Masters Adjudication Solution? Whats do you think?


Active Member
There has been some debate about the adjudication system at the Masters.

My personal opinion is the the 'three box-aggregate' system is good in theory, but when you have a situation when a band does not get one first placing and can still win (no disrespect Leyland, I gather you played really well) I think you have to reconsider it.

My band encountered 5-12-20 placings. The adjudicator who placed us 20th, placed the band preceding us in 1st which makes me wonder whether the particular gentleman was really interested or in the right frame of mind to listen to us after hearing his 'winning' band (ybs, who were awesome!). Having said that our final placing of 12th not far off the general concensus of people I spoke to and the other two judges.

What do we all think? Is this system good? Does it need a change? If so, how? Or should we leave it alone?


I too have read the article in BB regarding the adjudication system. Firstly, I haven't heard virtually any competing band complaining about the system. Why, therefore, change it?

However, one option that did cross my mind was to simply eliminate the lowest placing of the 3 judges and add together the two best placings. This would then give all the bands the 'benefit of the doubt'. I realise the problems with a tie but you could have 2 tie break judges. For example, this year, Eric Crees was the tie break judge. Under my system, he would become the first tie break judge. We then need a second tie break judge e.g. John Berryman. If Eric crees gave the worst placing and is therefore eliminated from the equation, John Berryman's placing would then have reigned supreme between he and the other judge.

If two judges gave the wrost placing, e.g. this year woodfalls had 2 18ths, then the main tiebreaker judges could remain.

On that basis, the results would have been as follows, (i think!!, If wrong please tell me):

1. Fodens
2. Leyland
3. YBS
4. Flowers
5. Brighouse
6. Sellers
7. Travelsphere
8. Fairey Band
9. Yorkshire Imps
10. Besses
11. Rothwell
12. Aveley
13. JAG
14. Redbridge
15. Ever Ready
16. Carlton Main
17. Jaguar Coventry
18. Ransome
19. Thoresby
20. Glossop
21. Woodfalls

Alternatively, the highest could be removed, then we would have a completely different result. However, I think the one above is better as it emphasises the reason for having 3 separate adjudicators.

I like the current system. Each adjudicator gives an honest opinion of who they thought won. If say there was only one adjudicator, either Fodens, YBS or Sellers would have won. It just goes to show that each of those bands did something right in the eyes of that adjudicator. That needs to be retained. The lowest mark shows that that adjudicator didn't necessarily like what that band did, (as compared to others) and so, giving the band the benefit of doubt, that score gets quashed.

Only a thought.


Naomi McFadyen

New Member
Do I feel and sense a bit of bad loser syndrome?

I think the system is fine, no need to change it at all!... and I'm not being biased because Leyland won this year... it was still a good day, as all contests are...

As someone has said in another topic- if you're not happy with the results, don't bother contesting... it's all experience at the end of the day, and if you were happy with your performance, then that's what counts :)


Active Member
Forgive me Naomi, but I find your response a little defensive. Please read through my posting in full again - then you will perhaps understand fully what I am trying to do - provoke a healthy discussion about a system that has come under scrutiny of late.

I have already said that I gather Leyland played well (we arrived after you played so I did not hear you) and others thought so too - it's always nice when a band that has struggled in the way that Leyland has over recent years can come out on top at a major contest. I admire Garry Cutts direction and enjoyed your post contest concert - good stuff!

However I do believe your comments are a little unfounded. I clearly stated that we were disapointed with 12th but that did not mean it was not right. I stated that from the people I spoke to around the hall that our 12th placing was about right - no 'bad loser syndrome' Naomi. Maybe your comments would be justified if you had just pipped us (in the way that YBS have been 'shafted' by the system in the past) but you finished well above us so why would I be so petty when the result would suggest we some way from the frame.

