Re: Judging Protocol Question
I would agree with this. It appears that a car may have been denied a Top Flight due to inconsistent and/or incorrect interpretation of the NCRS judging guidelines. Although all instances of inconsistent judging are subject to human error, they should be minimal, not based on what some judges "like to see" and some do not. That's a matter of judge education, an ongoing subject that the NCRS is in fact continually (if not always successfully) addressing. On the other hand, how additions to the car that are clearly not factory installed, and are called out by the owner to be so should not be judged as though they were. Yes, there will rightly be deductions for modifications to the factory-correct car to accommodate the non-factory equipment, but as I understand it, the equipment itself is outside the scope of the standard.
It has always been interesting to see a car, not having been changed at all, be judged on two or three separate occasions by different judging teams. It would be nice if such cars scored very consistently, with a small margin of variation to allow for the human factor. When the difference is substantial, and potentially results in a Second Flight rather than a Top Flight because it appears a different set of judging guidelines may have been followed, well . . . obviously some work remains to be done. Judging these cars is a thankless job at the best of times, and by and large the judges do a universally admirable job. Starting with as level a playing field as possible is in both their and the car owner's best interests. That's what we all want. It's one of the more important reasons that the NCRS exists - Competent, consistent judging adhering to clearly delineated guidelines.
Just my opinion, of course.
I would agree with this. It appears that a car may have been denied a Top Flight due to inconsistent and/or incorrect interpretation of the NCRS judging guidelines. Although all instances of inconsistent judging are subject to human error, they should be minimal, not based on what some judges "like to see" and some do not. That's a matter of judge education, an ongoing subject that the NCRS is in fact continually (if not always successfully) addressing. On the other hand, how additions to the car that are clearly not factory installed, and are called out by the owner to be so should not be judged as though they were. Yes, there will rightly be deductions for modifications to the factory-correct car to accommodate the non-factory equipment, but as I understand it, the equipment itself is outside the scope of the standard.
It has always been interesting to see a car, not having been changed at all, be judged on two or three separate occasions by different judging teams. It would be nice if such cars scored very consistently, with a small margin of variation to allow for the human factor. When the difference is substantial, and potentially results in a Second Flight rather than a Top Flight because it appears a different set of judging guidelines may have been followed, well . . . obviously some work remains to be done. Judging these cars is a thankless job at the best of times, and by and large the judges do a universally admirable job. Starting with as level a playing field as possible is in both their and the car owner's best interests. That's what we all want. It's one of the more important reasons that the NCRS exists - Competent, consistent judging adhering to clearly delineated guidelines.
Just my opinion, of course.
Comment