Apparently, the new olympic ice skating scoring goes something like this; someone on reddit posted a decent rundown:Swi said:Another idea i've been kicking around is having a merit-demerits system.
So a comp committee can decide these kinds of base values for the judges, and then the judges' job is to decide how much to add or subtract.Every element (jump, spin, footwork, etc.) has a base point value that is derived from its difficulty. The technical specialist (not one of the judges) determines what the element is, which the judges then mark anywhere from +3 to -3 (points added or subtracted to the base value) based on how well the element was performed....
Here's an example. I'm not sure of the actual values, but let's say a triple loop is worth 6.0 points. Ashley Wagner does a triple loop, but two foots it heavily. She gets a 6.0 base credit, but the average of the judges' grades of execution was -1.4. So she gets 4.6 for it. If she does this across several elements (and she is known for making small mistakes), those lost points really add up. 3 or 4 small mistakes can be worse than a fall, particularly if the mistakes are on relatively easy elements.
Ankush said:So how do feel about a Judge who in scores places a team 5th or 6th but then during deliberations ends up placing them first?
Just some things I saw with the judging this past weekend at Fever, which have made me curious as in to how the community feels and if you all feel it is working?
Haha, I also thought you were insinuating that being the case at Fever, which it certainly was not. The 5th/6th place team did not jump up to first. Of course, you're alluding to a hypothetical situation.Ankush said:Swi these are some really good points! So how do feel about a Judge who in scores places a team 5th or 6th but then during deliberations ends up placing them first?
I'm curious. What things are you referring to?Just some things I saw with the judging this past weekend at Fever, which have made me curious as in to how the community feels and if you all feel it is working?
A lot of false assumptions imo...KarnSingh said:Who is facilitating these deliberations, and what exactly do judges talk about? Do judges actually sit down and list the pros and cons of the teams, and then somehow decide which pros and cons are weighted heavier?
I think there is just too much room, for too many things to go wrong in a deliberation room. Judges have personalities, what if one judge is just a more aggressive person, and he/she gets their say? Even after having time to think about the performances, by the end of the show, I'm sure judges will not remember a good majority of what a team brought that night. They might remember the cool stunts and gimmicks, but would they be able to realistically remember all 10-12 teams' energy level, josh, etc. There are just so many things that can go wrong: personal interest can interfere, judges can forget things, individual judges may have their preconceived views about what bhangra is, etc.
I think only points should be taken into consideration. Yes, judges may not have enough time in between to realistically give credit correctly, however, this is fair because each team gets an equal amount of time to be judged, so the percent of error should be relatively similar across the board. On the other hand, if judges had time to deliberate, then maybe the biggest thing that stood out for one team was the sick gimmick they did, and that could have downplayed the other team who had better energy and creativity. I'm sure many of the judges on the circuit may have an innate ability to be able to remember all the important highlights of all the teams that night, but they should be able to reflect this on the scoring sheet.
If specific people are being selected for a judging position, they should be qualified enough to justifiably assess a team in a small amount of time.
I haven't been in a judges meeting or deliberation room, therefore my knowledge/experience is less than most, so please let me know if I wrongly assumed something.
So who's facilitating? Committee is allowing judges to do so. They have the right to either let points stand or allow judges to deliberate.Here's my caveat: Deliberations are where the committee needs to step in and protect the teams. Judges should be very tightly controlled on changing placings and have legitimate arguments for doing so. Any arguments should either be in line with the rubric, or be factors that the rubric did not account for. We can't have judges using rubric for points and then using their own preference for placing.