The Judging Controversy Thread

Nadya said:

You say this like there has never been corruption and suspect judging under 6.0, where judges and their scores were clearly identified.

Click to expand...

Under the 6.0 system, what was the difference between 5.7 and 5.8 in terms of difficulty, execution, choreography, expression, etc? Imo, the corruption problem back then stemmed not from the criteria, but from the scale, which was simply not broad enough to address the finer differences in technical and artistic merit, which resulted in ambiguity, which made the system prone to corruption.

I think the format they have now is vastly superior to the 6.0 system, if only because it's more detailed (ie separating components and increasing to a 10.0 scale was a good idea). It's like the difference between HD tvs and regular tvs - one of them can capture more information, which results in a clearer picture.

My view of it is that the changes they've made in terms of the scoring system (the numbers) are pretty good (with some room for improvement). But now they have the opposite problem as the 6.0 system - scale good, but criteria is ill defined.

It's problematic because the concepts and language of the pcs criteria is what they're supposed to be using to come up with the numbers that we see (ex: 9.75 for any given component has to mean something with respect to the criteria listed for that component -- and right now I see too much ambiguous language that lets you argue 9.75 for this skate, 8.5 for that skate, simply by prioritizing a certain criterion to justify the high scores, and prioritizing another criterion to justify the low scores -- that desperately, desperately needs to be sorted out hwell

drivingmissdaisy said:

OK this is just wrong. The winner is determined by who accrued the most points, not whose program looked the best. Yuna's program may have been more visually appealing but it didn't earn the most points. Only by looking at the protocols one can see how everything added up.

Click to expand...

But how did Adelina accrue such a high PCS (never had she ever gotten anything close to this)? How did she accrue so many 3 GOE's (and after rewatching her program, a couple of her spins traveled a bit and were "2s" at best)? The subjectivity (or should that be the "corruptivity" meter, lol) meter was really driving her scores. With this and the missed calls on the tech panel, it wasn't so much that Adelina accrued the points, but the officials did on her behalf.

capcomeback said:

But how did Adelina accrue such a high PCS (never had she ever gotten anything close to this)?

Click to expand...

Nad - See what I mean? This needs to be analyzed just as much as the step sequences (good luck to anyone who wants to try lol).

I♥Yuna;889515 said:

Nad - See what I mean? This needs to be analyzed just as much as the step sequences (good luck to anyone who wants to try lol).

Click to expand...

More likely to find a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow!

Sam-Skwantch said:

More likely to find a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow!

Click to expand...

I'm sure the answer is in Putin's office safe.

DarR said:

I understand, but cheer up - she's an Olympic gold medalist for good reasons!

Click to expand...

Julia is also still a far more accomplished skater than Sotnikova at this moment, despite being younger and being likely to skate for many more years. OGM both, but Julia's Olympic gold is more highly regarded as there is absolutely no controversy over it, while Sotnikova's Olympic gold is the most controversial in history so is already devalued compared to Julia's. European Champion, which Sotnikova never achieved. 2 grand prix victories vs 0 for Sotnikova. GPF medal unlike Sotnikova, and 2 appearances there vs 1 for Sotnikova. 1 World junior title for both. Sotnikova's only edge is Russian titles which nobody outside of Russia cares about anyway.

pangtongfan said:

It is funny how every single page you go into since the games has drivingmissdaisy with half the posts. For someone supposably so sure of Sotnikova's win (yeah right) and so sure it isnt a controversy to people (rotfl) she/he sure wastes alot of time trying to convince and brainwash others (or himself?) of that.

Click to expand...

You should see my screen. It's tough to follow the thread when half the posts are hidden. It's my choice but tough nonetheless.

pangtongfan said:

One doesnt need to be a psychologist to notice she has brought up Michelle Kwan atleast 100 times in her commentary so far (without Kwan ever being suggested by Terry, Johnny, or anyone she is working with). Who else does that over one skater who no longer exists in the skating world. She still has a massive inferiority complex over someone like Kwan, all these years later, even after beating her at the Olympics.

Click to expand...

DarR said:

I recall reading somewhere that it was because of Laternik's (sp) influence over the judging panel. This was quoted from a judge who wanted to remain anonymous. Sorry for not being able to link the article.

Click to expand...

I really want to see that one go. Permanently. Take Alla on his way out, too. I'll have Shin Amano any day.

P.S. Can you PM me the link?

I♥Yuna;889515 said:

Nad - See what I mean? This needs to be analyzed just as much as the step sequences (good luck to anyone who wants to try lol).

Click to expand...

And you have to be a lawyer and a linguist as well, fluent in English and French. They will move the goal posts endlessly.

I♥Yuna;889515 said:

Nad - See what I mean? This needs to be analyzed just as much as the step sequences (good luck to anyone who wants to try lol).

Click to expand...

