Adjudicator numbers

Discussion in 'The Adjudicators' Comments' started by Born Again Hovis Man, Mar 8, 2013.

  1. Please excuse me if this has already been discussed but I can't understand why most of the area contests which to my knowledge is partly in order to qualify for the nationals have two adjudicators but the London and southern counties only have one. Shouldn't all the areas should be judged the same way?
     
  2. theMouthPiece Related Searches

    Find more discussions like this one
    problem
  3. tubafran

    tubafran Active Member

    They are - best bands win, whethe its one, two or three in the box ;-)
     
  4. I'm not disagreeing that the best bands win and worst come last. Just think its strange that supposedly linked competitions have a different number of adjudicators depending on what area your in. What's the reason for this?
     
  5. tubafran

    tubafran Active Member

    Sorry my reply was a bit flippant - I would think there had been occasions were the decision of a single adjudicator may have been questioned - by implication 2 may give a "better" or more "acceptable" result.

    Its funny how when they put 2 in a box they both agree on the placings
     
  6. cornetcheese

    cornetcheese Member

    I would imagine cost is one of the big reasons - different area contests are ran by different area committees, so whilst they are "linked" in the sense they provide qualifyers for the nationals, they aren't run by one central body I guess.
     
  7. cockaigne

    cockaigne Member

    The number of adjudicators at each area is decided by the regional committee, which organises the actual contests. The rules, handed down by Kapitol, do not specify a number of adjudicators as far as I am aware.

    Two adjudicators was (I believe) first implemented by the WoE regional committee (although two adjudicators were being used at some of the large contests such as Pontins before this) - perhaps understandably, since they have some of the largest sections of any region (up to 30 in the 4th section, and 20 in the 2nd, at the time). The WoE also innovated the idea of the 'cool box', a quiet area away from the contest hall and stage, where the adjudicators are allowed to deliberate.

    Two adjudicators does not mean they will agree on results - I have played in a band which suffered a poor result when the two adjudicators (from their remarks) clearly did not agree on the second half of our test piece performance. That said, I feel that the overall effect of having a joint adjudication at important contests (particularly when national grading etc. is at stake) is to produce more consistent results, and less oddball placings (though the top section at Bradford last weekend may prove that rule somewhat!).

    Certainly I'd rather be placed 11th out of 18 by two adjudicators than by one, who from his remarks seemed to enjoy our performance very much, but perhaps from an early draw consequently forgot what he'd heard/thought at the time. Who knows.

    Alternatively, we could implement a system of having the draw for order of play, and a draw for the results at the same time (picked by ERNIE or whoever) - then contest stage nerves could be laid to rest at a stroke :)
     
  8. YRBBC

    YRBBC Member

    Two adjudicators for the regional contest was tried by the Yorkshire Region in 2004 for their Championship Section only. Following feedback and consultation Yorkshire then implemented two adjudicators for each section in 2005. Other regions slowly followed this example.

    The number of adjudicators is at the discretion of individual regions.
     
  9. boourns

    boourns Member

    North West bands were polled by their regional committee last year to see if they would prefer two adjudicators, and if they would be willing to pay the resultant increase in entry fee. The bands voted in favour, hence the move to two adjudicators for this year.
     
  10. Accidental

    Accidental Supporting Member

    LSC bands were polled a few years ago and the consensus then was to stick with one adjudicator. The committee won't change that unless a significant number of bands ask either for 2 in the box or for another poll. Any LSC bandies who feel strongly about it should ask their contest secs to talk to the regional second about it or get a rep along to a regional meeting.
     
  11. boourns

    boourns Member

    North West bands were actually polled twice within a few years. The first time the committee assumed that if a band couldn't be bothered to respond then they were happy with the status quo. The second time they were persuaded to make a decision based only on the votes actually received.

    I think it is indicative of the apathy endemic to banding that, even when they had only to return an extra sheet of paper with their Area entry form, only about half the bands indicated a preference.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2013
  12. theMouthPiece Related Searches

    Find more discussions like this one
    problem
  13. Pauli Walnuts

    Pauli Walnuts Moderator Staff Member

    I am sure they would happily discuss again - but don't forget, it's not just the cost but the availability of the right people bearing in mind some regions ahve their contest on the same weekend.
    On the last point, unless things have changed, individual bands can't send a rep to a L&SC meeting so you would need to go via your local association on this. TBH, the association rep taking the concensus view of 30 + bands should have more impact there and was indeed the catalyst for the vote last time around.
     
