When Two Judges Score Differently: Handling Discrepancies

In competitions that rely heavily on scoring – such as Quran recitation contests, speech evaluations, or artistic performances – the role of judges is essential. Each judge brings their expertise to assess participants based on established criteria. However, even the most qualified and objective judges can produce differing scores for the same performance. This variation may create confusion, prompt questions of fairness, or impact final rankings. Understanding how to handle such discrepancies systematically and transparently is critical in maintaining integrity, consistency, and trust in competitive settings.

Understanding Scoring Disparity

Discrepancies in scoring occur when judges assign significantly different marks for the same performance or submission. In most adjudicated contests, multiple judges are intentionally used to ensure that evaluation is not dependent on a single perspective. However, tension arises when score divergence exceeds reasonable variation.

Common Reasons Judges Score Differently

• Subjective Interpretation of Criteria: Even with detailed rubrics, some elements—such as emotional expression, fluency, or style—can be subjective. Judges might interpret these differently based on their professional background.
• Inconsistent Application of Penalties: Some judges may be stricter in applying deductions, particularly in competitions where mistakes carry defined penalties (e.g. tajwid or pronunciation errors in Quranic recitation).
• Varying Emphasis on Elements: A judge with a background in voice training might prioritise tone or projection, whereas another may focus more on articulation or linguistic accuracy.
• Human Factors: Tiredness, distraction, or environmental issues such as poor audio quality can subtly affect a judge’s concentration and scoring decisions.

How Competitions Can Anticipate Discrepancies

Well-designed competitions often adopt multiple strategies to prepare for and manage differences in scoring. These strategies enhance fairness and help explain outcomes objectively.

Use of Marking Rubrics or Sheets

Clear, detailed marking rubrics help reduce ambiguity by defining how points should be awarded across aspects of performance. Each category (e.g. memorisation, pronunciation, flow, stage presence) is typically assigned points, with descriptions provided for each score level.

When consistently followed, rubrics allow judges to remain aligned and make their scores more defensible if challenged. Judges should receive appropriate training on the rubric to ensure consistent understanding and use.

Judge Calibration Sessions

Before formal judging begins, coordinators can organise calibration sessions. In these sessions, all judges watch or listen to sample performances and discuss how they would score them. If variation arises, such differences are explored to gain consensus on application of the criteria.

Calibration promotes uniformity and encourages judges to be mindful of their assessing tendencies and temperaments throughout the competition.

Methods for Managing Divergent Scores

When one judge gives a significantly higher or lower score than another, it is essential to have a process in place to handle the discrepancy in a way that is transparent and methodical. Below are common techniques used across various settings:

1. Score Averaging

This is the simplest method, where all judges’ scores are added and averaged to produce the participant’s final mark. It works effectively in balanced panels and helps mitigate outlier scores by blending inputs from the full judging team.

However, while this technique smooths extremes, it does not actively identify problematic variance and may dilute the impact of specialist judges’ feedback.

2. Drop the Highest and Lowest Scores

This technique is often used in gymnastics, figure skating, and vocal competitions. By removing the highest and lowest scores among a panel of three or more judges, organisers retain a middle range that may better represent consensus.

This approach helps reduce the impact of potential bias, unconscious favouritism, or unusually harsh scoring. However, it is most effective with panels of five or more judges — with only two or three, it may not be appropriate.

3. Re-review by Head Judge or Panel

If a discrepancy exceeds an agreed tolerance (e.g. scores differ by more than 15%), some systems call for an automatic review. Either the head judge will reassess the performance, or the panel will collectively revisit the recording to reach a guided decision.

This secondary stage helps verify whether the variation was due to oversight, a miscalculation, or genuine difference in perspective. It also adds a layer of quality control before final rankings are issued.

4. Weighted Scoring or Judge Roles

In some competitions, judges are assigned to specific domains. For example, one judge might evaluate accuracy, another fluency, and a third presentation. This compartmentalisation reduces cross-domain disagreements and makes it easier to isolate variations when they occur.

Alternatively, weights can be applied to judges’ scores based on expertise or seniority. For instance, a lead judge’s opinion may carry greater influence in the final score computation.

Transparency and Contestant Communication

Handling discrepancies well within the scoring process is only part of the picture. Equally important is sharing how scores are calculated so that participants, coaches, and observers understand and have confidence in outcomes. This includes:

• Publishing the scoring methodology: Share details on how scores are processed (averaged, moderated, dropped) either before or after the competition.
• Providing feedback or score sheets: Giving participants access to their own marks and, where possible, judges’ comments reinforces fairness and promotes learning.
• Explaining decisions proactively: In cases where results are notably close or a dispute is raised, an official explanation of the scoring rationale can be reassuring and educative.

Transparent communication also supports participants in reviewing and refining their performance techniques or preparing more strategically for future competitions.

Examples from Real-World Practice

Example 1: Quran Recitation Competition

In a Quran memorisation competition with three judges, an entry was awarded 95, 72, and 91. On investigation, the lower-scoring judge identified several tajwid errors that the others had missed due to sound quality issues in the online session. After replaying the recording and consulting all judges, it was agreed to revise the average score using corrected assessments.

Example 2: Public Speaking Championship

In a debate final, two judges gave vastly different marks due to differing perceptions of the speaker’s argument logic. A head judge reviewed the evaluation forms and conducted a brief realignment session. Judges agreed to finalise the marks with emphasis on criteria weightings rather than rhetorical effect alone.

Example 3: School-Level Art Competition

With four judges and a wide spread of opinions on creativity vs. technical skill, organisers opted to eliminate both the highest and lowest marks for each piece. This led to results that were broadly accepted by both judges and participants as fair and balanced.

Key Principles for Managing Judge Disagreements

Whether operating a small community contest or an international competition, the following practices help manage discrepancies effectively:

• Clearly define and communicate scoring rubrics.
• Calibrate judges before evaluation begins.
• Establish protocols for large score variations.
• Use mathematical moderation methods as needed.
• Provide feedback and appeal options responsibly.

Importantly, teams should document their scoring procedures in handbooks or rule guides so that stakeholders understand how decisions are formed and how anomalies are resolved.

Conclusion

Judge score discrepancies are a natural part of any evaluative competition involving some level of subjectivity. While they cannot be fully eliminated, they can be managed with structure, fairness, and transparency. By adopting clear criteria, empowering judges through training and calibration, and implementing thoughtful moderation policies, competitions can develop systems that not only resolve score differences but also uphold participants’ confidence in the judging process.

The goal is not perfect uniformity, but consistent fairness. Diverging opinions, when handled constructively, contribute to a richer and more balanced assessment of performance.

If you need help with your Quran competition platform or marking tools, email info@qurancompetitions.tech.