Scoring
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
As we would like to turn this discussion into a proposal, I am setting up the discussions. However, Gossi has prepared the necessary texts. Please refer to the first post.
Comment
Restore the integrity of scoring. Athletes currently receive a percentage % score that indicates the trend of judges. The rules however state scores have a maximum of 30 pts for Performance and Technical.
Now, why do we have % scores?
That is to protect judges. It happened too often, that parents noted down the judges for when their kids were competing and later, when the results were published, they harassed the judges about their scores.
However now the results are percentages that normalize the results, they no longer match the scoring as written in the rulebook the traceability is lost. The integrity of the results is eliminated. The main focus of this is to reinstate integrity.
Second is to scope the ranking as per classes and age groups.
Third, as observed, the judges deviate too much in their range of scoring which negatively impacts the final score. To eliminate this, enable the option again to allow for removing scores, but require a minimum number of judges for this.
Fourth: If there is a tie, then it is a tie. The chance for this to happen is very, very low (I only am aware of one situation in the past 10 years). Drop that unfair rule and honor the athlete's achievement.
Draft for changes to the rulebook:
## 6C.5 Scoring
To tabulate the scores in Artistic Freestyle competitions, the scores per judging part (Performance, Technical and Dismount) are averaged for all judges. For the published results, athletes will receive one value per judging part and the total score. Athletes are ranked based on the total score.
Performance Score = AVG(Performance score of all judges)
Technical Score = AVG(Technical score of all judges)
Dismount Score = AVG(Dismount score of all judges)
These scores are weighted for the total score:
45% Performance Score
45% Technical Score
10% Dismount Score
Total Score = (Performance Score * 0.45 / 30 + Technical Score * 0.45 / 30 + Dismount Score * 0.1 / 10) * 100
The total score is rounded to three fraction digits. The formula for total score respects the weighted scores but normalizes them to 100 pts maximum. For example a rider scoring 30 pts in performance and technical and 10 pts in dismount would have 100 pts as total score.
Example for tabulated results*:
| Name | Performance Score | Technical Score | Dismount Score | Total Score |
| John Doe | 23 | 14 | 7 | 62.5 |
| Jane Doe | 8 | 17 | 6 | 43.5 |
### 6C.5.1 Scope of Ranking
As routines are judged with scores, the results can be ranked per class and/or age group, see 6E.5.3 which ranking(s) will be used.
### 6C.5.2 Removing Scores
The highest and lowest scores for Performance and Technical may be removed to increase accuracy of final results. A minimum of five judges per judging part is required.
IUF Sanctioned and Endorsed events: The removal of highest and lowest scores is compulsory.
* This software does not support formatting tables, so I used markdown format for the table.
Comment
As routines are judged with scores, the results can be ranked per class and/or age group, see 6E.5.3 which ranking(s) will be used.
Are you saying that you could take the points for a rider from U13 for example and compare them with the points for a rider from U15 to determine who should qualify to Jr. Expert?
IUF Sanctioned and Endorsed events: The removal of highest and lowest scores is compulsory.
I strongly disagree with this. With only 5 judges for each Performance and Technical this leaves you with only 3 judging scores which is not enough. It would be great to have more judges but even at Unicon it is very difficult already to find this many judges.
Comment
> Are you saying that you could take the points for a rider from U13 for example and compare them with the points for a rider from U15 [...]
As the rules stands you can compare them...
> [...] to determine who should qualify to Jr. Expert?
... when the judging panel remains persistent ;)
---
> IUF Sanctioned and Endorsed events: The removal of highest and lowest scores is compulsory.
> I strongly disagree with this. With only 5 judges for each Performance and Technical this leaves you with only 3 judging scores which is not enough. It would be great to have more judges but even at Unicon it is very difficult already to find this many judges.
We (Jan, Marvin, Lisa and me) discussed this on monday. Even with the percentage results (which was there to minimize the gaps between judges), the results were still off when looking at the raw numbers and thus are then the percentage values (garbage in -> garbage out). Percentage values formed up to address this, but we are certain now that they failed (on multiple levels).
