Call to BAN the Apparatus Supervisors on FX and the D1 judge on BB

[Passion]

Hold up — the D1 judge does NOT know the E-scores, and a gymnast from her own country had just gotten a good enough E-score with a fall to be in the medals. She could have been providing some insurance. And even if she wasn't, the rule doesn't say "adequately" salute. It says "Failure to acknowledge D-Panel Judges before and/or after exercise". She didn't fail to do that.

You don't need to know the exact E-score to know that Biles wasn't passing 14.1

 

[Denn]

Thread about why the WTC shouldn't be serving on the superior jury.

I don't mind the WTC acting as the superior jury. It's usually enough to have one layer of review at competitions, and the WTC is the right group to do that. And changing them from elected officials to appointed officials trades one set of sneaky dealings for another.

However, what IS clear is that Joanna Gratt is incompetent and she needs to GO.

 

[Denn]

You don't need to know the exact E-score to know that Biles wasn't passing 14.1

That's an exaggeration of the situation. She would have known Biles needed a 7.9 E-score to beat that 14.1 on the tiebreak. And she's the D1 judge on beam — the event where D-scores are the most complicated and where they are most likely to take too long to compute and release. AND it was an apparatus final, meaning everyone is sitting there waiting. When you're under that kind of pressure, yeah, you see the execution, but you're focused on scripting and computing as fast as possible, and you're not noting every deduction OR the artistry. Taking an extra 0.3 could have been insurance.

And, frankly, she was clearly wrong. We can all see that Biles did "acknowledge" her.

 

[CameliasFingerpaint]

I don't mind the WTC acting as the superior jury. It's usually enough to have one layer of review at competitions, and the WTC is the right group to do that. And changing them from elected officials to appointed officials trades one set of sneaky dealings for another.

However, what IS clear is that Joanna Gratt is incompetent and she needs to GO.

Are all members of the WTC Cat. 1 Brevets?

 

[ruby]

An inquiry is not usually checked by just the apparatus supervisor, usually the president is involved as well and for apparatus finals often other members of the WTC check as well. So it's impossible to say who made the call on Chiles' Tour jete 1/1.

 

[Doug1233]

An inquiry is not usually checked by just the apparatus supervisor, usually the president is involved as well and for apparatus finals often other members of the WTC check as well. So it's impossible to say who made the call on Chiles' Tour jete 1/1.

It’s absolutely astonishing that they approved that. It was like, mind-blowingly short. Not even a little bit close.

That would have been downgraded at every USAG meet this season.

 

[Denn]

Are all members of the WTC Cat. 1 Brevets?

As I recall, yes, but that may be independent of their actual test results. I once saw some indication that either the MTC or WTC elevated at least one judge to Category 1 once the judge was elected to the TC. It was good that they were being transparent about that, but also not good that the TC has judges that are not category 1.

I feel like I saw it more than once. One example was maybe Hiroyuki Tomita (who, from what I heard, was under-qualified to be on the committee.)

 

[Denn]

Are all members of the WTC Cat. 1 Brevets?

Yes, and maybe the entire WTC should be the target of the FX part of this post, but the rules officially say that Apparatus Supervisor is in charge, so I am targeting her in alignment with the rules.

 

[Doug1233]

Are all members of the WTC Cat. 1 Brevets?

Wasn't Cheryl like Cat 3 based on her test results, but then they bumped her to Cat 2 so she could do D on beam?

 

[KristyJ]

I agree that the call on the tour jete 1/1 call was very wrong (and I say that sadly as a Chiles fan), and the neutral deduction on beam was ridiculous.

I also see that the line call was wrong.

However, before we crucify the judges I want to reiterate that we've sat them far from the apparatus in non-ideal positions. This is a sport, not a pageant. Why on earth are we not seating the judges in optimal locations? If we want them to perform to the utmost accuracy we need to give them the tools to do so.

 

[Aeris]

Where the judges are sitting has nothing to do with inquiry. Everything is completely determined by video replay. Jordan's leap was correctly called as under by the D-panel, but then overturned by the inquiry panel. Voinea inquired about her .1 penalty and the inquire panel upheld it (strangely, I've heard they might have been given footage from a different performance of Voinea's for the review, which is a huge WTF. Like, how?)

