Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38
  1. #1
    Go Denmark!
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,596
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    2418

    Interesting aticle: Natural Bias in sports judging

    So, my main sport is dressage, and one of the main (independent!) news sites had a very interesting article posted about Natural Bias in sports judging, and how judging complex movements (such as figure skating, gymnastics or dressage) is simply too hard for the brain without using any kind of prior bias or knowledge.

    The guest article is a written by a researcher in sports psychology, Inga Wolframm, and I thought it was very enlightening, and applicable to Figure Skating as well.

    Enjoy!

    http://www.eurodressage.com/equestrian/2010/11/04/natural-bias-hidden-controversy-judging-sports


    Reading the article, do you think figure skating judging could be made more simple? How? I don't have a firm enough grasp on all the teknik stuff to have any ideas.

    I also wondered if the judges can see each other marks/screens sitting that close in competition?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,653
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    37350
    That is a fascinating article. Thanks for posting.
    A good rant is cathartic. Ranting is what keeps me sane. They always come from a different place. Take the prime minister, for example. Sometimes when I rant about him, I am angry; other times, I am just severely annoyed - it's an important distinction. - Rick Mercer

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,931
    vCash
    400
    Rep Power
    1626
    Thanks for posting, this article is quite interesting and I'll make sure to comment once I've read it thoroughly.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    52
    Posts
    10,239
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    10899
    Quote Originally Posted by maatTheViking View Post
    Reading the article, do you think figure skating judging could be made more simple? How? I don't have a firm enough grasp on all the teknik stuff to have any ideas.
    The author writes:

    Ultimately this means that judging tasks should be made less difficult and complex. Judges need to be able to rely on systematic judgements based on objective and transparent evaluation criteria. To that end very clear guidelines should be provided highlighting, for example, which type of error deserves which kind of penalty.
    In skating, I think that equates to breaking down the technical scoring into scoring each technical element separately, and getting different panels to determine what was performed and how well.

    Looking at all the numbers generated by that process is more complicated than just looking at one Technical Merit mark, but the process of coming up with each of those numbers is a lot simpler than trying to keep all the elements in mind to assign a single mark, and it's less subject to skate order effects.

    The PCS scoring is still holistic and therefore still subjective and still subject to all these effects.

    I also wondered if the judges can see each other marks/screens sitting that close in competition?
    There is such a thing as a filter that can be put over monitors to make them unreadable from anything but a straight-on view, but I don't know if it's common practice to use them on the judges' monitors.
    http://www.tech-faq.com/computer-privacy-screen.html

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,677
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3290
    Very interesting article and very relevant.

  6. #6
    Watch me move
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Gwyneth Paltrow Fan Club headquarters
    Posts
    16,742
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Great article. Thanks for posting the link.

    Quote Originally Posted by maatTheViking View Post
    I also wondered if the judges can see each other marks/screens sitting that close in competition?
    I would guess not - they look like small screens with a lot of information on them - e.g. video replay, which has to be large-ish so the details are visible - and the judges are sitting with some space between each seat. So unless they are entering the marks in 48-point font or some such, I think it would be pretty difficult to read a screen that was not your own.
    Who wants to watch rich people eat pizza? They must have loved that in Bangladesh. - Randy Newman on the 2014 Oscars broadcast

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    908
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by maatTheViking View Post
    So, my main sport is dressage, and one of the main (independent!) news sites had a very interesting article posted about Natural Bias in sports judging, and how judging complex movements (such as figure skating, gymnastics or dressage) is simply too hard for the brain without using any kind of prior bias or knowledge.

    The guest article is a written by a researcher in sports psychology, Inga Wolframm, and I thought it was very enlightening, and applicable to Figure Skating as well.

    Enjoy!

    http://www.eurodressage.com/equestrian/2010/11/04/natural-bias-hidden-controversy-judging-sports


    Reading the article, do you think figure skating judging could be made more simple? How? I don't have a firm enough grasp on all the teknik stuff to have any ideas.

    I also wondered if the judges can see each other marks/screens sitting that close in competition?
    This is the point that I found the most interesting: "Furthermore, in aesthetic sports... different movements are extremely complex, consisting of a number of technical and artistic elements that all need to be considered at once. However, research has shown that the processing of such complex information simply exceeds human capabilities. In order to be still be able to provide relevant scores within the given timeframe, judges fall back on schemas.. or “short-cuts” .. based on a number of different information sources, such as the athlete’s reputation, their previous performances, which team they belong to etc., [these] .. help judges come up with judgement decisions that, in their mind, approximate actual performances."

    This basically means that skaters are actually graded based on previous performances rather than on the current one, because all the movements in the program are too complicated to process and judges automatically fall back on an impression of the skater's previous performances.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Ottawa
    Posts
    103
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    This offers a great explanation for how PCS have manifested themselves over the last 7 years since the IJS was introduced.

    Really interesting article! Thanks for posting.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    LEAVE EDMUNDS ALONE!!1!
    Posts
    20,089
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    The PCS scoring is still holistic and therefore still subjective and still subject to all these effects.
    There is no exact criteria and no methodology for coming up with the score.

    When with Monika we tried to do an experiment with judging PCS at 2010 Worlds, we had to come up with our own methodology, based on the very vague guidelines.

    The other thing which really bugs me is judges only noticing the first thing and failing to notice anything that came afterwards. It's very well studied and described in Social Psychology but I can't remember what this effect was called now.

    So in effect - somebody puts a hand down and then put the foot down. Judges give -1 GOE for that element.

    When you look at the deduction sheet, they should have deducted -1 for the hand down and -2 for the foot down, which in combination gives you a -3 GOE deduction.

  10. #10
    Crazy Stalker Lady
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Busy stalking the world.
    Posts
    3,828
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    19593
    Very interesting article. I'm glad I read it. I don't have any brilliant insight or suggestions, but just want to say that it kind of helps me relax about it all, like I can finally exhale about the judging because it's just the way human beings are, and it doesn't matter what system is used these same "schemas" will still apply because it's a judged sport. Still, I do think a separate panel for TES and PCS would really help but I doubt that's ever going to happen.
    Last edited by alilou; 11-05-2010 at 02:32 AM.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    LEAVE EDMUNDS ALONE!!1!
    Posts
    20,089
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by alilou View Post
    Still, I do think a separate panel for TES and PCS would really help but I doubt that's ever going to happen.
    It would help but with ISU keeping making all the cutbacks... No chance, yep.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,677
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3290
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    It would help but with ISU keeping making all the cutbacks... No chance, yep.
    Probably no chance, but that's my very strong wish, as well; separate the panels so people have specific limited tasks and actually can pay attention to technique and to performance/ choreography/ artistry- separately.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    776
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    697
    Quote Originally Posted by maatTheViking View Post
    Reading the article, do you think figure skating judging could be made more simple? How?
    Go back to 6.0 and crack down on the cheating.

    I'm really not trying to be a jerk saying that. 6.0 was a very simple system - rank the skaters. Period. Cognitive science research has proven over and over that the human mind is much more effective at comparing things to each other (6.0) rather than against an arbitrary standard (COP).

    Sure it was easy to get a bloc together and that led to controversial 4/5 and 6/3 splits on the medal stand at the elite level, that were debatable for reasons of preference, politics or reputation.

    They had to toss out the toe tappers, the Marie-Reines, and the Alla Shekhovtsovas, but 6.0 was simpler and generally led to more logical results than the craziness of COP. Now judges need to assign 7-12+ or more GOE marks against arbitrarily assigned pages of standards/criteria, then assign five more overall PCS marks based on even more arbitrary criteria they need to memorize.

    And they need to do this all while trying to guess and stay "in the corridor" (the ultimate piece of BS) based on a skater's reputation.

    Then add in the fact that the base value for each technical element is arbitrary (yank your blade over your head and get more points, wheeee!!!) quads are now suddenly worth more this year, wheeee!!!), and the fact that there's a powerful caller out there splitting hairs to assign a level, a downgrade, etc....

    Ah, 6.0, where did you go?

    Great article. And I love dressage. Thanks for posting!

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,013
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Thanks for posting that article ... fascinating read. I too love dressage and anything to do with horses and horseback riding. [sidenote: Johnny attributes his erect posture on jump landings to his equestrian skills]

    I think what the writer said about judges relying on politics and athletes' reputation to help decide their scoring is pretty much the main modus operandi in figure skating judging. Let's not forget too that the Code of Points was essentially rushed into being mainly to protect the judges rather than helping to fairly judge the skaters. Whatever benefits may accrue as the system continues to develop, IMO, are tarnished by anonymous judging and the way CoP was rushed and forced into existence.

    So true re skaters being judged by previous performances -- case in point, Jeremy Abbott at Worlds 2010 (judges apparently couldn't forget images of Abbott falling and stumbling through his Olympic short progam -- one of the two best sp of last season, the other of course belonging to Daisuke). Abbott skated his sp beautifully at Worlds, but was marked lower than he deserved.

