01Før konkurransen.

1. Man skal tilstrebe å ha 1 hoveddommer, 1 sekretær og 2 dommerpanel x 3 pers i alle norgescup konkurranser. Ingen dommere skal dømme egne barn eller kunne påvirke dømmingen av egne barn eller andre som kjører i samme klasse. Man skal også unngå at dommere har sterke bindinger til en eller flere utøvere i de klassene de dømmer.

   *Dersom man ikke får tak i hoveddommer eller nok dommere uten bindinger til utøvere har hoveddommer og de andre dommerne et felles ansvar for å se til at de som har bindinger ikke dømmer eller uttaler seg om de utøverne de har bindinger til eller deres konkurrenter. Dette gjelder under hele konkurransen.

2. Minst 2 dommere bør være med på facecheck samme dag som konkurransen. Dette for å vurdere vanskelighetsgrad av de ulike delene av konkuransefacen.
3. Forberedelser: Gjøre klart utstyr: Skriveunderlag, penner, dommerskjemaer, Dommerhåndbok, pc, strøm/batteri, varme nok klær, pledd, sitteunderlag, benk, bord, kikkerter, NFs Dommerguide..
4. Dommermøte før konkurransen: Sett av tid til en felles gjennomgang/vurdering av facen. Skaler gjerne høyde på de ulike elementene. Sett gjerne felles navn eller nr (f.eks J1, J2, J3 osv.) på flest mulig klipper og hopp for å kunne ta effektive notater. Bli ca enige om hvilke linjer dere mener er vanskelige og hvilke linjer som er lette. Er det noen deler av facen som er ekstra bratt eller smal så bør det vurderes som en linje med høyere vanskelighetsgrad en flatere eller bredere del av facen. Hvis mulig bør man også vurdere vanskelighetsgrad på et element mot hverandre. F.eks. en teknisk dropp i bratt terreng vs å fly 8 meter på en vindleppe med trygg landing.

   For å gjøre det enklere å ta notater: Her anbefaler vi at dommerne blir enige før konkurransen om felles navn på alle klipper/hopp. F.eks J1, J2 osv. Bli enige om ca hvor mange meter hver klippe er (Her må man selvsagt legge til ekstra meter/poeng når utøvere hopper lengre – se vedlegg 1).

   Vurder om det er noen områder som er høy risiko hvor kontroll blir ekstra viktig. Dette gjelder steder hvor risiko ved fall er ekstra høy (f.eks. over større klipper). Dette er spesielt viktig i junior konkurranser. Slike vurderinger må da formidles til alle utøvere før start.

5. Ha startlister med alle startende klare. Sett opp startlistene slik at man kjører annenhver jente/gutt/SB slik at hvert dommerpanel dømmer annenhver utøver. Skriv inn startnr på alle i den klassen man skal dømme først. Få med eventuelle frafall dersom mulig.
6. Ha excel ark med resultat klart, samt en som kan taste inn poengsummene fra alle dommere direkte. Dette for å spare mye etterarbeid og sikre at alle resultatene blir riktige og klare så raskt som mulig.

02Under konkurransen.

1. Husk å bruke hele skalaen. Dersom første kjører i en klasse kjører bra, våg å gå nokså høyt. Dersom første utøver kjører dårlig så går man lavt. Dette for å spre utøverne mer og unngå for mange tette resultater i den grad det er mulig.
2. Ikke snakk mens noen dere dømmer kjører. Sett overall score innen 10 sek etter et run. Vis hoveddommer. Hvis alle er innen 10 poeng skal hoveddommer si ok og dommerne skriver notater og gir nøyaktige poeng. Skriv notater på det du klarer.
3. Notater: Her blir det enklest om dommerne i forkant har satt navn på flest mulig hopp/klipper. Dukker det opp nye hopp/klipper underveis så er det lurt å gi disse også navn. Da er det lett å gå gjennom runnet hvis det skulle komme spørsmål eller klager.
4. Bruk av kikkert. Det anbefales at alle dommere har kikkert. Da ser man grabs, småtriks og kontroll issues. Hvis kun en dommer har kikkert så blir det høyere risiko for feildømming for da må de andre stole på den ene dommeren sine vurderinger.

03Selve dømmingen.

04Noen prinsipielle momenter i dømmingen:

1. En BS4 går aldri i pluss (Full krasj i landing hvor kropp eller hode treffer først). Andre kontroll issues kan gå i pluss.
   Eks 17m dropp med dyp landing = +7p -1p= 6p)

   Eks 25m dropp med handdrag/HD etter landing = +5p –(1-3p) = 2-4p
2. Man kan vinne med fall dersom resten av runnet er godt nok (avhengig av hvor godt de andre kjører).
3. Man kan vinne uten hopp hvis kjøringen gir nok poeng (avhengig av hvor godt de andre kjører).
4. Ski damer og SB menn får doble poeng på klipper og hopp sammenliknet med Ski menn. SB damer får ca 3x poeng sammenliknet med Ski menn. Dette for man skal bruke hele poeng rangen i alle klasser.

