Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Judging System
Table of Contents
All couples dance in the first round. They are randomly divided into groups of
not more than eight couples. Groups vary from dance to dance. After the first
round a re-dance system is applied. This gives those couples not directly
qualified for the second round with another chance to be selected. The re-
In the final the best six couples take the floor. Each adjudicator has to rank the
couples from 1 to 6 based on evaluation and comparison. The same ranking
cannot be given twice. As the level of difference between the couples is not
measured on an equidistant scale the difference between 1 and 2 is not
necessarily the same as between 2 and 3. Ranking only tells us that 1 is better
than 2 and that 2 is better than 3, but it does not tell us how much better.
We could have a situation where all six couples are so close that there is barely
any difference in quality, but the judges still have to rank them. That is usually
the case when we see varying marks.
In the final the couples get a chance to perform two of the dances solo, i.e.
only couple on the dance floor). This allows them to perform uninterrupted. It
gives the adjudicators the possibility to see the whole choreography, and
better asses the qualities of the couple, in particular the artistic aspect of their
performance.
After all finalists have finished their solo dance they return to the floor together
and repeat the same dance as a group. That gives the adjudicators a chance to
reaffirm the judgement from the solo performances or amend it, as they have
a possibility of a direct comparison again.
The marks from all judges are compiled in a table for each dance. A
computerised system referred to as the Skating System is used to compile the
marks.
If all the adjudicators have the same point of departure and share an
awareness of the conventions and traditions of DanceSport, it is more likely
that they will share the norms, standards and criteria for what constitutes a
dance performance of merit. Once these general standards are in place, the
reasons for decisions have more chance of being shared, agreed upon and
understood collectively.
It is clear that evaluation must be the primary process through which opinions
are made and the result arrived at. Evaluation is completely different from
attributing a personal value to something. It requires skilful judgement.
Clearly defined criteria of judging are tools which an adjudicator uses to asses
the performance of a couple.
We can look at the criteria as pieces of a big puzzle. A well educated and
experienced adjudicator knows what the completed picture looks like, knows
what he is looking for, and can recognise when there are pieces of the puzzle
missing making the picture incomplete.
Most of the individual criteria are interrelated. These connections are clearly
explained and supported by practical examples.
The adjudicator is not required to use all the criteria at all times. The criteria
used change according to the phase of the competition.
At the first phase of the competition criteria related to the basic requirements
are employed, e.g. correct dance hold, basic technical competence, movement
in time with the music, etc. The dancing is primarily judged for its correctness.
In the final the judges focus also on the artistic value of the performance.
The winning couple is therefore judged to have most successfully fulfilled most
or all of the criteria and receive the highest merit award within the group for
that success.
This IDSF project accumulates and systematises all the available knowledge
and engages the top experts in the area of DanceSport and other related areas
with the sole purpose of creating comprehensive instruction material for IDSF
adjudicators.
The rules and standards set out in the Code are intended to assist adjudicators
to establish appropriate standards of conduct in order that they have the
confidence of their peers, the competitors they are judging, the IDSF and IDSF
member federations utilising their services, other sports administration bodies
including IOC, and the sports media and general public.
The Code was presented at the IDSF AGM 2002 in Singapore to the IDSF
member federations.
Being aware of the importance of educating judges and chairmen, the IDSF
appointed an IDSF Education Director in 2003.
Qualification requirements
If all these criteria are met then the IDSF has to accept this person as a
candidate for the IDSF education programme. If the IDSF programme is
passed successfully then IDSF has to grant an IDSF license to the applicant.
Licensing Structure
IDSF adjudicator’s licences shall be granted separately for Standard and Latin,
and Formation.
This is the licence level granted to new applicants who fulfil all requirements.
Different models are used to establish adjudicator panels for different types of
competitions. All models must consider the “Guidelines for the Establishment
of Adjudicator Panels” as defined by the IDSF.
Every adjudicator with a valid IDSF licence required for the competition in
question should have an equal chance of being selected. In order to achieve
this goal a model of random selection is used.
Up to and including the semi-final, the judges select the required number of
couples to pass into the next round. Each selection in each dance is marked
(“X”) on the judging card, and at the end of the round, all the marks of all the
judges in all dances are added up for each couple. The couples with the
highest sum of marks proceed to the next round.
In the final round of each dance, the judges individually rank each couple in
their considered order of merit, and mark their ranking on their judging cards.
For example, in a six couple final, the judges would be ranking from 1 to 6,
with number 1 meaning the first place. A judge may not give two couples the
same ranking.
The rankings of all dances are added, and the lowest sum determines the
winner of the competition.
Adjudicators Calculation
Couple Place
No. 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- in Dance
A B C D E F G H I 1
2 3 4 5 6 7
Samba 1.
6 6 6 4 5 6 6 6 5 4 9 6.0
14 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 8 2.0
18 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 3 5 1.0
30 4 5 6 4 4 3 5 4 5 5 4.0
35 5 4 5 6 5 5 4 6 6 6 5.0
56 2 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 2 8 3.0
The IDSF Chairperson of Adjudicators shall document any such incident, and
any action taken, and include all in the competition report to the IDSF Sports
Director who shall decide whether there are grounds for initiating a further
investigation.
The IDSF Sports Director shall report each such case to the IDSF Presidium for
consideration.
Any complaint made after the competition is finished has to go through the
national member federation to the IDSF Sports Director.
Computer Analysis
The report goes to the IDSF Sports Director who shall decide whether there are
grounds for initiating a further investigation.
The IDSF Sports Director shall report each such case to the IDSF Presidium for
consideration.
The Disciplinary Committee shall have the authority and power to impose the
following penalties: warning, suspension of licence for a period of time,
revoking of licence.