ISU votes to abolish anonymous judging

[Ares]

Domanska is typical polish name...
I recently read in a polish FS forum Sochi thread and surprisingly (because Polish are very far from being pro-russian...) the majority agreed that Sotnikova should win, not with such big advantage but though...
As about election of Lakernik. I wonder who elected this controversial (and maybe even corrupted :shocked man ? Russian have such power in ISU ?? He got 81 votes vs. 34 of Mari Lundmark (Finland)

Adriana Domanska is Slovak though - at least officially, her name suggests Polish origin indeed. She would be Domańska with proper spelling. There was a Polish ice dancer called Agnieszka Domańska. She competed with Marcin Głowacki in major competitions like Worlds, Euros and Olympics (1994).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnieszka_Domańska

 

[jenaj]

And a Level 4 call for a Level 3 footwork sequence.

I thought that was an issue in the long program. Plus, it's the tech caller that determines levels, no?

 

[jenaj]

T

With the abolition of anonymous judging we will be able, once again, to enjoy reading studies like these. (I doubt, though, that the judging will be any better or worse.)

But at least there can be studies. Bad/corrupt judging can't be fixed if the judge can't even be identified.

 

[MaxSwagg]

The solution is strict penalties for judges involved in cheating. If you're caught you're banned. If you're suspected but it can't be "proved" you get one strike. Two strikes, you're out.

 

[Blades of Passion]

I thought that was an issue in the long program.

Sotnikova's footwork sequences in both programs were only Level 3, but I didn't look at her SP footwork closely until a week after the LP fiasco and doing the breakdowns of those sequences. Since there was also the issue of Sotnikova's 3Lutz+3Toe not being called for the edge problem + underrotation in the LP, that part of the competition was taking up all the attention. Her SP footwork sequence was also much longer, which masked the problem of not hitting the required turns.

Plus, it's the tech caller that determines levels, no?

The whole tech panel does it, but it's never officially stated which member of the tech panel looked at each aspect of the footwork and what their individual rulings were on each element (it comes down to 2 out of 3 of the panel agreeing on calls that are made). This is something that also needs to be made non-anonymous.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Counting the number of turns and amount of steps is something I find to go against everything that could make a StSeq a worthwhile element. At this point I wish there were just two required Choregraphed Sequences that don't involve levels and become moments that a skater can become creative. Maybe they like step sequences and will do two. Maybe they'll do partial StSeq into a Choreographed Sequence in some cases. All that should matter is if it accents the program and the impact of the skaters movements. Maybe they'll create a theatrical moment on the ice. I think the idea of levels and the tech panel being involved is the wrong direction to go. Let the judges judge and simplify the requirements to the most basic levels. Did the skater fall? Did the skater accomplish what they were intending to attempting? We already have enough technical details in the scoring to measure the skaters with so I'd be fine with all Choreographed Sequences focusing more on the freedom skating has to offer. Just my two cents

 

[jenaj]

Sotnikova's footwork sequences in both programs were only Level 3, but I didn't look at her SP footwork closely until a week after the LP fiasco and doing the breakdowns of those sequences. Since there was also the issue of Sotnikova's 3Lutz+3Toe not being called for the edge problem + underrotation in the LP, that part of the competition was taking up all the attention. Her SP footwork sequence was also much longer, which masked the problem of not hitting the required turns.



The whole tech panel does it, but it's never officially stated which member of the tech panel looked at each aspect of the footwork and what their individual rulings were on each element (it comes down to 2 out of 3 of the panel agreeing on calls that are made). This is something that also needs to be made non-anonymous.

I'll take your word for it, since I don't plan to try to count or identify her turns. Yuna wasn't called on her solo lutz in the long program. It would have been < for anyone else. One judge gave it +3!

 

[Blades of Passion]

Yuna wasn't called on her solo lutz in the long program. It would have been < for anyone else.

Her lutz was fine but perhaps it would have been called for someone that had an underrotation reputation and wasn't favored by the judges. Who knows. There's no official definition of how to count where a jump starts and where it lands and what the total overall amount of rotation should be, so we don't get much transparency here.

 

[Ares]

Her lutz was fine but perhaps it would have been called for someone that had an underrotation reputation and wasn't favored by the judges. Who knows. There's no official definition of how to count where a jump starts and where it lands and what the total overall amount of rotation should be, so we don't get much transparency here.

It's true that Tech Panel tends to be more strict & picky when it comes to those skaters who are known for their UR problem. Those who do it only occasionally like Yuna are overlooked, I doubt that she got many reviews in competitions due to her reputation of being a skater without this problem in the past so no wonder that it was even more unusual whenever that < appeared in her protocol. There are some double standards applied and inconsistencies unfortunately but it's how it is. Either way Adelina in Sochi deserved one UR at least too so it would stay the same. Either way that solo triple lutz from Kim to me was acceptable for full credit. Sometimes it depends on how strict that caller is, I'd like to be more consistent at least in the same competition to make it fair for everyone. You can always land completely backwards so there's no fuss or controversy at all with current rules.

 

[moriel]

Thanks for digging up all these studies. This is exactly the kind of thing that is hidden by anonymous judging.

This study form 2002 concludes (I am shocked -- shocked) that USA. Canada, Germany and Italy formed a consistent voting bloc up against France, Russia,Poland and Ukraine resulting in an extra +.17 points (I assume these are 6.0 points, or possibly ordinals?) for one's own skaters and a deficit of -.05 for the other guys'.

Also … the judges that have in the past proven to be the most nationalistically biased are the most likely to be chosen by their federations for high-stakes contests like the Olympics. (Again, duh!)

With the abolition of anonymous judging we will be able, once again, to enjoy reading studies like these. (I doubt, though, that the judging will be any better or worse.)

I guess that something similar could be run even with anonimous judging, because we know where the 9 judges are from. But it would need quite a lot of data, because now its not a pair score-judge, but a pair judge-score by all judges. I'm actually thinking if there is some easy way to get it out of ISU website, but i doubt my programming skills will be enough to make a bot that captures the results from pdfs.

 

[Mathman]

I guess that something similar could be run even with anonimous judging, because we know where the 9 judges are from. But it would need quite a lot of data, because now its not a pair score-judge, but a pair judge-score by all judges. I'm actually thinking if there is some easy way to get it out of ISU website, but i doubt my programming skills will be enough to make a bot that captures the results from pdfs.

I am sure that there is plenty of stuff for professional statisticians to pore over with their graduate students. The problem is that ordinary fans cannot get anything out of the resulting scholarly papers (TL;DR )

But when the marks of individual judges are available in the protocols, then everyone can say, "Aha! Look at that Lithuanian judge who gave ridiculously high marks to the Lithuanian skater. Good thing they were all thrown out in the trimmed mean. Ha ha." Now that's what I call fun! :yes:

 

[OS]

What they should do is also working on judging selection. There are inherant biases that need to be balanced and ironed out through no conscious effort of the judges. You put a panel of european judges judging kostner vs mao, even with same technical content, kostner would have been favoured. Vs a north American panel judging Gracie vs Tuk as another example.

 

[Ares]

What they should do is also working on judging selection. There are inherant biases that need to be balanced and ironed out through no conscious effort of the judges. You put a panel of european judges judging kostner vs mao, even with same technical content, kostner would have been favoured. Vs a north American panel judging Gracie vs Tuk as another example.

The only applicable way to solve that problem should be stricter control over the panel of judges. They should be carefully selected as well.

 

[Lila11]

On 2010 men's OG judging (abstract only): http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1091367X.2012.639602 (Anomalies in judging transitions for Plushenko and Lysacheck - which could maybe have been repeated in 2014 for Plushenko as he did receive a 4,25 for his transtitions. I talked with a figure skating judge recently who said it was a fair score for what he did... )

Without anonymous judging, we would not need this elaborate report
I hope we know faces behind those marks and it seems simpler way to me
Further, the author forget about (or ignore) Joe Inman's email

At the 2010 Olympics, the judges gave Plushenko 6.8 for transitions in the short program
But at two international competitions held prior to the Vancouver Olympics, he earned transition scores in the 7-7.5 range for the same programs he skated at the Olympics.

If judges say it a fair score, they can stick to their guns - just with identity

 

[jenaj]

Her lutz was fine but perhaps it would have been called for someone that had an underrotation reputation and wasn't favored by the judges. Who knows. There's no official definition of how to count where a jump starts and where it lands and what the total overall amount of rotation should be, so we don't get much transparency here.

I don't think it was fine and neither does David Wilson. And it certainly didn't deserve positive GOE.

 

[chuckm]

YuNa's lutz wasn't called < because Adelina's lutz wasn't called e (and had been called e 90% of the time in previous competitions).

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

What they should do is also working on judging selection. There are inherant biases that need to be balanced and ironed out through no conscious effort of the judges. You put a panel of european judges judging kostner vs mao, even with same technical content, kostner would have been favoured. Vs a north American panel judging Gracie vs Tuk as another example.

I think this presumption that judges prefer skaters from their continent is inaccurate. Obviously, most of the time a judge will give their countrymen strong marks but I doubt that a JPN judge would unfairly boost, say, Yuna over Carolina. Furthermore, I really do think most judges take their job seriously and try to perform it with integrity. It doesn't always happen but the good thing is that it usually takes more than one or two bad judges to change an outcome. Personally, I think the "home skater" advantage is far more beneficial than a favorable panel because I think the judges feel somewhat accountable to the audience for evaluating the crowd favorites fairly.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

YuNa's lutz wasn't called < because Adelina's lutz wasn't called e (and had been called e 90% of the time in previous competitions).

Yuna and Carolina do not have a reputation for < so it's not surprising that the panel wouldn't review any of their jumps. I wish both of the calls were made correctly though (along with the 3T from Adelina, which was also questionable). Potentially it hurt Carolina's placement, although a few of her jumps towards the end of her program looked close too.

 

[Celine]

The only applicable way to solve that problem should be stricter control over the panel of judges. They should be carefully selected as well.

Panels too. I didn't notice that there was any mention of technical panel identities. It's on a different scale, but referring to them as "representing ISU" seems oddly partially veiled. (The ubers know, but ... )

 

[Blades of Passion]

At this point I wish there were just two required Choregraphed Sequences that don't involve levels and become moments that a skater can become creative.

I'd keep the level specifications for footwork in the SP, but with maximum time allotments on what is allowed to count for the level and less strict requirements and less amount of required content for an individual single sequence. There would be 2 sequences in the SP that way, as it used to be, and they would be much more creative and varied than what we get now.

Then for the LP, just call everything as a "choreography sequence", unless the skater did a sequence that would qualify as max level, which would give them a small boost in base value. Just enough to give a tip of the hat to particularly difficult technical content in a single sequence, not so much that everyone would only try to do max-level sequences in the LP instead of going for quality and musicality and performance as the more important aspects.

I don't think it was fine and neither does David Wilson. And it certainly didn't deserve positive GOE.

David Wilson knows what about jumps exactly? Yu-Na's second lutz in her program got more amplitude than the average skater's, maintained control on the landing with decent flow out and an outstretched leg, and her rotation in the air was more than that of people who pre-rotate 1/2 turn and then land 1/4 short. She didn't even land more than "1/4 short" when only looking at the landing anyway, unless you get super picky about the top of the toepick touching the ice. Yu-Na had a superb lutz and that one definitely wasn't her best, but the thing is, even when she does the jump with a little bit of a flaw by her standards, it's still better than what many others do.