We lost the “perfect 10″ because the Men’s judges in Athens 2004 bungled that competition in front of a worldwide audience of millions.
But is this NEW scoring system working?
NBC commentator Tim Daggett doesn’t think so:
… Daggett felt compelled to go on the air with this statement on NBC that he feels there is something amiss with the way the men’s routines are being judged in Beijing. He appears to be saying that each routine is not only evaluated by judges on the floor but that behind the scenes, judges are in front of screens possibly watching slow motion playbacks of each routine. He is intimating that there is too much micromanaging of the scoring from the top down, and that for the sake of athletes who trained their whole lives for this moment, this changing rules in the middle of competition has to stop.
We await more news on why the judging in Beijing has provoked this kind of serious critique after only one day of gymnastic competition.
Tim Daggett Questions Fairness of New Olympic Judging – Stick It Media
See the Daggett interview for yourself on NBC video.
I’ve not spoken with any of the Olympic judges yet. But it sounds really, really bad.
The Canadian coaches were furious about the judging. Rings Supervisor Alvaro Carvalho de Sousa was even called out. Accused of manipulating the scoring to eliminate the Canadians in the Team competition.
And is the women’s judging any better?
Bela Karolyi ranted on NBC that Shawn Johnson was scored 8.8 on Beam in prelims by one B-panel judge. Did you see that routine? Where are those deductions?
That’s an impossible score.
I’ve got a bad feeling about this code. The B-panel judges are not getting it right. They are too severe on the best routines. Too lenient on the worst routines. Playing it “safe” in order not to be too far out of range.
UPDATE: Read the comments. Very interesting. Many disagree with me.
23 comments ↓
Check out the prelim scores for the Chinese women on floor from the BLR judge. They were sooo much higher than the other judges; however, the Belarus judge scored the other teams within an acceptable range of the other judges. Strange.
as referenced above:
http://www.nbcolympics.com/gymnastics/resultsandschedules/rsc=GAW499A02/index.html
The BLR judge was, on most routines, .4 and even .6 higher than the next highest B score for the Chinese Women on Floor. This did not happen with the other teams. Will this judge be spoken to as to their inconsistent judging?
I think that Shawn was being unfairly hammered for her bad 180 split positions and low chest landings. The commentators on the UK show i was watching were also saying “shawns just not got the grace”, “poor splits ” and “it would be good for the sport if Liukin won”. I think a lot of the judges are politicaly biased towards some competitors and with the new code are trying to make a stand by rewarding artisty.
Its actually not fair because I thought her routine was superior to nastias-and they stil scored the same.
This is a comment that I placed on “marketing the hype of the Olympic Games”. I feel like a lot of it relates to the issue right now.
I am always glad to see gymnastics get more “pubâ€, but I am concerned when I start seeing us selling our sport as the most “injury-plagued on the planetâ€. It’s not the article I am concerned about, as much as the fact that it is true. The gymnastic community needs to seriously address this issue! The new scoring system is just another step in taking this sport to a place that rewards danger much more than it rewards artistry. Yes, our sport has to have the difficulty, as that is what sets us apart from many other sports, but at what cost?
I see it in our club and those we compete against on a daily basis. Girls that are committed to this sport with all of their hearts, but have to quit because it is just too demanding. At some point, as professionals in this great sport, we have to ask ourselves when is it too much?
Please don’t get me wrong…I am all for the difficulty, but I just feel like there has to be a better way. I thought that when the new system came out, there would be much more emphasis on artistry if the judges were legitimately going to deduct what they should deduct. But, with no offense meant towards Jana, when she can score a 9.00 on bars in execution, then they are obviously not doing that. If they were to hit the execution part of it harder, the gymnasts would still get rewarded for difficulty, but they would have to balance it with being even cleaner. They made the deductions higher, but it just doesn’t seem that they are taking them to me. If a gymnast and coach knew that a competition was going to come down to who was absolutely the most perfect instead of who did a ridiculous amount of dangerous skills, then we might see a decrease in the number of injuries in our sport.
I think the proof in this is that we have seen in the recent past, gymnasts that fall off of events in major international competitions and still finish 2nd on that event. That is simply a result of doing more difficulty than the rest of the field, and that is where the sport is pushing all of these young athletes. For every gymnast we see on TV these next few days, how many have been washed out of the sport due to injury? This has always been the nature of our sport, and I think we all accept that, but again, I ask, how many is too many?
I am really curious to know what all of you think about this. I feel that our sport is in a really precarious position right now, and I wonder how many people see that the same.
