The Judging Controversy Thread

[verysmuchso]

I thought only two scores (the highest and lowest) were dropped, not four.

Regardless, yuki90, you are incredibly rude.

I've been reading contradictory posts regarding this. Are the highest and the lowest marks dropped or not? Can anyone offer a definitive answer?

 

[Mrs. P]

So can you look at Euro's Ladies FS for a second?
http://www.isuresults.com/results/ec2014/ec2014_Ladies_FS_Scores.pdf
The judges for Adelina PCS and Yulia's are different. If I look at it from Yuki's way I could say the one judge loved Adelina and Hated Yulia. Or if I look at it your way the same judge is represented in a different column and not necessarily a russian propping Adelina as I once suspected.Does that make senses?

Or a third way: It's totally possible (but unlikely) that the scores were randomized as such so it is the same judge.

Which column are you referring to?

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

this is ridiculous.

:yes:

 

[burntBREAD]

I've been reading contradictory posts regarding this. Are the highest and the lowest marks dropped or not? Can anyone offer a definitive answer?

From the same document that Mrs. P posted, here's what I have:

(c)The panel's Grade of Execution (GOE) is determined by calculating the
trimmed mean of the numerical values of the Grades of Execution
awarded by the maximum of nine (9) Judges.
d) The trimmed mean is calculated by deleting the highest and the lowest
values and calculating the average of the remaining values. In the case
when there are fewer than five (5) Judges, the highest and lowest
values are not deleted from the calculation.
e)This average will become the final Grade of Execution of an individual
section/element. The panel's GOE is rounded to two decimal places.

 

[kslr0816]

Just to echo drivingmissdaisy and Mrs. P (two of our more knowledgeable posters), they are correct and you are incorrect. The judging is anonymous meaning there is no way to assign a face or name to any particular judge. The judge labeled Judge 3 on Adelina's score sheet is most likely not the same Judge 3 from Yu-Na's score sheet. The judges scores are given numbers and their order is randomized. In addition to that, 2 of the 9 judges' scores are randomly dropped, and then the high and low scores from the remaining scores are dropped as well.

FYI, if you are going to rant about something, you look like much less of a fool if you can rant competently. :sarcasm:

I didn't know 2 of the 9 judges scores are also randomly dropped, aside from high and low - is this really true? How is the randomization determined? I'm assuming high and low is dropped FIRST, and then 2 are randomly dropped, correct?

 

[verysmuchso]

From the same document that Mrs. P posted, here's what I have:

Okay thanks!!!! Does it mean that this applies only to GOEs and not PCS?

 

[Mathman]

In addition to that, 2 of the 9 judges' scores are randomly dropped,..

They don't do that random dropping thing any more. The highest and lowest are deleted, then all seven of the remaining scores are averaged.

This is why the numbers end in weird decimals. They are fractional parts of sevenths.[/QUOTE]

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Or a third way: It's totally possible (but unlikely) that the scores were randomized as such so it is the same judge.

Which column are you referring to?

Good point. I guess hindsight is 20/20. That seems pretty fair now. At the time I really felt that the Russian fed was snubbing Yulia over Adelina since Russian Nats. I guess emotions can cloud fair judgement.

I seem to slink a lot!!

 

[ngfriend]

Adelina needs no defending. She is the Olympic Champion and will forever be as such no matter how much you lose sleep over it.

Once "proof" emerges with text messages and emails... Adelina's gold medal can be confiscated and returned to rightful owner = Queen Yuna

 

[yuki90]

5 of judges gave 151, 151, 154, 153, 155 to Sotnikova. (PCS+GOE)

This is insane.

 

[kslr0816]

They don't do that random dropping thing any more. The highest and lowest are deleted, then all seven of the remaining scores are averaged.

This is why the numbers end in weird decimals. They are fractional parts of sevenths.

[/QUOTE]

ah

 

[louisa05]

Once "proof" emerges with text messages and emails... Adelina's gold medal can be confiscated and returned to rightful owner = Queen Yuna

It would more likely result in a second medal like SLC. But I honestly doubt anything will come of this. The ISU achieved exactly what they wanted with the change to IJS: a system where cheating can be buried in a flurry of complex numbers. I predicted that in 2003.

 

[kslr0816]

Once "proof" emerges with text messages and emails... Adelina's gold medal can be confiscated and returned to rightful owner = Queen Yuna

how will that even come up without an investigation launched, which seems like it will not happen?

