PDA

View Full Version : 2002 Judging Scandal: Has The Medicine Done More Damage Than The Original Disease?



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17

taf2002
02-20-2012, 10:48 PM
I realize that. But it should have gone to the larger membership. The ISU has not been able to govern itself for a long time. There was every reason to believe that separating speed skating and figure skating would benefit both sports. The WSF was not such a bad idea (except for the name).

Separating it would not benefit speed skating. Figure skating has bankrolled speed skating for years. Don't you think Speedy would have gone for the separation if there had been any benefit to speed skating?

luna_skater
02-20-2012, 11:36 PM
^^ I don't think that is what confuses them. I think it is the lack of individual marks that does. Having one number means we have no idea who put who in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. We can look at protocols, if we know to look at them. But even the, we don't know who the judges are. There is no accountability, no sense of agreement/disagreement among the judges.

That's because the judges aren't putting anyone in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. They can't. They can go high or low on a skater, but they'll get tossed out. When they put their marks into the computer, they sit back and wait to hear where that skater is placed just like everyone else does. Ranking skaters is meaningless. And for officials, NOT having to rank skaters is the absolute best thing about CoP. You follow the criteria, and can give 10 skaters the same PCS if that's appropriate, and don't have to remember who skated 2 hours ago. If people are looking at protocols trying to figure out which judge ranked which skater in front of another, they're missing the big picture.

There is *some* accountability, internally. Post-event discussions are conducted, and officials can be singled out for requiring assessment. There's a document on the ISU site that lists the number of assessments that took place at different championships over the past X number of years. It doesn't identify the individuals, but breaks down the number that were done according to judges and tech panels.

(I say *some*, because there are still clear instances of incompetence that don't get dealt with.)

I don't see any good reason judges should be held accountable to spectators. They should be accountable to each other, their federations, the ISU, and the skaters.

Aussie Willy
02-21-2012, 12:00 AM
^ This - Excellent post!!

demetriosj
02-21-2012, 12:17 AM
I don't see any good reason judges should be held accountable to spectators. They should be accountable to each other, their federations, the ISU, and the skaters.

Maybe I missed something but, I don't think anyone here is saying that judges need to be accountable to spectators?

FSWer
02-21-2012, 12:52 AM
I'd say let's just keep it the way it is now (adding up). As if you all don't remember. Along with the scandle...0.6 was not only unfare scoring (marking Skaters perposely low to leave room for other skaters)....But also it was so hard for Fans to understand.

skatemomaz
02-21-2012, 01:40 AM
Maybe I missed something but, I don't think anyone here is saying that judges need to be accountable to spectators?

I'd say at least 2 posters in here are saying exactly that. over.and.over.and.over again. :rolleyes:

magnolia
02-21-2012, 01:50 AM
Then why did you say: " (The best heroines are probably someone like Oksana Baiul or Katerina Gordeeva. They are seen to have won the Gold legitimately and some other thing in their life makes them tragic heroines as well.)

I don't really understand why my comment is being taken out of context and so aggressively attacked? In any case, I can try and clarify. I could have added a modifier as follows: 'They are seen to have won the Gold legitimately (by the general public who had no access to interactive media and therefore had no means to verify his/her suspicion, and therefore, by default, had to assume its legitimacy)' to it to be more clear about what I meant. However, I do believe I was quite clear on the whole in what I was trying to say.

I am going off-topic here, but I want to say that CoP is not difficult for even casual fans to understand. Where it gets difficult for not just casual fans but for anyone is when a score is given and the score doesn't fit the specified criteria. Actually, I think the distinction made between casual fans/professional judges is odd. There are some casual fans who understand it, there are others who don't. And I don't think all judges understand CoP equally well. At least, they certainly don't apply CoP equally well.

gkelly
02-21-2012, 02:30 AM
I don't see much of a separation there. Bias and corruption go hand in hand.

Not necessarily.
We all have our biases. I'm biased, you're biased, everyone is biased.

The trick for judges is to be aware of their biases and to try not to let them get in the way of judging as fairly as humanly possible under the rules. They won't succeed completely because they will usually still have areas of bias that they're not consciously aware of. And in some cases they will acknowledge their biases, decide that they have to make a judgment call in a situation that is not clearcut, and choose to make the cal in the direction that they know they prefer emotionally.

Being aware of one's biases and choosing to make decisions in favor of who the judge wants to win rather than who the judge thought actually skated best . . . now that is corruption. But it doesn't happen nearly as often as judges just having positive feelings about performances by skaters they've watched grow up over the years or about skaters whose stylistic choices mirror the judges stylistic preferences.



We do want the most knowledgeable judges at events. We would not have a panel, if we limited them to countries without entries. Unless we had panels of 4 or 5, and that would not be good.

Right.
Similarly, if anyone who earns a living coaching skating were forbidden from serving on any technical panels, 1) where would it be possible to find enough willing sufficiently knowledgeable technical panel members to staff all IJS competitions around the world, and 2) how would these specialists be available to travel to competitions wherever they are needed around the world while also earning a living in non-skating professions?

Maybe professional callers could be trained and hired for the Grand Prix series and for ISU championships, but it would be too expensive for most other competitions to pay salaries as well as expenses for technical officials. And if the professional callers, forbidden from earning money by coaching skating, choose to work in nonskating professions to earn money rather than volunteering their time on tech panels the rest of the year, how well will they maintain their expertise at seeing the necessary details in real time?



^^ I don't think that is what confuses them. I think it is the lack of individual marks that does. Having one number means we have no idea who put who in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. We can look at protocols, if we know to look at them. But even the, we don't know who the judges are.

Why is it important to know which judge gave which mark? Sure it's interesting, and useful if you want to ask a specific judge why they scores specific moves or components the way they did, or if you want to look for national bias. But if I want to know why I placed where I did or where I need the most improvement, it would be more useful for me to see which elements I got positive GOE for and which negative, or which components I did better or worse on and by how much. The average of all the judges for each element and component gives me more useful information than knowing which judge was marking high or low or even which judge had a corrupt agenda in favor of one of my competitors.

It would be more useful to read down the righthand column of the protocols to see the base mark+averaged GOEs for each element and the averages for each component than it would be to read a series of total scores for each judge across the bottom of my protocol to compare with those of my rivals.


That's because the judges aren't putting anyone in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. They can't. They can go high or low on a skater, but they'll get tossed out. When they put their marks into the computer, they sit back and wait to hear where that skater is placed just like everyone else does. Ranking skaters is meaningless. And for officials, NOT having to rank skaters is the absolute best thing about CoP. You follow the criteria, and can give 10 skaters the same PCS if that's appropriate, and don't have to remember who skated 2 hours ago. If people are looking at protocols trying to figure out which judge ranked which skater in front of another, they're missing the big picture.

Yeah. 6.0 got us used to looking at the rankings, but ordinals didn't tell us anything about what the judges thought of the actual skating, and two marks from each judge per performance didn't tell much more.

kwanfan1818
02-21-2012, 02:34 AM
No doubt, the scandal played a big part and may even have been the catalyst for the decline- but as with most dramatic events/changes, there is typically not just ONE reason for it.
According to Tom Collins, who watched that bottom line as vigilantly as anyone through the receipts of the COI tour, skating's peak was a four-six-year period post-whack, and was already in decline when Sale/Pelletier started their professional career, which means, doing the math, a few years before the skandal happened.

magnolia
02-21-2012, 02:39 AM
post-whack

:lol:
So thaaaat's the secret to achieving figure skating popularity in United States! Honestly, that's so sad.

I would like to think that we live in a different world with different sensibilities. I hope no one's gonna try and get Gracie Gold to attempt murder on her twin sister or someone like that on the eve of the Olympics!!

Anyway, that kind of marketing would not work on an international audience. Figure skating fandom is now international, and the greatest potential market is to encourage that growth through internet. How about taking hint from the Hatsune Miku phenomenon? Create some kind of a fandom which allows for the merging of real with artifice?

