2022 5A State Speech Championship
Grievance: Pursuant to rules in the KSHSAA Manual, Sec. 7, page 34, “no judge shall serve as a timekeeper.” Official grievance was received concerning Poetry in Round 1 for a ballot comment regarding time in combination with rank and quality points where no timekeeper was present.

Discovery: The KSHSAA Manual outlines Grievance Procedures in Sec. 13, pages 34-35. However, there are no references in any subsections (consisting of A-G) to remedies for judge timekeeping. On discussion with the judge in question, it was determined through firsthand testimony that the timekeeping of the round did not adversely influence, or influence at all, the decision by the judge of final rankings and/or quality points for that round.

Committee Decision: It was the decision of the committee pursuant to Sec. 13, Sub. F., page 35, to warn the judge against future timekeeping violations, and that the recorded ranks and quality points from the round in question remain as recorded.

2022 2A State Speech Championship
Grievance: Team judged at the bottom of the round because of 7:30 time. Timer held up 7 ½ card. Team was confused thinking it had ½ time left but time was up. Needed a “STOP” card.

Discovery: Timer failed to follow proper procedure. Time went up from 1, instead of down.

Committee Decision: Time disregarded. Score based on performance only.

2022 1A State Speech Championship
Grievance: A performance (The Big Bang by Boyd Graham) seemed the same as the National Forensics League champs.

Discovery: The judge had prior knowledge of the piece from previously performing it herself and studying the video performance during her high school career. It was immediately apparent to the judge the performance was ripped/plagiarized from the NSDA video. She recalled specific details and blocking that matched the link she was able to provide. The grieved team’s coach indicated changes to blocking had been made in practice; however, none were apparent to the judge. No copy of the cut/highlighted script was available.

Committee Decision: Disqualification from the entire tournament.

Grievance: IDA performer used crutches as a central part of the character. Verbally referenced character’s broken leg breaking rule of using props during a performance.

Discovery: Grieved team’s coach stated that the team referenced one character’s broken legs as a reason she couldn’t race anymore. Only one of the three judges was available and said a verbal reference was made, the crutches were not used as part of the performance. The student was not wearing a cast or boot but was on crutches. The rules were not violated as the crutches were not used as a prop.

Committee Decision: No action

2021 6A State Speech Championship
Grievance: In round one of poetry, the first competitor in the room started her performance in poetry by moving about the room. Another competitor said that she believed she had joined the wrong room because she thought the student was performing a POI, where you can move. The manual clearly states, “with the exception of a small step at transitions, the performer’s feet shall not move.”

Discovery: The Grievance Committee spoke with the judge. The judge indicated that no one in the round moved in a way that allowed the judge to speak as to whether feet were moved during the performance. The judge additionally indicated that there were no significant differences between any of the performances in terms of movement.

Committee Decision: No action

Grievance: The judge penalized the student for going over time. The only comment on the ballot was "Way over time and I hate that because I really loved the speech. Good job!"

Discovery: Upon hearing the grievance on a Judge’s use of time as a factor in their rankings in Informative-10, the grievance committee used the following factors in determining their decision: (a.) The judge acknowledges they did not read the rules about time limits/an official timekeeper. (b.) The judge states they would “absolutely rank the student #1 if time were not a consideration.” (c.) The precedence for this decision exists because we have this grievance in one form or another every year.

Committee Decision: Committee decides the judge ought to re-rank their round of Informative-10 without penalizing students for time as a consideration in their decision making.

Grievance: Judge's comment to one school’s competitors was "shouldn't you all be split screened?" (Tournament was Virtual). Coach wanted to verify that the judge knew the rule that students can share a screen. Would judge’s rankings change if she knows that students can share a screen?

Discovery: The committee considered the grievance and the ballot comments and ruled on precedent to inform the judge of the rule and to offer her the opportunity to revise her rankings if she saw fit. Upon questioning, the judge indicated that she was aware there was no prohibition against non-split screen performances and that her rankings would stand as recorded.

Committee Decision: No action

Grievance: Student started performing then stopped after introduction and asked to start again after 3rd judge came into room. Ballots reflect that "it was unfortunate that you gave up during intro and had to restart."

Discovery: The committee finds that there was not a protest able rule violation in this instance. However, they did feel it was appropriate to inform the two judges who commented about the competitor starting over about the reason why she started over (only two judges were present when she started) and give both of those judges the opportunity to re-rank the student within the round.

Committee Decision: The host spoke to both judges and both judges declined to re-rank the student.

March 2017 - After the conclusion of round one it was brought to the Host Site Invitational Manager’s attention by the judge’s chair (and a parent that was originally scheduled for inform - who ended up judging HI) that our inform and oration panels were stripped of the adult and replaced with an additional senior college credit student). Several coaches asked about the panels and at the time I knew we had 4 students and the adult. We had scheduled panels for our Rounds 1 and 2 Inform, Oration rooms that consisted of 1 parent and 4 college credit seniors not enrolled or competing in forensics - with the parent ballot to be the "official score" and the other four ballots scored by the cc seniors but not used in the tabulation of the tournament and returned to the students competing. Each CC speech student was issued ballots and the parent judge was to use the competitor ballots as normal. It took quite some time to receive results for round 1 for inform and oration as we were trying to ascertain what happened with round 1. We chose to utilize the scores the panel provided. We subsequently removed the cc speech students from the panels round 2 and only used adult judges. Looking at what happened we will not be continuing this practice. It was well intended for the competitors to receive more feedback and the cc students to see quality speech pretensions.

KSHSAA Ruling: Total the events in question with round 2, 3, and finals judges, and re-submit the qualifiers to the KSHSAA.

April 2014 – “Rosa’s Lament” was performed as a prose and it is published as a dramatic solo. The grievance committee disqualified the selection because it is a scripted piece and as stated in rules it cannot be performed as a prose.

February 2013 –“From the Flow” by Janet O’Neil from the book Turning Points was performed as a poetry event and a grievance was filed. It is NOT published as poetry and should therefore not be allowed in that event. Ruling: the grievance was upheld and the student was disqualified from sweeps points, but not to pull individual ballots.

February 2013 – “Henry V” was performed in poetry and was challenged because it is from a script. Section 3b specifically states that no play scripts be used in Poetry. Ruling: Shakespeare’s “Henry V” is a script and is not allowable in Poetry Pg. 33 –Sec 3b. The student was disqualified from finals but prelim results will stand.

January 2013 – A coach filed a grievance against a student that alleged he had violated the duplication rule addressed in Sec. 8 of the KSHSAA Speech Manual. After meeting with the student’s coach, the grievance committee determined that there was enough similarity between the two orations (the one he gave last year and the one he was giving this year) to find in favor of the coach filing the grievance. The student was disqualified and lost all sweeps points he had accumulated in the event.

May 2012 – Student was reciting piece from blank agenda in prose. Student did not have manuscript with them. Student was disqualified for violation of Sec. 3a. on page 34 of manual.

May 2012 – Student used a legal pad during Impromptu speech. Student was disqualified for violation of Sec 6 of Impromptu rules on Page 37 of manual.

May 2012 – Judge served as potential timekeeper – potential lowering of ranking. Grievance committee talked to judge which stated time was not a factor for ranking. They also informed judge not to keep time in future. Ranking was not changed.

May 2012 – Dramatic Interp student used a chair. Grievance committee ruled student to be ranked last in the section based on Dramatic Interp rule on page 36, section I. It indicates that selection will be performed without the use of physical objects.

May 2012 – Manual states that performing in the wrong room gets the last rank. However, after student performed then realized mistake and went to correct room and performed a 2nd time in the same round. Grievance committee ruled even though student performed in correct room it was after performing in wrong room and thus supported decision of manager for student to be ranked last in round.

May 2012 – Judge interrupted student’s Duo performance indicating they were offended but then allowed them to finish. Judge was interviewed and indicated the stoppage did not affect the score. Grievance committee suggested language be added to manual that a judge may not stop a performance at any time.

March 2012 – Students were caught using their cell phones while in gym prep-room and disqualified from the round.

February 2012 – It was ruled by a grievance committee that “Missing Natalie” by Nicole Blackman is a poetry selection, not prose. This piece was performed by two different students from two different schools, one as a prose and the other as poetry.

February 2012- A coach self-reported that one of their students changed their prose selection after their first round to a piece that the student had performed last year. In order to prevent any further violation, the student was disqualified from the event.

February 2012- A student was disqualified for performing a poetry selection (Beowulf, a new verse translation by Seamus Heaney) in prose competition.