Which is really strange, considering how the judges seemed to hate her in the team event, giving her 7 points less in PCS for pretty much a clean program.
The Judging Controversy Thread
- Thread starter Andre Smith
- Start date
Which is really strange, considering how the judges seemed to hate her in the team event, giving her 7 points less in PCS for pretty much a clean program.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
I just don't think you'd have to be from just the US or Russia to become a corrupted judge. Some of the favors may not be delivered for years at various GP's and CUP's etc. etc.. I'm not sure there was a conspiracy or if I buy into it yet fully but I think a French judge could be influenced by an American judge just the same. Not saying that happened.
What if after an investigation it's discovered Carolina was the winner? That would be something.
I don't think they hated her at all. For a debut at this level she did exceptionally well. Perhaps she blew their socks off at team event and they got generous in individuals.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2010
Carolina was my winner for sure. Her PCS in the LP should have been about 10 points higher than Fraudnikova, and atleast 2 points higher than a very measured Yu Na Kim (didnt she lose to Yu Na by less than 2 points overall). So if that is what turned up I would be beyond thrilled.
not saying I agree there was a agreement, however this statement as a counter argument doesn't work. you see....if there is an agreement, there doesn't have to be a US judge on the panel, as the russians have an "agreement" with the US, then the russian judges would be the ones to overscore gracie. understand how agreements work?
Katarina Witt in an interview with CBC.
" when I saw Yuna finishing, I thought Welcome to the club, you would won another gold medal. the score is unfair."
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNjc2ODE2OTQ4.html <---This is an interview video from Chinese fan.
Robin Cousins says about the result.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-_OJtxcC94
" when I saw Yuna finishing, I thought Welcome to the club, you would won another gold medal. the score is unfair."
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNjc2ODE2OTQ4.html <---This is an interview video from Chinese fan.
Robin Cousins says about the result.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-_OJtxcC94
spamming? what do you mean spamming? Huh?
I don't even know if they can investigate or will investigate and how they would even re-judge and make it seem even remotely genuine, but yeah, I agree. Depending on how they go about GOEs, Carolina could have edged out Yuna, and that decision would be debated but not deemed controversial like this. And I think Mao's FS should've been definitely closer to Caro and Yuna's, too.
We will never know now.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2010
Yu Na winning would probably be the only totally non controversial decision, but Carolina winning over Yu Na would have atleast been acceptable to most IMO and IMO in fact would have been the more correct one. Asada though should have won the LP over both I feel, or maybe been 2nd behind Carolina but over Yu Na in the long. Judging was just a farce on every level and it extends way behind Sotnitkova vs Kim (which is what makes the Sotbots and their Yu Nabot accusations all the more laughable and desperate). I should also say it extends way beyond the ladies competition.
If I were in charge of the ISU I would request the IOC to have the event rejudged by a new panel, saying that we had investigated and determined corruption and collusion. I would then pick a panel which included absolutely nobody that was on the original one, and nobody that had a single remote tie to the old USSR, let them judge it by watching tapes on a large screen of the entire competition and using the COP scoring process just like the actual event; and then file the official new results as the ones that stand (even if Sotnikova still somehow ended up the winner. despite my strong views I might accept her win if the sports plagues Shekhovtseva and Balkov werent spearheading a Russian Nationals judging panel for the event). Then again if I were in charge of the ISU people like Putin, Piseev, Shekhovtseva, and Balkov would have been thrown out of figure skating 20 years ago and had no possible place in the scoring of the event to begin with, and the current result would have almost certainly never happened.
The tech panel was a disgrace. I feel powerless after the total silence of the ISU all this while. (other than boilerplate "comment")
So this Russian tech specialist and Olga "Finland" whatever will stay in tech forever? And the judges as well?
I won't watch Olympic FS for the rest of my life. Will educate others the same, what kind of joke this show is.
So this Russian tech specialist and Olga "Finland" whatever will stay in tech forever? And the judges as well?
I won't watch Olympic FS for the rest of my life. Will educate others the same, what kind of joke this show is.
