Guide for Adjudicators

BACK TO HANDBOOK OVERVIEW
 

The Function of the Adjudicator

An effective critique requires, among other things, extensive knowledge of all styles and types of drama/theatre, and an understanding of the physical theatre with special concern for limitations often imposed in school theatre facilities and scenic limitations of the One-Act Play Contest. The successful adjudicator must be able to discuss the plays seen in a firm but courteous manner. The adjudicator must be objective, direct, and detailed in criticism without imposing opinions dictatorially.

The adjudicator has the special responsibility of evaluating seriously the efforts of the director and play company and of treating them and their performance with respect. They have deliberately engaged in creative competition which offers a variety of cultural and practical opportunities. Through many hours of rehearsal they have sought to perfect creative performances not only to win the contest but for the satisfaction which comes through the search for perfection in the arts. The adjudicator must be familiar with this Handbook, the rules of the One-Act Play Contest in the current Constitution and Contest Rules and understand limitations imposed on directors. To treat their effort casually would defeat a most important function of adjudication.

The adjudicator should use professional skills and experience to make each contest a pleasant and richly educational experience in the lives of young people as they seek to understand more fully the art of theatre.

The adjudicator’s job is three-fold. First, as a single critic (or as part of a panel), the adjudicator is responsible for selecting three advancing plays and an alternate (or ranking if part of a panel) at zone, district, bi-district and area contests. At the region contest, the adjudicators shall rank plays, with two advancing plays and an alternate. At the state and junior high levels, the adjudicator shall rank the plays in order to select a first place (champion), second place (first runner-up) and a third place (second runner-up) play.

Second, the single critic or the acting adjudicator on a panel shall identify high quality individual performances through the selection of a two best performers, all-star cast and honorable mention all-star cast. At the state level the “Acting Adjudicator” shall select the outstanding performer from the two best performers of each conference.

The third and most important function of the adjudicator is to serve as an educator. True, advancing schools and individual awards must be selected, but adjudication without a carefully prepared critique and well thought-out evaluation, which teaches as it evaluates, deprives play competition of a most valuable feature, opportunity for qualitative improvement.

Companies are expected to attend their critiques. Exceptions may be made for health issues or due to conflicts with other approved events. Failure to attend may be considered a violation of the ethics code. (C&CR Section 1034) The adjudicator should report any ethics violations to the state office.

There are official standards for judging all University Interscholastic League One-Act Play Contests. They are divided into two categories: “acting” at an approximate value of 60% and “directing and stage mechanics,” approximately valued at 40%. Adjudicators are asked not to make any effort to use exact percentages as a method of ranking the plays, even though approximate percentage values are suggested for the two major areas. The judging criteria shall not be used as an absolute rubric that will provide a final score for determining advancement.

Adjudicator Qualifications

Adjudicators for the One-Act Play Contest are selected from the current TTAO (Texas Theatre Adjudicators and Officials) list of accredited adjudicators. Qualifications to become an adjudicator can be found at the TTAO website.Training workshops are conducted at various locations and times throughout the year, including the OAP State Meet. Information about these workshops can also be found on the TTAO website.

GO TO www.ttao.org for more information.

TTAO's Code of Ethics and Professional Standards

1. Adjudicators shall be physically, emotionally and mentally fit to discharge their duties at OAP contests.
2. Adjudicators shall maintain an ethical code of conduct which will not impair or prejudice effectiveness as a adjudicator, before, during and immediately following competition dates.
3. Adjudicators shall honor all signed contracts, assignments and duties as prescribed in writing by the contest manager. Prompt notification of the contest manager regarding emergency situations is required.
4. Adjudicators shall avoid any behavior that might be interpreted as favoritism by contest participants.
5. Adjudicators shall not discuss negatively other adjudicators or fellow panelists with Contest Managers, directors or school officials. Such criticism of other adjudicators shall be made in writing to the TTAO Chair.
6. Adjudicators should use discretion by avoiding repeated judging in their immediate vicinity. Do not adjudicate more than two years consecutively in the same zone, district, area, or region.
7. Adjudicators currently employed in Texas public schools shall not accept judging assignments in which said schools could potentially compete.
8. Adjudicators are expected to use discretion in accepting assignments at sites that would likely be considered a violation of good common sense or a potential conflict of interest. See TTAO Conflict of Interest Policy
9. Adjudicators shall present critiques and attendance should be open to anyone who wants to listen.
10. Adjudicators shall not announce the awards, distribute the trophies, serve as the timekeeper, perform any of the tasks of the contest manager, or become openly involved in interpreting the rules of the contest.
11. Adjudicators shall correct mistakes immediately. When contest managers misread or give awards incorrectly, stop the process before the situation becomes more complicated. Speak up. Don’t wait. Mistakes discovered during critiques should be corrected. 
12. Adjudicators shall not accept or solicit any gift, favor, service, or other benefit that could reasonably be construed to influence the adjudicator’s discharge of assigned duties and responsibilities. See TTAO Conflict of Interest Policy
13. Adjudicators shall not confer with anyone before they have made their decision.
14. Adjudicators shall not contact students from any production they have adjudicated unless contacting the student falls under their official duties for an institution of higher learning. This is not intended to limit recruitment.
15. Adjudicators shall not use social media to announce results from contests and should refrain from commenting on any contest they have adjudicated or could possibly adjudicate in the future.
16. Adjudicators may not critique a one-act play entry in festival, clinic or contest or watch as an audience member any production that they may adjudicate in a future contest that year. See TTAO Conflict of Interest Policy
17. Adjudicators shall respect the confidentiality of information that is privileged or that, if disclosed, may needlessly injure individuals or schools.
18. Adjudicators shall only use TTAO Connect to accept agreements for official UIL Contests.