Example :

a straight air on this 3-meter rock located at the top over exposure could be rewarded

SKI MEN:5pts

SKI WOMEN / SNB MEN:8pts

SNB WOMEN:12pts

4.1Deductions, how to…

For jumps, judges will look at the overall value of the action. Did the rider overall win or lose points when we add the jump bonuses and deduct the landing or control penalties?

Other deductions are taken off the “thermometer” live judging scale while judging.

4.2Maximum Score

A rider who would lose a few points in Fluidity, Line, Control or Technique could still achieve a maximum score of 100 if this score is needed to rank him first. But if a rider loses, for example, overall 25 points on a jump, his/her maximum score will be 75 points, even if he/she has an outstanding rest of the run.

4.3Deductions (negative points)

4.4Bonus (positive points)

5JUDGING PROCEDURES

5.1Scaling the face

Every competition face is different. Some will offer the possibility to link for example four 10 meters jumps, when another venue might only offer one major feature on the whole face. The value of that feature will be greater than the same type of feature on the first face.

Judges should agree on the value of each obvious feature before the competition. They should decide the value for each category and gender, as the same jump will have more value for female snowboarders then for ski men for example.

The scaling is done taking all aspects into consideration (quality of snow, visibility...). The value of a feature is thought for a classic jump at normal speed. The overall jump bonus could increase with added speed or added style and tricks.

While scaling the venue judges should take into consideration not only the possible air time but as well the type of feature.
Ex: a wind lip could score 50% less than a cliff for the same air time

5.2Setting First Scores

Judges should check the face and analyse possible lines and imagine what could be an easy, average or difficult line.
They should be informed of snow conditions to know if there will be heavy sluff, perfect powder, crusty snow, ice or rocky sections.
Use forerunners to calibrate judging for the day.
The head judge will make sure that all judges agree on the first, good, average, poor and bad scores and could open a discussion if opinions differ. All other runs from that day will be judged according to these first calibration.

5.3One Minute of Judging

In most cases, judges will get about one minute to come up with a final score.
This can be long if all judges agree but very short if changes are needed. The head judge has a key role to only intervene, if necessary, with confidence and solid arguments to avoid time loss.

5.4Result validation

On non live scoring events, at the end of the contest, the judges will get the overall results and ranking. They have 20 minutes to validate these results and are allowed to change scores if obvious mistakes happened. This is not the time to discuss if a rider should have been 10^th or 11^th but to check if someone who should have been ranked around 5^th is somehow ending up 13^th.
In the case judges can’t agree, the head judge has the final call to decide on the final result.

On the FWT Pro, or when live scoring, the scores cannot be revised after the contest. The live scores are the final scores.
If judges cannot agree on a score in a live scoring contest, they will hold their scores and review the run when the competition is on hold (loss of ski / injury / bad weather) in between categories or at the end of the contest, to give their final score.
Scores can only be revised if they fit the following criteria:

1. An end of judging line has been decided and communicated during the riders meeting but a rider who crashed after the end of judging line has been unfairly penalised for this crash.
2. An end of judging line has been decided and communicated during the riders meeting but a rider who crashed before the end of judging line has not been penalised for this crash.
3. A rider rode into a close area and received a score.
4. A rider didn’t ride in a closed area, but judges thought it was a close area and didn’t give him a score.

Together with the contest director, the head judge then signs and validates the result list.

5.5Judges equipment

5.5.1Viewing equipment

Judges will use binoculars, a TV screen or their bare eyes to judge. It is important that all judges use the same viewing system to avoid conflicts. If judges use binoculars, they should all have the same power (ideally 10x42).
In case a rider disappears from the judge’s view, the video judge could tell the other judges what happens at this time and the action will be judged.
If no one sees what is happening when the rider disappears, there will be no bonus or minus points given during this time. If judges feel that the rider is taking too much time to reappear, they will deduct fluidity points even if they didn’t see a crash.

5.5.2Insurance

Each judge should have his own valid personal insurance. On event where FWT complementary insurance has been subscribe, the FWT technical delegate could ask each judge to sign a document in order to benefit from FWT complementary insurance.

