Judging system shortcuts that are working for me.
When we first saw the Men’s 2025-2028 Code of Points with all of the new Element Group (EG) rules, most of us realized that we might need to create new judging systems and shortcuts in order to judge quickly and accurately under the new rules. The request I kept hearing everyone ask each other was: "If you figure something out, please let me know!"
So here is what I have found that works best for me (so far).
I am using a different judging system than I have in the past. It is very visual, reduces math calculations, minimizes my potential for errors, and allows for a quick score computation (once you get past the learning curve). After a few hundred routines with this system in the new Code, it seems to be working well for me.
I'm including my entire process here. You can pick and choose the parts of it that might work best for you.
This is what my judging template looks like. It is based on the judging template that I have seen some Japanese judges use:
This is the basic idea of what it looks like with the D score notes filled in:
I don't need a full horizontal line for the dismount element group like I do for EGs 1-3, because the dismount only occurs once at the end of the routine, so I separate it off with a short vertical line.
I have a slightly different template for each apparatus to remind me of the idiosyncrasies of each apparatus (e.g., my Pommel Horse template doesn't have a prompt for stick bonus).
Floor has the most different template and a slightly different system due to EG 4 not being a dismount element group. I basically added a line below the existing one, and I write EG 4 values below that line:
Note that on the floor template, there isn't a prompt for a dismount element group value because there is no dismount element group on floor in the 2025-2028 cycle.
My vault template is designed for both D & E jury and works well with entering the deductions according to the vault phase, as is done at many FIG competitions.
You can download my templates here.
Now that you see the setup, here is the process that makes this work so well:
1. Symbol the elements while the routine is being performed
I only write the symbols (not the values) while the routine is being performed because otherwise, I would need to look down at my paper to place the value in the proper spot.
I immediately note stick bonus with a "+" or if there is a step with a "△" - otherwise, I will forget if they stuck (The △ is my execution deduction symbol for a step or a hop).
2- Write the values on the proper EG line
Since I am only writing the Element Value letter (A, B, C, etc.) and not the Element Group number too (E3, B1, C2, etc), it cuts the time to write down the element values in half.
For the seniors, I only write B & higher elements the first time through. It saves time, and I can add As later if needed- it also makes my paper less cluttered.
3- Decide the 8 counting elements (7 + dismount). Add As if necessary
I cross out element values that I wrote down that aren't counting.
At this point, if I am giving less than full value (0.5) for an EG, I circle the corresponding value.
Having each element group on its own line makes it super quick and easy to see precisely what is contributing to each EG, and it is noticeable if an EG is missing.
4- Fill in Dismount (and stick) and EG value (and connection)
I keep the Dismount and EG 1-3 values separate for a quicker final calculation, which also means I am doing less math at this stage. My primary EG totals are memorized (1.1, 1.3, 1.5).
5- Fill in the element count (how many As, Bs, Cs, etc.)
Those are all of the steps necessary for the FIG exam and for judging FIG competitions that use the FIG score entry system. With that system, you enter the number of each element, the EG values, stick, and connection, and then the scoring system does the math for you.
However, in most situations, judges still have to compute their D scores. If I have to do my own element difficulty value computation, this is my process:
First, decide my math strategy for computing the total element difficulty value (there are two strategies I use)
Math Strategy 1: If the counting elements are spread across many different values, I count the values in a similar way to many experienced judges:
I start with my total number of elements (usually 8)
I then count across my difficulties, adding only the value above an A. Usually, I start at 8, which would be the value if all of my elements were As (then I add 1 for Bs, 2 for Cs, 3 for Ds, etc.) Realize that I am actually counting here, not adding. Some people dot a little pattern around the value, like dots on dice. I personally count up by 2s (8, 10, 12, etc.), because it goes twice as fast, and I am less prone to make counting errors)
I find this method to be faster, and I make fewer math mistakes than the traditional way of totaling each element value. (i.e., 1B=2, 3C=9, 2D=8, 2E=10 2+9+8+10=2.9)
Math Strategy 2: uses the same concept but with a higher base value. I use it when the element values are closely grouped around C, D, or E values:
Choose the most common value and multiply by 8 to use that as the base instead of 8 A values as my base. I then count up or down to account for the values of the other elements (e.g., Dx8=32), then add 1 for each E or subtract 1 for each C. Again, I am counting more so than engaging my math brain to add or subtract.
