Section 7: Award Deliberation
7.1 Overview
Award deliberation is the last step in the judging process. In this step, judges work with the judge advisor and one another to select the best candidate for each award.
Award deliberations involve comparing teams to one another. The integrity of the judging process depends on all judges being able to speak candidly during this process, and what transpires during deliberations is particularly sensitive information. All judging deliberation notes and conversations must be kept confidential during and after the event.
7.2 When to Consider Performance Data
Some awards directly reference teams’ match performance and rankings, while others may use robot performance indirectly or as a comparison tool. Judges must base their final deliberations on the final, complete rankings and scores from alliance and solo matches only; elimination/finals performance is NOT considered for any award.
Judges should avoid over-relying on robot performance when selecting winners or finalists. Because circumstances vary at events, qualitative judgment and consensus are the best tools for determining how performance metrics show factor in for most awards.
7.3 Identifying Award Winners
- After follow-up interviews, the judges who conducted them should provide a ranked list of the nominated candidates for their specific award. The Final Award Nomination Ranking Sheet provides a way to list the ranked awards and candidates for consideration. The ranked list should go deep enough so that if a top candidate were to be chosen for a higher award or removed from eligibility, there would still be enough alternative candidates to choose from.
- For the Excellence Award, the winner must be selected from Design Award finalists who also meet performance and other judged award criteria. Winners should then be chosen by selecting the next top candidate in the ranked list of candidates, ensuring that no team receives more than one judged award. The judge advisor should reconcile all winners so each team receives their highest eligible award.
- If information arises indicating a possible violation of the Code of Conduct or Student-Centered Policy, the judge advisor must review the team’s eligibility for judged awards. If the concern has merit, the award should be given to the next alternate in the ranking. For egregious violations, the judge advisor should consult the event partner and RECF Regional Support Manager.
For Example: Two forms are shown below. Figure 1 represents the award nominees prior to the Excellence Award being decided. Figure 2 represents the results after the Excellence Award has been decided.
Team A has been selected to win the Excellence Award. Team A was also the top candidate for the Design Award. Therefore, the next team in the Design Award ranking (Team B) will now win the Design Award and not the Innovate Award because the Design Award has higher precedence in the RECF Robotics Qualifying Criteria. Team D will become the Innovate Award winner. Team C, formerly third place for the Think Award, is now the Think Award winner since Teams A and B are earning awards of higher precedence. In the case of the Judges Award (Team E), that award winner is unchanged.
7.4 Entering Award Winners into the Competition Software
After all award winners have been identified, the judge advisor should work with the event partner to put those team numbers into the competition software. It may be helpful to print the Award Summary Sheet or Award Script report so the judge advisor can double-check that all award winners have been entered correctly.
7.5 Final Tasks for the Judge Advisor
Prior to the award ceremony, the judge advisor should:
- Make sure engineering notebooks have been returned
- Collect all judging materials including notes, rubrics, and ranking sheets
- Erase any whiteboard notes
- Make sure judges delete digital copies of judging materials including photos and engineering notebooks
After the event is over, the judge advisor should destroy all judging materials off-site.
Continue to the next section, Guide to Judging: Remote Judging