5.5.3Safety equipment

Each judge should be fully equipped with the minimum safety gears listed below:

• Avalanche transceiver in working order (with enough batterie for a full day)
• Probe
• Shovel

5.5.4Necessary equipments

• Warm clothes
• Pencil and clipboard
• Food and beverage

5.6Particular cases

Judges must pay special attention to where falls happen. If a rider makes a mistake in a place that put his/her life or health at risk because of extreme exposure, he/she must be strongly penalized. Riders have to understand that they are not supposed to take unnecessary risks in highly exposed places.

This will always be the trickiest part of judging. How do we judge landings in a fair way without compromising progression of the sport and at the same time not giving bonuses to riders taking risks but not cleanly sticking it?
It is important that riders get the feeling that risk pays only if it is successful when they see their scores. But all crashes shouldn’t have the same point consequences.

In order to judge landings in a fair way, here are a few tips to help judges decide on how much they will penalize a landing crash:

• Had the rider already lost control in the air, or did he/she just not stick his/her landing, even though he/she looked perfectly in position to stick it?
• Did the run lose its fluidity?
• Could the rider recover without losing his/her speed, or did the rider come to a complete stop?
• Could the rider recover right away, or did he/she need 50m to get his/her act back together?
• Did the rider tumble head over heels before recovering, how many times?
• Did someone stick that same jump before, and he/she just didn’t?
• Was this landing as good as it could have been compared to the snow conditions and jump height and the added trick?
• was this Jump a first? Something more technical than any other jump done before? Way bigger than other jumps?

5.7NS,DNF,DNA & DQ

NS, for No Score: A rider who loses a ski or any mandatory equipment (see the list “Mandatory equipment”) during his/her run will get a NS (No Score) on the final ranking list. No other loss of material will be sanctioned as NS.
No points will be deducted by the judges for the loss of a pole. Example: if a skier loses a pole while pushing out of the starting gate without committing any mistake, he/she won’t be penalized (no points deducted), however, if the loss of poles is the result of a loss of control, the judges will penalize the loss of control, but as skiing without poles may affect the riding technique, balance or overall control, points could be deducted for the poor skiing caused by the missing pole.
A snowboarder who has to take off his/her board or unbuckle one foot from his/her board at any time during the run will get a NS unless specified at the riders meeting. (For example: If the Finish or a segment of the venue is hard to access without pushing, snowboarders will be allowed to take off their board without getting a NS then).

All riders who are NS are ranked behind the last rider of the competition who isn’t NS with a score between 0,00 and 1. If more than 1 rider per category are NS, the NS riders will be ranked following the scores they had up to the action that led to the loss of mandatory equipment.
Example 1: In an event with 20 riders in which 4 riders lost a ski, the 4 riders are ranked from the 17^th to the 20^th place depending on the score the judges gave them up to the loss of the mandatory equipment. A NS rider will get the points and the price money of his/her place in the event ranking.
Example 2: A rider who was judged around 70 points before the loss of equipment will get 0,70 points.

DNF, for Did Not Finish: A rider who can’t finish his/her run due to injury, will get a DNF (Did Not Finish) on the final ranking list. He/she will be ranked like the NS, after every other rider who aren’t NS or DNF. He/she will get a score based on what happened up to the action that led to the crash.
Example: in an event with 20 riders in which 4 riders were NS and 1 DNF, the 5 riders will be ranked separately and behind the other riders from the 16^th to the 20^th place depending on the score the judges gave them up to the point they either got a NS or a DNF. A DNF rider will get the points and the price money of his/her ranking.

DNS for Did Not Start: A rider qualified for the event but not showing up at the start for a valid reason. (A proof of a valid reason for not showing up at the start have to be provided before the event to the FWT management may consult the PFB and will decide if the reason is accepted. Valid reasons could be an injury or exams for example.). If the reason is accepted and validated, the rider will get a DNS (Did Not Start) on the event ranking list. He/she will get the points of the last ranked rider after all NS and DNF. In an event’s final day with 20 riders in which 4 riders did not start for valid reasons (accepted by the FWT Management), the 4 riders are tied in 20^th place and will all score the points of 20^th place.
For FWT pro and Challenger events only: If no valid reasons has been either presented or accepted the Rider who did not start the competition will be DNA and will not score any points.

DNA, (Valid for FWT PRO and Challengers only), for Did Not Attend: A rider qualified for the event, who did not attend the event or did not start for without valid reason. DNA riders will be ranked last after all NS, DNF, DNS and DQ riders. DNA rider won’t score any points at this particular event.

DQ, for DisQualified: A rider is disqualified if he/she does a major fault such as riding the venue before the contest, riding through a closed area, having unethical behaviour towards other FWT riders, hosts, FWT employees… The DQ rider is ranked last after all NS, DNF and DNS. DQ riders do not score any points and doesn’t earn any prize money for that event. DQ athletes could face sanctions like multiple events ban.

