|
The All England Masters adjudication system comes under scrutiny:
John Casey, the man behind the 4BarsRest ranking system, proposes
an alternative system that eliminates the 'rogue adjudicator' factor
that has had a massive effect on the competition's winners on two
previous occasions.
In the weeks that have passed since the 2001 Masters I have thought
and read a lot about the judging system and have come to the following
conclusions.
-
The most important thing about the result of any band contest
is that the winners are placed correctly. It also seems unacceptable
for any band to finish in first position in the majority of
the adjudicator's opinions and not win the contest.
-
As this has happened twice now, perhaps the current system
doesn't work?
-
The majority of bands are allegedly in favour of keeping the
existing system. This probably doesn't represent the majority
of bandsmen's opinion but more likely the majority of secretaries/
band managers opinion. Even if the bandsmen are in favour of
it, does that necessarily make it the best system? In my experience
good players often know much more about playing music than about
the relative merits of different adjudicating systems.
-
It is easier for adjudicators to correctly differentiate between
1st and 2nd place than between 10th and 11th or 19th and 20th.
It is also more important in the big scheme of things to get
the top placings right and to ensure this it should be reflected
in the points differential. Fans of Grand Prix will know that
the winner receives ten points, second gets six points etc.
Therefore, there should be a bigger reward for finishing in
first place with an adjudicator than finishing second when positions
are to be added to get the final result. Currently the system
offers the same relative reward to the band that finishes 19th
against the 20th band as it does to the winners against 2nd
place.
-
The 'rogue adjudicator' factor has played too big a part in
the recent history of this contest. At this year's competition,
if Roy Newsome had awarded YBS 5th rather than 7th, they would
have won the contest, so perhaps we should call into question
the fairness of a system if a result can hinge on such a small
factor when the other two judges have been so decisive. By rewarding
the higher placed bands on a sliding scale as mentioned above
would eliminate the possibility of a bad result from one adjudicator
ending an otherwise highly rated band's chances.
At the heart of the 4BarsRest rankings system is the concept that
the value of every position in a contest is worth 25 - 100% more
than the position immediately below. These are figures that have
been arrived at as a result of nothing more than opinion, but considered
opinion over a period of many years based on my own experience of
finishing in a suitably large variety of positions in most of the
major contests and the value I have placed on these results. When
applied to a real situation such as this year's Masters, it doesn't
make a great deal of difference what the percentage difference is
as the top places remain virtually unchanged as soon as we go over
around 10%. But 50% is an easy figure to work with and it appears
to work as well as any other. It also makes it impossible for a
band with two 1st places to be beaten by a band with no firsts.
This system is highly suitable for application to the Masters competition.
If, for instance, the first band in every adjudicator's opinion
was awarded 100 points, the 2nd 66.67 points, 3rd 44.44 points etc...,
then the penalty for being placed lowly by only one adjudicator
will not be as severe as at present. At the same time the system
allows for every judge's decision to be taken into account as none
of the placings are discarded as in other proposed systems. There
have been suggestions that 5 adjudicators be used with the top and
bottom placings discarded, the probable outcome of which is a compromise
result. This would be equally as unacceptable as the current system.
The following table illustrates the workings of the sliding scale
system when applied to the 2001 Masters.