I am not arguing with the need to analyze it; I am merely pointing out that the days with identifiable judges behind individual scores weren't exactly free of controversial or corrupt calls.

pangtongfan said:

Julia is also still a far more accomplished skater than Sotnikova at this moment, despite being younger and being likely to skate for many more years. OGM both, but Julia's Olympic gold is more highly regarded as there is absolutely no controversy over it, while Sotnikova's Olympic gold is the most controversial in history so is already devalued compared to Julia's. European Champion, which Sotnikova never achieved. 2 grand prix victories vs 0 for Sotnikova. GPF medal unlike Sotnikova, and 2 appearances there vs 1 for Sotnikova. 1 World junior title for both. Sotnikova's only edge is Russian titles which nobody outside of Russia cares about anyway.

Click to expand...

You have me in stitches! This is not a controversy AT ALL outside of South Korea or Yuna-ubers. Sorry, I know you think Adelina's gold is tarnished but it shines as brightly as any other in history. To suggest any person in history would rather have a Euro Champ, 2 GP wins and a GPF medal over an OGM is ridiculous but very much in-line with your exaggerations. Let's ask Irina, Surya or even Julia if they would trade a Euro champ, 2 GP wins and a GPF medal for an individual gold. I know, you probably think they would prefer to keep what they have by a 30-to-1 margin.

I♥Yuna;889510 said:

Under the 6.0 system, what was the difference between 5.7 and 5.8 in terms of difficulty, execution, choreography, expression, etc? Imo, the corruption problem back then stemmed not from the criteria, but from the scale, which was simply not broad enough to address the finer differences in technical and artistic merit, which resulted in ambiguity, which made the system prone to corruption.

Click to expand...

I think the idea of the 6.0 system is that it was an ordinal system. It was the responsibility of each judge, at the end of the day, to rank the skaters: this one was best, that one second best, etc. The 5.7s and 5.8s served as a course filter and mnemonic aid, and were not intended to have much meaning standing alone. This is where the idea of "leaving room" came from -- you couldn't score the first skater too high because you can't have any ties and there are only so many possible scores scores higher than, say, 5.8, 5.9.

This system had two advantages. First, a human judge can always tell, between two trees, this one is taller than that, even though he cannot tell how tall each is.

Second, in so far as figure skating has a performance art component, it is a judged activity not a measured one. Quality is judged, quantity is measured. The prize should go to the skater who skates best, not to the skater who skates most.

It's problematic because the concepts and language of the pcs criteria is what they're supposed to be using to come up with the numbers that we see (ex: 9.75 for any given component has to mean something with respect to the criteria listed for that component -- and right now I see too much ambiguous language that lets you argue 9.75 for this skate, 8.5 for that skate, simply by prioritizing a certain criterion to justify the high scores, and prioritizing another criterion to justify the low scores -- that desperately, desperately needs to be sorted out.

Click to expand...

I do not think this is possible. If the goal is to reduce natural ordinal judging to measurement, the only way to approach it is to line up a thousand programs off you tube, from terrible to heavenly, rank them from worst to best, and arbitrarily assign point values to each in small increments. Then the judge could mentally say, well let's see, the program I just saw was better than the program on the list that scored 6.72 in interpretation, but not as good as the one that scored 6.78. I'll give it a 6.75.

In fact, I think this is pretty much what the judges actually do, internally, baring bias, etc.

drivingmissdaisy said:

People don't like that Adelina got so many +2 and +3 but virtually all of the judges showered her with these high marks. People don't like that she got so many 9's for PE, CH, and IN but she got two 8.75's and twenty five 9+ scores on those performance measures.

Click to expand...

The answer is probably more simple and benign than the conspiracy theories: everyone feels pressure to conform and please a crowd (it's an instinctual psychological response to being outnumbered). The judges are under pressure to determine a winner, and the audience was communicating loud and clear who that ought to be. Simple. There's no need to sling mud in either direction, because the truth is that even if all the judges were well-meaning, they are still human, and prone to persuasion, which exposes a weakness in the judging and scoring system, especially when it comes to pcs -- it is not doing anything to mitigate the impact of personal bias and uninformed popular persuasion on the judging process.

If you read through the component explanations text on the isu website, you'll see that every single component has a fudge factor (each one allows room for bias), and none of the components clearly prioritize one criteria over another, which is giving judges the freedom to cherry pick which things matter more than others, in order to determine their scores. The only thing to take away from this is that the component score is a total crock unless ALL THE JUDGES are on the same page about the weight that each criterion should carry within any given component.

I've probably read over it like 20 times now, and it's just bad writing. That's all I can say about. That's just my opinion, yet I don't want anyone to just take my word for it, either. I think anyone who is curious about Adelina's pcs inflation ought to read it for themselves, and think about the implications of ambiguity and overlap on the scoring.

http://static.isu.org/media/104183/program-component-explanations.pdf

Nadya said:

I am not arguing with the need to analyze it; I am merely pointing out that the days with identifiable judges behind individual scores weren't exactly free of controversial or corrupt calls.

Click to expand...

