A History of Cheating in Judging

[Finley]

This is worth the read if you are interested. Even if it is from 2015 I think it is still relevant today.

https://adivinesport.com/2015/09/20/sonia-bianchetti-garbatos-cracked-ice-what-can-we-learn/

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

One good step that has been taken since then is that the judges and their scores are no longer anonymous. Judges will always be able to cheat, but at least there is more accountability and it's possible to see trends like bloc voting.

 

[Finley]

One good step that has been taken since then is that the judges and their scores are no longer anonymous. Judges will always be able to cheat, but at least there is more accountability and it's possible to see trends like bloc voting.

The sport that we love is moving forward. Maybe slowly, but it is progress!

 

[Mathman]

This interesting article is a nice summary of Sonia Bianchetti's experiences with figure skating judging. But if we are really interested in the history of the phenomenon we would have to go back at least to the 1927 World championships in Oslo at which there were 3 Norwegian judges and 2 German/Austrian judges. Sonja Henie won 3 judges to 2 (duh) over five-time and defending champion Herma Szabo. Szabo saw the lay of the land and promptly retired.

The ISU, to its credit passed a new rule that each country could have only one judge on the panel.

Or earlier still. Gilbert Fuchs, the first ISU world champion, went back and forth with Ulrich Salchow.In 1906 Salchow refused to compete in the world championship because it was held in Munich, Fuchs' home town, and Salchow knew he didn't have a chance. Two years later, at the 2008 Olympics the panel was stacked in Salchow's favor and it was Fuchs who declined to participate.

 

[Mathman]

One good step that has been taken since then is that the judges and their scores are no longer anonymous.

Of course, taking the history of figure skating as a whole, the idea of anonymous judging was something of a temporary anomoly -- a panic response to the 2002 escapade. It lasted only a few years. Both before and after that interlude the judges and their marks were always identified -- in fact, in the good old days the judges walked out onto the ice in person to hold up their score cards to the audience.

 

[Elucidus]

Nevertheless - those who have the most influence on scores - Tech Panel members are still anonymous. I mean we don't know who exactly makes the final decision for particular calls or their absence. Also, having only 3 callers of limited range of nationalities makes TP very susceptible to national bias.

 

[Edwin]

Nevertheless - those who have the most influence on scores - Tech Panel members are still anonymous. I mean we don't know who exactly makes the final decision for particular calls or their absence. Also, having only 3 callers of limited range of nationalities makes TP very susceptible to national bias.

Indeed, the whole of calling must be made more transparent and accountable. Like I've suggested, have the TES box colour coded for elements marked for revision, and show the revisions live on the big arena display and in a window on TV and the subsequent change of score on that element.

Plus more and better camera's, one tech review camera to the right is no longer sufficient. when there isn't enough pixel and temporal resolution, giving ! and < on jumps performed in the farthest corner at shallow angles of view still seems like guesstimating.

 

[gkelly]

Nevertheless - those who have the most influence on scores - Tech Panel members are still anonymous. I mean we don't know who exactly makes the final decision for particular calls or their absence.

We know who the members of the technical panel are.

We know what the process is:

The Technical Specialist calls what he/she sees for jumps, and either other member can call for a review. For leveled elements each panel member looks for one or more specific features and reports yes or no, the TS calls the level on that basis. Any panel member can call for review.

During the reviews, any panel member might change their minds based on seeing the element again, sometimes with slow motion, hearing input from the other panel members, and if necessary looking up what rules might apply in unusual situations. If the technical specialist and assistant technical specialist agree, that is the call. If they disagree, the technical controller breaks the tie.

So no, we don't know which features each official was looking for during the program, and we don't know whether there was disagreement among panel members during the reviews let alone which one took which position, or whether anyone changed their minds during the reviews.

But I suspect the belief that most reviewed calls are politically motivated is more about wanting a good story than about how the process really plays out in most cases.

Some broadcasters do let us know which elements were reviewed at all, which can be of interest.

If viewers had to listen to what the tech panel has to say on every review, it would become really boring really fast.

But it could be useful for large events to show the tech panel replays on the Jumbotron at big arena events and to make the video feed available to broadcasters to show instead of replays from their own cameras. Not as casual-fan-friendly as the network-produced replays, but could be of interest to more technically oriented fans, even without hearing who's saying "I've got 90 degrees" or something of the sort.

 

[Elucidus]

So no, we don't know which features each official was looking for during the program, and we don't know whether there was disagreement among panel members during the reviews let alone which one took which position, or whether anyone changed their minds during the reviews.

Exactly.

