Plans Underway to Introduce Supervisor of Officials to Enhance Judging Accuracy and Accountability

In an email sent Tuesday morning from the National Association of Women’s Gymnastics Judges, the Women’s Collegiate Gymnastics Association is looking for a supervisor of officials to conduct “activities related to the review, evaluation, and assessment of the performance of collegiate gymnastics judges.” This position, which will report to the WCGA executive director, is a long-awaited step toward providing oversight to college gymnastics judges who are often criticized for their inconsistency and sometimes inaccurate scoring. 

The supervisor of officials will oversee a newly created “SCORE Board,” which will be responsible for oversight, feedback, and training of NCAA judges. The SCORE Board will create baseline routines, which are used by judging panels immediately prior to a competition to aid in standardizing deductions and scoring on each event. This process is already in place for NCAA judging, but the process may change under the direction of the new board and supervisor of officials. 

The SCORE Board and supervisor of officials will conduct weekly reviews of routines during the NCAA season. For the first time, individual judges will receive detailed feedback on their scores from the SCORE Board, which will ideally help them judge better in the future. These reviews will be summarized, and common mistakes, issues, or problems will be shared in an effort to better educate all NCAA judges.

The SCORE Board will also implement a new process of scoring and ranking individual judges. Although it is unclear how judges will be ranked or scored going forward, it is likely the weekly reviews as well as the coach, judge, and meet referee evaluations will factor into this system. These rankings will be presented to the NCAA postseason selection committee and will likely factor in selection of regionals and nationals officials. 

Thoughts from former NCAA judge Rhiannon Franck:

Although there are still a lot of questions regarding how and when this position will be implemented, who will be on this SCORE board, and how the ranking system will be developed, we can all agree that it is a step in the right direction.

I worry that the potential complexity of this proposed system still leaves room for subjectivity or favoritism, but it also has the potential to improve the quality of judging across the country. I’m cautiously optimistic that with the right leadership in the supervisor of officials, we may see more accountability for judges’ scores on an individual level.

I am concerned, though, that the ranking system could exacerbate equity concerns among the judging community and cause both experienced and inexperienced judges to leave NCAA judging altogether, worsening the existing shortage of officials. I hope this system will not reward only the most accurate judges with a high ranking but will also allow those who are struggling to receive valuable, timely, and constructive feedback.

READ THIS NEXT: Judge’s Inquiry: What Got Worse and What Got Better With Judging in 2024

Article by Rhiannon Franck