They say $50B or something that Russia paid for the Olympic justify those PCS marks.
The Judging Controversy Thread
- Thread starter Andre Smith
- Start date
They say $50B or something that Russia paid for the Olympic justify those PCS marks.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
This is another very convincing reason as to why Yuna should have won, relative to the reasons stated by others.
So 7 scores are averaged? That makes it all the more likely that most of those 9.75's were factored in.
Judging Panel Randomization
- ....So, I previously believed that the J1~J9 are randomized once at the beginning of each SP and FS. This is what I was told last year.
- Mathman and a few others corrected me this month that J1~J9 are randomized before each skater's performance; 30 times in the Olympic SP, and 24 times in the Olympic FS.
- However, when I looked at the ISU guideline (http://static.isu.org/media/79156/2012_specialregulations_technicalrules_singleandpair_icedance.pdf), I can only interpret it as 'one randomization before each event'; there is no indication of how they are randomized for each skater.
- I am looking for more specific randomization rules that say they are randomized for each skater. Help.
- ....So, I previously believed that the J1~J9 are randomized once at the beginning of each SP and FS. This is what I was told last year.
- Mathman and a few others corrected me this month that J1~J9 are randomized before each skater's performance; 30 times in the Olympic SP, and 24 times in the Olympic FS.
- However, when I looked at the ISU guideline (http://static.isu.org/media/79156/2012_specialregulations_technicalrules_singleandpair_icedance.pdf), I can only interpret it as 'one randomization before each event'; there is no indication of how they are randomized for each skater.
- I am looking for more specific randomization rules that say they are randomized for each skater. Help.
It's not contradictory.
In any close competition, the top few skaters will have different mixes of strengths and weaknesses. In 6.0, each judge had to decide what was most important and what was enough better to tip their first-place choice to one skater or another. In IJS, they just score the GOEs and the PCS according to and let the chips fall where they may.
Sometimes the skater with the best jumps and/or the hardest jumps wins. Sometimes the skater with the best skating skills. Sometimes the skater with the best artistry. Sometimes the top contenders have very similar strengths and it's really splitting hairs to determine who comes out ahead. Occasionally it might be the spins that end up tipping the balance, or
The decisive factor in different competitions is not always going to be the same category of skills.
A commentator can summarize what seems to have been the decisive factor in the protocols or in the minds of the majority of the judges on this occasion. That will always be an oversimplification.
And it doesn't mean that the commentator is saying that the category that was decisive this time always is or always should be the most important factor. Just that this is how it worked out today with these performances and this judging panel.
As I said, it's definitely an oversimplification.
Hamilton doesn't seem to be an especially analytical kind of commentator, and even moreso I think that NBC discourages detailed analysis in prime time, preferring to simplify things for the lowest common denominator audience. There isn't time to take the judging apart element by element and component by component, and they believe, probably correctly, that casual viewers are not interested in that kind of detail.
Those of us who are obsessed with skating and take the time to pore over the protocols and research rules and past results and so forth in online forums like this are a tiny minority of viewers and not who NBC is tailoring their broadcast toward.
But even if you asked an expert, honest judge why s/he put one skater ahead of another in 6.0 judging, or why s/he gave a skater higher average GOEs and PCS, most likely the judge would summarize by naming just one decisive factor, or maybe two things the winner was better at and one thing the next skater was better at. They wouldn't go into a long explanation of every element and every presentation/PCS criterion unless you specifically asked them to and made it worth their while to spend the time to do so.
Adelina received wrong edge calls in 16 out of 19 competitioins she participated. It's too transparent to ignore what has happened here and the 3 competitions where she did not get called out. My guess? Those 3 competitions had tech callers named something like "Olga," "Putina," "Stalina," etc. And in this competition we had an Olga and an Alexander.
My apologies - I mean that she received a PCS that was as high as Yuna's, and undeserved. As you lose your patience you are revealing your staunch position on the matter. My suggestion is to just leave this thread. Your points are not holding any weight against the data which are increasing suspicion/calling question to the judgment/scores that were made.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
People are welcome to do what they please. If anything, you ubers are trying to get those of us to disagree with you to shut up and take your whining. You ubers are using language much harsher against us and attacking us personally because you lose arguing on valid points.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
I appreciate your concern but I am a retired attorney and have dealt with a lot more aggressive folks than those on a figure skating board.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
I apologize if I used any harsh language. Not sure what uber is BTW. Not sure what kind of valid points the side in favor of there being unfair scoring has lost on though.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2011
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
Define "unfair". Does that mean:
a) you disagree with it?
b) 50.1% disagree with it?
c) 65% disagree with it?
To me, none of these are inherently unfair in the absence of cheating. I don't understand how you can call something "unfair" when no foul play is involved. I suppose you can call the audience supporting home skaters "unfair" but that is independent of calling the results "unfair" when they are decided by judges.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
Hope you didn't call the opposing counsel "Yuna Uber," when you're still practicing, cause that's not the best way to make a pointI appreciate your concern but I am a retired attorney and have dealt with a lot more aggressive folks than those on a figure skating board.
Olga Baranova is originally from Russia.
She was coached by Viktor Kutriavtsev, who also coached Alexander Lakernik.
Also, there's a rumour that she once coached Sotnikova.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
Hope you didn't call the opposing counsel "Yuna Uber," when you're still practicing, cause that's not the best way to make a point
An attorney who is also a Yuna-uber is someone I would definitely be afraid of
I'm just looking forward to watching Sotnikova's perfomances in upcoming events, closley the world figure skating championships 2014. I'm seriouly worrying if she lives the rest of her whole life under the pressure that she has got in Sochi olympic. Absolutely I doubt she can earn the score again that she received from the judges in Sochi. Even for close score?! Well, but the rotten figure skating business can make the fake again to conceal their filthy fault and give tons of points to the fake star? Then noboday wants to watch fiture skating.
It's not a 6.0 system. Most of your points were about 6.0. This is code of points. The commentary from Hamilton seems to be:
This time the judges were looking for x.
Last time they were looking for y.
You just have to accept the result ... move along please.
A relic of the 6.0 system.
Now we have code of points which must be fairly scored. It's not an order of placements. A critical look at the scoring must be done, even if offhand, as Mr. Browning did.
Whatever gets said, I understand it must be succinct enough for the casual viewer, but it ethically needs to stay in line with the spirit of the scoring system.
Kurt said during his commentary ... he said he needed to go back and look at the scores, because he was so much more impressed with the level of Kim's skating compared to Sotnikova. "She's jarring...she's just not ready." He didn't think the components were that close. Sandra said the same thing ... "Yuna's performance was head and shoulders better than anyone else"....but only 0.09 difference in PCS, according to the judges, essentially a tie.
Kurt's comments were succinct and measured, but they were also honest and critical. He gave Adelina full compliment for her technical quality, but put everything in the proper context. Scott's analysis on the other hand did not adhere to the spirit of the scoring system. To even mention Adelina's jump advantage in the free without mentioning Yuna's jump advantage in the short is downright unethical. No person can say EVERYTHING in the heat of the moment, but he had several opportunities in the following days to clarify that point, and he never did.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
Hopefully we'll have some civility on these boards then.
