982 in chicken at the Royal

B'Mackin · 10-07-2019, 05:42 PM

897 - 989 - 982 - 987 - 989 - 998

These were my chicken scores from the invitational at the Royal this past year. Background - I'm a master judge turned cook and am not trying to start a fight and bash judges, but in all my judging and cooking, I've never given nor received nor seen a 982. So, speculating, I'm thinking either it is a data entry error and that 2 was maybe a 7 (it's the invitational and they were rushed?), or my chicken tasted "very good," but it was also "inedible," which seems. . . odd. No comment cards given, but its the invitational and I don't know if that's a time issue and they aren't done. Also, I know this would not have affected my score in anyway - not trying to gain in the standings. Serious question though - can you have chicken that tastes very good, but is also inedible? Happy Monday friends!

rob g · 10-07-2019, 05:58 PM

The reps review all the cards turned in by the table captains before they give them the ok to clear the table. A 2 or 3 would definitely be checked by the rep at the time. An undercooked piece of chicken would rate a 2 for tenderness if the judge spit it out but could have a good flavor. I've had under cooked chicken while the rest of the table had no issues.

Burnt at Both Endz · 10-07-2019, 06:27 PM

Could be an old judge? I believe in the early 2000's a score of 2 was for "bad" instead of inedible.

gettinbasted · 10-07-2019, 07:58 PM

They had to think it was undercooked, but gave you the benefit of the doubt on taste after biting it.

B'Mackin · 10-07-2019, 08:17 PM

I can see that. Judge takes a bite, thinks "Ok, this is pretty g. . . wait. . . its pink," and then has to knock me down. Taste is good, but not edible. Did legs and took them up to about 175, and even then, they sometimes give off that pinkish myoglobin that gives the impression that it's not cooked all the way. It's all good - still had fun.

jermoQ · 10-07-2019, 08:54 PM

I hope any judge who saw pink knew about doing a napkin blot test.

They run over "well-cooked chicken could still look pink near the bone" in the recording/reading that happens before the oath. Unless it ended up being like one contest I was at where they gave us black napkins for wiping our fingers with. Before we got food, I had to speak up to the TC and ask, "how do we check for blood with a black napkin?"

midwest_kc · 10-08-2019, 09:43 AM

That's an odd score. My guess is either what Brad and others have suggested, or a keying error.

I noticed yesterday that my Ribs and Pork ended up on the same table. I didn't think they would allow that, and certainly it is a huge coincidence in a field that size.

NoNotTheDuo · 10-08-2019, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by midwest_kc

That's an odd score. My guess is either what Brad and others have suggested, or a keying error.

I noticed yesterday that my Ribs and Pork ended up on the same table. I didn't think they would allow that, and certainly it is a huge coincidence in a field that size.

In the open, they don't do any sort of box switching/table matching because the odds of getting placed on the same table are so small. Unfortunately, small odds don't necessarily mean it won't happen.

thirdeye · 10-08-2019, 11:28 AM

You had very consistent scores for appearance and taste but the two actual 7's in tenderness appear to indicate a wider range in that criteria... so I could see a data entry rather than a 2. However let's say the judge did get a drumstick that he or she interpreted as undercooked. The judge should have known about the napkin test, but could have been confused as to how to score. The table captain manual contains some Rep advisories in the form of Q&A, and the snip below deals with undercooked meat, so the TC should have been aware of these rules. But the Rep who would have seen a "2" certainly would have been able to offer guidance.

From the TC Manual:
Under Cooked Meat Question: Uncooked meat doesn’t seem to violate any rules. How do you score an entry if a judge refuses to eat their sample because it is undercooked? Opinion: Under cooked meat poses a health problem and shouldn’t be eaten. A score of two (2) through nine (9) should be given for taste and tenderness by the judge(s) who refuse to eat the entry. This is not a disqualification and therefore should not be given a one (1). Assuming the entry has already been scored for appearance, do not go back and change the score given for appearance. NOTE: It’s not uncommon for smoked chicken to be pink, especially near the bone. This should not be confused with undercooked meat. Use the “napkin” test (place paper towel against the meat/bone; if it comes away pink, or red, it is undercooked.) February 17, 2006

Amendment to Raw Chicken Advisory: When a judge finds a piece of chicken not completely cooked and verifies it via the napkin test, the rep will not request the judge find an area cooked in order to score it for taste or tenderness. The judge should simply be instructed to utilize the definitions on the score card and score accordingly. April 14, 2010

Burnt at Both Endz · 10-08-2019, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoNotTheDuo

In the open, they don't do any sort of box switching/table matching because the odds of getting placed on the same table are so small. Unfortunately, small odds don't necessarily mean it won't happen.

