EC March/April, 2008

In order to improve the perception of AQHA judges, we must not look at what the policies and procedures do for us individually but what they do for the judging family as a whole,” AQHA Executive Director of Judges Alex Ross says. “The purpose of the Judges Rating System (JRS) is to encourage judges to become more knowledgeable by judging more shows and seeking additional education which helps make our industry better for all.”

With this new system, each judge is given a rating dependent upon how long they have been an AQHA judge and also by how many credits they receive each year. Judges now receive credits for judging horse shows, attending seminars, and acquiring certain alliance judges cards, i.e. NSBA, NRHA, NRCHA, and NCHA. Judges are now penalized, through demerits, for committing certain infractions, with the number of demerits subtracted from the total credits received each year. AQHA developed the system by studying several different rating systems from horse organizations and other sports programs.

The rating status of judges starts at A and goes up to AAAA. Progressive judges start at A status. These judges are only allowed to judge AQHA shows with 350 entries or less and novice shows. Progressive judges usually have high scores on the judges qualifying exam but do not make the cut for the regular judges’ roster. After further evaluation, these judges may be elevated to regular status. The lowest rating a regular judge can have is AA. To advance to AAA, a judge must have completed two years of service as an AQHA-approved judge and earned a minimum of 15 credits each year. To advance to AAAA, a judge must have completed three years of service as an AQHA judge, earned a minimum of 25 credits, and judged at least two shows with a minimum of 500 entries; or one of the AQHA World Championship Shows. A judge can only advance one rating level per calendar year. (The detailed requirements, the demerit system, and explanation of how credits can be earned are shown in the sidebar of this article.)

AQHA rules require that all regular judges must judge at least four shows per year. Some judges only judge the minimum number of shows every year. Ross says, “The Judges Committee believes judges will improve in their application of the rules with regular judging duties. For this reason, the JRS rewards judges who are actively judging.” Ross mentions that he has already seen an increase in participation in some judges this year which shows evidence the new system is working.

Continuing education is crucial in improving the quality of judges in our industry, Ross says. “For example, an AQHA judge who attends an NRCHA seminar should be more knowledgeable about maneuver scores and penalties when they judge a working cow horse at an AQHA show. Competitors, trainers and owners expect AQHA judges to be knowledgeable when judging their event.”

The show managers will be given a list of the judges and their status. However, Ross explains, that it is for the show managers’ information only, and they can decide whether it has any weight in their hiring decisions. With the exception of the progressive judges, a judge’s rating status does not determine which shows they are allowed to judge.

Ross explains there was a lot of thought put into this program. “AQHA Judges Committee minutes show discussion about this as far back as September, 1990. In December, 2003 a task force of the judges committee again proposed a rating system.  It was studied from that time until it was proposed to the judges committee in September, 2006.”

As expected for any new program, it has been met with mixed reviews and has been a polarizing issue for many in the AQHA judging community.

Some AQHA judges are in support of the new rating system. “I am excited about the JRS and I believe AQHA has put a lot of thought and energy into the program,” AQHA judge and trainer Gigi Bailey says. “One of my favorite parts of the system is the demerit program. It penalizes judges that are disrespectful to exhibitors, and I believe that could be a positive influence on both the judges and the exhibitors.”

Likewise, AQHA judge Gayle Lampinen believes the JRS is a good tool for the Judges Committee to review what each individual judge is doing on a yearly basis. “I like to keep an open mind when changes are made. For me, the JRS does not mean if you are not an AAA or AAAA rated judge that you are not as versed on the rules, or you don’t have the ability to judge as well as someone with this rating. Not everyone can obtain enough credits throughout the year to earn these ratings for a number of reasons, i.e. time away from work, scheduling conflicts, etc. New all around judges (regular judges) are automatically rated as an AA until they have completed two years of service. Does that mean they are not good judges? Of course not! Anyone that has attended the Judges Seminar or has applied to become an AQHA judge knows the effort that all of us judges have put towards becoming an AQHA judge. It does not happen without commitment and a lot of hard work.”

AQHA ambassador and judge Lynn Palm is a good example of a judge with many business commitments that prevent her from judging a lot of shows during the year. “Of course, I would like to have a 4A rating, but with my other business, I can only judge a small number of shows a year,” Palm says. “I feel that I am keeping very current with the rules and my judging procedures, but I could only get a 3A rating for this year. I do know that I will not change my honor, appreciation, and determination to be an outstanding judge, regardless of how I’m rated.”

In December of 2006, AQHA Director and Judge Chris Hardcastle sent a letter to the AQHA Judges and Executive Committee to discuss many concerns regarding the JRS. Hardcastle listed over 25 different concerns about the system. According to Ross, these concerns were addressed at the AQHA Judges Conferences in December of 2006 and February of 2007.

Also, in January of 2007, AQHA judge Ronald Sharpe sent a letter to all of the AQHA judges to find out their feelings about this new system. Sharpe says, “In all my years of being involved with AQHA and past judges committees, I have never seen an issue as divisive as this new rating system.”

Many judges applaud AQHA for trying something new, but they oppose the system. “Just because someone judges a lot of shows does not make them a great judge,” AQHA judge Denny Thorsell says. “The rating system is a little misleading because there will be many great judges who do not judge many shows that will have a low rating.”

Another AQHA judge adds, “A true rating system would give you an idea of the quality of judging. Here, there is no system in place that evaluates the expertise of a judge in any field. This system only tracks quantity. The judges who get the highest rating will be those that judge the most. A true rating system would include some form of evaluation.”

Other AQHA judges agree that their needs to be some control measures concerning the quality of judges out there. “There are certainly people out there that have passed tests and met the requirements but are doing a terrible job in the field,” AQHA judge Sue Kapushion explains. “On the contrary, I don’t think this system is going to address the problem. I think this system is set up for people that aren’t in the industry who can afford to judge 30 to 40 shows a year. Kind of unfair in that respect.”

Also, many judges do not understand why this new rating system is needed. “There is nothing broken. What are we trying to fix?” AQHA judge Andy Rees stresses. “It seems to create a lot more bureaucracy.”

Tennessee Quarter Horse Association Show Manager Barbara Fisher says she is aware of the rating system, but right now it doesn’t have any bearing on who she hires. “I will look at the ratings of the judges, but I know so many of the judges that I make my decisions based on past experience, and I try to use a new judge at every circuit.”

However, Fisher does say the rating system helps her because her shows are in demand because the entries at her show are higher and the judges receive more credits for judging larger shows.

The fact that judges receive more credits for judging larger shows seems counterintuitive to many in the industry. “Many judges like myself feel the same quality of judging should be expected and applied at all AQHA approved shows. Therefore, credits should not be based on an inventory basis,” AQHA judge Chris Hardcastle remarks.

At times, the smaller shows (i.e. single day shows) have trouble finding judges to judge their shows. As one AQHA judge stated, “We have no control over who hires us and the size of the shows. It seems unfair to award credits on the size of the shows we judge and give credits for judging large shows like the World Show because we have no control over whether we are invited to judge those shows.”

AQHA judge Bonnie Miller adds, “It encourages judges to solicit for large shows which is against the rules. The JRS also does not encourage judges to take all Novice Shows or Special Events.”

However, in defense of the system, “The judges will continue to have to judge the higher than required number of shows to maintain 3A and 4A status,” Ross says. “It only takes 2 of the 500+ entry shows to move to 4A status and then one of them to retain the status each year.” Ross also mentions the progressive judges program was created partly to help show managers find judges for the smaller shows.

AQHA judge Linda Pritchett suggests a committee be formed, made up of active AQHA judges, to study this system and further evaluate the whole process.

“There was really no input from active AQHA judges about this program, and I feel it was approved without having input from the people it will affect the most.”

Pritchett would also like to see credits for judges that judge shows abroad and also receive credits for having other breed cards. “I am also concerned that there is no review system and no stated process for a judge to defend against a complaint within the JRS. Exhibitors may decide to file unfair complaints because they did not place well at a certain show. There is the possibility of abusing this system which could unfairly lower the rating status of some judges.”

Hardcastle also explains, “Perception is the key. As additional cards are held, more credits are awarded. However, the additional cards available are heavily weighted toward cattle specialties, reining and NSBA. There is no credit available for those whose particular expertise is in other events. Certainly western pleasure, hunter under saddle, and reining are part of the most AQHA-approved show schedules, but cowhorse and cutting are not offered at many events. Halter is mandatory for AQHA show approval, yet no additional credit is available for halter expertise. Trail, western riding, horsemanship, equitation, showmanship, and a multitude of other classes in which many judges have a great deal of applied knowledge are given no credit earning value other than they are counted as entries.” Rees adds, “NRCHA and NCHA have rating systems, but it is for only one event. It is hard to have an effective rating system at AQHA shows because there are so many events.”

Many judges did not want to express any opinion about the JRS until the system has been in effect for a few years. Many believe it is too early to make a judgment call on something so new.  AQHA judge Stephanie Lynn adds, “Whenever a new program is implemented, people get excited and want to criticize it. However, I am sure AQHA will look at how it worked in its first year and do some tweaking. I do not think that it will affect who gets hired for most established horse shows. It will be something for all judges to work at and try to keep themselves better educated and current.”

“Perhaps much of the controversy could have been avoided if the program would have been introduced to judges in a less abrupt manner,” Hardcastle says. “If mutual communications would have been offered, much of the ‘tweaking’ to which everyone refers could have been discussed prior to the implementation or possible decision to not invoke such a system at all.

“Many judges have been fearful to express their opinions openly, afraid to ‘buck the system’ but I share a different opinion. Whatever comes of this, all concerns should be expressed in the combined effort of both AQHA and the judges to resolve the issues of encouraging education, providing more active judging, and the process by which this goal is attained.”

Judges Credits (JC’s)

• One (1) credit for each AQHA-approved  show judged with less than 450 total entries (Special Events do not earn credits)
• Three (3) credits for each AQHA-approved show judges with 450-499 total entries.
• Five (5) credits for each show judged with 500 or more entries
• Ten (10) credits for judging any of the AQHA World Championship Shows with no meritorious complaint.
• One (1) credit for membership in AQHA Professional Horseman
• Two (2) Credits for NSBA approval, NCHA AA approval or NRCHA A or AA approval (awarded each year such status is achieved/maintained)
• Five (5) credits for NSBA Category 1 approval, NCHA AAA or AAAA approval, NRCHA AAA approval or NRHA approval
• Five (5) credits for attendance at the AQHA Judges Educational Seminar
• One (1) credit for serving as a panel member for an AQHA-sanctioned Judges Conference or educational seminar.
• One (1) credit for serving as an official judge for an AQHA-sanctioned Qualifying Exam

Beginning each calendar year, all judges begin with zero (0) points. Points will not be carried over from one year to the next.

What does it take to advance?

A judge can only advance one (1) rating level per calendar year regardless if the judge meets or exceeds the requirements below during a calendar year.

To advance to AAAA:

• must have completed three (3) years of service as an AQHA judge
• earned minimum of twenty-five (25) JCs; and  judged at least:
• two (2) shows with a minimum of 500 entries; or
• one (1) of the AQHA World Championship Shows.

To advance to AAA:

• must have completed two (2) years of service as an AQHA approved judge; and earned minimum of fifteen (15) JCs

To advance to AA:

• must have been granted All-Around Judge status

Demerits

• Five (5) demerits for each meritorious complaint.

Multiple complaints re: same conduct will be treated as (1) complaint

• Example 1: Three (3) complaints regarding a judge inaccurately deducting points in a particular class will be treated as one (1) complaint.
• Example 2: Three (3) complaints regarding a judge inaccurately deducting points in a particular class plus complaint that judge acted inappropriately towards an exhibitor will be treated as two (2) complaints.
• Two (2) meritorious complaints within a 12 month period, regardless of credits earned, result in an automatic drop in ranking and a review by the AQHA Judges Committee. However, it is understood that depending on the severity of the conduct in question, one (1) meritorious complaint could result in a multiple ranking drop and/or recommendation that Judge be removed from Judges List.
• Five (5) demerits for failure to turn in the JC Tracking Chart by December 15 of each year. Refusal to turn in the JC Tracking Chart could result in disciplinary action ranging from drop in rating, recommendation that judge appear before appropriate Committee, and/or recommendation that judge be removed from list.
• Complaints not resolved to satisfaction of Executive Director of Judges will be forwarded to a judges sub-committee for review to determine whether complaint is meritorious. Meritorious complaint could result in disciplinary action ranging from demerits discussed above, drop in rating, recommendation that judge appear before appropriate Committee, and/or recommendation that judge be removed from judges list.
• Judges Committee’s decision regarding demerits and/or lowering rankings may be made with or without notice and formal hearing, subject only to ultimate review by the Executive Committee with or without notice and formal hearing.

Retention of Rating

• After the first year of the JRS’s inception, a judge will start each calendar year (January 1) with the rating earned as of December 31 of the previous calendar year.

To retain a AAAA rating, a judge must, during the calendar year:

• judge a minimum of eight (8) AQHA-approved shows (Special Events excluded) of which one (1) of the shows must either:
• have at least 450 total entries; or
• be an AQHA World Championship Show;
• have at least (20) total JCs (credits minus demerits)

To retain a AAA rating, a judge must, during the calendar year;

• judge a minimum of six (6) AQHA-approved shows (Special Events excluded); and
• have at least ten (10) total JCs (credits minus demerits).

To retain a AA rating, a judge must, during the calendar year:

• judge a minimum of four (4) AQHA-approved shows (Special events excluded)

Leave of absence from judging will result in an automatic one (1) level drop in rating upon return, unless such judge was a Progressive Judge or a AA judge in  which case such judge will be ranked the same upon their return.

Tracking

• Each judge is responsible to keep and verify accurate records of their JCs and to report writing JCs earned to the AQHA Executive Director of Judges on an annual basis. Credits are to be recorded, by category, on the JC Tracking Chart and submitted to the AQHA Executive Director of Judges by submitting a JC Tracking Chart.
• AQHA staff will verify earned credits before changing the judges rating.

“Change has considerable psychological impact on the human mind. To the fearful it is threatening because it means that things may get worse. To the hopeful it is encouraging because things may get better. To the confident it is inspiring because the challenge exists to make things better.”

King Whitney, Jr.

No related posts.