| |
RN
|
JS
|
GW
|
Old
|
Rank
|
New
|
Rank
|
+/-
|
Points available
|
| Brighouse
& Rastrick |
3
|
3
|
2
|
8
|
1
|
155.56
|
2
|
-1
|
1
|
100.00
|
| YBS |
7
|
1
|
1
|
9
|
2
|
208.78
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
66.67
|
| Carlton
Main |
2
|
4
|
10
|
16
|
3
|
98.90
|
4
|
-1
|
3
|
44.44
|
| Fodens |
5
|
6
|
5
|
16
|
4
|
52.67
|
7
|
-3
|
4
|
29.63
|
| Flowers |
13
|
2
|
4
|
19
|
5
|
97.07
|
5
|
0
|
5
|
19.75
|
| DUT
Yorkshire Imps |
1
|
10
|
9
|
20
|
6
|
106.50
|
3
|
3
|
6
|
13.17
|
| Ever
Ready |
8
|
9
|
6
|
23
|
7
|
22.92
|
9
|
-2
|
7
|
8.78
|
| Ransome |
4
|
12
|
8
|
24
|
8
|
36.64
|
8
|
0
|
8
|
5.85
|
| Faireys |
15
|
7
|
3
|
25
|
9
|
53.57
|
6
|
3
|
9
|
3.90
|
| Besses |
9
|
8
|
15
|
32
|
10
|
10.10
|
12
|
-2
|
10
|
2.60
|
| Rothwell |
12
|
5
|
16
|
33
|
11
|
21.14
|
10
|
1
|
11
|
1.73
|
| Bodmin |
10
|
13
|
11
|
34
|
12
|
5.11
|
14
|
-2
|
12
|
1.16
|
| Leyland |
6
|
14
|
18
|
38
|
13
|
13.78
|
11
|
2
|
13
|
0.77
|
| First
City |
11
|
15
|
12
|
38
|
14
|
3.23
|
15
|
-1
|
14
|
0.51
|
| Sellers |
14
|
11
|
14
|
39
|
15
|
2.76
|
16
|
-1
|
15
|
0.34
|
| Todmorden |
17
|
18
|
7
|
42
|
16
|
9.03
|
13
|
3
|
16
|
0.23
|
| Mount
Charles |
16
|
19
|
13
|
48
|
17
|
1.07
|
17
|
0
|
17
|
0.15
|
| Travelsphere |
18
|
17
|
19
|
54
|
18
|
0.32
|
18
|
0
|
18
|
0.10
|
| Aveley
& Newham |
20
|
16
|
20
|
56
|
19
|
0.32
|
19
|
0
|
19
|
0.07
|
| Woodfalls |
19
|
21
|
17
|
57
|
20
|
0.25
|
20
|
0
|
20
|
0.05
|
| Rolls
Royce |
21
|
20
|
21
|
62
|
21
|
0.11
|
21
|
0
|
21
|
0.03
|
RN - Roy Newsome
JS - James Scott
GW Geoff Whitham
Old - current system aggregate score
Rank - Position awarded
New - Points awarded under proposed system
+/- - movement of rank as a result of the new proposed system
Points Available - points awarded for each placing
Examination of the above table reveals that YBS would have won
under the proposed new system. The other bands to benefit significantly
are DUT Yorkshire Imps (now 3rd, previously 6th despite having been
placed 1st by one judge), Faireys (now 6th, previously 9th despite
having been placed 3rd and 7th) and Todmorden (now 13th, previously
16th despite having been placed 7th by one judge). The significant
losers would be Brighouse & Rastrick (now 2nd, previously 1st despite
having been placed 3rd, 3rd & 2nd) and Fodens (now 7th, previously
4th despite being placed no higher than 5th). So from this analysis
we can see that in the old system consistency is the key to success,
while the proposed system rewards all bands who have been highly
ranked by at least one judge without over-penalising bands who have
had only one poor result. The main losers would bands placed consistently
lowly which poses no real problem.
The probability of a tie would also be quite remote but in the
event of one, the current method of breaking the tie by electing
one unknown judge by ballot, works as good as any I can think of.
Messrs. Biggs and Franklin deserve congratulations for the innovation
and openness they have brought to the movement, but perhaps it's
now time to have another look at the current system of adjudication
that is far from flawless. I'm sure they have the resources to apply
the system described. A simple spreadsheet is all that's required
and it took me only 10 minutes to build up a working model that
could be used on contest day to produce a result in a only few minutes.
It is of no consequence as to whether or not the majority of the
audience would be able to understand the system. A simple explanation
could be printed in the programme along with some of the reasons
for change if necessary but the most important point is the correct
band would win. Recently this has not always been the case. Even
in the opinion of the adjudicators.
© J. Casey, 4BarsRest.
 back
to top
|