5 of judges gave 151, 152, 154, 153, 154 to Sotnikova.

This is insane.

i agree, but i don't find the rest of your posts constructive.

if any NEW evidence is uncovered though, it should definitely be posted here. I wish there was a master post that compiled all of the data though.

 

[kwanatic]

They don't do that random dropping thing any more. The highest and lowest are deleted, then all seven of the remaining scores are averaged.

This is why the numbers end in weird decimals. They are fractional parts of sevenths.

Right you are! I overlapped the two drops. The highs and lows are deleted...those are the two that are dropped., not the random two anymore. Hell, it's hard to keep up with the changes. They seem to change the rules every single year. That's another problem with the system IMO...

 

[Anna K.]

They don't do that random dropping thing any more. The highest and lowest are deleted, then all seven of the remaining scores are averaged.

This is why the numbers end in weird decimals. They are fractional parts of sevenths.

Did I get it right that they delete ONE of highest marks and ONE of lovest marks if several marks are the same?

 

[Mathman]

When the IJS first came out, the traditionalists said, it is only a matter of time before this blows up in our faces. Now it has. Under 6.0 scoring this is what we would be seeing.

South African judge: Kostner first, Kim second, Asada third, Sotnikova fourth

Mexican judge: Sotnikova first, Kim second, Kostner third, Lipnitskaya fourth

Philippine judge: Kim first, Sotnikova second, Kostner third, Gold fourth

Etc.

With ordinals we have something to work with. We have something to analyze. We can set about using statistical methods to spot patterns of national bias and collusion. By replacing straightforward ordinal rankings with a sea of decimal numbers, the ISU gets off scot-free.

 

[Mathman]

Did I get it right that they delete ONE of highest marks and ONE of lovest marks if several marks are the same?

Yes.

By the way, the reason why the ISU went to the system of randomizing separately for each skater (IIRC this happened some time around 2008?) is this. Earlier, when they just randomized once for the whole segment, it was almost always possible to work backward and match up most of the judges. This defeated the purpose (the purpose being to pull the wool over peoples' eyes).

 

[Anna K.]

Yes.

Then conspiracy makes sense. All you need are two or three judges who give ridiculously high or ridiculously low marks and they will count.

 

[louisa05]

When the IJS first came out, the traditionalists said, it is only a matter of time before this blows up in our faces. Now it has. Under 6.0 scoring this is what we would be seeing.

South African judge: Kostner first, Kim second, Asada third, Sotnikova fourth

Mexican judge: Sotnikova first, Kim second, Kostner third, Lipnitskaya fourth

Philippian judge: Kim first, Sotnikova second, Kostner third, Gold fourth

Etc.

With ordinals we have something to work with. We have something to analyze. We can set about using statistical methods to spot patterns of national bias and collusion. By replacing straightforward ordinal rankings with a sea of decimal numbers, the ISU gets off scot-free.

Which was the goal. I really believe that. Twelve years ago, they had to explain themselves. This time, they just get their surrogates to start pointing to this number and that number and people like an aide where I subbed last Friday say "I thought the other two medalists were better, but the points are so complex that I know I don't understand how it works so the Russian girl must have done something to win".

 

[yuki90]

how will that even come up without an investigation launched, which seems like it will not happen?



i agree, but i don't find the rest of your posts constructive.

if any NEW evidence is uncovered though, it should definitely be posted here. I wish there was a master post that compiled all of the data though.

FactorsJ1J2J3J4J5J6J7J8J9
GOETotal12.9016.108.9013.4016.2015.7017.109.6011.90
Base61.4361.4361.4361.4361.4361.4361.4361.4361.43
TES74.3377.5370.3374.8377.6377.1378.5371.0373.33
SS9.509.509.258.759.509.009.508.758.50
TR9.259.258.758.509.259.009.508.758.50
PE9.759.509.259.009.759.509.759.009.25
CH9.759.759.258.759.509.759.759.009.50
IN9.759.759.009.259.759.259.758.759.25
PCS76.8076.4072.8070.8076.4074.4077.2070.8072.00
Total151.13 153.93 143.13 145.63 154.03 151.53 155.73 141.83 145.33

This is from exel.

In Free Skate marks for Sotnikova, four judges gave significantly high marks compared to others. It is difficult to pinpoint anyone other than the Judge 4 that gave noticeably marks in each component.