Pre-Contest Procedures

1. Zone and District adjudicators are recommended by the directors in each district and approved by the District Executive Committee. Adjudicators for Bi-District are selected through a process outlined in the “Bi-District Procedures” on the UIL website. Panels for Area, Region and State are selected by the State Theatre Director

2. Adjudicators should take great care in contracting assignments. The League’s “Spring Meet Alignment” of participating high schools organizes all conferences into districts and regions and is published on the UIL website for planning the coming year. This list is final after the October 1 enrollment deadline.

• You should not adjudicate productions in the One-Act Play Contest at any level that you have previously critiqued or adjudicated in a festival, workshop or local contest. This is not always possible to avoid, but you should try. Festival/workshop hosts are required to provide you with a list of schools that includes their district, area, region and conference. You will be asked to sign a Clinic Conflict form acknowledging that you have reviewed the list and that you are not judging any of the schools. That form will be sent to the state office.
• Secure from the Contest Manager the contest level (zone, district, bi-district, area, or region) and the conference (1A - 6A) you are being asked to adjudicate in order to prevent judging any entry twice. Removal will be required from the higher level contest of any critic contracted to adjudicate an entry twice.
• Remember that some districts require criminal background checks.
• Adjudicators should avoid serving as a critic at any contest in which they have family members participating or other individuals that would cause a majority of the participating theatre directors to question the adjudicator’s objectivity. This guide should not be interpreted to mean that teachers should not adjudicate ex-students.

3. Make definite arrangements with the Contest Manager by completing the contractual agreement found on TTAO.ORG. Additionally, some institutions may require the execution of their institutional contracts.

• It is required that a Zone/District contract be executed no earlier than August 10 and no later than February 1 for zone and district. A contract shall be issued within 10 days of any verbal agreement.
• Panel Judging contracts for Zone and District are restricted as follows:
  • The first member of the panel shall be secured between August 10 and November 1st. This panelist shall also be designated to select the individual acting awards at the contest.
  • The second and third panelists shall be secured between November 4 and February 1st.

Contest Level	First Day To Contact	Last Day to Complete Contract
Zone*	August 10	February 1
District*	August 10	February 1
Bi-District	After State Posts	February 1
Area	After State Posts	February 1
Region	After State Posts	February 1
State	After State Posts	February 1

* Only the first adjudicator in a panel may be contacted at this time. The second and third panelists shall be secured between November 4 and February 1st.

• A check should be issued following the critique or no later than 30 working days following the contest unless the contract is modified to reflect an adjustment. Concerns regarding failure to receive timely payment and the Payment Issues Process may be found in the TTAO Manual of Operations.

4. Request of your Contest Manager titles of plays being produced in the contest and copies of scripts unfamiliar and unavailable to you from easily accessible sources.

• The Contest Manager is responsible for providing (by phone) the adjudicator with play titles immediately following the Title Entry Deadline; for bi-district, area or regional, on entry deadline dates. Scripts requested by the adjudicator for zone and district (and when possible above the district level) shall be provided through the Contest Manager.
• Titles of all One-Act Play Contest entries are available from the League after the title entry deadline in February. Adjudicators may obtain reading copies of plays on the approved lists and most plays approved by individual request from the League’s Drama Loan Library. Information on the library can be found on the Theatre page of the UIL website. (Resources and Forms) Scenes or cuttings being produced are not available from the library and should be obtained through the Contest Manager. Be thoroughly familiar with plays being adjudicated.