Yeah, my chicken and ribs hit the same table too.....

LongTong · 10-08-2019, 12:48 PM

If it was a 2, the TC should have brought this to the attention of the reps. and then should of had a conversation with the judge. To follow up properly, the reps. should have notified you or encouraged the judge to write a comment card or both. My gut tells me a transposition error but, the scores should be double checked when keyed into the scoring system...Perhaps a true anomaly unfortunately.

Jorge · 10-08-2019, 12:52 PM

At one time you could request to see a copy of the score cards. I don't know if that's still the case or not. If it matters enough to you, you could at least potentially rule out a data entry error.

didisea · 10-08-2019, 05:20 PM

Probably a keying error. 8 and 2 are oppositely arranged on computer keyboards vs. telephone keypads. Probably a mistake by the person keying it in. If it were a normal contest, it would have probably been caught by the rep.

midwest_kc · 10-09-2019, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoNotTheDuo

In the open, they don't do any sort of box switching/table matching because the odds of getting placed on the same table are so small. Unfortunately, small odds don't necessarily mean it won't happen.

Do they number switch? That's important to the double blind system.

tduffy · 10-09-2019, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by midwest_kc

Do they number switch? That's important to the double blind system.

They do not.

10-07-2019, 05:42 PM	#1
B'Mackin Knows what a fatty is. Join Date: 04-26-14 Location: San Diego, CA	982 in chicken at the Royal 897 - 989 - 982 - 987 - 989 - 998 These were my chicken scores from the invitational at the Royal this past year. Background - I'm a master judge turned cook and am not trying to start a fight and bash judges, but in all my judging and cooking, I've never given nor received nor seen a 982. So, speculating, I'm thinking either it is a data entry error and that 2 was maybe a 7 (it's the invitational and they were rushed?), or my chicken tasted "very good," but it was also "inedible," which seems. . . odd. No comment cards given, but its the invitational and I don't know if that's a time issue and they aren't done. Also, I know this would not have affected my score in anyway - not trying to gain in the standings. Serious question though - can you have chicken that tastes very good, but is also inedible? Happy Monday friends! __________________ B'Mackin BBQ: Master Judge, Gateway Drums, Outsiders Drums, Assassin 24, some pellet grills

10-07-2019, 05:58 PM	#2
rob g Full Fledged Farker Join Date: 03-29-14 Location: Baden, Ontario, Canada	The reps review all the cards turned in by the table captains before they give them the ok to clear the table. A 2 or 3 would definitely be checked by the rep at the time. An undercooked piece of chicken would rate a 2 for tenderness if the judge spit it out but could have a good flavor. I've had under cooked chicken while the rest of the table had no issues. __________________ Kamado Joe Classic UDS KCBS MCBJ, KCBS CTC

10-07-2019, 07:58 PM	#4
gettinbasted is One Chatty Farker Join Date: 09-14-12 Location: Springfield, MO	They had to think it was undercooked, but gave you the benefit of the doubt on taste after biting it. __________________ Gateway Drums - THE Insane Can Posse - gettinbasted.com

10-07-2019, 08:17 PM	#5
B'Mackin Knows what a fatty is. Join Date: 04-26-14 Location: San Diego, CA	I can see that. Judge takes a bite, thinks "Ok, this is pretty g. . . wait. . . its pink," and then has to knock me down. Taste is good, but not edible. Did legs and took them up to about 175, and even then, they sometimes give off that pinkish myoglobin that gives the impression that it's not cooked all the way. It's all good - still had fun. __________________ B'Mackin BBQ: Master Judge, Gateway Drums, Outsiders Drums, Assassin 24, some pellet grills

10-07-2019, 08:54 PM	#6
jermoQ Babbling Farker Join Date: 10-28-14 Location: Mizzory Name/Nickname : Jeremy	I hope any judge who saw pink knew about doing a napkin blot test. They run over "well-cooked chicken could still look pink near the bone" in the recording/reading that happens before the oath. Unless it ended up being like one contest I was at where they gave us black napkins for wiping our fingers with. Before we got food, I had to speak up to the TC and ask, "how do we check for blood with a black napkin?" __________________ 9 out of 10 cannibals agree...vegetarians taste better!

10-07-2019, 06:27 PM	#3
Burnt at Both Endz Babbling Farker Join Date: 07-14-13 Location: freeman,mo Name/Nickname : Calvin	Could be an old judge? I believe in the early 2000's a score of 2 was for "bad" instead of inedible.

10-08-2019, 09:43 AM	#7
midwest_kc is one Smokin' Farker Join Date: 08-27-10 Location: Independence, MO Name/Nickname : Joel	That's an odd score. My guess is either what Brad and others have suggested, or a keying error. I noticed yesterday that my Ribs and Pork ended up on the same table. I didn't think they would allow that, and certainly it is a huge coincidence in a field that size. __________________ Meat Rushmore BBQ Team

10-08-2019, 11:28 AM	#9
thirdeye somebody shut me the fark up. Join Date: 01-14-06 Location: At home on the range in Wyoming	You had very consistent scores for appearance and taste but the two actual 7's in tenderness appear to indicate a wider range in that criteria... so I could see a data entry rather than a 2. However let's say the judge did get a drumstick that he or she interpreted as undercooked. The judge should have known about the napkin test, but could have been confused as to how to score. The table captain manual contains some Rep advisories in the form of Q&A, and the snip below deals with undercooked meat, so the TC should have been aware of these rules. But the Rep who would have seen a "2" certainly would have been able to offer guidance. From the TC Manual: Under Cooked Meat Question: Uncooked meat doesn’t seem to violate any rules. How do you score an entry if a judge refuses to eat their sample because it is undercooked? Opinion: Under cooked meat poses a health problem and shouldn’t be eaten. A score of two (2) through nine (9) should be given for taste and tenderness by the judge(s) who refuse to eat the entry. This is not a disqualification and therefore should not be given a one (1). Assuming the entry has already been scored for appearance, do not go back and change the score given for appearance. NOTE: It’s not uncommon for smoked chicken to be pink, especially near the bone. This should not be confused with undercooked meat. Use the “napkin” test (place paper towel against the meat/bone; if it comes away pink, or red, it is undercooked.) February 17, 2006 Amendment to Raw Chicken Advisory: When a judge finds a piece of chicken not completely cooked and verifies it via the napkin test, the rep will not request the judge find an area cooked in order to score it for taste or tenderness. The judge should simply be instructed to utilize the definitions on the score card and score accordingly. April 14, 2010 __________________ ~thirdeye~ I Play With Fire and Smoke *Barbecuist ~ Charcuterist ~ KCBS Master Judge & CTC* Big Green Eggs, Big Drum Smokers, Big Chiefs, Weber Smokey Joe "Custom Tall Boy" Oil Patch Horizontal, SnS Deluxe Kettle Visit my Cookin' Site by clicking HERE Barbecue is not rocket surgery “The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it's hard to verify their authenticity” ~ Abraham Lincoln

10-08-2019, 12:48 PM	#11
LongTong is one Smokin' Farker Join Date: 02-02-11 Location: The Rehab Riviera, CA	If it was a 2, the TC should have brought this to the attention of the reps. and then should of had a conversation with the judge. To follow up properly, the reps. should have notified you or encouraged the judge to write a comment card or both. My gut tells me a transposition error but, the scores should be double checked when keyed into the scoring system...Perhaps a true anomaly unfortunately. __________________ Ubi fumus, ibi ignis

10-08-2019, 12:52 PM	#12
Jorge somebody shut me the fark up. Join Date: 01-23-04 Location: DFW, San AntonioTx	At one time you could request to see a copy of the score cards. I don't know if that's still the case or not. If it matters enough to you, you could at least potentially rule out a data entry error. __________________ You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline - it helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer. --Frank Zappa Keeping Valspar in BBQ, one cook at a time. Recipient of a Huggies box! Shut up, and cook!!!!

10-08-2019, 05:20 PM	#13
didisea Take a breath! Join Date: 11-09-11 Location: Everett, WA	Probably a keying error. 8 and 2 are oppositely arranged on computer keyboards vs. telephone keypads. Probably a mistake by the person keying it in. If it were a normal contest, it would have probably been caught by the rep.