Judging and the Code of Points (COP) are controversial, and many have talked about how they need changing. Andy Thornton has developed an alternative COP, which is very interesting, but I do not know whether it would be possible to come up with so many parts of the score in competition. I think that the difficulty plus execution formula is perfect. It can, and probably does, currently put too much emphasis on difficulty at the moment, but execution deductions can be increased in value to change this and/or difficulty scores can be reduced. In my opinion the main problem with judging is the execution score is not transparent or challengeable. This needs to change for several reasons: to ensure objective judging, to be fairer on judges, to minimise controversy and most importantly to give gymnasts and coaches information about why they get deductions.
There is always speculation in the commentary about deductions. As an audience, we learn that this step will cost 0.1 or 0.3, or that the routine was flawless and deserves no deductions. Sometimes, the scores are in line with the commentary. Sometimes, this is not the case. When there is a fall, we always know where the deduction comes from. But I don’t know where the deductions came from in Nastia’s vault in 2008, or Vanessa’s floor routine in the latest world championships. There is no reason why we, and dare I say Nastia and Vanessa should not know. There is no reason why the judges cannot list the deductions and their values along with the D-scores, which can then be challenged.
When Lauren Mitchell won the floor, Peggy Liddick said “Statistically, it was you turn, they just had to give it to you!!” Link here. Um, please don’t get me wrong – I am not of the “I support New Zealand or anyone playing Australia” school of thought – but Mitchell should have earned that gold because she was the best on the day (and I think that she did!). Is it really true that judges give out medals based on it being someone’s turn or feeling sorry for a gymnast? There is certainly some talk that this happens, and it is not the first time that Liddick has mentioned it. Sometimes, I like the poetic justice of a gymnast winning after struggles, but if gymnastics should be fair. I cannot imagine any referee in tennis or basketball giving out penalties or goals because it is “their turn” or they are sorry for a competitior/team.
Many blogs say that Lauren should not have won. I do not believe this is fair on this hard-working gymnast or the people judging her. Judging must be very hard, and judges are subjected to so much scrutiny. If we had a list of the specific list of deductions of each gymnast, maybe there would not be this level of controversy and criticism of judges. I am not an expert on gymnastics, but Mitchell’s routine was awesome, and it is possible that the judges had very good reasons for putting her in first place.
I know that controversies would come up, but I think they would be lessened with transparency, because even when one doesn’t agree with a call, they may at least understand the rationale. Being able to appeal would also add transparency. If gymnasts, coaches or fans disagreed with a deduction, there may be scope to change things, which could improve the judging.
It could also improve routines and gymnast’s skills. If a gymnast knows they are being marked down for an ugly skill, it may encourage them to make their routines more artistic, and take out the ugly skill. Clearer communication about where a gymnast goes wrong could improve artistry in the sport. At the moment, assumptions are made around reasons why scores are the way they are. More specific communications could help gymnasts improve.
When I was at University, getting an assignment back that was a B instead of an A without any reasoning annoyed me. I can imagine that some gymnasts may get this feeling on seeing their D-scores. They may have no idea why they have been marked down so much. Of course, they would have some idea, but in the end, they may not be aware that a given skill would have built in deductions. Of course, it is up to the coach and gymnast to make the gymnast as perfect as possible, as it is for any sports’ coach. But this may be difficult – a coach may be able to see many things wrong. If they knew the exact deductions, they may be able to decide which area to work on the most, or which skills to add or take away.
Of course, having a list of deductions may be time consuming, especially when appeals happen. However, if appropriate limitations are put around these appeals, they should be manageable. People will get used to the extra time. Ultimately, I think the cost will outweigh the benefits.
No comments:
Post a Comment