Contest Procedures

1. Arrive at the contest site in plenty of time to meet the Contest Manager, inspect the theatre and the location of your judging position and meet the agreed schedule.
2. Request that your Contest Manager meet with you and all participating directors for about thirty minutes prior to the contest to discuss the method of presenting your critique, recording of your critique, individual awards, and other details about judging the contest. Having a pre-contest meeting with students and directors in addition to the meeting with directors is permissible but should be agreed to by the participating schools.
3. Do not agree to select an equal number of acting awards from each cast.
4. Arrange with the Contest Manager all details concerning the procedures to be followed at the conclusion of the last play and the order of the critiques and time limitations.
5. Do not agree to do anything that violates League rules or procedures because the directors or Contest Manager have chosen not to follow them. Refuse to do it and call the State Office immediately. Failure to do so can disqualify the entire contest and sanction the adjudicator from League activities. Adjudicators who willingly violate guidelines risk removal from adjudicating.

Working Conditions for the Adjudicator

1. You must have an uninterrupted view of the stage as nearly in the center of the theatre as possible. You need a small table or a lap board if you are sitting in a row. There should be no member of the audience seated within two seats of you in any direction.
2. There should be a low-wattage, shaded lamp available at your table or seat which you can dim, turn off and on.
3. The Contest Manager has judging materials from the League which you will need. Request these if the manager forgets to give them to you before the contest. You can also download these materials from the UIL website yourself.
4. Before the pre-contest meeting with the directors, you may request the Contest Manager furnish you with a copy of the official contest program.
5. Arrange for some means of communication with the Contest Manager in case of emergency or if it is necessary for you to leave the theatre between performances. It is not a requirement that you leave the theatre between each performance, even when set and strike are accomplished with an open curtain.
6. You may arrange for a note-taker to be used during performances. Make sure this individual is someone with whom you easily communicate. An upper level student or ex-student has worked well for some adjudicators. These individuals shall not be involved in the decision-making process or in critiques.

Judging The Play

1. Deal with the moment rather than yesterday or tomorrow. Adjudicate what you see rather than comparisons to the same play/movie you saw or directed at some other time. 
2. Know that the use of scenery is restricted and the Approved Unit Set elements cannot be altered. Be familiar with the rules concerning scenery and its use in order to prevent penalizing directors and their students for staging situations over which they have no control.
3. Deal carefully and cautiously with the director’s interpretation and approach to the play. Give the director an opportunity to differ with your opinion if the production is successful and does not distort the author’s intent nor destroy the theme. You are there to evaluate the execution of choices and not their choice of play.
4. There is nothing in the judging standards which calls upon you to evaluate the playwright or full-length play. If the League’s Play Appraisal Committee has approved the cutting, it has already been evaluated by a panel of your peers. The school may have additional restrictions from the publisher or playwright. You may see a complete one-act play, a selected scenes from, or an excerpt from a full-length play. Ask privately if you feel that the director has done something that violates the playwright’s intent.
5. Support the League’s advocacy of “blind casting.” This is an educational event and students should be evaluated based on their abilities and not the circumstances of their birth.
6. Know that local community standards restrict what a student can say or do on stage. The adjudicator should assume that a company is composed of minors and is working within the limits of what is allowed and should not be asked to do more.
7. Request the Contest Manager to stop the contest if audience behavior makes it difficult for you to hear or concentrate on the performance.
8. Adjudicators should type or print names legibly when completing acting ballots. Do not not write in cursive.

Emergency Judge Replacement Procedures

In the case of a single adjudicator: If the adjudicator becomes incapacitated after the start of the contest, the contest manager must contact the State Theatre Director immediately. The state office will help secure a replacement adjudicator. The contest may be rescheduled. The contest will begin again, performed in its entirety, for the new adjudicator.

In the case of a panel: If one member becomes incapacitated after the start of the contest, or if an adjudicator fails to arrive to the contest,  the contest manager must contact the State Theatre Director immediately. The state office may attempt to secure a replacement adjudicator. If a replacement is not possible, the acting adjudicator shall serve as the single adjudicator for the contest. The remaining adjudicator and the acting adjudicator shall split critiques evenly. In the event that the acting adjudicator becomes incapacitated, a blind draw shall be conducted to determine who will serve as the single adjudicator for the decision-making part of the contest. The remaining adjudicators shall split the critiques.

Selection of the Acting Awards

The purpose of this process is to identify high-quality performances. 

In addition to the two Best Performers (not groups), the number on the all-star and honorable mention all-star casts shall not exceed eight performers per category.

• The adjudicator is encouraged to give honorable mention to quality performances but is allowed to select fewer than eight.
• The two Best Performers shall be individuals, not groups, even though they may be playing similar or ensemble roles or a chorus.
• A student playing a role identified as being of the opposite sex may do so without violation of any rule.
• The adjudicator shall not be required to select an all-star or honorable mention all-star cast with a fixed number of men and women but is encouraged to choose only those who have given superior performances at that contest.
• Under no circumstances shall any adjudicator be asked to select awards described by such terms as “Best Supporting,” “Best character,” or any others equally impossible to define or select fairly.
• Adjudicators may award an “ensemble” award if the groups of players cannot be identified as individuals or play other roles in the play.

Oral Critique Instructions for the Adjudicator

YOU SHOULD:

1. With a single adjudicator, make sure the order of conducting the critique is discussed during the pre-contest meeting with the directors. With a panel of adjudicators, the contest manager will discuss how and when critiques will be handled. 
2. Organize your notes in order that you may arrive at your decision and give your critique quickly, as clearly and briefly as possible. Long critiques often dig holes rather than build bridges and defeat much of the effectiveness of the critique. Less is often best.
3. Give an oral critique to all plays and try to devote equal time to each. Give the critique to directors and students as a group as directed by the Contest Manager. Critiques are open to all companies and the public.
4. Deal with the critique as though all schools advance and it is not their last performance. The League encourages all schools to perform after their last contest is over.
5. Realize that, in addition to selecting awards recipients, you were employed to be critically instructive. Help the director and actors with sound suggestions which they may use to improve their work.
6. Understand that most young actors try hard to be effective. Be tactful and kind as you comment about their work and, whenever possible, find something about the performance which you can honestly commend.
7. Be specific in criticizing the performance and use examples from it to help the director and actor improve their work. Discuss in terms used in the judging standards. Be constructive; a vague, indecisive critique is clear evidence of poor preparation.
8. Evaluate the quality or structure of scenes from long plays presented in contest if the play appears on “An Approved List of Long Plays for Contest.” The structure of the ‘scenes from’ has not been reviewed by the League’s Play Appraisal Committee and is open to review.
9. Keep personal opinion of the playwright to yourself. Comments concerning the quality of cuttings, scenes from or adaptations of long plays that have been submitted for special approval are often inappropriate.
10. Critique audience behavior on the adjudicator questionnaire.
11. Make known to the League your recommendations and opinions about rules, play selection and administration of the One-Act Play Contest.

YOU SHOULD NOT:

1. Give private critiques at a One-Act Play Contest.
2. Make a “performance” of your critique. You were employed to adjudicate the contest, not to “act a role” before a captive audience.
3. Re-direct the plays. Suggestions are always in order, but let the directors interpret them for their companies and use them as they see fit. Do not compare to plays you have seen or directed.
4. Embarrass the director and company through the use of sarcasm, ridicule, misplaced humor or remarks which in any way belittle.
5. Criticize only in a negative way or over praise. “This is a ‘State’ play,” “I’ll see you at the State Meet,” “This is a surefire winner,” and “You can’t possibly miss” are deadly and will come back to haunt you.
6. Compare the performance of one cast with another. Show the cast how they did or did not measure up to the official standards.
7. Evaluate in comparison with other productions or the movie version of a play. Assuming that a company has “copied” a professional production or movie is a major error in judgment. Evaluate the effectiveness of their work, not where they obtained the idea.
8. Tell students or directors that you directed the same play, “When I did this show” or it is your favorite play. You will create a no-win situation.
9. Say “This was a brilliant production and I don’t have any suggestions. You were perfect. Keep up the good work!” “You were really bad, start over!”
10. Make any of the following remarks or similar remarks which may have the same effect: Say “I didn’t like your play,” “I would have done it this way,” “I don’t believe high school students should play such roles,” “I am so tired of seeing that play,” “You would have won the contest (or placed second, or placed third, etc.) had your play not gone overtime,” “You should have tried a new play. This play has been done so often” or “What can you expect with a play by that author?”
11. Deal with play selection. The play was approved by people as qualified as you with degrees and experience comparable to yours. Evaluate company choices and how well they are achieved.
12. Comment adversely about the play choice. It has been officially approved by the League’s Play Appraisal Committee. It may not be the best play for a particular cast to produce at a particular contest, but the adjudicator has no responsibility in this contest to be publicly critical of the director’s choice of play. This recommendation does not prevent making constructive comments concerning scenes from a long play as it affects the acting or directing.
13. Suggest the use of elaborate or special lighting effects not available at the contest site.
14. Talk above the heads of high school students or assume they are ignorant of the type, style, or history of the play or author. A history lesson is not always required. Approach carefully!
15. Ask students to “sex it up” or other comments that may ask them to do things that are not within the limitations of their community’s standards. You are talking to minors.
16. Say “I’m sorry” to a student or director unless you made a correctable mistake. This implies that you should have made a different decision or perhaps you made a poor choice. Judging based on objective criteria is, in the final analysis, a subjective choice. In OAP the decision is final. Rationalization or justification is a waste of time. Spend the critique time to teach in relationship to the play performed. How can the quality of performance be improved?
17. Spend critique time trying only to justify your decision.
18. Become involved in a dispute about your decision. Read all the rules, instructions, and the judging standards carefully. Be sure your decision is a right one before you render it, and refuse to discuss it with directors, students, parents, or Contest Managers. You made it. Your decision is final and cannot be changed once it is officially announced unless there has been an error in tabulation, the program listing or student's name assigned to a role.
19. Give play directors your worksheets or notes.
20. Recruit, offer scholarships or promote your own program, summer camps, publications or season as a part of the critique or contest site experience. You should do all these things but by mail or phone after the contest is over.
21. Answer “Why didn’t we advance?” That is not your responsibility and directors should clearly instruct companies that ranking and the totality of an oral critique and the evaluation form answers “Why.”
22. Interpret or give the appearance of interpreting rules. Deal with interpretations privately with Contest Managers, not directors, students, or patrons.
23. Post ANY comments surrounding a contest on social media. Adjudicators should be aware that even positive supportive comments can be perceived as endorsements and should be avoided. In addition, UIL does not want adjudicators to report results.

Evaluation Form Instructions for Adjudicators

TO BE PROVIDED TO THE SCHOOL AFTER CRITIQUE

The participating schools shall leave the contest with all the Evaluation Forms in hand. Adjudicators are providing a contracted service. That service requires all official contest documents be delivered by the end of the contest day. Ranks on ballots should be verified by the Contest Manager prior to delivery to the director. Ballots shall be given in hard copy, not electronically.

The Production Evaluation Form will allow schools to receive written feedback from all adjudicators adjudicating the contest. Please note that emphasis is placed on the Oral Critique as the primary means of providing direct and educational criticism and engagement with all of the participants. This form shall be used at all contests whether adjudicated by a single critic or a panel.

All adjudicators will be provided one Evaluation Form per school.

At the conclusion of the contest using a single critic, the critic shall select three plays to advance to the next level by circling the “advancing” option on the advancing school’s Evaluation Form. One play shall be selected as the alternate by circling the “alternate” option on the selected play’s Evaluation Form. The critic shall select the “Non-Advancing” option for all of the remaining schools.

At the conclusion of the contest using a panel of adjudicators, each panelist will rank the plays from first to last "Ranking Form."

Panel adjudicators should provide brief, written comments using the “overall impressions” section of the Evaluation Form. There is no need to provide these “impressions” to those schools to whom you have given oral critiques.

All adjudicators should complete all of the areas of evaluation in Acting (60%) and Directing and Stage Mechanics (40%). Clarification notes can be made at the discretion of the adjudicator. Finally, evaluate the Overall Effectiveness of the Production in the last section of the Evaluation Form.

You will also fill out and sign the Judging Ballot. As a single adjudicator you will name the advancing plays, alternate and enter your acting award selections. Panel judging members shall rank all the plays. The adjudicator selecting the acting awards shall also enter the acting awards selections.

