What I have tried to do throughout my coaching career is to find a way to judge more objectively. In order to do this; I had to somehow deal with my own personal biases.
Having a personal bias means that there are certain things I like to see when a dive is performed. The things I like to see are usually the techniques I teach. Such things would be showing the forward dive before doing the half twist or what I consider the proper kick out sequences for various dives. If I don't see these things happen, I may not score the dive as high if it were closer to the techniques I teach. The question arises, "Do we want all divers to do everything the same and look exactly the same?" Also, do we want all divers to do their dives my way? To extend this thought a little further, "How many my ways are there?" Obviously in this case, there would be one for each judge. There are many ways to perform a dive well and my personal biases should not get in the way of giving that dive a good score.
One thing that upsets me is when a judge is asked, "Why did you score that dive low?" the response is "I just didn't like it". Early in my career I was just as guilty of judging that way but now I feel there has to be a better way to judge than that. This is when the idea that there are criteria in the rulebook that have not been applied as yet. At one time, the Forward Dive Straight was the only dive that was spelled out in the rulebook. It has since been omitted because even the best coaches in the world couldn't agree on what appeared to be a simple point. "Where do you place the arms during the dive?" Describing dives was a great idea. Because there was no consensus, describing all dives in the diving table would prove to be time wasted. It does seem that everyone knows what a good hurdle looks like and what good height is. It would seem that if there were other common parameters to base scores on, there wouldn't be a need to describe all of the dives.
After some thought, it seemed that over or short of vertical was one of those parameters accepted by coaches. All that would have to be done would be to find acceptable limits for scoring this aspect. This is the point where the idea for "A New Judging Angle" came to be. It seemed to satisfy the interpretation of the rules. After using it for a while, I like the idea so much that I began to apply the premise to twisting dives. In both instances, I began with failed dives and worked up from there. The intent was not to define the perfect dive or score. It was intended to help separate the bad dives from the really bad ones. All of this energy has been directed toward finding an acceptable way of judging that was more objective than subjective and more consistent than what appears to be happening now. If a judge combined the penalty categories with the above criteria, judging might be more consistent and better than it has been in the past. It should be noted that this is not intended to be the sole criteria for basing any score.
The National Federation rulebook was the basis for the whole idea. Only minor changes would need to be made to convert the whole idea to the US Diving format.

After finishing a judging clinic, a question from one of the coaches got me to thinking about the following presentation. The question was; "Is over / short or over / under twisting given equal penalty weight as that of a form break?" The answer I gave at the time was, "When it gets to a certain degree, yes!" The word deficient has been defined only as a partial break in position. When judging form breaks, a judge must make a decision as to the degree of the break in order to classify it as deficient or unsatisfactory (complete or partial). The degree of the break will determine which range the dive will be scored. It seemed only logical that the same could hold true for dives that over / under rotate and dives that over / under twist. Degree would be the answer but there needed to be a way to determine a range for this kind of deduction.
What I was searching for was a way to better separate dives that were good from those that had a twist that wasn't suppose to be there and those dives that flopped over or short. This idea was intended to be more objective and not based on bias of a particular style or technique used to complete any given dive.
In both diagrams, I began with the definition of failed dive and worked up from there. The diagram for vertical was the first because it seemed easier to come up with parameters for judging. After years of seeing dives that entered the water at various angles, I began to think about what score I would give and have given dives that landed nearly flat on the stomach or back. In most cases the score was two or less. This is where I used a compass and noted that many of my unsatisfactory scores where given to dives that were within twenty degrees of horizontal.
From here I needed to set a line for deficient dives. Again the use of a compass helped to determine that forty-five degrees seemed to be my line of demarcation for scoring a four. I applied the same idea to twisting and came up with basically the same system. However to understand the diagram, you must remember that you are viewing the diagram from the top down rather than from a side view.
I have used this system for over seven years now and feel quite comfortable with it. I realize that it may not be the perfect system but it does reveal my standard for judging. This system will also give the officials better insight into scoring dives particularly twisters.

It should be obvious that these two diagrams are not the only criteria for judging dives. They do however show that these are areas are important and should also be considered when judging.

Somersaults

In the above, placement of the diving board either to the left or right of the diagram would indicate the type of dive being performed. If the end of the board were on the left, this would be Forward or Backward rotation. If it were on the right, this would be Reverse or Inward rotation.

Twisting

Line A-B represents the finish of the exact amount of twist. Line 0-0 in this drawing, represents 90 degrees past the intended twist. Most rulebooks have interpreted this as the range for a failed dive.


© Copyright 1993

	A RATIONALE FOR SCORING A DIVE by Wayne Oras
	What I was searching for was a way to better separate dives that were good from those that had a twist that wasn't suppose to be there and those dives that flopped over or short. This idea was intended to be more objective and not based on bias of a particular style or technique used to complete any given dive.