Indeed, the whole of calling must be made more transparent and accountable. Like I've suggested, have the TES box colour coded for elements marked for revision, and show the revisions live on the big arena display and in a window on TV and the subsequent change of score on that element.

There is an example how it could be made - including recording of voices of TP members
https://youtu.be/4zRAUVYjBRM?t=134

If viewers had to listen to what the tech panel has to say on every review, it would become really boring really fast.

No. It's much, much, much more interesting even for casual viewers to watch instead of random jumps since they will see exactly what will determine final score. That, and it will make the whole calling process more transparent - surely, noone will be against it if TP members are as unbiased as you claim

 

[gkelly]

TV networks are never going to avoid taking commercial breaks, showing skater-coach interactions while waiting for marks, or allowing their own commentators to make comments during the reviews. And I guarantee that someone who doesn't know a lutz from a salchow let alone "sit front" from "nonbasic" is not going to prefer listening to jargon they don't understand to seeing skaters kissing or crying in the K&C.

They might learn something, but they'd learn more if the commentators would also translate the jargon for them.

Fans who care enough to buy tickets to attend events or pay for streaming services without human interest commentary would be more interested. But if given nothing to look at or listen during the wait for scores except for the reviews, for every skater, even we would soon tune most of it out.

 

[Mathman]

I agree with gkelly that we know at least as much about what the technical panel is up to as we do about the judges. When a judge gives a 7.25 in Choreography or a +2 GOE we don't know exactly what features the judge is taking into account, just a summary of his/her impression. Or one judge will think, "that jump had very good height and distance." Another will say, "Nah, it was just average."

Or suppose the technical specialist calls an unclear edge. The other two panel members concur and there is no challenge. One judge says, the edge looked Ok to me, another says, that edge was poor, I'll reduce the GOE.

(internet geometers of course will produce frames with superimposed protractors and compasses to prove conclusively that the edge was 89 degrees to the inside, not straight up -- no, no, you idiot, anyone can see that it it 91 degrees -- one degree over to the outside. Anyway, we both agree that the technical panel was wrong to say that it was "unclear -- it's clear as day.)

Rising up in protest about biased judging and political deal-making is our birthright as skating fans. But a lot of the complaints are merely that figure skating is a judged sport, not a measured one. It is what it is.

 

[Elucidus]

TV networks are never going to avoid taking commercial breaks, showing skater-coach interactions while waiting for marks, or allowing their own commentators to make comments during the reviews.

There are solutions for that. Tv commercials aside they can show little miniscreen with TP during everything else - for example.

And I guarantee that someone who doesn't know a lutz from a salchow let alone "sit front" from "nonbasic" is not going to prefer listening to jargon they don't understand to seeing skaters kissing or crying in the K&C.
They might learn something, but they'd learn more if the commentators would also translate the jargon for them.

There are always first time for everything :confused2: Just watch some other sports - there can be quite specific reviews at times where first time viewer can't understand anything. Focusing on casuals is not always what particular sport fans want. If they are interested enough - they will learn all what they need to learn. And spins are rarely reviewed after the skate is done, btw. They just don't have enough time for them and levels in most cases remains the same as they were called during the skate on the fly.

But if given nothing to look at or listen during the wait for scores except for the reviews, for every skater, even we would soon tune most of it out.

When I was watching Moscow novice championship - I've never missed any single TP work excerpt there - they were always interesting to watch for me. There are solutions nevertheless - either by using miniscreen or including TP work partially, only during last (most important) fly of skaters - where order of podium placements is decided. That will be interesting to watch in any case. Or do you imply that watching and hearing TP debates after P/C free dance in Euro wouldn't be interesting?

In the end what matters is only desire of ISU officials to make changes - but demand for them definitely exists.

 

[moonvine]

Indeed, the whole of calling must be made more transparent and accountable. Like I've suggested, have the TES box colour coded for elements marked for revision, and show the revisions live on the big arena display and in a window on TV and the subsequent change of score on that element.

Plus more and better camera's, one tech review camera to the right is no longer sufficient. when there isn't enough pixel and temporal resolution, giving ! and < on jumps performed in the farthest corner at shallow angles of view still seems like guesstimating.

There is a dollar cost associated with more and better cameras which so far they’ve been unwilling to pay.

 

[moonvine]

TV networks are never going to avoid taking commercial breaks, showing skater-coach interactions while waiting for marks, or allowing their own commentators to make comments during the reviews. And I guarantee that someone who doesn't know a lutz from a salchow let alone "sit front" from "nonbasic" is not going to prefer listening to jargon they don't understand to seeing skaters kissing or crying in the K&C.

They might learn something, but they'd learn more if the commentators would also translate the jargon for them.

