Lee Chih-Kai was robbed. Reference judge collusion? (Waiting for video to become available)

It looks like the two reference judges, colluding together, gave Max Whitlock another pommel horse gold medal.

I want to see the individual judges scores on this to verify that I am right, but his E-score was the result of an automatic intervention by the Reference judges, where their score is averaged with the E-panel. Now, maybe it was the opposite way, and the E-panel had him higher, but I seriously doubt it.

Yeah, Max had 0.3 more difficulty, but I’m sorry, but it’s absurd that he gets 8.583 and Lee gets 8.7. Lee had an error on the first element, but Max’s body was bent the whole way and his feet were unpointed the whole time and he was also crooked sometimes. They should have deducted EVERY skill.

For anyone who saw, looking for your opinion, but also waiting for video.

2 Likes

I was shocked at the score given he got 7.966 E for his 7.0 D routine in TF. TF does feel like an age ago but I don’t remember them being that different. Will have to compare those routines.

1 Like

I’m so glad we get detailed judging breakdowns for the Olympics. Is it possible though the the reference judges took his score down instead of raised it?

When will we find out exactly what the reference judges did?

Yep, that’s possible, and that’s what i was saying here, in fact. But if I had to bet money…

His routine was aesthetically the most pleasing. The flares!!!

1 Like

A picture is worth a thousand words: https://twitter.com/uncletimmensgym/status/1421773236245721099/photo/1

Collusion is possible. But compressed scores are consistent with qualification and the general state of judging. There’s no point in improving execution when it yields a .2 advantage. The judges reward a difficulty focused strategy. Tie breaks are the only benefit to focusing on execution.

This is just not true anymore and there lots of counterexamples to this claim. Some really good ones include Moldauer’s FX berth due to a 9+ E-score. Another is Tang’s AA entire AA program except HB.

The bottom line is that he’s pikey in every circle and never full points his feet, but because it’s not egregious, they let it go. Back when there was a global deduction for quality of circle, he would have been hit for that, and it’s a shame it’s not there anymore.

I also think there should be a +.1 and +.2 execution thing for global quality of foot point. He’d get 0.

2 Likes

It’s insane that there are so many individual deductions for skills that it basically all washes out, and at the same time there is no ability to deduct the entire exercise in a way that differentiates quality of movement. It shouldn’t be this complicated.

1 Like

You can’t say this lol.

They usually release the full judges book a few weeks after the end of the meet, don’t they?

I asked the FIG for the Worlds book from Stuttgart but they say it’s not released to the public - the FIG only releases the book for the Olympics per IOC requirements.

It should provide us with individual judges scores (E and R panel) including individual artistry scores.

But like Denn says, you can usually spot the R Panel interventions when there is a weird rounding number in the final score - indicating the E jury and R jury scores have been averaged.

Although sometimes the average ends in a whole tenth so we wouldn’t know until the judges book is released and we can study it.

The judges book shows a load of judging gems. The one I most remember is that it showed one judge spotted Fasana’s hand down on her Silivas in prelims; none of the other judges took it. She ended up in finals because the one judge that saw it had her score thrown out.

That should totally be there.

It’s not considered egregious, really? Looks pretty fucking egregious from where I’m sitting!

is there not a deduction for hip extension (or lack thereof)? In WAG UB, it is almost impossible not to incur a .1 deduction on a cast handstand; even the slightest, not egregious lack of absolute 100% full flat as a board extension in the hips will get hit with that damn .1. Seems insane to me there’s not something similar on PH, an event where extension really matters!

There is, but my guess is that the deduction is not applied because, for whatever reason, the judge don’t think he’s piked enough to merit the deduction. Or, at least two of the judges felt that way.

Anyone know when this might come out?