RANKING OF CRITERIA BY THE METHOD OF EXPERT EVALUATIONS OF JUDO JUDGES ACCORDING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF COMPETITIONS

Using a questionnaire and methods of expert evaluation of judges in judo to identify the main criteria for evaluating the work of judges in competitions. A questionnaire survey of judo judges was conducted. The study involved 30 judo judges of the international category (3 men - 10%) of the national category (15 people - 50%) and the first category (12 people - 40%). The analysis of the survey of judo judges on the basis of 50 evaluation criteria for the performance of judges in competitions revealed the main 11 criteria that are in the opinion of most experts the most effective. Thus, 11 criteria were distributed among specialists of international, national and first categories of judges based on the results of calculating the coefficient of weight and priority as follows: in the first place - professional ethics and discipline 1.33; in second place - the appearance of 1.66; in third place - knowledge of the rules and the ability to use them 3.66; in fourth place - is the clarity of commands and gestures 4.66; in fifth place - moving on the tatami and choosing the correct position 5.00; in sixth place - interaction with judges 6.67; in seventh place - the ability to correctly and timely assess errors 7.66; in eighth place - the ability to accurately and timely assess technical actions 8.00; in ninth place - psychological stability 8.33; in tenth place - the reaction to the situation 8.66; on the eleventh place - the ability to use technical means 10,33. Thus, the survey of judges' categories from the 50 proposed criteria revealed 11 most practical criteria by which it is possible to evaluate the work of judges in competitions.

. observations of review commissions, inspectors and commissioners using videos of clashes, it can be noted that to improve the quality of judging it needs to be developed in three ways: -selection of judges by ability; -training of judges through programs, seminars and tests; -assessment of the quality of judging according to certain criteria. Weaknesses in selection methods are one of the decisive factors that negatively affect the efficiency of judicial activity (8).
The problem of abilities is closely connected with the theory of selection. An integral part of the abilities are the properties of personality, possessing which, a person can relatively easily succeed in any activity [2].
In this case, abilities exist only in development and arise only in certain actions, and to succeed in some cases requires a combination of different abilities. Characteristics of the abilities of a highly qualified judge are a combination of both personal, professional qualities and judicial experience. [3].
At the current stage of development of judo, improving the quality of judging is closely linked to the training of judges through their participation in seminars and webinars, the development of guidelines and manuals, video tutorials, etc.
One of the ways to improve the professional level of judges is to develop a methodology for evaluation by professional criteria. Past studies of judo judging have revealed shortcomings precisely because of judges' lack of awareness in evaluating their work. [1].
The following methods were used during the study: theoretical analysis and generalization of literature sources and Internet data, pedagogical research, questionnaires, generalization of theoretical and practical experience of specialists in martial arts, direct estimation method and methods of mathematical statistics.
Practical judging is evaluated at judo competitions held on the territory of Ukraine. In order to identify the evaluation of the work of judo judges in the competitions according to the criteria, a questionnaire survey was conducted taking into account the priority factor of the advantage of one criterion over another. The study involved 30 judges: of them international category -3 men (10%); national category -15 people (50%) and the first category -12 people (40%).
To calculate the priority of the criteria, the method of expert evaluation of the quality of judging and the ranking method were used: with the help of a questionnaire with 50 criteria, the judges identified the 11 most important criteria for evaluating the work of judges. Each category of judges rated these criteria in order of importance; for each criterion we normalize the evaluation of each category of judges (the evaluation of the criterion is divided by the number of judicial categories), which shows the superiority of one criterion over another way of ranking; in relation to the amount of evaluation of criteria to judicial categories, we determine the rank of criteria, which indicates the attitude of judges to each criterion; determine the weighting factor (rank of the criterion to their sum), which determines the comparative importance of the criteria. The total amount of weight does not exceed one; the ratio of each weighting factor to the "« "weighting coefficients determines the priority of the criterion, which more objectively allows to assess the significance of each criterion and choose the best option for the priority of the criteria for evaluating the work of judo judges [4]. . According to the results of the work, the judges, in accordance with the evaluation criteria, were offered 50 questions on judging, from which 11 main criteria and abilities were formed and by ranking they ranked them according to priorities by rank of the judge category.