    There are rare occasions (Michelle Kwan many times, Brian Boitano at '88 Olympics, Rudy Galindo at 1996 Nationals and Worlds) where the judges had in mind to score differently, (i.e., politically, and based on things other than the skaters' performances), but couldn't in light of magical, bring down the house performances.

    Generally, I think figure skating is even more difficult to judge based on a set of criteria than other sports such as Gymnastics and Diving, because figure skating is sport and performance art, while I think gymnastics and diving have important aesthetic aspects, the performance aspect does not play as significant a role as it does in figure skating. For me taking a skater's performance apart to score on specific elements, without also truly looking at the whole and judging the whole without political bias and manipulation of PCS, is largely what sucks about current system .. along with the anonymous judging.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Cuddling the sheep smilie
    Posts
    8,961
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3469
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    The other thing which really bugs me is judges only noticing the first thing and failing to notice anything that came afterwards. It's very well studied and described in Social Psychology but I can't remember what this effect was called now.

    When you look at the deduction sheet, they should have deducted -1 for the hand down and -2 for the foot down, which in combination gives you a -3 GOE deduction.
    This can go further... When I was on a few piano panels, people would often get completely obsessed with one detail. Something they'd noticed at the start, and then failed to pay attention to any of the rest.
    It was generally the all-rounders that suffered.

    Starting off strong and collapsing at the end, or collapsing at the start and pulling it together at the end was often forgivable, but encountering a few problems interspersed throughout was generally the kiss of death.

    Being small and cute was a MASSIVE bonus. Any child tall for their age or slightly overweight was doomed unless they were outstanding, they rarely got more than a pass. I used to take pleasure in looking up all the birth dates and pointing out the "small cute one" was the oldest of the pack.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Vancouver Canada
    Age
    55
    Posts
    12,526
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4753
    Quote Originally Posted by BreakfastClub View Post
    I'm really not trying to be a jerk saying that. 6.0 was a very simple system - rank the skaters. Period. Cognitive science research has proven over and over that the human mind is much more effective at comparing things to each other (6.0) rather than against an arbitrary standard (COP).
    Do you have a source? I'm not convinced that comparing things is easier than measuring them against a standard. It also really depends on the context. And, COP is hardly arbitrary.

    Under 6.0 bias and judging on reputation was arguably even more prevalent it is under COP. Remember those competitions where there was no movement whatsoever in the phases of the dance competition?

    Plus, judging in the LP was made really easy by the fact that the top three controlled their destiny (which also made for some major upsets, i.e. ladies at the 2002 Olympics). It was therefore easier to pick the podium in advance and manipulate the scores. Certainly judges manipulate PCS just as judges used to manipulate the second mark under 6.0. But, there is more room for movement and given all the numbers and computing involved, its harder to fix the final results.

  17. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    LEAVE EDMUNDS ALONE!!1!
    Posts
    20,089
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BreakfastClub View Post
    Go back to 6.0 and crack down on the cheating.

    I'm really not trying to be a jerk saying that. 6.0 was a very simple system - rank the skaters. Period. Cognitive science research has proven over and over that the human mind is much more effective at comparing things to each other (6.0) rather than against an arbitrary standard (COP).
    6.0 meant that the majority of what skaters did on the ice did not count and was not taken into consideration.

    With CoP at least they know what they are marked for.

    The system is far from perfect and there is a lot of room for improvement but at least skaters and coaches now are getting feedback and can work on improving individual elements.

    As for cognitive science, which was supposed to be the new direction and the beacon of light in psychology, the majority of it has been proven to be methodologically unsound if not outright falsified (ie. studying 100 people and taking the results of 3 into consideration ). When the correlations they got have been checked mathematically, it turned out a lot of them have been impossible to achieve.
    Last edited by Ziggy; 11-05-2010 at 12:53 PM.

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    LEAVE EDMUNDS ALONE!!1!
    Posts
    20,089
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by millyskate View Post
    Being small and cute was a MASSIVE bonus. Any child tall for their age or slightly overweight was doomed unless they were outstanding, they rarely got more than a pass. I used to take pleasure in looking up all the birth dates and pointing out the "small cute one" was the oldest of the pack.
    That's another thing.

    The halo effect.

    Beautiful = good.

    I mean Korpi's PCS this season are seriously .

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    In the Land of Unrealistic Assumptions
    Posts
    4,511
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1942
    Quote Originally Posted by overedge View Post
    Great article. Thanks for posting the link.