Anonymity was #3 on my list of what plays into the problem, and I appreciate you pointing this out, because it validates my argument that the corruption keeps happening, first and foremost because the system itself allows for it (they're not trying hard enough to minimize bias, and maximize fairness and objectivity). Wherever there is a gray area - be it an inadequate judging scale, or inadequate judging criteria - corrupt people will take advantage of it. The IOC doesn't care, because they have a rep to protect lol. But the ISU's silence over the recent controvery is infuriating, because they are the ones who made the rules. For whatever reason, they don't feel the need to explain or defend the scoring in Sochi. Personally, I believe it's because they know that it's a mess, and they don't want to draw attention to it, because they are afraid it will mean another overhaul and they're simply too lazy to do it. To me, the ISU's silence on the controversy is damning. It is precisely why every part of the system deserves to be scrutinized (base valuation/scale of value/factors/components/criteria/tech panel duties/judging panel duties/etc).

drivingmissdaisy said:

Of the top 3, Adelina had the most jump difficulty, the best spins, and the most intricate program. As I showed above, the judges believed Adelina's program and performance were magnificent. How do you argue with 25/27 judge's marks for the program as all 9's, with the other two marks 8.75?

Click to expand...

Planned difficult jumps and execute jumps are two matters. Sotnikova did not execute planned jumps; wrong edge and underrotated two footed jump. Sotnikova is not polished skater. Polished skater requires many years of training. She is not there yet. Compare with her performances at Sochi, She rec'd inflated scores from fellow judges.

fruitbasket said:

Planned difficult jumps and execute jumps are two matters. Sotnikova did not execute planned jumps; wrong edge and underrotated two footed jump. Sotnikova is not polished skater. Polished skater requires many years of training. She is not there yet. Compare with her performances at Sochi, She rec'd inflated scores from fellow judges.

Click to expand...

From what we know, Sotnikova is not a judge. How can she have fellow judges?

drivingmissdaisy said:

You have me in stitches! This is not a controversy AT ALL outside of South Korea or Yuna-ubers. Sorry, I know you think Adelina's gold is tarnished but it shines as brightly as any other in history. To suggest any person in history would rather have a Euro Champ, 2 GP wins and a GPF medal over an OGM is ridiculous but very much in-line with your exaggerations. Let's ask Irina, Surya or even Julia if they would trade a Euro champ, 2 GP wins and a GPF medal for an individual gold. I know, you probably think they would prefer to keep what they have by a 30-to-1 margin.

Click to expand...

What?! Only Koreans think this is controversial?

Were Koreans commentating the Olympics figure skating in UK, Canada, Italy, Germany, etc? Are most people at the internet forum Korean? You only make yourself sound fool if you keep justifying Adelina's win to skating fans.

Nadya said:

From what we know, Sotnikova is not a judge. How can she have fellow judges?

Click to expand...

How, indeed? Maybe "teammates?"

Nadya said:

I am not arguing with the need to analyze it; I am merely pointing out that the days with identifiable judges behind individual scores weren't exactly free of controversial or corrupt calls.

Click to expand...

No, but it would be a big help in deciding whether we actually have sometime to complain about, or if we are just blowing wind.

For instance, if the judges were identified then we would know such things as:

1. A judge who gave much higher scores than his fellows to a particular skater -- is that judge from the same country as his favored skater?

2. If a judge gives extra-high scores to a particular skater, did that judge tend to give generous scores across the board, or was it selective?

3. If a judge gave extra-high scores to one skater and a judge gave extra-low scores to that skater's rival, is it the same judge or two different judges?

4. Is there statistical evidence that judges number #3 and #7 are working together?

If we knew the answers we would have something to talk about, instead of firing broadsides in the dark.

pangtongfan said:

Julia is also still a far more accomplished skater than Sotnikova at this moment, despite being younger and being likely to skate for many more years. OGM both, but Julia's Olympic gold is more highly regarded as there is absolutely no controversy over it, while Sotnikova's Olympic gold is the most controversial in history so is already devalued compared to Julia's. European Champion, which Sotnikova never achieved. 2 grand prix victories vs 0 for Sotnikova. GPF medal unlike Sotnikova, and 2 appearances there vs 1 for Sotnikova. 1 World junior title for both. Sotnikova's only edge is Russian titles which nobody outside of Russia cares about anyway.

Click to expand...

I am sure Julia would trade every single accomplishment in her life for not falling in both the SP and LP in the Individual event at the Olympics.

Mathman said:

No, but it would be a big help in deciding whether we actually have sometime to complain about, or if we are just blowing wind.

For instance, if the judges were identified then we would know such things as:

1. A judge who gave much higher scores than his fellows to a particular skater -- is that judge from the same country as his favored skater?

2. If a judge gives extra-high scores to a particular skater, did that judge tend to give generous scores across the board, or was it selective?

3. If a judge gave extra-high scores to one skater and a judge gave extra-low scores to that skater's rival, is it the same judge or two different judges?

4. Is there statistical evidence that judges number #3 and #7 are working together?

If we knew the answers we would have something to talk about, instead of firing broadsides in the dark.

Click to expand...

I don't question anything you said (I usually don't!) But think about this: in the days of 6.0, we knew all that. And so what?

Mathman said:

How, indeed? Maybe "teammates?"

Click to expand...

Then every skater with a judge on the panel has teammates.

Nadya said:

Then every skater with a judge on the panel has teammates.

Click to expand...

That's the problem. Each federation sends its team.