Recommended Reading:
Overview
The BJCP Grading Score Sheets Guide provides an excellent source for judges learning how to give feedback to entrants. Pay particular attention to the list inappropriate feedback section. On the exam, it is expected to give detailed, actionable feedback that demonstrates the examinee’s knowledge. On a score sheet for competition feedback should also be actionable, however, it is not necessary for a judge to explicitly demonstrate their knowledge to the entrant.
Feedback is the culmination of the scoresheet. Once one is able to describe their perceptions completely, providing accurate and actionable feedback is the next step. Unfortunately, this section is where many judges stumble.
- Feedback has two types: stylistic or technical
- Stylistic refers to the following:
- Adherence to the Guidelines.
- Balance issues that may make the beer better, even though the beer is within the Guidelines.
- Technical refers to the following:
- Technical flaws.
- Correcting a stylistic attribute.
- Stylistic refers to the following:
- Any major issues mentioned in any of the AAFM sections must be mentioned with Feedback
- Feedback can be within the AAFM sections or within the Overall Impression.
- For example: mentioning diacetyl in the aroma but not noting if it is appropriate or not – or how to correct it on the exam – is an example of little to no feedback.
Feedback should not make assumptions about how the beer was created and feedback should not be prescriptive. With so many different modern brewing methods and techniques, judges truly have little idea of how the beverage in their sample cup was created, so overly prescriptive feedback is often inaccurate and unhelpful to the entrant. Quality feedback focuses on how the judge’s perceptions relate to stylistic and technical flaws.
One should also be careful not to make easily refutable mistakes on the judging exam or normal scoresheets. Examples of this include: making process or ingredient assumptions, incorrect technical feedback, or incorrect stylistic feedback. On the judging exam, this will impact the examinee’s grade. In normal judging, these mistakes can lead to the entrant discrediting the feedback provided. Entrants may not want to hear a critical evaluation of their beer, despite entering into a competition. A judging mistake could invalidate the whole score sheet for the entrant. As a judge, be cognizant of how other judges describe beer samples. Judges should describe what they smell, taste, feel, and they need the ability to read a Guideline and decide in what areas it fits, in what areas it misses the mark, and how big a deal those “misses” are. Being able to do all of this, and be taken seriously by the entrant, are the hallmarks of a great judge.
Brewing Experience as Related to Feedback
If it hasn’t been done already talk with the participants about feedback that they have received from judges regarding competitions that they submitted entries to, as well as the participant’s own personal brewing experiences. While this type of experience is valuable and should be called upon, how the participant uses the experience and communicates it on a scoresheet should be handled with caution. For example just because a judge experiences a certain outcome for a batch of their own beer it does not mean that all brewers will have the same experience. Also a judge that communicates feedback base on personal experiences and states it as such introduces the risk of being perceived as a know it all by the entrant.