- Joined
- Jan 11, 2014
The Judging Controversy Thread
- Thread starter Andre Smith
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2014
nowadays true champion should fall at least twice. Otherwise he can dream only about silver.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I♥Yuna;892696 said:
I think the main reason is that the standard deviation is prettier mathematics. If fits into the idea of moments of inertia in physics, plus it has a very satisfying distribution theory based on the Central Limit Theorem and the Chi squared probability distribution.
We have to be careful, though, in drawing conclusions just from the fact that some scores are higher than average and some are lower. Of course they are -- that's what "average" means.
Using the standard deviation as the unit of measure (as in markmchen's analyses above), if a judge's mark is more than 2 standard deviations above or below the mean, that is regarded as "statistically significant." This means that the score is in the 97.5th percentile of all scores if it is above average, and in the 2.5th percentile if it is below average, So without any cheating, bias, or collusion (and assuming a nice bell-shaped distribution of scores overall), this would happen 5% of the time.But think about it. If you have 9 judges judging 20 contestant, then you expect to see about 9 scores (5% of 180 marks) that are off by more than 2 standard deviations, just by what statisticians call "sampling error" (random statistical noise).
The other point is that these methods are appropriate for the study of sample data drawn at random from a large population of numbers. The scores that judges award are by no means "random," whether the judges are cheating or not.
Really, the fact that two judges scored Sotnikova higher than the rest does not, by itself, prove anything except that two judges scored Sotnikova higher than the rest. After all, in any collection of numbers one will be the highest and another the second highest.
Just a random thought:
I was thinking about jury duty today (not sure why) and I thought about the pains courts go through to make sure the jury is as fair as possible. They make sure the jury doesn't ready any media regarding a given case and they ask extensive questions about any sort of conflicts/perceptions a potential juror may have. My mother-in-law jokes that she got out of jury duty because she spoke out on what she thought the verdict would be! During the case itself, the jury is often quarantined during much of the case and only can judge on the evidence in front of them, not on any media coverage/past perceptions/etc.
In contrast, figure skating judging doesn't do anything like that. The federation picks the judge for their panel (i.e. would be like the Seattle Seahawks picking refs for the Super Bowl). Judges can and often do attend skaters' practices and judges have been known to talk among themselves. In addition corridor judging also forces judges to come to a consensus, hence the reason why one or two judges could influence the scores for the entire panel.
Just some food for thought about judging in general, not so much Sochi.
I was thinking about jury duty today (not sure why) and I thought about the pains courts go through to make sure the jury is as fair as possible. They make sure the jury doesn't ready any media regarding a given case and they ask extensive questions about any sort of conflicts/perceptions a potential juror may have. My mother-in-law jokes that she got out of jury duty because she spoke out on what she thought the verdict would be! During the case itself, the jury is often quarantined during much of the case and only can judge on the evidence in front of them, not on any media coverage/past perceptions/etc.
In contrast, figure skating judging doesn't do anything like that. The federation picks the judge for their panel (i.e. would be like the Seattle Seahawks picking refs for the Super Bowl). Judges can and often do attend skaters' practices and judges have been known to talk among themselves. In addition corridor judging also forces judges to come to a consensus, hence the reason why one or two judges could influence the scores for the entire panel.
Just some food for thought about judging in general, not so much Sochi.
Really, the fact that two judges scored Sotnikova higher than the rest does not, by itself, prove anything except that two judges scored Sotnikova higher than the rest. After all, in any collection of numbers one will be the highest and another the second highest.
Oh I know LOL This is a lot like ink blots or seeing shapes in the clouds
So long as they remain anonymous, there is no way to know. At this point, even if the "strategy" idea was right, the ISU could still cover it up by scrambling the names around, and releasing fraudulent lists of judges=columns to accompany the protocols. So much time has elapsed that there's no way any of the judges who sat on that panel would challenge it (17 marks per skater, and 24 skaters = impossible to remember how you marked everyone that night). Oh well 
All in all, I think my contributions here are done :agree: Let's see what (if anything) comes of KCo-KSU's official complaint.
I think the main reason is that the standard deviation is prettier mathematics. If fits into the idea of moments of inertia in physics, plus it has a very satisfying distribution theory based on the Central Limit Theorem and the Chi squared probability distribution.
We have to be careful, though, in drawing conclusions just from the fact that some scores are higher than average and some are lower. Of course they are -- that's what "average" means.
But think about it. If you have 9 judges judging 20 contestant, then you expect to see about 9 scores (5% of 180 marks) that are off by more than 2 standard deviations, just by what statisticians call "sampling error" (random statistical noise).
The other point is that these methods are appropriate for the study of sample data drawn at random from a large population of numbers. The scores that judges award are by no means "random," whether the judges are cheating or not.
Really, the fact that two judges scored Sotnikova higher than the rest does not, by itself, prove anything except that two judges scored Sotnikova higher than the rest. After all, in any collection of numbers one will be the highest and another the second highest.
Hey Mathman,
I agree 100% that the stdev of the scoring says nothing regarding whether there was cheating or not. (Personally, I am not a big believer in conspiracy theories like Putin bribed/bullied everyone) But it does suggest that the scoring variance was not random. If all the judges have the same criteria, same interpretation of that criteria, and no biases (nationalistic, stylistic, whatever), the results should show a haphazard scattering of scores. That a judge(s) would be significantly and consistently high (or consistently low) on every element versus the average is unlikely to be random, and such a pattern suggests some kind of bias. That bias could simply be certain judges score all skaters generously and other judges score all skaters low. For that kind of bias, then you would expect to see roughly the same number of outliers and same types of outliers (eg high or low) for each skater. Of the top skaters (too lazy to check all), most have 1-2 judges that appear high and 1-2 judges that appear low. That is true for Yuna, Caro, Mao. For Adelina and Julia, however, the pattern changes where 4 judges appear high and 1-2 judges appear low. That suggest another kind of bias is at work. Unless we know how and why each judge voted the way they did, we can't say if the bias was simply stylistic (eg certain judges favor the russian style) or home field advantage (cheering russian audiences could certainly impart bias). But what we can say, is that scoring was not random.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
^ glad this one came on board!!!
