Proposal 81: Selecting judges and rating their performance [ Revision 2 ]

Committee: Flat & Street
Submitted on 2017-01-15
Status: Passed on January 22, 2017

Background

To clarify and simplify the selection of judges. Some repeated or useless information thrown out + making the rule consistant with their sentence structure.

Here are differences:



10C.3 Judges

 

10C.3.1 Judging Panel

 

There must always be an odd number of judges to prevent ties.

 

10C.3.2 Selecting Judges

 

A person should not judge an event if he or she is:

  1. 1. A parent, child or sibling of a rider competing in the event.

 

  1. 2. An individual or team coach, manager, trainer, colleague who is member of the same club (specified in the registration form) colleague’s family etc. of a as a rider competing in the event.

 

  1. 3. More than one judge from the same family on the same judging panel. judging the same event at the same time.

 

If the judging pool is too limited by the above criteria, restrictions can be eliminated starting from the bottom of the list and working upward as necessary only until

enough judges are available. If there are some candidates who have the same level of restrictions and judging score, their agreement about publishing the results

need to be considered. The eliminations must be agreed upon by the Chief Judge and Flatland Director, or next-highest ranking street official if the Chief Judge and

Flatland Director are the same person.

10C.3.3 Judging Panel May Not Change

 

The individual members of the judging panel must remain the same for an entire category; for example one judge may not be replaced by another except between categories. In the event of an medical or other emergency, this rule can be waived by the Chief Judge.

 

 

10C.3.3.1 Rating Judge Performance

 

Judges are rated by comparing their scores to those of other judges at previous competitions. Characteristics of Judging Weaknesses: If a judge’s performance is determined to be too weak, they may be removed from the judging panel.

 

  • • Excessive Ties: Using ties frequently (it defeats the purpose of judging.) A judge should be able to differentiate between competitors. Though tying is most definitely acceptable, excessive use of tying defeats the pur-pose of judging.

 

  • • Group Bias: If a judge places members of a certain group or nation significantly lower or higher than other judges. different from the other judges. This includes a judge placing members significantly higher or significantly lower (a judge may be harsher on his or her own group members) than the other judges.

 

  • • Inconsistent Placing: If a judge places a large number of riders significantly different from the average of the other judges.

 

 

Proposal

NEW:

10C.3 Judges 

10C.3.1 Panel 

There must always be an odd number of judges to prevent ties. 

10C.3.2 Selection

A person should not judge an event if they are any of the following:

A parent, child or sibling of a rider competing in the event. 

A coach, manager, trainer or colleague of the same club/team as a rider competing in the event. 

More than one judge from the same family on the same judging panel.

If the judging pool is too limited by the above criteria, restrictions can be eliminated starting from the bottom of the list and working upward as necessary, but only until enough judges are available. 

10C.3.3 Panel May Not Change 

The individual members of the judging panel must remain the same for an entire category. In the event of an emergency, this rule can be waived by the Chief Judge. 

10C.3.3.1 Performance Rating 

Judges are rated by comparing their scores to those of other judges at previous competitions. If a judge’s performance is determined to be too weak, they may be removed from the judging panel.

 

Excessive Ties: Using ties frequently (it defeats the purpose of judging.)
Bias: Placing members of certain groups or nations significantly lower or higher than other judges.
Inconsistence: Ranking a large number of riders significantly different from the average of other judges. 




OLD:

10C.3 Judges 

10C.3.1 Panel 

There must always be an odd number of judges to prevent ties. 

10C.3.2 Selection

A person should not judge an event if they are any of the following:

A parent, child or sibling of a rider competing in the event. 

A coach, manager, trainer or colleague of the same club (specified in reg. form) as a rider competing in the event. 

More than one judge from the same family on the same judging panel.

If the judging pool is too limited by the above criteria, restrictions can be eliminated starting from the bottom of the list and working upward as necessary, but only until enough judges are available. 

10C.3.3 Panel May Not Change 

The individual members of the judging panel must remain the same for an entire category. In the event of an emergency, this rule can be waived by the Chief Judge. 

10C.3.3.1 Performance Rating 

Judges are rated by comparing their scores to those of other judges at previous competitions. If a judge’s performance is determined to be too weak, they may be removed from the judging panel.

 

Excessive Ties: Using ties frequently (it defeats the purpose of judging.)
Bias: Placing members of certain groups or nations significantly lower or higher than other judges.
Inconsistence: Ranking a large number of riders significantly different from the average of other judges. 

Body

All info up there

References

Discussion

View Discussion

Change Log:

Revision 2 changed by Scott Wilton (18 Jan 13:41)

Update club to club/team because not all riders publish this information in registration.

Revision 1 changed by Emile Mathieu (15 Jan 13:36)

Votes on this proposal:

6 out of 10 voting members have voted.

Agree: 6, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 0.

Copyright © IUF 2016