FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alex Ong - Federal Way

n/a

Alyssa Shewey - ARHS

n/a

Amy McCormick - Tahoma High

Amy Handlan - Gig Harbor

Ana Wright - Renton HS

n/a

Andrew Buchan - Jefferson

n/a

Andrew Chadwell - Curtis

n/a

Andy Stuckey - TAFA

n/a

Ashley Skinner - Tahoma High

n/a

Austin Vaarvik - Gig Harbor

Autumn McCartan - Rogers

n/a

Ben Nichols - Newport

Bill Nicolay - Snohomish

n/a

Brent DeCracker - Cedar Park

n/a

Brian Arbogast - Seattle Academy

n/a

Brian Coyle - Kingston

Brian Humm - CKHS

n/a

Bryce Clark - CKHS

n/a

Chalen Kelly - CKHS

n/a

Chris Coovert - Gig Harbor

Chris Coovert, Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA Coached LD: 17 years Coached CX: 12 years Competed in LD: 4 years Competed in NPDA: 2 years LD Paradigm: I have been competing in, judging and coaching Lincoln Douglas debate for over twenty years. I have seen a lot of changes, some good, some not so good. This is what you should know<a href="http://wiki.cgm.ucdavis.edu/groups/mah01/wiki/5dbc6/All_about_lego.html">.</a> I will evaluate the round based on the framework provided by the debaters. The affirmative needs to establish a framework (usually a value and criterion) and then show why based on the framework, the resolution is true. The negative should either show why the resolution is not true under that framework or provide a competing framework which negates. My stock paradigm is what most people now call truth testing: the aff's burden is to prove the resolution true and the negatives is to prove it false. I will default to this absent another framework being established in the round. If both debaters agree that I should evaluate as a policymaker, I am able to do that and will. If you both put me in some other mode, that is reasonable as well. If there is an argument, however, between truth testing and another way of looking at the round the higher burden of proof will be on the debater attempting the shift away from truth testing. As far as specific arguments go. 1. I find topicality arguments generally do not apply in Lincoln Douglas debate. If the affirmative is not dealing with the resolution, then they are not meeting their burden to prove the resolution true. This is the issue, not artificial education or abuse standards. I have voted on T in the past, but I think there are more logical ways to approach these arguments. 2. I find the vast majority of theory arguments to be very poorly run bastardizations of policy theory that do not really apply to LD. 3. I have a strong, strong, bias against debaters using theory shells as their main offensive weapon in rounds when the other debater is running stock, predictable cases. I am open to theory arguments against abusive positions, but I want you to debate the resolution, not how we should debate. 4. You need to keep site of the big picture. Impact individual arguments back to framework. Finally, I am a flow judge. I will vote on the arguments. That said, I prefer to see debaters keep speeds reasonable, especially in the constructives. You don’t have to be conversational, but I want to be able to make out individual words and get what you are saying. It is especially important to slow down a little bit when reading lists of framework or theory arguments that are not followed by cards. I will tell you if you are unclear. CX Paradigm I have not judged very much CX lately, but I still do coach it and judge it occasionally. I used to consider myself a policy maker, but I am probably open enough to critical arguments that this is not completely accurate anymore. At the same time, I am not Tab. I don't think any judge truly is. I do enter the room with some knowledge of the world and I have a bias toward arguments that are true and backed by logic. In general: 1. I will evaluate the round by comparing impacts unless you convince me to do otherwise. 2. I am very open to K's that provide real alternatives and but much less likely to vote on a K that provides no real alt. 3. If you make post-modern K arguments at mock speed and don't explain them to me, do not expect me to do the work for you. 4. I tend to vote on abuse stories on T more than competing interpretations. 5. I really hate theory debates. Please try to avoid them unless the other team leaves you no choice. 6. The way to win my ballot is to employ a logical, coherent strategy and provide solid comparison of your position to your opponents. I am able to flow fairly quickly, but I don't judge enough to keep up with the fastest teams. If I tell you to be clear or slow down please listen.

