The ISU Judging System was created on the wave of the 2002 scandal in the Pairs competition at the Olympic Games. The idea at its base was to give impartial values to every element, so the winner would be the skater who will does the most difficult elements in the better way. The past years has demonstrated that, even with a system based on mathematical values and precise rules on the correct way to give marks, for a dishonest judge it’s possible even now to manipulate the results of the competitions. I’ve written about some competitions of the recent past here and here.
Here I’ve put the official documents that I’ve found about the judges suspended from 2011 to 2019.
Their names, in chronological order, are Walter Toigo, Lise Rosto Jensen, Hege Rosto Jensen, Natalia Kruglova, Vladislav Petukhov, Sviatoslav Babenko, Alexandre Gorojdanov, Laimute Krauziene, Doug Williams, Ece Esen, Weiguang Chen, Feng Huang and Nikolai Salnikov. Beside them there are also Yuri Balkov (read here – in Italian – where I’ve written about the 1998 Olympic Games).
I suspect that there are other judges that was suspended but that can judge competitions again. If I’ll find some other names, I’ll add them to my list. Why I write their names? Because the Olympic Games is the most important competition, and deserves the best in every thing. And for me a judge that was suspended, even if now can judge again, isn’t the best. I hope that to all of this judges will be forbidden to judge in the Olympic Games.
My previous posts on the ISU Judging System, beside some example on more recent competitions, were focused on old competitions in which we didn’t knew which judge has given a particular mark. Now we know a lot more things, and we can do some analyses that before was impossible.
The 2018 Olympic Games were held from February 9 (short program Men and Pairs in the Team Event) to February 23 (Ladies Free Skate). On February 6, few days before the competition started, Mary Pilon, Andrew W. Lehren, Stephanie Gosk, Emily R. Siegel and Kenzi Abou-Sabe published Think Olympic figure skating judges are biased? The data says they might be. The article recall the Ladies competition in Sochi, remember that the judges were nominated by their federation and not by ISU and also that who hold an important position in his national federation is eligible to judge (I hope that this rule was changed, but I fear that this has not been done, if I’ll know with certainty I will update the text). Then they write about the fact that the judges were nominated by the national federations, a really serious problem, that was already highlighted by Dartmouth economics professor Eric Zitzewitz in 2006. 2006, not yesterday, not in January 2018, there was a lot of time to change the rule.
After two days Pilon, Lehren and Siegel published another interesting article, Figure skating lets judges who break the rules return to judge another day. They remember Walter Toigo’s past, and I’ve written here why to watch the other judges’ marks is so serious. They write also about Sviatoslav Babenko. Toigo and Babenko are still judging.
The same day was published an even more interesting article, Top-Level Figure Skating Judges Consistently Favor Skaters From Their Home Countries. Now Many Of Those Judges Are At The Olympics, written by John Templon and Rosalind Adams. Remember, there articles were published just before the 2018 Olympic Games. After talked with three statistician that has analyzed the marks given by the judges in over a year, they has concluded that
Sixteen of the 48 judges for the Winter Olympics in South Korea show a pattern of home-country preference so strikingly consistent that the odds of it occurring by random chance are less than 1 in 100,000. These judges include all three sent by Russia, three from China, and two each from Canada and the United States.
They has also written about the problems that the judges were chosen by the national federations and not by the ISU and has received this response:
So,
ISU said it “closely monitors the judging of all ISU Figure Skating Events and has a robust evaluation and reporting procedure in place.”
I hadn’t noticed it, perhaps I’m too inattentive. Fortunately I don’t need to write only basing on my ideas, I’m often inattentive and I too can be biased. I can use what has written journalists as Templon and Adams, journalists who talks with experts. They explained that the ISU use an algorithm that flags judges whose scores are a lot above or below the average of the other scores on their panel. Unfortunately
two former high-level ISU officials, whose duties included overseeing judges and deciding whether to sanction them, told BuzzFeed News that the algorithm was ineffective because the corridor [the range in which a judge can step away from the average] was so wide that it caught only the most extreme outliers.
