Steve
But, I still think splitting teams into two is good also.
I understand that it is less "fun". But this is business and it works well from my experience judging two World Cups and at Huntington Beach. And the team pride thing carries over very well even when there is half of the team on two different fields.
The blame-factor is less when there is not one particular team to identify with a certain field. It is also easier for the "boss" to establish authority and when it is a mixed group.
That's my take on it.
STeve
First off, Nick, this isn't the most important point. Head judges on each field is by far the most important idea here.Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
I disagree with splitting up judging teams.
You take away the pride of a job well done - and the possibility of earning respect by doing good as judges.
And - you too easily give teams the chance of saying it was the judges from the other team that was to blame.
I would much rather see accountability - and then give each team motivation to live up to that !
Nick
But, I still think splitting teams into two is good also.
I understand that it is less "fun". But this is business and it works well from my experience judging two World Cups and at Huntington Beach. And the team pride thing carries over very well even when there is half of the team on two different fields.
The blame-factor is less when there is not one particular team to identify with a certain field. It is also easier for the "boss" to establish authority and when it is a mixed group.
That's my take on it.
STeve