Give Judges a Break

Since there have been judges there have been bad judges. At least in the eyes of exhibitors, that has always been true. Or is it losing exhibitors only who see bad judging? It is very rare to find an unbiased football supporter as far as their own team is concerned. No matter that their centre forward fell down a yard from the penalty spot. He was scythed down clearly inside the box. "Penalty referee" and if the official disagrees, he is blind, of course. Perish the thought that the fan, when it comes to matters close to home, could be seeing the incident from a rather jaundiced perspective. I have been reminded of such views recently as it has been difficult to pick up a bird magazine without reading another verbal assault on our judges. Much of it has seemed unfair and unsubstantiated and completely lacking in objectivity.

A Matter of Opinion

What is judging? It is the application of a standard set of rules and conditions. There is the scale of points to consider, the pictorial ideal, the colour standards for each variety. Remember that the colour standards vary from colour to colour, with the scale of points differing, depending on the variety. There are even two pictorial ideals, one each for the two sexes. Lastly, condition is emphasised as "essential", but no points are allocated to this feature of the exhibition bird. Flecking must be penalized the book says but by now much?

Thinking of taking up judging? It is not easy. In the final analysis it becomes a matter of opinion. Set firmly within the framework provided by all I have mentioned above, but still a matter of opinion. Different judges interpret aspects of judging differently. Some penalize flecking very severely while others let some slight flecking pass. Still others are perhaps, too lenient with flecked birds. Why else do we see flecked birds winning CCs and major specials? Spangle spots and Dominant Pieds' lack of spots are two other areas where judging can and does vary. I am being careful not to say which interpretation is wrong for it is not right for me to do so, yet I am a judge and have passed the BS test to become so. Others, some not judges, are not so reticent. It is noticeable that many of those who are our most frequent judges, are reluctant to be critical of judging standards. Perhaps they know only too well the pitfalls.

Some Myths

I can always remember it being said that judges look at the cage numbers. Look, you will hear an exhibitor say, "the low numbers are on the left again". Frankly, I do not understand this, and I am sure that if someone did their homework, we would find that more beginner and novice Budgerigars are winning CCs and major specials now than ever before. Not because judges are better or less biased, but because novices and beginners have better birds. Of course, is it surprising that champions win more specials than lower sections? Were it not so we might have more cause to question our judging standards. Do we really expect the likes of Bowley, Topliss, Snell, the Norris and Heale partnerships, to select just a few top champions, not to have the edge, with their years of success and experience, over most beginner and novice birds most of the time?

Judges Are Elected Every Year

Articles which claim such bias are harmful to every single BS judge and to the Budgerigar Society. Can judges really survive by placing the wrong bird first? Talk of cartels do the hobby harm, particularly when no proof has been offered. Let us leave sleaze to the politicians. They have to be elected every five years. One of my best friends in the hobby is Mick Freeborn, who is a regular visitor to my birdroom and aviary. Yet last year he placed an excellent Grey Green cock of mine second in the class. I had high hopes for the bird, which were dashed. I don't know if he recognised the bird, but he placed it where he thought it deserved to be. That was one day I nearly forgot to practice what I preach! Judges are available for election each year, when clubs pick the next show's judges. How long would a judge's reputation survive if he kept getting it wrong for whatever reason. The engagements would dry up. All of you probably know an older judge from your area, who is rarely engaged now because he/she has not kept pace with modern developments in the exhibition bird.

Judges are often accused of putting up well-known birds with a history of success. Yet how often are judges criticised if the bird which won last week, or two weeks ago, is beaten. In my experience, it is often exhibitors who are guilty of "judging by reputation". Some birds always win, or at least are always in contention. There are other birds which "have their day in the sun". They win, and if the exhibitor is honest, they realize the bird is unlikely to win again. It does not mean the judge was wrong, just that the circumstances which led to the win are unlikely to be repeated. The competition may not have been the best, the bird was in the absolute best of condition, it sat superbly and "blew" at the right time. Other birds which could, and would have beaten it on another day, were a little short of condition or "acted up" at the vital moment.

Several Options Are Best

Last year I won Lutino CCs with six different birds. I know which one I think is best. It was best Lutino at the Club Show and featured in The Budgerigar in the January issue. However, it is not necessarily the best Lutino I have in everyone's eyes, and maybe not the best at every show, depending on condition and how it shows itself at the moment of truth. For this reason I often show five or even six Lutino cocks. The same bird was beaten twice in 1996 by another bird of my own in the class. Once he won the class but lost the CC to my own hen. Far from being despondent I was pleased that a judge thought another of my birds worthy of beating the big cock. I can now say I beat the best Lutino at Doncaster with three other Lutinos. The most incredible complaint about judging, and you will hear it this year at every show if you listen, is "I won, but you know I should have won with my Green cock, Blue hen, etc." Imagine Alex Ferguson complaining that the wrong player scored the winning goal in the Cup Final! Many exhibitors only show one bird in a class. I myself, show only one Light Green cock, or Grey Green cock, but then I will show more when I have more depth of quality like my Lutinos.