Which algorithm? This. I’ve made a thing that they, on February 8, can’t do. I use the algorithm on the PyeongChang competitions. First I put here a screenshot of part of pages 5, 6 and 4 of the Communication N. 2098, Rules of Procedure for Official Assessment Commissions – Evaluation of Judging – Assessments for the Figure Skating Branch. I’ve highlighted in red the conclusions of the explanations.
According to the ISU a variation little short than 7.0 points in the GOEs of the short program (13.0, with 13 elements, in the free skate) and 7.5 points in the PCS is acceptable. And, until 4 errors in the Olympic short program, with 30 skaters, and 3 errors in the free skate, with 24 skaters, the errors are acceptable. With these premises, I’ve checked the Men’s competition. Not all the competition, only the marks given by the Chinese judge, Weiguang Chen. For the short program, I did the calculation only with the marks she has given to Boyang Jin (see on the left).
A difference of 5.48 points in the GOEs, for the ISU there’s No Reason for Evaluation. These words are clearly written in the ISU’s communication. A difference of 3.59 in the PCS also give No Reason for Evaluation. Even without precise calculation it was obvious to me that the most strange marks were Jin’s marks, so I didn’t other calculations. According this communication, in the short program the marks given by Weiguang Chen were correct.
In the free skate there are most elements, but the biggest difference is that there are more quadruple jumps (or triple Axel, remember that this is the +3/-3 system, all the quadruples and the triple Axel can go up until +3.00, and all the quadruples can go under until -4.00, the triple Axel until -3.00). With more elements in which the differences in GOE are higher, the marks given by Chen to Jin aren’t acceptable anymore. I’ve highlighted the sum in red.
The difference from average in the PCS is higher than in the short program, but it’s equally acceptable. After the short program Jin was fourth, 4.26 points behind Javier Fernandez, 0.85 points behind Shoma Uno. Not surprisingly, the skaters for which Weiguang Chen was most far from the average, were Uno and Fernandez. She was strict with both the Japanese and the Spanish, but she remained in the acceptable difference. With only one skater – Jin’s GOE – with strange marks, when the ISU explicitly required at least three for 24 skaters, the marks given by Chen were correct.
I’m not joking, if we follow the ISU Communication 2098, Weiguang Chen’s marks were correct and her suspension was an injustice. Her marks are these (I’ve put an arrow were his marks were biased, for the Communication the other marks are fine).
If you didn’t fully understand how big is a Deviation of 7.50 points in PCS, I’ve made an experiment. I’ve lowered Hanyu’s PCS at the 2019 World Championship of 1.50 points in the first four components, and of 1.25 in the fifth. The sums is 7.25, so my deviation is acceptable and there isn’t any reason to evaluate my marks. I’ve tried to raise up Zhou’s marks of the same sums, but I can’t, even if I really wanted to do it. So, according to this algorithm, if a judge want to to give these marks in PCS, he can do it.
Returning to PyeongChang, thanks to SkatingScores I’ve calculated also the final rank. According to Chen, Jin done the new world record in the short program, surpassing the 112.75 done by Hanyu at the 2017 Autumn Classic International. The score for the free skate was high but not a record, Hanyu (and only him) has done better in two competitions. The sum however was another record, slightly higher than the 330.43 done by Hanyu at the 2015 Grand Prix Final.
Is this the competition that we’ve seen? Gold for Jin with two world record, silver for Hanyu, bronze for Nathan Chen? No, the system used by the ISU for find the biased judges is completely useless. But if Weiguang Chen was really suspended, and if Feng Huang, that in the Pairs competition was less biased than Chen in the Men’s competition, were suspended, when the ISU want is fully capable to use a different system.
If we read the Full Decision of the Disciplinary Commission on Weiguang Chen and on Feng Huang, we see that the ISU didn’t used his own Communication 2098 but watched the number of +3. At pag. 11 of the Decision on Chen, they had written
She scored 6 elements with a +3, what none of her fellow judges did.
I wonder if the ISU has set aside because it’s useless his own Communication or if they use it only when they don’t want to suspend someone. By the way, even if we count the number of +3 a judge can escape from a not very careful control. It can happen, for example, if a panel of judges is composed by chance in a particular way and several judges make the same questionable choices.
