Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 100

Thread: No more QR at Worlds, Euros

  1. #16
    MY TVC 1 5 SeaniBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Watching the Wheels
    Posts
    4,984
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman
    It's not pleasing the fans that is the problem, it's pleasing their own national federation chiefs back home.
    On the same thought that this could not encourage, I wondered how much it made it more allowable. They could just get "the pay-off" and say they were the ones who gave the highest score. Yet with the institution of reviewing after any inflated scores would be in question. With a review following, that could circumvent the whole problem. I do agree with it - and you of course - and can see where that is a viable attempt at getting the issue under control. if the theory is clean.

    Now as
    Quote Originally Posted by hockeyfan228
    In theory, her scores would have been anonymous, but given how tight the judges are, I suspect by the end of the day they all know who was in column 1 and who was in column 9, and their Federations know as well. And a relatively straightforward program can determine which scores counted
    That makes me wonder once again how it will make a difference.

    BTW, that was a great synopsis on the SL scandal. I really was aware of that and why - not that far out of the loop . But you put it so well I didn't mind. Wasn't there something more serious that happened to Marie Reine because of that? That I really don't know, what was the "wrist slap." Wasn't more like a "boot to the butt?" I thought it was a serious consequence.


    What did everyone think of hockeyfan228 idea? I would love to now about that.

    and the
    Quote Originally Posted by hockeyfan228
    .... or full qualis, with the scores wiped out after the field was narrowed.
    Last edited by SeaniBu; 06-28-2006 at 04:13 PM.

  2. #17
    /(^.^)/\(^.^)\
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Lublin, Poland
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by SeaniBu
    .... or full qualis, with the scores wiped out after the field was narrowed.
    That sounds really cool!!! I Like alot
    At first thought I reckoned it was a nice idea, too. However, if the scores would be wiped out, it is more than possible that most of the skaters would not have the motivation to perform better than it's needed to qualify. I don't think it would have much appeal to the audiences, and thus would not be very cost effective. What's more, even if the skaters would not perform at their best, it would still put some additional stress on them (as opposed to the copmplete elimination of QRs)

    I like the change intoduced by ISU better. At first I felt kind of sad, as one of my favourite performances of the last season happens to be a QR performance. Looking at the bright side however, if there had been no QR, perhaps the skaters would have been able to preserve strenght (both physical and mental ) and perform at their best in the LP.

  3. #18
    MY TVC 1 5 SeaniBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Watching the Wheels
    Posts
    4,984
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman
    Except that figure skating judges don't get paid. They get a small honorarium that in most cases doesn't cover their expenses.
    Isn't that really the same thing as a lot of jobs anyway. The amount I was getting payed still incurred debt. I do see the difference, yet "for me" the idea of doing that and having just enough compensation to do it, beats doing the other and being left in the same boat.

    And from the point of view of the Mile High Figure Skating Association's take on volunteers I still say it is better.
    http://www.mhfsa.org/
    Plus the Kudos

    Nice to note that they don't get payed, I didn't know that until 2005 season. I think it was the GP in Russia I finally heard that.
    Last edited by SeaniBu; 06-28-2006 at 04:31 PM.

  4. #19
    MY TVC 1 5 SeaniBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Watching the Wheels
    Posts
    4,984
    Quote Originally Posted by Okami
    At first thought I reckoned it was a nice idea, too. However, if the scores would be wiped out, it is more than possible that most of the skaters would not have the motivation to perform better than it's needed to qualify. I don't think it would have much appeal to the audiences, and thus would not be very cost effective. What's more, even if the skaters would not perform at their best, it would still put some additional stress on them (as opposed to the copmplete elimination of QRs)

    I like the change intoduced by ISU better. At first I felt kind of sad, as one of my favourite performances of the last season happens to be a QR performance. Looking at the bright side however, if there had been no QR, perhaps the skaters would have been able to preserve strenght (both physical and mental ) and perform at their best in the LP.
    Nice thoughts, that does seem like it would be changing a little too much of what happens in the SP. Makes it more like a race event.

    I think you are right about the no QR, and the decision to eliminate it. But I am always subject to other ideas. I really think the fact of "strength preservation" is really valid. And the idea that cost can be decreased is helpful as well.

  5. #20
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,908
    I agree with everything Hockeyfan said about judging and Salt Lake City. The only thing about Le Gougne's testimony that I am not 100% sure of, is which team she really thought was best, since she said both, at various times, depending on who she was talking to.

    My personal feeling is that Madame Le G is not a bad person, but that she felt emotionally overwhelmed over the whole thing and didn't really know what she was saying from one moment to the next.

    Sean, the penalty for Le Gougne was that she could not judge any ISU function for three years and she could not be a judge at the 2006 Olympics. After that, all is forgiven.

    The actual wording of the ISU resolution that pronounces the verdict is interesting. I don't have it before me, but the wording very clearly found her guilty of "saying that one team gave the best performance when she actually believed that the other team had."

    About figuring out which judge gave which marks, you can almost always easily determine which judges were eliminated by the random draw and which set of actual scores were used to determine the result. To go further and to say that "judge #4" was "Joe Blow from Lower Slobovia" -- well, that question cannot be addressed mathematically, but, as Hockeyfan says, you can often pick up clues -- or just wait until the judges start blabbing about it in the cocktail lounge.

    What got me started in this vein in the first place was this sentence from the report:

    "The system has allowed officials to work in an independent manner, while the anonymity of the Judges for major ISU Events has ensured objectivity as evaluating bodies are not informed of the identity of the Judge under review until an Assessment (official warning) has been confirmed."

    To me, the first short clause tosses a bone to the original intent of anonymous judging. But since their really isn't any evidence to make us thing that the New Judging System has really "allowed officials to work in an independent manner," they went on to talk about the evaluation procedure.

    There, I think the point is well taken. If you were one of the referees on the Officials' Assessment Commission," and if a report came to your attention that one judge had given a +3 GOE to a certain element, while the average of the panel gave a -1, and it was your job to check it out -- well, at some point we have to turst somebody to carry out his/her duties responsibly.
    Last edited by Mathman; 06-28-2006 at 04:46 PM.

  6. #21
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    The Qualis did give the contestants a dress rehearsal of the LP. Hockeyfan's suggestion is good and I would add the results be used to seed the SP, then thrown out.

    Regarding the Anonymity of the Judges Here's the paragraph:

    Single and Pair Skating and Ice Dance
    On the third day of the 51st Ordinary ISU Congress in Budapest (HUN) delegates reiterated their support for the ISU Judging system and confirmed their approval of maintaining the anonymity of Judges as well as the system of a random draw of the Judges scores which count towards the result. The system has allowed officials to work in an independent manner, while the anonymity of the Judges for major ISU Events has ensured objectivity as evaluating bodies are not informed of the identity of the Judge under review until an Assessment (official warning) has been confirmed.


    They seem to be praising their system. Anyway, what does it mean: "while the anonymity of the Judges for major ISU Events has ensured objectivity as evaluating bodies are not informed of the identity of the Judge under review until an Assessment (official warning) has been confirmed."

    Does it mean that if there is a complaint, a team of evaluators will review the case which will name names, and give its assessment of the complaint but not for outside ears?

    Joe

  7. #22
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Mathman - The big question with the 2002 Pairs question is still who was Didier working with? You can't have a collusion with only one person. Who? Who? Who?

    Joe

  8. #23
    Forum translator Ptichka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,430
    Quote Originally Posted by SeaniBu
    Sounds like an average work day to me. I would rather do that than organize meetings and classes for snippy CEO, coworkers and Customers for 9.
    A judge has to keep a full concentration, noticing every little detail. I know every person is different, but I can maintain concentration like that for only a couple of hours.

  9. #24
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz
    Mathman - The big question with the 2002 Pairs question is still who was Didier working with? You can't have a collusion with only one person. Who? Who? Who?

    Joe
    The ISU outsmarted us on that one, Joe. Didier was never formally charged with colluding or conspiring. He was only charged with exercising undue influence over a judge.

  10. #25
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz
    Does it mean that if there is a complaint, a team of evaluators will review the case which will name names, and give its assessment of the complaint but not for outside ears?
    No, it means that the evaluators will not know the identity of the judge that they are passing judgment on until after they have made an official determination that the judge deserves a reprimand or other penalty.

    If the judge then wants to appeal (using videotapes to prove that he was right and the majority of the panel was wrong, for instance), then at that point a subcommittee of the Assessment Committee is chosen to hear the appeal, and then the name of the person becomes known at least to the subcommittee (after all, at that point he is right there standing before you, pleading his case, LOL.)

    As to the general public ever being told anything, I'm not holding my breath.

    Here are the details of the procedure:

    http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/...-0-file,00.pdf

  11. #26
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,908
    About the idea of having a qualifying portion that is strictly for qualifying, IIRC this has been tried in various forms in the past.

    The problem is that the top skaters just went through the motions, knowing they wouldn't be 20th no matter what they did. This made that stage of the competition unwatchable from the point of view of the audience.

    Unless you were the mother of the 21st skater fighting for that last spot, why would you come and watch?

    I believe that the whole point of allowing the qualifying points to carry over was to insure that the top skaters would at least try to give a crowd-worthy performance.

    Again, money. The ISU is feeling the pinch. It seems like they just can't afford to put on shows that offer nothing to the audience.

  12. #27
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman
    The ISU outsmarted us on that one, Joe. Didier was never formally charged with colluding or conspiring. He was only charged with exercising undue influence over a judge.
    It would have taken a big load off LeGougne if the co-conspirator had been named. To read these posts again, it seems the whole thing was LeGougne. Oh well, life is full of scapegoates.

    Joe

  13. #28
    Gadfly and Bon Vivant Mafke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman

    About the idea of having a qualifying portion that is strictly for qualifying, IIRC this has been tried in various forms in the past.
    The problem is that the top skaters just went through the motions, knowing they wouldn't be 20th no matter what they did. This made that stage of the competition unwatchable from the point of view of the audience.
    I agree, the solution is not make the top skaters skate in the qualifying round. For example, a skater who finished in the top 16 in the previous two years (or is seeded in the top 16 or so) don't have to skate the qualifying round (they get an automatic bye into the short program). All skaters appearing for the first time have to go through the qualifying round.

    This gives you far fewer skaters and they all (or almost all) have to put more effort into it (using the short program would make it even faster). Noi, it's not a ratings winner, but it's a qualifying round not the main contest and nobody's been televising the qualifying round for years anyway.

    I also think they should use a seeding system for the SP if there's not going to be a QR so you don't have all the top skaters in the first two flights and an agonizing marathon of splatting in the final three rounds, but even though the ISU has a ranking system, apparently they're bound and determined not to use it for anything.

    I'm happy that the QR in the form of the ungainly, unfair, exhausting ordeal it had morphed into is history, I'm not sure if 40 randomized skaters for the SP is a good idea though... My prediction: assembly line judging for the lesser known skaters, during whose programs the judges will pay less attention so they can focus on the skaters more likely to do well.

  14. #29
    MY TVC 1 5 SeaniBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Watching the Wheels
    Posts
    4,984
    Quote Originally Posted by Mafke
    I'm happy that the QR in the form of the ungainly, unfair, exhausting ordeal it had morphed into is history, I'm not sure if 40 randomized skaters for the SP is a good idea though... My prediction: assembly line judging for the lesser known skaters, during whose programs the judges will pay less attention so they can focus on the skaters more likely to do well.
    That sounds allot like what they do on the show So You Think You Can Dance. Interesting.

  15. #30
    Custom Title antmanb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    UK - Manchester
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz
    It would have taken a big load off LeGougne if the co-conspirator had been named. To read these posts again, it seems the whole thing was LeGougne. Oh well, life is full of scapegoates.

    Joe
    I would have thought logically the co-conspirator would have to have been the russian judge in the Olympic Free Dance since in order to swap votes a deal done between the Russians and French the Russians would have had to uphold there side of the bargain and the only one able to do that would have been the judge on the day ... its the other countries/judges/federations who were in on it as well that we can make assumptions about, but i guess we will never *know*

    Ant

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •