The ISU doesn't want you to know. They don't want you to know any of it. All of the obfuscation happens on purpose.
Edit: hmm this was a reply for Mathman, whose post fell into the black hole.
(and now appeared below mine)
Sotnikova wins 7 to 2.
Here are the same numbers arranged differently.
SOT ….48…...47.25….46.5….45.5…..45…..44.25….44.25… 48.25….48
Mow Kim wins 7 to 2.
Under ordinal judging, even with anonymity at least we knew how many forst place ordinalsd each skater received.
Last edited by Mathman; 06-05-2014 at 01:10 PM.
The increase in the lead is why I don't really accept the "harder technical program" or "one more triple" argument for Adelina's win. Notwithstanding the other ladies who did 7 (or 8, Mao) triples, those arguments would only have been valid if Adelina's lead had decreased. For example, Yuna's short program had a higher base value (31.43 vs 30.43, so +1.00) and better PCS (35.89 vs 35.55, so +0.34), yet her overall score was only slightly higher (74.92 vs 74.64, or +0.28). In that case it would be appropriate to say that the base value was the reason (or really, one of the reasons, since she needed the PCS differential as well) why she "won" the SP, since if it were not considered, then she wouldn't be in first place after the SP. But this is not what happened in the FS.
Based on the points given, the judges were not merely saying that Adelina's program was technically harder (i.e. higher base value). They were also saying that the elements were performed with a better quality (higher GOEs, technical calls, etc.) and that both were virtually equally matched in terms of the program components (skating skills, interpretation, etc.).
Regarding the complaint, since ISU's rules apparently don't allow questioning how the scores were determined (i.e. the actual judging), unless it's the skater herself in question (or representatives) that filed the complaint, the Koreans don't have standing to question overly lenient calls given to other skaters. Thus the focus on other things like composition of judges and whatnot. I think whether or not the overall judging itself was according to the rules and guidelines would be more appropriate, but that's considered out of bounds and would have been rejected out of hand. Evidently there's a loophole in the overall scoring system and appeals process.
It really took ISU long time!
Pangpangpangpangfan, can you remind how much exactly Putin paid them? I forgot the amount....
If the judges are convinced that one skater presented a program of greater difficulty as measured by the base values, and if the skater goes more or less clean, they often pile on the GOEs and PCS to ensure that this skater wins. So in that sense, yes, we can say that Adelina's victory was due to higher base value (together with the automatic GOE and PCS boost that accompanies it.)Originally Posted by Vanshilar
On the other hand, sometimes the judges don't do that.
Last edited by Mathman; 06-05-2014 at 01:57 PM.
Of course the ISU dismissed it, their complaint was backed up with flimsy and ridiculous arguments. The lawyer obviously wasn't very good.
A complaint based on a bad judge being on the panel should be filed when the judge is assigned, not after the competition has concluded. It makes the complaint look more like they didn't like the outcome, rather than not liking the judge. (Although I agree it's stupid to have someone like that on the panel in the first place.)