  14. essexgirl

    essexgirl Member

    Can I ask folks in those regions who do have 2 adjudicators - do they sit in the same box? At the NW this year it was the first time we had 2 judges and we were flabbergasted to have the same ranking on both sets of remarks. In a section the size of ours, not pure coincidence! This surely is not what having ( and paying extra for) 2 judges is about! What happens else where with the two and how are the results combined? Thanks
     
  15. cockaigne

    cockaigne Member

    As I recall, the adjudicators at Torquay (WoE) write up their remarks, and use these (along with personal placings/points) as the basis of their deliberations in deciding the final placings. Only the final placings are issued on the remarks sheets, however.

    Surely if you pay for two adjudicators, it's better that you end up with placings they have agreed on together...?
     
  16. essexgirl

    essexgirl Member

    THanks for the info Jack, I suppose the point I struggle with is not knowing what their individual opinions are because these can be wildly different, or you might get one adjudicator more dominant over the other etc. Be interested to hear about the other regions too...
     
  17. MoominDave

    MoominDave Well-Known Member

    I remember reading this at the time, and thinking "That sounds like a considerable simplification of the actual situation". Now the thread has come back to life, I'll take that as a poke to get around to doing the laborious digging needed to see what really happened... Here are years and areas in which BBR lists two adjudicators against area contests:

    L&SC: 1946 (Ch, 2, 3, Y), 1947 (Ch), 1955 (Ch, 2, 3, 4), 1977-80 (Ch) [next couple of years missing info] [1945 and 1948 also missing but maybe likely?]
    Midlands: 1946 (Ch), 1947 (Ch, 2), 1948 (Ch info only), 1977 (Ch), [1978 no info yet], 1979-80 (Ch), 2006-present [1945 no info yet]
    NoE: 1946-47 (Ch, 2), 1978 (only Ch listed), 1979-81 (Ch) [1945, 1948, 1977 no info yet. Also quite a few years missing around the 60s.]
    NW: 1946 (Ch), 1948 (only Ch listed), 1977-81 (Ch), 2013 (Ch, 1, 2, 3, 4) [presumably 1947 too, but no info yet]
    Scotland: 1946-47 (Ch, 2), 1970 [looks a bit suspicious - same two for all sections, and at a time when other areas weren't trying out the idea]], 1977-80 (Ch), 2003-present (Ch, 1, 2, 3, 4)
    Wales: 1947 (Ch, 2), 1977-79 (Ch)
    WoE: 1946 (2, 3), 1966 (Ch, 2, 3, 4) [missing quite a few years around this one and it looks a bit suspicious - same two for all sections, and at a time when other areas weren't trying out the idea], 1979-80 (Ch), 2006-present (Ch, 1, 2, 3, 4) [1977-8 no info yet]
    Yorkshire: 1945 (Ch, 2), 1946-47 (Ch), 1980 (Ch), 1981 (only Ch listed), 1983 (Ch), 2004 (Ch), 2005-present (Ch, 1, 2, 3, 4)
    No recorded instances during the brief incarnations of the North Midlands (1985-1993), South Midlands (1985-1993), and North Wales (1991-1994) areas.

    Not all years, all sections, all regions have adjudicators listed against them (some we do not have at all), so this is necessarily an incomplete survey. In addition, I simply flipped through the top section in each area, so will probably have missed any cases where lower sections used 2 but championship only used 1 adjudicator (doubtful if one would do it that way though?). Nevertheless this does show that the actual situation is rather more complex than "Yorkshire led the way in 2004 and it took all the rest of you some time to catch up", a sentiment that isn't actually a true one.

    Conclusions:
    - Two adjudicators was an idea first tried in the very first year of area contesting, 1945. We know that Yorkshire implemented it for the top two sections, and may have been ahead of the pack here, but we are lacking info on adjudicators for several other areas that used a two adjudicator scheme the following year, so cannot conclude that safely on the basis of this evidence.
    - There was more-or-less countrywide use of two adjudicators in these first years, with examples showing up in every year 1945-48. In 1946 every top section except the Welsh one used two [noting that the "top section" in the WoE in that year was the 2nd section, with the championship being a walkover for Camborne].
    - London & Southern Counties pioneered the use of two adjudicators for all sections as one-offs in 1946 and 1955.
    - There was a second wave of enthusiasm for the idea in the late 70s, with most regions adopting two adjudicators in 1977, and others following shortly after. Ironically, Yorkshire was the slowest region to adopt at this time.
    - The idea then resurfaced in 2003 (not 2004), when Scotland (not Yorkshire) used two judges for all sections. Yorkshire followed the next year as described above, with Midlands, WoE, and NW following later.
    - This time around, the concept has shown more staying power than on the two previous occasions, although the geographical spread of adoption is not yet as wide, with only 5 regions having used two in 2013.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2013
  18. cockaigne

    cockaigne Member

    You're welcome :)

    Though only the final placings are published, a careful reading of the remarks can usually show where the adjudicators differed in opinion, and is often very revealing as to how opinions can differ on matters such as style and interpretation.

    One (quite senior) adjudicator once wrote that a certain section we had played was too fast for their personal taste, but acknowledged that the band and conductor handled it well; the other adjudicator in the box had clearly liked our approach to that passage. On the other hand, I have seen joint adjudications agree on the first half of a performance, with very positive remarks all round, only to differ wildly over the second half, resulting in a tumble down the placings - so it can work both ways!

    It's a more balanced approach overall, though; I've never felt hard done by with a joint adjudication (perhaps with that one exception!), but can't honestly say the same when there's been one person in the box.
     
  19. essexgirl

    essexgirl Member

    One (quite senior) adjudicator once wrote that a certain section we had played was too fast for their personal taste, but acknowledged that the band and conductor handled it well; the other adjudicator in the box had clearly liked our approach to that passage. On the other hand, I have seen joint adjudications agree on the first half of a performance, with very positive remarks all round, only to differ wildly over the second half, resulting in a tumble down the placings - so it can work both ways!

    I agree it can work both ways, but would still think an actual scoring shown by each adjudicator would show more transparency of what actually went on in the box (talking of which , how does the 'bucket of sand' in the corner work with two in the box ! but I digress)......
     
  20. essexgirl

    essexgirl Member

    Wow MoominDave ! thanks for all that fantastic research and your Conclusions:
    - Two adjudicators was an idea first tried in the very first year of area contesting, 1945. We know that Yorkshire implemented it for the top two sections, and may have been ahead of the pack here, but we are lacking info on adjudicators for several other areas that used a two adjudicator scheme the following year, so cannot conclude that safely on the basis of this evidence.
    - There was more-or-less countrywide use of two adjudicators in these first years, with examples showing up in every year 1945-48. In 1946 every top section except the Welsh one used two [noting that the "top section" in the WoE in that year was the 2nd section, with the championship being a walkover for Camborne].
    - London & Southern Counties pioneered the use of two adjudicators for all sections as one-offs in 1946 and 1955.
    - There was a second wave of enthusiasm for the idea in the late 70s, with most regions adopting two adjudicators in 1977, and others following shortly after. Ironically, Yorkshire was the slowest region to adopt at this time.
    - The idea then resurfaced in 2003 (not 2004), when Scotland (not Yorkshire) used two judges for all sections. Yorkshire followed the next year as described above, with Midlands, WoE, and NW following later.
    - This time around, the concept has shown more staying power than on the two previous occasions, although the geographical spread of adoption is not yet as wide, with only 5 regions having used two in 2013. .......................................................................any info on how they reach their results overall I wonder?
     
  21. Accidental

    Accidental Supporting Member

    Afaik they're either magically in complete agreement (amazing how many times you hear that, but I very rarely believe it!), or they discuss it and come up with a set of results either by consensus or that the person with the strongest opinion/most convincing argument/seniority wants...
     
  22. essexgirl

    essexgirl Member

    ...... and therein lies the problem!
     

Share This Page