2 adjudicators for all sections at the Areas?

[PeterBale]

Following the conclusion of this year's Area contests, several contributors have raised the question of whether it is right for such an important event in the banding calendar to be left in the hands of one person, no matter how well qualified or experienced he or she may be. So much depends on the outcome of the Area contest in terms of qualification for the National Finals and promotion and relegation issues, that there seems to be a feeling that two adjudicators should be in place in all Areas and for all sections.

In order to "test the water" on this, I'd like, as someone not involved personally in contesting, and so with no particular axe to grind, to set up a poll to gauge the reaction of tMP users. I would encourage all of those who read this thread to cast your vote, especially if you and your band would be affected by this change. Also, please feel free to post comments as well with your thoughts regarding any costing implications or other aspects. Depending on the response, it may be decided to take this further in terms of lobbying the powers that be or launching a campaign of some sort.

It will also be helpful if we can have any general comments on adjudications levels in this thread, keeping the "Cambridge Masters" one specifically for that particular system of Adjudication:
http://www.themouthpiece.com/viewtopic.php?t=5686

 

[Dave Payn]

Whilst I have bemoaned what I feel is a decline in standard of adjudicating darn sarf (not so much at the 'areas' but local contest - full band AND quartet/ensemble), I would like to see two judges for each section at each areas. I think L&SC need this at lower section level particularly. The 4th section was 21 bands strong this year. It used to be 33-35! I wouldn't like to try and accurately place all 21 bands (let alone 35!) on my own if I were an adjudicator!

It wouldn't remedy all the ills, as there are other issues that not necessarily having three for all areas would solve, but I do think it would provide a fairer system, a start, anyway, particularly when promotion/demotion largely depends on one contest a year.

 

[AJSOP]

I personally think that 2 adjudicators for all sections would be a lot better as it then is not just down to one mans opinion. I noticed that the scottish area already use 2 adjudicators for each section.

 

[dyl]

Personally, my main gripe is that all sections in all areas should use the same system - as they are all competing for the same goal - a place in the finals. Granted some of the Champ Sections have an extra incentive, but it would be much fairer for everyone to be judged using the same system.

And as for the number of judges, my personal preference is for two people in the box!

 

[Dave Payn]

I personally think that 2 adjudicators for all sections would be a lot better as it then is not just down to one mans opinion. I noticed that the scottish area already use 2 adjudicators for each section.

Which does beg the question that when promotion/demotion depends on one 12-20 minute performance every year, why isn't the system for qualifying for our national competition consistent throughout the UK???

I know I'm probably missing something obvious here (like 'well, London's different innit'... :roll: )

 

[WhatSharp?]

This is the single most important contest in every bands calendar, and to have one man in the box (I've always felt) is almost insulting to the hard work that bands put in. It should not be the case that every year one mans opinion decides who goes up and who goes down, for many bands it can be the difference between building on what they have or loosing players who either want more success or a tired of slogging their guts out for nothing. I appreciate that cost is involved, but I would support higher fees for fairer adjudication, and I believe that this applies more to the lower section bands, especially these days with such a big shortage of players.

 

[WoodenFlugel]

It narks me slightly that some areas have 2 adjudicators for the top section and only one for the others. Surely the promotion / relegation / finals issues are as important to lower section bands as they are to championship bands.

I know several people that have lobbied the midlands association constantly for 2 adjudicators in all sections, only to be turned down with some fairly lame excuses (IMHO). On the subject of cost, why not drop the prize money to help pay for the extra adjudicators? No-one I know of goes to the area to win the £150 first prize!

Ranting aside for the moment it has to be the way forward for ALL areas and ALL sections, or at the very least let's have the same rules nationally one way or the other.

By the way I think the varying placings between the adjudicators at the masters in recent years shows exactly why we should have two adjudicators!

 

[Aidan]

Personally, my main gripe is that all sections in all areas should use the same system - as they are all competing for the same goal - a place in the finals.

agreed!! Although I do agree that we should have 2 in the box, I find it very disconcerting that because of a complaint by one band, an extra adjudictor was brought in for their section, making it the only section in any area to have two.

 

[BoozyBTrom]

I appreciate that this idea may be a logistical nightmare. But in my own fantasy world i think it would work.
The powers that be should select a team of adjudicators for the Area Contests for that year. 2 for each section. So there would be 10 judges in total.

These juges would then do all the areas each pairing doing the same section at each area. ( So if you were the 2nd section pairing. You would do every 2nd Section area)

Then you would get a fair judgement. So you know that they will be at least consistant.

I appreciate it would be a nightmare to sort out and the regional qualifers would take longer to complete ( e.g arranging the dates.) but it would be a more consistant way of judging.

