Well I think it's awesome that these guys are willing to do all that work and yes, GM feedback would be great. I'm just saying that if, or when, I get a beer to advance, I'd be perfectly happy just to know where it placed.
That's effectively what MCAB did this year. Their judging sheets were smaller than the average grocery store receipt.
I don't understand how somebody even thought that made sense to put on a score sheet. When judging against a detailed criteria, like the BJCP guide, the score should reflect how well the beer compared to the criteria set out and nothing else. A judge should not be making up new criteria.
Keep in mind that this comment was in the overall impression section and on the checklist scoresheet (and Final Round of NHC). The whole point of that section is overall drinkability and character. As I said, if I was going to question anything, it would be why they dinged the Flavor so much (12/20) in comparison to their OI scores (7/10 and 8/10 with one checking the 'I would drink a pint of this' box and the other checking the 'I would pay for this beer' box).
It doesn't even make sense to talk about intangibility and beer. Beer is judged on sensory perception alone. If a character about the beer is intangible--cannot be grasped--then it is either not present or impossible to judge. This is somebody who has spent too much time watching ESPN talking heads blabber on about intangibles with sports players.
Intangibles come up all the time when talking about judging beer. Drinkability and enjoyment are the biggest intangible factors. Generally speaking I don't think judges should judge styles they know they don't enjoy, but even in styles that I enjoy, I've encountered examples that were just a little lacking overall. Granted, usually when that happens, it's on a regular scoresheet and I have more time and space to explain, but my point is that there are definitely intangibles involved in judging beer, otherwise the OI section wouldn't be there.
I suspect the judge thought this was a keen way to explain that the beer was flat flavor-wise or lacked complexity that would have given a better impression. Saying it lacked intangibility is worthless to the brewer. The judge should have mentioned with specificity what was lacking.
I suspect it's more my original impression that the beer just experienced a little extra oxidation due to heat in transit.
But like I said, in this case, time and space don't allow for much specificity. If I thought there was a chance Ted remembered the beer, I'd probably email him about it, but more for what about the Flavor was different compared to OI.
It's judging like that which makes me feel comfortable not entering competitions.
Again, don't forget that we're talking about Final Round NHC. There are certainly limitations on the format that you are not going to encounter in the run of the mill competition.