INTERNATIONAL LIFE SAVING FEDERATIONSIMULATED EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMPETITION (SERC)

Revised – April 12, 2016

COACHES, COMPETITORS, JUDGES,AND TECHICAL OFFICIALS GUIDE2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Purpose3

Introduction

3

Definition of Terms

3

Marking System

4

Rank Marking Scale

4

Weighting Factor

5

Overview of Weighting Factor for Judge Scoring Sheet

5

Sample Scenerio Design with Weighting Factors

9Judge Scoring Sheets

9

Pool Set-up, Equipment, and Victims

10

Overall - Chief Judge Scoring Sheet

11

Non-Swimmer - Judge Scoring Sheet

12

Weak Swimmer - Judge Scoring Sheet

13

Unconscious/non-breathing Victim - Judge Scoring Sheet

14

Injuried Swimmer - Judge Scoring Sheet

15

Bystander – Judge Scoring Sheet16

3
Simulated Emergency Response Competition
COACHES, COMPETITORS, JUDGES, AND TECHNCIAL OFFICIALS GUIDEPURPOSEThe purpose of this document is to provide coaches, competitors, judges and technicalofficials with: A broad understanding of the principles of judging the Simulated Emergency
Response Competition (SERC) event.
 The structure and content of judging sheets aligned to the priorities and principles ofrescue outlined in the current edition of the ILS Rule Book.
INTRODUCTION
The SERC tests the initiative, judgment, knowledge, and abilities of four lifesavers who act
as a team. The team under the direction of a team leader – apply lifesaving skills in asimulated emergency situation unknown to them prior to the start. This competition is judged
within a two-minute time limit and all teams respond to the same scenario and are evaluatedby the same judges. Every effort will be made to ensure that the scenario is executed in thesame manner for every team.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Bystander means a person who role plays as a trained or untrained individual who may
assist in the rescue under the direction of the competitor.
Victim means a person who role plays as a victim type such as; weak or tired, injured,
unconscious, or non-swimmer.
Rescue means to assess the situation, plan a course of action to overcome the problem,
perform actions to effect the rescue, and provide aftercare to the victims.
Rescue aid means to select an appropriate equipment item that is available in thecompetition area and is able to be utilized effectively during the rescue.
Securing means to make safe from imminent danger with a rescue technique such as athrowing line/rope, reaching pole/object, throwing a ring/buoyant aid, craft/boat, support witha tow/carry.
Landing means to safely remove the victim from the water and position them safely on thebeach, dock, or deck.

4
MARKING SYSTEM
Overall a weighted marking system is used however the judges use direct marking and theweighting is allied by using a weighting factor during the final results collation.
The direct marking component requires each judge to observe their section and allocate up
to 10 marks in each of the five sections to provide a relatively objective basis for judging.
This enables each judge to provide a consistent score from 0-10 in all sections of the judge
scoring sheets to ensure that a consistent value is applied to each team performances.
The relative merit / value of the rescuer performance in each section is accounted for by theapplication of a weighting factor to the raw score in each component in that section. This
provides high scores for a rescue performance requiring a greater degree of skill, judgment
or priority. The Scenario Design Team, approved by the Chief Referee, determines theweighting factors based on the specific test elements which are then factored into the final
event recording sheets. Refer to the Weighting Factor section below.
The judge scoring sheets is separated into essential elements grouped into 5 sections with
10 marks assigned to each section with a raw total of 50 marks.
Judges should avoid using a pass fail criteria based on their lifesaving principles and may
use the full range of marks available. Therefore, when allocating marks judges must assess
the competitor’s actions when rescuing a victim. They must analyze the rescue performanceand compare it with each of the other teams so that ultimately the performances are ranked
by their comparative judging.
It is important that judges ensure that their allocation of marks will rank the team’s
performance in a consistent manner throughout the whole event and that those who competeearlier in an event are not disadvantaged by an overly cautious allocation of marks. This will
not occur providing the allocation of marks is consistently applied based on performancefrom the first to last team.
Judges need to be aware that some teams may have one competitor dealing with a victim
where other teams may have several different competitors’ dealing with the victim. To
ensure a consistent measure of the team performance the focus needs to remain on thevictim to ensure an on-going evaluation of the victim’s condition, and the actions performed,
throughout the rescue.
RANK MARKING SCALE
The following ranking scale provides an overview and acts as a guide for judges whenallocating marks. Increments of 0.5 can be allocated by the judge.
Excellent10

Very Good

7.5-9.5

Satisfactory

5.0-7.0

Weak

2.5-4.5

Poor

0-2.0

WEIGHTING FACTOR
In order to recognize and acknowledge that some victim rescues require a greater degree ofskill and judgment, a weighting factor or multiplier is applied to areas of the judge scoring
sheets. Note: This enables a competitor to receive a higher score for the performance of
rescues with a higher weighting factor linked to the priorities and principles of the rescue.

5
These weighting factors are applied using an electronic recording spread sheet and thecalculations are reflected in the final score for the victim. The Judges to gives a mark out of
10 for each performance criteria and the weighting factor accounts for the high, moderate or
low degree of difficulty.
A weighting factor matrix guide is outlined in the tables below to allow for the use of a range
depending on the position and type of victim. The weighting factor is set by the scenario
designer and approved by the Chief Referee based on the degree of difficulty to rescue thevictims. This allows flexibility between two similar victims with one being more difficult to
rescue than the other.
OVERVIEW OF WEIGHTING FACTOR FOR CHIEF JUDGE SCORE SHEET
Performance Criteria

Weighting Factor/

ASSESSMENT

Degree of Difficulty

Significant barrier to assess and identify victim
priorities (distance, obstacles, etc.)

1.5Moderate barrier to assess and identify victim
priorities (distance, obstacles, etc.)

1.25

Minor barrier to assess and identify victim priorities(distance, obstacles, etc.)

1

Rationale: The Team Leaders needs to assess the victim priorities, redirects ordispatches rescuers as the priorities are identified or changed.
Performance Criteria

Weighting Factor/

CONTROL OVER THE SCENERIO

Degree of Difficulty

Significant limitations that provide difficulty forteams to maintain safety (lack of safety equipment,
dangers, etc.)

1.5Moderate environment, equipment, condition
limitations to maintain safety (lack of safety
equipment, dangers, etc.)

1.25

Minor environment, equipment, condition
limitations to maintain safety (lack of safety
equipment, dangers, etc.)

1

Rationale: Control over the scenario is essential, monitoring safety and environmental
conditions, approaches may need to be adjusted to ensure the lowest risk to therescuers.
OVERVIEW OF WEIGHTING FACTOR FOR JUDGE SCORING SHEETS
Performance Criteria

Weighting Factor/

COMMUNICATION

Degree of Difficulty

Significant interference to communication due tosize and layout or dimension of the area, noise,
etc.

1.5

Moderate interference to communication due to

1.25

6
size and layout or dimension of the area, noise,
etc.
Minor interference to communication due to sizeand layout or dimension of the area, noise, etc.

1

Rationale: Interferences in communication due to size and layout or dimension of thearea may require adjustments to the methods of communication to be effective.
Performance Criteria

Weighting Factor/

SEARCH

Degree of Difficulty

Victim is significantly hidden from view andsearching

1.5

Victim is moderately hidden from view or searching

1.25

Victim is minimally hidden from view or searching1

Rationale: Locating victims can be a challenge if the victims are hidden from view
and/or observed by equipment or other victims. This criteria reflects the difficulty
associated with searching victims in these circumstances.
Performance Criteria

Weighting Factor/

TEAMWORK

Degree of Difficulty

Teamwork without bystanders/victim assistance or
bystanders are uncooperative/distracting

1.5

Teamwork with reluctant bystanders/victim
assistance

1.25

Teamwork with cooperative bystander/victim
assistance1

Rationale: Teamwork is improved when bystanders/victims are cooperative andavailable noting that clear concise instructions need to be given. Teams need to listen
and respond effectively when working as a team.

