First draft of unambiguous contesting and grading rules

Discussion in 'The Adjudicators' Comments' started by Will the Sec, Mar 7, 2005.

  1. Will the Sec

    Will the Sec Active Member

    OK, folks, we've alluded to the need for "contest rules" to be unambiguous, so here's your starter for ten.

    The rule of THIS thread is as follows.


    1. Regional Contesting Registration Rules ("The Areas")

    Unchanged. (They must, however, be published on all organisations' web sites so the difference between a new registration, a re-registration and a transfer is clear, and what deadlines apply to each.)

    2. Test Pieces (or Stating the bleedin' obvious)

    The band must play the piece as selected by the powers that be for the section they are in.

    3. Scoring points

    First place gets one, second gets two, third gets three, etc.

    4. Bands not competing

    Will be given one more point than the number of bands playing on the day. (If there are 15 bands in the programme, but only 13 play, then a band not playing will be awarded 14 points.)

    5. Bands disqualified

    Will be treated as not competing, and given one more point than number the number of bands who would have played had the disqualification not occurred. (So, if 15 bands play and 1 is disqualified, they will be given 16 points.)

    6. Promotion and Relegation

    Will be decided by a league table compiled over a three year period. In the event of bands finishing level on points, the band finishing higher in the most recent contest will be placed higher in the table. The bands finishing in the top two places in sections 1 to 4 will be promoted, and the bands finishing in the bottom two places in the Championship Section and in sections 1 to 3 will be relegated. Bands being relegated under what is Rule (k) in the L&SC area will automatically be placed bottom and will count as one of the two relegated bands.

    7. Promotion and Relegation Points

    Bands promoted will be given an average number of points for the two years preceding competition in a higher or lower division. (So, if a band is relegated to the fourth section, and in the previous two years there were 24 and 23 bands playing, then the band will be awarded 12 and 12.5 points for the preceding two years. Bands being disqaulified are NOT excluded from this calculation. In the example given under Bands disqualified the average points for that year for a relegated or promoted band will be 7.5.)

    8. Notification of promotion or relegation

    Will be provided to affected bands in writing by the relevant Management Committee no later than 31st July each year.

    9. Appeals

    Will not exist on grounds of placing as there will be no ties. (Para 6 refers.)


    OK, let the comments begin.

    Would you be happy to play using the rules as above? If not, why not? If not, what would you do differently, and why?

    Silence implies assent...
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2005
  2. lynchie

    lynchie Active Member

    If a band is disqualified after the contest having been given a placing of say.... 5th out of 15... by your rule they then get 16 points right? But then, do the bands who finished below them initially stick with the number of points they had? Or do they all get bumped up one? And if they all get bumped up, doesn't that leave a gap between the band who are now 14th, and the disqualified band who are effectively 16th...

    You're going to need to try harder!
  3. DublinBass

    DublinBass Supporting Member

    Just to make it simpler (bby keepingit in a constistent order) the one bit should read ...
    "and in the previous two years there were 24 and 23 bands playing, then the band will be awarded 12.5 and 12 points respectively for the preceding two years."

    And for Lynchie "Results for tables will be finalised pending any disqualifications" or summat
  4. mikey.smithy

    mikey.smithy Member

    The problem with Paragraph 7 is that a relegated or promoted band should not, in my opinion, be allocated an average number of points (i.e. the midpoint of the number of bands that competed in the new section) For instance, a band relegated from the championship section should not be classed as average in the First section and similarly a promted band to championship section should not be considered average in the champ section. I would like to see a promted band bve given a position say 2/3 of the way down the field and a relegated band 2/3 up the field. I know this may seem that it would unwittingly protect many bands and only the same few go up and down but I feel that a system whereby bands have one years mandatory grace in either a promted or relegated secetion would alleviate this. Just a thought.
  5. lewis

    lewis Member

    How about the bottom two go down and the top two go up, forget the points it just gets too confusing? Very simple and what seems fair to me as well.
  6. rumtetumtetum

    rumtetumtetum New Member

    Why bother with the 3 year amalgamation of points? with the sheer number of players shifting between bands every year, the band playing in 2005 in many cases will not be anywhere near (in terms of personnel) the same as the band who played in 2004 or 2003 and so why should they be judged on the efforts of their predecessors? It allows poor bands to stay up a section due to previous players good performances, and good bands who have worked hard to get bums on seats end up staying down due to poor performances by their predecessors.
    Perhaps being judged on the day and promoted or relegated from that performance alone would make the playing field more interesting and would negate the appeals process and the average points question. For those whose post contest cry is "we had a bad day/ draw", playing well from their relegation in the next area contest would see them immediately promoted back up instead of having to hope they are placed highly enough to overcome their automatic averages for the previous 2 years.
  7. lewis

    lewis Member

    You put it slightly better than me, but here-here all the same
  8. Craigsav83

    Craigsav83 Active Member

    Yup - thats my favoured system. Gives all the bands something to play for, as any band could be promoted, and any band could be relegated - I think this would make bands work harder. It would stop instances of bands having nothing to play for, as it is possible for bands to go to the contest with no chance of relegation, but very little chance of promotion unless results go their way. If you catch my drift...
  9. PeterBale

