Loading...
Loading...
The Route Judge's Complete Guide — Tops, Zones, Attempts, and Everything in Between
Last updated: February 28, 2026
Bouldering judging is among the most objective roles in competitive sport. There are no points for style, no panel of opinions — a route judge simply determines three things per attempt: Did the climber control the zone hold? Did they control the top hold? How many attempts did they take? That apparent simplicity hides a range of edge cases around what "control" really means, when an attempt begins, and how to handle disputed decisions. This guide covers every aspect of the route judge's role, from pre-competition briefings through digital scoring workflows, so you can officiate with confidence at any level of competition.
Unlike artistic or judged sports such as figure skating or gymnastics, bouldering judging is binary and objective at its core. The route judge does not assign a score between 1 and 10, does not evaluate technique, and does not have personal aesthetic preferences that influence the outcome. The question is always the same: did the climber control the designated hold?
However, the word "control" carries significant weight. A climber who slaps a hold and immediately falls is not the same as one who grips it, stabilises their body, and then falls on the next move. Determining that distinction in real time — sometimes from an awkward viewing angle, sometimes on a dynamic or overhung wall — is the genuine skill of experienced route judging.
Bouldering judging also differs from lead climbing judging in that there is no continuous observation of progress from the ground up. A lead judge tracks a climber's highest point and evaluates a single fall. A route judge on a boulder problem may observe six to ten rapid attempts in a four-minute window, must correctly register the zone hold each time it is reached, and must maintain an accurate count of attempts throughout.
The result is a discipline where accuracy and concentration are the primary judge competencies, rather than subjective taste. This makes bouldering judging particularly well-suited to digital scoring systems, where inputs are validated and transmitted in real time.
A route judge (also called a problem judge) is assigned to a single bouldering problem for the duration of a round. They remain at that problem for every athlete's turn and are solely responsible for recording the outcome of that problem for every competitor.
Core responsibilities of a route judge:
Athletes have their own set of rules covering isolation, observation, and coaching restrictions. For the athlete's perspective, see our Bouldering Competition Rules for Climbers guide.
The chief judge is the senior official for the entire competition. While route judges operate problem-by-problem, the chief judge has oversight of the event as a whole and is the final decision-maker on any disputed or ambiguous outcome.
Key chief judge responsibilities:
Route judges should never hesitate to escalate an unclear situation to the chief judge. It is always better to pause briefly and get the right answer than to guess and enter an incorrect result into the scoring system.
A Top is awarded when the climber successfully controls the designated final hold of the problem. The operative word in every relevant ruleset is "control" — and understanding what control means (and what it does not mean) is the most important skill a route judge develops.
The IFSC standard for a controlled top hold:
The climber must reach the top hold with both hands simultaneously (unless the hold is specifically designated as a one-hand top, which must be communicated in the pre-competition briefing and marked clearly) and demonstrate a stable, controlled position. "Stable" means the climber is not in active dynamic motion — their body has momentarily ceased its trajectory, the hold is gripped rather than touched or slapped, and the position is sustainable even if only for a fraction of a second.
Common edge cases a route judge must distinguish:
When in genuine doubt, route judges should lean toward not awarding the top and immediately notify the chief judge so that video review (if available) can resolve the dispute.
For details on how tops factor into the full ranking system — including how attempt counts break ties — see our guide on How Bouldering Is Scored.
| Situation | Ruling |
|---|---|
| Both hands contact hold, body pauses | Top — control established |
| One hand slaps hold at apex of jump, body continues falling | No Top — review with chief judge if close call |
| Both hands touch hold but second hand slides off immediately | No Top — contact without control |
| Climber grabs hold, momentarily stable, then falls on next move | Top — control was established before the subsequent movement |
| Climber touches hold with one hand, problem is a standard two-hand top | No Top — must match both hands |
The zone hold is a single designated intermediate hold, typically marked with a distinctive tape colour different from the hold marking tape. It is usually positioned at roughly the midpoint of the problem or at the crux sequence — the point where many climbers will fall and the performance gap begins to separate the field.
The same controlled hold standard that applies to the top also applies to the zone. The climber must demonstrate a stable, intentional grip on the zone hold — not merely make incidental contact while moving through the problem.
Zone-specific judging considerations:
| Situation | Ruling |
|---|---|
| Climber grips zone hold, body stable, then continues upward | Zone awarded — control established |
| Climber brushes zone hold while moving dynamically through section | No Zone — contact without control |
| Climber controls zone hold then falls on next move above | Zone awarded — control was established |
| Climber lunges past zone hold and contacts it during a fall | No Zone — no stable moment at the hold |
Counting attempts accurately is one of the most straightforward — and most commonly debated — aspects of route judging. The rule is simple in principle: an attempt begins the moment both feet leave the ground (or the designated starting position).
