FIG and Fujitsu discuss "Judging Support System"

[Doug1233]

9:30 onwards is interesting as fuck!

 

[Doug1233]

Wouldn’t it be helpful if, in 20 years time, this was installed in National Training Centres across the world, so that the gymnast and their coach could get a “real time” score of their skills and practice routines.

Imagine the “Worlds Selection Camp” being on this equipment. Instant scores and no need for judges.

 

[Doug1233]

 

[Bob]

What no chance for shenannigans and playing favourites and making it up as you go along. As well as mad overscores for things that won’t count on the world stage. Not a chance lol

 

[Doug1233]

I wish they released the robo scores for us to see. But the fact they don’t even release the actual scores, I have little hope.

 

[onodian]

I remain a little sceptical about this, I mean I welcome the increased objectivity in certain aspects of the judging that this would bring but I feel judging is always adapting to whatever effects the code happens to unleash upon us, like the judging tends to change during the course of a quad (think “body posture” all of a sudden in Tokyo, whereas I think you can argue some of those deductions weren’t being taken in Stuttgart) and so I don’t really know how would we deal with this.

 

[MaryClare]

I don’t like it. It leaves no room for dodgy back room dealings.

 

[JDB]

I wouldn’t be so dismissive. The judges could always make dodgy back room dealings with Fujitsu’s employees. If there’s a will, there’s a way.

 

[KristyJ]

I like the idea as a part of judging, but I think there will always be a need for a set of human eyes for some things, and to make sure the software (which will likely never be 100% perfect) doesn’t do something wacky.
Edit- And hopefully enough sets of eyes that one set doesn’t work behind the scenes to skew things anyways.

 

[Denn]

Why are there penalties in gymnastics for being 1° short of a “rule”?

I liked it better when it wasn’t.

 

[Doug1233]

Where do you draw the line then?

If you’re gonna allow credit at 45^ short, then you wouldn’t credit 46^ and it’s still only 1^ difference between credit and no credit.

You have to draw a line somewhere. You can’t “half credit” something.

As we have seen with the Switch Ring rules, the quality of switch rings has markedly improved over the last 10 years. We rarely see a really bad one anymore.

 

[Denn]

You can absolutely can “fairly” judge gymnastics without a damn protractor.

I think gymnastics should NOT be judged so “objectively”.

Nowadays, designing a gymnastics routine is a math problem. And it’s only fun for a small percentage of people, most of whom are not acting particularly artistically by the way, which is why we get so little creativity compared to, say, 30 years ago.

 

[Doug1233]

How do you subjectively determine whether or not to credit a Gogean, then?

Don’t bring artistry into this. Apples and oranges.

 

[MaryClare]

We get it Doug, you don’t like artistry

 

[makam]

Nowadays, designing a gymnastics routine is a math problem. And it’s only fun for a small percentage of people, most of whom are not acting particularly artistically by the way, which is why we get so little creativity compared to, say, 30 years ago.

You see the jumps and leaps they got away with in the olden days that barely left the beam/floor and certainly didn’t get near the ideal positions and you could afford to be a bit creative because you weren’t losing your shirt on your leap series or whatever. Unless you offer a creativity bonus (which, really, how would you even codify that? candle mounts were a rarity 10 years ago but now everyone and their brother does one so is it still considered creative?), the obvious smart coaches get their gymnast doing the hardest things they can do that don’t get more deductions than they are worth (except Al Fong and the damn rings) and get them off as soon as possible.

Taking the time to dance across the beam is just inviting a .1 precision and .1 balance deduction for every step. Maybe you can make a dance element requirement but only allow deductions for falling off the beam or major balance check. If it is a freebie point, people will do it and maybe show some personality.

 

[YurchenkoLoop]

You see the jumps and leaps they got away with in the olden days that barely left the beam/floor

The apparatuses were much harder…

 

[Doug1233]

We get it Doug, you don’t like artistry

You mean you don’t think a Switch Full to Ring and a Double Front Attitude turn into Cat Leap would be artistic?

 

[MaryClare]

No, I think it would be rhythmic

 

[KristyJ]

I think you are very much proving Denn’s point honestly. We shouldn’t be taking deductions if a gymnast blinks wrong even if it’s not what someone might define as either perfectly artistic or technically flawless.

I know that an objective scoring system removes bias, and bias has been a big problem in artistic sports in general. I understand the desire to be unbiased, and I appreciate a degree of precision. I think it is the fair thing to the athletes to give them accurate feedback.

At the same time, at some point we take it to the edge of absurdity. Is it so bad to give an athlete the benefit of the doubt if they hit 179.9 degrees on an otherwise absolutely stunning leap that displays artistry, technique, toe point, and fluidity? There’s a point where taking that .1 is almost unfair, and I think that is what Denn means. (Of course, correct me if I am wrong, Denn!)

 

[Doug1233]

Is it so bad to give an athlete the benefit of the doubt if they hit 179.9 degrees on an otherwise absolutely stunning leap that displays artistry, technique, toe point, and fluidity? There’s a point where taking that .1 is almost unfair, and I think that is what Denn means. (Of course, correct me if I am wrong, Denn!)

I see your point. The issue, I think, is that deductions are in 1,3,5 increments; whereas some errors are small enough that a 1 feels too much (especially when the element is a C or a D and the “effective” value of the skill is only 0.1 or 0.2 because of the number of spare A’s and B’s in the routine). I think Double L Turn attempts are especially pertinent examples of this. Imagine an Afanaseyva Double L that is 1 and 7/8ths around. Gorgeous in every other respect. D Panel will knock it down to a B. And we are required to then give it a 0.1 for precision on top (even if the form, shape and balance are all perfect) so it ends up being a net drag on the score. For a beautiful piece of gymnastics that’s just 30 degrees short in the toe and that, but for that 30 degrees, would have been a perfect D. Not to mention losing any CV that comes from another B turn perfectly connected out of it.

The fact remains though, that a function of the D Panel being a series of binary choices (credit or no credit; connected or not connected) means there is always a “cut off” point when determining D Panel credit. There’s no option for “it was kinda around but not fully”. Or 'it was kinda connected, but not quite". That basic binary reality means that there must be a point at which credit for a skill isn’t given, even if it is performed beautifully. And that “cut off” point might seem unfair. But there has to be one.

In addition, we should see it from the other perspective, too. I bet Pavlova was pissed as hell about actually hitting a Switch Ring, and all the skanky ones got credited. By not crediting the “not quite there” attempts, we are indirectly rewarding those that do satisfy the requirements. We cannot forget about that.

I think a lot of this would be solved by allowing judges to take a 0.05 and a 0.2 deduction. In reality, though, I think most do. I certainly do. I’ll often ignore a very minor error that technically I should give a 0.1 for, and later combine it with another very minor error, and just give a 0.1 for the second one (and feel less bad about it, because I forgave the first one). Of course, against the rules. But I’m sure most judges do it. They just don’t say they do it.

As the computer system will be much more advanced than human eyes, it would be great if they added in the 0.05 and the 0.2 to ensure a more accurate evaluation using the degrees of error that only a computer could spot with 100% accuracy in real time.

Human judges should only need to judge artistry.