I love this strategy because often, it means I don't do math at all.
I never use the traditional strategy (2xD=8, 4xE=20, 2xF=12; 8+20+12=40) for adding element difficulty values! It takes too much time for me to compute and there is too much potential for math errors!
Compute the final score.
Why this system works well:
It is very visual. It is easy to see when there are too many elements in an element group or none at all. It is also easy to note more than 3 strengths in a row on rings because it is simple to see if you have a B or higher element in the EG1 space above the line.
It is easy to identify when you need to give less than full value for an EG because the EG line will contain only As, Bs, or Cs, or nothing at all.
EG value calculation is visual instead of mathematical because I keep the dismount value separate from the other EGs. Without adding the dismount to the total EG calculation in step 4, my EG value is as quick and easy as the previous cycle - totals are usually 1.5 for full value or 1.3 or 1.1 for partial values. Not having to compute math in this step was a game changer for speeding up my total calculation time.
Fewer math computations = fewer errors 😊
Downsides:
I can't write in element values while the routine is going on without looking down at my tablet to place the element values on the proper line. Therefore, I write down the element values after the routine is finished rather than look down at my tablet mid-routine and risk missing something. I still have plenty of time since I'm only writing the letter value of the element and not the number of the EG since the EG is indicated by the placement on the page.
In reality, at most competitions when I have to do both D & E simultaneously, I am writing so much while the routine is going on (element symbols, deductions, execution deduction symbols) that I don't have time to write element values while the routine is occurring anyway.
Other considerations:
The learning curve to judge with this EG line system: I first saw the Japanese judging system several years ago but did not immediately adopt it. The system I was using previously was working well. I had used it for decades and thought it would be too hard to switch after using it for so long. My previous system was fast enough and I really didn't like the idea of being unable to write down element values while the routine was in progress. However, I made the switch last year and discovered my concerns were unfounded. It takes minimal time to write down the element values after the routine because you don't need to write the EG number, only the letter value. In the end, it didn't slow me down, and I could still easily keep up with my judging peers. In fact, I saved time because I could verify EG content so much quicker and accurately. I adapted to the line EG system much faster than I expected.
I know there are many judges who don't note EGs. I used to be one of them. They just do a quick scan of the EG most likely to be missing or count the EG most likely to have too many. This is an efficient system for noting EGs without writing them down. However, I would caution against not noting EGs with the new Code, particularly for recertification exams that will use routines not designed for this Code. With only 4 elements permitted in each EG, it is very easy to have too many elements in unexpected EGs, and with only the 8 highest value elements counting, it is also easy to not have any elements count in unexpected EGs. The EG line system I am now using might be an easy adaptation for judges who don't currently write the EG number to be able to easily note and recognize the EGs on their paper.
Whatever system you decide to use, it is an excellent time to experiment with new methods of notation when you are practicing with new rule changes anyway.
I judge on a reMarkable paper tablet. I have a slightly different template for each apparatus. You can download my PDF templates here:
My judging system combines elements I have adopted from several other judges over the years and continues to evolve as the rules change. What systems are you using with the new rules? What do you see as potential pitfalls of this system that users should watch out for?
If you adopt any aspects of this system, l would love to hear how you adapt it to make it work for you.
Yes, this system isn't quite as quick as computing a score in the previous cycle, but there is just more to compute this cycle. I don't think there is any system that will make it as quick as it was under the previous rules. If you figure something out that is, please let me know.
Comments