——————————————-
I agree with the deductions given to Shawn Johnson. I love watching her compete, but not when she is doing leaps and jumps. I still actually think they are not taking enough. If all gymnasts knew that they were going to be in the mid 8s in execution without being incredibly polished, there would be more emphasis on artistry, and therefore maybe less injury as things really would have to be perfected before moving on. Those deductions are legitimate. The problem is when those deductions are not taken the same across the board.
In addition, I think it is hilarious when Elfe says “their choreography is beautiful”. What choreography? Step, step, pose? I love great tumbling, but floor routines are becoming more boring than they have ever been, and injuries are going to continue to increase as these girls try and pack more and more difficulty into their tumbling. Our gymnastic community needs to “wake up”! The human body can only take so much.
Tim Daggett is an idiot!!!!! It’s good that they’re judging it closely!!!!!!!
I don’t think an 8.8 is an impossible score for Shawn on beam. Shawn got one 9.2, one 9.1 and two 9.0. Shawn’s routine was super solid but landing with her knees on her chest for her full and her back tuck probably cost her something. Not to mention her split leaps. It would be interesting to know where exactly the ARG judge was sitting. From an angle, Shawn’s splits can look decent but dead on, there’s no denying the Fug.
1. I still think the new code is an improvement, because of the separation of A and B scoring. It moves us towards more objectivity than we had 30 years ago.
2. I still wonder if there are basic ethics issues involved with the judging. When the judges in Athens changed scores because of crowd pressure, I was dismayed. They should give what they think the right score is and keep to it even if someone threatens their life. Literally. (And it’s irrelevant if the crowd was forcing them to make it more fair or the reverse…in any case it shows something wrong.) Also for a long time there was a lot of favor trading in the sport. To the extent that US judges were told that if they had problems with that ethically, they should not judge internationally. Has all that rot been weeded out?
3. While I think that the B score has room for wrongness in it, what Tim is imprecisely complaining about is the basic subordination of judges to supervisors and to technical committee weenies. And since those guys aren’t really listed as judges, there is the danger that they may run amok. (Of course in contrast to that, there is the potential for them to equalize scoring better.) In any case, rings is a bit of a mess…men are doing more and more strength…which I’m glad to see…but malteses and even regular crosses are high. And people are not holding for even one second. I think a change in rules to make two seconds the minimum and three seconds the expectation would quickly select out those who are real Lords of the Rings.
Is there any accountability for the judges scores? Are they required to submit the reasoning for their B scores to anyone? If judges’s lists of deductions were made public maybe there would be more fairness and less public outcry….
I agree that the system isn’t perfect, but there are always tradeoffs for trying to achieve any particular goal. So if the goal is to try to make the scoring more objective, then we have to itemize the value of skills and combinations of skills, which basically lays out a road map for the gymnasts, and asks them to choose a certain path. More and more gymnasts are choosing to follow the same paths and the routines become very similar if not identical and creativity and originality get lost because gymnasts are not rewarded for these qualities.
If we try to make the scoring more subjective allowing for more of an open ended system that encourages originality and creativity, then we hear the arguments about difficulty not being rewarded appropriately.
I think it’s good that people are having these arguments because like a two party system of government, one side can keep the other side in check. The people that want to see artistry and creativity rewarded need to keep fighting for that, and the people that want to see technical expertise and difficulty rewarded should keep fighting for that, and hopefully the entire sport will benefit from the pendulum swinging to each side and meeting in the middle.
of course technical expertise and difficulty *aren’t* being rewarded. if technical expertise were being rewarded, than nastia, kexin, and tweddle would not have made bar finals. it infuriates me that someone who falls flat on their back like 2 out of those 3 can still receive a far better score than someone who hits a clean routine when it counts.
i do not agree with shawn’s deductions, though i did agree with nastia’s, and thought dagget’s opinion that nastia was “robbed” was off. shawn’s biggest problems, obviously, are the degree of the leaps, but it’s not 1.2 points of problems. they could add composition deductions too, but then we’re catapulted back into subjectivity again = not following the code. Either way, it doesn’t add up.
and not to sound too much like the movie Stick It!, but if johnson competes a standing full on a 4 inch beam without so much as a toe out of place, but then gets hammered for her chest being low – that’s just absurd. there doesn’t seem to me to be a great solution:
reward difficulty = more injuries
reward artistry = too subjective
reward execution = both difficulty and artistry get thrown aside
i thought the old code did a much better job of combining the three.
As long as we have an open ended system we will have a tendecy towards the escalation in difficulty at the expense of everything else. With it comes greater inconsistency, more injuries, cheating etc. Cheating with this code is easier than ever before, as a “judgement call” between a small and a medium error results in a much greater deduction difference than ever before. And of course, conveniently, you cannot protest the B-score. Presumably because the B-panel never makes mistakes.
