2025 DCI Rules Proposals
It's almost time for DCI Rules Congress 2025!
It’s time for the biennial DCI Rules Congress, held as a part of this weekend’s DCI Winter Meetings in Indianapolis!
The Rules Congress is an opportunity for instructors and corps directors to propose modifications to the existing rulebook and judging sheets to address issues that have come up throughout the two seasons since the prior Congress. Previously proposed rules that have passed are massive sheets overhauls, scoring Open Class corps on the same sheets as World, and allowance of all brass instruments instead of the traditional marching versions we are accustomed to. Notable failed proposals include the infamous all-instruments rule, widely opposed by fans primarily because it would legalize woodwinds, breaking down one of the main barriers between drum corps as it exists today and competitive, high-level marching bands.
There are a whopping fifteen proposals on the docket this year, compared to just six last time, so let’s break them down. As a quick reminder, As It’s Written is the proposal that was presented to DCI, The Breakdown is a quick summary, and The Takeaway is the commentary from GEM staff on what changes this may bring.
Proposal #1 - Solo Instrument Addition - Submitted by Michael Gough, Mary Duerkop, Mike Ottoes, Tim Snyder (Troopers)
As It’s Written:
This proposal seeks to introduce a new section, 4.8 Solo Instrumentation, to the existing Equipment Rules policy. This section will permit each corps to designate a single solo instrument of any type—acoustic, woodwind, electronic, or otherwise—for the duration of the season. The designated solo instrument may be mic'd and amplified in any manner, including the use of effects, without restriction.
4.8 SOLO INSTRUMENTATION
4.8.1 Each corps shall be permitted to include a single solo instrument of any kind for the duration of the season, which may be of any type (acoustic, woodwind, electronic, etc.).
4.8.2 This solo instrument may be mic'd and amplified in any manner, including the use of effects, without restriction.
4.8.3 All existing rules regarding equipment, amplification, and electronic usage shall apply to all other instruments and equipment not designated as the sole solo instrument.
The Breakdown:
This proposal permits the usage of one instrument that is not subject to any restrictions. This permits, for instance, a mic’d solo flute with a looper pedal.
The Takeaway:
Oh boy, this will likely be the proposal with the most controversy among fans. We’ve seen multiple “any instruments” proposals throughout the years, and the most recent one was fairly contentiously voted down by the directors. This version is limited to one instrument, and can serve as a bit of a trial balloon for larger shifts in permissible instrumentation, in addition to potential shifts in what amplification/electronics usage gets permitted beyond what is currently allowed. It would be a little surprising to see this not be passed in the instructors caucus. However, similar to 2023, there could potentially be significant stumbling blocks when it makes it to the directors.
Proposal #2 - Performance Order - Submitted by Paul Rennick (Santa Clara Vanguard) / Percussion Instructor Caucus
As It’s Written:
With the exception of regionals with performance order determined by previous placements, every corps would be required to perform 1st at a contest at least once during the season.
- All corps finishing outside the top 8 would have the option to perform last at least one show during the season.
Any corps performing before Intermission can have the option of having critique via video conference at an agreed upon time after the contest.
- Limited to one video conference per week with selected judges.
The Breakdown:
This proposal serves to give all corps the opportunity to perform last at a show at some point, and additionally, it mandates that all corps have to perform first at some point. In order to accommodate for the schedule adjustment that this would cause, corps performing before intermission would be able to have a video critique session so that the staff would not have to stay until after all corps have performed.
The Takeaway:
This rule feels pretty reasonable on its face. Depending on how many shows that a corps is performing in, the corps with an earlier performance time just don’t always have the opportunity to get as much rehearsal time due to having to leave for the show site earlier, and generally experience a smaller crowd. The later performing corps tend to have the biggest crowds, and can get that extra hour or two of ensemble block before having to leave for the show site. This proposal addresses some of that inequity, and isn’t a bad thing by any means. That said, there’s still more that can be done to get more eyeballs on the corps that generally perform at the beginning of the evening.
The question for this proposal, though, is how these would be determined and how far ahead of time each corps would have the knowledge of when they’d be performing first and when they’d be performing last to give the logistics team for each corps and show site the opportunity to plan around corps with more or less support vehicles being in the lot at a time that may not be what they’re used to. These are wrinkles that can be ironed out between now and the summer however.
Proposal #3 - Increase Overall Size of Pit Area - Submitted by Aaron Beck (Bluecoats)
As It’s Written:
Modification to rule 2.4 to increase to size of 20' from the 30 yard line to 30 yard line (Pit)
The Breakdown:
As of right now, rule 2.4 currently permits corps to go up to 15 feet in front of the sideline, from endzone to endzone. This proposal would add another 5 feet from one 30 to another
The Takeaway:
With the expanded usage of the area in front of the sideline, this offers a little more wiggle room for the corps that choose to take advantage of every bit of space offered.
Proposal #4 - All Field Performance 15 foot marker - Submitted by Chris Holland (Boston Crusaders)
As It’s Written:
Removal of field performance judging from the field has had no negative impact on the member or fan experience. The goal of performer and judge safety - the impetus for this change - had been improved. However, allowing judges over the 15' marker, over the front sideline, and onto the performance field up to 5 yards continues to create risk. The reality is that many corps are using all of the available space - from the 15' line on, for performance and creative needs - as all corps are entitled to do. This proposal closes the remaining loop on member and judge safety.- Despite best efforts, judges continue to be on the performance field and cannot feasibly account for all of the front sideline equipment changes, choreography, prop use, or flat out performance use.
The Breakdown:
The intent here is to eliminate judges from the performance field entirely. The wording here strongly leans on the member and judge safety justification in order to do so, going along with how much the activity has started to use all space available instead of just sticking within the confines of the traditional field of play for football.
The Takeaway:
This one will be contentious to some, and a no brainer to others. What it comes down to, beyond the member safety justification, is providing designers a way to feature their strengths, and hide some of their weaker sections. For example, if a corps has a very strong Baritone line, but a weaker Bass Drum line, the show could be staged in a way that the brass judge on the sideline could easily hear the intricate details of the Bari part, but the basses could be behind the rest of the line, thus covering up how well they can be heard. This was why some in the community were virulently opposed to limiting on-field judging at all. This proposal would make evaluating those fine details even more tricky. That said, it’s remarkably difficult to vote against proposals emphasizing member safety. We will see how this one shakes out.
Proposal #5 - Addition of Percussion 2 - Submitted by Paul Rennick (Santa Clara Vanguard) / Percussion Instructor Caucus
As It’s Written:
We would start with implementation of the last iteration of P2, used successfully for years, and finalize the detail with the entire percussion caucus . The addition of another percussion judge (P2) would evaluate the wide variety of instrumentation in the front ensemble and the cohesiveness of the entire percussion ensemble without losing the detail needed with the evaluation of P1.
The Breakdown:
From 2014 to 2018, there were two percussion judges at Major Events. In 2018, that second percussion judge was changed to a second Music Analysis judge. This proposal would bring back the second percussion judge without taking the second MA judge away. It also would provide the opportunity for the judges to focus on different aspects of the performance at the same time.
The Takeaway:
As you’ll see with the next proposal, there’s some real strong feelings out there about the potential for percussion to have multiple judges on the same caption. Another idea being tossed around would be to have the MA2 focus more on percussion, possibly similarly to how the General Effect caption is currently split between a judge with a Music background and a judge with a Visual background. There’s pros and cons to each of the approaches, however, one thing to keep in mind for each of the proposals dedicated toward more specialization in terms of judging is that unless DCI massively expands the panel, each area of specialization will take away from the evaluation of the product as a whole, for better or worse.
Proposal #6 - Panel Caption Equity - Submitted by Chris Holland (Boston Crusaders)
As It’s Written:
All DCI panels, in the caption areas of Visual, Guard, Brass and Percussion shall be equitably balanced in terms of caption evaluation (as is currently the case in 2024). There is a single Brass Performance, Percussion Performance, Guard Performance, and Visual Performance judge.- Any rule proposal that calls for an increase or additional needs for judging in any caption area, shall apply equally to all captions, so that the current equitable balance would remain.- i.e. Percussion 2, if proposed and voted into effect, would automatically trigger the panel caption equity rule. Brass 2, Percussion 2 and Guard 2 would have to be created and implemented.
The Breakdown:
If the previous rule proposal went into effect, this would implement doubles of all the performance judges.
The Takeaway: It’s hard to see this as anything but pushing back on the potential addition of Percussion 2. The addition would require some interesting reworking of the sheets, as well as three additional judges beyond P2, and the costs associated with each. The tricky thing is that percussion has some challenges that don’t quite exist the same way with regard to any of the other captions with the potential exception of Visual Performance, in that they have to evaluate remarkably different skillsets beyond what is generally expected from a single member in the activity. What a marimba player does is vastly different from what a timpanist does, which is remarkably different from what the snare line does. That said, there’s also a strong argument that the additional judge unfairly tilts things toward the percussion, and provides extra scrutiny that the other captions don’t get. To be frank, this proposal is extremely unlikely to be adopted. However, its existence shows the intensity of the difference of opinions currently existing regarding judging.
Proposal #7 - Wired Network Connection to Audio Mix Area - Submitted by Aaron Beck (Bluecoats)
As It’s Written:
Require LOS to provide a hardwired network connection from the front 50 yard line to audio mix area near judges. (Page 16)
The Breakdown:
During Finals week shows in Lucas Oil Stadium, this would mandate that a wired internet connection is provided from the traditional front ensemble location to where there is space allotted for a corps staff member to mix the electronics and microphones from near the judging area.
The Takeaway:
This takes away some potential areas of unreliability when it comes to the biggest performances of the year, which should lead to more consistency during Finals week.
Proposal #8 - LOS Audio Power - Submitted by Aaron Beck (Bluecoats)
As It’s Written:
Require LOS to provide a dedicated audio power distribution system (page 16)
The Breakdown:
During Finals week shows in Lucas Oil Stadium, this would mandate that power is provided for the usage of any audio system, such as speakers, mixers, microphones, and synthesizers.
The Takeaway:
Again, this takes away some potential areas of unreliability when it comes to the biggest performances of the year, which should lead to more consistency during Finals week.
Proposal #9 - Member Contract Termination - Submitted by Tyler Hess, Brian Ellis (The Battalion)
As It’s Written:
The purpose of this proposal is to update the terms of a signed member contract for participating organizations in DCI. Currently, a signed member contract can be terminated by a performer any time prior to May 15th without a written authorization agreement between organizations (Policy 510, #3).
- This proposal aims to amend policy 510 rule #3 with the following: No contracted performer/member who self-terminates a current year membership agreement will be allowed to enter a new membership agreement with another DCI participating organization during the current season.
The Breakdown:
As of now, contracted members can back out of their contracts with corps and sign a new one so long as it is done prior to May 15th. This would prevent that from happening, and would help non-finalist World and Open corps retain members that they’d signed and been banking on to perform with them instead of having said members sign a contract with one corps, then get offered for a higher placing corps and jumping ship. This also is intended at putting a stop to the poaching that is alleged to be happening.
The Takeaway:
The performer-corps relationship is an interesting one. This is the first of two proposals on the table from Btal that are looking to reframe it to some extent, and provide a bit more stability for both contracted members and the corps that can’t quite always fill the whole corps, especially if they lose someone last minute to go march at a finalist contender. That said, don’t be surprised to see an adjusted date of April 1st instead of a flat ban.
Proposal #10 - Total Number of Allowed Participants - Submitted by Tyler Hess, Brian Ellis (The Battalion)
As It’s Written:
This proposal is to further define the maximum number of members in the participating organizations of DCI. Currently, the policy defines minimum and maximum number of field participant levels of Open Class and World Class (Policy 216.1). However, off-field participants are not defined. Off-field participants include alternates or extra performers that do not directly perform in the production.
- This proposal aims to amend policy 216.1 with the following:
Open Class Number of Performers 50-165
World Class Number of Performers 110-165
-For all divisions the maximum number of performers refers to on and off the field participants. This total performer membership number applies from May 1st through the remainder of the competitive season.
The Breakdown:
Currently, the member cap applies to members on the field. This would extend the limit to members on and off the field (alternates, etc.), and apply that limit from May 1st to finals, rather than just referring to performing members at a competitive show.
The Takeaway:
While legislating this may not be the best way to do it, something absolutely needs to be done about this. This is the second of Btal’s proposals that were discussed earlier, and stems from instances of corps carrying significant amounts of alternates during Spring Training and then cutting quite a few prior to going on the road, leading those participants to either scramble to find a spot last minute, wait potentially for a call from their first corps halfway through the season, or just not march at all. If corps were limited to a total number of participants they are able to have at a given time at all, the thought process goes that the corps that struggle to hit the membership limit would likely be able to secure a few of those extra members rather than having them get strung along. While staying on as an alternate is a gamble that you may get a full spot at some point after move-ins starts, there should be some balance between permitting them a chance to earn their spot and leading them on.
Proposal #11 - Show Information - Submitted by Paul Rennick (Santa Clara Vanguard)
As It’s Written:
This would formalize the method in which all organizations can submit information about the content of their show. Visual, Brass, and Percussion can provide specific information in addition to an overview of the entire program.
- Exact detail and format will be a result of the input from every participating organization.
The Breakdown:
Each corps would use a standard format to submit information regarding their program (source music, narrative, interesting moments) to DCI and the judging community, rather than the variety of formats used currently.
The Takeaway:
This is a largely administrative proposal that will do more to help find some sort of unified format to submit the information that judges use to evaluate and have context on the production they’re about to see.
Proposal #12 - High Music Proposal - Submitted by Jarrett Lipman (Boston Crusaders)
As It’s Written:
Recognition of Music Performance Excellence. This benefits the student performers, teachers and greater DCI educational and adjudicative community by further emphasizing the value of performance excellence in music education.
- Add an award for Outstanding Music Performance. This award would be an average of the three nights' total music score, including Brass, Analysis, and Percussion.
- If the Directors were to prefer, the award could be based ONLY on the analysis caption should there be a desire to narrow the focus of the award, given that Percussion and Brass already receive an award.
The Breakdown:
This offers an additional award to be given out during finals retreat, covering either the Music caption as a whole, or just Music Analysis. Like the awards other than the Founders Trophy, this would be an average of the three evening’s scores.
The Takeaway:
This proposal is another opportunity to recognize phenomenal performance, and seems largely harmless.
Proposal #13 - Garland "Gary" Markham High Music Award - Submitted by Jarrett Lipman (Boston Crusaders)
As It’s Written:
Recognition of Music Performance Excellence. This benefits the student performers, teachers and greater DCI educational and adjudicative community by further emphasizing the value of performance excellence in music education.
- Add an award for Outstanding Music Performance. This award would be an average of the three nights' total music score, including Brass, Analysis, and Percussion.
- If the Directors were to prefer, the award could be based ONLY on the analysis caption should there be a desire to narrow the focus of the aware, given that Percussion and Brass already receive an award.
- Title this award the Garland (Gary) Markham Award for High Music Achievement.
- Gary believed that music analysis and achievement were the pinnacle of our activity.
The Breakdown:
This is the same proposal as the previous one, with the addition of naming the award after the former Supervisor of Instrumental Music in Cobb County, GA, who also was an adjudicator, among other roles, for DCI and BOA for decades prior to his passing in 2022.
The Takeaway:
Gary Markham was one of the foremost figures in Marching Music judging for a very long time, and it’s certainly not surprising to see his name added to such an honor.
Proposal #14 - General Effect Adjudication Change - Submitted by Michael Gough, Mary Duerkop, Mike Ottoes, Tim Snyder (Troopers)
As It’s Written:
Currently, General Effect (GE) is evaluated as a single component, encompassing both visual and musical elements. This proposal seeks to enhance the clarity and fairness of scoring by separating GE into two distinct categories: GE Visual and GE Music. This change aims to provide a more nuanced assessment of each corps' performance through general effect music and general effect visual.
I propose using the previous (last used) GE Music and GE Visual sheets for expediency and familiarity with the system.
The Breakdown:
Several years back, DCI changed from GE Music and GE Visual captions to one sheet with one judge coming from a predominately Music background and the other having specialized in Visual. This would switch it back.
The Takeaway:
This is a decidedly interesting proposal. It increases the specialization of the caption, and additionally would leave the panel without a judge whose job is to evaluate the production as a whole. Every single one, if we take the captions at face value, would either be dedicated to Visual or to Music. Whether this is a benefit or a drawback is in the eye of the beholder, but it does strike one as slightly odd.
Proposal #15 - Update Percussion Instrumentation - Submitted by Erik Kosman (Mandarins)
As It’s Written:
Change rule 4.2.1 to read “All percussion instruments are legal.” Delete rule 4.2.2
- The rules regarding percussion instrumentation are outdated compared to what corps have used for decades and currently only allow “All acoustic percussion membrane and keyboard instruments”. This technically means that non mallet keyboard idiophones (cymbals, wood blocks, etc) are currently not legal. There is also language that allows for motors on vibraphones only if they are battery powered and don’t amplify the instrument. Since using power and amplification is now legal, this rule is in conflict and should be removed.
The Breakdown:
This rule would permit usage of a significant amount of instruments that are commonly used by percussion sections which, by the current definitions, are technically illegal.
The Takeaway:
The final proposal listed simplifies percussion instrumentation guidelines significantly, and helps what’s actually happening on the field be reflected in the rules manual. If DCI went by the letter of the law, you wouldn’t see cymbal lines, half the instruments in the rack area, or gongs, but those are not options that percussion arrangers will give up easily.
Any all age proposals