Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Judges Notebook. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Up Grade System For Judges; New upgrade system
Topic Started: Mar 10 2008, 11:47 PM (1,011 Views)
doodle
Newbie
[ * ]
New Rules on BD Upgrade Judge Testing
Copied from various websites


What does everyone think of the new British Dressage judges upgrade system.

It already seems to be causing a lot of upset and complaints. In addition to all the cost of training and time, References and CV is now needed thus making it harder and more messy to actually upgrade.

I now have some issues about the new system.

My main issue is with the two references now needed, either from a trainer or senior judge.

References
In my 'real world, I am unable to give a reference for previous staff due to legal precedents.
I can only confirm the dates they were employed and the number of days sickness - if asked.

And all this has to go through Human Resources.

I can give 'off record' comments if telephoned but even those comments must be carefully construed as to not give any evidence for a case against me. I can not make any defamatory comments.

References in the real world are already useless - that's why people now go to so much trouble to evaluate for themselves the ability of prospective persons through ASSESSEMENT not reference.

Most people giving references are unaware that the persons in question has the legal right to see any information stored on them. Any defamatory comments received on a reference then the person in question has a legal case against the person who gave the reference.
Has BD advised all persons giving references on this matter ?.

I just don’t think BD has really thought through all the legal complications on their new system they have introduced.

Senior judge :
Reference now required from a senior judge : What senior judge is going to give up even more of their free time to sit in with a lower listed judge to watch them judge and therefore confirm the judges knowledge. ?. Answer : 0%. To be honest this is the only way they can actually confirm their judging knowledge through assessment, otherwise its not a true confirmation. so how is this new system going to work.
No senior judge writes or sits in with me (obviously!). We might have a very brief discussion during the writing or sit in - but I don't sit in with the same judge every time and therefore the senior judge just ain't going to know truely how well educated I am to upgrade. Its not like they ask us questions .. generally even if you don't agree you tactfully murmur agreement . So how can senior judges honestly give lower listed judges a reference ?. It seems if you are willing to become a muppet and just nod agreement, then this is the best course of action to take if you want a good CV or reference or you don’t want to receive one of David Holmes famous little letters i.e. “how dare you rock the boat / disagree, speak out side the box” kind of letter.
It’s the same on training courses you attend . You just have to sit there and nod agreement even if you don’t because of fear you might be singled out or little letters being sent to head office to say your not fitting in. This new system is going to exaggerate this problem as judges will fear bad references if they disagree or question the all mighty.

Some senior judges are friends ... again they won't have sat in with me and watched me judge - we might discuss generally lots of things but that's not really the same as seeing me judge a class.

I don't feel its right to ask a senior judge who just plain doesn't know me to write a letter stating my ability to judge at a higher level. I further don't feel it's right to ask a friend senior judge to do the same thing. Either way both are compromised.

I have heard one senior judge complain that she was receiving letters from several judges she had never heard of asking her to write a referral.
I have also heard of one senior judge being swapped with requests to take them under her wing “so to speak” but she is unable to verify for anymore judges. Again this new system is going to turn out to be “who you know” , “if your good at sucking up” or “if you have a senior judge / trainer as a good friend”.

Therefore its going to create a whole army of judges having to suck up to senior judges to obtain a reference. Seems now this will produce a group of judges in a section of “who you know”. Or do judges now have to start paying senior judges to sit in with them and verify their knowledge ?.

I think senior judges and trainers are the people who actually make these rules ?.

Senior judges (and certainly not trainers) should not have the above mentioned power over lower listed judges. I can see huge problems developing over this.

Also Senior judges giving judge training courses use to take notes on judges attending their courses. Is this still the case ? and is everybody aware of the law regarding this and the right to see such data that is kept on you ?.


The trainer :
Reference now required from a trainer : I PAY my trainer. What position are they going to be in being asked to write a glowing or otherwise reference? . The ones that pay more or are classed as better clients, are these going to end up receiving better references. ?
Will all judges now live in fear of upsetting trainers or senior judges by disagreeing with them ?

CV :
The majority of the CV that we now have to fill in is inclined towards judges who are lucky enough to 'do horses' for the day job or ride.
A very high percentage of judges no longer ride, hence why they have the time to judge.

Discriminating questions asked by BD on the new judges CV.

§ Riding : Please give details of level achieved.
§ Pupils : Please give details of the level achieved by your pupils.
§ Relevant Experience : Time spent watching trainers
§ Relevant Experience : What international, national shows do you attend.
§ Reference : Senior judge
§ Reference : Trainer

If you do not fulfil all the above listed criteria there is now a very high chance your application to upgrade will be turned down.

