[ QUOTE ]
Without a doubt the events need more volunteers who are willing to volunteer and work their way up, so to speak. There are opportunties to volunteer without judging and develope a feel for the events without learning while scoring, I think. Stumper, to not find something for a volunteer to do is inexcusable. Unfortunately, there are times (I am not saying you!) where aspiring volunteers watch the TCC one year and the next they "volunteer" to be head judge of the work climb. So, the chair needs to use all of his tact and people skills at times.
The following is all just one man's opinion formed since volunteering and watching Jamborees and TCC's since 1988 or so. I offer it only to see what the participants of this forum think about it. (That's why I asked the question to start with)
True, every chapter could use more help. To me, it seems that too often there is a last minute scramble to fill some open spots of "no shows" and the committee ends up rearranging the judges team with new volunteers the best that they can. However, there are plenty of volunteer opportunities for people with little or not experience (recorders, runners and timers in some events). It really is the aerial rescue and work climb where the judges need to know what is going on, and they need to be familiar with the rules and scoring before they walk into the fence. Otherwise, they may well go through several contestants before they learn enough to reach a level of consistency.
Is it fair for one judge to interpret the rules and scoring based on his particular experiences? As an example, IMO, some judges seem to be enamored of new equipment without asking themselves if it is safer, easier or faster. They rate the display of equipment over the skills of the climber. If their particular interpretations are not consistent with the rest of the industry then they may well help to advance a climber who is not the best in the chapter and who will not fare so well at the ITCC level.
Also in my observation it seems that climbing experience has little bearing on a judges' abilities. There are some really good judges that could not get off of the ground and there are some really good climbers who are terrible judges. It also goes the other way, there are climbers who make good judges and non-climbers who make great runners. The self-confidence and decision making skills, coupled with the willingness to study and understand the rules and scoring for the events that are a necessity for consistent scoring, are not related to climbing skills.
The reason that I even bring this up is that a fellow just started working with us who referees sandlot football. Not high school, NCAA or certainly pros; just sandlot. He has had to go to several meetings after work and one Saturday training session. He has to take a test and he has to demonstrate his abilities in a simulated game scenario.
So, can the TCC continue to grow and improve with a trained, skilled and certied corps of judges?
Carl
[/ QUOTE ]
You make a lot of good points in your post. I guess the question boils down to how to get a corps of properly trained and skilled judges when, as of now, there aren't any ISA TCC sanctioned schools for training judges? Right now the best way to get experience judging is to work a ton of events and hopefully shadow a few of the more experienced judges and then talk everything over after the event. ITCC does a great job with the after action question and answer session and maybe that is something that should happen on the Chapter level as well. My guess is many Chapters already do this (CAA comes to mind). Talking about this here between comps is a great way to shed light on different situations which might help those who are judging events or those that hope to.
I guess part of the problem is that it is near impossible to determine the judging trait that all judges should have. You mentioned a good example of a judge potentially scoring some "new equipment" as better than other methods without reviewing or knowing all of the positives or negatives of said equipment. I think the use of a "Big Shot" for entry into the tree in the Masters Climb demonstrates your point pretty well, except for the fact that most judges tend to give more points for someone who throws manually instead of using the Big Shot. While the gear may be impressive and makes life easier (and should then be scored higher?) the skill needed to throw manually is also impressive (and scores highly) but each judge sees it differently. Which judge is right? The trait that I would look for most in judges is an open and non-biased analytical mind. (okay that was several traits) It seems to me that you fit this profile quite well.
I agree with you that having prior competitive climbing or any climbing experience is not absolutely necessary to make a good judge, but having the experience of knowing how climbing gear functions in different and often crazy situations helps a great deal in understanding what the competitor is thinking as they perform their climb. Having played and hopefully won many chess matches verse trees can help a judge a great deal in determining whether or not a certain piece of gear has helped a climber in a given situation or just looked cool while they were using it.
For me personally as a competitor, I always was happy to see judges that had climbed at some point in their Arbor careers and even happier to see ex-competitors who had come back to give back to the competitions and help out because often I knew their capabilities and respected their opinion of my climbing.
So should there be some sort of standard and testing for judges? Maybe.....but I think we might be better served to just recruit more people to help out at each event. If the judging pool is larger their is a much better chance that you will find the right judges for each event.
This is an excellent thread Carl, thanks for starting it and sharing your opinions. Without a doubt this will help all involved with the judging and hopefully the competitors as well.
