All-Star How Would You Change All Star Scoring?

[Deleted member 15]

Well the people have issues with it... Too vague IMHO.

It's intentional. Put your best routine on the floor and let the best one win. A world champion coach shouldn't have to be told what to do.

 

[ASCheerMan]

4. Coaches turn in a skills declaration before their teams compete. The judges have a written list of the skill elements in the routine to use as a reference in deciding difficulty. This would be in the order that they are performed in the routine. (Execution would still be subjective, and a major part of the final score.) Penalties would be given if athletes changed their skills to something easier. (Athlete throws a tuck instead of a double, flyer singles down instead of doubles, etc.) A judge sitting with the deduction judge would watch video to determine compliance with written skills. Coaches would have the ability to make last-minute changes in the case of injury or water-down decisions.

FYI, we've done this at NCA College Nationals and, in many ways, its been counter-productive. The Skills Declaration turned in by the coaches are often DRASTICALLY different than the skills the team actually performed--sometimes, to the point that the judges spent more time figuring out the discrepancies, as opposed to just scoring the routine on the mat.

That was the only idea that I've had direct experience with and not certain of the added value it brings. You bring up some good ideas.

 

[Mclovin]

FYI, we've done this at NCA College Nationals and, in many ways, its been counter-productive. The Skills Declaration turned in by the coaches are often DRASTICALLY different than the skills the team actually performed--sometimes, to the point that the judges spent more time figuring out the discrepancies, as opposed to just scoring the routine on the mat.

That was the only idea that I've had direct experience with and not certain of the added value it brings. You bring up some good ideas.

Subject those teams to deductions for every skill NOT performed that was listed on the skill declaration page and I bet that stops happening, unless by last minute choice on the mat...

 

[Deleted member 15]

Subject those teams to deductions for every skill NOT performed that was listed on the skill declaration page and I bet that stops happening, unless by last minute choice on the mat...

I used to agree with deducting teams for omissions in their script, but it goes against the idea of the best performance winning.

 

[Mclovin]

I used to agree with deducting teams for omissions in their script, but it goes against the idea of the best performance winning.

BUT, what is considered the "best" performance? A substantially easier routine that hits, or a substantially harder one that has slight technique and/or performance flaws? I still believe a routine should start with a point value, and for each skill not performed that is listed, that start value goes down. Then let the live judges judge the technique and overall impression of the routine and may the best OVERALL team win.

 

[Deleted member 15]

BUT, what is considered the "best" performance? A substantially easier routine that hits, or a substantially harder one that has slight technique and/or performance flaws? I still believe a routine should start with a point value, and for each skill not performed that is listed, that start value goes down. Then let the live judges judge the technique and overall impression of the routine and may the best OVERALL team win.

I interpret getting deductions and the start value being lowered as different things. I think we got off track there.

Come up with a system for determining the start value(s) and we go from there. (I've asked people that want this to create the system for the last 5 years and have yet to get as much as 1 category for 1 level. Maybe you'll be the one.)

 

[Mclovin]

I interpret getting deductions and the start value being lowered as different things. I think we got off track there.

Come up with a system for determining the start value(s) and we go from there. (I've asked people that want this to create the system for the last 5 years and have yet to get as much as 1 category for 1 level. Maybe you'll be the one.)

I will respectfully admit I am not qualified enough to make that determination. There is SO much to consider. I could, however, make some suggestions as to who I believe should be involved in creating the value system.

Stunting/pyramid - Courtney Pope Smith, Jody Melton, owner/coach of Brandon Sr Black, Victor Rosario, South Elite owner

Tumbling/jumps -- Orson Sykes, Brad Vaughn, Roger Schonder


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android

 

[Deleted member 15]

I will respectfully admit I am not qualified enough to make that determination. There is SO much to consider.

I think you know enough to start. Pick one of the more basic categories like L2 or L3 tosses.

 

[Mclovin]

I think you know enough to start. Pick one of the more basic categories like L2 or L3 tosses.

Haha! Level 2 tosses -- there's only one toss u can do in level 2 except barrel rolls which I personally don't believe should be considered a toss.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android

 

[Mclovin]

Haha! Level 2 tosses -- there's only one toss u can do in level 2 except barrel rolls which I personally don't believe should be considered a toss.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android

Wait! I would however make the determination that a straight ride toss from a basket load in is a higher start value than a straight ride from a sponge position.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android

 

[Deleted member 15]

Haha! Level 2 tosses -- there's only one toss u can do in level 2 except barrel rolls which I personally don't believe should be considered a toss.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android

There are multiple ways to do that 1 toss. Are those differences enough to change the start value?

 

[Deleted member 15]

Wait! I would however make the determination that a straight ride toss from a basket load in is a higher start value than a straight ride from a sponge position.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android

Are there any other factors that need to be considered?

 

[canz]

When you look at other sports how is this type of thing handled? With judges and who they are hired from and what not?

Theres such a big variance, some sports/arts you have to sit an exam and receive a qualification, others complete courses and are qualified to judge at particular levels, others are elected officials. I quite like the sit an exam and receive a qualification route.

 

[yesucan]

Are there any other factors that need to be considered?

front spot/ no front would be a factor

 

[King]

Andre
Mclovin

ASCheerMan

The struggle I see between coaches / fans / everyone in enjoying cheerleading is the desire to want to properly reward all the difficulty and execution WHILE making sure we are encouraging creative routines and innovation. Those are two really different approaches and, at the moment, no scoresheet does a great service encouraging both because it tries to do everything live with up to 36 people. We ask judges to do this difficult job then get upset when the results aren't perfect. We aren't setting up the situation to succeed to produce the results we want and then get mad at them for it. Judges gets very defensive about their performance to (yes maybe the scores were wrong, but we got the placements right... missing the point that correct scoring allows coaches to do things more safely/consistently/creatively) In reality they are performing this job as accurately as they humanly can and producing the best results they can. The issue is those results can't get any better.

The system is flawed.

So the question is how do you fix it?

First identify what a judge can do well live and what they cannot.

When it comes to counting the amount of baskets that actually kick kick doubled in level 5, or the amount of stunts that actually fulled up in level 3, or the amount of backwalkovers that actually went instead cartwheels, the handsprings that went instead of walking back quickly in an intricate formation in level 2, or the amount of switche ups that actually happened in level 4 judges miss these numbers all the time. We talk about smoke and mirrors hiding missing skills all the time. If we have enough going fast enough and quick enough all at once the judges will miss the things we want them to miss. So judges do a bad job of correctly interpreting all the skills that are actually thrown live.

What a judge can tell you, no matter the skills that do or do not get thrown, is how well they are executed when looking live. If a bunch of stunts or tumbling goes and the judge does not have to worry about the numbers, but instead how well it was executed, performed, and how creative it was they will get this part correct with a high percentage of accuracy.

So we have our answer: do technique/execution live and do difficulty by recording, by separate people.

This solves a whole slew of issues.

-It frees up a technique judge to 'enjoy' the routine for its beauty and creativity. A routine might be the simplest straight up routine known to man (and the difficulty judge would get them for it) but the technique judge could properly reward their part.
-No more spillage because of creativity or intense hardness. Spillage is my least favorite thing on a scoresheet. Judges reward other areas on the scoresheet because of something this team did rather well. The routine was so hard they gave them better technique scores than they deserve (albeit this is less common than it used to be) OR a routine was so pretty they give them better difficulty scores than they deserve.
-A chance for a coach to argue a difficulty score, but NOT a technique score. This might seem odd, but hear me out. Coaches are going to argue scores, pretty much always. Since technique/performance can really only be judged ONCE live when someone does it this score can never really be accurately judged again. As we have simplified the job for the judges this accuracy should go up, but we are still left with the fact that coaches will argue. I say coaches are completely allowed to argue their difficulty score, for a price. (stole this part from gymnastics) If a coach believes the difficulty score for their team is not correct they can pay $200 dollars to have that difficulty score reviewed by someone else independently. If the score the new judge is outside a certain range (let's say if the team was given .7 and the new judge gave them more than a .1 swing... so .9 or .5) the coach gets their money back. If not the competition keeps the money. Basically a gym will only argue if they really know their score was messed up. $200 per category they think was wrong.
-Satisfaction to a team/athlete/coach their highly difficult skill they spent a lot of time on will get recognized. Sure they might have dropped their routine, they might have fallen in the dance, they might have the worst execution ever, but their middle triple up whirly do would be recognized in the difficulty score (even if only barely) and this would provide satisfaction and equitability to all and allow people to try new things.

This is the first novel I have written in a while.