    PeterBale Moderator Staff Member

    You would of course have to come to a decision about bands that do not appear: if you're relegating the bottom two, and two registered bands withdraw because either the piece is totally beyond them or they are unable to field a band, it would not be right if they were to be allowed to compete in the same section the following year, in preference to bands that turned up and did their best.
  10. sparkling_quavers

    sparkling_quavers Active Member

    yep I agree Peter, If the 2 bottom were demoted then you could get a situation where bands would withdraw on the fear that they might come last. Whereas if they pull out they don't get demoted?
  11. Craigsav83

    Craigsav83 Active Member

    I feel bands that dont turn up (on the above unambiguous rules ;-) ) should be demoted. I think this would encourage bands to compete, even if they are a few players down. The difficulty is if 3 bands withdraw - what would happen then??
  12. Will the Sec

    Will the Sec Active Member

    Yes, they all get bumped up a place, and yes there is a gap between the last band and the disqualified band. The band that is disqualified is treated as not having played at all, as referred to under Para 4.
  13. Will the Sec

    Will the Sec Active Member

    I don't think that too many bands would agree to this.

    I think it would be impossible to get out of the fourth section in some areas. A band finishing in the top five in the fourth section three years running will likely and deservedly be promoted - but under on the day two up, two down, they could still be in the fourth section.

    In addition: Too much chance of one bad day of playing meaning relegation; one adjudication (poor/bad/subjective) going against them meaning relegation; a band could "buy" promotion by hiring in players just for one contest;

    Whilst all of these issues are factors over the three year period, I doubt that anyone below the top few bands could hire in a band three years running, and I've personally never had three poor results on the trot where the adjudication was questionable. And of course, if you play badly at three contests on the trot you will deserve to be relegated.
  14. lewis

    lewis Member

    If three bands withdraw then three bands get promoted. If a lower section band can afford to buy in players and has to do that to get out of their section then they are going to go straight back down again. If a band is good enough to get out of a section they will come 1st or 2nd. I just think the system is becoming more and more complicated to try and make more and more reasons for bands to come to terms with the fact they can't get promoted which is ridiculous.

    It just strikes me that our movement could just be made a little simplier, and this might immediately reduce the amount of politics and appeals that is forever putting a blemish on something we all love.
  15. Will the Sec

    Will the Sec Active Member

    Well, amen to that.

    The more ideas that come forward, the more discussion that takes place, and the more weight that can put behind changes, will mean that the powers that be will accept there is a need for change.
  16. PeterBale

    PeterBale Moderator Staff Member

    Another disadvantage I can see with the automatic up/down situation is that, in the event of a couple of withdrawals, there is little incentive for those bands at the bottom end of the section: if they know they have no chance of winning, but are also safe from demotion because of the withdrawals, then they have nothing much to play for, whereas under the present system an improvement of one or two places could make all the difference between survival and relegation.
  17. lewis

    lewis Member

    I can see that the up/down system isn't perfect but can anyone suggest anything else? If up/down isn't going to work I still believe there must be a better way of doing it than the way it is at the minute!
  18. brasscrest

    brasscrest Active Member

    Which is exactly why the results are over a time span. Actually, to be even more correct, more contests should be included. The more competitions are included in such a ranking, the more accurate it will be to the actual relative strengths of the groups involved. Since the current gradings are based on just one contest per year, you're only using three numbers. If you could somehow go to two per year, then you'd have six numbers, further diluting the effect of one variant performance.

    It probably isn't possible, but perhaps each region could designate one "non-area" contest per year as counting toward the grading - with bands not participating given an average placement - bands that competed more and were successful would get a "boost" in the grading by having an extra number to add in to the calculations. So a band that was looking to move up in the rankings could do so by being more active.
  19. lewis

    lewis Member

    Then you are putting added pressure on bands to do another contest to survive in their current section. The contest schedule is too much for some bands anyway, add another one and we could see even more bands pulling out of contests and eventually folding.
  20. tubafran

    tubafran Active Member

    I appreciate this thread is about contesting and everyone is trying to come up with fairer rules and to encourage bands to stay in competitions - but there can be life for bands that don't compete. How many 4th section bands only compete once or twice a year? I'm sure they manage to get plenty of other outings in a year to perform - would there be a significant change in these bands if they didn't compete? I think not.

Share This Page