US Brevet Judges (WAG)

[MaryClare]

The recent news regarding Kittia Carpenter had me looking up to see who the US current has registered with WorldGym (the artist formerly known as FIG). And there were some surprises and notable things. I’ve left the best until last.

New to the ranks are Pacific Reign coaches Stephanie Gentry and Cale Robinson. I’m not sure that the US has had a male judge for WAG before. I’m somewhat surprised to see them go down this path. Of course it’s very advantageous for coaches to have more in depth knowledge of the COP but they are young and ambitious coaches with a sizeable elite/L10 team which won’t leave much time for judging assignments. That said, they are currently rated at Level 4, so there are extremely limited judging opportunities but L4s often do line and time duties at World Cup type events.

Kittia is still there currently. As in Anna Li. But I don’t know the ins and outs of what the outcome of her safe sport investigation actually was.

From the national team team there is Betty Okino and Chellsie Memmel. I’m not sure under what circumstances these 2 would find themselves judging? Perhaps in an emergency situation at an overseas competition.

Several stalwarts of the US judging ranks. Cheryl Hamilton, Sylvia Brestyan, Kristie Phillips, Amanda Stroud. But no one is rated higher than 2. Nearly all other major gymnastics countries have a top ranked judge.

From NCAA world, Ashley Johnston, Liz Crandall and Corrine Tarver. I don’t think I’ve seen Corrine’s name on the list before. The college schedule probably means that they are realistically only available for US Classic and Nationals.

And. Ranked at level 2, making her one of the highest ranked judges in the country? Peggy Liddick. I had no idea she was back. And judging.

 

[RedBirdie]

Anna Li's suspension ended, so she's allowed back into USAG.

Corrine Tarver is interesting, I wonder when she got rated. Maybe USAG finally opened up brevet judging to non past national team members (Cale Robinson would also point to this being the case).

Peggy Liddick.......very very very interesting.

 

[Concorde]

Corrine Tarver is interesting, I wonder when she got rated. Maybe USAG finally opened up brevet judging to non past national team members (Cale Robinson would also point to this being the case).

Peggy Liddick.......very very very interesting.

Tarver(maiden name Wright) was on the 1985-1986 and 1986-1987 U.S. National teams.

 

[MaryClare]

Also, no Tatiana Perskaia. I think she was previously a L1

 

[Matilda23]

Peggy Liddick was at Australian Nationals 6 months ago in July 2025. Anyone know if she has left Australia??

 

[Passion]

From the national team team there is Betty Okino and Chellsie Memmel. I’m not sure under what circumstances these 2 would find themselves judging? Perhaps in an emergency situation at an overseas competition.

Memmel was judging beam at Combs La Ville in 2024 when she took the juniors there.

She judged at 2023 Pan Am Games too. IIRC she won some recognition from the FIG for being the most consistent in her judging or something at that meet? Or another one recently, it's real foggy in my memory but I definitely remember she was recognized for something to do with international judging last quad.

ETA: I might be mixing this up with 2022 Pan Am Championships.

 

[Concorde]

Memmel was judging beam at Combs La Ville in 2024 when she took the juniors there.

She judged at 2023 Pan Am Games too. IIRC she won some recognition from the FIG for being the most consistent in her judging or something at that meet? Or another one recently, it's real foggy in my memory but I definitely remember she was recognized for something to do with international judging last quad.

Memmel was also on the D panel for floor exercise at the 2025 Varna World Challenge Cup.

 

[Doug1233]

Also, no Tatiana Perskaia. I think she was previously a L1

Has she retired? She was the US judge that Marta relied on and respected for years.

I seem to remember that Cheryl was a L1 for a cycle but when she retested she dropped down to a L4 (embarrassing for her) but then somehow petitioned back up to L2?! Or am I completely making that up?

 

[FrolovasDoubleLayout]

Judges have the ability to do one retest per cycle. If they went to the intercontinental course they can either retest at one of the in-person continental union courses, or do the one-off course in SUI (I believe max 40 participants) where you can obtain up to category 2, or do the online continental course (where you can get category 4 only). Judges who attend a continental union course can retest at the SUI course or at another continental union course. or the online course. There is a rule in place whereas you can only drop two category levels from your previous level, so if you were a category one and did not pass the course you would still be a category 3 (I'm not sure how this would play out for a category 1 judge course who choice the online route) So, someone who dropped from category 1 to 3 might have received true category three marks or might have failed - only the STS system knows, as the whole examination system is done via a formulaic spread sheet.

 

[Denn]

I always have thought that the limited opportunity to go to courses and to test is a detriment to the sport. Opening up courses to all gymnasts and coaches and even media people would make everyone so much more knowledgeable...

 

[MaryClare]

I always have thought that the limited opportunity to go to courses and to test is a detriment to the sport. Opening up courses to all gymnasts and coaches and even media people would make everyone so much more knowledgeable...

This is the misunderstanding that a lot of people have.

The FIG only controls who judges at FIG sanctioned competition. And yes there are limited opportunities to pass the exam to become a brevet.

But judges education is actually the responsibility of the national federations who can run as many courses as they want, train as many judges as they want and use whoever they want at national competitions. In Russia there are literally hundreds of judges who regularly judge elite level who are not on that list. Similarly in GB, only a very small number of their judges have a FIG brevet.

 

[Denn]

This is the misunderstanding that a lot of people have.

The FIG only controls who judges at FIG sanctioned competition. And yes there are limited opportunities to pass the exam to become a brevet.

But judges education is actually the responsibility of the national federations who can run as many courses as they want, train as many judges as they want and use whoever they want at national competitions. In Russia there are literally hundreds of judges who regularly judge elite level who are not on that list. Similarly in GB, only a very small number of their judges have a FIG brevet.

I'm not misunderstanding. I have a different opinion.

It's the same in the US as you describe for Russia and UK, especially on the men's side. I was such judge for many years. And the judging associations do run plenty of courses for judges regionally — there are more bites a the apple within the country. And they do turnkey training material from FIG (or their own stuff heavily based on FIG material).

But I still feel like FIG should do much, much more.

 

[MaryClare]

I'm not misunderstanding. I have a different opinion.

It's the same in the US as you describe for Russia and UK, especially on the men's side. I was such judge for many years. And the judging associations do run plenty of courses for judges regionally — there are more bites a the apple within the country. And they do turnkey training material from FIG (or their own stuff heavily based on FIG material).

But I still feel like FIG should do much, much more.

I don’t think our opinions do differ, I’m just confused regarding what you want the FIG to do. The blockage in the system are the national federations, they are the ones gatekeeping access to courses and putting people forward for FIG testing.

 

[makam]

FIG could put it online and say that 1x a year, anyone can try no matter what their federation does or doesn't do. Maybe you can't get top grade at the online bit and have to then go to one of the in-person classes to upgrade but it would give people who think their fed isn't giving them sufficient support to do an end-run.

Is there a reason USAG limits brevet judging to former national team members? Like, why is that even criteria to be met? /i don't know much about judging or the selection/training therein.

 

[hmmmm]

Gymnastics Australia has a progressive system where you can advance based on merit. Rules are all FIG based with modifications based on level.
They run an FIG content course nationally and those judges can judge elite athletes within Australia. It is the stepping stone towards the official FIG course.

 

[FrolovasDoubleLayout]

I don’t think our opinions do differ, I’m just confused regarding what you want the FIG to do. The blockage in the system are the national federations, they are the ones gatekeeping access to courses and putting people forward for FIG testing.

Actual, there are WG (FIG) rules that do come into effect that the federations are bound to, at least for WAG. Starting at the top, the intercontinental course participation is limited to two participants per federation with the exception that IF a federation has a category 1(s) judge, they can register up to two ADDITIONAL category 1s BY name. So, a federation with zero category 1 judges only has two bites at the apple to get a category 1 judge, while a federation with one additional category 1 thus has three chances, and federation with two additional category 1s then has a maximum of four chances.

