Analyzing Sotnikova and Kim's footwork in the FS | Page 17 | Golden Skate

Analyzing Sotnikova and Kim's footwork in the FS

Status
Not open for further replies.

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
- A judge should not able to judge their own federation skaters more than 1 time in the whole season.

I.e., the same judge should not judge the same home country skater at more than one international event per year?

The ISU can't control whether an international judge also judges at their national championships, where they will judge all of their country's international-level skaters.

- A judge should not able to judge on the same category event more than twice in the whole season. (This prevent false momentum building)

Works for singles/pairs judges, since they have three different disciplines they can judge. And for judges who have both singles/pairs and dance appointments. For those with dance appointments only, either they judge the dance event or they don't judge.
And some countries don't have multiple dance judges.

- A judge should not able to judge a competition with another judge they have previously judged in the same event during the season. (This prevent distorting average mean working together)

If you're worried about making deals, then even being in the same place at the same time (e.g., judging different disciplines or one judging and the other serving as referee or controller) would give them access to do so.

- There should be no judges or restricted to just 1 judge from any of the top 5 ranking skaters nationality on the same event due to conflict of interest at any major competitions , ie/ GPF, WC, Olympics.

If it contains all 5 top ranked skater nationality judges, is it totally inconceivable they will gangs up (block judging shared interest, vote trading etc) to depress the score of the likely leader? Consciously or unconsciously. Just think about it.

If they're going to do it consciously, and if they all have dogs in the hunt so to speak, they're going to make deals against each other. I.e., bloc judging. Allowing one top-ranked skater to have a home country judge and not the others would theoretically give that skater more of an advantage than allowing all 5 to have home judges.

If you're just talking about judges developing groupthink consensus by serving on panels together and discussing their decisions afterward in the judges' room, I don't know that the nationality of the judges would be the biggest factor. E.g., if the Finnish and the French and the Australian judge often end up at the same competitions and talk about what they saw, they may end up with similar opinions about the current Russian and Japanese and American skaters, without any particular political reason to favor one country's contenders over another.

There's always going to be a tension between practicality and attempts to legislate impartiality.

In an ideal world there would be an unlimited supply of qualified knowledgeable judges from all over the world, including countries with no elite skaters whatsoever, who can get to any location at any time for the same modest costs. If that were the case, avoiding judges' familiarity with or allegiance to specific top competitors could always be a top consideration.

In real life, judges need to gain experience judging elite skaters before they can be deemed qualified enough to judge the big events. They will usually have judged all their own country's top skaters in domestic competitions. Judges from newer federations need experience judging junior and senior B events before qualifying for championship events. Judges in Europe can often drive or take trains to competitions in other European countries, making it easier for them to be invited to judge international events at the beginning of their international judging careers, so they will be more familiar with other European skaters before they reach the elite levels. American and Canadian judges may be familiar not only with their own country's skaters but some of each other's who cross the border for nonqualifying competitions, as well as any foreign skaters who train in North America and enter nonqual competitions for practice.

Judges often have relationships with other officials or with coaches of similar age and background dating back to their own skating years.

Some sources of familiarity and affiliation with the skaters they judge can be considered too much of a conflict of interest and reason to disqualify that judge from serving on a panel with that skater. Others are too numerous to be anything but inevitable, and usually too tenuous to make much difference.

Where is it practical to draw the line? E.g., say we all agree that no parent should judge his/her own child, or no tech specialist who is also a coach should serve on a panel of an event in which a current student is competing. But just having judged the same skater a couple times before during the same season? Keeping track of all such connections would be a full-time job in itself.

If the main concern is the high-stakes medal contenders at the big events, maybe the rule could only apply to the Grand Prix and to ISU championships.

Judges are often assigned to the big events months in advance -- although they won't necessarily know which discipline they'll be assigned to or whether they will end up being drawn on the panel or as alternates.

The international judging assignments cannot be made at the last minute because it's often necessary for the officials to obtain visas to enter the country where the competition is being held, and to arrange for the time off from their day jobs.

Which skaters from their country will compete at that event will not be known months in advance -- sometimes not until the close of entries for the event. Or afterward, if an official entry withdraws and is replaced by a listed alternate.
 

Mao88

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
To DMD, gmyers, nadya and mao88 - the world is round, you cannot catch gonorrhea from a toilet seat AND adelina was grossly overmarked in sochi.

1. The Earth is not round. :bang: As Isaac Newton pointed out, it is an oblate spheroid (an irregularly shaped ellipsoid) — a sphere that is squashed at its poles and swollen at the equator. Because of this bulge, the distance from Earth's center to sea level is roughly 21 kilometers (13 miles) greater at the equator than at the poles. Moreover, the shape of the Earth is always changing. Sometimes this change is periodic, as is the case with daily tides that affect both the ocean and the crust; sometimes the change is slow and steady, as with the drift of tectonic plates or the rebound of the crust after a heavy sheet of ice has melted; and sometimes the shape of the planet changes in violent, episodic ways during events such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or meteor strikes.

2. Nobody has suggested otherwise

3. Adelina Sotnikova, THE 2014 OLYMPIC CHAMPION, received the marks she did because she deserved them. :clap::party::rock:

You scored 1 out of 3 (very poor). Your ignorance is typical of all Yuna fans :hb:

Ignore the haters everyone,

I agree - that's why the silent majority are ignoring you and all the other Yuna fans.

In terms of you Yuna fans mission to convince the world she was wuzrobbed - me thinks this sums it up nicely
 

Ven

Match Penalty
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
You guys are all missing the point. CoP was created to hide cheating. The judges do not follow the guidelines, the numbers are just made up in the end to verify the predetermined results.
 

jaylee

Medalist
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Reading this thread made me think about, oddly enough, Rachael Flatt. The downgrades on Rachael's flips at the 2010 Olympics never sat right with me at the time. I always thought those downgrades were politically motivated--because Rachael went first in the group and she went clean, they just didn't want any chance she'd be near the podium if the veterans weren't clean.

I didn't shed any tears for her, but...that wasn't right. Rachael lost about 8 points in base value and she would've otherwise been in 5th place and had the honor of being in the gala. Rachael being in the gala may not have made a big difference to some, but it would have made a big deal to Rachael personally.

I think everyone would agree that technical calls ought to be consistent and fair for all skaters across the board. The only disagreement here from some is whether the technical calls were fair and consistent across the board in the ladies event in Sochi.
 

sk8in

Match Penalty
Joined
Jan 15, 2014
Judges should not have so much room for variation in the GOEs. They should either award a +1 or nothing. No fractions, or 3 point range. Unless every skater is performing the same program---and everyone has the same base value, it pushes judges to order the skaters based on politics, their personal feelings, and bs things like "Olympic moments."
 

Mista Ekko

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
You guys are all missing the point. CoP was created to hide cheating. The judges do not follow the guidelines, the numbers are just made up in the end to verify the predetermined results.

Any judging system for a sport like this would be cheating friendly,

The problem with this specific system is that if there were to be cheating, It would be backed by "protocol"
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Judges should not have so much room for variation in the GOEs. They should either award a +1 or nothing.

So you're saying that there should be no more than 1 point difference in the scores for, say, this triple lutz and this one?

No fractions, or 3 point range.

Well, the individual judges already don't have the option of using fractional GOEs. That's an effect of the averaging. Even if they only have a choice between 0 and 1 for successful elements, every time even one judge disagrees there will be decimal places in the average GOE.

Unless every skater is performing the same program---and everyone has the same base value, it pushes judges to order the skaters based on politics, their personal feelings, and bs things like "Olympic moments."

That can happen, but the main thing that GOEs do is allow judges to score quality. If you take away that option, then there's no incentive to do anything well, just to get it done successfully.
 

Ven

Match Penalty
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
That can happen, but the main thing that GOEs do is allow judges to score quality. If you take away that option, then there's no incentive to do anything well, just to get it done successfully.

They don't score on quality anyway, they just assign whatever numbers will help the placements come out the way they have agreed behind closed doors.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
They don't score on quality anyway, they just assign whatever numbers will help the placements come out the way they have agreed behind closed doors.

I disagree. They usually score on quality.

In high-stakes competitions like the Olympics, there may also be agreements behind closed doors that cause judges to systematically nudge their GOEs up or down for certain skaters. But those manipulations would be the exception, not the norm.

Do you really think that judges bother to make agreements about what scores to give some 13-year-old they never heard of at her first JGP?
 

Sam-Skwantch

“I solemnly swear I’m up to no good”
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Country
United-States
I disagree. They usually score on quality.

In high-stakes competitions like the Olympics, there may also be agreements behind closed doors that cause judges to systematically nudge their GOEs up or down for certain skaters. But those manipulations would be the exception, not the norm.

Do you really think that judges bother to make agreements about what scores to give some 13-year-old they never heard of at her first JGP?

I assume that when the judges watch the practice skates in their head they are creating a "par"score, so to speak, that they expect to give the skater. If they've been judging long enough I also assume they could relatively easily have a pre planned way to mark scores to achieve this "par". Of course the skaters can improve on the score or decrease it based on how they skate. Am I assuming too much or is it fair to think the judges actually know the skaters pretty well and whether subconscious or not...they have a score in mind before the skater takes the ice. I'd like to add that I don't see anything wrong necessarily with this..I'm just curious if this happens...at least in the international top rungs.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Reading this thread made me think about, oddly enough, Rachael Flatt. The downgrades on Rachael's flips at the 2010 Olympics never sat right with me at the time. I always thought those downgrades were politically motivated--because Rachael went first in the group and she went clean, they just didn't want any chance she'd be near the podium if the veterans weren't clean.

Yeah, it sure looked that way. Kim, Asada, and Rochette were yet to skate, and who knows? one of them might have fallen or something.

Mirai, skating last, got a free ride and finished 4th, after the top three all performed well enough that they couldn't be caught. I guess it was poetic justice to make up for Flatt winning U.S. Nationals on questionable downgrades of Mirai's jumps. Which in turn might have been to make it up to Rachael, who should have won U.S. Nationals the previous year instead of Alissa Czisny. ;)
 

capcomeback

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
I disagree. They usually score on quality.

In high-stakes competitions like the Olympics, there may also be agreements behind closed doors that cause judges to systematically nudge their GOEs up or down for certain skaters. But those manipulations would be the exception, not the norm.

Do you really think that judges bother to make agreements about what scores to give some 13-year-old they never heard of at her first JGP?

I agree in theory but those GOE 3's can really jack up a program based upon a very subjective thing. For jumps in particular you have to weigh height versus distance, air position landing etc.. For example, not many jumpers do all these things perfectly (to deserve a 3). Adelina's height on her jumps in general was terrific in her FS. Not much carry compared to a large number of others (especially Carolina and Yuna). Her landings were mostly solid, but not always perfect (even on the ones landed cleanly).

As far as the point of this thread, based BoP's analysis, he felt she deserved a Level 3 with GOE 1 (or 2 at best) on her step/turn sequences (as opposed to the Level 4 with a GOE 3 she received). What do you think based upon your analysis?
 

OS

Sedated by Modonium
Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
This would be highly impractical. If Russia's or USA's top 3 skaters skated at 6 different GP events, and there were some overlap with lower ranked RUS/USA skaters, it is entirely possible to need 6 different judges for the GP series, and none of those judges would be able to judge at 4CC/Euros, and none of those (including the 4CC/Euros judge) could judge Worlds. Add in some Senior B's to the mix and you're talking about needing a lot of judges. If the complaint is that the judges are inadequately trained, knocking out so many judges with this provision would not lead to having the best judges at the most important competitions.

Then there shouldn't be a USA or a RUSSIA judge at every 6 GP series event. Actually my idea was conceived purely for GP series, WC and Olympic ONLY where the stake are at highest where conflict of interests must be better managed. The idea might not work right now due to practical issues you mentioned, but there can be something like a 4 years initiative plan to broaden judge expertise with other minority figure skating federations countries, e.g Singapore, Brazil, Taiwan, Netherlands, South Africa, Philippines, Turkey etc. to encourage opportunity to gain experience at major events Think of it like seeding expertise and spread wealth and knowledge about the sport to new territories. It is a healthier approach to truly serve the sport's international interests rather than focus on the major power federations. I realise the idea is very blue sky thinking but it is doable with enough initiative and follow through in a long term strategy for ISU (Doubt that will happen though .... with these lot in power). It can be a great way to raise the profile sport world wide while breed knowledge. I am curious if they can do things like trial events to have young judges mark on minor competitions with full disclosure (not anonymous, mark live on camera as they see it) for fun to see how it works with the public. They can learn, refine and improve the process then consider implement at a more elite level.

You made a mistake calculating the differential for Sotnikova, her score would drop from 5.6 to to 4.51, which is 1.09 points.

But, really, the judges who gave Sotnikova's step sequence +3 GOE are completely wrong. Giving it a +2 would already be overly generous and not the most accurate representation of the quality. We are analyzing the step sequences here, so it's only logical to have a discussion on the GOE grades now that I have proven the level calls were wrong.

In comparing these two step sequences, Sotnikova had shakier edges, less flow in the movement, inferior upper body movement, and significantly less movement directly to the music. There isn't any criteria in which she was better than Yu-Na either. Her GOE grade on the footwork should have been at least a full mark behind Yu-Na's. A fair assessment of the footwork sequences would be Level 3 with +1 GOE for Sotnikova and Level 4 with +2 GOE for Yu-Na. That would put the scoring differential at 2.66 points from what they actually received.

Thanks for the correction. I misread the pdf and thought Adelina got 5.80 instead of 5.60. Yes the GOEs, I remember those long discussion about how strict it is to satisfy the number of bullet points to get +1 +2 or +3, but seems things been relaxed since last round of rule changes? I just can't get over reading the protocols from Vancouver vs the the protocols in Sochi, they were really stingy with the GOEs back then, or rather they some how became overly generous at this competition (to compensate for Sotnikova's PCS?). Take the Vancouver FS for example, Yuna only got 2x 3s (3lz3T, Combination Spin), Mao got 2 x 3s (Step sequences)

http://library.la84.org/6oic/OfficialReports/2010/Results/FS_Results_Book.pdf
http://www.isuresults.com/results/owg2014/owg14_Ladies_FS_Scores.pdf

I simply refuse to believe the Russian youngsters were better than Yuna and Mao from Vancouver. Yuna and Mao made me stayed and learn the friggin COP (!!!!!!!), Watching Adelina win the OGM with a score of 149 and 9.75 on her choreography make me want to tear my hair out and burn all my art, music and dance degrees/awards/diplomas/certificates. What is the point of learning all these knowledge if the judges went against everything I thought I knew?
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I assume that when the judges watch the practice skates in their head they are creating a "par"score, so to speak, that they expect to give the skater.

That was true under 6.0.

With IJS, they might get a sense of the general range of PCS they would be thinking of for this skater, or noting an especially strong element that could be worthy of +2 or +3 GOE.

If they've been judging long enough I also assume they could relatively easily have a pre planned way to mark scores to achieve this "par".

Not sure what you mean by this "par."

I don't think judges think in terms of total scores because they don't have control over the base values and they probably don't have the interest in doing lots of arithmetic.

(If they were on a mission to put one skater ahead of another regardless of how well they actually skate, the math might be worth the effort, but again, that would only be the case for the medal contenders at the really important events. The rest of the time, why bother when it's simpler just to score the actual skating?)

They can easily estimate what their total PCS would be for a skater before factoring. For the men, where the PCS factors are 1.0 for the short program and 2.0 for the freeskate, all they need to do is add up the five components for the short and double the total for the free. For other disciplines with other factors, they'd have to do another step of math to figure out their totals. They can only guess at the TES though.

Am I assuming too much or is it fair to think the judges actually know the skaters pretty well and whether subconscious or not...they have a score in mind before the skater takes the ice. I'd like to add that I don't see anything wrong necessarily with this..I'm just curious if this happens...at least in the international top rungs.

Know the skaters personally or know their skating very well?

Some judges will know skaters from their own countries personally. That will be more true in small countries with small skating communities. In a large country such as the US, a judge who is from the same part of the country as a skater and watched them grow up, maybe belongs to the same club, might know them personally and would certainly have seen a lot of their skating. A judge who does a lot of critiquing would get to know skaters they critique often.x

In terms of being familiar with the skater's skating, again, judges from the same small country or the same part of a large country would likely have judged them often.

Skaters who have been at the top of the international ranks for a while will be known to most judges. After all, if they're not judging Worlds themselves, they probably check out the TV broadcasts or other sources of videos to see who won.

When they go to judge an international competition, they'll probably already have seen a lot of the successful veterans, maybe other veterans who compete a lot at the competitions this judge tends to judge, and skaters from their own country. If there's a newcomer on the scene who got a lot of buzz with a junior world medal last year, a Grand Prix medal in their debut season, a surprise win at a nationals with a deep field, etc., then even judges who haven't judged them before will probably make a point to check them out.

From past events and from watching practices they should have a sense of what to watch out for with particular skaters -- this one tends to "lip," that one has a lot of surprise entries into elements, the other one starts with a step sequence so pay close attention right from the beginning of the program, etc.

At most competitions (aside from the Grand Prix Final) there will also be skaters that any individual judge either has never seen before or has not paid much attention to before.

If they've been judging for a long time (and it does take years to get from national to international to ISU championship judge), they've seen hundreds, maybe a few thousand, of skaters come and go. So they're not going to memorize everything about every skater at every competition. But they would pay more attention to world/Olympic medal contenders.
 

mateusp1

On the Ice
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
I am not great when analyzing step sequences, but, I watched Carolina a few times and recognized some elements of her footwork.

Twizzles(both directions), Loops(both directions), Toe Steps, Three turns, Mohawk and some curved changes of edges.

What I did not see in Carolina's footwork: Illusion turn and toe hop
 

sk8in

Match Penalty
Joined
Jan 15, 2014
So you're saying that there should be no more than 1 point difference in the scores for, say, this triple lutz and this one?



Well, the individual judges already don't have the option of using fractional GOEs. That's an effect of the averaging. Even if they only have a choice between 0 and 1 for successful elements, every time even one judge disagrees there will be decimal places in the average GOE.



That can happen, but the main thing that GOEs do is allow judges to score quality. If you take away that option, then there's no incentive to do anything well, just to get it done successfully.
There are enough rules on technical completion of elements that encourage skaters to do jumps well. Under the old system skaters could fudge landings etc, and still get away with credit for their jump. The important difference between that and bonus GOE points, is that its based on objective observation. On that jump Boitano does, he could get the bonus point, but then he could get credit for his transitions. Again, if you run judges run amuck with GOEs, then it creates another vacuum in PCS. It is harder to distinguish where all these different numbers are coming from. All that convolution makes room for the judges' bias to come through.
 

jenaj

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Country
United-States
Any judging system for a sport like this would be cheating friendly,

The problem with this specific system is that if there were to be cheating, It would be backed by "protocol"

Again, the real problem comes down to the judges. The judges should work for the ISU and be barred from taking any money or monetary help from their home federations. Judges caught cheating--hello, Yuri--should be banned for life. Judges should not have family or business relationships with members of their federations (hello, Alla). And their scores should not be anonymous. This, of course, doesn't solve the problem of a cheating or biased technical controller. But if technical controllers are found to make too many "mistakes," such as giving too high a level or missing an under-rotation or flutz, the ISU needs to stop using them! All of this starts with the ISU. They have tolerated cheating and suspect results and just made it harder for anyone to call them on it. Until that changes, figure skating judging will continue to be corrupt.
 

jenaj

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Country
United-States
Yeah, it sure looked that way. Kim, Asada, and Rochette were yet to skate, and who knows? one of them might have fallen or something.

Mirai, skating last, got a free ride and finished 4th, after the top three all performed well enough that they couldn't be caught. I guess it was poetic justice to make up for Flatt winning U.S. Nationals on questionable downgrades of Mirai's jumps. Which in turn might have been to make it up to Rachael, who should have won U.S. Nationals the previous year instead of Alissa Czisny. ;)

It wasn't a "they" that dinged Rachael. It was the technical controller. Rachael got downgrades she had never gotten before. That was really surprising to me, after it seemed like she had skated really well. Her score put her below Laura Lepisto, who had skated in the second to last group, landing her in 7th if everyone else skated well, which they did. I think Rachael never really recovered after that.
 

MiRé

Match Penalty
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Ice coverage is immensely different between the two, and it boggles my mind how Adelina received +3 in her footwork. I also find it amusing how ISU thinks the judging was fair. Do they even look at their own guidelines :think:
 

OS

Sedated by Modonium
Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Thanks gkelly for your detailed reply. I am always learning a lot from you which I greatly appreciate.

I.e., the same judge should not judge the same home country skater at more than one international event per year?

The ISU can't control whether an international judge also judges at their national championships, where they will judge all of their country's international-level skaters.

As mentioned, the suggestion is only applicable for major international events ie/ GP/GPF, Worlds, Olympics at the Olympics where the stake is highest.

Actually do you think banning ISU judges judge at home GP series can improve impartiality? The federation will never go for it of course, unless it is enforced on everyone, but it does resolve the problem of removing unfair home advantage that is simply not affordable by minor skating federations.

Works for singles/pairs judges, since they have three different disciplines they can judge. And for judges who have both singles/pairs and dance appointments. For those with dance appointments only, either they judge the dance event or they don't judge.
And some countries don't have multiple dance judges.

This will need to be done via a long term plan to groom the right number of judges with the balanced expertise to meet these competitions. A 4-8 years road map (timed with Olympic cycle) in 2 stages perhaps.

If you're worried about making deals, then even being in the same place at the same time (e.g., judging different disciplines or one judging and the other serving as referee or controller) would give them access to do so.

If they're going to do it consciously, and if they all have dogs in the hunt so to speak, they're going to make deals against each other. I.e., bloc judging. Allowing one top-ranked skater to have a home country judge and not the others would theoretically give that skater more of an advantage than allowing all 5 to have home judges.

How are judges drawn? Skaters draw skating orders, are judges drawn (even months ahead?) or get assigned controlled by ISU?
I only put forward minimum 1 due to practical issues, and assumed the judges assigned can be done by randomized draw instead specifically assigned by ISU to suit their agenda.
In the ideal world, no judges should share nationality or affiliation with the top skaters they judge, professionally or socially. Not achievable right now, but maybe when there are more other judges?

To be realistic, as long as this sport relies on 100% human judgement, these deal making will likely to occur anyway, it is human nature.
From a risk management perspective however. We can only do so much to restrict these things from happening by putting preventative measures in place for everyone to follow. I am sure there are expertise in the field of compliance, auditing, ethics area to draw a plan to improve impartiality and minimize conflict of interests.

If you're just talking about judges developing groupthink consensus by serving on panels together and discussing their decisions afterward in the judges' room, I don't know that the nationality of the judges would be the biggest factor. E.g., if the Finnish and the French and the Australian judge often end up at the same competitions and talk about what they saw, they may end up with similar opinions about the current Russian and Japanese and American skaters, without any particular political reason to favor one country's contenders over another.

There's always going to be a tension between practicality and attempts to legislate impartiality.

It is a tough job for sure and like you said, it is not just a matter of nationality, geography, or historical alliances. People are social animals, they are going to talk. I do think even though there are things like randomized draws at certain process to 'claim' fairness, it can still be manipulated by the power that be if they only enlist candidates that will suited to their agenda. That is why transparency is important. By removing anonymity, all their scores are available in public, they will feel more obligated to guard their reputation by just being fair. The excuse of federation pressure do not apply if most of their assignment do not affect home skaters.

In an ideal world there would be an unlimited supply of qualified knowledgeable judges from all over the world, including countries with no elite skaters whatsoever, who can get to any location at any time for the same modest costs. If that were the case, avoiding judges' familiarity with or allegiance to specific top competitors could always be a top consideration.

In real life, judges need to gain experience judging elite skaters before they can be deemed qualified enough to judge the big events. They will usually have judged all their own country's top skaters in domestic competitions. Judges from newer federations need experience judging junior and senior B events before qualifying for championship events. Judges in Europe can often drive or take trains to competitions in other European countries, making it easier for them to be invited to judge international events at the beginning of their international judging careers, so they will be more familiar with other European skaters before they reach the elite levels. American and Canadian judges may be familiar not only with their own country's skaters but some of each other's who cross the border for non qualifying competitions, as well as any foreign skaters who train in North America and enter nonqual competitions for practice.

Judges often have relationships with other officials or with coaches of similar age and background dating back to their own skating years.

Some sources of familiarity and affiliation with the skaters they judge can be considered too much of a conflict of interest and reason to disqualify that judge from serving on a panel with that skater. Others are too numerous to be anything but inevitable, and usually too tenuous to make much difference.

Where is it practical to draw the line? E.g., say we all agree that no parent should judge his/her own child, or no tech specialist who is also a coach should serve on a panel of an event in which a current student is competing. But just having judged the same skater a couple times before during the same season? Keeping track of all such connections would be a full-time job in itself.

If the main concern is the high-stakes medal contenders at the big events, maybe the rule could only apply to the Grand Prix and to ISU championships.

....

Agree with several points, and leaves several points to ponder. This is perhaps for a different thread, but just how many judges are in the ISU. Is there a directory list? How many are there per federation, is it based on a quotas system? e.g USA have 6 level judges so Russia must also get 6 spots, or are they interdependent? How are judges assigned etc. Maybe you can refer me a few articles to look at?

I actually wonder if judges should be a proper paid job. I personally never believe in any voluntary/low paid jobs that are in prestigious positions. It tends to breed corruption. With proper pay, proper penalty, transparent marking, remove anonymity, I think most people can trust the system better. IOC should pay for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top