Objectively evaluating an inherently subjective sport like women’s gymnastics is not a new challenge. From the most experienced international brevet judges chosen to evaluate Olympic gymnasts to the first-time judge reviewing a six-year-old’s first competition, judges throughout history have struggled to accurately and consistently grade the artistic and athletic performances of gymnasts of all levels.
In NCAA gymnastics, the pressure to break records, keep fans engaged, and receive a good evaluation from coaches can make consistency even more difficult. This is especially true when fans and analysts have the advantages of multiple camera angles and instant replays while judges have one angle and one chance to catch everything.
When Florida’s Chloi Clark scored a perfect 9.95 from one judge with a clear landing deduction in February 2023, gymnastics fans, judges, and coaches alike seemed to hit a breaking point. It was clear that gymnastics judging needed new quality control measures, but what would that look like and could it work?
In response, the Women’s Collegiate Gymnastics Association (WCGA) created the Collegiate Judging Issue (CJI) working group to develop a judges evaluation system “to create a level playing field of scores across the country,” as well as improve consistency and formalize the postseason judges selection process. According to the proposal to “Improve Judging Consistency and Accuracy Nationally,” which was approved by the WCGA in May 2024, they hope their system will help promote the growth of college gymnastics by improving consistency, rewarding and incentivizing high-performing judges, and improving the viewing experience for media and spectators.
The Supervisor of Officials and SCORE Board
In August 2024, the WCGA announced the hiring of Jennifer Sampson as the Supervisor of Officials, a newly created position that will oversee the new Standardize Consistency in Officiating of Routine Evaluation Board, or SCORE Board. Together, the eight-member SCORE Board will re-evaluate uploaded videos of current NCAA routines, with each member specializing on one or two events.
Judges will be rated on their accuracy through a points system, with a judge earning more points the closer they are to the target score, as determined by the SCORE Board members evaluating the routine. Judges may also lose points for egregious errors, such as impossible start values or misapplying “up to the level” compositional deductions.
The Supervisor of Officials will return the judge’s individual evaluation for their review and also aggregate the scores of all rated judges. These ratings will be standardized and used to “rank” judges, with the highest-ranked judges more favored to receive a future postseason judging assignment from the NCAA committee, all other factors equal. The evaluations could also be used to provide targeted, timely education to the judging community related to common errors or other educational needs. While the NCAA has not yet agreed to use SCORE Board metrics for postseason judge selections, it has requested that SCORE Board present its data from the 2025 season to show that it is accurately recording data, from which the NCAA will determine whether to make the data a determining factor.
Challenges of the New Judges Evaluation System
It’s important to note that although detailed, the proposed plan is not entirely feasible given the financial and time constraints of the newly appointed SCORE Board. For example, the proposal calls for the SCORE Board to evaluate every single routine for the season. With 390 meets scheduled for the 2025 season, that’s likely 20,000-30,000 routines. It will be up to Sampson and her SCORE Board to devise a way to sample the thousands of routines to allow as many judges as possible to be evaluated, as well as the other details involved with implementing the WCGA’s ambitious plan.
An unconfirmed report suggests that the SCORE Board will primarily evaluate judges with at least five assignments this season, i.e. those eligible for a regional or national (postseason) assignment. While this may help ensure the quality of postseason judges, it does not address those officials that only judge one to three competitions per NCAA season, who, with less experience and engagement in NCAA gymnastics, may be more likely to make errors. No one wants another Tennessee Classic.
Sampson was contacted to request for an interview, but she declined at this time. More details regarding the specifics of the system are planned to be announced during the WCGA’s December meeting.
Another major concern is funding. Sampson and the SCORE Board members are not eligible to judge this season and have been offered a stipend to compensate their time. For this first year, all gymnastics programs were asked to contribute within a tiered dues system, with higher-resource programs contributing more funds and smaller-budget programs contributing less.
According to Florida associate head coach Owen Field, also vice chair of the WCGA Board of Directors, funding is the biggest limiting factor. This year’s funds should be enough to get the system started, and he is optimistic that with better funding (perhaps at the conference level) in the future, the system can continue to be built upon and improved.
”If we had somebody who wanted to contribute a million dollars to NCAA gymnastics and create the perfect judge’s evaluation system, the sky’s the limit in terms of what you can accomplish,” Field said. Overall, he states he’s proud of the work the WCGA has done so far to “support a common vision of something that’s truly good for gymnastics.“
There may be some concern within the coaching community regarding lower scores due to the increased scrutiny on the judges, but not everyone thinks lower scores are a bad idea. Ideally, a greater range in scores can create some distance between an “average” college gymnastics routine and truly outstanding performances. When judges ignore or miss minor deductions, such as leg bends in front aerials, minor foot adjustments on landings, or leg separations on bars and vault, it does a disservice to the athletes that can truly perform a skill perfectly. Field believes a gymnast’s routine should be “breathtakingly beautiful” in order to deserve a 10.0, and perhaps with more accountability for judges to take appropriate deductions it can be.
What Do the Judges Think?
The judging community understandably has mixed feelings and many questions regarding this new system. One judge who wished to remain anonymous stated, “personally, I am very happy about the SCORE Board. This is definitely a step in the right direction to create effective change in our sport.” Another anonymous judge felt the opposite way, stating, “The judges are not happy about this. Why aren’t you going to the people that are the problem? Why everyone?”
The judging community, although spread across the U.S., can feel small when you judge with the same group over several years. For the 2024 NCAA season, there were 389 judges available to be assigned, and for 2025, it has dropped to just 330. Although it’s unclear how much this new system had to do with some judges calling it quits, with the existing judging shortage, it may not matter if a judge is competent or not. The best and the worst judges will still likely be assigned if they meet the qualifications, as NCAA gymnastics can’t afford to lose many more officials.
Additionally, the NCAA National Assigner, Jenna Karadbil, has requested judges opt-in to receive their evaluations from the SCORE Board, as she needs explicit permission to share individual judge’s information outside of the purpose of contracting judges for competitions. The SCORE Board will likely be able to access uncensored final score sheets from the competitions, allowing all judges to be evaluated, but only those that opt-in will receive feedback.
For those that do opt-in to be evaluated, one judge stated they “worry that some judges will struggle with truly accepting feedback and making a true effort to change.” Another judge doubts the competency and experience of some of the SCORE Board members and is unsure if the judges would trust the evaluation by this group.
Overall, most can agree that implementing a judge evaluation system is a step in the right direction, but it’s not without its challenges. “I’m excited about it,” Field said. “It’s time for a change, and there might be some growing pains with it, and maybe it takes a year, or 2 years, or 3 years for people to really see a difference.”
As attendance and TV coverage of NCAA gymnastics continues to grow, a change is needed to keep pace with the realities of gymnastics and sports officiating in this highly connected and technically advanced era.
READ THIS NEXT: Judges Inquiry: 9 Ways to Improve NCAA Judging
Article by Rhiannon Franck
Rhiannon Franck is a former national-rated NAWGJ women’s gymnastics judge with over 15 years of USAG judging experience and nine seasons judging NCAA gymnastics. Outside of gymnastics, Franck works at a university as a nursing professor and loves to travel.
