Good points made by several folks. Our current judging system will always include the human factor - we make mistakes. This is why we use more than one judge - hopefully the majority get it right. For background - I've flown something over 800 competition pattern flights, done lots of judging (since 1974) including a WC, numerous Team Selections and Nats finals, as well as study and participate in rules changes / issues.

We all fly a maneuver wrong once in a while - sometimes we're aware of it, other times were not. Usually the judges catch it - sometimes they don't. Most of us (when we know we messed up) assume that the judges caught the error, but don't know either way until the tear sheets come out. I know I've been surprised both ways - what the heck was the zero for? - or darn, they missed that. Certainly there's no recourse for the unwarranted zero - ethics might dictate that one should admit a zeroed maneuver - but this seems unlikely to work practically. So, for the moment some average of errors hopefully balance.

Likewise we all make judging mistakes. The more complex the maneuver sequence the more likely errors will occur. The less familiar we are with the sequence the more likely errors will occur (really difficult with unknowns). Judging maneuver elements (the correct way) permits a judge to critique any maneuver, but detracts from the overall "picture" of the maneuver, allowing a well flown but incorrect maneuver to score well. A judge is busy - not much time to reflect on what was seen - just subtract downgrades and record the score. Sometimes when judging - something may look unusual - but the pilot gets the benefit of the doubt unless I can be certain. Often "option" (inline or crossbox) maneuvers change the look, yet all is good. Likewise, sometimes I may realize an error (or think I do) a maneuver of so later - seems unfair to change a score once it's recorded.

Reducing the workload for the judges might help. "Zero" judges seems like a good idea when a lot is at stake (TS / Nats finals / cash prizes), the upcoming Don Lowe Masters will use 3 zero judges and all must agree for the 7 "technical" judges scores to be zeroed. Really hard to do this with limited manpower (anybody really want to be a lone zero judge?). Technical assistance for the judges is another method that begs to be explored and implemented.

Systems exist, could be adapted, could be developed to accurately replace many of the judging tasks. Distance out, box violations, and even heading are fairly easy and would relieve the judge of these assessments (which can be erroneous) and allow more focus on the maneuver per se. Even geometry and elements (and yes - wrong maneuvers) might one day be handled by computer - leaving the judge to assess "smoothness & gracefulness". I don't know how to do this - but I'll bet technology exists that can get close (and in a viable cost range - some of the Eagle Tree Systems stuff might work). Just imagine - accurate scores for the technical elements of every maneuver (maybe kinda scary too)! Of course some will raise the view that "the judge should have no assistance not available to the pilot". Gee - I think that pattern is a demonstration of precision flying - why not use precision means to measure that!

'Til then - what we do works pretty well.