Just a thought on Johnny

[Mathman]

It's ISU's product so to speak, so I'd be surprised if they didn't take an interest in the outcome and perhaps pressure USFS in someway to correct the problem...

I think the point is that the ISU needs to pressure itself to adjust its software if it wants to prevent this problem from arising in the future. USFS was just going along with the program. I don't think the ISU cares specifically whether Weir or Lysacek is the U.S. champion.

On the question of whether coaches and skaters will take a stand, that is not so clear to me. They may figure that the extra hundredth of a point more or less is small-to-vanishing potatoes and their efforts would be better spent in getting their combination spin up from level 2 to level 3, or in correcting their flutz so they get only a -1 GOE instead of -2.

I don't know if everyone's seen this yet:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2008-01-31-lysacek-weir-scoring_N.htm

Thanks for the link, Knockonwood. Welcome, and thanks for joining us!

That is really the only thing they could say. "This is the procedure that is used by every member federation of the ISU, this is the procedure that has always been used in all ISU competitions, that's how it is."

Maybe in the future they will think about possibly making changes, maybe not.

 

[tjs]

So it is really simple Johnny ups the content of points in his program and he wins... (if he doesnt fall or trip). I think you have to give it up to the skater and coach who loads it with the way they score the most points and add jumps with content. After all, isnt that how a winner wins by beating the competition in all aspects of the sport?

 

[knockonwood]

Thanks for the welcome I agree that the USFSA couldn't really have done much else except emphasize that it has always been protocol to do it that way. ISU does need to address this problem though, or at least clarify in its rulebook how the rounding/factoring is undertaken. I am bothered somewhat, though, that the USFSA/ISU are remaining so secretive with this issue. The ISU needs to recognize that there are clear weaknesses to its new judging system, including the software they use to run it.

 

[gsrossano]

As the person who raised the question about the calculations, I am going to take the odd looking position that I do not feel the results should be changed. Although I remain convinced the ISU program is incorrect and does need to be changed, I think the alternate calculation method is also incorrect (see an article on my site to be posted this weekend).

This is a lose-lose situation for everybody. Those who think Johnny was robbed by incorrect marking by the judges would like the result overturned, but the rules do not allow that, and I think it would be a bad precedent to set. More importantly, if the results were changed then I would feel that Evan was robbed, since when you calculate the scores in the mathematically correct way (granted, completely ignoring the details of the rules) Evan has the higher score. It is unambiguous that over the entire competition Evan's marks are ever so slightly higher than Johnny's. Maybe the judges were incorrect in scoring them that way, but that is the way they scored. I think it would be unfortunate if Johnny was declared the champion on a technicality, and I think he would feel the same way too. My understanding is that after Nationals his attitude has been to look forwards and not back. All ice lawyering aside, the skater with the highest judges' marks was crowned champion.

I don't agree with the conspiracy theorists that the judges were biased for Evan. They marked it the way they saw it. I would have marked it different, but that is just my opinion and doesn't mean any other opinion is wrong or anyone who doesn't agree with me is a moron. It was very close. I only decided to go with Johnny in the last 1/3 of the program, but I can see how others could view it differently without resorting to claims of bias or collusion.

USFSA probably views this as so much dirty laundry they have to clean up, but the fact is the official results system from the ISU was used in good faith following correct procedures. If this is anybody's dirty laundry it is the ISU's. USFSA ends up stuck having to defend this situation created by the ISU when it is the ISU that should really be on the hot seat. I would hope journalists at 4C or Worlds would ask the ISU some difficult questions. And I would hope the rules would be corrected for next season and a correct implementation of new rules written into the software.

But I would leave the results alone.

 

[Vodka Shot]

Weir said he was told where he lost the gold

Haha, where he lost the gold was in not being Evan Lysacek so he could get outrageously inflated GOE and PCS.

 

[attyfan]

Haha, where he lost the gold was in not being Evan Lysacek so he could get outrageously inflated GOE and PCS.

What is the record as regards their other placements, vis a vis each other? It seems to me that both nationally and internationally, when Johnny skates best, he beats Evan (Nats '04 - '06; this season CoC); when Evan skates best, he beats Johnny (Nats '07; this season's GPF). Is this correct? If so, I don't see any evidence of the alleged "pro-Evan bias".

