Gadfly and Bon Vivant
Olympic judging changes ( 5 judge results)
apologies if this has been posted here before (or shouldn't) but ....
"just five judges will actually determine Olympic results"
"The ISU made the changes without much input from member federations"
"Cinquanta has said he was concerned about how judging integrity could be affected by reducing the number of judges on the panel, but he consulted with experts who made it clear that the change will not affect the judging system"
""A smaller panel is more susceptible to incompetence," said Thompson, a former high-level judge. "If someone doesn't do a good job, you have a larger impact.""
What is the judging system?
If you drop the high and low, we now have 3 judges
If we have the appointed 5, and the names are given in the intro to the event, we will know, at least, the names and nationalities of the 5. Does this mean that there will be no Secret Judging at the Olympics (of all places)?
^ This "change" just means that they will use the same system for the Olympics that they use for Worlds and other major events.
There will still be anonymous judging, a random draw, and a trimmed mean. Nine judges sit at rinkside. Two judges' scores will be eliminated at random by the computer. Of the remaining seven, the highest and lowest scores are eliminated for each line of the protocols. The remaining five scores are then averaged.
(I think the author of this article is mistaken in writing, "In the new judging system, officials drop the highest and the lowest marks and then do a random selection that drops two others." I think it is the other way around -- first the random draw, then dropping the highest and lowest.)
The reason given by the ISU for this change -- which went into effect last year and was used through the 2008-2009 season -- is money. The ISU saves money by sending fewer judges to the competition.
Statistically, there is no reason why a judging panel should have any particular number of members rather than another. The more the merrier. Dr. Rossano's point is that the smaller the judges' panel, the greater the weight carried by each judge's vote. Therefore mistakes and skulduggery on the part of one or a few judges could have a greater impact with a smaller panel.
As Rossano mentions, if you are one judge among seven, your vote counts for 1/7 or about 14.3% of the total. If you are one in five in 7 then your weight on the panel is 20%. This is a ratio of .20/.143 = 1.40 -- an increase of 40% in the power of each judge.
So why not have 9 judges at rinkside and not randomly select any to be eliminated, thereby keeping 7 scores to count after dropping high and low?
Does the random selection really protect the judges from outside influence, which was the justification for doing so?
Can any international judges confirm whether that works as advertised?
Tell me how this saves money if they still will have 9 judges sitting rinkside, but only 5 of those will actually count. They still have expenses for those whose scores don't count. This makes no sense.
Beliver in Sasha's Perfect Program
intertesting. Are they doing this for monetary reasons??
I am not sure I like the sound of this.
It still boils down to the 5-4 split-want to bet the 5 judges that stay on are the ones that count
No i don't believe they will ever judge total fair. They will always judge by beneift of doubt,money and politics.