Give her immunity and put her in a stand of International Court of Justice and make her swear an oath.
The Judging Controversy Thread
- Thread starter Andre Smith
- Start date
Give her immunity and put her in a stand of International Court of Justice and make her swear an oath.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2013
Yes, if you check the protocols you'll see that Yulia has a -3 on her LCSp4 from the SP from the same judge who gave her +3 on her final spin and +2 on her catch-foot spin. That's clearly a mistake. What if anything would change if it was a +3 like it's supposed to be. Averaging the 7 scores that were kept you would get 2.85714 if it was +3, while if it was unchanged you would get 2.57142. I still haven't been able to figure out exactly how GOE is calculated. Can someone tell me?
ughhh that really tears me up. does anyone besides those 5 judges, and probably miss daisy, think her performance was the absolute best performance ever scored under COP?
Perhaps the Korean government can pay NSA to provide the logs. lol
I think they are not. I think they're clearing their PCs in case someone else will
I think we (those unhappy with ISU judging system) will only get consolation much later when the damage that this scandal has done to the already shaken reputation of figure skating as a sport will be taken in account.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I don't think so. A proposal to do away with anonymous judging is already on the table for next year's General Congress. If anything, this brouhaha might make them more inclined to keep things the way they are. The last thing they want is for people actually to be able to prove all the charges that are flying around.
I do, however, think that they will look at tweaking the scoring system in light of the fact that it produced an Olympic men's champion who fell twice. Going in, everyone "knew" this would happen, but they thought it would be Chan. This makes for a disconnect with the public just as much as the same old cheating judges rap. "That guy fell down twice and still won!! I've seen everything in this crazy sport now!"
5 judges gave Sotnikova 151, 153, 153, 154 and 155.
One judge gave YuNa 134 which is less than Julia's 135.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
There are so many factors at work to these outrageous scoring. Some judges' scores are obvious farce. Some judges shouldn't have been there to begin with. Tech personnel should have been different ones.
I mean, just by giving correct step sequence levels (Yuna 4, Adelina 3) and calling Adelina's flutz the outcome of the event would have been different.
I mean, just by giving correct step sequence levels (Yuna 4, Adelina 3) and calling Adelina's flutz the outcome of the event would have been different.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2013
To play's devil's advocate 12 of those were on spins which she is very good at, out of a possible 27, so I think those are fair. The problem is the 18 on the stsq and the jumps that don't add up, compared to the 10 Yuna received. Yuna's StSq was unfairly called as level 3 in both programs but she should have been receiving all +3s with the odd +2 for how well they were executed. Everyone has said that at this particular competition Adelina's jumps were very good. What doesn't make sense is Yuna's jumps being undervalued. If other's are receiving +1 and 2s for things such as more transitions into and out of jumps, then Yuna should be receiving many more +3s for the best height/flow. i couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the protocols. How on earth could they not have given +3s for her 3-3?
The judges had heard each skater's total scores announced. They're not allowed to write them down. They wouldn't remember all the totals from one skater to the next.
No judge can think "I think I'll give Yuna 134.09." Judges don't give total scores. They score each element and each component as they see it -- and maybe they bump the scores up or down a little if they're actively trying to manipulate results.
They are never informed during the competition what levels were called for the steps and spins.
They don't know until after the program which jumps were officially called as < or << and get lower base marks, or whether any elements will end up not counting at all.
They'd have to be human calculators to keep track of which jumps the skater has done; what the base marks are for each element, with second-half bonuses and/or sequence penalties as applicable; what the 70% base mark is for underrotated jumps; what the values of the positive or negative GOEs for all the elements are (since for most elements +1 doesn't add exactly 1.00 points and for even fewer does -1 subtract 1.00 point); what the factored PCS are worth (since for ladies they're multiplied by 1.60 in the free skate); and also keep track of any deductions for falls etc.
Nor do they have any way of knowing during the competition whether other judges are using a higher or lower standard or wider or narrower ranges for everyone's PCS.
No one can do that math in their head in real time, even for the values that they are able to know while they're scoring. At best they could estimate likely totals for their own scores combined with likely base marks. But they could easily be off -- perhaps by several points if the tech panel nitpicked the levels or the judge forgot to take into account one particular rule.
If a dishonest judge wants to mark skater A higher than skater B on all components whether she deserves it or not, and to always give A the highest justifiable GOE and B always the lowest, they can do that. But they can't control whether the total of their PCS and GOEs for skater B combined with the tech panel calls will produce a total higher or lower than the announced averaged total for skater A. It is not humanly possible.
Untrue. They know the TES of their total before writing down PCS. It has been known that's how judges make up the difference for giving inadequate scores to early group skaters.
to argue your points, they dont need to remember all the scores, nor were they trying to. there was only one skater left that was any real threat to adelina.
to me your argument actually supports crooked judging. there's no way they can calculate exactly what she'd need - so they have to bump up everything to insure that the score will be high enough. similarly, for the obviously crooked 134, things are bumped down to insure a low score - not necessarily 134.xx.
This. These judges have enough experience to be aware of that.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
Regarding the judges, contrary to what has been reported, 3, not 2, of the judges (US. Korean and Swedish judges) who judged the short programs were removed and were replaced by 1 Russian, 1 Ukranian and 1 Estonian judges, based on what I see on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_skating_at_the_2014_Winter_Olympics_–_Ladies'_singles
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
Interestingly, after the judges all saw Adelina's score (149.95), only one judge scored Yuna's program higher than that mark.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
Is it unfair to point out that the most biased judge may have in fact been Yuna's 3rd column judge?? In Yuna's favor!!. Or are we to only focus on a Russian bias here? Could that same judge maybe even be the same as Adelina's 5th judge and someone just showering points on everyone with a pair of skates on with Yuna getting the most benefit. Could one not be suspicious of such scores on both sides?
In case you want a link again.
http://www.isuresults.com/results/owg2014/owg14_Ladies_FS_Scores.pdf
In case you want a link again.
http://www.isuresults.com/results/owg2014/owg14_Ladies_FS_Scores.pdf
Unreal.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
This Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_skating_at_the_2014_Winter_Olympics_–_Ladies'_singles also has a section devoted to judging controversy listing much of the information discussed here on GS. If any one wants to add or correct the information at Wiki, they should go right ahead, to make a more complete picture available.