The IFSC definition in practice:
Most bouldering problems have designated start holds for both hands and feet, marked with tape. An attempt is counted the moment the climber commits their body weight off the ground — specifically, the moment both feet are no longer in contact with the floor or starting position. Any activity before this point is not an attempt.
What does NOT count as an attempt:
What DOES count as an attempt:
The "step-off" scenario: A climber who steps onto the starting foothold with both feet and immediately steps back without moving their hands upward has still initiated an attempt. This is a frequent source of confusion for newer judges. The attempt counter should be incremented as soon as both feet leave the floor, not when (or if) the climber actually falls.
Reading preparation vs. commitment: Climbers are permitted to touch start holds with their hands while their feet are still on the floor. This is not an attempt — it is preparation. Route judges must be attentive to the exact moment both feet leave the floor to start the attempt count at the right moment.
| Action | Attempt |
|---|---|
| Touching start holds with hands, feet on floor | No — preparation only |
| Both feet leave floor, climber immediately steps back down | Yes — attempt counted |
| Climber steps onto wall, falls at first move | Yes — attempt counted |
| Climber brushes holds while standing on floor | No — floor contact maintained |
| One foot on starting foothold, other foot on floor | No — both feet must leave ground |
The traditional workflow for bouldering judging involved route judges marking paper scorecards — one per athlete per problem — and handing them to data-entry operators who manually typed results into a spreadsheet. This system is slow, error-prone, and creates a significant lag between the final athlete completing their time window and the live results being available to coaches, athletes, and spectators.
How JudgeMate changes the workflow:
With JudgeMate, each route judge operates a digital device (tablet or smartphone) assigned to their specific problem. As each athlete completes their time window, the route judge enters directly into the app:
The system validates the input (flagging impossible combinations such as a top without a zone on standard problems), immediately transmits the data to the central scoring server, and updates the live leaderboard in real time. Coaches and athletes with event access can see results update within seconds of a judge's input.
Advantages over paper-based systems:
For route judges, digital scoring reduces cognitive overhead — there is no need to manage paper cards, pens, or tally sheets. The judge's full attention can remain on observing the climber.
For a complete comparison of judging requirements across IFSC isolation, scramble, and circuit formats, see our Bouldering Competition Formats guide.
Here is a step-by-step account of what a route judge experiences during a typical bouldering finals round, using a fictional event with six finalists.
Morning: Arrival and Briefing
The route judge arrives at the venue 90 minutes before the round begins. The chief judge runs a briefing with all route judges and the head routesetter. Each judge is shown their assigned problem, the designated start holds, the zone hold (marked with orange tape), and the top hold (marked with red tape). The chief judge clarifies that the top hold requires both hands matched and a stable body position. The zone hold is a single crimp; the judge is told that the adjacent foothold does NOT count as a zone — only the marked crimp.
The route judge walks to Problem 3 and tests their viewing angle. They position themselves slightly to the left of the fall zone, which gives them a clear sightline to both the zone crimp at the third clip height and the top sloper above. The judge calibrates their JudgeMate device and confirms it is synced to the correct problem and round.
Athlete 1 — Clean Flash
The first finalist leaves isolation, observes all problems during the two-minute observation window, and arrives at Problem 3. She steps onto the starting footholds, establishes both hands on the start holds, and begins climbing. She moves smoothly through the zone section — the judge confirms her right hand grips the orange-taped crimp and her body pauses for half a second before she continues upward. Zone: confirmed. She reaches the top sloper, matches both hands, and stabilises. Top: confirmed. The judge inputs: Zone = yes, Top = yes, Attempts = 1. A flash.
Athlete 2 — Controversial Top Call
The second finalist has a powerful, dynamic style. On his third attempt, he launches for the top sloper in a big dynamic movement. His right hand contacts the hold at the apex of the movement. The judge observes: the hand grips the hold, the body continues moving upward slightly, and then the climber swings off. Was control established? The judge's honest assessment: no stable moment was visible. The climber calls to the chief judge for review. The chief judge watches the available replay. The ruling: no top — the grip was not sufficient to constitute control. The judge inputs: Zone = yes, Top = no, Attempts (to zone) = 2, Total attempts = 6.
Athlete 3 — Zone But No Top, Multiple Attempts
The third finalist is clearly struggling with the crux above the zone. She reaches the zone hold cleanly on her second attempt and holds it for two seconds before falling on the next move. Attempts 3 through 8 all result in falls below or at the zone — but the zone is already awarded after attempt 2. The judge tracks that on attempts 3-8 she does not re-control the zone hold (she contacts it but doesn't stabilise), so the zone tally remains at 1. At the end of her time window, the judge inputs: Zone = yes, Top = no, Attempts (to zone) = 2, Total attempts = 8.
End of Round: Data Submission
After the sixth finalist completes their time window, the judge reviews their six sets of inputs on the JudgeMate device and confirms they are accurate. The chief judge's display shows the live leaderboard updating as judges across all four problems finalise their entries. The results are published within two minutes of the last athlete finishing.