What I mean with a panel of judges composed by chance in a particular way? I explain it looking only to one element in another competition. With the +3/-3 system, without mistakes, a jump deserved +1 if it had two bullets, +2 if he had four bullets, +3 if it had six bullet among eight:
1) unexpected / creative / difficult entry
2) clear recognizable (creative, interesting, original for jump preceded by steps/movements of the Short Program) steps/free skating movements immediately preceding element
3) varied position in the air / delay in rotation
4) good height and distance
5) good extension on landing / creative exit
6) good flow from entry to exit including jump combinations / sequences
7) effortless throughout
8) element matched to the musical structure
In the short program of the GP Final 2016, Hanyu’s combination earned five +3, three +2 and one +1, for a final GOE of 2.57.
For five judges among nine the combination was perfect, for four not (one even give a +1, for judge 3 the combination was good but nothing special). Watching only the marks, we can think that both a +2 or a +3 can be correct, that some bullet must be controversial.
The combination was this:
Let’s see the bullet again. I’ve deleted the part of the bullet about the jump preceded by steps because this was the combination, not the solo jump.
1) unexpected / creative / difficult entry
2) clear recognizable steps/free skating movements immediately preceding element (right before the preparation – but cut from the video – he do a three. It’s a step simple, but it isn’t required a difficult step, otherwise there would be very few jumps, done by very few skaters, that can obtain this bullet)
3) varied position in the air / delay in rotation
4) good height and distance
5) good extension on landing / creative exit
6) good flow from entry to exit including jump combinations / sequences
7) effortless throughout
8) element matched to the musical structure
Six bullets, the jump should have earned +3 by all the judges. Why they has given a lower mark? Perhaps we can find the answer if we watch a more complete protocol. Which judges gave a +2 or a +1? And which were Hanyu’s rivals?
Judge 2 was the Spanish Marta Olozagarre, and at that time the Spanish Javier Fernandez, the World champion, was Hanyu’s main rival, even if he did two mistakes (one was a fall) in the short program. Judge 3, the judge who was able to give the +1, was the American Lorrie Parker, and the American Nathan Chen was a skater in rapid rise, and potentially among the best skaters in the World (Parker was also the only one able to think that Adam Rippon’s short program was better than Shoma Uno’s short program). Judge five was the Russian Julia Andreeva, no compatriote in the Men’s competition for her. Judge six was the Canadian Beth Crane, and after the short program the Canadian Patrick Chan was in second position. Among the four judges that has given to the combination a mark lower than +3, three were of the same nationality of Hanyu’s rivals. I’m sure that there weren’t an agreement among this judges, but the composition of the panel of judges, with three judges who has a compatriote as a rival for Hanyu and can be biased, has meant that Hanyu’s combination (and not only the combination) received a score lower than the score deserved. So to check the national bias counting the number of +3 isn’t enough, but it’s a start.
I return to BuzzFeed article. The journalists listed 16 judges that, according to them, were biased. Their explanation on how they find these names is here, but unfortunately for me these explanation, in a language different than mine, is difficult. So I’ve made some calculations with a system invented by me. I’ve find all the names find by them and some other because they hadn’t considered all the nations, and instead I did it. I’ve explained how I do my calculations here. In this post I’ve written about national bias in four season, from 2016-2017 to 2019-2020. Now we can use this data. But I’ve also calculated the bias before the 2018 Olympic Games.
I’ve started to write about the judges before the Olympic Games, in Italian, here.
The ISU needs to choice the judges in advance because there are a lot of things that needs to be organized. So for the choice of the nations for February 2018 they can use only the data of the 2016-2017 season. This is the national bias for all the nations in which a judge has judged at least a compatriote in the Challenger series, Grand Prix competitions (junior and senior), European Championship, Four Continents Championship, World Championship (junior and senior) and World Team Trophy.
If you want you can check my numbers using SkatingScores, if you find any mistake I’ll glad to know it and to fix my post. Now, for some nations as Hong Kong or New Zealand the numbers of competitions with compatriote judged is too low to say if the bias of the judges of these nations are low or high, but Belarusian, Israelis and Ukrainian have judged several competitions, and their bias is high. Why there were Israelis and Ukrainian judges at the Olympic Games? These are the nations designated to send a judge to the Olympic Games.
In the GB column there are several numbers too high. The bias of the judges of several nations was clearly too high before the Olympic Games, but this hasn’t stopped the ISU to ask to these nations to send some judge.
