Judging Information for the National Tournament
School Judging Commitment
: The following rules govern the provision of judges by Colleges entering students into competition in the National Tournament.
A. Each college shall be required to bring one competent (as defined below) judge for each four (4) contestants, or fraction thereof entered. However, no school shall be made to bring more than 3 judges (No fees are charged for not having 4 judges). Forensics educators and judges shall act in accordance with their own institutional obligations (College Code of Conduct – Student Handbook – Title IX policies). Failure to adhere to and being current with employer's policies will render a person ineligible to judge. Prior to judging at the Phi Rho Pi National Tournament, all judges shall be required to show proof of Title IX training.
B. There shall be no provision for penalty fees in lieu of judges, except as the Tournament Director can GUARANTEE that competent judges can be hired with that money. Penalty fees in these instances shall be determined by the Tournament Director on a per-student-not-covered-by-a-judge ratio. If only a limited number of competent judges can be obtained, the colleges most distant from the National Tournament site will receive preference for such option.
C. No coach may code him/herself out of judging any event.
D. Judges shall be responsible for judging all rounds (including eliminations) assigned by the Tournament Management. (Room and judging commitments includes the entire tournament.)
1. Failure to judge as assigned will result in a $50 penalty for each ballot not judged.
2. If the assessed fines are not paid during the course of the tournament, the school’s Administration will be billed
3. If the failure to pick up a ballot is due to tournament administration error, an exception can be made.
E. Once a ballot has been assigned, it may not be exchanged with, or given away to, another judge (even one from your own school!) without approval by the Judges Table.
F. If a school is requesting special consideration in splitting a judging commitment, the school must provide explanation submitted with each of the judge’s information form, including specific available days and times for each judge. A coach cannot buy out of a complete judging commitment. One could split a commitment, but only for half.
G. All judges are required to call roll at the beginning of a round.
H. Attendance at one of the two judging meetings held prior to the beginning of competition is required of all individuals judging at the National Tournament.
I. Coaches/Judges should not recruit students while actively judging.
J. Students from colleges not meeting their judging responsibilities shall not be permitted to continue in competition.
Interested in being a hired judge?
If you are interested in being hired as a judge for Phi Rho Pi Tournament contact the tournament director at firstname.lastname@example.org. You may also go to the forensicstournament.net website and the Phi Rho Pi tournament has the link to the forms that need to be filled out.
1. In order to meet a school’s commitment a “competent debate judge” must be one of the following:
a. A college debate coach;
b. A former college debate coach who has coached within the past twelve years;
c. A high school debate coach with two or more years of intercollegiate debate experience;
d. A person who has debated inter-collegiately two or more years (within the last twelve years, unless he/she has been actively involved in debate activities during this time); and removed from junior college competition for three semesters or five quarters and who is judged competent by the Director of Forensics. A judge must be removed from all competition for an entire year.
e. Debate judges are to rank themselves A, B, C, D on the enclosed form to indicate level of judging experiences (coding does affect judge assignments). Distinctions should be made between policy debate rankings and parliamentary debate rankings.
f. A Judging Philosophy must be submitted by each judge along with the judge qualification and preference forms. Judging philosophies will be in open narrative form and will include, but are not limited to:
i. Number of rounds judged on the current policy topic and/or in
parliamentary for that year.
ii. Years of experience coaching/judging policy (either NDT or CEDA)
iii. Limited explanation of preferences regarding delivery, evidence, and
g. Judging paradigms and philosophical differences between policy debate and
parliamentary debate as applicable. (Judging philosophies will be available online after the deadline for attendees. No paper copies will be distributed.)
Individual Events and Interpreters' Theatre In order to meet a school’s commitment, a “competent judge” for the Individual Events and Interpreters’ Theatre must be one of the following: