Average with "checks" and dropped positions, 5-6 Poor 1 or 2 early drops or omissions, and Pitiful 3 or more large issues for execution on stunts and pyramid. For tumbling, jumps and overall performance the same but, scored from excellent to pitiful based on ratio's of execution.

I still feel the East/ West divide exists where certain styles are preferred but, I can honestly say I don't usually disagree with placement, or perhaps I should say "expected placement" based on the East/West preference. I think most of us that have been around for awhile know where performance/creativity is going to trump technique/execution and vice versa. Even in the above scenario, that divide would still exist and show in the scores but, at least you know going in where your Peg Bundy vs sleek hair styles and swiss cheese vs collegiate uniforms are going to fall in the judges eyes.

ETA: I just saw your last post.

 

[MomMomMamaMom]

I don't pretend to understand scoring well enough to know if there are mistakes being made, but have some casual observations. It has been very clear to me that attempted difficulty far outweighs execution, which seems backwards to me. I feel like the ranges are far too subjective. It may be because I don't have a great feel for the new deduction scoring, but I struggle with teams getting scores in the high range when they didn't execute the necessary skills well. I get that the bobbles, omissions etc. are supposed to be taken out in technique scores, but it really doesn't seem to be balancing out correctly this way. I think maybe you should have to have a minimum technique score to be eligible for the higher ranges? But don't know if this could actually work?

 

[omgitssydthekid]

Like @tumbleyoda, I would LOVE to see a code of points for difficulty categories.

I've competed identical routines two weekends in a row. Weekend #1 my team scored a 94.44 (one day competition), weekend #2 my team barely broke 90 (2 day competition). And they were the grand champs of level 1 that weekend. It wasn't an issue of poor technique either. They were both Jamfest comps. How does that even happen? It drives me insane. How do I explain to my parents that scores are "comparative" because it honestly just makes me look like I'm not doing my job and it makes me look like I don't know how to hit the scoresheet (which apparently is true because I still don't understand it because of how much it fluctuates from comp to comp). My teams consistently place well, but their scores vary greatly from comp to comp. I should have an idea of how they're going to score when I walk in to a competition, it shouldn't fluctuate by 4+ points.

I had another one of my teams get a comment about how their pyramid didn't flow well two weeks ago at a competition (American Championships), I decided to ignore the comment and compete it again this past weekend and got comments about how well it was pieced together. My team also won best pyramid (Jam LIVE) and grand champs. They scored a 4.8 on creativity this past weekend and they scored a 4.4 two weeks ago. This scoresheet is so subjective. Which isn't necessarily bad until it starts messing with my difficulty scores. Two weeks ago my pyramid scored a 4.4, this past weekend it scored a 4.8. Literally the exact same pyramid except we added a tick tock. And I know that tick tock isn't responsible for adding .4 to my difficulty score.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SarahS]

Like @tumbleyoda, I would LOVE to see a code of points for difficulty categories.

I've competed identical routines two weekends in a row. Weekend #1 my team scored a 94.44 (one day competition), weekend #2 my team barely broke 90 (2 day competition). And they were the grand champs of level 1 that weekend. It wasn't an issue of poor technique either. They were both Jamfest comps. How does that even happen? It drives me insane. How do I explain to my parents that scores are "comparative" because it honestly just makes me look like I'm not doing my job and it makes me look like I don't know how to hit the scoresheet (which apparently is true because I still don't understand it because of how much it fluctuates from comp to comp). My teams consistently place well, but their scores vary greatly from comp to comp. I should have an idea of how they're going to score when I walk in to a competition, it shouldn't fluctuate by 4+ points.

I had another one of my teams get a comment about how their pyramid didn't flow well two weeks ago at a competition (American Championships), I decided to ignore the comment and compete it again this past weekend and got comments about how well it was pieced together. My team also won best pyramid (Jam LIVE) and grand champs. They scored a 4.8 on creativity this past weekend and they scored a 4.4 two weeks ago. This scoresheet is so subjective. Which isn't necessarily bad until it starts messing with my difficulty scores. Two weeks ago my pyramid scored a 4.4, this past weekend it scored a 4.8. Literally the exact same pyramid except we added a tick tock. And I know that tick tock isn't responsible for adding .4 to my difficulty score.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But... If placements were correct, why would it look to your parents like you don't know the score sheet? Different judges have different perceptions of what is considered an "average" score for difficulty or technique, and how much of a "bonus" to give teams that show above average difficulty or technique. Since ranges have been widened this year, it makes sense that scoring variability between weekends would increase, with different panels of judges, but in general, it sounds like you've found your placements to be correct. Why does it matter if the numerical score varies, when it sounds like judges are giving your teams a consistent *degree* of bonus for above average difficulty and/or technique, as reflected in your placements?

As for the code of points, I am not against it in theory. I do think that it would be very difficult to create and implement, and I also think that secondary and tertiary effects of the implementation of such need to be considered (possible stifling of creativity - why do innovative skills that are not listed in the CoP?; possible increased risk to participants, by having athletes perform skills to "max out" that they may not be prepared for, as seen this year with the implementation of elite skills; possible effect being that the score sheet becomes entirely subjective if everyone has the exact same amount of objective difficulty skills, so the only differentiators are subjective creativity and technique scores; etc).

 

[icame2WERQ]

But... If placements were correct, why would it look to your parents like you don't know the score sheet? Different judges have different perceptions of what is considered an "average" score for difficulty or technique, and how much of a "bonus" to give teams that show above average difficulty or technique. Since ranges have been widened this year, it makes sense that scoring variability between weekends would increase, with different panels of judges, but in general, it sounds like you've found your placements to be correct. Why does it matter if the numerical score varies, when it sounds like judges are giving your teams a consistent *degree* of bonus for above average difficulty and/or technique, as reflected in your placements?

As for the code of points, I am not against it in theory. I do think that it would be very difficult to create and implement, and I also think that secondary and tertiary effects of the implementation of such need to be considered (possible stifling of creativity - why do innovative skills that are not listed in the CoP?; possible increased risk to participants, by having athletes perform skills to "max out" that they may not be prepared for, as seen this year with the implementation of elite skills; possible effect being that the score sheet becomes entirely subjective if everyone has the exact same amount of objective difficulty skills, so the only differentiators are subjective creativity and technique scores; etc).

I agree.. like i understand you want to know how your team will score in future events, but i've heard coaches be upset by their numeric value, but at the same time the ranking was correct -- you still won first.