The first step is to design a nation. The second is to choose the judges of every nation, a choice that is done not by the ISU but by the national federations. The last phrase of Templon and Adams’ article is
A former high-level ISU official said that it was common to push one’s own skaters, explaining, “If you don’t do it, if you don’t join in the game, then you get left behind.”
A really serious series of question.
As a national federation, do you want that the athletes that you send to a competition win medals? If you know that judge A will aid your athlete and judge B not, you will send judge A or judge B? But if you are an international federation as the ISU, isn’t your duty to be sure that the competitions will be judged rightly? You shouldn’t check the choice made by the national federations and, in the worst cases, put a veto on the names?
In another post, also in Italian, I’ve checked the national bias for all the judges of the nations designed to send a judge to the Olympic Games. This time I’ve checked until 2017 Grand Prix Final, with the idea that the judges are chosen after their nations. If you’re interested in the original post I’ve commented a little about some judge, anyway these are the data with all the bias. I’ve highlighted the judges chosen for the Olympic Games.
These are the table with the average national bias of every judge of the nations who send a judge at the 2018 Olympic Games, from 2016-2017 season to 2017 Grand Prix Final. These average can be calculated before PyeongChang. In December I’ve added to these average the bias of the European Championship and the Four Continents Championship only for the judges who was send to the Olympic Games, and I’ve compared their average bias with their bias at the Olympic Games. Before the average I’ve listed all the competitions in which a judge judged a compatriote, so it’s easy to see from where came the numbers, and also to check what I’ve done. I’ve commented briefly in Italian some of the marks given by them before and during the Olympic Games. If you’re interested the posts, with the judges listed by nationality, are here: AUS-ESP, ESP-KAZ, KOR-TUR, UKR-UZB.
After the end of the Men’s competition at PyeongChang, but before the Ladies’ free skate, Andrew F. Lehren, Emily R. Siegel and Mary Pilon published U.S. judges give U.S. skaters higher marks at PyeongChang Olympics. They talked about Lorrie Parker’s marks and, for the imminent competition, write
historical data indicates the Olympics may be the most biased of all international skating competitions. The pattern has continued at PyeongChang, and there is little reason to think it will change in Olympic skating’s marquee event, the women’s free skate, which begins Thursday night U.S. time.
“Clearly judges have not eliminated their nationalistic biases in the Olympics,” said Zitzewitz. “The biases have gotten stronger, and they also are starting to take the form of penalizing other people’s athletes.”
They list also some interesting thing. We’ve talked a lot about Alla Shekhovtseva’s husband, but in 2014 the American Samuel Auxier judged the Men’s competition (and the Men in the Team Event). He was the vice president of the American federation. At PyeongChang the Canadian judge, Leanna Caron was “head of the Canadian national figure skating federation“. In their article they write about some original marks and give some interesting food for thought.
For what I know, only two Chinese judges were suspended, Weiguang Chen, who has judged the Men’s competition, and Feng Huang, who has judged the Pairs’ competition. An article written by James Diamond remember their suspension. I’m sure I can find a lot of articles if I want to, I’ve already downloaded the official communications made by the ISU, and I’ve put some screenshot here. So, why I’m interested in this article? For two comments in the bottom.
According to this man, that don’t have any problem in insulting other people but find difficult to watch beyond his nose, all the Chinese judges, in all sports, are biased, and probably also the Soviets, accordig to his second comment, but Canadian and American are honest. Why he is so sure that they are honest? Because they aren’t suspended. And why I’m annoyed for the words of a man that I don’t know and that I don’t care about? Because he isn’t the only one. Because there are a lot of people that think that only the Chinese judges were biased, that the Canadian, or the American, or the French, or the German, or the judges of any other nation weren’t biased because they weren’t suspended. And if we are convinced of something, we aren’t able to see what is wrong. The American Lorrie Parker wasn’t suspended? So she can’t be biased. The same for the Canadian Jeff Lukasik. And when some famous journalist tell lies, many people who do not want to do checks, or who are not able to do them, are convinced that nothing strange has happened, that all judges except the Chinese ones have behaved in the correct way.
