Discussion of KCBS scoring rule changes for 2004
For 2004, the KCBS Board has added the following to the competition rules:
Section 19--
The scoring system is from 9
(Excellent), 5 (Average), to 2 (Bad). All numbers between two and nine may be
used to score an entry. A score of one (1) is a disqualification and requires
approval by a Contest Rep.
From
John Ross, KCBS Board member--
Here's the logic behind this
change:
It was felt (and I agree) that
LOTS of very average 'Q was getting 8's and 9's simply because there was no
technical reason to score it down.
The new nomenclature just
suggests that:
1) All numbers from 2 to 9
should be used, and
2) There is nothing wrong with
giving an average score to average 'Q.
3) Save the 9's for the
dyn-o-myte 'Q!
We won't be telling judges
where to start, and we won't be saying "start at 9 and take off points". We're
just going to tell them the scoring range, with modest definitions such as
9=excellent, 5=average, 2=BAD.
We felt we were restricting
the judges using the old system, and there were a number of reps that were
giving the judges the impression that they should never score less than 7.
Didn't give the judges much to work with! This should more accurately reflect
the scores as the really should be.
There were some that favored a
definition for EACH point. There were some that favored stating that you start
at 5 and go up or down. The compromise was to just say "Here are the points we
use, here's an idea of how they fall, feel free to use 'em all."
I really don't think there
will be massive changes in the judging, and yes, there will need to be some
re-education. Many judges still believe that only 9, 8, and 7 may be used to
score. That's wrong.
Personally, I wanted to state
that we start at 5, go up for better than average, down for below average. I
was out voted. The consensus at the Rules Meeting was that we should just
provide the framework, and let the judges decide what constituted excellent,
average, etc.
But, since we DO give the
guideline that average is 5, really incredible is 9, and cat food is 2, we’re
hoping that reasonably intelligent people will be able to rank what they get
somewhere in those scores.
I actually ran a test pretty
close to the new rule at a non-sanctioned contest, and it worked surprisingly
well. We had the most problems with Master CBJ’s, that just could not bring
themselves to score less than a 7, even when they admitted later that the food
was below average.
|
