Hamm medal controvery

[theSurlyMermaid]

Originally posted by Miss Jasmine
Then explain to me how the American's were told PRIOR to competition that some start values were lowered on high bar routines????

Also when Good ole Tim and Elfie were talking they said they would lose the BONUS points, not that it would lower the start value.

If you don't believe me, please visit this link:

http://www.nbcolympics.com/gymnastics/about.html

It describes the judging process, and except for the vault, the start value is determined at the END of a routine.

The most you can have is an expectation of a start value, based on how you were judged in past competitions. Blaine Wilson's start value was a certain number (I don't know what) in the 2003 Worlds. The officials decided that certain skills weren't going to be graded as high in the Olympics and that automatically lowered his expected start value (should he perform his routine perfectly). They told him about this two days before the competition, forcing him to add in elements that were being judged at a higher number based on what the official said. (I also thought that was very unfair, but whatever).

I remember Elfie talking about bonus points too, but most definitely they spoke of lowered start values when gymnasts would mess up their routines. I have both competitions on tape. It may not have been balance beam, but it was definitely talked about.

If you don't believe me, do the research. The start value is judged at the END of the routine.

Oh, and click on Judging on that link. You'll get to see a Nemov vault and then they'll have an explanation as to judging and start values.

 

[Disneyland_emily]

I also agree that it is wrong to make him do it-


I liked the interview with the IOC president Jacque Rogge over that and he said that it would stand and no switching of medals would take place-

-em

 

[DukeStreetKing]

From an internet search .....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...this average deduction total is then subtracted from the routine's "start value," which has been calculated by the two remaining judges. While officials note the intended start values of gymnasts' routines during pre-meet training, the actual value is based not on what the gymnast practiced, but on what he actually performs. (The exception is the vault, in which gymnasts enter the vault they're attempting into a digital podium at the end of the runway; the judges then match the skill with its predetermined start value.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that it's clear as mud, continue.

 

[theSurlyMermaid]

Originally posted by DukeStreetKing
From an internet search .....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...this average deduction total is then subtracted from the routine's "start value," which has been calculated by the two remaining judges. While officials note the intended start values of gymnasts' routines during pre-meet training, the actual value is based not on what the gymnast practiced, but on what he actually performs. (The exception is the vault, in which gymnasts enter the vault they're attempting into a digital podium at the end of the runway; the judges then match the skill with its predetermined start value.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that it's clear as mud, continue.

It isn;t written too clearly, but it basically says what I said.

You have an expected (or intended, as they call it).start value based on past performances (they say practices, okay). But the ACTUAL start value is determined as the athlete performs. THat way they can lower it if you flub up.You can't know the ACTUAL start value until the end of the routine.

It isn't a great system, but you cannot say the Korean guy was penalized before he stepped out onto the mat. It is incorrect.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Good golly, no wonder there are such problems.

A start value really isn't a start value when you start, although it is but it can be changed at the end, but still considered a start value even though it is the end, but then deductions can be made from the revised start value. I'm confused. Also I wonder what happens when the deductions have to do with elements that are needed for the start value and are missed, are they deductions or does it take away from the start value?

Ice Dancing anyone?

 

[Bob Slydell]

Originally posted by Miss Jasmine
Good golly, no wonder there are such problems.

A start value really isn't a start value when you start, although it is but it can be changed at the end, but still considered a start value even though it is the end, but then deductions can be made from the revised start value. I'm confused. Also I wonder what happens when the deductions have to do with elements that are needed for the start value and are missed, are they deductions or does it take away from the start value?

Ice Dancing anyone?

And people bash curling?!?!? Heck, at least in that sport, you can clearly tell who's scored points and who hasn't!!

 

[theSurlyMermaid]

Originally posted by Miss Jasmine
Good golly, no wonder there are such problems.

A start value really isn't a start value when you start, although it is but it can be changed at the end, but still considered a start value even though it is the end, but then deductions can be made from the revised start value. I'm confused. Also I wonder what happens when the deductions have to do with elements that are needed for the start value and are missed, are they deductions or does it take away from the start value?

Ice Dancing anyone?

Well, you are 100% correct that this judging system is terrible. It needs to be completely overhauled.

I don't know the answers to your questions, but I think the main point is that this is a total mess. I honestly don't think half the judges understand the system, let alone the viewing public!

 

[Geoff_M]

Let me take what is possilbly a half-cocked stab at it and see how I do.

Beforehand, the judges announce that if you do a rountine that contains elements 1, 2, 3... 10 then the "start value" for that routine would be a 9.9 (or whatever).

As I understand it, the first set of judges look at what elements you actually perform. You may state that your routine will include 1 through 10, but you may have a problem (physical or mental) and skip element 7. The first set of judges would say, "Well, the guy attempted element 1 to 6, and 8, 9, and 10. By our rules element 7 was worth X points, so his acutal 'Start' value would be 9.9 minus X." They when pass the number off to the second set of judges who adjust the starting score based on how well you performed the elements you attempted plus any other mandated adjustments to the "starting" score.

Am I off-base anywhere?

 

[DrCavin]

Doesn't the rules state that they have to protest or object to the scoring within a certain time frame or something? Did they officially do that?

I feel sorry for Hamm because his medal will be tarnished by this. I think the FIG is not taking responsibility for their judges making a mistake & trying to pass it on.

I agree the scoring system needs overhauled. A starting value should be determined at the start. If you say your going to do X,Y, & Z and you dont then you should be penalized for it, you did not do what you said your routine would consist of.

 

[Az Pirates]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
Let me take what is possilbly a half-cocked stab at it and see how I do.

Beforehand, the judges announce that if you do a rountine that contains elements 1, 2, 3... 10 then the "start value" for that routine would be a 9.9 (or whatever).

As I understand it, the first set of judges look at what elements you actually perform. You may state that your routine will include 1 through 10, but you may have a problem (physical or mental) and skip element 7. The first set of judges would say, "Well, the guy attempted element 1 to 6, and 8, 9, and 10. By our rules element 7 was worth X points, so his acutal 'Start' value would be 9.9 minus X." They when pass the number off to the second set of judges who adjust the starting score based on how well you performed the elements you attempted plus any other mandated adjustments to the "starting" score.

Am I off-base anywhere?

That's why I still maintain there is a difference between the judging errors. The start value is not subjective and is not a judgement call.

The officials should not have needed a video review to determine if there was an error in the start value score. The element WAS in his routine - what is that element worth?

I still say the Koren WAS in effect penalized before he stepped out on the mat. Granted they had to wait and see if the element was included in his routine before awarding the points. But the scoring was flawed from the begining because the move was undervalued.

If you want to open up the judging by the second set of judges for video review for one athlete - you'd better be willing to do it for all of them... and then be prepared for all kinds of medal exchanges.
I'm sure there were other athletes who didn't get deductions they should have and probably some who got deductions that may not have been warranted. The judging is subjective.

Don't get me wrong - I agree that the judging system is terrible too.
I just see a difference between a mistake in computing start value and a mistake made while trying to watch a routine that lasts less than two minutes and still trying to catch every possible deduction and/or award every possible bonus point.


I still say the blame rests with the coaches. The rules allow for a challenge if they believed the routine was scored out of an improper start value. They should have filed a protest immediately, before they moved to the next event.

 

[theSurlyMermaid]

Originally posted by DrCavin
Doesn't the rules state that they have to protest or object to the scoring within a certain time frame or something? Did they officially do that?

Yes they do and no they didn't. The Koreans waited til after the meet to protest, and the FIG broke their own rules in going back and reviewing it.

Not only that but the S. Koreans claim they tried to protest at the right time (before the rotation ends) but were told to send a letter at the end of the meet. Whatever! Miles Avery, Hamm's coach, has pointed out that the S. Koreans had followed the correct procedure in lodging protests during the team competition, where they lodged one or two protests. Now on the day of the All-Around they suddenly don't know the rules? Give me a break.

I wish they would leave Paul Hamm alone.

 

[Disney Doll]

If they think the S.Korean guy deserves a gold, then gie him one too. But I wouldn't take it away from Hamm, nor would I expect him to be the "bigger man" and give it up, to appease the IOC or the judges, who are the idiots that screwed up in the first place. Why does Hamm have to be the sacrifical lamb????

 

[deadheadbelle]

Originally posted by Az Pirates
That's why I still maintain there is a difference between the judging errors. The start value is not subjective and is not a judgement call.

The officials should not have needed a video review to determine if there was an error in the start value score. The element WAS in his routine - what is that element worth?

I still say the Koren WAS in effect penalized before he stepped out on the mat. Granted they had to wait and see if the element was included in his routine before awarding the points. But the scoring was flawed from the begining because the move was undervalued.

If you want to open up the judging by the second set of judges for video review for one athlete - you'd better be willing to do it for all of them... and then be prepared for all kinds of medal exchanges.
I'm sure there were other athletes who didn't get deductions they should have and probably some who got deductions that may not have been warranted. The judging is subjective.

Don't get me wrong - I agree that the judging system is terrible too.
I just see a difference between a mistake in computing start value and a mistake made while trying to watch a routine that lasts less than two minutes and still trying to catch every possible deduction and/or award every possible bonus point.


I still say the blame rests with the coaches. The rules allow for a challenge if they believed the routine was scored out of an improper start value. They should have filed a protest immediately, before they moved to the next event.

You are correct, the start value is NOT subjective. However, neither is the FACT that if you do more than 3 "holds" during a routine, it is an automatic .2 deduction. Both mistakes were judging mistakes. If the guys routine had been judged correctly (given the correct start value & given the .2 deduction) he wouldn't even have finished in the medals.

Also, you mention that you "think there is a difference between computing the start value and a mistake made while trying to watch a routine that lasts less than two minutes". However, the start value is computed while they watch the routine, so how is it any different?

Bottom line, anytime there are judges involved there is going to be controversy. It's just unfortunate that Paul Hamm's GOLD medal will forever be tarnished.

 

[Geoff_M]

The start value is not subjective and is not a judgement call.

The number of "holds" done during a routinue is not subjective either. Nor is it a judgement call as to what the judges are supposed to do when a 4th "hold" is committed. Both errors were related to quantitative mistakes, not qualitative ones.

If you want to open up the judging by the second set of judges for video review for one athlete - you'd better be willing to do it for all of them... and then be prepared for all kinds of medal exchanges.

The same could be said for the setting of "start values". This may have not been the only such error made during the games.

To be honest, from what little I know I don't think this is a bad system. It seems to be designed to minimize the subjective feeling of a judge about a peformance by attempting to minimize the "wiggle room" a judge has by applying a semi-rigid formula to the situation. The only real problems here were that the judges made math errors (didn't add up the starting value correctly, and didn't correctly count the number of "holds").

As for Hamm's gold being "tarnished". That's a load of bull cookies. Per the rules, he beat the Korean... unless you want to apply a "selective recount". Anyone that claims that Hamm shouldn't wear his medal proudly, has built their claims on quicksand.

 

[Viking]

Originally posted by DukeStreetKing
I agree he shouldn't have to give his medal back. However, this will be a footnote for the rest of his career. He will be forever known as the guy who won the gold but maybe he shouldn't have.

So he's got something in common with GWB

Back to the topic: I don't think he should give it back, this could have happened in every sport where judges are responsible for awarding points as opposed to sports where there are objective measurements.
The next time a Korean might win and an American or German or Russian may 'lose'.
BTW, I wouldn't call gaining a Silver Medal in the Olympics losing - There's only one person better than him, but 6 billion worse

 

[maci]

Wouldnt throwing out the highest and lowest scores like they do in diving help out somewhat?? It wouldnt fix the problem...but maybe a step in the right direction??

 

[disykat]

Originally posted by Az Pirates
[.

I agree that FIG is trying to weasel out of an uncomfortable situation by trying to pressure Hamm into fixing a mistake that is not his responsibility to fix. [/B]

Exactly! I just don't get it. If they want to take it away, Hamm has been clear he will return it. They need to make up their minds and leave him alone. Expecting HIM to make the decision is the craziest thing I've ever heard. I guess now anyone who wins an award gets to decide whether to keep it or turn the honor over to the person of their choice. I can just see them playing hot potato on the podium "no, you're more deserving, no, you are, no you are...."

 

[Robinrs]

I just wish it was over so I don't have to listen to Hamm's interviews anymore! He sounds like he just sucked in helium!

Sorry.. OT!

 

[deadheadbelle]

Originally posted by Robinrs
I just wish it was over so I don't have to listen to Hamm's interviews anymore! He sounds like he just sucked in helium!

Sorry.. OT!