4.2.1 SUPERIOR JURY
2. Where there is a grave error of judgement on the part of one, or several judges, such action as they consider necessary will be taken.
3. Continually, to review the marks awarded by the judges and to issue a warning to any judge whose work is considered to be unsatisfactory or showing partiality.
4. Following the unsatisfactory result of any warning, to remove where necessary the offending judge.
COMPOSITION OF THE SUPERIOR JURY :
- SJ Assistant (Judges’ Convenor)
- SJ Administrator = Enquiries
- SJ Difficulty* x 2
- SJ Execution*
- SJ Artistic*
Those who delivered at Intercontinental Course remain responsible for the aspect throughout the cycle or appointed by the TC President
*Each must register a score which is used in the analysis (All TC judge a sample of exercises decided by draw in the 2 days following competition. The outcomes are compared with ‘Expert’ scores)
The President of the SJ MUST:
Method of Intervention:
Monitor all scores for deviation from tolerance, and for impossible scores
Approve or advise action of SJ Members
Monitor all scores for judging bias and take appropriate action
Bias may be assessed during and after the event by analysis.
Bias is:
- Inflating score of own federation and deflating nearest contender
- Ignoring faults
-Using marks to alter positions
During competition: Give verbal warning and should it occur a second time, replace judge and follow-up with written warning
After competition : Assessment made after the event which shows bias will result in a letter of warning or sanction, which must be sent to the federation within six months after the competition
Arbitrate when SJ member, CJP and DJs cannot reach a decision
Refers to IRCOS or video as necessary and makes a final decision after consultation with the members of the SJ
Assure discipline of all persons, coaches, athletes, judges, superior jury, organisers, and volunteers in the competition arena.
Deals with unacceptable behaviour (at any time and any where) of competitors, coaches, judges, organisers or volunteers during the event
Initial approach normally is a verbal warning A second incident or serious first incident will result in a written warning to the Head of Delegation and thereafter the federation and may result in a sanction in accordance with the Disciplinary Code.
Receive inquiries in writing with appropriate fee
Within 4 minutes of appeal. This is given to the President of the Superior Jury who will respond through a written statement after the analysis.
The President of the SJ MAY:
Method of Intervention:
Call for an explanation (at any time) of a score permitted by CJP Through the Expert or CJP, and in exceptional cases, a particular judge All approaches are recorded and may result in warnings, if found that there is improper judging after analysisRespect for the office held and expertise in the area of responsibility to assure the just application of rules and regulations.
The Superior Jury MUST :
Method :
Record a score for every exercise which will be used as a control score
Take part in the post competition analysis
ch score is recorded on a proforma and given to the President of Superior Jury after each round of competition.
2 days by taking a sample of exercises (by draw) and all TC members judging and making comparison against expert score and score agreed by CJP
Superior Jury MUST intervene :
IMPOSSIBLE SCORES caused by :
when: The CJP is about to allow an impossible A,E or D score
when: The CJP has not observed the rule for tolerance/deviation between marks
when: The CJP does not apply penalties for which responsible
when: A Line judge has not seen a fault
A judge not applying the Penalty for a 0.5
A Superior Jury member MAY intervene :
Method of Intervention
• After checking own judgement, and with the direction of the President
• After the CJP accepts the scores, no Artistic/Execution score may be changed without the agreement of the SJ.
Normally before the release of the score by CJP for publication.
Execution and Artistic
• If, during a competition, the scores are not within the accepted tolerance according to the relevant articles in the Aerobic Code of Points.
• There is a deviation between the score of the SJ and the panel score which will cause the ranking of the top 8 (Execution or Artistic) to change by more than one place
Judge(s) MUST be consulted by the CJP or SJ Assistant before any change of score. (They are informed the score is out of line and asked if they wish to make a change.)
If a judge chooses not to realign the consequences of analysis are taken by the judge
The SJ makes note of the concerned mark and the mistake that occurred.
If a judge chooses not to adjust a mark when requested to do so, the SJ may act to ensure the final mark awarded is correct.
Difficulty
When there is a disagreement between the Difficulty Judges it goes first to the CJP to resolve
By placement of inquiry/accreditation card and verbal statement of problem The appellant must submit a written statement within 4 minutes of the spoken appeal to SJ President with fee stated in TR
4.2.2 JUDGES PANEL
- Respect for the expertise of office
- To receive pre-competition intensive preparation for judging with the Superior Jury and CJPs
BEFORE COMPETITION MUST: Attend all seminars, instructions and meetings at the times scheduled before, during and after the competition.
BEFORE COMPETITION MAY :Consult with the Superior Jury Difficulty Experts for help in resolving issues
DURING COMPETITION MUST:
DURING COMPETITION MAY:
Be on time for march in led by the CJP to places and stay seated in places until the end of the whole round of competition
Make swift ‘change over’ if needed
Take seats during the award ceremony and stand to honour the medallists and flags
Take allocated breaks after a signal by the President of Superior Jury or following special request of the President (or CJP)
Be absent only with permission
Make independent judgements about the execution or artistry of an exercise according to the rules, without reference to books, previous scores, cell phone communication or talking to other judges
When a mistake is made, the judge must stand and wait for further instruction.
Not engage in discussions with other judges
Keep a record of judgements for performance with use of shorthand to assist explanation at any time by the relevant SJ expert.
Difficulty judges must independently evaluate the difficulty score before collaborating with the second DJ to resolve any differences and arriving at a single score
Consult with the CJP if cannot resolve the Difficulty Score and call the SJ expert through the CJP if resolution cannot be reached
AUTHORITY
TIMING
CONSEQUENCE
The Superior Jury holds corporate responsibility for the justice of scores given for performances
The SJ President will give the SJ Members the right to intervene if a CJP has not observed the deviation rule, has not applied penalties correctly or cannot agree the Difficulty score with the DJs
Whenever the SJ is involved, the SJ is accountable for the score
Chairs of Judges’ Panels take responsibility for the scores that are sent to the scorer for display.
The Chair holds any score which s/he cannot justify and requests the help of the Superior Jury if any score cannot be quickly resolved
CJP is accountable for the score published
CJP approaches judge/s and asks for explanation and whether judge wishes to change score
When a judge’s mark is illogical and/or out of the acceptable tolerance
The JUDGE takes responsibility for the mark finally given
CJP helps DJs and if cannot resolve requests help of SJ expert/s
To resolve disagreement
DJs take responsibility if have not requested help of CJP and the score is incorrect
Once the CJP is consulted, all 3 take responsibility if a score is incorrect. If the 3 cannot resolve the Superior Jury intervene and the expert/s take responsibility for the final decision
After consultation with the SJ President, SJ members intervene through reference to CJP on an execution, artistic mark/score
After checking own judgement and believing an injustice will occur
If CJP acts the CJP and SJ expert/ supervisor take joint responsibility for action and the judge for decision about personal action
President gives warnings to judges (after personal judgement or after consideration of the advice of on SJ members)
Immediate verbal as soon as the matter comes to notice
In writing if serious or repeat of warnings this is made with the agreement of the SJ (TC)
SJ takes joint responsibility
President gives warning to SJ member
Verbal first
Written if serious advice is taken from rest of SJ and later reported to FIG EC
President of Jury takes ultimate responsibility