# Thread: Olympic 2008 - Women's Gymnastics

1. Originally Posted by ChanceEncounter
The average spread is .15 in this circumstance. In that respect, .2 is not a large spread. .3 is pushing it. What makes the .3 more suspicious is that happens to be, by a good margin, the highest score for He Kexin. Remove the .3, and the spread averages .12, which makes a .2 difference still more respectable than a .3 difference to a .15 average spread.

The key lies in statistics. You're right, the "true" difference can be debated endlessly. But the fact of the matter is that the judges have to be consistent in their grading, or the validity of their judgment will be called into question. Given the sample, and assuming that the "true" difference is roughly 0 (really the best statistical means we have), a .3 difference is 90% significant.

Factor in the hypothesis that the .3 difference is biased, and taking the remaining 5 scores as the control, and the statistical variance shoots up to 95% significant.

Anyway you look at it, the .3 score jumps out. A .2 is debatable, but not altogether unfathomable.
the average spread is 0.15 in favor of He or in favor of Liukin? it makes a large difference. unless you are certian that you can make the assumption that He & Liukin differ by exactly 0.0, then it is very important you differentiate whether the difference is in favor of He or Liukin.

don't use the 90/95 percent numbers to scare me . are you really trying to make an accurate statistical analysis on the puny pool of 6 numbers?

btw, in the scoring, the highest and lowest scores are dropped. so in the 16.725 that He recieved, the australian score made no effect.

Originally Posted by ChanceEncounter
As I said, the best way to do it would be to look at the instant replay with the panel and have the freedom to rewind and rewatch, in slow motion, the whole routine and come to a consensus score. The rest of the sporting world is catching up to instant replay, but many of the artistic events are still behind.
sure it would be nice. but it really has nothing to do with the Australian judge, though.

2. Originally Posted by Ren Ying Ying
btw, in the scoring, the highest and lowest scores are dropped. so in the 16.725 that He recieved, the australian score made no effect.
But if the score wasn't there in the first place, there wouldn't even need to be a tie-breaker.

But if the score wasn't there in the first place, there wouldn't even need to be a tie-breaker.
the initial "tied" score did not include australia's score for He. like diving, only the middle scores are used. in this case, the 4 middle scores (how else can you get scores ending perfectly in 0.0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 if you divide by 5 or 6?)

if you used all 6 scores, He would've actually scored higher than Nastia.

Originally Posted by http://gymnastics.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_new_womens_gymnastics_scoring_system
The "B" panel consists of six judges, each of whom awards a score for the execution of the routine. Like the old system, this score starts from ten and errors lead to deductions. There are suggested deductions for each type of error, and maximum deductions are specified in the Code of Points. The highest and lowest scores are dropped and the middle four scores are averaged. If the difference between those four scores is greater than a certain acceptable deviation, the Apparatus Supervisor also has the option to ask a judge to change his score.
see chancy, if there is a significant deviation, the scoring would've been questioned.

4. Bebe is sounding like an expert now while I swim aimlessly in the sea of information that makes no sense to poor little me.

5. i am watching nBC, latest news says that there is an investigation going on about the gymanstics's age/ I guess the US is bitter that they lost the gold to China

6. Originally Posted by Sugar
i am watching nBC, latest news says that there is an investigation going on about the gymanstics's age/ I guess the US is bitter that they lost the gold to China
They are also bitter that China got more gold, but that's typical of the US.

7. Originally Posted by Sugar
i am watching nBC, latest news says that there is an investigation going on about the gymanstics's age/ I guess the US is bitter that they lost the gold to China
that's part of the game, I'll repeat this, no one is a "happy loser". Even if you don't care you still don't like to lose.

If i'm the US i'll haul *** on that investigation too. IOC ask for any help I be jumping up and down handing up documents lol.

8. they should investigate if there's that much upset. i don't want to have to hear about this every single year at every competition.

just do what it needs to resolve this.

9. Originally Posted by Sugar
i am watching nBC, latest news says that there is an investigation going on about the gymanstics's age/ I guess the US is bitter that they lost the gold to China
I agree that the investigation should be done. If China is clean, than nothing will come of it.
However, I fear that if proven cheating, the medals will be stripped from China's count. Further, China will be banned from future games. Will be very embarassing to China where face is all important.

10. Originally Posted by Ren Ying Ying
the initial "tied" score did not include australia's score for He. like diving, only the middle scores are used. in this case, the 4 middle scores (how else can you get scores ending perfectly in 0.0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 if you divide by 5 or 6?)

if you used all 6 scores, He would've actually scored higher than Nastia.

see chancy, if there is a significant deviation, the scoring would've been questioned.
If the AUS judge gave He a 9.10, He would still have won without so much controversy. Don't see the need of bring statistics into this when one doesn't know the population spread of gymnastics judging, nor know the true value, nor be sure if it's normal distribution.

11. Originally Posted by ChanceEncounter

Either way, the Australian committee claiming that their judge is fine when the entire argument is that the Australian judge made a mistake is far less conclusive than the numbers.
Uh actually not just the Australian , but the OLYMPICS committee overseeing the judges. In the article I posted, the OLYMPICS committee had no problem with the Australian judge's score. Otherwise, they wouldn't have awarded He the gold medal.

People can argue about statistics (even though I agree with Ying Ying considering the small sample size) but my initial point was that for Liukin (father) to make this all about the Australians conspiring against his daughter was really poor sportsmanship and unprofessional. Thank god it was Australian and not some Asian judge. Ha, the media would have had a field day with that one.

And I still disagree about the fact that they have to "explain themselves" to the public if they give a "seemingly different" score from the rest of the judges. IF they have to do any explaining, it's to the panel, not to the public. There is a reason why there are 6 judges...to introduce different viewpoints. If they're all the same, what's the point then? You might as well get 6 clone judges.

Originally Posted by 999roses
Nastia's score correct, says beleaguered judge

Linda Pearce | August 20, 2008

"I feel very comfortable knowing that what I have done is correct, and that's what is important to me," said Colagiuri, while Gymnastics Australia chief executive Jane Allen was vigorous in her support of her women's technical director, a well-regarded veteran of 20 years on the international circuit. Allen pointed out that Colagiuri was just one of six neutral officials on the panel and all apparatus finals were overseen by a member of the international federation's technical committee, which had no issues with how the competition was judged.

12. And it turns out, IOC isn't gonna press the investigation any further.

I mean, I support the US women's gymnastic, but the Chinese team realyl deserve their medals with the age thing put aside.

I am actually more ticked at Alicia Sacronmone making a comment about how her team was robbed of two gold medals.. and how unfair the judges were. Kind of ironic that it was her who fell that cost ( most likely) the gold. I guess white girls like to complain and blame others for their mishaps

And honestly, this nit picking from the US make the country looks bad.

13. Originally Posted by Sugar
I mean, I support the US women's gymnastic, but the Chinese team realyl deserve their medals with the age thing put aside.
Well no I disagree. If the Chinese weren't following the same set of rules as their competitors, then it's like an athlete taking steroids - it's no longer a fair game and the medals are undeserved.

I'm not against the IOC dropping the whole issue though, just because on a more sentimental level I wouldn't like to see the Chinese girls lose their medals. I hate to condone cheating, but it's also quite shattering to achieve your lifelong dream and have it taken away from you. Especially if you're like ten (which I swear is how old these girls look LOL...I'm Chinese and quite small, so at 16 I got comments about how I looked 13, but I definitely didn't look THAT young), which I personally think these girls are lol.

Besides Shawn Johnson and Nastia Liukin rock and pwn the Chinese team anyway!!! Especially Shawn...I love how cute, perky, and bubbly she is.

I guess white girls like to complain and blame others for their mishaps
LOL so not true - I'm Asian and I do that all the time anyway. I can understand why Alicia's pissed though, after the VT final.

By the way, sorry if this has been discussed already, but what'd you guys think of the new judging system? It seems to be more forgiving towards major errors (i.e. falls), imo, provided you don't miss elements that would lower your difficulty score.

14. go china. they deserve gold.

i don't like nastia liukin. she looks mean when shes not performing.

15. Originally Posted by Sparky
Well no I disagree. If the Chinese weren't following the same set of rules as their competitors, then it's like an athlete taking steroids - it's no longer a fair game and the medals are undeserved.

I'm not against the IOC dropping the whole issue though, just because on a more sentimental level I wouldn't like to see the Chinese girls lose their medals. I hate to condone cheating, but it's also quite shattering to achieve your lifelong dream and have it taken away from you. Especially if you're like ten (which I swear is how old these girls look LOL...I'm Chinese and quite small, so at 16 I got comments about how I looked 13, but I definitely didn't look THAT young), which I personally think these girls are lol.

Besides Shawn Johnson and Nastia Liukin rock and pwn the Chinese team anyway!!! Especially Shawn...I love how cute, perky, and bubbly she is.

LOL so not true - I'm Asian and I do that all the time anyway. I can understand why Alicia's pissed though, after the VT final.

By the way, sorry if this has been discussed already, but what'd you guys think of the new judging system? It seems to be more forgiving towards major errors (i.e. falls), imo, provided you don't miss elements that would lower your difficulty score.
I think it takes away the aesthetic of gymnastic (again this is very much up to judging). Now you just have a super high "difficult score" and try not to *** up too much VS doing something easier but perfect. The draw back is that the judges never see anything "perfect", even if you did it right they still take off points for no reason.

16. Originally Posted by shanghai girls are hot
go china. they deserve gold.

i don't like nastia liukin. she looks mean when shes not performing.
she does look mean, though i have to say, she shows great sportsmanship. my respect for her has risen

Originally Posted by warlock110
I think it takes away the aesthetic of gymnastic (again this is very much up to judging). Now you just have a super high "difficult score" and try not to *** up too much VS doing something easier but perfect. The draw back is that the judges never see anything "perfect", even if you did it right they still take off points for no reason.
it is the same with the old system. you can only get a perfect 10 if you begin with a start value of 10 (highest difficulty) and make no mistakes. points are deducted for mistakes.

the only problem now is that different events will generally have different scores. ie. the floor exercise scores tend to be lower than the rings/bars

17. Originally Posted by Ren Ying Ying
the average spread is 0.15 in favor of He or in favor of Liukin? it makes a large difference. unless you are certian that you can make the assumption that He & Liukin differ by exactly 0.0, then it is very important you differentiate whether the difference is in favor of He or Liukin.

don't use the 90/95 percent numbers to scare me . are you really trying to make an accurate statistical analysis on the puny pool of 6 numbers?

btw, in the scoring, the highest and lowest scores are dropped. so in the 16.725 that He recieved, the australian score made no effect.
It's a .15 average variance, which is absolute differences. Thus, it doesn't matter who is higher or lower.

Even with a small sample size, you can still compensate for it and develop statistical models. And of course the IOC is going to stand by their judges. Otherwise, they'll have to admit that they made a mistake in their selection and that they admitted bias throughout the competition. It doesn't change the fact that a .3 is fairly statistically significant outside of the normal bound. As I said, even if you disregard that score, a .2 is not as extreme compared to the new variance as a .3 to the null variance.

And even in the case that the highest and lowest scores were dropped really means nothing. If you give a higher score than everyone else, you're guaranteeing that your score is the one that's dropped and the others are factored. Mathematically speaking, you're increasing the odds of victory by diminishing the odds of a poor return.

Originally Posted by Ren Ying Ying
it would be nice. but it really has nothing to do with the Australian judge, though.
It absolutely does. The judge marked a .3 execution difference between the two routines. That's 2 or 3 noticeable errors between the two of them. If you watch the tape, there was not 2 or 3 noticeable errors of difference; thus the judge made a mark further away from the consensus than what was tolerable. Thus, if the routines had a similar number of errors, coming up with a three tenth difference in score is either bias or just really, really bad luck.

Or, that Australian judge just really sucks at her job.

18. Well no I disagree. If the Chinese weren't following the same set of rules as their competitors, then it's like an athlete taking steroids - it's no longer a fair game and the medals are undeserved.
Well I view taking steroids as a mean to be better than others is not as forgivable as cheating in age. I personally question ALOT of the girl's ages but I dont' descredit them for working hard. I wanted the US to win, but the chinese girls made less mistakes so I just accepted it as a bitter loss. So are u telling me u are one of the ppl who gonna protest as well ?

I felt it is a bid sad that many us protestors are too absorbed in the girls' ages and neglect to see if the girls have skills

LOL so not true - I'm Asian and I do that all the time anyway. I can understand why Alicia's pissed though, after the VT final.

Ha, we all know u like to biatch and whine . I am actually close to where she lives and the way she criticized the judges on local tv was bad sportmanship. It seems more she is taking her frustration on the system while she herself fell on her arse TWICE.

19. Well now that IOC has dropped the case, I guess we should give it a rest.

But then this only happens every four years.........let's continue beating the horse till it's past dead.

20. Originally Posted by ChanceEncounter
It's a .15 average variance, which is absolute differences. Thus, it doesn't matter who is higher or lower.
it does because we do not know the true difference. for example, say the true difference between Liukin's routine and He's routine is a 9.1 and a 9.0 respectively, then the true difference would be 0.1 in favor of Liukin. However, if one judge gives Liukin a 9.2 while giving He a 9.0, the difference only deviates 0.1. However, if the judge gives He a 9.2 and Liukin a 9.0, then the diviation is not 0.1 from the "true value" but 0.3. since we do not know the "true value" in this case, we cannot determine the "true deviation". However, the main point is...it matters whether the difference lies in favor of Liukin or in favor of He. Therefore, the 0.15 average deviation you suggest MUST indicate who it is in favor of.

Originally Posted by ChanceEncounter
Even with a small sample size, you can still compensate for it and develop statistical models.

It doesn't change the fact that a .3 is fairly statistically significant outside of the normal bound. As I said, even if you disregard that score, a .2 is not as extreme compared to the new variance as a .3 to the null variance.
inaccurate statistical models...yes. you cannot claim statistical significance if you model contains too many possible inaccuracies in the first place. it's been a while since i've taken a stats class, but a puny pool of 6 samples is way too small givin the possible variations.

just out of curiosity, which model were you using?

Originally Posted by ChanceEncounter
And of course the IOC is going to stand by their judges. Otherwise, they'll have to admit that they made a mistake in their selection and that they admitted bias throughout the competition.
the IOC must check before the final scores are released to the public. That's standard procedure regardless of this incident. For example, in the women's all around, the judges had to recheck Nastia's balance beam score.

Originally Posted by ChanceEncounter
And even in the case that the highest and lowest scores were dropped really means nothing. If you give a higher score than everyone else, you're guaranteeing that your score is the one that's dropped and the others are factored. Mathematically speaking, you're increasing the odds of victory by diminishing the odds of a poor return.
now you are just pushing it. the australian judge is psychic and knows what the max and min scores will be? didn't you just say earlier that each judge judges differently? how does the australian judge know that other judges won't go super easy on both girls?

Originally Posted by Chance Encounter
It absolutely does. The judge marked a .3 execution difference between the two routines. That's 2 or 3 noticeable errors between the two of them. If you watch the tape, there was not 2 or 3 noticeable errors of difference; thus the judge made a mark further away from the consensus than what was tolerable. Thus, if the routines had a similar number of errors, coming up with a three tenth difference in score is either bias or just really, really bad luck.
you know how to deduct for each mistake or exactly which mistakes there are? sorry, i didn't know you were an professional gymnastic judge.

it all comes down to whether 0.3 is a significant deviation. 6 is clearly a puny sample size given the possible variations. why don't you look at more data? take the pommel horse tie for example. the "average" difference was 0.3. while the romanian judge thought that the two performances only differed by 0.1, the bulgarian judge believed they were different by 0.7. what now bulgarian judges also suck at their job?

http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/EN...html#GAW007101

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts