The execution is scored by starting with 10, then subtracting points. The high and low scores are thrown out then the rest averaged. When there is a tie, the first step is to then look at the deductions of the judges whose scores were not thrown out. But the deductions will always be 10 minus that judges score, by definition. So if the averages of the scores are tied, how can the averages of the deductions ever be anything but tied?
The explanation goes on to the second step, which is to eliminate the highest deduction of each of the four, and then average the remaining three deductions. The lowest average deduction wins the tie.
It’s a rather convoluted calculation that could be explained in a much simpler way: If there is a tie, throw out the lowest score and re-average.
I believe this is only true if the difficulty scores are identical. I believe the first tiebreaker is basically saying that if the scores are tied then the execution score takes precedence (i.e., the gymnast with the higher execution score wins). In this case, where both gymnasts had the same difficulty, this tiebreaker is also tied. Thus, the second tiebreaker.
If Liukin, for example, had a 7.6 difficulty score but got a 9.125 on the execution, the original scores would still be tied at 16.725. However, the first tiebreaker would have produced 0.875 for Liukun but 0.975 for He - thus Liukin would have won.
There is considerable noise being made in the blogosphere today to the effect that, if two gymnasts are that closely tied, they both turned in gold-worthy performances and the IOC’s no-ties rule makes no sense. I sorta’ lean that way myself, but I’m open to other opinions.
I believe you are correct, but the focus of my question is that if you go to the execution scores and their average is tied, why do they describe an extra step of averaging the execution deductions when it arithmetically *must * produce a tie also?
I don’t think they do, really. The explanation provided in your opening link just words the first tiebreaker in such a way as to make it seem redundant. The rules are:
Compare overall score. If tied, go to rule 2.
Compare the execution scores, highest score wins. This is worded “Compare the execution deductions, lowest score wins” in the OP cite. If tied, go to rule 3
Remove the highest deduction (lowest overall score) and re-average. Highest average score (or lowest average deduction) wins.
Although slightly off-topic from the OP, I respectfully disagree with the noise.
A gold medal doesn’t mean you did really, really well against available standards. It means you’re the best. There can be only one best.
IMHO the tie-breaker should have been a second vault, instead of dicking around with the scores. But although overtime is required to break ties in scored games like tennis, football, and baseball, there seems to be no precedent for it in any type of timed or judged competition.
I get it now. Thanks. It was confusing to me that they first dealt with execution scores, then with execution deductions, when you could as easily have continued talking about scores.
It wasn’t the vault, it was the uneven bars and I don’t think anyone would agree to doing a second uneven bar routine. That would really mess with your head.
This sort of stuff happens in gymnastics, and you pretty much have to live with it. It was in my opinion a clear case of home team advantage. A close examination of the routine makes it pretty clear that Nastia was the better performer, but not by much and not by enough that arguing is worthwhile. The Chinese team did great and they deserve their rewards. Nastia can’t feel too bad. She got the most coveted award in all gymnastics, and there is no doubt she earned it.
I can’t say I understand the new scoring system very well, but there is no doubt that it is an improvement. Back when her dad was a competitor, a guy could throw a basic routine that merely met the requirements for a perfect 10.0 while the guy throwing bad ass psycho shit that stepped on the landing was deducted and gets the silver all-around title. That was her dad. Valeri Liukin is the most bad ass gymnast to ever live, and I am extatic that his daughter won the all-around.
I don’t understand why Karolyi the coach (Marta?) was going off on the Australian judge afterwards. The judge gave Liukin a 9.0, as did two others. Her score didn’t have any effect on the final outcome.
Possibly it was because she (the judge) gave the Chinese athlete a 9.3, which was the biggest spread of any judge either way, but that score got thrown out and didn’t count one way or the other.
I don’t understand it either, but it made sense somehow if you understand gymnastics well enough, because Valerie Liukin, Bela Karoly, and Bob Costas all agreed with her.
As mentioned making a gymnast have another go at the uneven bars in a tiebreaker just is not terribly doable given the nature of gymnastics.
While I agree with your sentiment in general in the cases of events that are judged (and thus subjective) I think it makes much more sense to allow a tie. By all accounts both He and Liukin turned in a great performance. Who is “best” rests completely on the vagaries of some judges with all that entails (playing favorites, home crowd advantage, human mistakes, on rare occasions bribery, etc.). If both girls turned in a gold medal performance I am fine with both getting the gold.
Here is an interesting analysis. Someone counted all the medals won in the Olympics if you do not count “judged” events. By that measure the Americans have only one less gold than China and far more medals overall.
Does that mean anything? I have no idea really. Certainly seems suggestive that something is a little screwy. In objectively measured events the US is a match for China but get stomped when the subjectively measured sports are tossed in? I am not saying it corrupt and certainly do not mean to impugn all the Chinese athletes. The guy who won the gold on the rings for China by all accounts was a clear winner. Still, seems odd…
Why would it? China has no control over the judges. The judges aren’t Chinese. How would they have influence except through crowd noise? And if the IOC were influencing the judges what would be their motivation? And how would they do so?
I find it nearly impossible to believe that the judges aren’t being leaned on in some way to favor the Chinese. Cheng Fei made two huge mistakes and then fell down for god’s sake on the vault and still beat out Alicia Sacramone for a medal. I suspected it before that but afterwards it would be very hard to convince me otherwise.
And just the fact that the IOC is not enforcing their own rules with regards to the underage Chinese gymnasts should tell you something.
In 1988 Roy Jones Jr. was flat out robbed of a gold medal from an inexplicable ruling by the judges (Jones flat out pummeled his opponent yet was judged the loser). Turned out the judges had been wined and dined by Korean officials (the judges were subsequently suspended and judging rules changed as a result but Jones was not given the gold).
In 2002 the French figures skating judge was caught taking bribes.
You do not need to sway every judge…just enough. There are some seeming shenanigans in these Olympics as noted just above.
I am not saying all the judges are corrupt or necessarily even any of them but it HAS been known to happen. Given the odd disparity in US v. China medal performances in objectively measured events versus subjective events it makes one wonder.
I’m not ready to don the tin foil hat just yet though.
If I remember correctly, there was some deal with the winter olympics in Salt Lake City where the skating judges had pretty clearly been influenced by something other than the skating.
My main issue with the rule is that it seems rather arbitrary. Why drop the low score? Why not the high score? Why not drop the score that deviates most from the average?
**Lamar Mundane **
Two judges judged Luikin’s performace .2 better. Two judged He’s .1 better. One called it a tie. Compared to those, the Australian’s score of .3 in favor for He seems out of line.
If the Australian judge had given He a 9.2 instead of 9.3, it wouldn’t have changed anything, but if (s)he had given Liukin a 9.1 instead of 9.0, Liukin would have won gold.
Going over the example in the Washington Post link, even a 9.1 wouldn’t have changed anything. The scores from the New Zealand and Brazil still carry just as much weight as Australia in regards to the tie breaker.