 

[KristyJ]

Where the judges are sitting has nothing to do with inquiry. Everything is completely determined by video replay. Jordan's leap was correctly called as under by the D-panel, but then overturned by the inquiry panel. Voinea inquired about her .1 penalty and the inquire panel upheld it (strangely, I've heard they might have been given footage from a different performance of Voinea's for the review, which is a huge WTF. Like, how?)

They should be sat in a location that allows them to best see in the first place.

And they should be given all video angles. See my judging mistake above when I'd only seen the heel from an angle above the floor-- I thought she was OOB as well.

 

[rlayt]

So I hear:

1. Change the calls for this Olympics only,
2. Change the way the line judges sit so they see better for future competitions,
3. Change the inquiry process so NDs can be challenged.

What would best work?

 

[MaryClare]

I’ve got a solution. Romania could stop whining

 

[Aeris]

They should be sat in a location that allows them to best see in the first place.

What is seen "in the first place" is ultimately irrelevant though? At least in terms of making any call the gymnast wants to protest (such as Jordan trying to get credit for her leap that was correctly called as under, in the first place).

Inquiry is entirely based on video review, it has to be. The inquiry panel could be on the opposite side of the planet and it doesn't really change anything, they are looking at video footage all the same.

 

[KristyJ]

What is seen "in the first place" is ultimately irrelevant though? At least in terms of making any call the gymnast wants to protest (such as Jordan trying to get credit for her leap that was correctly called as under, in the first place).

Inquiry is entirely based on video review, it has to be. The inquiry panel could be on the opposite side of the planet and it doesn't really change anything, they are looking at video footage all the same.

It's not. Seeing it correctly in the first place avoids many inquiries, gives a better frame of reference in case of inquiry, and is more flexible than a static video position.

If you think video is just as good as seeing it live to the point where you don't have to see it live, you've never judged in official capacity. Video is an additional helpful tool but it cannot replace that initial seeing of the routine, it can only supplement and give additional alternate views.

 

[Denn]

@KristyJ Distance is not the issue here because:
a) The line judges aren't sitting far away, right?
b) The D-panel DID recognize Chiles' leap correctly.
c) The neutral deduction for Biles was not affected by distance. It was poor judgment.

 

[arabiandoublefront]

@KristyJ Distance is not the issue here because:
a) The line judges aren't sitting far away, right?
b) The D-panel DID recognize Chiles' leap correctly.
c) The neutral deduction for Biles was not affected by distance. It was poor judgment.

In Bercy, the line judges to my knowledge were far away. At least where I saw the flag being raised.

 

[Aeris]

Video is an additional helpful tool but it cannot replace that initial seeing of the routine, it can only supplement and give additional alternate views

No, inquiry is entirely based on watching video. The whole decision comes down to that, it has to. That's what's being reviewed. You can't mix "well this is what I thought I saw live" with what the video is showing.

Judge training and testing is also based on watching video. You simply judge what is in front of you. If you're selected for live judging, then that's the vantage point you're judging from, but it's not an inherently better point of view than what a high-definition recording provides. The human eye is more limited than technology. All historical judging (including cases like the current one, a routine that just happened) comes down to video review anyway. Any routine that gets used as an example in FIG training...video. There's no other way, we can't magically teleport people across time and space to exist in front of a performance at the moment it took place.

 

[KristyJ]

No, inquiry is entirely based on watching video. The whole decision comes down to that, it has to. That's what's being reviewed. You can't mix "well this is what I thought I saw live" with what the video is showing.

Judge training and testing is also based on watching video. You simply judge what is in front of you. If you're selected for live judging, then that's the vantage point you're judging from, but it's not an inherently better point of view than what a high-definition recording provides. The human eye is more limited than technology. All historical judging (including cases like the current one, a routine that just happened) comes down to video review anyway. Any routine that gets used as an example in FIG training...video. There's no other way, we can't magically teleport people across time and space to exist in front of a performance at the moment it took place.

Right, I meant that judges being properly seated still matters and stand by this, having both tested for judging by video and judged meets. I maintain that live and properly seated makes it easier to see than the static video review from the angle at which we're seated, though video review adds the benefit of slow mo and additional angles, if allowed. If nothing else, you haven't refuted that proper seating would avoid inquiries by allowing judges to get it right a higher percentage of the time. Also the "the human eye is more limited than technology" argument is silly. Video rate is frames per second, and we view live or video with the same eyes. All we gain is, again, slo mo, zoom, and additional angles, but if we can see it properly the first time we don't have to make everyone wait for the inquiry.