Christopher McCool - Ballard

Corey McCool - Annie Wright

n/a

Dave Carlson - Wenatchee

n/a

David Fulle - Seattle Academy

n/a

David Kinkley - UHS

n/a

David Moore - Kentlake

n/a

David Richter - Capital HS

n/a

David-Alex Lewis-Jimmerson - Peninsula

Dawna Lewis - Edmonds Heights

n/a

Deanna Carveth - Snohomish

n/a

Deb Symmons - Eastside Catholic

Derek Hanson - Kamiak

n/a

Eli Mallon - Annie Wright

n/a

Eric Hare - Snohomish

n/a

Erica Trotter - Gig Harbor

Eryn Huntington - Eastside Catholic

Garrett Shiroma - AVI

n/a

Garrick Graham - Federal Way

n/a

Griffin Bell - Tahoma High

Hayk Saakian - AVI

n/a

Hemanth Srinivas - Sammamish

Background: <o:p></o:p> <ul> <li> Current head coach of Sammamish High School in Bellevue, WA<o:p></o:p></li> <li> Years Coaching: 7<o:p></o:p></li> <li> Years Judging: 8<o:p></o:p></li> <li> Years Debating: 4 (high school policy)</li> </ul>   I have been coaching and judging in the state of Washington extensively for the past 8 years and I am currently one of the coaches at Sammamish High School in Bellevue, WA. I’ve coached competitors locally in WA tournaments, at large national circuit tournaments including NFL Nationals and I’ve enjoyed judging many (likely in the hundreds) policy and LD rounds over that time.   Overall Philosophy: Debate is a competitive, educational activity that requires students to present, understand, strategize and refute various lines of reasoning, with an emphasis on clash and the exclusion of your opponent’s arguments. A judge is an impartial observer of the arguments being presented and should render a decision based on what is presented with as minimal intervention as possible. The less clash, the more judge intervention becomes necessary which could lead to more arbitrary decisions based on a judge’s preference and interpretations. As such, each debater should clearly argue the frameworks presented and how various arguments function underneath them.   Paradigm: In a nutshell, I am a tabula rasa judge and I work hard not to intervene in the round - I will go wherever the debaters take me and render my decision based on what is presented. Speed is usually not an issue, but that is not an excuse to clearly enunciate your words and be articulate. If you slur your words together, or chop off the ends of words to speak just a little faster, I will yell clear once or twice, but continue to do it and you risk me not understanding the point you are making which could cost you the ballot. Regardless of the nature of the argument you present, you must be persuasive and thorough. Fleeting, unwarranted, blatantly false (while I’m a blank slate for the arguments presented, I reserve the right to ignore obvious and patently wrong claims, interpretations, or facts) arguments will not be considered in the decision. The voters and story you pull through in your rebuttals need to be consistent, well explained, and should demonstrate an ability to crystallize the most important issues in the round. <o:p></o:p>   The Ballot:<o:p></o:p> To gain my ballot, clearly tell me which arguments you are winning and/or are most important, why you won those points and why that means you win the round. Every argument cannot be the most important in the round, and if you do choose to present 6 voters, provide analysis as to which ones I should look to first. Similarly, merely claiming “my opponent dropped points X, Y, Z and therefore I win” holds little weight with me – provide reasons why you win, not reasons why your opponent lost. The more direction and guidance you provide, the less I will need to intervene and come to my own conclusions. The ballot is not derived solely from the flow: the winner of the round isn’t simply the one with the most ink on paper and the one with the most extensions. I value quality of argumentation over quantity and I value crystallization in the rebuttals -a demonstration that you understand not only a specific argument and are able to summarize it, but also how all the arguments in a round interact and what that means for the position you are advocating.   Specific Arguments (both for LD and Policy): <o:p></o:p> Topicality – I default to reasonability, but I can be convinced to look at competing interpretations if necessary. I am not usually swayed by potential abuse – prove in-round abuse or some other tangible abuse scenario for me to really vote on this first (if that’s your standard). 