At any continental union course, the maximum number of judges a federation can register is fifteen, with three additional judges who can be on a reserve list - so in theory, a maximum of eighteen judges at any one course. Additional judges might try to register for another continental union course if space is available. At one point (maybe still happening), there were always two 'extra' spots available (usually for judges who needed a course after a not-so-successful intercontinental course).

There are also the re-write opportunities that I mentioned up-thread. During the pandemic (the 2021-24 cycle), all courses were virtual and there was zero chance at mobility - it was just a maintenance course - so a category 1 who just scraped by, would maintain that category, while a lower rated judge could have scored 100% on each component and not be able to get category 1 - maybe a good thing, as there is a lot of difference to being testing in your own environment as opposed to being tested in the the sterile environment of an in-person course, and maybe those judges who scored well doing a video exam (after having memorized the STS videos) might not be yet equipped to handle the stresses of being in a live competition environment where other factors such as federation pressures, JEP evaluations, etc might come into play.

This is the first cycle that WG has offered virtual union courses for new judges (as mentioned above, only gaining category 4).

So, while the federations can train as many 'internal' BJ as they want, they are bound by WG policies.

 

[Ms Motts]

Gymnastics Australia has a progressive system where you can advance based on merit. Rules are all FIG based with modifications based on level.
They run an FIG content course nationally and those judges can judge elite athletes within Australia. It is the stepping stone towards the official FIG course.

And this is why Australia has two category one judges and more brevet judges than the UK or the USA despite being a relatively small federation. And there's the vibe - it's seen as a desirable thing for a judge to do.
People are willing to put in the work even if the chances of them ever getting to judge as a category one are fairly slim.

And there's no gatekeeping based on where you started - I started out as a gym parent who became a judge because my kid's gym was desperate for judges and that was years ago and still every third panel or so I sit on, I get to hear (often from an actual brevet judge) the story of the mum who became a judge because her daughter's gym needed one and who eventually went on to judge at the Olympics.

 

[Denn]

I brainstormed a list of things that FIG could do regarding education about the rules.

Not all of these ideas are equal, but I am betting that each of you will like at least a couple of them. Curious what you think.

1. Improve the rules so that they are more intuitive and less busybody — allowing more gymnasts and coaches to understand them. The rules are out of control, especially on the women's side, and some of it is due to systematic, structural issues, such as rewarding connection bonus on beam based on letter values instead of biomechanics, which could drastically simplify those rules. I could list tons of other examples. They are making it worse by adding more detailed expectations every year, too, instead of relying on core principles that they apply.
2. Include alterations for lower-level competition so that everybody can use the same rules — it makes it so that everyone is doing mostly the same sport. (This has actually worked in MAG better than WAG in some countries. For example, the entire US boys program uses FIG rules with some adjustments, and some of those adjustments are no longer needed with the recent rule changes, in fact.)
3. Hire copyeditors and layout experts to improve the texts so that more people can read and understand the language.
4. Post the rules as a website with a search bar, not a PDF.
5. Significantly expand the opportunities for actual judges to get international training (See @FrolovasDoubleLayout 's post.
6. Remove a couple of the hindrances to judge level "mobility" — it's not responsive enough.
7. Offer online-based training modules and assessments for athletes and coaches.
8. Offer a free online-based assessment for fans as well.
9. Use data from these assessments — the most common errors, for example — as opportunities to improve the rules.
10. Publish more routine analyses right on the internet the way that some of us and others on YouTube do — heck, invite those people to help them do the work.
11. Publish a series of videos, say, weekly, highlighting different rules and areas of concern, with a general population as the intended audience, not just judges and high-level coaches
12. Have more people do education work like Hardy Fink did after he left the MTC, especially in countries with developing programs, and require each federation to have someone have an education-oriented role with a job description that requires widespread education, not just education of elite judges.