There is no doubt that Leyland were not seen as the best band by all the adjudicators (2,3 & 5) and by much of the people within hall. THAT IS NOT TAKING ANYTHING AWAY FROM LEYLAND WHO DESERVE IT IN TERMS OF AGGREGATE PLACINGS but it does bring into question whether the system determines the 'best' performance.

Naomi McFadyen

New Member
i was just saying! :shock:
I have my opinion, just like you have yours, and everybody else has theres... nothing more, nothing less.

As I say, I have nothing wrong with the system- no need to change it... I was simply stating what someone else in a similar topic had said, which I agree on and feel it is related to this topic-
if you (and I didn't mean you personally, I was saying that in a general manner- meaning anyone) are not happy with the format of the contest or results or whatever, etc, then dont bother contesting...

A harmless comment in my opinion!

But, if you took it personally or whatever, than I apologise... but I think you took what I said in a different meaning to what I was saying and intended it to mean...
If I wasn't in Leyland, I still would have said the same thing.


A belated well played Naomi!!! All three adjudicators praised your xylo work!!! As far as the thread is concerned I really cant be bothered.

Funny though, I dont remember things rumbling on this long after B&R did the same thing TWICE! Maybe they are just a better band?


Active Member
Thanks for your replies people!

I think I have been misunderstood :)oops:)

My original post was not to moan about the fact that my band did not finish higher (I am told by a number of people that 12th was about right for our performance), nor was it to criticise the system, nor was it to claim Leyland were not fair winners - it was merely just to ask people what their thoughts were. The subject has been debated recently and was interested to know what people for and against the system thought of it and why.

It all about opinions - if we all have our thoughts and it would be a boring place without them. All I ask is not to take the original post of of context.

Hope you are all well

John :D


I understand where Brassbones is coming from and Leyland must be fed up with all this debate by now. Unfortunately, this was the third time that this type of result has happened, (happening twice to B&R previously as Brassbones mentioned). Further, this year when the placings were added together the winners had the highest ever aggregate score. I think that it is for these 2 reasons together that there has been so much press about it.

I will reiterate my comments in my original post. I like the current system. It was chosen by the badns who enter and it should therefore be for them to ask for it to be changed if they want. In my opinion it is not for the British Bandsman or any other contingent of the banding press to require such changes. As players, we are lucky that the organisers of the Masters take our opinions so seriously. There is nothing wrong with reviewing the system but, as I mentioned previously, I dont know that many competing players who really object to the current system. It is interesting that the people who dislike the system the most are the adjudicators! Not that we wish to see them made silly (!) I like a judge being forced to stick to his opinion without having the option to look at what the others thought. To do so could be said to be like cheating on an exam!

I fear that too much tinkering with the system will result in a loss of credibility for the contest. I think the real question that people are afraid to answer is "Why do we really want to change the current system?" Is it because (as I think Brassbones was getting at) certain people (nobody in particular) believe that Leyland are not good enough/ do not have a sufficient pedigree to win one of the 'majors'? If so then that is rubbish and everybody knows it. Like any competition, if one of the favourites doesn't win then some people say that there must have been something wrong. The favourites had a bad day, etc etc. Rarely is it said that the underdog who won played a complete stormer.

Not for one moment am I suggesting that Leyland were not a favourite or that they were an underdog. My point is that I believe that the the calls for change to the system are for the wrong reasons.



Active Member
Naruco said:
As someone has said in another topic- if you're not happy with the results, don't bother contesting...

actually it was: "if you cant take a joke.. dont bother contesting" ;) ;) hehe neary muff :p
I do think you were a little harsh on john though, not everyone is out to de-flower you (BEEEEUUUURRRGGGHH!!!!)


Active Member
Thanks Aidan

I am not out to de-cry Leylands efforts, just asked an innocent question to see what people thought.

I could complain about being pipped into 11th by Besses....but I won't!! They played well, is Steve Sykes your regular MD? I noticed Linda is MD at Blackburn now.


Product tMP members are discussing