Scoring guide

How Jack & Jill scoring works

Every method JJLA supports, plain-English — what it is, how it resolves, and when to use it.

You choose per phase or round. Every phase sets its own scoring method — there’s no fixed rule. Fast methods (yes/no, callbacks) suit large fields; relative-placement methods (RPSS, Sum of Ranks) suit precise ranking. Mix and match however your event runs.

Fast

Yes / No

The fastest method — each judge marks every dancer Yes or No.

As dancers rotate through a heat, judges decide who they would advance. Yes-counts across judges (per role) determine who moves on. Ideal when a panel must assess 20+ dancers in a single song.

Judges giveYes or No per dancerAdvancesHighest Yes-counts, by role

Best for large prelim heats

Fast

Yes / No / Callback

Yes / No, plus a “must-advance” callback for standouts.

Works like Yes / No, but a judge can flag a dancer as a callback — weighted above a plain Yes (internally Callback = 2, Yes = 1, No = 0). Dancers with multiple callbacks rise above dancers with the same Yes count but no callbacks.

Judges giveYes, No, or CallbackAdvancesWeighted total, then Yes-count

Best for prelims with clear standouts

Either

Numeric

Each judge scores within a set range (e.g. 1–10).

Judges award a number to each dancer; scores are summed across the judges on the panel and dancers are ranked highest total to lowest. Simple and familiar, but more prone to judge-to-judge scale differences than relative placement, so a well-calibrated panel matters.

Judges giveA score in the configured rangeResolves bySum of scores across judges

Best for familiar, score-based formats

Ranking

Relative Placement (RPSS)

The Skating System — the most rigorous relative-placement method.

Each judge ranks every dancer 1st, 2nd, 3rd… A dancer’s placement is decided by majority — the first placement P where they hold a majority (floor(judges / 2) + 1) of rankings at P or better. Sequential tie-breaks resolve the rest:

Sum of qualifying ranks. If several reach majority at the same P, lowest sum of the qualifying ranks wins.
Total ordinal sum. If still tied, the lowest sum across all their ranks wins.

Judges giveA 1–n ranking of all dancersResolves byMajority, then sum-of-ranks tiebreaks

Example

3 judges rank 4 dancers — J1: A1 B2 C3 D4 · J2: A1 B3 C2 D4 · J3: B1 A2 C3 D4. Majority = 2. At P=1, A has 2 judges at 1-or-better → A places 1st. With A removed, B has a majority at 2-or-better → 2nd. Then C → 3rd, D → 4th.

Best for the most rigorous & fair

Ranking

Sum of Ranks

A simpler relative method — lowest total wins.

Judges rank every dancer 1–n; the ranks are added and the lowest total places highest. Easier to explain than full RPSS, but ties are more common and it is slightly more sensitive to an outlier judge. Equal sums share placement (=N notation) and the next placement skips by the size of the tie group.

Judges giveA 1–n ranking of all dancersResolves byLowest summed rank (ties share)

Example

3 judges rank 4 dancers — J1: A1 B2 C3 D4 · J2: A2 B1 C3 D4 · J3: A1 B2 C3 D4. Sums: A=4, B=5, C=9, D=12 → A 1st, B 2nd, C 3rd, D 4th.

Best for simpler ranked results

Setting

Tie handling

What happens at the advancement cut-off when dancers tie.

Skip ruleAdvance everyone tied at the cut-off (most common)ManualThe owner picks who advances from the tied set

Setting

Strictly handling

What a judge’s “strictly” flag does when results publish.

InformationalLogged for review, no effect (default)Score deductionEach flagging judge worsens the mark by one stepDisqualificationRemoved from results; next-best advances