7
OVERVIEW OF WEIGHTING FACTOR FOR JUDGE SCORING SHEETS
Performance Criteria

Weighting Factor/

VICTIM RECOGNITION, APPROACH

Degree of Difficulty

Victim far from landing i.e. 15m+

1.5

Victim near to landing i.e. 6-10m

1.25

Victim close to landing or on deck i.e. 5m

1

Rationale: It is more difficult to recognize victims that are further away from thedeck/dock or entry / exit point and it takes more time to rescue them. Therefore victims
that are at a greater distance would receive a higher weighting factor.
Performance Criteria

Weighting Factor/

RESCUE

Degree of Difficulty

Refuses aid and will not swim in unless clear andconcise directions are given

1.5

Accepts aid but will not swim in unless clear andconcise directions are given

1.25

Accepts aid and swims in

1

Rationale: Victims are more difficult to rescue due to refusal or inability to hold an aid
or swim to safety. Therefore a higher weighting factor is allocated for victims that are
more difficult to rescue or are uncooperative and the rescuer is rewarded for
persistence and securing them. Mobilize the mobile, secure those in imminent danger
and recover and resuscitate.
Performance Criteria

Weighting Factor/

CONTROL OF VICTIM

Degree of Difficulty

Talk or Throw rescue expected

1.5

Reach or Tow rescue expected

1.25

Carry rescue expected1

Rationale: Rescuers should rescue those that have the highest chance of survival firstand present the lowest risk of danger to the rescuer. Mobilize the mobile, secure thosein imminent danger and recover and resuscitate. Therefore victims that can be rescued
easily should be rescued first and the more difficult victims rescued last.

8
OVERVIEW OF WEIGHTING FACTOR FOR JUDGE SCORING SHEETS
Performance Criteria

Weighting Factor/

LANDING

Degree of Difficulty

Weak Swimmer/Mobile at time of landing

1.5

Non/Injured Swimmer at time of landing

1.25

Unconscious/Non breathing/Spinal Injured
Swimmer at time of landing

1

Rationale: Rescuers should assist those who can help themselves or who could help
others first to land then help those that require more effort and attention such as those
who are in imminent danger like non swimmers, injured swimmers, and then finallythose victims that require continuous care and resuscitation.
Performance Criteria

Weighting Factor/

CARE AND AFTERCARE OF VICTIM

Degree of Difficulty

Unconscious/Non breathing/Spinal Injured
Swimmer

1.5

Non/Injured Swimmer

1.25

Weak Swimmer/Mobile

1

Rationale: Care and aftercare for victims that require continuous care or resuscitation
is more difficult than those in imminent danger or who are weak or mobile. Therefore ahigher factor is assessed for victims that are more difficult to provide aftercare andmonitoring.

9
SAMPLE SCENARIO DESIGN WITH WEIGHTING FACTORSScenario Description:
You are at the sea on a pier; you observe several people who are on the pier and in thewater following an explosion on a ferry which sinks in the harbor. The craft is overturned.
The only access to the sea is the designated area of the pier (side of deck) to enter and exit
the water. The ends of the pool and other side of the pool do not exist and are out ofbounds.
Victims:
Victim 1 – Weak swimmer wearing backpack/jug of water
Victim 2 – Weak swimmer holding sport bag/rope
Victim 3 – Non swimmer
Victim 4 – Non swimmer
Victim 5 - Injured swimmer with burns on face and hands
Victim 6 – Injured swimmer with broken leg
Victim 7 – Injured swimmer with cervical spinal injury holding a floating ring
Victim 8 – Non breathing submerged manikin
Victim 9 – Non breathing, submerged manikin

Victim # /Weighting
Factor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

VictimRecognition

RescueControl ofVictimLanding

1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.5

1.5
1.5
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.0
1.0

1.5
1.5
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.0
1.0
1.0

1.5
1.5
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.0
1.0

Care andAftercare ofVictim
1.0
1.0
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.5
1.5
1.5

JUDGE SCORING SHEETSThe judge scoring sheets provide for the victim types you may to see in a SERC and how itwill be scored. The sheets are made up of four key areas;Victim notes – includes general notes for the judge to direct the victim on how thattype of victim might act or respond.

Judges notes – includes general notes for the judge on that type victim and helpful
hints on how the victim should act or will respond including how they should be
rescued or secured to achieve high marks.

Judge scoring sheet – separated into five different sections with key criteria the judge
will be looking for.

Marking scale – summarizes the ranking scale.

10

SAMPLE POOL SETUP, EQUIPMENT AND VICTIMS
Equipment – Each zone: (1X) craft, (1X) paddle, (1X) lifejacket, (1X) spinal board, (1X)
sport bag/rope, (1) backpack/jug of water, (1X) floating ring (2X) manikins, (7X) victims

Scenario
TEAM
ENTRY
&
EXIT

Spinal Board

7 inj

No
accessto endof poolfloating ring

8 nsc

Backpack/jug of waterNo
accessto endof poolSport bag/rope

1 ws

2 ws

craft/paddle/lifejacket

3 ns

9 nsc
bouybouynoodleri
ng

6 inj

4 ns

5 inj

No access to side of pool
Legend:Weak swimmer - ws
Bystander - byst
Injured - inj
Non-swimmer – ns
No breathing and no signs of circulation – nsc
Note: Sample Pool Setup, equipment and victims are intended to provide guidance and are not the actual Setup that
may be used for the SERC Event.

11
OVERALL: SAMPLE CHIEF JUDGE SCORING SHEET
Draw No: ___________Team Name: __________________

Judge Identification: _______________

Judges notes: You have the overview of the SERC area and assess overall efficiency of the team. In particular you markthe Team Leader’s control of the team – assessment of priorities and dispatch/direction of team members to deal with thevictims. You will also mark communication between the Leader and the team and between team members and this may
include information about the condition of the victims and what help is needed.
Your marks MUST take into account: Any loss of control by the Leader becoming committed or involved to such an extent that overall control is lost.
 Do not mark any rescues the leader carries out as another judge is allocated to that victim.
 Whether assistance was sought. Any person sent for help as assistant will not be allowed to return.
Areas of marking

Mark (10)Assessment
Assessment of the emergency
Did the Leader coordinate the team and direct to the correct priorities of rescue?
On-going assessment / re-assessment
Control
Control and safety over the scenario area
Leader retains control throughout the scenario
On-going assessment / re-assessment
Communication
Communication and feedback between Leader and team members,
And between team members and victims
Basic questioning and simple instructions given to victims and team
Note: Emphasis is on non-verbal and simple verbal communication and not on extensive verbal
communication.
SearchEffective search of scenario area
Identification and location of victims
Teamwork
Teamwork, summon assistance (emergency services called) with appropriate information
provided
Identification and securing of all victims
Effective use of bystanders / victims
Rough handling of victims – Deduct 10 points
Total

Excellent 10

Very Good 7.5 – 9.5

Satisfactory 5.0 – 7.0

Weak 2.5 – 4.5

Poor 0 – 2.0

Specific aspects of the scenario may be weighted to provide higher scores for a rescue performance requiring agreater degree of skill and judgment. Marking in increments of 0.5 allotted by the judge.
Note: Sample Judge Scoring Sheets are intended to provide guidance and are not the actual Judge Sheets that may
be used for the SERC Event.