It is highly questionable as to the reason why BD needs to know who trains you as a rider or your pupils success. What has this got to do with the job of judging ?. It seems your application to upgrade might now be turned down if you don’t ride or are not with-in the in crowd of trainers. Some people call it sucking-up.

Is it legal that BD now insist on collecting information on judges that have nothing to do with the job of judging . i.e who you actually teach. Can this data be legally asked and stored about you ? as judges are now being forced to produce this information if they wish to upgrade.

Please also be aware of the law regarding any data stored on judges and the right for judges to view their data. I.e you do have the right to view data stored on you.
as judges are now being forced to produce this information if they wish to upgrade.

The CV is actually a job application form (cleverly disguised) so therefore does comes under very strict laws to discourage discrimination. Therefore its legality has to be questioned. If you do not attend big national dressage shows, or are not trained by the in-trainer, is your application to upgrade going to be turned down ?. If not, therefore why does BD need to know these questions if they are not going to be taken into account.
If they are going to be taking into account, then this excludes a lot of good judges.
Its basically illegal discrimination.

This whole new system is one big discrimination and you have to question its legality.

What happens to all the disabled judges or judges who no longer ride cos of a medical condition for example. There are legal discrimination implications here to consider.
Many CV questions are bias towards judges who still ride and I question its legality and fairness.

One of the questions is 'who do you train and to what level?' . What is your teaching ability got to do with your judging ability ?.
There are an awful lot of judges out there who have full time jobs plus family, horses etc and do not train / teach others. Again this is very bias towards judges who ride or train others. Not fair at all.

Any application form comes under the law. Questions can not be geared around discrimination towards certain groups of people.

As judges work voluntary on behalf of British Dressage it is BD’s responsibility under the discrimination Act to ensure that all judges fall within the legislation. It is unlawful for any judge to be discriminated against on the basis that they are / not :-
§ Not taught by a BD trainer
§ Do not watch trainers ride
§ Do not attend international / national shows
§ Teach riders
§ Do not know any trainers
§ Do not know any senior judges
§ Are currently competing at a certain level.

In certain limited circumstances it is lawful to discriminate if it can be proved that the above mentioned requirements are needed for a judge to be able to perform the duty of judging. Which is not the case. Judges have been doing their job for many years without needing the above mentioned requirements. Although no one will deny that having the above mentioned requirements will improve the judges knowledge but they are not a necessity.
I repeat, what has judging got to do with BD knowing who I teach ?
Therefore BD can not take these CV (application form) questions in to consideration when deciding if a judge is suitable for judging or upgrading. It is actually unlawful.

Do BD not run these rules past legal advisers before these rules are past ?.

CV Riding history :
Some people will have trained to such and such level but without competition results - BD records do not always confirm competition experience so you only have your trainer to validate this. (i.e. back to not what you know…but…Who you know). Riding experiences does not always mean you can judge. plus what if your trainer is not on the trainer's database or not well known ? There are many fantastic trainers and highly qualified BHS / ABRS instructors who are not on the trainers database. Is this going to be bias towards BD listed trainers ?. Is this now discriminating against all non-BD trainers ?.

A judges CV / references should reflect their judging knowledge / practical side. Not “who you know” or if still riding “who trains you”. We all know people who have such good riding experience that they should be wonderful judges ... but are not.
Rich parents have bought many riders ready made schoolmasters. Doesn’t mean they have the right over other people to be able to judge or upgrade.

Fast track & Fake experienced riders :
It seems you are now no longer allowed to fast track through the levels unless you are a BHSI or riding at Prix St George or above.
This I can partly understand ….. but …….
So all the riders who have had the financial backing to get one horse to a high level or rich parents who have bought them a ready made horse etc can fast track but others cant. Why are these allowed to fast track but others are not ?.
Why are only BHS (i.e. BHSI) exams acknowledged. Whats wrong with ABRS qualifications or similar for example.
Again discriminating and bias towards a certain group of people that has nothing to do with a judges ability to judge.

No Notice :
BD have given no notice to judges who for example, are on list 6 and wish to fast track to list 4. These judges may have spent many years and a huge amount of money, training, attending Elem courses, Sit-in’s, Mock exams, Practice judging, all at Elem level in preparation to put in for their list 4 exam (i.e fast track). They are now not allowed to apply for or enter the list 4 exam under the new system.
All previous time, money, effort wasted because BD change the goal post before clearly informing judges. No notice what so ever. If some sort of notice would have been given then at least this may have prevented a lot of wasted time & money and these judges could have then completed the requirements for list 5 instead of list 4.