Actually, it's already happening to a degree. Some company in Japan came out with an Digital Grade Master Asada Mao figurine for 9,800-yen just recently. And I looked at comments on internet and it was quite funny to read remarks about how the figurine was likely going to be used for another purpose (the figure is in a spiral position). And fans are always creating little tributes to Mao, drawing comic pictures of her and little cute clips of their own fantasy Mao (not just her, actually, of many skaters, very often Japanese, though). I think this fandom can be engaged with quite lucratively.

bruno6
02-21-2012, 03:24 AM
Judges are not allowed to coach, and make money in
Other professions, so why can't the tek panel follow the same rules.
It's the same thing .

cruisin
02-21-2012, 03:38 AM
Separating it would not benefit speed skating. Figure skating has bankrolled speed skating for years. Don't you think Speedy would have gone for the separation if there had been any benefit to speed skating?

Hmm, didn't realize that.


NOT having to rank skaters is the absolute best thing about CoP. You follow the criteria, and can give 10 skaters the same PCS if that's appropriate, and don't have to remember who skated 2 hours ago. If people are looking at protocols trying to figure out which judge ranked which skater in front of another, they're missing the big picture.

In theory there is no difference from CoP and 6.0. But it is all theory. There are the top 5, the bottom 5, and everything else is whatever it is. Sorry.


There is *some* accountability, internally. Post-event discussions are conducted, and officials can be singled out for requiring assessment. There's a document on the ISU site that lists the number of assessments that took place at different championships over the past X number of years. It doesn't identify the individuals, but breaks down the number that were done according to judges and tech panels.

That was done with 6.0, did it make a difference?


(I say *some*, because there are still clear instances of incompetence that don't get dealt with.)

Incompetence or deliberate?


I don't see any good reason judges should be held accountable to spectators. They should be accountable to each other, their federations, the ISU, and the skaters.

There is no reason for accountability to the spectators. But there should be accountability to skaters, and there is none.



Similarly, if anyone who earns a living coaching skating were forbidden from serving on any technical panels, 1) where would it be possible to find enough willing sufficiently knowledgeable technical panel members to staff all IJS competitions around the world, and 2) how would these specialists be available to travel to competitions wherever they are needed around the world while also earning a living in non-skating professions?

The problem is they have paying customers. Even if their skater is not in the event they are calling, they have an agenda. It is ethically wrong.


Why is it important to know which judge gave which mark? It is for the skater. and it is for ethical reasons.


According to Tom Collins, who watched that bottom line as vigilantly as anyone through the receipts of the COI tour, skating's peak was a four-six-year period post-whack, and was already in decline when Sale/Pelletier started their professional career, which means, doing the math, a few years before the skandal happened.

And there you have it.

gkelly
02-21-2012, 04:09 AM
The problem is they have paying customers. Even if their skater is not in the event they are calling, they have an agenda. It is ethically wrong.

What if it is both ethically wrong and practically necessary?

If you eliminate all coaches from serving on tech panels, WHO with the necessary knowledge will fill all the tech panels at all the competitions?

cruisin
02-21-2012, 04:17 AM
What if it is both ethically wrong and practically necessary?

If you eliminate all coaches from serving on tech panels, WHO with the necessary knowledge will fill all the tech panels at all the competitions?

Coaches and skaters who are no longer coaching or skating. Just like judges.

luna_skater
02-21-2012, 07:20 AM
In theory there is no difference from CoP and 6.0. But it is all theory. There are the top 5, the bottom 5, and everything else is whatever it is. Sorry.

Are we watching the same system? The way in which a skater's rank is determined under CoP could not be more different from 6.0.



There is no reason for accountability to the spectators. But there should be accountability to skaters, and there is none.


Are you a skater? Have you had difficulty getting feedback about your programs based on the protocols you receive? Have you ever been in a position to file a protest against results? Are you an official who's ever had to justify your marks to a skater, event referee, or panel of your peers?

If none of the above, then you don't have any insight into the level of accountability that does or does not exist.