5 rapid fire standards with little justification doesn’t convince me very much about the validity of your argument. Given the jurisdictional nature of T, I have a higher threshold for Negatives to really convince that the Affirmative is out of bounds and I should vote them down. <o:p></o:p>   Kritiks – I’m happy to hear this type argumentation and will certainly vote on it if warranted. I’m familiar with most major K’s out there, but I hold a high bar for the person presenting the argument to explain and crystalize their position. Don’t simply read me 8 pages of Zizek without analysis. If so, that shows you know how to read fast, but doesn’t show me anything about your understanding of him and the position you advocate. I expect good crystallization of these philosophical concepts in the rebuttals. <o:p></o:p>   Framework / Theory / Paradigm Shifts – Both are fine and expected if clearly warranted. Winning a framework goes a long way to winning the ballot, but it’s important to spell out how conflicting frameworks play against each other. If you shift my paradigm, that’s totally fine, but stay consistent in your argumentation after you shift it. Don’t adapt the strategy of throwing everything including the kitchen sink at the wall and seeing what sticks. The order of evaluation is theory and other jurisdictional arguments first (like Topicality), then framework / observations, then value / criterion / Ks followed by case /plan / contentions. <o:p></o:p>   Presumption –In policy, presumption flows Neg. I won’t vote for an Aff plan unless there’s a prima facie case and the Aff has proven the need for change. Therefore in the absence of all offense in a round, I will vote Neg and preserve the status quo. Also, in the absence of clear voters and a way of adjudicating the round, I default to a policymaker paradigm. In LD, there is no presumption, and in the absence of offense or clear voters, I default back to a fairly traditional stock issues judge (essentially answer whose contentions when measured through the value criterion, best uphold a value). <o:p></o:p>   RVIs – Similar to above, I’m happy to hear an RVI when warranted, but simply because you beat back a theory position does not lend itself directly to a RVI. Demonstrate an instance of actual abuse occurring in-round, or clearly explain the standard upon which you are resting the RVI, and if warranted enough, then I will vote on it. <o:p></o:p>   To be clear, I will let you tell me what to vote on and how to vote on it, but in the absence of all of this, I default to the roles described above. <o:p></o:p>   Other Things to Consider:<o:p></o:p> Delivery – While I find the delivery of your position important, it is not as important as the arguments themselves. I first and foremost will look to the arguments presented and will render a decision based on them, not on the presentation. I believe debate at its core is an exercise in argumentation (if you want to be critiqued primarily on delivery, go do IEs). That being said, if you’re incomprehensible or disorganized in how you state your position, you’ll not only likely lose the round, you’ll also get low speaker points. On the flip side, I give high marks to people who can not only make good arguments but sound good doing so.   <o:p></o:p> (Policy Specific) Tag Team – Keep it to a minimum in CX – I want to see each person be able to hold their own. No parroting of speeches; in other words, simply having one person stand up and repeat what his/her partner says isn’t convincing and reflects poorly on the team. Use extra downtime if necessary to figure out the contents of the speech.   <o:p></o:p> Speaker Points – There’s no set formula I use to give speaker points, but it’s rare that I give 30s. A 30 to me means you were pretty much perfect and one of the very best I’ve ever seen. Generally a 29+ means you did an outstanding job and I expect you to go deep in the tournament. My average is usually 27. Plus points for being clever, funny, respectful, and minus points for being rude, condescending or demeaning to your opponent.   <o:p></o:p> Evidence – If you want me to see a piece of evidence after the round, make a point to state that in your speech. I will call for evidence as I see fit. Sometimes it is necessary, especially if the debate is centered around a couple key arguments, other times it is not.    If you’ve read this far, congratulations! Hopefully this was helpful. If you still have questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts. When allowed, I try to disclose and provide some feedback to both sides, but when sometimes when a round is very close, I’ll need extra time to work through the issues. If that’s the case, come find me later and I’ll be happy to go over my decision with you. I look forward to judging your round!<o:p></o:p>

Hemanth Srinivas - Sammamish 2

Isaiah Parker - Jefferson

n/a

Jake Moorhead - Emerald Ridge

n/a

James Ganas - Eastside Catholic

Jane McCoy - Eastside Catholic

Please don't shake my hand because it is flu season. I do not like a lot of speed. I like a good criterion and value clash between the two sides. I like real world examples. I will vote on clear voters emphasized especially in the last two speeches.

Jedd Bingham - Federal Way

n/a

Jeff McCormick - Kingston

Jeffrey Richards - Sammamish

Background: I was a policy debater for Dimond High School in Anchorage, AK; in college, I debated in CEDA 4 years for Northwest Nazarene University in Nampa, ID. I have coached policy, LD, and I.E.'s at Meridian High School in Boise, ID and currently at Sammamish High School in Seattle, WA. I have had two textbooks on competitive debate published by National Textbook Company (now McGraw-Hill): Moving from Policy to Value Debate and Debating by Doing. I have coached LD competitors at the NFL Nationals tournament and my students placed 2nd and 3rd at the Washington State Debate championships in 2012. I have judged many policy and LD high school debate rounds locally in WA and at national circuit tournaments.   Approach: I see competitive debate as a strategic activity where both sides attempt to exclude the other’s arguments and keep them from functioning. As such, I expect both debaters to argue the evaluative frameworks that apply in this particular round and how they function with regard to the positions that have been advanced.   My Ballot: The better you access my ballot, the more you keep me from intervening. You access my ballot best when you clearly and simply tell me (1) what argument you won, (2) why you won it, and (3) why that means you win the round. Don’t under-estimate the importance of #3: It would be a mistake to assume that all arguments are voters and that winning the argument means you win the round. You need to clearly provide the comparative analysis by which arguments should be weighed or you risk the round by leaving that analysis in my hands. I will not look to evaluate every nuance of the line-by-line; it is your responsibility to tell me which arguments are most relevant and significant to the decision.   Let’s use Reverse Voters as an example. Some judges disfavor these arguments, but in front of me, they are perfectly acceptable. However, the fact that you beat back a theory argument from your opponent does not, in and of itself, provide you access to an RVI. To win an RVI posted against a theory position generally requires that you demonstrate that your opponent ran the argument in bad faith (e.g., only as a time suck, without intent to go for the argument), and that the argument caused actual harm in the round. When it comes to potential abuse, I tend to agree with the Supreme Court's view in FCC v. Pacifica: "Invalidating any rule on the basis of its hypothetical application to situations not before the Court is 'strong medicine' to be applied 'sparingly and only as a last resort.'" You certainly can argue for a different evaluative framework for the RVI, but you cannot assume that I already have one.   Think, before you start your rebuttal(s). Ask yourself, what do I have to win in order to win the round? Whatever the answer to that question is, that is where you start and end your speech.   Paradigm: The most important thing I can do in any debate round is to critique the arguments presented in the round. As such, I consider myself very liberal about what you do in a debate round, but conservative about how you do it. What that means for debaters is that you can run just about any argument you like, but you will need to be persuasive and thorough about how you do it. If you run theory, for example, you will need to understand the jurisdictional nature of theory arguments and either provide a compelling argument why the violation is so critical that dropping the debater is the only appropriate remedy or a convincing justification as to why theory should have a low threshold. I try very hard not to inject myself into the debate, and I do my best to allow the speakers to develop what they think are the important issues.   Additional Items to Consider: 1.Speed is fine, but don’t chop off the ends of your words, or I will have trouble understanding you. Rapid speech is no excuse for failing to enunciate and emphasize arguments you want to be sure I get on my flow. <o:p></o:p>   2.Argue competing paradigms. This is true in every form of debate. I am not married to any single framework, but too often, the underlying assumptions of how I need to view the round to give your arguments more impact than those of your opponent go unstated, much less debated. Tell me WHY your argument matters most. It’s okay to shift my paradigm to better access your impacts; just tell me why I should do so and how. <o:p></o:p>   3.Presumption is a framework issue but is given short shrift almost every time I hear it argued. My default position is to be skeptical of any proposition until there is good and sufficient reason to accept it. That means presumption generally lies against the resolution until the affirmative presents a prima facie case to accept it. If you want to shift presumption so that it lies in a different position (with the prevailing attitude, in favor of fundamental human rights, etc.), then be sure to justify the shift in mindset and clearly explain whether that means we err on the side of the resolution being true or false.<o:p></o:p>

Jeffrey Richards - Sammamish 2

Background: I was a policy debater for Dimond High School in Anchorage, AK; in college, I debated in CEDA 4 years for Northwest Nazarene University in Nampa, ID. I have coached policy, LD, and I.E.'s at Meridian High School in Boise, ID and currently at Sammamish High School in Seattle, WA. I have had two textbooks on competitive debate published by National Textbook Company (now McGraw-Hill): Moving from Policy to Value Debate and Debating by Doing. I have coached LD competitors at the NFL Nationals tournament and my students placed 2nd and 3rd at the Washington State Debate championships in 2012. I have judged many policy and LD high school debate rounds locally in WA and at national circuit tournaments. Approach: I see competitive debate as a strategic activity where both sides attempt to exclude the other’s arguments and keep them from functioning. As such, I expect both debaters to argue the evaluative frameworks that apply in this particular round and how they function with regard to the positions that have been advanced. My Ballot: The better you access my ballot, the more you keep me from intervening. You access my ballot best when you clearly and simply tell me (1) what argument you won, (2) why you won it, and (3) why that means you win the round. Don’t under-estimate the importance of #3: It would be a mistake to assume that all arguments are voters and that winning the argument means you win the round. You need to clearly provide the comparative analysis by which arguments should be weighed or you risk the round by leaving that analysis in my hands. I will not look to evaluate every nuance of the line-by-line; it is your responsibility to tell me which arguments are most relevant and significant to the decision. Let’s use Reverse Voters as an example. Some judges disfavor these arguments, but in front of me, they are perfectly acceptable. However, the fact that you beat back a theory argument from your opponent does not, in and of itself, provide you access to an RVI. To win an RVI posted against a theory position generally requires that you demonstrate that your opponent ran the argument in bad faith (e.g., only as a time suck, without intent to go for the argument), and that the argument caused actual harm in the round. When it comes to potential abuse, I tend to agree with the Supreme Court's view in FCC v. Pacifica: "Invalidating any rule on the basis of its hypothetical application to situations not before the Court is 'strong medicine' to be applied 'sparingly and only as a last resort.'" You certainly can argue for a different evaluative framework for the RVI, but you cannot assume that I already have one. Think, before you start your rebuttal(s). Ask yourself, what do I have to win in order to win the round? Whatever the answer to that question is, that is where you start and end your speech. Paradigm: The most important thing I can do in any debate round is to critique the arguments presented in the round. As such, I consider myself very liberal about what you do in a debate round, but conservative about how you do it. What that means for debaters is that you can run just about any argument you like, but you will need to be persuasive and thorough about how you do it. If you run theory, for example, you will need to understand the jurisdictional nature of theory arguments and either provide a compelling argument why the violation is so critical that dropping the debater is the only appropriate remedy or a convincing justification as to why theory should have a low threshold. I try very hard not to inject myself into the debate, and I do my best to allow the speakers to develop what they think are the important issues. Additional Items to Consider: 1.Speed is fine, but don’t chop off the ends of your words, or I will have trouble understanding you. Rapid speech is no excuse for failing to enunciate and emphasize arguments you want to be sure I get on my flow.<o:p></o:p> 2.Argue competing paradigms. This is true in every form of debate. I am not married to any single framework, but too often, the underlying assumptions of how I need to view the round to give your arguments more impact than those of your opponent go unstated, much less debated. Tell me WHY your argument matters most. It’s okay to shift my paradigm to better access your impacts; just tell me why I should do so and how.<o:p></o:p> 3.Presumption is a framework issue but is given short shrift almost every time I hear it argued. My default position is to be skeptical of any proposition until there is good and sufficient reason to accept it. That means presumption generally lies against the resolution until the affirmative presents a prima facie case to accept it. If you want to shift presumption so that it lies in a different position (with the prevailing attitude, in favor of fundamental human rights, etc.), then be sure to justify the shift in mindset and clearly explain whether that means we err on the side of the resolution being true or false.<o:p></o:p>