    I would guess not - they look like small screens with a lot of information on them - e.g. video replay, which has to be large-ish so the details are visible - and the judges are sitting with some space between each seat. So unless they are entering the marks in 48-point font or some such, I think it would be pretty difficult to read a screen that was not your own.
    I've seen the IJS screens up close. The judges screen are small (approx 4"x 6")and have nothing on them other than the list of the element codes and the keypad for marks. It's pretty difficult to see what your neighbor is marking.

    The tech panel has the large monitors for replay and entering all the codes. The Accountant and Data people have full size monitors too but even seated shoulder to should, it's pretty hard to see each other's screens because they were mean to be viewed straight on. Also the print is really small (in order to get everything on there. Reading each other's screens is diffiuclt at best and for the average human, pretty close to impossible.
    "You just can't underestimate the power of positive underwear." 2013 Fruit of the Loom ad

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    52
    Posts
    10,239
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    10899
    Quote Originally Posted by Japanfan View Post
    I'm not convinced that comparing things is easier than measuring them against a standard. It also really depends on the context.
    Agreed.

    From one point of view, it's simpler to just rank skaters and give two marks. Much less complicated than looking at each aspect of the performances separately and giving lots of different marks.

    The protocols looked a lot simpler when it was just two marks per skater per judge and used up a lot less paper.

    But is that what the author of the article means by "simpler"?

    Think about what a judge has to do in order to rank skaters with some degree of "accuracy": Evaluate the basic skating skills, count the jumps and their difficulty, evaluate the quality of each jump, determine the difficulty and quality of all the spins and steps and spirals and other in-betweens, evaluate the skater's carriage and line, projection to the audience, connection between the movement and the music, etc. Were there obvious errors that should be penalized even more than the loss of credit for whatever skills they represented failures of? Was there any content that was unique in its difficulty or originality that should be rewarded for its uniqueness in addition to its actual technical value? Etc.

    Oh, and then decide which of the preceding skaters this skater was better or worse than.

    And somehow all that needs to get boiled down into two numbers, making sure to leave enough room between this skater's numbers and those who were immediately better or worse among the preceding skaters so that there will also be enough numbers left to slot in subsequent skaters above and/or below as needed.

    The resultant numbers look simple, but the thought processes required to arrive at those numbers are extremely complicated. Plenty of room for important details to get overlooked or for judges (and fans) to differ significantly in how they weight the most salient aspects of the performances. And plenty of room for "noise" such as reputation or skate order to overshadow the "signal" of the immediate performance as a deciding factor in a judge's decision on where to rank skaters with relatively comparable performances.

    On the other hand, evaluating an individual jump element is much simpler. There are clear guidelines defining the required takeoff and number of revolutions: the tech panel just has to decide yes or no whether those definitions were met, and if the rotation was short then by how much. Combos or sequences with unexpected errors might be a little trickier to define, but there are published guidelines for how to handle most situations.

    And then the judges just have to evaluate the element on a scale of -3 to +3 according to clearly spelled out guidelines, and then move on.

    There's no need to weigh the difficulty of one element against another or decide how much to value quality over difficulty or vice versa. Most of those weightings have been built into the scale of value and taken out of the hands of the judges, making the judges' task simpler.

    Defining spin and step levels is more complicated for the tech panel under the current rules. That's because most of the common-sense and gut feeling decisions about difficulty have now been codified, in ways that encourage certain kinds of difficulty and discourage others.

    We might disagree with some of those choices and want to see the rules and feature definitions and the scale of values rewritten to reflect our own preferences for what should be rewarded. But whatever those rules are, when calling a program the tech panel and judges don't need to make value judgments about what they think should or shouldn't be worth more, as the judges did under 6.0.

    The tech panel just needs to decide whether each attempted feature was achieved or not. Just a series of yes/no decisions, not value judgments.

    For the judges the process is similar to what they do for jumps: evaluate the element on a scale of -3 to +3 according to clearly spelled out guidelines, and then move on.

    There are a lot of separate decisions -- by two groups of officials -- producing a lot of separate numbers. Which in one way looks complicated. But it's a lot of separate simple decisions.

    It's a lot easier to decide "This spin meets four of the bullet points for positive GOE and doesn't have any errors -- +2 GOE" than it is to think "This spin was really good, but it wasn't very difficult and the rest of the program was generally sloppy and there were a couple of major errors on other elements, and this skater has never had good results in the past and is from a small country with no political influence -- wait, I'm not supposed to be judging those last facts -- well, it was a bad program and deserves low scores, but that was a very nice spin -- was it nice enough to score this skater above the skater I currently have in last place or not?"

    See what I mean?

    Now, the PCS are never going to be that simple.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •