Judging System Article

[adrianchew]

http://waymoresports.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=waymoresports/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035774163527&call_page=WM_Home&call_pageid=979619472127&call_pagepath=Home/Home

I wish they'd give us details of who it was that turned out differently in the results.

[Lee]

Since one system is undergoing trials, I think it would be redundant and serve no purpose other than to upset some people if the differences were released.

What is important is that those who are testing the system know what the differences are and how that will impact the sport. We certainly don't hear about 'differences' in any other kind of trial studies (scientific or otherwise) -- this should be no different.

[duane]

a 3loop will have a base value of 5.3, while a quad-loop will have a value of 9.0.

interesting.

[Schmeck]

This part caught my attention:

"Once the elements are identified by a caller, or technical specialist, judges grade the jump with marks ranging from minus-3 to plus-3, and zero for an average jump."

So, how would they call a flutz, or a lip? What if the judge disagrees with the caller? Some flutzes are so bad that they're definitely flips, some are so mild (like Michelle's tendency to jump from the flat of the blade during her lutz) that they could be scored as a regular lutz, with a slight deduction...

Schmeck, thinking that the scoring is just going to get worse, not better
:(

[adrianchew]

Originally posted by Lee

What is important is that those who are testing the system know what the differences are and how that will impact the sport. We certainly don't hear about 'differences' in any other kind of trial studies (scientific or otherwise) -- this should be no different.

The question then - is whether the results of the trials will be published. Perhaps without direct references, but even just using A B and C. Until then, everyone has a reason to be suspicious - remember it was the officials that were caught cheating, and those same sort of officials are behind developing a system like this.

I actually like that harder elements are going to be rewarded - as much as most people are so against pushing the envelope too far as a major cause of injuries. But I want to know more about the system... if its trial, and they don't want people to ask, they should refrain from talking about it then. ;)

[melanieuk]

If anything the higher base marks give the judges even more opportunity to cover their tracks, so to speak.

Still, I do think that scoring out of 6.0 is now out-dated, given the advances made in skating over the last 50 years.

I always thought the marking should be something similar to how they judge gymnastics.

[Lee]

Originally posted by adrianchew
The question then - is whether the results of the trials will be published. Perhaps without direct references, but even just using A B and C. Until then, everyone has a reason to be suspicious - remember it was the officials that were caught cheating, and those same sort of officials are behind developing a system like this.

Not necessarily the same 'sort' -- Ted Barton is the CEO/Exec Director/whatever of the BC Section of Skate Canada -- not in a position to be a judge. It's not the 'judges' who are developing this system, it's others with some form of mathematical expertise. As for publishing the results of the trials, rather hard to do after one event, isn't it -- not without making it obvious just who could have been affected.

But I want to know more about the system... if its trial, and they don't want people to ask, they should refrain from talking about it then. ;)

You will learn more about the system as it is finalized, just as we have been. Obviously, people have asked; I doubt Barton, et al went out *looking* for reporters to talk to -- that's not usually necessary when it comes to judging...:P

What's really sad here is that there is a whole raft of people willing to tar an entire community (judging, and by extension other officials and volunteers) for the actions of a FEW. That is so grossly unfair to the hundreds of judges around the world who do their jobs to the best of their ability. People have been saying for years that the system needs fixing -- why don't we let them work on these repairs and save harping on the entire group until we see the finished product? Let's give the majority of these people the benefit of the doubt they deserve.

[AxelAnnie22]

Originally posted by Lee
Since one system is undergoing trials, I think it would be redundant and serve no purpose other than to upset some people if the differences were released.
Too true!
Why anyone would go down that tunnel is beyond me.

It sounds as though they may have some good ideas....asigning a value to each element, and a + or - for execution. I would sure hate to be a skater right now, though, trying to figure out what to focus on.

I think it is still a mess, and I am not optimistic. They can do all they want with the system, but they need to fix the people and their integrity to really have things work :evil:

[loveskating]

Well, I'm glad they are working on the system itself.

I've read and studied "The Federalist Papers" and IMHO, James Madison decided that throughout history, all power units became corrupt, even if the people in the unit started out with integrity...so he decided that the only solution was to create a system of checks and balances so that it would be much harder for the corrupt to do things; he decided the people needed to rely on institutions instead of people alone with their conscience.

Things are slow that way, even confusing, but at least the extremes on either side of an issue are thwarted, LOL, and I think the lesson can be applied to a lot of things, including skating judging.

[adrianchew]

Originally posted by Lee

People have been saying for years that the system needs fixing -- why don't we let them work on these repairs and save harping on the entire group until we see the finished product? Let's give the majority of these people the benefit of the doubt they deserve.

When people are trying to fix a problem they themselves created - others are bound to question their actions each step of the way. Openess and transparency is what is needed to regain trust - and if they want to work in shielded privacy, they have to expect the pointed questions.

Its good that fans are being proactive and will not drop the ball - keeps them on their toes and hopefully honest. ;)

Anyone fixing such a system should expect to live in a fishbowl - the same courtesy is granted to politicians and public figures in power when they try to fix things... I don't see how this is any different, or unfair, to anyone.

The skaters I believe have the greatest rights and freedoms to criticize - what happens directly impacts them, and the harshest criticisms I've heard comes directly from them. One has to wonder why they can't be involved in the process at least to provide feedback and thoughts.