Although data should trump hierarchy. Yes, I agree that the ES has the final call (unless we're talking about arbitration), but a volunteer clutching the current rules should be comfortable telling the ES "You are wrong. This is why." and pointing at the rules, and an ES must take this seriously, and talk it out with the volunteer if they don't agree on the interpretation. And if that happens, and the volunteer and the ES can't agree, then the ES's call must prevail, but the ES should also refer the issue to the national organization, because the rules are apparently unclear and require clarification.EastStroudsburg13 wrote: ↑August 17th, 2020, 2:13 pmJumping off of this, I think there always needs to be a clear hierarchy that ultimately, the event supervisor gets the final say, as they ultimately bear the responsibility for the event. Volunteers need to realize that, in the end, they are there to facilitate the supervisors. That is not to say that volunteers cannot question the supervisor, but it needs to come from a place of suggestion, not demand.
The same, I think, goes for safety (and this is even more important that rules interpretation). If a volunteer sees something that they think is unsafe, then they should be absolutely comfortable in calling for an immediate halt, until the safety concern is addressed, and the ES and tournament management should back the volunteer to the hilt on this.
(And to agree with what everyone else has said, it's always good practice to have the same person grade the same question for all contestants, if it's one where judgement can come in to play.)