Thus, 1st place with a priority of 1.33 is occupied by professional ethics, discipline. Most experts stated that a judge must comply with professional standards of conduct, professional knowledge, be aware of the moral responsibility for the performance of professional duties and relations in the team.
2nd place with a priority of 1.66 is appearance. Experts noted that a judge must have forms of communication, elements of culture, judicial form, judo etiquette, etc.
3rd place with a priority of 3.66 is the knowledge of the rules and the ability to use them. Most experts noted that knowledge of the rules implies a large amount of knowledge (the judge must know hygiene, home care), etc.
4th place with a priority of 4.66 is the clarity of commands and gestures. Judges of various ranks noted that the clarity of commands and gestures speaks of the confidence of professionals in their actions and adds spectacle to the fight. If the judge is confident in his actions, then he has no questions.
5th place with a priority of 5.00 is moving on the tatami and choosing the right position. Most experts agree that the tatami referee should choose the optimal position to accurately assess the situation in the fight, peripheral review of the tatami to control the scoreboard, coach, side judges, commissioner and be responsible for the safety of athletes during the fight.
6th place with a priority of 6.67 is occupied by interaction with judges. Experts believe that for the pain of a quality fight, feedback should be established between the judges and the subordination of the opinions of the majority.
7th place with a priority of 7.66 is the ability to accurately and timely assess errors. Most experts believe that if an athlete sees a mistake in a fight, the judge should react immediately to this action.
8th place with a priority of 8.00 is the ability to accurately and timely assess technical actions. Most experts believe that when seeing the technical action of an athlete in a fight, the judge must react immediately to this action in advance.
9th place with a priority of 8.33 is psychological stability. Judges of various ranks believe that psychological resilience is the ability to mentally or emotionally cope with a critical situation or quickly return to baseline. This criterion refers to the abilities of the arbitrator, but it significantly affects the quality of refereeing because: psychological resilience is the ability to mentally or emotionally cope with a crisis or quickly return to pre-crisis conditions. Sustainability exists when a person uses "mental processes and behaviors to promote personal values and protect themselves from the potential negative effects of stressors. [5].
Factors influencing psychological stability include: long nature of competitions, frequent business trips, arbitrary alternation of competitions of different age groups and categories, presence of spectators and their violent reaction to refereeing, negative reaction of coaches and athletes to certain actions of the referee. does not obey the condition of a gradual increase in the degree of complexity, the systematic development of the state of training, which leads to differences in the level of refereeing and the judicial form of the arbitrator [4]: 10th place with a priority of 8.66 is the reaction to the situation. Experts believe that a judge should have an appropriate quick reaction to the athlete's action and the ability to make decisions quickly and independently. This criterion also applies to the . professional abilities of judo judges. In the judicial experience of 10 and more years the sports achievements of the judge recede into the background and speed and accuracy of reaction to a concrete situation become more important [6].
The referee must have a high and adequate level of awareness of the information about the match, quick reaction, distribution and switching of attention [5].
11th place with a priority of 10.33 is the ability to use technical means. In the modern technological development of professional spheres of society, a judo judge must have a basis for the use of technical means to ensure the competition.
Sport is an open system that exchanges technologies, information and materials with the external environment. If you apply the scientific method of abstraction, you can identify the most significant features of the video material used in the training process [7].
In (tab. 1) and ( fig. 1) the results of judges are presented, where 11 main criteria are ranked according to the evaluation indicators on the basis of the proposed 50 questions by three judicial categories. Thus, the results of ranking the criteria of quality of work of judges by priorities are summarized and summarized (tab. 2).  Due to this, the human brain can remember from 5 to 9 parameters at a time [8]. When evaluating the work of judo courts, up to 11 different criteria consisting of the sum of local criteria must be evaluated simultaneously. For example: discipline includes the behavior of a judge, awareness of moral responsibility for the performance of professional duties, relationships in the team and more.
Conclusions. Thus, the survey of judges' categories on the 50 proposed questions revealed the 11 most important criteria by which it is possible to evaluate the work of judges in competitions.
. As a result of questionnaires, methods of expert assessments, ranking, most experts identified three main indicators of evaluation of the work of judo judges and put in the first place -professional ethics and discipline; second place -appearance; third place -knowledge of the rules and the ability to use them.