I don't really know Tim. Some judges are just idiots.
But this particular judge is an accomplished nature photographer and was familiar with animal behavior. Her main concern was technical accuracy. Like if someone had a hot spot in the background, even if the background was blurred out, she would definitely deduct for that. Her criticism of my anemone fish was that the middle of the fish was too dark. Then she would judge on composition. She hated if any part of a critter was cut off.
We also had a pictorial competition that night (any subject, any kind of manipulation) and I only got 2 HMs out of 4 entries. She was very tough with composition, lighting, etc. It's good in some ways because it makes you more aware of your images. But in some cases, I think she was wrong. She didn't like narrow DOF photos and would score them low and her criticism was that the whole thing wasn't in focus. Well, I know the makers and that's the way they wanted them. If I were judging, I would have given some of those higher scores than she did. After technical specs are met, it boils down to personal tastes.
I got burned once in a competition for over saturating an image and I've seen others knocked down for that too, so I'm very careful about that now and just bump the saturation up a little.
One funny story, she called someone on having halos around fixed spots in an image. Well, in this image below, I recolored the blown out sky. It was white in the original. I was so nervous that she would notice but she never even mentioned any obvious photoshopping. Sometimes I blow my image up and fix them pixel by pixel.
I guess this time it paid off.
I also burned in some of the flower because one of the petals was a little blown out. Too bad I didn't get paid by the hour doing it. LOL Her criticism of this one was that the bottom was too dark. And she's right.