Mrs. P, I think your analogy is incredibly intuitive and very apt. As I was discussing with Mathman in my prior comment, judges invariably have biases (just like potential jurors). We all do. Anonymity exacerbates the tendency to vote along those biases. The makeup of a panel of judges (just like a jury) can easily skew the receptiveness of that panel towards certain skaters. Of course, the skaters still have to come through.
@Mrs. P: I would love such a system as a skating fan, but I am afraid the analogy fails. In the U.S. jury system, every citizen is a potential jury. And citizens are obligated to serve in jury by the Constitution. Litigation is based on adversaries and their lawyers. There is a judge who control what can be presented in what manner during the trial. Jury's job is to find facts, rather than to evaluate the performances of lawyers. (Though lawyers' performances certainly matter) Even if the jury are not experts in the case, over the course of trial they are educated about the case enough to render a verdict. A verdict is simple yes/no. (guilty/not guilty)
There are too many differences, but two biggest differences between jury duty and figure skating judging are (IMO) that:
1) There is a nearly unlimited supply of qualified jurors who are by Constitution bound to serve as a duty of citizenry
2) Jurors are peers of the accused: I can be your juror today, tomorrow you can be mine
2) is significant in that when we serve as a jury we do so with the full knowledge that we can/will be judged by the same folks (from a very large pool) in case we stand in the court. On the other hand, judging in International figure skating events is clearly a privilege that can be abused by less than honorable people, who will never be subject to the same fates as the skaters who are judged. And from the looks of it, to some judges and federations a skater is disposable as long as there is a replacement to fulfill their ulterior motive.
I've just learned about Cinquanta's latest gaffs. Other than his insistence on anonymous judging, this caught my eyes:
Assuming it's proof-read by smart people including lawyers, I already smell the next scandal. (can someone try reading between the lines?) KSU will no doubt have learned from Russian federation's transparent lawless behaviors and ensuing backlash - which means politicking by KSU will become even harder to detect.
I am losing faith.
There are too many differences, but two biggest differences between jury duty and figure skating judging are (IMO) that:
1) There is a nearly unlimited supply of qualified jurors who are by Constitution bound to serve as a duty of citizenry
2) Jurors are peers of the accused: I can be your juror today, tomorrow you can be mine
2) is significant in that when we serve as a jury we do so with the full knowledge that we can/will be judged by the same folks (from a very large pool) in case we stand in the court. On the other hand, judging in International figure skating events is clearly a privilege that can be abused by less than honorable people, who will never be subject to the same fates as the skaters who are judged. And from the looks of it, to some judges and federations a skater is disposable as long as there is a replacement to fulfill their ulterior motive.
I've just learned about Cinquanta's latest gaffs. Other than his insistence on anonymous judging, this caught my eyes:
Assuming it's proof-read by smart people including lawyers, I already smell the next scandal. (can someone try reading between the lines?) KSU will no doubt have learned from Russian federation's transparent lawless behaviors and ensuing backlash - which means politicking by KSU will become even harder to detect.
I am losing faith.
“Together with the Korea Skating Union (KSU), we have decided to file an official complaint [to the ISU] over the controversial ruling and will demand the body look into the makeup of the judging panel and whether a fair judgment was possible,” a Korea Olympic Committee (KOC) official said Friday, according to the Korea Times.
- One thing to note is that KSU's President is Samsung CEO's son-in-law, who I guess could exercise significant influences over IOC by Samsung's financial, legal, and political power.
- One thing to note is that KSU's President is Samsung CEO's son-in-law, who I guess could exercise significant influences over IOC by Samsung's financial, legal, and political power.
I don't know, Julie K. I suppose asking a Korean if s/he has anything to do with Samsung is like asking an American if s/he has a Samsung TV/fridge/washing machine at home. I mean, considering the size of the KSU, unless the KSU positions are full-time jobs I suppose the officials have daytime jobs. (not that skating is a night-time job, lol)
If you think Samsung is merely a TV/fridge/washing maker, you don't understand what Samsung is. Samsung is a conglomerate consisting of about 80 firms, one of which is Samsung Electronics, and contributing to 17% of South Korea's GDP. If there is Putin in Russia, there is Samsung in Korea in a sense of influence. Simply put, Samsung can do what Putin can do.
Show your post to someone else and ask if s/he can understand what you tried to say.
It's not quite. That guy is an embodiment of KSU's incompetence. He was sent there by his connections because his family had to give him something respectable to do but had no respectable talent, and Samsung is one of the sponsors. Also, KSU has been an odd one in the world of Korean feds - whereas many other mega-corporate sponsored bodies tend to be efficiently operated, or better than without, KSU has been one that does the opposite. (If you know any North Americans working for Samsung, you'll know.) Also, IOC is a totally different matter, as it's not Korean. Did I mention that even the Korean government had to bash their hammers on them, and still failed to reform?
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2014
What mess is going on with KSU? :scratch:
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2010
for many years.. there's no secret in korea that the KSU is a joke.. i still cringed every time i saw a photo of yuna at the airport with the officials from ksu doing photo ops with the media.. and the way they treated their figure skaters in general and how they pressuring yuna to compete.. with no sense of gratitude whatsoever.. and their lack of awareness..
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2010