BD’s failure to inform judges :
I am totally in favour of change but what my grumble is – I feel BD could have clearly informed all judges via Judges Newsletter or BD Magazine before making any changes.
They informed us that changes where going to be made but failed to inform us what actual changes and how this might affect judges. Very much brought in through the back door by BD to minimise complaints.
At the moment if you applied & paid for training / courses (i.e mock exam for example), under the new system you may now no longer be eligible to complete that training .
All your previous courses taken at that level have now been a complete waste of time due to the new system changes.

Basically if the truth be known, BD don’t want judges who don’t training with the so called “in trainers” .

Lack of judges :
There is already a great shortage of dressage judges and the new system is meant to make things easier (according to BD … I think not) . It now seems the new system is actually going to make it much harder for judges to upgrade (unless your trained by “who’s who” or you have a horse competing at a high level). You would think BD would want to help judges train and upgrade.

The whole new system seems to be geared around “who you know” ..or.. if you happen to “ride a horse at a high level” …… this does not always mean you can actually judge.

Therefore I feel the new CV’s / references are not going to be a true honest reflection of the judges experience.

BD should be trying to unite judges and get them onboard, not create a system that leaves many judges out in the cold and upset. Unless you know the right people.

New Marking scale :
For years we have been advised we shouldn’t judge unaffiliated dressage as the marking scales are different therefore putting our marking scale out of line.
Affiliated dressage has always been judged more harshly (i.e in many cases 1 or 2 marks lower) . It now seems a total contradiction that we are now being told we must give higher jolly marks . It seems the unaffiliated marking scale and application of constructive comments has been correct all along. Maybe affiliated judges need to learn a few pointers from unaffiliated judges. But lets face it (don’t tell BD) we are all the same people except when judging unaffiliated dressage we ignore BD and give real constructive helpful comments and not just be negative and state why the mark wasn’t higher.
Maybe this is why Unaffiliated dressage has 5 times more riders than affiliated dressage.
For every one affiliated competition running in a certain area , there 5 more unaffiliated ones running at the same time. Often at the same venues used by affiliated competitions using affiliated judges. So why aren’t all unaffiliated riders affiliating … answer : cost & harsh marking.
Yes, be constructive with the comments but lets keep the marks real.

Comments on score sheets :
The problem with comments is we have always been taught by senior judges (on courses) to explain why the mark isn’t higher … i.e what was wrong with the movement.
This has produced over the years a very negative score sheet for the rider. BD is now asking judges to partly ignore this previous advice. Now we are being asked to give out jolly marks and comments.
I think the vast majority will agree to giving out more constructive comments but lets all keep it real with the marks.
I don’t think you should explain why the mark wasn’t higher (as explained, ends up very negative) but you should explain why the mark was given. There’s a big difference and would make a huge difference to riders to also have they good things pointed out as well “Not just why the mark wasn’t higher”.

There should be a very clear straight forward publication as to the procedure of marks awarded.
Or at the least some sort of guidelines. Everyone will then know where they stand.
The FEI Handbook guidelines for judging should be more widely adopted. Its just a pity that senior judges don’t always follow this when giving course training. Maybe it is senior judges that actually need re-training.
Dressage is about correct training “NOT JUST WOW PACES” . I wish someone would remind BD of this.

Solution to upgrade testing :
In nearly all circumstances across the country in every profession, it is now realised that a procedure of assessment then combined with a final exam is the way forward to assess peoples ability.
I would welcome a senior judge to sit in with me while I was judging in a friendly constructive way to asses my judging ability. In fact this would be most helpful as guidance and helpful comments could then be given afterwards. A one on one to discuss your judging would be great. You should be assessed at least twice by two different unknown assessors. If the assessors then felt the judge was ready to upgrade then they should be allowed to apply for the next upgrade judging list / exam.
Yes it would cost money to be assessed but it would be money well spent to ensure only the right experienced judges pass.
It could be taken one step further and the actual 2nd assessment could be the testing exam thus doing away with trying to co-ordinate and organise an exam date for four candidates, thus bringing down the waiting list . Some judges I know had to wait years for an exam date to come through.

This silly reference / CV system is open to so much abuse by some people knowing the right people or being able to pay for good references. Believe me it will happen as soon as people discover all the loop holes.

LET JUDGES BE JUDGED ON JUDGING ABILITY, KNOWLEDGE AND ASSESSMENT FOLLOWED BY A TESTING EXAM.
NOT BY IF YOU MANAGE TO GET A GOOD REFERENCE OR NOT …OR … WHO YOU KNOW.

