OK,I have to admit

As the Table Captain, shouldn't you "talk" with the judges submitting these comment cards and explain to them what you are stating here??? THAT was your PERFECT opportunity to try to 'nip it in the bud' so to speak.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the point of bringing this up here other than to further distance the cooks and judges. Can't we ALL just get along?!?

Ralph, first off let me thank you for being a table captain. As a judge yet to table captain, I always appreciate the extra effort that the captain's put out. I have always done my best to help out where I could.

Can you tell me what was wrong with the "chicken" judge - the score or the comment (or both)? I'm making a big assumption that the six was for tenderness, not taste. In that case, wouldn't it have been right and proper to score down an entry that did not have "bite through skin." Most cooks that I am aware of put alot of thought and effort into achieving this. I know this is a "meat" contest, but we must judge the meat "as presented." I personally wouldn't mark down to a six if lack of bite through skin was the only issue, but I would likely deduct a point.

If I were to give an entry a six in tenderness, I would feel obliged to fill in a comment card explaining that score. I have ona couple of occasions filled a comment card "great flavor, but entry was dry [or tough, or didn't have bite through skin, etc.]. I think this would be appropriate for a 9,9,6 score. I would imagine a cook would prefer that comment to a card that simply stated "dry."

Your second, judge, "Good, but lacking flavor" with a 8 in taste just baffles me. A comment card was obviously not necessary and not helpful.

My final comment on this lengthy response is this; I really don't think that contest reps should be throwing away comment cards. In most of the contests that I judge this year, the reps specifically stated that they would be throwing away comment cards, that they [the reps] did not think would be helpful to the cooks. Really? I kind of understand where they are coming from, but do not agree with it all. If a comment card states "this entry tasted like yesterday's a$$," let the cook decide what they want to do with that information.

I also disagree on the chicken comment. If it's a KCBS contest, bite through chicken skin is one of the objectives. Note that you don't have to offer skin-on chicken in KCBS, but if you do judges are told they should taste it.

I'd have to check to be certain but I don't believe it is within the rep's authority to just throw away comment cards, ridiculous and pointless or not.

If the chicken score referenced in the original post was for taste, I agree that the 6 score was off if the the judge liked the taste so much that he put "chicken was good" on the comment card. However, I think the assumption can be made (since it wasn't clarified in the post), that the score was for tenderness. I could see marking at least one point for not bite through skin (skin wasn't too bad, just pulled off with the first bite), and up to 2 points if it's just bad skin, rubbery or over cooked/near burnt. Of course who knows how the tenderness of the actual meat was...could have been spot on or a little chewy/overdone. There simply isn't enough information on that card to determine if it was inappropriate or not in my opinion.

In my opinion as a relatively new judge, I think comment cards should be mandatory for 5s and below and highly recommended for 6s and optional for anything above (7s and up pretty much speak for themselves). Also as a relatively new cook, I welcome any and ALL feedback. As invested as many of us are, you know if you get a comment card this BS vs. one that is actually good info or at least explains why that particular judge gave that particular score.

My two cents.

The problem with the "chicken" judge is that they judged the skin.. I thought that is a no no. When I took the judging class, the instructor said that the skin was NOT supposed to get judged, that if the chicken was presented with the skin on, to taste it but not to judge it(regardless if it was bite thru, crispy or whatever), only the meat was supposed to get judged.

junk44 said:

The problem with the "chicken" judge is that they judged the skin.. I thought that is a no no. When I took the judging class, the instructor said that the skin was NOT supposed to get judged, that if the chicken was presented with the skin on, to taste it but not to judge it(regardless if it was bite thru, crispy or whatever), only the meat was supposed to get judged.

Click to expand...

I don't see the point of asking judges to taste it if it isn't gonna get judged. Out of curiousity, who were your instructors? In the same manner, if I'm turning in burnt ends and they suck because the fat is not fully rendered, they should ignore those because I have slices in the box and it's a meat contest, not a fat contest.

junk44 said:

The problem with the "chicken" judge is that they judged the skin.. I thought that is a no no. When I took the judging class, the instructor said that the skin was NOT supposed to get judged, that if the chicken was presented with the skin on, to taste it but not to judge it(regardless if it was bite thru, crispy or whatever), only the meat was supposed to get judged.

Click to expand...

I don't remember it exactly that way when I took the class a few months back. I do specifically remember they said to not score down if there wasn't skin. Just judge what is presented. But there was discussion that skin tenderness plays a roll in the overall tenderness.

I was never told not to judge the skin if it was presented with the chicken.

junk44 said:

.....the instructor said that the skin was NOT supposed to get judged, that if the chicken was presented with the skin on, to taste it but not to judge it.....

Click to expand...

I'm only praying that you are remembering this wrong ray:.

It scares the fark out of me to think that a whole class of judges is being told to violate the "as presented by the cook" rule :shocked:.

Yes I know that some of the comment cards are beyond worthless, but to me that is the fault of the judges not being properly instructed / trained in their use.

I also know that some Reps don't like the comment cards. Some say that the cards don't really help the cooks. I think that one of the reasons might be that it causes a bit of extra time and work. Another is cards like the ones in the OP.

What would it cost KCBS to do an e-mail blast to all of the judges explaining the proper use of the cards? And one to the Reps saying to turn them over to the cooks?

Thanks for the clarification, Dave! It has been awhile but I could have sworn it was inaccurate to NOT judge the skin as presented! If this is a prevailing belief among judges, something needs to be done ASAP by KCBS.

As part of the Master CBJ test it asks a question something like:

You don't like chicken skin. An entry is presented with the skin on. Are you allowed to remove the skin before tasting? Y or N ?

Without giving up the answer here I will say that the CD that each judge must listen to before each contest plainly states that you should "at least taste" the skin.

Ralph, it's sure not about anyone being wrong - it just needs to be made clear, either way, by KCBS if, in fact it is not already. Thanks for bringing up the issue for discussion.

Seems to me that if the skin is part of the entry provided, it must be judged and that crisp bite through skin meets the highest standard. It would be great if an official KCBS representative could clarify this becuase it seems there's a lot of folks not judging skin and a lot of folks judging skin.

walrus79 said:

Seems to me that if the skin is part of the entry provided, it must be judged and that crisp bite through skin meets the highest standard. It would be great if an official KCBS representative could clarify this becuase it seems there's a lot of folks not judging skin and a lot of folks judging skin.

Click to expand...

Crisp or bite through? :becky: I've never known where this idea of crisp skin comes from. It certainly isn't fried chicken and I've never seen chicken that isn't fried have crisp skin unless it's overcooked on the backyard grill.

You know, I'm inclined to agree...how about "not rubbery"! ;-)

I might but crazy, but for some reason it seems that in a majority of judging questions or issues always seem to be about chicken. Skin/no skin, crispy/bitethrough,cupcake pan/natural looking, and in my posting about same type of pieces/or 6types of same meat Like I say it always seems to be on chicken.