No, we must watch all the judges. A suspension is enough to say that they must not judge in an Olympic Games, but it isn’t the only reason to ban a judge. If his bias is too high he or she can’t judge an Olympic Games. Weiguang Chen was, by large, the most biased judge at PyeongChang but, you know, what? Feng Huang was the 21°. The 21°. Why the other judges weren’t suspended?
Not all the judges have judged both the short program and the free skate. So, in order to compile a ranking, I’ve invented the marks that were missing. I’ve invented them using the real marks given by the judges. If a judge has judged only the short program, I’ve doubled his bias and used the number that I’ve find as his bias for the free skate. We can’t really be sure that his bias would be the number find by me, it could be lower as higher, but it’s an impartial way to have comparable numbers for all judges. If a judge has judged only the free skate, I halved his bias and used the number I find for the short program. Because I don’t like processes done on the “ifs”, I’ve highlighted the numbers hypothetical, found with the mathematical calculation, coloring in light yellow their boxes and writing them in italic. We can’t be for sure that the bias of the judges with the yellow boxes would have been the one indicated by me if they had judged the entire competition, but that number is a good starting point for individuate the judges that should have been carefully investigated. All the numbers in bold are too high.
Before Huang Feng we find the names of Tianyi Zhang (CHN), Anastassia Makarova (UKR), Jeff Lukasik (CAN, two times), Anthony Leroy (FRA, two times), Lorrie Parker (USA, two times), Elke Treitz (GER, three times), Hailang Jian (CHN, two times), Tanay Ozkan Silaoglu (TUR), Albert Zaydman (ISR, two times), Sharon Rogers (USA, two times), Anna Kantor (ISR), Saodat numanova (UZB), Daniel Delfa (ESP), Leanna Caron (CAN), Ayumi Kozuka (JPN), Kaoru Takino (JPN), Katalin Balczo (HUN), Nicole Leblanc-Richard (CAN) e Philippe Meriguet (FRA). Why those judges werent at least investigated?
If you’re interested on what means the columns IE-IG, you can read my first post on the subject.
The names written in bold are the most interesting. Those are the names indicated by John Templon and Rosalind Adams as the most biased judges before the Olympic Games. They knew in advance that Chen, Zhang, Lukasik, Parker, Ozkan, Rogers, Kantor, Numanova, Leblanc-Richard and Feng usually are really biased, but none of them was investigated during the Olympic Games and only two judges were investigated after. Why?
Not that they has written that Makarova, Leroy, Treitz, Zaydman, Delfa, Balczo and Meriguet were honest, on them they’ve written nothing because for their investigation there weren’t enough competition for a significative statistic. Sure, there are also someone that for them could be biased but is in the lowest positions of the ranking. If they judged correctly is a good thing, for sureness I’d still do a check. Controlling does not mean accusing them, any accusations should come only after oddities have emerged from the check. If the judges know they are being checked, really checked, probably some of them will pay more attention to the marks he assigns, and a judge more careful is always a good thing.
The problem is that the ISU don’t want really acknowledge the problem of unfair judgings. Before of the 2019 Winter Universiade was published a really interesting interview to Alexander Lakernik, vice president of the ISU, referee and technical controller. He judge the most important competitions from 1996, so he has a lot of experience.
The interview was in Russian, a language that I don’t know, but with an automatic translator we can understand what he has said. The interview is long and cover a lot of topics. Obviously I’m interested mostly on the judges. After a question about the two Chinese judges suspended after PyeongChang, Lakernik has said
Sometimes ISU can take action even after the first violation. As was the case with China at the last Olympics.
First violation for Weiguang Chen and Feng Huang? Ok, Mr. Lakernik, perhaps we don’t have the same idea of violation, but I found several of them. This is the Cup of China 2016, the judge is Weiguang Chen.
I use again SkatingScores. I’ve watched the real rank and the hypothetical rank according to Weiguang Chen for the SP and the FS. I’ve put only the higher section of the protocol, cutting most of the data because my post is becoming really long, but if you’re interested you know where you can find them. For me now is interesting to see that Chen was the most strict with Patrick Chan in both programs, and the most generous with Boyang Jin in the short program, one of the most generous in the free skate. The final difference in the competition wasn’t big, a win for Jin, looking only at the numbers (now I don’t watch the competition, I’m only trying to understand if the protocols have something interesting to say), don’t seem a scandal. The difference in the competition was done by little things. But if we can accept a first place for Jin (also the Japanese, new Zealander and Czech judge has put Jin first), we’re sure that a difference of over 11 points is correct?