I hope these comments will provoke discussion and hopefully find a better solution before judges start retiring and too many judges become upset and leave BD. Or worst still just have a load of judges who just sit on the list because there is no where else to go.

Legal implications of BD’s new system should also be carefully looked into, as it is very bias towards judges who know the right people or who are currently riding.
Lets face it, if your busy competing then you hardly make a practical accessible judge as you have no spare time to actually judge.
These high level competing riders who fast track, it will be interesting what contribution they actually make to judging as most as very busy with competing.
If judges who don’t currently ride are not going to be favoured for upgrade, then the whole system is going to come crashing down.

It now seems any judges who wish to dispute these new rule changes under discrimination grounds have a very good legal case against BD.

Questions we should all ask ourselves

· Should trainers & senior judges be the ones to decide if a judge can apply for an upgrade via having the right references from the right people ?.

· Should BD take this into consideration when deciding who can apply for upgrade ?.

· How can trainers or senior judges give a reference when they have never actually sat in with you while you were judging ? Do they really know you well enough to be able to give a reference on your judging capabilities ?.

· Is the new system now “who you know” ?.

· Should the exam decide who is good enough to upgrade .. or …. Under the new system (if your not in the in-crowd) you basically receive a fail before actually even take the exam ?.

· Should BD insist on information about you that is totally not connected to judging (i.e who you train / teach) ?.

· What happens if you have previously had a disagreement with a trainer, senior judge or BD office , are you now going to be turned down for applying for upgrade ?.

· Are these new rules going to produced a system where you are afraid to voice your opinion just in case you are discriminated against ?.

· Who are the people who make the rules ?. Should there be a vote of judge members before such new rules are put in place ?. or at least a statement of proposed new rules before they are introduced.

· What’s wrong with a system that if your currently on a list 5 for example, being automatically allowed to be tested for list 4 when you feel ready ? or after actual practical assessment ?. If your not good enough, then you simply fail which is fair enough.

· Is it right that non-riding judges are going to be discriminated against ?.

· What happens to all the judges who no longer ride due to ill health or disability who have in the past competed well but BD no longer hold records on ?

· Is this so called CV (application form) actually legal ?.

· Are the questions on it legal that you are now forced to produce if you wish to upgrade.

· Should BD of informed all judges correctly & in full (i.e via the judges newsletter) before they brought in these changes. If so, why didn’t they ?.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gemma Austin
Member
[ *  * ]
Hi Doodle, great post, and you have clearly put a lot of time and effort into it.

I agree wholeheartedly with you regarding the references, and feel that if BD do not address this, they will soon see a shortage of new judges coming in, as they really are closing the door to people who would be perfectly capable of judging well but who may not already be 'in there' in the dressage world.
I am currently on the trainee list and am lucky enough I happen to know people who can give me references but I am pretty sure this will not be the case with everyone, and you only had to listen to the discontentment from judges at the National Convention to see how unpopular this was.

I sincerely hope that BD is not such a closed shop as you paint a picture, as I feel I may become very unpopular.....I'm never going to be afraid to speak out :lol:

For what its worth, being on the trainee list I am doing a fair bit of unaffiliated judging, and I judge simply the way I am being trained to/have learnt. When giving your comments against marks, it is hard to have the time to say everything you want to AND be positive, so I tend to say why the mark wasn't higher, but also try and comment on an improvement in comparison to the rest of the test if applicable. I believe the most important part to be encouraging and positive in is in your summing up at the bottom - as a rider also, I know I really take these comments to heart. They must be constructive and they must not put the rider off ever taking part again. The majority of riders really want to improve and are more than happy to be told their faults (and often know them anyway!) but being cruel and dismissive as some people are is just wrong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Donna Johnston
Member
[ *  * ]
Well Doodle's post is an accumulation of various posts that have been seen on various internet sites.

I agree with nearly all of it. I have severe reservations about the new system. I applaud the effort to make the upgrade system quicker and simpler but feel that the new system is full of holes which will not earn competitor respect.

I certainly do not think that a 'closed reference' which I don't have the right to see is in any way right and do wonder on the Data Protection principles that would apply.

I agree that asking my trainer to reference me - whom I pay - is not right and hardly likely to generate 'respect'.

I would far prefer to be assessed and examined instead of being paper sifted.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
doodle
Newbie
[ * ]
Lets hope BD reconsider some of the problems with the new upgrade system.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · Becoming a Dressage Judge · Next Topic »
Add Reply