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

[AngelsMum24]

My issues with scoring:

1. As mentioned earlier, we need a system that can be in place for an extended period of years so coaches, judges, etc. can become fully educated.

2. NO SCORESHEET CHANGES MIDSEASON! Removing Switch Ups from the Rubric after choreography season (and the other 'clarifications' ) and in the heat of competition season SUCKED. Make your "clarifications" clear the first go around so there are not any issues.

3. Judges Training. Rewards teams for what they do, not for what they don't do.

4. Take that damned subjective creativity score in stunts and pyramids off the scoresheet. I highly doubt anyone is getting 4.0 difficulty with 5.0 creativity or vice versa. My scoresheets have been pretty dang similar, if not the same in these two categories. 4.8 stunt difficulty, 4.7 creativity. You made the difficulty range bigger, so why not include creativity in that? Its just a double hit if any given weekend a judge is different then the past.

5. More specific tumbling guidelines for standing and running tumbling. We have been 4.2-5.0 all year in standing difficulty for certain teams. Same passes, almost a full point different throwing three sets of varieties passes.

6. I might not make any friends over this one, but its fine, its my opinion. IN MY OPINION, "Big Gyms" typically have the edge in upper level creativity (Personally I think smaller gyms have the upper hand in lower level creativity). IN MY OPINION, I think creativity was added to the scoresheets because big gyms were losing to smaller gyms who were just cleaner back to years ago when you could actually say "Clean wins." Clean doesn't win anymore, you need the total package. Which I slightly agree with - It has pushed my personal choreography to an all time high, but truth be told, some teams I work with can't handle intricate choreography. Not all teams can handle A-Symmetry and all the flash. Some teams need to have some walking formations with simple motions or they take a hit on creativity (because its sloppy and doesn't show the true visual). I used to be able to choreograph teams years ago with a more simple take of a routine (All Symmetrical, Clean stunts and transitions) and they would do great. Now that is a thing of the past and everyone is expected to execute a World Champion Routine to even hang. Bring back the execution matters.

7. I truly believe there is a HUGE miscommunication between the deduction judge and the panel judges on how to score bobbles accurately. You can't bobble all over and still have a 4.9 execution AND not hit get with a deduction. I have seen this more than I would like to as a judge, coach and choreographer. Put Bobbles Back on the Scoresheet.

8. I would love to see the deductions for touch downs, bobbles and falls be much higher. Stunt Fall, 10 Points, Touch Down 5 Points. Bobble 3 Points. This would bring back a bit of "You have to hit to win" and hopefully improve the overall execution and lead to better coaching decisions to water down, and perhaps safety.

9. I have seen at almost EVERY multi-panel event this year a CLEAR difference in scoring (A high panel and a low panel). This directly effects teams going for end of year competition bids (Summit, Worlds, etc) I would like to see more training from the judges prior to an event to ensure all halls and/or panels are on the same page.

10. The same routine that hits back to back weekends should not be 8 pints different. (We had a team, with no changes in it, score an 89.9 and a 96.9 both with deduction free routines for the Same EP with the near exact same execution). Again, there needs to be a sense of industry standard for judges in regards to difficulty and execution.

I think I love you!

 

[KDCheerMom]

Yes, I believe CS essentially re-judged the top teams. I know because one of our Austin teams actually had a higher score than one of the eventual Summit paid bid winners. While that stung a bit, it was clearly stated in the bid declaration that that was their policy. However, CS also essentially hired an extra panel and took a whole extra day to announce these bids - which is not always ideal either.

Glad to hear they followed thru - sorry for your team however.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DaniV]

I too would love a code of points. But I'm a former gymnast and trained gymnastics judge - so that's what I used to know.

I'm going to go out on the opposite side of the fence though and say that I don't mind that scores are lower at larger competitions. I have no idea what the size of Cheersport is when compared to NCA but I don't find it bad that scores are drastically lower. With the current system we use, I've come to expect and be okay with receiving lower scores (as long as they are in the correct range) at larger National competitions because of the subjectivity of scoring. Everyone is going to be in the high range so really there is only a 1 point difference allowed for each section to separate the bajillion teams in each level at NCA. They are going to be judging "super hard" (i.e. low) because they need to be able to appropriately rank every one.

This used to happen when I was in gymnastics. Some of the bigger competitions that we went too would score "hard" (low) compared to what we were used to because they needed to be able to appropriately rank everyone. Some smaller comps *might* give you a pass on a minutely bent leg but at a big competition they wouldn't.

Honestly, I've learned to not care about my scoresheet numbers when going from comp to comp. Every webinar I've sat in on or conference I've attended says scores will be low and they will vary from comp to comp. I look at where we scored lowest, read the comments, and head back to the gym to fix those areas. I also watch ALOT of videos of routines from big competitions and learn from those. What are they doing in the grand scheme of their routine (not just the number of tick-tocks performed) that is really setting them apart of other routines.

Do I love the subjectiveness? No, not at all. But I'm just dealing with it until *fingers crossed* C.O.P becomes a reality.

 

[Official OWECheer]

I too would love a code of points. But I'm a former gymnast and trained gymnastics judge - so that's what I used to know.

I'm going to go out on the opposite side of the fence though and say that I don't mind that scores are lower at larger competitions. I have no idea what the size of Cheersport is when compared to NCA but I don't find it bad that scores are drastically lower. With the current system we use, I've come to expect and be okay with receiving lower scores (as long as they are in the correct range) at larger National competitions because of the subjectivity of scoring. Everyone is going to be in the high range so really there is only a 1 point difference allowed for each section to separate the bajillion teams in each level at NCA. They are going to be judging "super hard" (i.e. low) because they need to be able to appropriately rank every one.

This used to happen when I was in gymnastics. Some of the bigger competitions that we went too would score "hard" (low) compared to what we were used to because they needed to be able to appropriately rank everyone. Some smaller comps *might* give you a pass on a minutely bent leg but at a big competition they wouldn't.

Honestly, I've learned to not care about my scoresheet numbers when going from comp to comp. Every webinar I've sat in on or conference I've attended says scores will be low and they will vary from comp to comp. I look at where we scored lowest, read the comments, and head back to the gym to fix those areas. I also watch ALOT of videos of routines from big competitions and learn from those. What are they doing in the grand scheme of their routine (not just the number of tick-tocks performed) that is really setting them apart of other routines.

Do I love the subjectiveness? No, not at all. But I'm just dealing with it until *fingers crossed* C.O.P becomes a reality.

Maybe we on the Board should collaborate and write a C.O.P.? That would be fun.

 

[BlueCat]

Maybe we on the Board should collaborate and write a C.O.P.? That would be fun.

It sounds fun until you start getting knee deep into the details. A COP in gymnastics with one athlete doing one discipline at time is complicated. 36 athletes is exponentially harder and more complicated.

A complete COP is theoretically possible. I'm not sure if it is realistically possible. I have suggested having "anchor points" where say, 75% of your team doing RO FF Back earns a 7.0 out of 10, and 100% doing backs earn 7.5, 75% doing layouts is a 8.5, etc (those point are just made up for illustrative purposes.) You wouldn't need to imagine every combination of skills, but just add enough "anchors" out there and the judge can compare what they saw against that.

 

[SarahS]

It sounds fun until you start getting knee deep into the details. A COP in gymnastics with one athlete doing one discipline at time is complicated. 36 athletes is exponentially harder and more complicated.

A complete COP is theoretically possible. I'm not sure if it is realistically possible. I have suggested having "anchor points" where say, 75% of your team doing RO FF Back earns a 7.0 out of 10, and 100% doing backs earn 7.5, 75% doing layouts is a 8.5, etc (those point are just made up for illustrative purposes.) You wouldn't need to imagine every combination of skills, but just add enough "anchors" out there and the judge can compare what they saw against that.

Yes. I think most good judges do this anyway (have a set of anchor points that fit their frame of reference/experience). If we could standardize these anchors, I do think scoring could become more consistent across events.

 

[DaniV]

It sounds fun until you start getting knee deep into the details. A COP in gymnastics with one athlete doing one discipline at time is complicated. 36 athletes is exponentially harder and more complicated.

A complete COP is theoretically possible. I'm not sure if it is realistically possible. I have suggested having "anchor points" where say, 75% of your team doing RO FF Back earns a 7.0 out of 10, and 100% doing backs earn 7.5, 75% doing layouts is a 8.5, etc (those point are just made up for illustrative purposes.) You wouldn't need to imagine every combination of skills, but just add enough "anchors" out there and the judge can compare what they saw against that.

Is that FF a flic flac? Music to my ears with some old school gymanstics terms.

And I love this as a start for a COP. I agree that there is no real way to create one with how diverse and large teams are but this seems do-able.

 

[tumbleyoda]

Yes. I think most good judges do this anyway (have a set of anchor points that fit their frame of reference/experience). If we could standardize these anchors, I do think scoring could become more consistent across events.

