I think it is very easy for a judge, CBJ or not, to give scores lower than a 6 simply because they have no need to substantiate their score. By that I mean, they don't have to explain their reasoning to the cook.
I have long held that if a judge gives a score lower than a 6, a comment card should be required from that judge. The argument against this idea has always been that if a judge is required to explain themselves, they'll simply not score lower than a 6 which will unfairly alter the true results. I think that is complete hogwash.
The teams hang it all out there every time they turn in a box and if a judge thinks it is deserving of a low score they should be able to articulate their reasoning without any difficulty. There are a myriad of valid reasons for low scores including but not limited to poor texture, over-seasoning, under-seasoning, over-smoked, etc. As Neil mentioned in one of his posts here, the comment card he received on his Day 1 Chicken entry explained that the judge thought the seasoning was "too spicy" and judged it accordingly. That straightforward comment made it very clear what that judge thought should change in order to improve the score. No drama, no disrespect, just a simple explanation for the score.
All a team really wants to know from a judge when they get a low score is "why did you think it deserved that score?" Until KCBS begins to require this simple level of accountability from the judges, don't expect many comment cards on those low scores.
And that's a real shame for all parties involved.
Help us out here Neil...