See The UIL One-Act Play Contest Judge Evaluation Form

USEFUL GLOSSARY OF THEATRE TERMS FOR THE UIL ONE-ACT PLAY Adjudicator

Actions: What a character does to another character.
Articulation: The clarity of the words a performer speaks.
Blocking: The movement and business of the actors/characters in a play.
Character Objectives: What a character hopes to achieve in a play or scene; the goals of a character; what a character wants.
Characterization: The observable traits of a character.
Climax: The highest point of tension in a play.
Cohesiveness: The ability of the ensemble to participate in and exhibit the collective energy and believability of a production.
Composition: The arrangement of the actors/characters on the stage.
Conflict: The clash of forces in a play.
Cue Pickups: The overall timing of the dramatic action. This usually refers to the timing of the spoken dialogue but can also be applied to timing of the physical and non-verbal action.
Dramatic Arc: The changes a character chooses to make or is forced to make during the course of a play.
Emotional Context: How the information and events in a play affect the emotions of a character.
Engaged Listening: Visible evidence that a character is receiving, absorbing, processing and reacting to information and events in a play.
Ensemble: The entire company of performers in a production.
Exposition: The events that precede, cause and/or influence the immediate action of a play.
Focus: The area of the stage that contains significant action and should be the principal point of attention for the audience.
Ground Plan: The arrangement of the scenic/environmental elements of a production.
Moment: An event that causes a change in the course of action of a play.
Motivation: What causes a character to act; the driving force behind a character’s actions and pursuit of his/her objective(s).
Obstacles: What is in the way of a character obtaining his/her objective; the struggle the character must endure in order to obtain his/her objective.
Physicality: The physical and external traits and qualities that define a character. These include the posture of a character, how a character walks and gestures, the tempo and rhythm of a character’s energy.
Projection: The ability of a performer to use the appropriate vocal volume level to compliment the required believability of the play as well as to be heard by all audience members.
Relationship: The degree of kinship between two or more characters in a play and how that kinship develops and changes during the course of a play.
Rising Action: The increased tension in a play caused by events that produce conflict.
Spontaneity: The ability of the ensemble to create the illusion that the characters are experiencing the events of the play for the first time.
Style: The social influences that govern and influence the general behavior of the characters. This usually refers to behavior in historical periods or geographical locations; however, it can also refer to the dramatic genre of the play.
Tactics: Specific maneuvers a character executes to achieve an objective.
Theme: The underlying idea and/or purpose of a play.
Tempo: The rate at which information is given and/or action is executed in a play.
Unity of Purpose: The ability of the ensemble to illustrate a collective understanding of the story, style, objectives and themes of a play; the ability of the ensemble to perform as a team.
Use of Space: The effective use of the entire stage area with regard to the environmental requirements of the play.
Vocal Dynamics: Variety and color in the vocal characteristics of tone, volume, pitch and rate.

Panel Judging Procedures

When you are asked to serve on a panel, the following procedures will apply to the adjudicators.

• The first panelist contracted for bi-district, district and zone contests shall select the acting awards without consulting with the other panelists. This adjudicator shall also rank the plays, give oral critiques to select schools and written evaluations to all schools. For area, region and state, this adjudicator shall be assigned by the state office.
• The other panelists contracted for zone/district, bi-district, area, region and state shall rank the plays, give oral critiques to designated schools and written evaluations to all schools.

AT THE DIRECTORS MEETING

The members of the panel shall make brief remarks.

DURING THE PERFORMANCES

• Adjudicators shall sit in separate locations during the performances.
• Adjudicators shall not be allowed to confer or discuss the performances until after the decisions are rendered. Adjudicators must develop an awareness that small talk between plays is perceived by onlookers as potential collaboration. Even if no conferment has taken place, the contest is undermined. Adjudicators shall make every effort to remain separate from other adjudicators until after all results have been submitted.
• Adjudicators shall be given copies of the "OAP Evaluation Form." The form may be downloaded from the UIL website. (Adjudication Information)

AFTER THE PERFORMANCES

• The adjudicators shall rank the plays from first to last.
• The adjudicator designated to select the acting awards shall select Two Best Performers, up to 8 All-Star Cast and up to 8 Honorable-Mention All-Star Cast. There are some adjudicators that believe they are allowed to consult one another for acting awards. This is a violation of rules.
• After the Contest Manager completes the ballot tabulation, the adjudicators shall be asked to verify that the ranks entered are correct.
• Adjudicators shall draw for critique assignments.
• After decisions are rendered and following the draw for critiques, adjudicators have permission to confer regarding verbal critiques. 

  Adjudicators should not know the results of the contest prior to giving critiques, unless critiques happen after the awards. 

AT CRITIQUES

• Schools shall be critiqued in the order determined at the directors meeting or prior to the contest (panels). Critiques shall be public.
• The Contest Manager shall give the directors the signed evaluation forms.
• Contests may select to conduct simultaneous critiques.

AFTER THE CONTEST

• Fill out the online contest evaluation form at the link found on the UIL website.
• Report any incidents of “unsportsmanlike conduct.”