I don’t watch all the competitions, I’ll need too much time. In the short program at the 2017 World Championship Weiguang Chen was a little generous with most of the skaters, only with Javier Fernandez she was a little strict. Only with Jin she was really generous. For her he would have won the bronze small medal. The most interesting is the free skate.
Chen wasn’t the only biased judge, also the Israelis Anna Kantor, the Spanish Daniel Delfa and the Canadian Jeff Lukasik, tree judges that judged the 2018 Olympic Games, has given marks that deserved a suspension, but if Lakernik says that Chen demonstrate too much love for his compatriote only in the Olympic Games he doesn’t have checked this competition. Or has used for his analysis the Communication 2098. Chen’s bias here was higher than Huang’s bias at PyeongChang. With a score for Uno lower of over 15 points, and higher for Jin of over 8 points, Huang would have given to Jin the silver medal, not the bronze medal.
I’ve already briefly analyzed (in Italian) how the Chinese judges (only Men, Ladies and Pairs, not Ice Dance) judged the competitions in the last four years. Weiguang Chen and Feng Huang are here.
So, Mr. Lakernik, for the two Chinese judge it wasn’t the first violation, it was only the first sanctioned violation. Why they – and all the others who judge according to the nationality of the skater – weren’t suspended before? A little before, answering to a question about the possibility to give marks to the judges’ work, he said
Are you sure that those people who will give marks to judges are sinless? The same people sit on the control committee, who can be wrong in the same way.
All the responses are interesting, even in a way that Lakernik didn’t considered. When he said
if you give someone too much power, there is always a danger that that power will be misused
he is talking about someone to whom was given the power to evaluate the judges, but I think of how much more power have the judges with the +5/-5 system than when there was the +3/-3 system. A quick example on the difference for three jumps among the highest and the lowest possible score in both the code of points.
When possible, judges’ power must be lowered, non hightened, and the protocol must be read with great attention. Otherwise we can see protocol as this:
This is the 2021 US National Championship. It’s a national competition, not an international, but sometimes the national scores influence the international scores. Probably with Gabriella Izzo it don’t happen, her results don’t have so much resonance because for now she isn’t one of the best American Ladies, her best result in the National Championship is the 8° place. But this way to give the scores isn’t only wrong with the skaters in the competition that I’m watching. If a judge start to give marks imaginative, which do not reflect what the skaters done on the rink, it’s a bad thing. And the bad habits can repeat themselves. The second violation is always easier than the first. The third easier than the second. After some times, the judge can’t even understand that he’s doing something wrong. Judge 3, who has given to Izzo scores 9.07 points under the average and that would have placed her 12° and not 7°, was Sharon Watson. Judge 1, who has given to Izzo scores 10.29 points above the average, and that would have placed her 5°, was Doug Williams, and Williams is an important international judge.
Both the GOEs and the PCS don’t need any explanation. I hope that both of the judges will be suspended. Even according to Lakernik here happened something strange. He didn’t talked about this competition, in truth his interview was done way before this competition, but his words are clear:
– At one of the stages of the Grand Prix there were marks from -1 to +4 for the same jump. Such assessments can be?
– Not. The situation you are talking about clearly requires discussion. There is an accepted assessment corridor, and it is rather soft. From the middle, 1.5 points in both directions. That is, if the grade for an element is +1, then upward is acceptable +2, and downward – 0.
I think that the interviewer was referring to Satoko Miyahara’s free skate at the Cup of China:
Judge 4 was the Japanese Tomie Fukudome, Judge 6 the Korean Chihee Rhee. According to SkatingScores, Fukudome’s national bias in the competition was of 7.77 points (SP3.45, FS 4.32), Rhee’s national bias was of 9.41 points (SP 1.43 points, FS 7.98 points). For Lakernik the situation requires discussion. I agree whit him. I would like to know if they really discussed, and what their conclusions were.
I’ve also found an even more strange protocol, and I didn’t even watched them all. This is the Ladies short program at the 2019 Internationaux de France.
