The 2020 Judging System was tested at Frisbeer and HolyJam. The Judging Committee would like to thank the tournament directors for the opportunity to use the 2020 Judging System and for the players and spectators for their patience while we tested and improved the system.

We are working on the issues that arose and we plan to produce a thorough write-up explaining how the system worked, why it produced any aberrational results, and the changes we are implementing going forward. 

To help us make the right changes, we would like to solicit more feedback from the players, spectators, and tournament organizers. We think it would be especially helpful for responses that point out any results that they may have been unfair or incorrect. All feedback will be kept completely anonymous.

Feedback email: fpa-judging-feedback@googlegroups.com

Please respond with feedback by Monday April 8th. We will issue another response addressing messages sent by April 8th.

______________________________

New changes and detailed explanations

Mid Frisbeer Changes

Difficulty averages based on min phrase count

• DESCRIPTION – In the case where a team performed fewer phrases than the minimum required, zero is added for the missing difficulty scores.

• Example: A 3 minute routine requires 12 difficulty scores. A team with 10 scores of 6 would score a 5 instead of a 6. 10 X 6 = 60. 60 / 12 = 5.

• REASON – This is to reduce the effectiveness of re revving to combine 2 separate combos into a single phrase to artificially gain a higher difficulty score. Long combos can be very difficult, but a combo being long does not automatically make it difficult. This change is intended to discourage breaks in consecutivity to create a longer combo.

Difficulty weight increased

• DESCRIPTION – The number of points gained from difficulty increase by about 50%.

• REASON – Compared to AI results after the first day, difficulty had a significantly lower impact. The intent is to create results where a team that does just as well in difficulty and AI, gets the same amount of points in difficulty and AI. Difficulty needed to be raised to match a similar score in AI. This change also addresses concerns raised about three AI categories (music choreography, teamwork, general impression) counting for too much and to balance out the increased weight given to variety.

EX ratio reduced

• DESCRIPTION – The benefit of phrase count decreasing the impact of execution deductions is reduced. The effectiveness has been reduced by about 50%. This means execution deduction are bigger.

• Example: In a 3 minute routine. Before a team with 25 phrases would reduce their deduction by about 50%. After the change, a team with 25 phrases would reduce their deduction by about 25%.

• REASON – Execution deductions were not playing a big enough role in final results. This change helps avoid a scenario where a team wins by dropping hard combos instead of catching medium combos.

Pre HolyJam Changes

Difficulty now includes partial credit for phrases after the minimum phrase count.

• DESCRIPTION – Extra phrases after the minimum phrase count have been met will now be added to the difficulty score, but at a reduced amount. The amount contributed will decrease for each additional score.

• Example: In a 3 minute routine, the top 12 are average normally. If a team has 15 phrases, the lowest 3 phrase scores are added at a reduced amount. If the 3 lowest phrase scores are 2, 2, 1, then that would add (2 X .3) + (2 X .28) + (1 X .26) = 1.42 points

• REASON – We saw 2 teams at Frisbeer have similar difficulty scores, but one team performed several additional medium difficulty phrases outside of the min phrase count. This slightly rewards teams that perform many difficult combos more than a team that just performs the minimum amount of difficulty combos.

Execution deductions increased

• DESCRIPTION – Raw deduction values are doubled.

• Example: .1 deduction is subtracting .2 points from the team’s final score.

• REASON – The weight of execution in the results at Frisbeer was too small. Teams could get away with several times more execution errors before it became a deciding factor. The overall weight of execution is still less than the current system. This is a partial step back to the current system’s execution impact.

Preliminary Additions/Changes (to be tested in next iteration):

• Adding form back into AI
• Every judge gives a General Impression score (overall weight unchanged)
• Difficulty weight increase
• Primer videos for judges