It depends on what approach the critic is taking. If it is:
Constructive, well-thought out, and actually gives some practical guidance, I'm all for it.
However, if it is destructive, not useful, or worse - reiterating a point already made (usually by a judge) in a more caustic manner, I find the critisism to be mean-spirited.
I honestly can't tell whether the later is actually more predominate than the former, or just so obnoxious that it appears that way.
This is a contest where criticism could really help the 32 in coming rounds. I particularly like critics who give practical advice while recognizing the confines of the contest (ie: I think you should have focused more on this and less on this). I particularly dislike the (obvious) sour grapes.