I wasn't meaning it as a beat up on spud thing. He was picked as a judge and he did his best as a judge. Someone asked about the difference in scoring, and I informed as to the given reason. weather we agree or not with the reason the real question is, was spud fair? As far as I could tell he judged everything he saw with the same criteria, giving no biased ruling to people he liked as opposed to people he didn't. Everything he scored qualed. That is the most important part of quals , seeing if everyone who runs is eligible to do so. As far as I'm concerned Spud did a decent job as a judge. I appreciate and value the effort all the judges put into making their decisions.
If anything I would put forth that a 10 point judging criteria would produce more satisfying results. Its hard for judges to make a difference between 3 4 and 5. 10, with 6 quaking would allow for a better interpretation of quality.