Opinion: Does judging accreditation matter?

Despite decades of stringent vetting, testing and management by associations, there has been a noticeable increase in piping, drumming, and pipe band competitions that employ unaccredited people to adjudicate their events, and competitors don’t seem to mind. And that’s disconcerting.

For those who prefer the written word, here’s a slightly longer text version of the video:

Do the competitive pipe band, solo piping, and solo drumming worlds actually care who does the judging?

It is a question that has become harder to ignore in recent years, as more solo and band competitions feature judges without official accreditation. While this is not new, the frequency and visibility of the practice appear to be growing.

For decades, individuals with limited musical credentials have adjudicated at the odd Highland games or local contest. Competitors likely noticed but chose not to challenge it. Today, however, the issue extends beyond isolated cases. The rise of unsanctioned competitions, operating outside formal association oversight, has created an environment in which organizers can hire anyone they choose as a judge.

“That flexibility is often the point. Independent events avoid the rules and restrictions imposed by associations. What is striking is not just that these competitions exist, but that accredited judges and association members continue to participate.”

That flexibility is often the point. Independent events avoid the rules and restrictions imposed by associations. What is striking is not just that these competitions exist, but that accredited judges and association members continue to participate.

Judges who have invested time and effort to earn credentials now sometimes sit alongside those who have not. Competitors who have long advocated for high judging standards often compete under these same conditions. In both cases, participation seems to outweigh principle. The choice becomes simple: take part or stay home.

This raises uncomfortable questions. Competitors join associations with the expectation that events will be governed by clear rules and assessed by qualified judges. Associations exist to maintain standards, ensure fairness, and uphold the integrity of competition.

Piping and drumming may be rooted in tradition and often pursued as a hobby, but it still forms a structured, global activity with defined expectations. When associations fail to enforce their own standards, or when members ignore them, the entire framework begins to weaken.

Our standard for judges is grounded in competitive track records. For example, a prospective pipe band judge should have at least 15 years of genuine Grade 1 experience. This is not arbitrary. Competitors expect it, and associations are entrusted to enforce it. Similar expectations apply to solo adjudicators. Without sustained high-level success, accreditation should not follow.

Nonentities and masqueraders need not apply.

The tension has always been with highly accomplished players who resist the accreditation process. Some of the greatest names in piping and drumming have declined to undergo the accreditation process, believing their achievements are sufficient. Their high dudgeon at being required, or even asked, to demonstrate their judging knowledge and ability in an exam becomes a show-stopper. They’d rather sit out, nursing their wrath, to the dismay of everyone.

At the same time, more recent leading figures have recognized the system’s importance and accepted accreditation to benefit the activity. Their participation has strengthened judging panels and reinforced credibility.

The rise of unsanctioned, independent contests has led to an increase in the use of unaccredited people to judge alongside those who have taken the exams.

But if accredited judges are willing to adjudicate alongside unaccredited individuals, what message does that send? And if competitors accept those conditions without objection, why should organizers adhere to stricter standards? And if no one insists on accountability, what role do associations really serve?

“Associations remain essential. Their systems of training, examination, and accreditation have taken decades to build. But those systems only have value if they are consistently upheld. Without enforcement, standards become optional, and once that happens, they quickly lose meaning.”

These are not abstract concerns. They go straight to the competition’s credibility.

Associations remain essential. Their systems of training, examination, and accreditation have taken decades to build. But those systems only have value if they are consistently upheld. Without enforcement, standards become optional, and once that happens, they quickly lose meaning.

There are straightforward principles that could help restore clarity:

• Accredited judges should not adjudicate at events that use unaccredited judges.
• Associations should consider disciplinary measures for those who do.
• Competitors should avoid entering competitions where judges lack proper accreditation, particularly in more specialized disciplines such as piobaireachd or ensemble.
• When in doubt, both judges and competitors should confirm an event’s status with the organizers and their home association before participating.

At its core, the issue is about solidarity. A competitive system only works if participants collectively agree to uphold its standards. If individuals make exceptions whenever it suits them, the system gradually erodes.

After more than 70 years of developing structured accreditation and competition rules, associations now face a choice. They can enforce their standards consistently, or they can adapt to a reality where flexibility and inconsistency prevail. What they cannot do is claim to uphold standards while allowing them to be ignored.

Most competitors still want credible, knowledgeable, and properly accredited judges. They expect fairness and consistency. They expect associations to stand by the principles they promote.

So, yes, accreditation is essential to the contest’s credibility.

Some may view strict adherence to rules as rigid or overly formal. That’s the whole point. Rules only matter if they are followed. A community cannot demand high standards while simultaneously overlooking them.

In the end, the piping and drumming world must decide whether adhering to standards is essential or optional.

It cannot be both.

Those are our thoughts, so what are yours? Readers and viewers are encouraged to contribute their fair, on-topic opinions and feedback using various commenting methods, especially pipes|drums’ below.