6JUDGES AND HEAD JUDGE ROLES

6.1Consistency & fluidity of the event

The most important quality for a judge (apart of being impartial) is his/her ability to remain focused for many hours to keep a consistent level of judging.

The head judge must check that all judges are working separately and not comparing scores.
If a judge missed an action because he/she lost the rider for a couple of seconds with his/her binoculars, he/she is allowed to ask the head judge what he she just missed.

The head judge should keep the event rolling and speed up the slow judges.

6.2Scale

It is the head judge’s duty to make sure the judges are using the full scale (from 1 to 100points), especially when the first high score and the first low score are given.
The head judge ensures that coherence is maintained in the overall judging of each run.

6.3Judges Briefing

Judges should be at the competition site at least one day prior to the first possible competition day.
On top of the briefing by the head judge and the organizers they will visit the competition site, the judges tent location, study the face and inform themselves about the snow conditions.
At FWT competitions it is also mandatory for at least the head-judge to be present at the judge’s tent when the head-guide rides the face one day prior to the event.
Both head-judge should ride the face with the head-guide to better feel what the conditions are like.
Judges should be present at the riders meeting the day before the contest to be presented to the riders.

6.4Judges Debriefing

The head judge organizes a post-contest debriefing with his/her team to improve their performance in future competitions.
The head judge and the judges stay at the disposal of the riders to answer questions.
The head judge stays at the disposal of the media to explain the judging system and comment on riders’ scores.
The head judge shares his/her feelings and comments the judges to the FWT Technical Delegate, which will help reward each judge with the right Level of judging.

6.5Time

Although speed is an important aspect of a run, there will not be a minimum/maximum time limits set in order to give a score.

6.6Head-Judge specifics

The Head-Judge’s tasks are:

• Ride the venue

• Lead the face scaling
• Make sure judges are concentrated, silent and that they respect the judges Code of Ethics
• Make sure the judges are using the full judging scale especially when scoring the first really high score, average score and low score, to make sure all the riders aren’t judged in a narrow range
• Make sure the judges are scoring fast and writing full comments
• Check the scores of his/her judges to spot potential disagreements
• Decide if a discussion needs to be opened between judges in case of disagreement
• If needed, ask one of his/her judges to review his/her score
• In case of accidents, fill in the Accident Diary file

• Set a judging meeting right after the competition to validate the results
• Collect the judging sheets from the judges
• Together with the Organizer, enter the results into the proper result list template
• Give the judging sheets back to each judge and make sure they will be present at the prize giving ceremony to answer riders’ questions
• Be present during the prize giving ceremony with the judging sheets to answer rider’s questions.
• Give a report about his/her judges to the FWT Technical Delegate, to validate their certification, and this right after the event

7SCORING COMPLAINS

7.1Final scores changes

A final score can only be changed if:

• If the scores have been entered wrong on the computer/web
• If a rider was penalized for riding into what the judges thought of a closed area.
• If a rider was not penalized for riding into a closed area.
• If a rider fell after the end-of-judging line but still got penalized for it.
• If a rider fell before the end-of-judging line and hasn’t been penalized for it.

7.2Hidden actions

If a competitor is riding in a part of the face that cannot be seen by judges, what he/she does (good or bad) will not be scored unless judges have live and reliable video feed showing the action or another judge/official can be placed to comment the action.

7.3Complains timing

Riders can only complain about scores on the day of the competition maximum 1h after the beginning of the prize money. No complains will be accepted after competition day.

8JUDGES CODE OF ETHICS

Judges are expected to behave in accordance to the rules and laws of the country hosting the event before, during and after the competition.

Judges are expected to reflect the professionalism and fair play of FIS FWT. They must be fair play at all time, be respectful to riders, should it be to a single person or a group of a certain country, gender, sport, category...

Judges are expected not to criticise the country / region / ski resort / event organization during the whole weather window. If there is a problem or any concern regarding the organization, they should refer to the FWT Technical Delegate who will then speak to the Organizer and who will as well write this comment in his/her report.

In case of disagreement between judges while judging, judges should always give comments to riders in accordance with the agreement settled between the judges.

Judges should not give comment discrediting the judges panel if they did not judge the event.

Judges should not give comments to a rider who hasn’t requested any.

Judges should always communicate with riders in a respectful way, without discrimination based on gender, origins, or sexual orientation.
In order to do so all judges should follow the FWT Gender Equality communication guidelines.

In case this code of ethics is not respected some sanction will apply. (Judging fee might be suspended, or the judge might be banned of judging FWT events)

9JUDGING GLOSSARY

Dommerne bruker faste kortformer når de noterer et run. Søk på en kortform, eller velg en kategori.