12
NON-SWIMMER: SAMPLE JUDGE SCORING SHEET
Draw No: ___________Team Name: __________________

Judge Identification: _______________

Victim: non-swimmer
The victim is struggling to stay above the water and is starting to panic as they cannot get to safety. They are capable oftaking a rescue aid if pushed into their reach (judge will give specifics based upon scenario description). However if a contact
rescue is attempted, they will struggle and try to grab hold of the rescuer (they will not turn on their back). They needassistance to get out of the water and when out will be exhausted from the experience.
Judges notes
Non-swimmer is in imminent danger and is a high priority for rescue. They will attempt to grab any rescuer who approaches
them directly without an aid. If a contact rescue is used, low marks should be recorded for the rescue component. The victim
should be made safe with an effective and efficient return to safety. Landing should be done with care. They will answer
questions asked of them.
Areas of marking

Mark (10)Victim recognition/approach
Recognition of non-swimmer (high priority), speed of reaching victim
Safe approach by rescuer
RescueRescue with extreme caution(low marks for contact rescue if not required – maximum 5 marks for this section)
Monitor while still in water; may require further directions/instructions
Control of victim
Clear effective questioning and reassurance
Reassurance during rescue until returned to safety
Landing
Care of the victim; protection of the head
Appropriate landing for size and strength of rescuer
Care and aftercare of victim
Safe position away from the edge; warmth and protection where possible;
monitor safety; ongoing reassurance
Rough handling of victims – Deduct 10 points
Total

Excellent 10

Very Good 7.5 – 9.5

Satisfactory 5.0 – 7.0

Weak 2.5 – 4.5

Poor 0 – 2.0

Specific aspects of the scenario may be weighted to provide higher scores for a rescue performance requiring agreater degree of skill and judgment. Marking in increments of 0.5 allotted by the judge.
Note: Sample Judge Scoring Sheets are intended to provide guidance and are not the actual Judge Sheets that may
be used for the SERC Event.

13
WEAK SWIMMER: SAMPLE JUDGE SCORING SHEET
Draw No: ___________Team Name: __________________

Judge Identification: _______________

Victim: weak swimmer
The victim is a weak swimmer struggling to get back to safety. They will be capable of shouting or calling out for help. They
will be able to take an aid to get to safety. If a contact carry is performed they will struggle and resist. They will be able toland themselves. They will provide assistance or contact emergency services and will cooperative throughout.
Judges notes
Weak swimmers need to be made safe very quickly. The victim can be talked at or given signs to return to safety; they willneed to be kept monitored. They will struggle if a contact rescue is used; low marks should be awarded for contact rescue
Areas of marking

Mark (10)Victim recognition/approach
Recognition that he is a weak swimmer and high priority to mobilize
Safe approach by rescuer
RescueEncourage return to safety with clear directions; perform a non-contact rescue(low marks for contact rescue if not required – maximum 5 marks for this section)
Monitor while still in water; may require further directions/instructions
Control and use of victim
Effective communication / instruction; use for keeping another victim warm / safe
Landing
Make secure and land
Appropriate landing for size and strength of rescuer
Care and aftercare of victim
Safe position away from danger; warmth and protection where possible;
monitor safety; ongoing monitoring and care
Rough handling of victims – Deduct 10 points
Total

Excellent 10

Very Good 7.5 – 9.5

Satisfactory 5.0 – 7.0

Weak 2.5 – 4.5

Poor 0 – 2.0

Specific aspects of the scenario may be weighted to provide higher scores for a rescue performance requiring agreater degree of skill and judgment. Marking in increments of 0.5 allotted by the judge.
Note: Sample Judge Scoring Sheets are intended to provide guidance and are not the actual Judge Sheets that may
be used for the SERC Event.

14
UNCONCIOUS/NON-BREATHING VICTIM: SAMPLE JUDGE SCORING SHEET
Draw No: ___________Team Name: __________________

Judge Identification: _______________

Victim: unconscious, not breathing
This victim will be on the bottom of the pool.
Judges notes
This victim is a low-order rescue priority and rescuers should deal with the high priority victims as quickly as possible in orderto get to this victim who requires continuous care.
CPR should be commenced when it is safe to do so; on land, boat, rescue breaths with a buoyant aid in the water, etc. andyour marks should reflect the efficiency and effectiveness of the CPR simulation (and not measured against your own
Country/Nation’s teaching / standards).
Areas of Marking

Mark (10)Victim Recognition/Approach
Identification of casualty
RescueSpeed of rescue (considering priority of rescue)
Speed in getting back to safety
Control of victim
Effective and efficient carry
Landing
Careful handling/landing of the casualty
Care and aftercare of victim
Effective and efficient CPR likely to assist recovery
Safe position away from danger; monitor safety; ongoing monitoring and care
Rough handling of victim – Deduct 10 points
Total
Excellent 10

Very Good 7.5 – 9.5

Satisfactory 5.0 – 7.0

Weak 2.5 – 4.5

Poor 0 – 2.0

Specific aspects of the scenario may be weighted to provide higher scores for a rescue performance requiring agreater degree of skill and judgment. Marking in increments of 0.5 allotted by the judge.
Note: Sample Judge Scoring Sheets are intended to provide guidance and are not the actual Judge Sheets that may
be used for the SERC Event.

15
INJURIED VICTIM: SAMPLE JUDGE SCORING SHEET
Draw No: ___________Team Name: __________________

Judge Identification: _______________

Victim: conscious victim with injury
Victim will be complaining of a specific injury and will not be calmed.
Judges notes
This is a medium priority victim requiring assistance. Rescuer should use an aid. Victim may not be able to hold an aid
depending on the injury and may need assistance in the water and on landing. The victim should be removed carefully fromthe water with attention to the injured part of the body. They will not be cooperative.
Areas of Marking

Mark (10)Victim recognition/approach
Recognition that they are an injured swimmer and medium priority to mobilize
Safe approach by rescuer
RescueEncourage to return to the edge with clear directions
Perform non-contact rescue(low marks for contact rescue if not required – maximum 5 marks for this section)
Monitor while still in water; may require further directions/instructions
Control of victim
Effective communication / instruction
Reassurance throughout rescue
Landing
Careful removal from water with attention to injury
Make secure and land (monitor while still in water; may require further directions/instructions)
Appropriate landing for size and strength of rescuer
Care and aftercare of victim
Safe position away from the edge; warmth and protection where possible;
monitor safety; ongoing monitoring and care
Rough handling of victim – Deduct 10 points
Total
Excellent 10

Very Good 7.5 – 9.5

Satisfactory 5.0 – 7.0

Weak 2.5 – 4.5

Poor 0 – 2.0

Mark - Specific aspects of the scenario may be weighted to provide higher scores for a rescue performance requiring
a greater degree of skill and judgment. Marking in increments of 0.5 allotted by the judge.
Note: Sample Judge Scoring Sheets are intended to provide guidance and are not the actual Judge Sheets that may
be used for the SERC Event.

16
BYSTANDER: SAMPLE JUDGE SCORING SHEET
Draw No: ___________Team Name: __________________

Judge Identification: _______________

Victim: conscious victim with injury
The bystander will not offer assistance but will be cooperative and take direction.
Judges notes
This is a high priority bystander as they can lend assistance when given direction. .
Areas of Marking

Mark (10)Victim recognition/approach
Recognition that they are a bystander and cooperative.
Assesses relevant information
Questions bystander to assess information about the scenario.
(low marks for not giving the bystander directions – maximum 5 marks for this section)
Provides direction and instructions
Rescuer provides directions or instructions to assist the rescue scenario such as; asst. removals,
reassure victims, call emergency services.
Monitoring bystander actions
Check periodically to ensure that bystander has followed the directions of the Rescuer throughout
rescueProvides ongoing encouragement
Provides feedback to bystander on their actions to encourage them to assist with victim support
Rough handling of victim – Deduct 10 points
Total
Excellent 10

Very Good 7.5 – 9.5

Satisfactory 5.0 – 7.0

Weak 2.5 – 4.5

Poor 0 – 2.0

Mark - Specific aspects of the scenario may be weighted to provide higher scores for a rescue performance requiring
a greater degree of skill and judgment. Marking in increments of 0.5 allotted by the judge.
Note: Sample Judge Scoring Sheets are intended to provide guidance and are not the actual Judge Sheets that may
be used for the SERC Event.