You have proven multiple times here that:
1) You are a lier (see post #272)
2) You have a different agenda than whatever you sugarcoat
Remember the post you warned others of malware/virus on the Change.org page? No one believes you. You are a farce, just like Sky_Fly and Mao88. Stop pretending that you are not.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
I for one am very confused about the difference between tech specialists and tech callers. I read in ISU regulations that a fulltime employee of a member federation (ie. lakernik who is the vice president of the Russian Federation) cannot serve as a tech specialist in an event hosted in his/her country, but Lakernik's official role is tech caller in this case. Does this rule apply or not apply to him then????
The Lakernick or whatever looked to have resigned from his position at Russian Federation. Just like Olga did and "defected" to Finland. This Olga lady was never on tech panel (from Finland or anywhere) until the last season.
I hope the Russian Federation will suffer a rude awakening sooner or later.
http://t.co/SxKCjN55WM Ashley Wagner talks of anonymous judging, and the audience at the skating palace
They got booted out early in hockey, which was the only gold they really cared about.
You know what the problem is? They have made the scoring so overly detailed that they cannot tell the forest from the trees.
1. Falls count for a tiny amount under the COP. They do. If a good program is 100 + points, a -1 deduction is less than 1%. Contrast that to under the 6.0 system. They would usually lose .2 or so for each fall. So today, a fall is less than 1% where before they were 3.3%. Of course, I'm generalizing and guesstimating here, but by many results have resulted in a faller beating a non-faller.
2. Things that are invisible to the eye count for a lot here. This is fine, except that by making it so important that ur's and wrong edges are punished, they make it very easy to play favorites by double checking some people's edges and rotations and not others. There have been many examples of people who seemed to do well but did not.
There is a limit to the amount of times umpires are allowed to double check calls for baseball games. There needs to be a limit in skating as well, if there isn't already. Otherwise, it's just too easy to fix, by deciding who to nitpick on. Either have an official from a country with no top skaters check every single lutz and second jump in a combo (the two most likely problems), or limit it to one jump per skater per competition being checked, or get rid of it altogether, and punish only the noticeable, messy, program-affecting mistakes.
1. Falls count for a tiny amount under the COP. They do. If a good program is 100 + points, a -1 deduction is less than 1%. Contrast that to under the 6.0 system. They would usually lose .2 or so for each fall. So today, a fall is less than 1% where before they were 3.3%. Of course, I'm generalizing and guesstimating here, but by many results have resulted in a faller beating a non-faller.
2. Things that are invisible to the eye count for a lot here. This is fine, except that by making it so important that ur's and wrong edges are punished, they make it very easy to play favorites by double checking some people's edges and rotations and not others. There have been many examples of people who seemed to do well but did not.
There is a limit to the amount of times umpires are allowed to double check calls for baseball games. There needs to be a limit in skating as well, if there isn't already. Otherwise, it's just too easy to fix, by deciding who to nitpick on. Either have an official from a country with no top skaters check every single lutz and second jump in a combo (the two most likely problems), or limit it to one jump per skater per competition being checked, or get rid of it altogether, and punish only the noticeable, messy, program-affecting mistakes.
Adelina's Lutz is 100% Flutz.
http://mydearkorea.blogspot.ca/2014/02/sochi-figure-skating-scandal.html
The linked article does a good job explaining what I've been thinking of. It should have examined SP more, though.
Edit: her 3Lz + 3T combo also looks highly suspect: Flutzing + Under-rotation (can't even tell where she took off in the 3T, which is strange)
http://mydearkorea.blogspot.ca/2014/02/sochi-figure-skating-scandal.html
The linked article does a good job explaining what I've been thinking of. It should have examined SP more, though.
Edit: her 3Lz + 3T combo also looks highly suspect: Flutzing + Under-rotation (can't even tell where she took off in the 3T, which is strange)
My husband feels that the ISU has too much technology that allows them, as you pointed out, allows them to nitpick (or not) certain skaters. He agrees with you that they should get rid of the replays and figure out a way for technical controllers to determine the errors in real time.
Also, I think another way to state your forrest from the trees point is that in some cases, the system rewards more the sum of the parts rather than examining whether the whole adds up to that sum.
