|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 9/23/2008
Posts: 1,487
Location: Lower the Hutt, New Zealand
|
So. I'm the TO and Judge Judy and executioner at the New Zealand Champs on the 27th (can I get a high-5?!) and that means I don't play, I judge. But, hearing the SHNN last week with Tim/Chargers on has me thinking. Folk here say that I should play but I don't want the tournament to suffer... and what's this 3 judge thing?
So, I'm still thinking I don't want to play... but am keen to hear any opinions on the matter. Thoughts?
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 2/17/2009
Posts: 1,492
|
At the Michigan Regional, we instituted a three-judge panel, and other Regionals have since adopted a similar system. Basically, there's a hierarchy among the three judges (1, 2, 3), and the panel can obviously make determinations about tricky or controversial rules issues. Having three allows everyone to play, since even if the other two judges are playing each other, there's still one not involved in the game who can make the call.
The argument for allowing judges to play, of course, is that we don't have that many people playing anymore, and we don't want to have someone travel hours to attend a tournament, only to be asked to judge and not be able to play. The only possible issue I see with judges playing is that it makes it even MORE difficult to monitor and be aware of possible slow play situations when they arise. If you think that's likely to be an issue at your event, it might be better not to play.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/10/2010
Posts: 760
Location: The Shadowlands of Kashyyyk
|
UrbanShmi wrote:At the Michigan Regional, we instituted a three-judge panel, and other Regionals have since adopted a similar system. Basically, there's a hierarchy among the three judges (1, 2, 3), and the panel can obviously make determinations about tricky or controversial rules issues. Having three allows everyone to play, since even if the other two judges are playing each other, there's still one not involved in the game who can make the call.
The argument for allowing judges to play, of course, is that we don't have that many people playing anymore, and we don't want to have someone travel hours to attend a tournament, only to be asked to judge and not be able to play. The only possible issue I see with judges playing is that it makes it even MORE difficult to monitor and be aware of possible slow play situations when they arise. If you think that's likely to be an issue at your event, it might be better not to play. +1
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/26/2008
Posts: 2,115
Location: Watertown, SD
|
One thing I've seen is that if the number of participants is odd, you'll get somebody with a bye. To help pass the time, the judge will play with the person who drew the bye, but the game won't count for anything.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/23/2008
Posts: 907
Location: Central Pa
|
Having 3 allows you to spread the blame when all 3 of you get a ruling wrong. That's what happened to Jason, Lou and I at the Pa regional. Fortunately a text from Daniel saved us from throwing each other under the bus.
Seriously, I am grateful to Jason and Lou for stepping up and helping. I would never have considered playing had they not volunteered. (Actually Lou was quite forceful and well, since he is a wrestling coach and I'm an old man, he talked me into it.)
The upside is that you have 3 people who can weigh in on a tricky situation and you'll get more stuff right. The downside is that if you have a slowplay issue and a judge has to monitor it, they're all playing games and really can't do that sort of thing justice. An odd number of players would increase the chances of one of them getting a bye and thus could address any issues like that. Of course, I think its a bad idea to assign judges automatic byes. But then, you kiwis really don't have that issue as much, do you? Sounds like a perfect solution for you, Kez.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/25/2011
Posts: 806
Location: Wisconsin
|
I have participated in 2 regionals the past couple months that used the 3 judge panel and it has worked really well.
Having experienced that I would lobby heavily for any tournament I would be in to use that system instead of having someone not play so that they could judge.
I know in Chicago Jake was one of the judges and got the bye in round 2 so he became the primary judge that round. And in situations where a rules question comes up later in a round you increase the possibility that 1 of the judges has finished already.
Another thing that works nicely is if 2 of the 3 judges are pitted against one and other the 3rd can make the call between them if there is a question.
Honestly it has worked really smoothly from my experience and when it comes to slow play, as always, people just need to speak up.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/23/2008
Posts: 907
Location: Central Pa
|
I think it is obvious that a dedicated judge is the best option. The thing is, if regional attendance is down, letting a good player play is a good thing if we can make it happen. I know Kez does a lot for our community...it's why he's in our Hall of Fame. I also know he must be feeling a little frustrated because he often finds himself on the sidelines watching the game he loves instead of playing it. Why not find a way to let a great guy like that play? We not only need people with that kind of dedication in our game, we need them to participate. Since slow play isn't really an issue with the New Zealand group, I say a couple of Kez's mates should step up and help him out. If someone pays my airfare, I'd do it.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/1/2008
Posts: 818
Location: Wisconsin
|
Darth_Jim wrote:If someone pays my airfare, I'd do it. With the same stipulation, I'll be the third.
|
|
|
Guest |