Some would consider a judge to be the worst position to have in drifting. You have to make decisions that can either garner praise or controversy. The only senses you have available to judge a run are your eyes and ears. So while I can see and hear one thing, others can see another, thus creating different opinions and conclusions. Ultimately a decision is the result of the judges opinion, it's not necessarily a fact. If it was then there would be no arguments and everyone would be in agreement.
Looking through all the comments that resulted from the controversy between the crash with Chelsea and Tyler, only one stood out to me. I forgot who stated this but when someone was responding to the questionable calls the judges have been making all weekend, they mentioned the problem being the lack of consistency amongst their decisions. Thinking it through I realized that is one of the problem areas with the judging. It seems as if the judges are making decisions in a case by case scenario which leaves them susceptible to making calls that can slap them in the face afterwards.
For instance this past weekend during qualifying I witnessed someone scoring a 0 just because they straightened out. As the day progressed this decision became more preposterous because many other drivers straightened out and didn't score a 0! How is it that Forsberg still got the win after spinning out behind Daigo?
With that last question the judges came to a conclusion based on their assumption that Daigo purposely lifted off the throttle in order to throw Forsberg off. What if he didn't and did in fact lifted in order to correct? Isn't it the chase drivers job to adjust to whatever the lead car does? Why wasn't it thrown into a OMT? It's things that have been said and done before that are coming back to bite them in the butt for their decisions. In the end it came down to an opinion that was formed based on what the judges heard and saw. And it's the difference of opinion amongst everyone plus the inconsistency that can cause controversies in the decisions that are made. The judges should never be concerned that their decision could lead to a controversy, but at least be aware of it because it will cast the organization in a negative light.
Controversies are inevitable when judging a series, but how can one reduce of risk of creating a major one? For one thing be consistent. Don't treat every run on a case-by-case scenario. If you could standardize your decisions as much as you can, stick to it, and be transparent about it then you should be good. Why? Because if you're ever questioned about it then you can always point to the standards you've made publicly available. Plus you avoid falling into the trap where the reasoning for your decision is inconsistent with the decision you made in a later event.
Formula Drift has been trying to be transparent with the judging criteria but it doesn't look like they're successfully getting the message across. I can understand the difficulty in their attempts because the majority of the audience isn't interested in knowing all the specific details on what the judges are looking for. They come to watch a good show.
If you were to ask me what decision would I have made with the Tyler vs. Chelsea crash then my answer would be a OMT. Reason being is since Tyler crashed first, he was at fault for throwing the other driver off, especially considering how chase drivers are supposed to treat the lead car as a moving clipping point. Looking at both of their mistakes in their lead runs, even though it can be argued one was greater than the other, I would come to a conclusion of a OMT. Now does that sound reasonable? Some may say no but I think many can agree it sounds better than what the judges initially based their decision on.
In retrospect I think the judges should be more careful with their decisions and what they say. With the way how some spectators follow the series and how all the events are recorded and uploaded to YouTube, one can easily bring up a valid argument with evidence to back up their claim. Whether or not the judges care is up to them. I don't expect them to nor want them to think twice about a decision just because they are afraid of what the spectators will think. But I would like for them to be mindful about their conclusions since the choices they make not only affects the public's opinion, it also affects the organization. The comments are not only saying, "F**k the judges", they are also saying, "F**k FD".
Discussing this post with some of my colleagues I realized something that Formula Drift needs that other race series have: in-car cameras. Ever watch NASCAR or Le Mans? They often switch over to the in-car camera in order to get the drivers perspective. If the judges of Formula Drift had access to that, they could have come to a different conclusion after watching Chelsea's in-car footage. I don't know if FD has the budget to run that type of setup but they should look into it. Plus the throttle, RPM, and brake readouts that you often see in NASCAR videos could've been useful in the battle between Daigo vs. Forsberg.
There is a lot more I could say but that is the main gist of it. I'll probably add more after I see some responses. I could be wrong with many things so feel free to sound off on what you disagree with. And if you read all of it then I owe you another cookie.
Looking through all the comments that resulted from the controversy between the crash with Chelsea and Tyler, only one stood out to me. I forgot who stated this but when someone was responding to the questionable calls the judges have been making all weekend, they mentioned the problem being the lack of consistency amongst their decisions. Thinking it through I realized that is one of the problem areas with the judging. It seems as if the judges are making decisions in a case by case scenario which leaves them susceptible to making calls that can slap them in the face afterwards.
For instance this past weekend during qualifying I witnessed someone scoring a 0 just because they straightened out. As the day progressed this decision became more preposterous because many other drivers straightened out and didn't score a 0! How is it that Forsberg still got the win after spinning out behind Daigo?
With that last question the judges came to a conclusion based on their assumption that Daigo purposely lifted off the throttle in order to throw Forsberg off. What if he didn't and did in fact lifted in order to correct? Isn't it the chase drivers job to adjust to whatever the lead car does? Why wasn't it thrown into a OMT? It's things that have been said and done before that are coming back to bite them in the butt for their decisions. In the end it came down to an opinion that was formed based on what the judges heard and saw. And it's the difference of opinion amongst everyone plus the inconsistency that can cause controversies in the decisions that are made. The judges should never be concerned that their decision could lead to a controversy, but at least be aware of it because it will cast the organization in a negative light.
Controversies are inevitable when judging a series, but how can one reduce of risk of creating a major one? For one thing be consistent. Don't treat every run on a case-by-case scenario. If you could standardize your decisions as much as you can, stick to it, and be transparent about it then you should be good. Why? Because if you're ever questioned about it then you can always point to the standards you've made publicly available. Plus you avoid falling into the trap where the reasoning for your decision is inconsistent with the decision you made in a later event.
Formula Drift has been trying to be transparent with the judging criteria but it doesn't look like they're successfully getting the message across. I can understand the difficulty in their attempts because the majority of the audience isn't interested in knowing all the specific details on what the judges are looking for. They come to watch a good show.
If you were to ask me what decision would I have made with the Tyler vs. Chelsea crash then my answer would be a OMT. Reason being is since Tyler crashed first, he was at fault for throwing the other driver off, especially considering how chase drivers are supposed to treat the lead car as a moving clipping point. Looking at both of their mistakes in their lead runs, even though it can be argued one was greater than the other, I would come to a conclusion of a OMT. Now does that sound reasonable? Some may say no but I think many can agree it sounds better than what the judges initially based their decision on.
In retrospect I think the judges should be more careful with their decisions and what they say. With the way how some spectators follow the series and how all the events are recorded and uploaded to YouTube, one can easily bring up a valid argument with evidence to back up their claim. Whether or not the judges care is up to them. I don't expect them to nor want them to think twice about a decision just because they are afraid of what the spectators will think. But I would like for them to be mindful about their conclusions since the choices they make not only affects the public's opinion, it also affects the organization. The comments are not only saying, "F**k the judges", they are also saying, "F**k FD".
Discussing this post with some of my colleagues I realized something that Formula Drift needs that other race series have: in-car cameras. Ever watch NASCAR or Le Mans? They often switch over to the in-car camera in order to get the drivers perspective. If the judges of Formula Drift had access to that, they could have come to a different conclusion after watching Chelsea's in-car footage. I don't know if FD has the budget to run that type of setup but they should look into it. Plus the throttle, RPM, and brake readouts that you often see in NASCAR videos could've been useful in the battle between Daigo vs. Forsberg.
There is a lot more I could say but that is the main gist of it. I'll probably add more after I see some responses. I could be wrong with many things so feel free to sound off on what you disagree with. And if you read all of it then I owe you another cookie.
Last edited:
