Not a whinge at all this. Just want your thoughts as to the criteria for adjudicators written up in 2006 by Alan Morisson and endorsed by Derek Broadbent, where he states discretion is allowed (contradiction?). Personally, I agree with it as, in theory, it should help bands, although it does state the obvious. I also feel that adjudicators should have add an element of discretion so as to take away robotic and parrot fashion performances, however my concern is the points system (when required). It advises parameters then completes by stating discretion again, therefore, what is the point of it. One contest springs to mind where a ridiculous points system was used by the adjudicator. Preston 2008, 4th Section. Fair result, however a certain Miss Nicholson split every band by 5 points from top to bottom. How would you come to that conclusion? It made a mockery of the criteria set. Incidentally, and for another time maybe, she slated the bands that played the Area Test Piece in preparation (her opinion is fine), however it then became blatantly obvious, looking at the incipid remarks, that she had not bothered to adjudicate the 3 bands in question, who all incidentally, finished in the bottom 3. I also know of bands that have followed the criteria to the letter and basically come away with nothing after reasonable performances. This includes following tempo's to the letter also. Bands who had not worried so much about it have had results at the very same contests. My concern is merely that , why have the guidelines when it is blatantly apparent they are not being adhered to by even some of the best of adjudicators? Have they taken them on board or do we ignore them and carry on regardless? I would be interested to hear your comments. Like I said, debate only, not a whinge.