Clearly Interpretations Differ

Judging is a matter of opinion or rather, of interpretation. It is obvious from going around shows that the standard, scale of points and pictorial ideal, are interpreted differently by different people. How else would we see flecked budgerigars winning major awards, including some"CCs. How much flecking is too much? Personally, I admit to being extremely harsh on Lutinos showing any green suffusion. Judges vary in their interpretation of penalizing poor Spangle spots, for example. Some judges may be harder on Dominant Pieds which do not carry a full set of spots. One thing I'm not saying is, that any judge is right or wrong. It's not right for me to adjudicate which of varying degrees of judging is best. I have seen Spangle and Pied certificates won by birds which failed to display a full set of spots. The argument from exhibitors will often be, when would a Light Green or Grey Green win a CC with a spot or spot missing? Again, the argument is not a true comparison. There are usually many more Light or Grey Greens than Dominant Pieds at most shows. If the winning Dominant Pied were a Grey Green and the other Grey Greens were as few, and of similar quality, would that Grey Green still win the CC? In many cases, the answer is that a case could well be advanced that it would. Spangles are often as numerous as many of the Normal colours. The numbers with the original Spangle spots are few. If most Cinnamons could be faulted on spot, is it inconceivable that a judge would be faced with no alternative but to award one best of colour?

Do Bad Spangles Beat Good Ones?

Are we really seeing Spangles of superb head quality and size, with good Spangle markings and spots, being beaten by Spangles of similar quality and poor Spangle markings? I seriously doubt it, just as I have yet to be convinced that when a Dominant Pied without a full set of spots wins, that the second in the class is a magnificent bird with all its spots. The error made by "the critics", is looking at the winner and judging it against a bird which only exists in their head. What they are really thinking is "a bird with such a fault should not win." I'm sure the judge would often agree, or at least sympathise with this view. The judge though, cannot afford the luxury of such abstract thinking. The judge "lives in the real world", and as such, must choose the bird which overall is best, despite any faults it has. Do exhibitors actually go and look at every other Blue in the show to see if the best Blue really was a bad decision. Even on the rare occasion this may take place, they are at a double disadvantage. Firstly, some hours have passed, and we all know birds change. Secondly, only the judge and his stewards have the benefit of comparing birds side by side. Few shows stage their birds in such a way that all the Blues, for example, are together. People look at the beginner bird, walk past two rows of staging to compare it to the intermediate bird, and pass judgement. If it is so easy to carry an accurate picture of a bird in one's mind, why, when advising people on buying birds do we often say "take one of your best birds with you"? We do so because of the many times people have taken their purchase home, only to realize that it does not measure up to their existing stock as well as they imagined .

Judging is Judging

Neither do I support the notion that we need specialist judges, and I say that as a specialist breeder of Lutinos. I think some specialist breeders delude themselves into believing that if only we had specialist judges, "my Lutinos would win", or "my Clearwings would win", or "my Crests would win." Does the evidence support this? Look at judging as a whole, and not simply one show or the other. The Albinos, the Recessives, the Crests that win under specialist judges are, by and large, the same ones which win under other judges. Though I breed Lutinos my aim is still to put the same head and size and style into them, that I aspire to for my Normals. If you are capable of judging, you should be just as comfortable with a Whitewing as a Grey Green. After all, when you judge best in show or best young bird, you will be comparing birds of all varieties and colours.

Clubs Can Play A Part

Show halls vary and can influence judging. I dislike having too little staging, and can become "pushy" if I have insufficient to stage the birds properly. I like to have three tiers, which can each take seven birds. I judged 33 novice any age birds last year. I asked for more staging. Some judges perhaps would not be so forward and end up with cages on top of cages and birds sitting on the floor. I consider that, in making a nuisance of myself, I am doing the exhibitor a favour. One factor which particularly affects Redeyes is light. Often there is little wrong, but sometimes there can be little natural light, or dark coloured walls. It is more difficult under such circumstances, to judge Lutinos or Albinos and distinguish those areas of blue and green feathering which sometimes show through. In truth, given the cost of halls most clubs do well.

My Method

I claim no particular merit in my system, after all I only passed my judging test in 1994, but I have never considered myself under time pressure. If it becomes a problem, it is up to the show management to take action. Frankly, if I am last to complete my judging, it is not a problem. Sometimes the colours you have, mean you finish very quickly. The next week you judge the Greens, the Cinnamons and the Lutinos. If you try to finish before the guy doing the Crests, the Recessives and the Greys you risk making errors. That said, I am a believer that first impressions are usually correct. If it looks the best in terms of head, size and type, it usually will be the winner, unless you spot a missing spot, tail or flights. I am a great supporter of the judges' training scheme, which I believed developed me as a judge. I tried to take the good things from the nine judges I was assessed by. Incidentally, the change put forward by the BS General Council, and accepted at the AGM, is a positive one. I think it is forward thinking to allow intermediates to join the scheme. After two years, I am less positive about the show cage changes which, though good, do not go far enough. I believe that the slope on the cage roof should have been removed. We have some very big birds today which simply cannot do themselves justice in the old or new cage. I also favour all judges judging best in show. We took a step forward with the ruling that a bird must gain a majority of votes to win best in show. No longer can a bird win best in show where it gains three votes and two other birds get two votes each. However if only three judges from five choose, then two votes form a majority, but in fact, three judges did not choose or were not able to select the winner. All judges should take part in deciding the major specials.

Less Than 1 An Hour

Well, I hope that this article may make one or two of you stop and think as we move into the 1997 show season. Spare a thought for the judge who may have travelled on average, 100 miles from home. A two-hour journey there and back, making four hours in total. Judging, and waiting a reasonable time after the show opens, means a day that started at 6.30am, will end with him/her arriving home at 5.30pm. Excluding petrol expenses, the fee for the 11 hours spent away from wife and family is likely to be 10. We hear talk of a minimum wage of 3.50 to 4 an hour. Now, I would not suggest that judges start charging more realistic sums for their time and services. I am involved with South Hampshire BS, and am acutely aware of the financial constraints on most clubs. To put the job of judging in perspective, even the much maligned football referee I spoke of earlier, does not take so much abuse for so little recompense. This show season,  give judges a break .

Original text: Copyright 1997 Steve Cox

Back to General