Many have asked, "How does a judge arrive at a score for dives"? That is a good question and one that is very difficult to answer. It always begins with knowing the rules, which include definite penalties for various infractions and applying them (see "Vision and Judging" on this web site). Also who assesses those penalties and what are the responsibilities of a judge? The Federation rules insert phrases like "in the referee’s opinion" or "the judge’s opinion". Those phrases don’t assure that these opinions are always correct. They only insulate the referee and judges from some criticism. The more exposure a judge has with diving, the better they should be in scoring dives. This exposure is seeing both good and bad dives performed and knowing the difference. It establishes a baseline for judging and over time judges will develop an eye for judging.

There will always be some variation in scores because many points included in the rules are subjective not objective. Subjective means that words used to describe the performance of a dive are not well defined. Words that would be considered subjective are: dive control, grace, beauty, accuracy, jerky, exaggerated, stiff, good technique (properly executed), too much lean, tempo, smoothness, safe distance and adequate height to name a few. These words are not defined enough to give each judge the same interpretation. This is a problem that exists even at the top levels of diving as shown in an article presented to the Spanish National Convention of Diving Judges by Misha Ugryumov titled "Legal Subjectivity in the Evaluation of Dives" November 20, 2005.

High School Federation rules do include some objective areas by defining the dive positions and form (knees and feet together with the toes pointed). It also describes a balk, the position of the arms during head and foot first entries and even a score for not attempting to come out of a dive (cannonball entry). There are areas that even limit a score judges can give. They are contained under Awarding Points. That section defines deficient, unsatisfactory and failed dives. When an infraction occurs, the judge’s score can be no higher than 4, 2, or 0 in those respective categories. It can also be inferred that the scores can be lower than the category states.

Example: A reverse 1½ ss pike with a partial break at the knees would be scored a maximum of 4 assuming that after the break everything else is ok. Let’s say that after the form break the diver’s feet touch the water first. The score would shift from a maximum of 4 to a 0 for the failed dive. Or if the diver lands almost prone on entry, the score could end up in the unsatisfactory range. In these cases a judge should start with the obvious break in form and then work down from there if necessary.

½ to 2 point deductions are spelled out in the rules. In these cases the dive should be scored first as if nothing happened and then reduced by ½ to 2 points at the judge’s discretion/opinion. ½ to 2 points is a wide variation and it’s both subjective and objective in nature. The objective part is that there is a penalty to assess. The subjective portion becomes how much of the ½ to 2 points will be assessed. That is left up to each judge and is determined by the degree of the infraction.

I was asked to present a way to lead our officials to a specific score for a dive. I’m not sure that I can accomplish that. As one can see from the above information, judging is a complicated process and takes time for one to become proficient at it. It is also why I began with the objective part of judging in articles, such as "Scoring a Dive" and "The Most Common Errors Seen in Dives".

In order to judge properly one must know what a dive is when it’s announced. That includes the position, direction of rotation and for twists, which way it will face upon entry. "Viewing Diving as a Judge" and "Vision and judging" are articles that deal with where to focus and recognize errors in dives. These visual skills are an asset to good judging.

All dives will follow a predetermined path. This path will remain unchanged once the diver has left the board. It is called a parabolic arc and will enter the water at a specific point determined at the moment of lift off. That point is the distance from the board. As a general rule of thumb, the distance from the board will fall from 2 to 4 feet depending on the dive performed. Multiple rotations forward will be closer to 4 feet while inward rotations may finish 2 feet from the end of the board. It must be noted that there is no real consensus for this distance. Another article "Safe and Proper Distance" justifies the reason for specific distances from the end of the board. The only thing that people can agree on at this time is that "hitting the board is too close". If a dive is performed too close, judges should penalize the dive with a low score. Justification for this would be the concern for the safety of the diver. How can a judge determine if a diver is too close? If a judge becomes very uncomfortable as to whether or not the diver will hit the board, then it’s too close.

We are at the point where we have finished with the violation part of judging. Let’s now assume that a dive is performed fairly well but it finishes near or below board level. It would be my opinion the dive would be score in the satisfactory (adequate) range 4½ to 5½. The 4½ score would apply to a dive that finished slightly below board level while the 5½ would be scored for one finishing a little higher. As a caution it must be understood that some of the more difficult dives (107b or c) would normally finish at that level because of the difficulty with additional rotations.

As the dives begin to finish higher, say above the first railing on the standard (dura-firm) the dive could be scored in the good range (6 – 7) (acceptable). As the diver finishes near or higher than the second railing, the dive can then be scored in the excellent (Good) to exceptional (Excellent) category. Some divers can jump a mile in the air only to fail a dive because they couldn’t complete it before hitting the water. A judge can utilize the category descriptions in the Judging Guide on page 79 of the rulebook. Here we have solely focused on height but the same can be true of distance.

The word "well-executed" can be a discussion on its own. For the purposed of this article, well-executed board-work would include an arm-swing after landing from the hurdle and prior to the final jump into the dive. There are many, who will score that lack of technique (no arm-swing) in the deficient range (inadequate). The reason is that without this technique most other parts of the dive will be performed inadequately. The same arm-swing should be included during the back press.

Does the diver seem to be in control of the dive? It should be obvious that once a dive begins to rotate it can not be stopped. It can only be slowed to some extent by lengthening diameter of rotation. The result of out of control dives is that the diver usually misses the nearly vertical entry. Example: A diver initiates a 303c with so much energy that even by kicking out at 1 somersault, the dive still finishes well past the 1½ point that he lands on his stomach. This would be considered a lack of control. As a judge you must determine the extent of a diver’s control during a dive and give an appropriate score. Even if this diver landed vertically, the dive would not be scored very well. It would be deficient (inadequate) at best.

Arching during a dive can be both good and bad. An arch over the top of a 301 straight may add some beauty or grace but too much arch may be a sign of an inadequate dive. In this example once over the top of the dive that arch should disappear and the diver should line up (in a straight line) for the entry. If the slight arch at the top of the dive increases on the way to the entry, the diver didn’t establish the proper amount of rotation and thus will leave the dive short of vertical unless the arch is increased. If that should occur judges would be correct to reduce the score for that dive.

As one can see by this discussion it would be very difficult for all judges to arrive at the same score on any given dive. I believe that the most important aspect in judging is to develop some criteria on which to base your score. I hope this article will produce some careful thought and meaningful discussion pertaining to judging all dives.