Fair judging !!!!!

[Big Deal]

So, the World Championship is over.
We have discussed about it months before, mentioning different conspiracy teories.

The refreshing thing is : everybody can have its own opinion about some points, which can be rather more or less, but we can conclude that concerning the end results of all 4 disciplines as follows,

THIS ONE WAS ONE OF THE MOST FAIRLY JUDGED EVENT SINCE SOME YEARS

Is that mean, finally this system seems to work, I don`t know, but that is a fact.

Anonimous judging still looks unfair, but can prevent honest judges "to-be-asked" by their own Federations why they didn`nt biased for their own skaters.
These judges will have the possibility to judging again, instead of to be eliminated by their Fedarations before the next important competitions.
Without this system (even if I was not a fan of it), we should have very different results this year (unfairly)!

( I still don`t like Speedy, don`t take me wrong )

 

[Mathman]

I agree. This was a well-judged competition.

 

[katymay]

Except for Emily Hughes. I've watched her program three times and her technical marks were way too low.

 

[flying camel]

Well all in all I was okay with the judging. But I felt that Kimmie was marked too low in the SP IMO.

 

[Mathman]

Except for Emily Hughes. I've watched her program three times and her technical marks were way too low.

The reason that Emily's marks were so low was that she had several of her triples downgraded for short rotation. In real time, I couldn't really tell. I think we would have to check it out in slow motion to see whether the Tech Specialist got it right. Same with Kimmie's triple/triple in the LP.

In fact, there were a lot of jumps downgraded in this competition. I think the ISU is making an effort to really enforce the rule about no more than a quarter rotation cheat.

 

[Zuranthium]

They seriously need to come up with independant values for underrotated jumps. It's really stupid how that kind of mistake on a Triple or Quad gets it shot all the way down to the value of a Double or Triple, making the skater's attempt completely worthless.

Additionally, there's no specific ruling on when a jump is considered to be landed. Is it right when the toepick hits the ice or when the whole blade has landed? It should be when the whole blade is on the ice, imo, because it's impossible to see a minor so-called cheat without slow-mo when it happens. If it's not noticable to the human eye, then it's obviously not disrupting the program and shouldn't be docked.

By that criteria, I don't think ANY of Emily's jumps should have been downgraded.

~Z

 

[Kwanford Wife]

How do you tell a great competition? When you cannot make a valid arguement against any of the placements outside of your opinion and the results would've probably been the same regardless of the judging system... Great job ISU & judges... keep it up! (assuming of course that "fair" was their objective and not an error in judgement...)

But of course, they have the whole summer to re-evaluate and cause more angst next season...

 

[Zuranthium]

How do you tell a great competition? When you cannot make a valid arguement against any of the placements outside of your opinion and the results would've probably been the same regardless of the judging system... Great job ISU & judges... keep it up! (assuming of course that "fair" was their objective and not an error in judgement...)

Untrue. Under 6.0, Brian Joubert would have received the Silver medal and Takahashi the Gold. I believe that Takahashi deserved Gold under CoP as well.

Also, the judges still are giving out marks which are too heavily based upon a skater's "clout". Chris Mabee should have been in 4th place after the SP, not 7th. Lambiel is normally an amazing spinner, but in the SP he was only "good" and his spins should have had only +1 GOEs, but they gave him tons of +2 marks.

~Z

 

[Kwanford Wife]

Untrue. Under 6.0, Brian Joubert would have received the Silver medal and Takahashi the Gold. I believe that Takahashi deserved Gold under CoP as well.

While I disagree with the above, I am interested in knowing why you believe this... is it because of the whole "control your own destiny" thing or something with the technical content that I'm losing sight of? Takahashi was awesome in the long, but I felt that Joubert was the rightful winner... and anything else would've been incorrect.

 

[Mathman]

Takahashi got third in the short and first in the long. Under ordinal judging this gives him a factored placement of 2.5 (1/2 SP placement + LP placement).

Joubert was first in the short and third in the long, for a factored placement of 3.5.

So Takahashi wins under the 6.0 system.

 

[Sylvia]

So Takahashi wins under the 6.0 system.

Ah, but would Joubert have skated as conservatively in the FS if the 6.0/factored system had been in use at 2007 Worlds? Probably not, is my guess.

 

[Mathman]

But then he might have fallen on his third quad attempt. Or a meteor might have fallen on his head.

Anyhoo, if a person really wanted to nitpick the judging...Takahashi and Joubert got virtually identical program component scores in the long program (76.92 to 76.64). This despite the fact that Takahashi's program just totally sang from beginning to end, while Joubert's conservative performance plodded along without much to get excited about. An extra .25 across the board for Takahashi would have put them in a dead heat.

 

[dancindiva03]

Fair judging? Except for the top two teams, I think the dance judging was waaaaaaaaaaay screwed up.

 

[Zuranthium]

While I disagree with the above, I am interested in knowing why you believe this... is it because of the whole "control your own destiny" thing or something with the technical content that I'm losing sight of? Takahashi was awesome in the long, but I felt that Joubert was the rightful winner... and anything else would've been incorrect.

What makes you think Joubert was the rightful winner?

Takahashi's mistakes across both performances were #1 - a bit of a cheat on a 3Toe and #2 - a hand down on a Quad.

Joubert's mistakes were #1 - a hand down on a 3Flip, #2 - downgrading a Quad to a Triple, #3 - downgrading a 3Sal to a double axle, #4 + #5 - downgrading two spins to Level 1.

~Z

 

[Kwanford Wife]

Takahashi got third in the short and first in the long. Under ordinal judging this gives him a factored placement of 2.5 (1/2 SP placement + LP placement).

Joubert was first in the short and third in the long, for a factored placement of 3.5.

So Takahashi wins under the 6.0 system.

Thanks MM!! This actually makes sense to me... I'm assuming that same basic thing is true with Mao... or not because she was in 5th after the short, which if I remember correctly was the kiss o' death in terms of probability of winning under 6.0...

(wasn't Michael Weiss the last skater to jump to first after a 5th place showing in the short - maybe US Nationals 03??? I can't remember these things...)

 

[R.D.]

it's a tough call. What's a fairly judged event? One where you AGREE with the judges' placements (while keeping in mind others might disagree)?

It was close between Asada and Ando in the free. I think the title could have gone to either of them and I'd have been fine with it (i.e. not cared that much). Asada was "better" I think but she did make more mistakes...Ando was clean so I guess in that sense the placements were about right.

 

[Big Deal]

Don't forget it, please, under the 6,0s system, the order would be VERY different all the way through in every stage of the competition in all 4 disciplines.
You can't calculate the possibly results under this system by the orders the skaters got under COP, because the order is not matter in COP, judges didn't worked for it.
Think, if a skater were 6th after short with only 0,3 points behind the number 3 ,
and the same skater got 6 full points more than the one who was 3rd before in the free program, but this 6 points is just make f.e 3rd in the free and the other 4th, still has no chance to beat him, even with a 5,7 ponts higher total points.

The judges's chances lessened to calculate. Giving the placements instead of real points made the bias much more simple and calculable. Now there is less chance to make a deal during the previous dinner. In the old system, if you were able to create a group of 2-3 judges to support each other's athletes, you already decided the result. Now, it is much harder ( as we seen it now).

 

[Big Deal]

I think the most likely results under the 6,0 system would be like that:

Dance:
1. Domnina/Shabalin
2. Dubreuil/Lauzon
3. Belbin/Agosto

Pairs:
1.Shen/Zhao
2.Savchenko/Szolkowy
3. Pang/Tong
4.Kawaguchi/Smirnov

Men:
1.Takahashi
2.Joubert
3.Lambiel

Ladies:
1. Ando
2. Yu-Na Kim
3. Asada (5th, 6th place in short avoid her to be silver medalist)

Plus, maybe Plush. still would be there in the competition...

 

[Zuranthium]

Ladies:
1. Ando
2. Yu-Na Kim
3. Asada (5th, 6th place in short avoid her to be silver medalist)

Asada would still be in Silver position, if Yu-Na Kim was 4th place in the Long. And, after two falls, she almost certainly would be under 6.0.

~Z

 

[DaveT]

While the results caused no great controversy, things seemed to work out fine with the placements for most, that does not necessarily equate to good or fair judging, ie PCS especially. People falling as they did in the placements could be more coincendence than anything. In the ladies LP if you rank by TES and then by PCS, it's quite telling. The oddity being Meissner held up by PCS, now that's a kicker.