If we abolish the open-ended system then we must ask ourselves what the point is from going away from the 10.0 based system in the first place. Oh, that’s right, it was to prevent all of the cheating. Benefit the gymnasts or something like that. Make it a better spectator experience. Hmmm…
Well, I guess on the bright side I can totally see the benefit to the gymnasts. When else have we ever qualified 3 gymnast to the Uneven Bar finals with what would have otherwise have been “catastrophic” errors? What if one of them wins with the same type of an error? How embarrassing would that be?
if you can’t see the deductions in shawn’s beam routine you are blind
Carlin. Or, better, a FIG Women’s judge. Please list the deductions for Shawn totalling 0.8 – 1.2.
I was an F.I.G. Men’s judge. But I really don’t know the specific deductions for “low landing”, for example.
“if you can’t see the deductions in shawn’s beam routine you are blind”
yes, the deductions are there, but if they’re going to nail her for her low chest, they need to nail everybody else similarly. the judging was inconsistent across the board.
I think this discussion is moving us forward to better solutions.
1. Rick, the composition deductions are in the CoP and it’s on the web. Just download it.
2. I agree that publishing the specific deductions would be useful. That way we could see if Shawn was getting hammered for a low chest on beam and Fei not on floor. Etc. At least some sunshine would move the needle to a better solution (we’ll never have perfections).
I think the proposed increased deduction for a fall (from .8 to 1.0) is a great idea and will reward consistency more. But more along those lines I think the BEST idea is to increase deductions for form breaks. If you can’t do the skill clean then you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. This would encourage more cleanliness of skills at perhaps the expense of difficulty which should overall be a good thing.
The greatest discrepancies we see with falling are pretty much only on UB. VT, BB and FX if you fall or make a major mistake you are generally out of medal contention. The problem right now is basically that the U.S. and China are soooo far ahead of everyone in difficulty that they can fall and still make EFs.
The one major downside is ENFORCING the deductions if they choose to increase them.. and that has to do with unbiased judges whether they exist or not. So that may always be a problem… hopefully not in the future though, heh.
Publishing specific deductions would also encourage more honesty. I like that.
“…but if johnson competes a standing full on a 4 inch beam without so much as a toe out of place, but then gets hammered for her chest being low – that’s just absurd.”
It doesn’t matter if she didn’t wobble. Gymnastics has deduction for amplitude as well. You can stick a skill all you want but if it’s low amplitude, expect a deduction. Just ask Ivana Hong why her bars scores suck. For Shawn, it’s not just the standing full. She also has a low chest on that back tuck and we’ve seen gymnasts end a jump, back tuck with a higher chest. Shawn’s chest is on her knees when she finishes. Bridget can finish her jump, back tuck with a higher chest, so can Cheng. Carly could do it too. Shawn should’t get a pass.
Also add Shawn’s low chest on her dismount to possible deduction areas.
right, that’s why i didn’t say that she shouldn’t get deducted for the back tuck
you’re just one of the little Shawn haterz, sherg. Well Shawn got her Amanar and her triple. And she’s going to crush Nastia and all gthe rythmic gym lovers and break you all into peices.
“Carlin. Or, better, a FIG Women’s judge. Please list the deductions for Shawn totalling 0.8 – 1.2.”
I am neither but I’ll give it a try.
From Article 6 table of general faults, by the B panel -
deduction – small (.1), medium (.3), large (.5),
Insufficient height of elements (each time) – .1, .3
insufficient split (each time) – .1, .3
Throughout the entire exercise
Insufficient flexibility – .1
Insufficient amplitude of elements – .1, .3
Shawn’s counting scores were 9.0 (2), 9.1 (1), 9.2 (1).
“right, that’s why i didn’t say that she shouldn’t get deducted for the back tuck”
Her chest is still on her knees for the full.
“you’re just one of the little Shawn haterz, sherg.”
I just don’t think an 8.8 is all that far off for Shawn. Rules are rules. I prefer it when the judges are stingy vs. being too lenient. I don’t care how hard the trick is, mistakes need to be deducted.
To comment 13: MUCH better an FIG judge. Former not even worth it.
I was shocked when Nastia fell on her back and still qualified and when Alicia S. lostthe bronze to a gymnast that fell. The list goes on and on. I guess I am not a fan of the new scoring.
I just think the judging needs to be consistent.
I think the viewers and the gymnasts would feel better if explanations of the judges’ scores were available. Scoring already takes a long time, whats a few more minutes.
Leave a Comment