Judge 2 was the Japanese Nobuhiko Yoshioka, judge 5 the Russian Olga Kozhemyakina. Do you remember that I don’t know maths? Bullet 2 requires good take-off and landing. With an “e” the take-off can’t be good, so the higher mark before the deductions can be +3. The sign “e” requires a deduction among -3 and -4. The loop is marked with “<“, a sign that requires a deduction among -1 and -2. So, judging in favour of the skater, +3-3-1=??? I need your help, I can’t do this operation.
Someone has asked to Kozhemyakina an explanation of her mark? Surprisingly, if I watch the numbers of her bias are low, 1.88 points for the short program, 0.33 points for the free skate, 2.21 in total. So she judged the competition in the right way? Perhaps, perhaps not. These are the results of the two program according to her.
There were three Russian skaters. Maria Sotskova wasn’t anymore one of the strongest Russian’s skaters. In the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 she was on the podio at the Nationals and goes to the most important competitions, without win any medal at EC, WC or OG. In 2019 she was 16° at the National Championship. In Russia there were a lot of skaters better than her, so for Russia she wasn’t important anymore. In the short program the triple jump and the double Axel were underrotated, the first jump of the combination, downgraded, ended in a fall. Surely she didn’t encourage the judges give high marks to her.
There were three Russian skaters. Maria Sotskova wasn’t anymore one one of the strongest Russian’s skaters. In the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 she was on the podio at the Nationals and goes to the most important competitions, without win any medal at EC, WC or OG. In 2019 she was 16° at the National Championship. In Russia there were a lot of skaters better than her, so for Russia she wasn’t important. And in the short program the triple jump and the double Axel were underrotated, the first jump of the combination, downgraded, ended in a fall. Surely she didn’t encourage the judges give high marks to her. In the free skate… her protocol let me wordless. In 10 jumps, 9 are “<” or “<<“. There were also two fall, one of the intended combinations was a +REP. So she was beyond the possibility of a decent result.
Giving marks lower than the average to her, Kozhemyakina lowered the value of her own bias. In this competition she was always a little generous with Alena Kostornaya and Alina Zagitova, a little strict with their rivals. Not that the Russian skaters needed any aid , they were the best skaters of the competition and rightly ended in the first two places. But even when the results is correct, the marks given by the judges should be watched carefully. I’m not saying that for any mark strange the judges must be suspended, but they must explain their marks. Sometimes they need a better preparation, sometimes a mistakes is simply a mistakes, but if they know that even a single mark is watched they will give the marks with more attention.
I’m not too optimistic that there will be a better monitoring of the judges’ operate. Why? Because, as Lakernik said,
Figure skating is a delicate sport. There is you yourself, there are your friends … You know, we all know each other, we have been working together for 30 years and more. Everyone has connections.
Lakernik is talking of judges that judge a compatriote, not of the evaluation of the judges, but his words give me a lot to think about. One can’t hurt the feelings of an old friend and open an investigation into him, right? On the other side, there’s another old problem: you can
Get an American or Chinese judge who can try to help their athletes. But as a judge from a country that is very developed in terms of figure skating, he certainly has knowledge of sports.
Or the judges can come from nation that aren’t strong in figure skating.
His athletes do not claim medals, he has no interest of his own. He can be objective and honest, although he is also not a fact. But the main thing is that he understands little about our sport. In the end, his grades may be simply illiterate. Then the fate of medals will be decided by not very qualified people. This is the flip side of the story.
So we have a dichotomy, competent and unfair or fair and not qualified? And what about give a better formation to the judges? According to the financial record published May 11, 2020, in the 2018 the ISU spent for everything about the ISU Judging System and the formation of the judges together an amount that corresponds to 67% of what he spent for the media. In 2019 the first two amount have dropped considerably, the third has risen, with the result that that for judges and system of valuation the ISU has spent only the 39% of what has spent for the media.
I know that it’s important to try to popularize the sport, but it isn’t more important to have fair competitions? And we can have fair competitions only if the judges are honest, good trained, and can use all the tools that the technology can give to them. But of the technology I’ll write another day.
Pingback: World Championship 2021: Judges for the Pairs competition and original marks in the Ladies | sportlandia