Fans who care enough to buy tickets to attend events or pay for streaming services without human interest commentary would be more interested. But if given nothing to look at or listen during the wait for scores except for the reviews, for every skater, even we would soon tune most of it out.

From my mother’s perspective, she doesn’t care to learn. I suggested she listen to podcasts or come here (free, because Lord knows she’s not going to do anything she has to pay for) She says she doesn’t care about the jumps. She just likes the artistry. Of course NBC may not care about her either since she’s not paying for Sports Gold or even the Olympic Channel. Just a data point.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

There is a dollar cost associated with more and better cameras which so far they’ve been unwilling to pay.

It's also probably an issue with the limited time judges have to make decisions. With more cameras comes more information, and that simply takes longer to process. However, the ISU also wants these competitions to move along on schedule. Generally, I think the calling is pretty good in most events and not a huge problem that some believe it to be.

 

[jenaj]

Nevertheless - those who have the most influence on scores - Tech Panel members are still anonymous. I mean we don't know who exactly makes the final decision for particular calls or their absence. Also, having only 3 callers of limited range of nationalities makes TP very susceptible to national bias.

I don't think the technical panel are paid/compensated by any national federation, are they? That removes a significant reason for bias. Also, isn't there a procedure where if two of them disagree the controller (or other third judge) decides? What more do we really need to know? Would it change anything?

 

[gkelly]

When I was watching Moscow novice championship - I've never missed any single TP work excerpt there - they were always interesting to watch for me.

How did this work? Were all of the tech panel replays available for anyone to watch and listen to if you wanted? Or did someone decide which ones to excerpt and play for the public?

 

[Edwin]

How did this work? Were all of the tech panel replays available for anyone to watch and listen to if you wanted? Or did someone decide which ones to excerpt and play for the public?

The stream switched occasionally to the caller's screen and you could see the panel searching for faults shuttling the video back and fro and hear them discussing on edges and under rotations.

 

[Elucidus]

It's also probably an issue with the limited time judges have to make decisions. With more cameras comes more information, and that simply takes longer to process. However, the ISU also wants these competitions to move along on schedule. Generally, I think the calling is pretty good in most events and not a huge problem that some believe it to be.

Then I can only envy in what fairyland you live. The calling this whole season was atrocious. Let's take the latest event for example. In 4CC ladies SP we have HUGE, huge, huge URs everywhere shamelessly ignored. Kaori Sakamoto's 3Lo, Young You's 3A, Rika Kihira's 3A, Wakaba Higuchi's 3T - all of them were so clearly URed that TP just can't not notice that. Moreover, some of these jumps were landed badly - and such landings are ALWAYS should be checked by TP, especially in SP. What we have though? Clear protocols. Don't you think it's just unfair to Tennell, for example - who rotated all her jumps fully? Why she should bother to train her jumps to such extent then? Only because ISU judges wants to save face of international top ladies and tries to uphold their reputation as "clean rotators" before Russians ladies in WC to make an illusion of equal competition there - they are willing to distort calling that much? Or what? Still they dinged Chen's 3Lo with UR as she isn't considered top skater. I know what it is. It is "reputational calling", pure and simple. Disgusting.

I don't think the technical panel are paid/compensated by any national federation, are they? That removes a significant reason for bias. Also, isn't there a procedure where if two of them disagree the controller (or other third judge) decides? What more do we really need to know? Would it change anything?

We know nothing about what makes them do their decisions. Unfortunately. But that's the point! We need to introduce this TP observing system - exactly to know that. What it will change? Well, at least it can help to avoid the usual "incompetence" we can see in calling. See the above.

How did this work? Were all of the tech panel replays available for anyone to watch and listen to if you wanted? Or did someone decide which ones to excerpt and play for the public?

Well, judging by what I saw in that competition - only jumps reviewed by TP were shown - usually only one or two jumps though and not for every skater. That was chosen randomly or just by operator whim, it seems. I believe it was made so because they decided to show both usual jump slo-mo replays and TP replays - i.e. they don't have much time to include all reviewed elements.
Personally I would prefer to watch TP jumps only instead of usual repeats. Nevertheless it can be fixed by using miniscreen, for example. What was the most important and useful though is not even image - but voices of callers as you could hear their reasoning behind decisions.

 

[gkelly]

The stream switched occasionally to the caller's screen and you could see the panel searching for faults shuttling the video back and fro and hear them discussing on edges and under rotations.

So someone was deciding when to switch there. Maybe whoever was making that decision believed that the viewers would not be interested in spin reviews. Doesn't mean they weren't happening -- or that you actually would have been interested in them.