 

[Darth_Tuba]

Hmmm... interesting one this. Now, consider the complaints about the Masters, i.e. that bands placed 1st by some adjudicators can end up being shafted by another or that a winning band may not have been first in the minds of any of the judges. Fair complaints. Now consider two judges in a box. There are two possibiltys here:

1. They will agree on the winning performance, in which case you may as well have one man's opinion anyway.

2. They will each have a different winning performance, and one will have to kow-tow to the others judgement (may as well have one guy), or they reach a compromise on one performance they both had ranked highly, but not as first place (back to the problem of the Masters).

By the way, I know the results all the way down are equaly important as 1st place (especially in terms of a band's survival), but was just using that as an example. I know this doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I do think that if you are going to have more than one adjudicator it really has to be three. Then at least a majority decision can be arrived at. However, it should be the same for ALL sections.

 

[Dave Payn]

Hmmm... interesting one this. Now, consider the complaints about the Masters, i.e. that bands placed 1st by some adjudicators can end up being shafted by another or that a winning band may not have been first in the minds of any of the judges. Fair complaints. Now consider two judges in a box. There are two possibiltys here:

1. They will agree on the winning performance, in which case you may as well have one man's opinion anyway.

2. They will each have a different winning performance, and one will have to kow-tow to the others judgement (may as well have one guy), or they reach a compromise on one performance they both had ranked highly, but not as first place (back to the problem of the Masters).

By the way, I know the results all the way down are equaly important as 1st place (especially in terms of a band's survival), but was just using that as an example. I know this doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I do think that if you are going to have more than one adjudicator it really has to be three. Then at least a majority decision can be arrived at. However, it should be the same for ALL sections.

Very good points, Shrek, but if nothing else, consistency through all the areas/sections would be a start, even if it's just ONE adjudicator.

 

[Jo Elson]

I think you should def have two or if not three. we can't expect the one adjudicator to be able to notice everything, and with two at least it makes it a more fair, and if there is major disagreements then a third person may be required but if the results are fair then there shouldn't really be any major disagreements in the first place. And I think it would make both adjudicators focus, because surely the one adjuicator gets bored sat in a box on his own for hours listening to the same piece over and over.

 

[Straightmute]

Are two adjudicators more correct than one? Are the results from contests where two or three adjudicators more accurate than events where one is used? Can two adjudicators concentrate for longer than one?

Is it not better to have one man's honest opinion than a messy compromise where everyone's third favourite band takes home first prize?

Only questions, not answers!

D

 

[Dave Payn]

Are two adjudicators more correct than one? Are the results from contests where two or three adjudicators more accurate than events where one is used? Can two adjudicators concentrate for longer than one?

Is it not better to have one man's honest opinion than a messy compromise where everyone's third favourite band takes home first prize?

Only questions, not answers!

D

And isn't it about time we had more women adjudicating? (Wasn't having a dig, David. It is seemingly controlled by the male fraternity, after all!) It's only ever happened once in my 20 years of contesting!

 

[Straightmute]

I use 'man' in the generic sense of the word, ie mankind...

Of course!

D

 

[brasscrest]

Can two adjudicators concentrate for longer than one?

Concentration and alertness are often functions of one's natural circadian rhythms. If the two people have different cycles, then their relative levels of alertness will tend to average out to a smoother (more level) curve.

Looking at this issue from far away, it seems to me that the real issue is the difference in adjudication rules between the areas (and to some extent between sections in the same area). Should be one rule for all, whether than means two in the box or one.

 

[Dave Payn]

That really is the nub for me, Robert. A level playing field for all. Whether it's two men, 1 woman, 3 chickens or a consort of wildebeest adjudicating

 

[Di]

If there are going to be two judges, what is considered to be the fairest way of selecting the winning band.

Do you put two men in one box where they are allowed to discuss the ups and downs of the performance with 1 set of remarks and points and agree on the winning band

OR

Do you put them in separate boxes, let them have their own remarks and points and have the winning band as that with the most aggregate points?

If its the latter, do the bands get to know the individual scores (could upset bands if one judge places them in the frame and the other just didn't like it, therefore bringing score right down) or just the total giving them their placing?

Again, more questions, not answers I'm afraid. I've always been happy to shout with the rest of them "lets have 2 judges", but if it came down to it, I'm not sure which would be the fairer way of using them.

The one point I do totally agree on is ONE RULE FOR ALL. Do the Scottish Bands belong to the British Brass Band Federation. (Sorry, I don't know this ). If so, then I find it unacceptable that there is a different set of rules.

 

[Straightmute]

Do the Scottish Bands belong to the British Brass Band Federation. (Sorry, I don't know this ). If so, then I find it unacceptable that there is a different set of rules.

I agree. The only 'rule' is that the Regional Commettees are autonomous in this respect and can decide on the name(s) and numbers of adjudicators for themselves.

D

 

[Hollso]

I think there should be two; even if it costs more, if a band wants a sure result then £1 per member can easily cover it for a band.