Two rōpū, five judges, one silent rulebook
At a regional senior competition, eight rōpū perform 25-minute sets before a panel of five judges. The published marks are: whakaeke 15, mōteatea 10, waiata-ā-ringa 15, poi 10, haka 20, whakawātea 10, reo 10, kākahu 5, kaitātaki 5. Two rōpū are close. Rōpū A has the stronger haka and a whakaeke built on a moteatea rarely heard, but in its poi item one performer dropped a poi and recovered after four beats, and the reo judge has logged three mispronunciations and one wrong kupu. Rōpū B has flawless reo, no dropped equipment, but its haka runs about 20 seconds short and its whakawātea is rushed; its haka is a famous item from a rohe that is not its own. After six of eight rōpū, the panel is split: one judge has A 88 and B 80; another has A 82 and B 84. The chair also learns that Rōpū A's whakaeke moteatea is a lament that a particular hapū considers tapu and does not perform publicly. The rules say nothing about either borrowing or tapu.
1. The dropped poi. How should the panel treat it, and what would change your view?
Read the worked answer
There is no 'mistake' criterion in the marks. Poi is 10, and the drop belongs inside that 10 - the risk is double-penalising it in poi and again in kaitātaki, while another judge ignores it altogether. That inconsistency, not the drop, is what the chair must fix.
Ask three questions.
- Did the line survive? A four-beat recovery that the rōpū covered without losing the shape of the item is a small deduction. A drop that broke the formation and forced the kaitātaki to re-cue is larger, because it cost the ensemble, not just the individual.
- Whose error was it? If the formation was too tight for the space, that is a tutor's staging decision and should be reflected in the item's overall mark, not blamed on one performer.
- Is it a pattern? One drop in 25 minutes is an incident; two or three suggest the item was not ready.
What would change the view: if the recovery visibly disrupted the poi line's kupu or the transition to the next item, the deduction rises. If the performer was covering for someone else's error, it falls.
The panel should set a common standard before scoring rather than average two incompatible approaches afterwards.
2. Rōpū B performs a famous haka from another rohe. Is that a rule breach, a marks question, or neither?
Read the worked answer
Neither a rule breach nor nothing. The rules are silent, so no penalty can be invented on the day. A judge who deducts for 'borrowing' as such is making policy at the scoring table.
It is a marks question, and a narrow one. The haka criterion (20) is about execution, reo and kaupapa. Rōpū B can score full execution marks; the item is famous partly because it is strong. Whether kaupapa marks are affected depends on the set as a whole: if the borrowed haka is the only item not connected to the group's own whakaeke, mōteatea and whakawātea, the panel can note the disconnection under kaupapa without turning it into an ethics charge. If the group has framed the borrowing deliberately - naming the source, explaining the connection - that framing is itself part of the performance and should be credited.
Separately, the chair should write to the competition's tikanga advisor after the event so that next year's rules address it. Changing the rules after the performance, for this rōpū, is the one move that would be unfair to everyone.
The reasoning to state in the judges' room: silence in the rulebook protects the competitor, not the judges' preferences.
3. The tapu moteatea. What should the chair do, and what should the panel not do?
Read the worked answer
What the panel should not do is deduct marks. Rōpū A may not know the restriction; the rules do not cover it; and a public deduction would punish a group for a fact it may have had no access to. It would also turn a tikanga matter into a scoreboard controversy, which helps no one, least of all the hapū.
What the chair should do:
- Say nothing in front of the other judges beyond noting it. Score the set as performed.
- Raise it privately with A's tutor after the competition, and through the local iwi if a direct approach is awkward. Frame it as information, not accusation: this lament is restricted, here is who holds it, here is what the hapū asks.
- Record it with the competition's tikanga advisor, and propose that next year's entry form ask groups to declare restricted material.
The general principle: some moteatea are restricted - linked to a particular whare, a death, or a tūpuna - and public performance can be a breach. The remedy for a breach of relationship is a relationship, not a deduction. If A performs it again after being told, that is a different matter and the organisers may then act; but that decision belongs to the hapū and the organisers, not to five judges on the day.