But what happens when things are missed and there is no review? That affects both score and placement, potentially. We all know it happens and none of us like to think that is conspiracy related. Although many have had moments that make you scratch your head and wonder. But with so much money, bids, marketing, etc on the line that is why IMO we need to get it right. Even if it takes longer to do so.

I am onboard with anything that makes it more consistent for everyone across the board. COP, anchors, Independent judges, whatever it takes.

 

[Lablover]

I have a scoring question that I've always wondered. Do the judges know ahead of time how many athletes are supposed to perform a skill in a routine ahead of time? I mean how could a judge determine during the routine if majority did standing tucks? I mean if majority is 21 (for a team of 27) but only 20 do it do the judges know?

 

[Rudags]

I have a scoring question that I've always wondered. Do the judges know ahead of time how many athletes are supposed to perform a skill in a routine ahead of time? I mean how could a judge determine during the routine if majority did standing tucks? I mean if majority is 21 (for a team of 27) but only 20 do it do the judges know?

Its my understanding at big competitions, they will use video playback to check and at smaller competitions, its more of an eyeball. Once you have been judging for a period of time, you know to look for the amount that don't vs the amount that do.

 

[Beans100]

How do you compare the scores of teams with, say, 6 kids and 20 kids? Why would back walkovers be the baseline? You can do all kinds of other tumbling skills in level 1. How do you quantify combination passes? In your example, what is the maximum score? If there is no maximum, wouldn't teams with more kids automatically be at an advantage, as they have the opportunity to add more "bonus" points than smaller teams? I know you used level 1 as an example, but how would you deal with the increasing complexity as levels progress? And probably the most important question to me, do you not think that, if you were able to figure out solutions to all of the above questions, that if coaches were given a formula to max out, that every single coach would do skills to max the formula, and then, in essence, the ENTIRE score would therefore be determined by your "judges perspective" category, thus basically making the scoresheet both incredibly formulaic and compulsory AND results entirely driven by subjectivity?

Trust me, I don't think I have the solution. It was more of an idea that would need a lot of tweaks. I'm not a judge nor do I have any aspirations to be one.
I used back walkovers as a starting point, not as a definitive.

Obviously, this has a lot of flaws. Sorry.

Sorry, just some quick edits above. There's an interesting reversed gender bias in cheerleading, so I'm just making sure we keep it neutral and inclusive. I was always the one boy on a team/ in a program and it was always "Girls warm up! Ladies take it from jumps!" Again, an interest taste at how gender asserts itself even subconsciously and as a male, eye opening to get a glimpse of what I can only imagine is a daily battle in a number of domains for women battle male privilege. That said, it propagated this stigma about cheerleading being only for females--> remember that there are probably so many guys dying to try out this amazing sport, but are prevented from participating by ignorant parents, friends, or classmates. We are all welcome in this sport, boy, girl, athlete alike.

You're edits are totally valid. Apologies my friend.
This is what happens when I FB on no sleep.

 

[GreatWhite92]

I have always said difficulty should be just solely through video playback and performance/creativity/technique should be judged live. If you weren't concerned with how many people did a skill, you could really judge the technique and performance. Why can't we have all difficulty be judged in a room where you can pause the performance and count.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tumbleyoda]

Its my understanding at big competitions, they will use video playback to check and at smaller competitions, its more of an eyeball. Once you have been judging for a period of time, you know to look for the amount that don't vs the amount that do.

There was an event here locally that was huge and they did not have video playback and they missed several things on several teams from several programs. It affected both scores and placements. Can't change it now but it still happened. IMO any bid event (US Finals, Summit, Worlds) must have and use accuscore and video playback. Or else they need to offer programs an immediate and full refund. Too much dollars being spent with not enough accountability. Since we all know the refund is not going to happen, make sure that they have accuscore and video playback.

The judges are not bad people. Do things get honestly missed? Yes. No one is saying that they are perfect and wont make mistakes and miss things. As clients of an EP which happens to have an immense market share of this industry we just cant justify spending this much money on a competition and still coming up with results that aren't correct because it "feels like" program A should of beat program B but in reality program C beat both of them but was already counted out of the running before they even competed.

 

[Infinitytsunamis2012]

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...

I've seen some difference in scoring especially with level 5 teams....it's hard to compare the scores from each competition....Worlds should be interesting.

 

[Infinitytsunamis2012]

Whats your opinion on bobbles not counting as deductions? Should teams be saying they "hit 0" if they had bobbles? Do you thing they should count bobbles as deductions?