This is crazy but I'm going to do something I never thought I would do: I'm going to defend the judges! :shocked: I think this is necessary because every season we have heated discussions about how terrible the judging is. Well for once I'm gonna take the opposite side and argue that blaming the judges is akin to people blaming the media for everything.
For the sake of catharsis it is quite easy to pick a scapegoat to blame for our issues. I have no problem with that. We all do it and it's a common human experience. I think we should complain and keep the judges honest. But sometimes we get on soapboxes and get really righteous unnecessarily. We act as if there is some conspiracy on the part of the judges to keep some skaters down
I think the NHK result between Liza is a perfect example. Folks are roasting the judges for placing Liza ahead of Satoko. Some have gone as far as to suggest home cooking. But these arguments are built on several faulty premises.
1. We assume that the judges are one person that decides who should end up in what spot. The truth is that the judges are 9 individuals and 2 specialists, and even if they sought to collude there are different interests and incentives that would keep them from agreeing. I'm sure someone with game theory experience could elaborate here.
2. We assume that the judges have the amount of time to digest the performances that we have. The judges are making quick decisions. Yes, there is some prejudging but they also have to make decisions that I'm sure they would slightly revise with the benefit of time and hindsight.
3. We assume that the judges decide the placings following everyone's performance. They have to judge the event as it goes. That gives us a huge advantage over them.
4. We tend to ignore the law of averages. *I'm not a math person so Im really sorry if I get some details wrong here. Because there are so many elements to judge and so little time no one judge can be as strategic as we assume. In order to make distinctions between competitors they have to keep track of the scores they gave the competitors on each element. That's a lot for the human brain to keep up with. Thus to really distinguish and be safe they would have to make bigger distinctions (it's easier to remember that you gave one person an 8 vs. 9 as opposed to an 8.25 or an 8.50). But if you make your distinctions too big you risk having your score thrown out for being too high or low.
5. We assume that the judges can control tight decisions. When it gets really close like it did between Satoko and Liza the judges are in a crapshoot situation. If we for example have them skate tomorrow the outcome would likely be different. Because Liza and Satoko excel at opposite things it is really difficult for the judges to control the outcome. #4 would be really hard for any one individual judge to manage because they would have to be even more extreme in their distinctions since it's hard to figure out how the TES+PCS score would turn out so you have to be more extreme to be safe. But being extreme would make it more likely that their score would get thrown out.
I think there are things we could do to improve judging but we need to step back once in a while and put ourselves in the shoes of the judges. There's is no monolithic evil person manipulating the scoring and trying to hurt your favorite. The system is flawed but the math does keep the judges somewhat honest.
For the sake of catharsis it is quite easy to pick a scapegoat to blame for our issues. I have no problem with that. We all do it and it's a common human experience. I think we should complain and keep the judges honest. But sometimes we get on soapboxes and get really righteous unnecessarily. We act as if there is some conspiracy on the part of the judges to keep some skaters down
I think the NHK result between Liza is a perfect example. Folks are roasting the judges for placing Liza ahead of Satoko. Some have gone as far as to suggest home cooking. But these arguments are built on several faulty premises.
1. We assume that the judges are one person that decides who should end up in what spot. The truth is that the judges are 9 individuals and 2 specialists, and even if they sought to collude there are different interests and incentives that would keep them from agreeing. I'm sure someone with game theory experience could elaborate here.
2. We assume that the judges have the amount of time to digest the performances that we have. The judges are making quick decisions. Yes, there is some prejudging but they also have to make decisions that I'm sure they would slightly revise with the benefit of time and hindsight.
3. We assume that the judges decide the placings following everyone's performance. They have to judge the event as it goes. That gives us a huge advantage over them.
4. We tend to ignore the law of averages. *I'm not a math person so Im really sorry if I get some details wrong here. Because there are so many elements to judge and so little time no one judge can be as strategic as we assume. In order to make distinctions between competitors they have to keep track of the scores they gave the competitors on each element. That's a lot for the human brain to keep up with. Thus to really distinguish and be safe they would have to make bigger distinctions (it's easier to remember that you gave one person an 8 vs. 9 as opposed to an 8.25 or an 8.50). But if you make your distinctions too big you risk having your score thrown out for being too high or low.
5. We assume that the judges can control tight decisions. When it gets really close like it did between Satoko and Liza the judges are in a crapshoot situation. If we for example have them skate tomorrow the outcome would likely be different. Because Liza and Satoko excel at opposite things it is really difficult for the judges to control the outcome. #4 would be really hard for any one individual judge to manage because they would have to be even more extreme in their distinctions since it's hard to figure out how the TES+PCS score would turn out so you have to be more extreme to be safe. But being extreme would make it more likely that their score would get thrown out.
I think there are things we could do to improve judging but we need to step back once in a while and put ourselves in the shoes of the judges. There's is no monolithic evil person manipulating the scoring and trying to hurt your favorite. The system is flawed but the math does keep the judges somewhat honest.
Last edited: