Thanks.. here the copy of my post, meant as a reply/addendum to what had been said about the COP analysis of the Ladies free, post is the same, bar some minor spelling corrections.
Thanks for the interesting analysis. I can add some more points of discusson to it. According to rule 1631, the performance of the judges is evaluated as follows:
1) for the TES, the average scoring is calculated per element, as graded by each of the nine judges as follows.
Let's say that element A is scored for its GOE +3, +2, +2, +1, 0, 0, -2, 0, +2. The average is then (3+2+2+1+0+0-2+0+2)/9=0.89
Subsequently the score of each judge is compared to this average, so the first judge would be +2.11 above average for element A.
For each judge each element is evaluated as above, then the positive differences and the negative differences are subtracted. Let's say that judge number one scored the seven elements of a short program with the following biases from the averages: +2.11, -0.11, -1.50, +0.20, +0.00, -1.20, +1.00.
The positive differences are +2.11+0.20+0.00+1.00=+3.31
The negative differences are -0.11-1.20=-1.31
So the total bias for judge nr 1 is 3.31-(-1.31)=4.62
The acceptable limit for the TES is one point per element, meaning that in a short program any score within 7.0 GOE point from average will not be scrutinized. Note at this point that I jotted down random numbers, including a royal 2.11 difference. Note also that in a singles FP the number of elements goes up to 12 for ladies and more for men. Allowed difference is then 12. We can fit and elephant in this difference, and no further action would be taken towards the judge marking this way.
2) The story is even better for PCS. For every PCS a cumulative corridor of 7.5 points is allowed (1.5 point per PCS, but only considering the TOTAL bias). Averages are calculated as above of course, with a small variation.
In this case the positive and negative differences are added to each other, so our judge number one marking the 5 PCS with the following differences: +1.5, +2.0, -2.5, -0.25, -0.10, would score a total bias of +1.5+2.0-2.5-0.25-0.10=0.65
Again in this case no question would be asked...
Too bad though that a difference of 7.5 points from average translate in a fat 15 points allowed more or less in a men's FS - and that is just for the PCS.
3) Let's see now how two judges can start influencing the review process. Let's take an absurd example. Skater A receives for SS the following marks: 7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,9
Anybody would question the 9... well, the average mark is 7.22, so the bias is +1.78. Just out of the 1.5 limit.
Now let's say that two judges have a similar idea on how to score the same skater A. SS is now: 7,7,7,7,7,7,7,9,9. Again, I think anybody would jump on the two 9's. The average is 7.44, the bias for each judge is 1.56.
Now it is enough the following: 7.25,7,7.25,7,7.25,7,7.25,9,9 and we are set: average is 7.55, bias for the two judges is... 1.45. Perfectly acceptable. This translates into a 2.9 point more (men's FS), more that enough to accomodate one gold medal.
I think now it is easy to combine points 1-2-3 to draw some conclusions on how it would take 2 judges to severely impact the outcomes of any event, without any consequences.
As a final remark, maybe it is worth noticing that in the 6.0 system a minimum of 5 judges were needed for the placement of a skater in a certain position. Under CoP, 2 judges are enough.
_________________
Andy