Before percentage values we remove highest and lowest scores, which actually helped - and this was also happening with five judges per part. However we discussed alternatives we could do:
- Increase the number of judges (6C.4) - low chance of success because due to impractibility
- Switch from average to median as it is more stable against outliers
- Drop every score outside of standard deviation
Idea 2 and 3 can be exemplified on recent results to validate them.
---
With certainity we can say, using absolute numbers and removing highest and lowest gives the most accurate results so far. We can improve this with the ideas presented.
Comment
This means that each rider will get a score based on the 100 points, right? Since we give points anyway that are changed into percentages, I don't see a problem here. However, I am not sure about removing the highest and lowest score. Because we only have 5 technical, 5 performance and 2 dismounts judges and it's already hard getting those places filled. Removing scores from this panel would mean even less scores to determine the winner...
Comment
I am very happy about this discussion, as I don't like the percentages at all.
The judges can also be protected with total points (only the final points are officially presented, not the points from each judge, but that is how we do it anyways).
I am definitely in favor of removing the highest and lowest score, here is my reason why. In the past 5 years I was one of the chief judges at at least 15 competitions. It is always the same, there are many mistakes made from judges in almost every class. Different opinions are totally fine of course, if there is a valid argumentation behind that, but with "mistakes" I mean f.e. totally wrong technical scores regarding amount or difficulty of tricks or overall high judgements for the riders from the same club/region (not often but sadly sometimes),... It is always a very bad situation for the chief judges if they see, something is weird and not right but they can't intervene in every case (talk to the judge, in very hard cases take the judge out of the panel,...). If the "weird" scores are removed automatically, then the chief judges won't be in that situation anymore (only very rare cases maybe). If you see it like that, "only" 8 judges will determine the winner, that's true. But those judges don't have extreme points (high and low) and they are closer together in their opinion. For the riders it is more fair, if extreme and unfair judgements are taken out automatically than just leave the extreme and also unfair judgements in there and wait for the chief judges to do something.
Comment
I am also very happy that we are having this discussion here - even if I am a little disappointed about the participation in this discussion. The committee consists of 16 members and so far only five have commented here, what about all the other participants? What is your opinion on this?
The percentage system definitely has some serious disadvantages, the biggest of which is certainly that the intended weighting of 45% technique, 45% performance and 10% dismount is no longer guaranteed due to the normalization to percentage values.
Yes, the original scoring system with the jury's point values and scratching the highes and lowest score also had disadvantages - which is why it was dropped many years ago. However, I am now convinced that the disadvantages were not greater than those we currently have with the percentage system. Of course, this does not automatically mean that we should return to the old system, but I think we should definitely be aware of the disadvantages of the percentage system and have an open discussion about whether the system should really be retained in view of these disadvantages. I don't know if there's enough time in this Rulebook Committee to discuss this very difficult topic and come to a solution with enough support, but we definitely shouldn't just ignore the problems of the current system.
Comment
>> IUF Sanctioned and Endorsed events: The removal of highest and lowest scores is compulsory.
The same as in the other discussion: Endorsed events may deviate from this and the event may still be endorsed, so the rule gives a false impression of what applies to endorsed events.
Comment
I agree with what Tamara is saying about how it can be really difficult for the Chief Judge to take out the outlier scores. And also very uncomfortable to have conversations with judges who display bias. However, I am hesitant to just make such a big change. I wonder if this is something we can try to get some data on and address in the next rulebook?
Comment
I can definitely understand your hesitation - as I said, there were good reasons why the original system was abolished back in the days.
Unfortunately, the discussion here is anything but intense and I think such a far-reaching rule change should be definitely discussed and looked at from different angles. On the other hand, there has been a lot of discontent about the current scoring system in Germany for many years and many athletes and coaches would probably rather see it changed today than tomorrow.