Column:

Give me a score, not a judge

By John Hunt

Published Oct. 23, 2009

I generally consider myself a fairly easy-to-please sports fan. Whether it takes place on ice, in the pool, on the hardwood or on a field, as long as there are not more worthwhile and productive things to be done, chances are, I'll be tuned in and interested.

Now, there are exceptions to every rule. I confess, even I have a difficult time spending a Tuesday afternoon watching televised bass fishing, but there is something I find absolutely hypnotizing about most athletic events. If there are multiple people trying their absolute hardest toward a common sports-related goal, sacrificing hours of practice and dedicating money, time and effort toward this goal, I'll be incredibly captivated. More likely than not, I'll enjoy anything along that vein immensely.

This being said, the same can't be admitted for all aspects of sports. I am not particularly fond of the aspect of many sports where the outcome solely hinges on the views of a human judge. Abhor? Despise? Passionately loathe? Someone's opinion should simply never be a clear deciding factor in determining the winner.

Let's take any sport for example, say rugby. The object of the game, as is the case with many sports, is to simply score more points than the other team, shooting for nothing short of overt humiliation of your opponent. Sure, there are referees, but they are present merely to guide the game toward its natural conclusion, stepping in and enforcing the rules when someone attempts to give their team an unfair edge outside boundaries of the rulebook.

With sports such as diving, figure skating and gymnastics, the athlete who delivers the best performance might not always win. It is largely up to the views of the judges to deem a winner based on their standards. Being human, mistakes happen.

The unfortunate part of this is I can't really see how this could be avoided. It is an integral part of many sports and they, frankly, wouldn't be the same without it.

Reassuringly, there are a number of factors that make me feel a little better. They help steer away from the mistake that would be an athlete's performance being based solely on another's opinion of that performance.

First, the scoring "rubrics" are incredibly formalized and a number of minute details are considered when being evaluated. Although this certainly allows for less room for error for the athlete it, at the same time, separates the great from the good regarding similar routines.

It should also be understood these judges are professionals and know the sport like the back of their hand. They have, more than likely, been around the sport since their conception and were hired for a reason.

Finally, the score doesn't merely come down to just one of these professionals' decisions, but rather a host of generally like-minded people. The final mark is based on a consensus of the judges, meaning that if one of the judge's perceptions of the athletic performance is different than that of his or her colleagues, the score will still be averaged and will greater reflect the opinion of the majority.

Despite all these measures being taken, there is still a certain level of subjectivity that can't be ignored and that irks me. If basketball ever came down to how well the shot was made instead of if the shot was made or not, I guarantee a certain red-headed fan in Columbia would watch something else. At least until televised bass fishing came on.