Jessica Buchan - Renton HS

n/a

Jill Lopez - Jefferson

n/a

Jim Anderson - Capital HS

n/a

John Turner - Jefferson

n/a

Jordan Hudgens - Bridge

tl;dr: Make extensions when appropriate, clearly weigh arguments (direct comparisons and take-outs are lovely), and illustrate how you win the standard debate and what that means for your arguments. The 1AC and 1NC are certainly crucial, but they are (in my mind) stepping stones to the more nuanced and particular aspects of the debate. It all comes down to the 1AR/1NR/2AR, explication of warrants/impacts, link analysis, etc. Very basically I want to see how you're winning the debate, why that's true (warrant), and what that means for the round/value debate (impact). I'm a very flow oriented judge, and I flow on my computer. As such, it is difficult to lose me on the flow...with some exceptions. The best debaters know how to help the judge navigate the flow, and understand that proper labeling and communicating with the judge are essential towards that end. Crystallization helps, but you shouldn't resort to rehashing your argument at the end of a speech simply to fill up time. The state of value debate in Lincoln-Douglas is, in a word, defunct. 90% of the values at present are morality (or a permutation, such as moral permissibility), and the debates are taking place largely about what type of morality we're using and the advantages/disadvantages of each. You are certainly welcome to use another value; however, if you are going to offer justice, orsocial welfare, or something of that nature, it should be clearly demarcated from morality (uniquely good or valuable). Arguments for why 'your value should be preferred' should be considerably more substantial than, say, 'life is a prerequisite for morality!' if you wish them to be taken seriously in the round. Link into your standard, or give me clear weighing and re-emphasis of your standard in your final speech! You don't need to constantly reference it, but it should be brought up at some point. Theory and weird args are fine; in fact, I enjoy interesting philosophical viewpoints a great deal, provided they are warranted and clearly argued. I think that processual debates can be very intriguing, and consider theory to be either a check on abuse or kritik of the current debate round (perhaps the other person being deliberately obfuscating, etc). I consider RVIs a de-facto option for the affirmative, though the negative can certainly present arguments for why the affirmative doesn't get an RVI. The threshold for winning an RVI, though, is extremely high. I'm not certain that going all-in on an RVI in front of me is an effective strategy, and I find that debaters are better served by utilizing imeets or counter interps to handle theory. I've found that a lot of the theory debates can become very unclear for a judge to evaluate on solely, so if you don't think you can convincingly win on theory, I recommend not trying for the (2AR) RVI. Getting a 30: speak clearly (not necessarily slowly, but I expect above-average intelligibility), don't make drops (or be incredibly efficient with cross applications), use all your speech time, and, most crucially, THOROUGHLY DOMINATE YOUR OPPONENT.I don't care that much about your body language (eye contact, inflection, etc. are good to have but I'm not going to punish you beyond speaker points on what may be simply bad habits), but I do care that you speak intelligibly, whether it's ludicrously fast or unbelievably slow. Being courteous is very important.

Julia Seidman - Mercer Island

Julian Gaspay - Jefferson

n/a

Julie Jones - Emerald Ridge

n/a

Karen Roper - Interlake

Kaveh Dilmaghani - Tahoma High

Kevin Kindelberger - OHHS

n/a

Kevin Mandt - Emerald Ridge

n/a

Kevin Bank - Seattle Academy

n/a

Krista Wright - TAFA

n/a

Lainie Tomlin - Sammamish

Lance McMillan - Peninsula

Lasica Crane - Kingston

I am the head coach at Kingston High School and have been involved with the program since 2007. In judging LD: I hate speed when it affects your ability to speak clearly. I want to hear what you are claiming and I like to be able to understand and assess what your arguments are. I love philosophy so I don't mind hearing interesting philosophical arguments. I don't hate theory, although I would rather hear you discuss the actual resolution unless there is a compelling reason to run a theory shell. I'm pretty flexible really. Speed is my main annoyance. I like some clash. I pay attention to how you speak. Avoid using filler words.

Leanne Hawkins - Trojans

n/a

Levi Freeman - Gig Harbor

Linda Parker - Jefferson

n/a

Linda Youngchild - Peninsula

Lisa Stroming - Wenatchee

n/a

Lisa Weber - Newport

Lisanne Bannister - Curtis

n/a

Lorraine Hirakawa - Emerald Ridge

n/a

Mark Davis - ARHS

n/a

Mary Beth Holt Perkins - Eastside Catholic

n/a

Maryna Welker - GPS

n/a

Matt Ockinga - Wenatchee

n/a

Matthew Witek - Rogers

n/a

Megan Vujica - GPS

n/a

Mia Gross - TBHS

n/a

Michelle Hontz - Jefferson

n/a

Mike Fitzgerald - Snohomish

n/a

Mr. Weier - Kentlake

n/a

Noel Rivera - TBHS

n/a

Piper Ragland - Kingston

Rebar Niemi - Bridge

Rebecca Swanson - Renton HS

n/a

Sam Schumer - Jefferson

n/a

Scott Hughes - Seattle Academy

n/a

Scott Mercer - Tahoma High

Setty Duddu - Capital HS

n/a

Shaun Leibfried - Sammamish 2

Shea Eakes - Trojans

n/a

Sheri Ahlheim - Peninsula

Steve Jones - SeattleAcademyB

n/a

Susan Mohn - Interlake

Susan Mohn - Newport

Tammy Stewart - UHS

n/a

Taylor Connelly - GPS

n/a

Tim Fielden - Seattle Academy

n/a

Tim McManemy - TBHS

n/a

Vincent Warren - Renton HS

n/a

2012 Federal Way Invitational