Rescoring of 2010 Olympics

[Blades of Passion]

You have no evidence that tech panels invariably assess elements of skaters relative to each other - their job, in fact, is supposed to be the most objective

LOL, if you don't understand how corrupt tech panel members have manipulated things ("assessing elements of skaters relative to each other" in an unhealthy and incorrect way) or just the usual reputation factor that has influenced calls, then it's pointless talking about the topic. BUT, you've straw-manned the discussion yet again: the topic was judges talking to each other and "peer pressure". The tech panel talks to each other throughout the whole competition, that's a fact. They don't get to make their decisions in isolation. Perhaps allowing for healthier discussion would be beneficial for them, and for all judges. There's a reason why intellectual thought tanks have resulted in great advances in humanity and why people who are great in a certain field usually surround themselves with advisors.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

LOL, if you don't understand how corrupt tech panel members have manipulated things ("assessing elements of skaters relative to each other" in an unhealthy and incorrect way) or just the usual reputation factor that has influenced calls, then it's pointless talking about the topic. BUT, you've straw-manned the discussion yet again: the topic was judges talking to each other and "peer pressure". The tech panel talks to each other throughout the whole competition, that's a fact. They don't get to make their decisions in isolation. Perhaps allowing for healthier discussion would be beneficial for them, and for all judges. There's a reason why intellectual thought tanks have resulted in great advances in humanity and why people who are great in a certain field usually surround themselves with advisors.

Again, instead of avoiding the question, I'll ask again - what's your evidence of this? You making a blanket condemnation of every tech panel/judge simply because it's your personal "understanding" (rooted in your longstanding cynicism and bitterness towards the ISU, at that) is not concrete evidence. An "understanding of how corrupt tech panel members have manipulating things" isn't evidence - it is merely just your particular opinion.

Unless you can point out a specific conversations/circumstances that has gone on with the tech panel (and it would have to be multiple instances for your blanket dismissal of tech panels to hold any weight). Of course the tech panel talks to each other throughout the competition but that's when assessing the nature of the individual elements of a particular skater - but there is zero proof that they call elements of skaters relative to each other or based upon a skater who has yet to skate. Sure, the judges might do that when grading their PCS or GOE, but the tech panel simply calls the elements as they see it.

Just because the tech panel seems to frequently disagree with your own personal assessment does that make it manipulation. Same goes for the 2010 panel - were they being corrupt and manipulating calls? No. Ironically, in this rescoring exercise you were the one who compelled the OP to change the tech calls from how they were originally called, in a manner that you personally deemed correct, even though we were all just asked to judge GOE and PCS. So who's exactly manipulating here?

 

[Blades of Passion]

There is a big difference between wanting to call something correctly, with a clear objective analysis, and assigning calls to competitors solely based upon getting a corrupt desired outcome. Your "where is the evidence" parroting is laughable and will not be responded to. Note though, I didn't say *every* tech panel member ever should be dismissed. Also, you speak about "cynicism" towards the judges when that is your own reasoning for why it's bad to allow judges to interact.

And on that note of wanting to call things correctly, Patrick Chan receiving a Level 1 call on his combo spin in the SP was very fussy and I don't agree with it. They didn't give him credit for upright position, but he does do 2 rotations in upright depending on where you deem the position as starting, and it's not like he lost control of the spin, he was just trying to end the program in time. Also in the SP, Plushenko's last spin only should have been a Level 3 rather than Level 4; that last variation wasn't stretched enough to deserve difficultly credit. All of these "not quite cannonball" positions from Plushenko and even Lysacek are questionable if they are really difficult enough to deserve credit, but that one was the worst offender.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

There is a big difference between wanting to call something correctly, with a clear objective analysis, and assigning calls to competitors solely based upon getting a corrupt desired outcome. Your "where is the evidence" parroting is laughable and will not be responded to. Note though, I didn't say *every* tech panel member ever should be dismissed. Also, you speak about "cynicism" towards the judges when that is your own reasoning for why it's bad to allow judges to interact.

And on that note of wanting to call things correctly, Patrick Chan receiving a Level 1 call on his combo spin in the SP was very fussy and I don't agree with it. They didn't give him credit for upright position, but he does do 2 rotations in upright depending on where you deem the position as starting, and it's not like he lost control of the spin, he was just trying to end the program in time. Also in the SP, Plushenko's last spin only should have been a Level 3 rather than Level 4; that last variation wasn't stretched enough to deserve difficultly credit. All of these "not quite cannonball" positions from Plushenko and even Lysacek are questionable if they are really difficult enough to deserve credit, but that one was the worst offender.

I did not say judges shouldn't be allowed to interact because they are going to be automatically shady. My argument was that they should be able to independently assess each skater without influence from other judges. Allowing them to converse causes judges to place their own individual biases upon each other, which could affect the score they would have independently given otherwise. Judging is not a debate or discussion, nor should it be. They are supposed to be there to do their job, not somebody else's. As we've exhaustively realized, you clearly have no issue with that, so we'll agree to disagree. And your unwillingness/inability to provide evidence when making generalized, unsubstantiated claims that tech panels are corrupt says it all too.

Plushenko's last variation where he held his blade and was significantly different from his sit position. Yes, his basic sit position should have been lower and the cannonball positions look super awkward, but there is a clear contrast to award the level variations. The GOE for those spins should have been marked low because of the poor quality of positions, but the tech call was correct according to the rules - although this is an example of subjectivity which doesn't mean that the panel was being shady (for example, I don't think Lambiel deserved the last variation in this spin because it didn't look like 2 revolutions in the actual position https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exEJ_GaDJI0#t=3h3m15s), but even though the tech panel saw otherwise I'm not gonna accuse them of corruption, lol)

 

[Blades of Passion]

Is there an ETA for when the total scores will be announced? I think we are eager for results.

Allowing them to converse causes judges to place their own individual biases upon each other, which could affect the score. Judging is not a debate or discussion, nor should it be. They are supposed to be there to do their job, not somebody else's.

Advocating for judgement without any option of debate or discussion, what a troublesome legal system, do you wish for humanity to live in the dark ages again? There’s something called a team effort. People working together to create something better than what they can do individually. It’s not “doing someone else’s job” to give a team member information, that’s part of everyone’s job on a team. A judge should be trying to get as much information as possible.

You say “the score could be affected”...why do you only see this as a negative? The score can be affected positively, as judges who would have previously given a “less correct” score are instead exposed to new information and viewpoints that have a better take on the topic. This is how all beneficial change happens: People’s opinions are affected by encountering a better or more knowledgeable perspective, which could be as simple as one person having a lapse of concentration and another person being there to fill the gap. If I am cooking an egg and don’t hold the pan in the optimal way, and someone spots me and tells me, I have now been positively influenced in that moment; a crucial moment where I must make proper judgement immediately, or else the result will be worse.

And your unwillingness/inability to provide evidence when making generalized, unsubstantiated claims that tech panels are corrupt says it all too.

The evidence has already been discussed ad nauseam, I simply don’t want to waste more time writing about something that has been thoroughly examined over the years, to someone who is already aware but chooses ignorance. On the topic of evidence though, some of it will simply never be public, as there are skaters and people involved with skating who are only comfortable giving information in private.

Plushenko's last variation where he held his blade and was significantly different from his sit position. The GOE for those spins should have been marked low because of the poor quality of positions, but the tech call was correct according to the rules - although this is an example of subjectivity which doesn't mean that the panel was being shady (for example, I don't think Lambiel deserved the last variation in this spin because it didn't look like 2 revolutions in the actual position https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exEJ_GaDJI0#t=3h3m15s), but even though the tech panel saw differently I’m not gonna accuse them of corruption)

Lambiel wasn’t given credit for that last spin position, what are you talking about? I never said this particular panel was shady either, but that doesn’t mean they made the best judgement. A poor judgement made in good faith is ultimately just as bad as a corrupt judgement, in end result. This call is more subjective, yes, but getting credit for a difficult variation is not about it being “different looking”, it’s about the actual difficulty.

Hunching forward somewhat in a sit spin and holding your leg and arm in an easy bent position is not really a difficult variation, it doesn’t take much body strength or flexibility or extra balance. Plushenko’s free leg on the Donut/Cannonball attempt should form more of a circular shape, or his head should be further down. You can see in his other attempts the free leg was a bit less lazy (but still questionable). That first variation attempt of a Pike position in his SP sit-change-sit was also highly questionable, he executed it better in the LP, the leg was a little straighter there, more towards an ideal Pike. With both of those positions in the same spin being noticeably lacking, and even the edge change feature looking questionable on rotation/depth by the time he gets into a sit, it certainly doesn’t provide any incentive to give benefit of the doubt. The last position was too poor to let slide.

 

[kolyadafan2002]

Hi guys waiting on 2 more due to technical difficulties.

I would release preliminary results but it is actually too close to call.

Whilst I am pretty sure who has made the podium, on the podium all three have the potential to win it.

EDIT: I will release two versions when done - 1 with no technical panel changes, and 1 with the earlier agreed technical panel changes.

 

[Ziotic]

Hi guys waiting on 2 more due to technical difficulties.

I would release preliminary results but it is actually too close to call.

Whilst I am pretty sure who has made the podium, on the podium all three have the potential to win it.

EDIT: I will release two versions when done - 1 with no technical panel changes, and 1 with the earlier agreed technical panel changes.

Good call with the tech panel changes. As I was scoring it occurred to me that the changes could skew the results beyond what the judges impressions of the elements were.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Only the underrotation call for Takahashi's 3F-3T could make a difference for GOE. Footwork and spin levels don't change anything for how judges grade.

 

[Ziotic]

Only the underrotation call for Takahashi's 3F-3T could make a difference for GOE. Footwork and spin levels don't change anything for how judges grade.

That’s exactly my point. If the judges all have +3 GOE for an element that got marked a level 2, then them getting a level 4 with +3 could be the difference in placements when it’s close.

 

[Blades of Passion]

I'm not sure what your point is...obviously calls can make a difference in placements, otherwise there would be no need to have them at all.

It's always been an incorrect aspect of the scoring system to have "double jeopardy" penalty for jumps, however. No judge should ever lower their GOE for a jump just because it gets an < call. If anything, they should be increasing their GOE for the jump, because that more accurately reflects reality. Aka, a cleanly landed borderline jump, which could get called either way on rotation, should not receive a massive deflation in score just because it gets the < call. Ideally if the rules of the scoring system were laid out properly, then a clean "underrotated" jump would usually get +GOE, in recognition that it was executed properly for what it is, while a borderline "not underrotated" jump would get 1 less mark in GOE, in recognition that it is receiving more points for base value, but is still lacking rotation.

 

[kolyadafan2002]

just waiting for last submission. It's still anybody's game, and currently, 1st and 2nd are within a point of each other.

 

[gkelly]

As it so happened, 2010 was the year when judges were not shown the rotation calls. So the base value would be lowered but judges were free to award positive GOE if that's how they saw it.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

We will agree to disagree BOP but the judging panel is not a “team”. It’s a panel of independent members. Having opinions of others is different from having information. It’s not like only judge 1 sees the first 20 seconds, only judge 2 the next 20 seconds and then they all have to work together to piece together how a performance went. They all have two eyes and a brain and are trained to assess independently. If they miss something they have video replay to inform them, not another judge telling them what happened.

A judging panel isn’t a collaboration nor should it be. It’s individuals assessing and then their scores are compiled (removing outliers) to achieve an assessment that takes into account their individual opinions and creates an average. It’s just like this exercise where you (presumably) didn’t PM each of the other judges sharing your thoughts and scores; you came up with your scores yourself and are awaiting what others got.

 

[Ziotic]

I'm not sure what your point is...obviously calls can make a difference in placements, otherwise there would be no need to have them at all.

It's always been an incorrect aspect of the scoring system to have "double jeopardy" penalty for jumps, however. No judge should ever lower their GOE for a jump just because it gets an < call. If anything, they should be increasing their GOE for the jump, because that more accurately reflects reality. Aka, a cleanly landed borderline jump, which could get called either way on rotation, should not receive a massive deflation in score just because it gets the < call. Ideally if the rules of the scoring system were laid out properly, then a clean "underrotated" jump would usually get +GOE, in recognition that it was executed properly for what it is, while a borderline "not underrotated" jump would get 1 less mark in GOE, in recognition that it is receiving more points for base value, but is still lacking rotation.

My point was that I’m more curious to see how our scores compare to what was actually called during the 2010 event vs our scores with adjusted tech calls since it’s not really relevant for this type of simulation.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

As it so happened, 2010 was the year when judges were not shown the rotation calls. So the base value would be lowered but judges were free to award positive GOE if that's how they saw it.

For me personaly, the tech panel call wasnt even that important. From what i know, as a judge in the panel, you should to deduct from positives if the jump is not fully rotated on the ice, no matter if jump is one degree less rotated to be called as underrotated in the system or not. I think i clearly saw in real time Daisuke jump was not fully rotated so i made a deduction for the jumps landing while assigning GOE.

 

[Blades of Passion]

My point was that I’m more curious to see how our scores compare to what was actually called during the 2010 event vs our scores with adjusted tech calls since it’s not really relevant for this type of simulation.

It’s definitely relevant, the thread is called “rescoring the Olympics” and it was created because of results that people feel are wrong, which tech calls can be a big part of. If a car has 2 flat tires it doesn’t solve the problem to only fix 1 tire. It wouldn’t make sense for a Supreme Court to adhere to a broken law when hearing a case, their purpose is to overturn any broken law.

 

[Mathman]

... a borderline "not underrotated" jump would get 1 less mark in GOE, in recognition that it is receiving more points for base value, but is still lacking rotation.

Isn't that, in fact, the rule? "Lacking rotatiion (no call) = -1 GOE"?

 

[Mathman]

On the issue of whether judges should consult and debate with each other, or whether each judge should do the best he/she can individually -- I think the greatest danger is not that a particular judge might miss something or exercise poor judgement in evaluating a particular element.

To me, by far the greater danger is that in consultation the biggest bully would run the show and the meeker judges would fall in line.

 

[gkelly]

I can't speak for kolyadafan2002's intentions in starting the thread.

For me personally, the fun part of rescoring an event is to test out my own scoring skills, and sometimes to address interesting/challenging situations e.g., where the a skater might have made unusual mistakes or have an unusual mix or mismatch of program component skills.

And then it's also interesting to see what final standings that would result in, by plugging my scores as a mock judge into the tech calls and Scale of Values in effect at the time. Or combining my scores with those of other mock judges. And perhaps a mock tech panel as well, which would be necessary if rejudging a past competition according to more recent rules, for example.

However, starting from the premise that "X should have won" or "Y should not have won" before even beginning the exercise is not of interest to me.

As I think I said earlier in the thread, I can't score with an open mind if I already know the results, and especially not if I already have opinions about them. Which is why I prefer to mock judge events that I haven't already seen (ideally scoring along live while they're in progress) or that I didn't watch at the time and don't remember much of whatever I read about them.

I have no doubt that for some fans the opportunity to "prove" the experts wrong is the biggest part of the enjoyment. That is not at all of interest to me. Nor is trying to prove them right. I'm personally interested in the process of evaluating what I see, according my understanding of the rules in effect.

If we were omniscient observers with better all-angles views of all elements and equal or better knowledge of the tech panel guidelines then in effect, it would be possible to declare previous decisions objectively wrong.

Of course we're not omniscient and are limited by whatever camera angles the broadcasters chose to provide us, which for some elements will be better than what the tech panel saw and for other elements not as good.

Same for judges' judgments of fine points of takeoffs and landings that might look different from different angles.

But we're not more omniscient than the real-life officials. Watching multiple different angles for the same element and watching them many times would give us more information than the judges or tech panel had in real life in the few minutes allotted to make their determinations. So for some specific elements it's possible we could catch an error in hindsight.

As for mock judging PCS, there are many aspects of the skating itself that look different in real life vs. video, as well as from one angle vs. another (in the arena or from different camera positions). For Skating Skills and Choreography(Composition) especially, we have significantly less reliable input about the performances than the real judges had. If we think that speed and edge quality and the sounds the blades make, etc., etc., and the layout of the program on the ice, are indeed important criteria for those components, we can do our best to try to figure out what they were like based on what the video shows us. But we will still miss qualities that would have been obvious live.

Watching video we often get to see closeups of facial expressions better than the judges could.

Also some fans who like to judge PCS are more knowledgeable about various performing arts than the average judge and use that knowledge to inform our evaluation of the skating.

And, as I've said multiple times, most of the PCS decisions are qualitative rather than quantitative, so it makes little sense to speak of right vs. wrong were PCS are concerned. Better vs. worse makes more sense. I.e., having more informed perceptions of what the skaters actually did and more informed standards of how that performance fits into the whole range of elite skating, and non-elite skating as well.

So we can use the information that we have and the knowledge that we bring to the process to apply the rules as best we can, and come up with different decisions than the majority of judges. But disagreement between fan consensus and official panel consensus is no more a matter of right vs. wrong than disagreements between different judges on the official panel, or between different fans.

As long as the process is correct, whenever two or more skaters are in the same ballpark in terms of overall skill level and performance, perhaps with vastly different strengths and weaknesses, there is not a single correct answer in terms of overall results.

And with IJS, no individual official is tasked with deciding who should win. That's not what the process is about.

So are exercises like this meant to replicate the process? Or to try to arrive at results we already believe would have been more correct than the official ones?

 

[4everchan]

@gkelly