 

[Vodka Shot]

I don't think Evan skated best at this year's nationals. I don't think the judges got together prior to the LP and schemed to hold up Evan's scores, but when I look closely at the protocols while watching the skates Evan looks to me to have been treated easier on GOE marks by a few of the judges and I feel that based on the skates done Johnny's margin of difference in several of the PCS should have been wider. These small differences would have been enough to give Johnny the lead by over a 0.01 difference. That's not to say I don't think any of the wins Evan has had over Johnny weren't right. I just feel that looking closely at the protocols several of the judges '"at this particular event'" were leaning to Evan.

 

[tjs]

Hey Vodka Shot,

If Johnny had won by the way Evan did would there have been such an uprise of injustice by the "JOHNNY fans"? Because if it was the other way around would all the "JOHNNY fans" be willing to give back the nationals medal (IF the Evan camp had protested it)? I think not and they would of said oh well better luck next time! IT IS WHAT IT IS.......

 

[GoldMedalist]

If Johnny had won by the way Evan did

If Johnny had won by being ridiculously overscored I would certainly be protesting.

 

[Vodka Shot]

I have a problem when *any* skater has an inflated score via PCS or GOE marks. If Johnny had clearly won nationals with a sup bar skate I'm not sure how many of his fans would admit it, but I guarantee you he would.

 

[gsrossano]

I had an epiphany at 12:30 this morning. It can be found at

http://www.iceskatingintnl.com/current/content/scoring_mystery_resolved.htm

In regard to the rules, a couple of things to add to the mix.

First use of the ISU software is required by USFSA rules. Second, and more important, the issue (it finally dawned on me) isn't whether the software agrees with a rule printed in the USFSA rulebook, it is whether it agrees with any ISU approved rule. USFSA rules say that changes can be made to IJS in mid-season, and whenever ISU changes IJS rules, USFSA rules automatically change and replace the printed rules that become out of date.

So the question really is, where and when was the calculation method in the ISU software described and approved? No body seems to know. Even Peter Krick, in PH's article didn't seem to know. If the ISU can document the approval of the calculation method used in the software then the controversy is over.

But if the ISU sent a program out into the world with an unapproved calculation method then they have really made a mess of it. USFSA officials assume when the software comes from the ISU it is consistent with ISU rules, and since USFSA rules always change to follow ISU rules (even in mid-season) they are just going to use it and you would not expect them to ask any questions.

So Mr. ISU, where is the documentation of the calculation method, and how and when was it approved?

 

[MissIzzy]

Hey Vodka Shot,

If Johnny had won by the way Evan did would there have been such an uprise of injustice by the "JOHNNY fans"? Because if it was the other way around would all the "JOHNNY fans" be willing to give back the nationals medal (IF the Evan camp had protested it)? I think not and they would of said oh well better luck next time! IT IS WHAT IT IS.......

I would mostly be confused as to why Johnny was suddenly favored, and possibly concerned as the Russian backroom people being a bit more influential than I thought...

 

[Hsuhs]

So the question really is, where and when was the calculation method in the ISU software described and approved?

Good question. No answers here:
http://www.icecalc.org/homepage/

But maybe you'll find some here:
http://www.isujudgingsystem.com/
http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-168606-185824-91845-0-file,00.pdf

 

[emma]

grossano,

your analysis of this problem has been so interesting, thanks so much for sharing and I love your website too!

 

[emma]

Also,

I'm intrigued with the tie-breaking discussion, and I think I'm clear why you call it 'archaic' but am left with that 'funny feelig' of wanting/needing a winner and a way to determine one, but can't think of a skating appropriate way. So, my question - is diving or gymnastics or even timed events like swimming or track, are there examples of -perhaps rare- but true ties that remain as such?

 

[Mathman]

When problems come up, the ISU -- like every organization -- responds by circling the wagons. They could easily just say that accepting the IceCalc software constitutes the required "rules clarification," never mind whether (k) comes before (l).

I think the best approach USFS could take with the ISU is this: It is always a bad thing when the talk after a sporting event is about the decisions of the referees, umpires, and judges, rather than about the performances of the athletes. The freak occurance of a tie score brought the rounding procedure under unexpected scrutiny. So now, let's take advantage of this opportunity to redo the rules and the software together to put the scoring on a sounder mathematical footing.

To me, the most interesting part of the controversy is that of the three ways (the right way, the wrong way, and the ISU way ), Lysacek wins by .01 under the "right way," Weir wins by .01 under the "not quite right" way, and it's a tie under the ISU way.