- Joined
- Mar 7, 2011
Is this common to switch out judges?
Number of +3s for jumps:
SP
Yuna 4
Adelina 4
LP
Yuna 7
Adelina 17
The Judging Controversy Thread
- Thread starter Andre Smith
- Start date
Is this common to switch out judges?
Number of +3s for jumps:
SP
Yuna 4
Adelina 4
LP
Yuna 7
Adelina 17
Yes. Thats why many ppl consider this as a scandal.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2013
They also replaced the British Judge Diana Stevens after the SP.
i think he's implying that, after seeing adelina's performance, only one judge thought yuna's performance was better than adelina's.
Indeed, that's a single category out of five in the components scores.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
That's one way to look at it...
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2011
This is ridiculous: "For instance, Kim did not attempt a triple loop or a double axel, triple toe loop combination, as Sotnikova did." Someone should put in the article that Kim attempted three triple lutzes in SP/LP and Adelina only one.
For better or for worse, the way the GOE guidelines are written, the guidelines instruct judges to give +1 if a jump meets two of the following bullet points, +2 if it meets four bullet points, +3 if it meets six:
1) unexpected / creative / difficult entry
2) clear recognizable steps/free skating movements immediately preceding element
3) varied position in the air / delay in rotation
4) good height and distance
5) good extension on landing / creative exit
6) good flow from entry to exit including jump combinations / sequences
7) effortless throughout
8) element matched to the musical structure
There's no official extra reward for a jump element being "very good" (or better) on height and flow to earn higher GOE than if it's just "good" in those areas. In practice, I'd guess that being better than just "good" would at least serve as a tiebreaker if there are an odd number of bullet points. But if a judge counts up the bullet points and can only come up with a maximum of four different points, even if they're all met well above the minimum, it would be bending the guidelines to give +3 instead of +2. I'm sure it does happen at times, but it's certainly a reason to stick with +2.
Also, the negative GOE guidelines give "long preparation" as a reason for reducing the GOE by -1 to -2. So even if a judge thought a jump element met all of criteria 3-8 (6 bullet points for +3) but was telegraphed (instead of just not meeting criteria 1 and 2), then the final GOE could be +2.
I don't know what the judges' thought processes were here, but there are plenty of reasons why the biggest flowiest jump might not earn the highest GOE, if the only areas where it was best were size and flow.
No they do not.
They do NOT know the spin and step levels.
Not only would they have to take their best guess as to the levels of those elements, they would also have to have memorized every aspect of the scale of values and all the rules that affect the computer calculations and do those calculations in their heads to figure out the TES. It is not shown to them.
Yes, they could do that.
Why is it obviously crooked? Lipnitskaia's 135.34 was the averaged total taking into account all the judges, not that judge's total score for her. It's possible that the judge whose scores combined with the tech panel calls worked out to 134.xx for Kim was marking lower than the rest of the panel all along and his/her scores for Lipnitskaia were also lowest, maybe would work out to far less than 135.34.
With the scrambled protocols, we'll never know. But we can't jump to conclusions.
I believe so. But they are supposed to be selected "randomly."
So Ukraine, Estonia, and ??? judges were "randomly" selected.
Adelina's CH was sloppy and gruesome. She has been criticized about it since forever. If you want to defend her scores, please stick to things she's actually good at.
For the record, I happen to really like Adelina, and picked her for bronze even before the competition ... but CH and the other components besides TR are not her strong points.
The increase in her components scores from what she has consistently received over and over and over again in her career, to 69 at Euros and nearly 75 at Olympics, nearly tying her for the highest components scores of all time, indicates that the corridor was intent on indiscriminately eliminating the PCS gap between the Russian girls and the top level skaters.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2013
Yuna Kim completed (not attempted) 3 3lz during the competition. Adelina completed 1 3lz e! (IMO) and I do not need to see a replay to notice that. But if you watch the replay and do not notice the edge change, then look at her knee turn in as she is jumping, that is your indication that she rolled on to the wrong edge, along with other obvious technique flaws on the lutz, placement of the free leg as the toe pick enters the ice etc...
If you put Kim's 2A-3T next to Sotnikova's, it would put Adelina's to shame. The ISU targeted Kim with rule changes to prevent her from doing this jump combination. It's not like she's incapable of doing it 10 times better than Sotnikova on a consistent basis.
who said anything about lipnitskaia? i just meant that, i can't believe one judge genuinely believed the program deserved a 134.xx, period. no other qualifiers.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2013
I'm confused, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive. I also said she got 17 on jumps and 1 on the StSq, which is not completely fishy until you see what Yuna received for a Level 3 StSq and then what she received on her jumps. All the judging was ridiculous here.
At least Shin Amano will be the tech panel at Worlds so levels will be called harshly/fairly.
Yup. It's obvious that these folks are opposed to even talking about a future reform, let alone exposing the rigging in Sochi. They want to deliberately shield the judges and scores from scrutiny. They will go any length whichever way.
i think someone mentioned that the first thing on the ISU's plate is doing away with anonymous judging - though, that's really all but admitting the judging in Sochi was crooked/unjustifiable
No. The first thing on the ISU's plate was deleting the contact page from their website.
The second thing was deleting critical posts from their social media pages.
The third thing was telling Phil Hersh they would get back to him the next day, and then not talking to him again.
