Two Chinese judges from the 2018 Olympics are suspended by the ISU

[kiches]

Here are the top five PCS marks for the men's free skate at the Olympics (p. 12). https://www.isu.org/communications/17361-case-2018-06-isu-vs-chen/file
Judge # 2 (Parker) gave Hanyu the second highest PCS after Fernandez. After that, Uno and Chen (tied) and then, Jin. Fernandez, Hanyu, Uno and Chen are all within 2 points of each other. Where is the nationalistic bias in that? For GOE, she had Fernandez first (27), Chen second (22) and Hanyu third (15). Those results are a bit more questionable, but what would be the point? Chen was pretty much out of the running for the podium. Ironically, the Chinese judge counter-balanced her scores by giving Hanyu 22 and Chen 15.

Nathan may have been nearly out of the running after the SP but Parker's scores for the FS would have had him ultimately with a silver medal. Since Parker wasn't on the panel for the SP, I summed the SP score with what Parker's scores for the top 6 men's free skates and these are the results I get:

YH: 111.68+ 196.76 = 308.44
NC: 82.27 + 225.41 = 307.68
SU: 104.17 + 202.84 = 307.01
JF: 107.58 + 199.21= 306.79
BJ: 103.32+185.50 = 288.82
VZ: 84.53 + 199.29 = 283.82

When you look at what her free skate scoring was compared to actual scores, this is what you see.
Her FS scores had Nathan +9 above his actual score.
Her FS scores for Shoma and Javier were within 2 points of their actuals.
Her FS score for Yuzuru and Boyang were ~ -9 points below their actual scores.
To throw it in there, her FS score for the other US men would have had Adam +10 points and Vincent +7 points above their actual FS score

We can argue that she didn't suppress every skaters scores (maybe that would've been too obvious if she did this to everyone), but there's a marked difference with her score for the US men and her own scores would've placed Nathan on the podium.

 

[doritos]

The problem is the damn corridor.. the USA and CAN judges were obviously playing their game but between the range of deviation (ordinals do not matter unfortunately). CHN judges were very naive to score waay outside the corridor.

The 'corridor' does not exist anymore; was replaced by a numerical analysis outlined originally in ISU communication 2035 and recently updated in 2098. This is a bit more flexible to allow for deviations outside the mean that might be justified in consultation with the OAC and doesn't allow one specific GOE or PC that was out of line to dictate a penalty or assessment for that official (but rather a continuous trend of being outside the mean of the panel). The Referee also has a bit more freedom to discuss anomalies in their Referee Report, in case a judge says something of merit in the round table that supports their GOE/PC and the Referee feels the rationale is appropriate, they can note that in the report for the OAC/Tech Committee to see in case the "computer program" pulls them out as being an anomaly.

The OAC was present at the OWG and was judging the events. Huang and Chen just weren't randomly or specifically selected for bias, but any judge that had a skater/team from their country in medal content was scrutinized, as well as any judge that already had a "Letter of Warning" for any team in medal contention. In addition, the OAC and members of the Tech Committee were looking for trends that might confirm a "Salt Lake City 2002" type relationship across disciplines, as well highlighted potential issues of "tanking" (marking your own country correctly but intentionally low balling a competitor, instead of inflating your home skater/team and marking their competitors correctly) for the entire panel for all of the events. These discrepancies were compared to their combined event analysis (they first judge separately, then discuss together and come to a consensus on what range would be acceptable). The OAC presents their event report to the Tech Committee, who determines if a Letter of Warning or something more severe is warranted. At non-Championship events, this report comes in later but at Worlds and the OWG, the OAC has to complete everything after each segment is completed and forward to the Tech Committee. For Singles and Pairs the OAC at the OWG was a three person team consisting of a three experienced ISU judges. Based on my sources, for Singles and Pairs it was Canada, Russia and the Czech Republic, who then consulted with along with members of the Singles and Pairs Technical Committee from Italy (Fabio Bianchetti) and Japan (Yukiko Okabe) who were present at the event. My source didn't know who was there for Ice Dance.

Huang was foolish in the short program, especially with his marks for China #2 - absolutely non-sensical. Ms. Chen really messed up in the free skate and there is clearly no rationale for the multitude of +3s she awarded. And as other have pointed out, there are LOTS of other marks that are questionable, not limited to but including the Canadian dance judge, the Spanish judge on Men's, and the Russian judge on Pairs who tried to keep T/M on the podium. Also, the Australian judge on Pairs who clearly knows NOTHING and thought the top 4 teams were all the freaking same in terms of PCs.

And no matter how many times you say in MAXSwagg, Lorrie Parker's judging was no where near the blatant bias of Huang or Chen, or even the Spanish judge in the short who really, really tried to get Javi on top. You're flogging a dead horse, repeatedly.

And while they weren't suspended, my source confirms there were quite a few "Letters of Warning" issued, including the Spanish Judge in Men, the French judge in Pairs, the Italian judge in Pairs, the Canadian judge in Ice Dance, and the Turkish judge in Ice Dance.

I believe the suspensions are warranted, and that there should have been a few more as others have pointed out. I think Mr. Huang is very, very lucky to only get 1 year, especially after the Letter of Warning from the GP Final which called out this exact same thing.

 

[MAXSwagg]

The 'corridor' does not exist anymore; was replaced by a numerical analysis outlined originally in ISU communication 2035 and recently updated in 2098. This is a bit more flexible to allow for deviations outside the mean that might be justified in consultation with the OAC and doesn't allow one specific GOE or PC that was out of line to dictate a penalty or assessment for that official (but rather a continuous trend of being outside the mean of the panel). The Referee also has a bit more freedom to discuss anomalies in their Referee Report, in case a judge says something of merit in the round table that supports their GOE/PC and the Referee feels the rationale is appropriate, they can note that in the report for the OAC/Tech Committee to see in case the "computer program" pulls them out as being an anomaly.

The OAC was present at the OWG and was judging the events. Huang and Chen just weren't randomly or specifically selected for bias, but any judge that had a skater/team from their country in medal content was scrutinized, as well as any judge that already had a "Letter of Warning" for any team in medal contention. In addition, the OAC and members of the Tech Committee were looking for trends that might confirm a "Salt Lake City 2002" type relationship across disciplines, as well highlighted potential issues of "tanking" (marking your own country correctly but intentionally low balling a competitor, instead of inflating your home skater/team and marking their competitors correctly) for the entire panel for all of the events. These discrepancies were compared to their combined event analysis (they first judge separately, then discuss together and come to a consensus on what range would be acceptable). The OAC presents their event report to the Tech Committee, who determines if a Letter of Warning or something more severe is warranted. At non-Championship events, this report comes in later but at Worlds and the OWG, the OAC has to complete everything after each segment is completed and forward to the Tech Committee. For Singles and Pairs the OAC at the OWG was a three person team consisting of a three experienced ISU judges. Based on my sources, for Singles and Pairs it was Canada, Russia and the Czech Republic, who then consulted with along with members of the Singles and Pairs Technical Committee from Italy (Fabio Bianchetti) and Japan (Yukiko Okabe) who were present at the event. My source didn't know who was there for Ice Dance.

Huang was foolish in the short program, especially with his marks for China #2 - absolutely non-sensical. Ms. Chen really messed up in the free skate and there is clearly no rationale for the multitude of +3s she awarded. And as other have pointed out, there are LOTS of other marks that are questionable, not limited to but including the Canadian dance judge, the Spanish judge on Men's, and the Russian judge on Pairs who tried to keep T/M on the podium. Also, the Australian judge on Pairs who clearly knows NOTHING and thought the top 4 teams were all the freaking same in terms of PCs.

And no matter how many times you say in MAXSwagg, Lorrie Parker's judging was no where near the blatant bias of Huang or Chen, or even the Spanish judge in the short who really, really tried to get Javi on top. You're flogging a dead horse, repeatedly.

And while they weren't suspended, my source confirms there were quite a few "Letters of Warning" issued, including the Spanish Judge in Men, the French judge in Pairs, the Italian judge in Pairs, the Canadian judge in Ice Dance, and the Turkish judge in Ice Dance.

I believe the suspensions are warranted, and that there should have been a few more as others have pointed out. I think Mr. Huang is very, very lucky to only get 1 year, especially after the Letter of Warning from the GP Final which called out this exact same thing.

That’s your opinion, which counts for as little or as much as mine. Many probably agree with you, just as I know many agree with me.

 

[Dobre]

Obviously, national bias is an issue. I think if you go through the judges one by one, we'd all find that many of them placed one of their own athletes higher than the rest of the panel. (A phenomenon that I find eye-rolling but that doesn't bug me nearly as much as when judges score their top athlete's major competition low. And we all know that the major competition isn't always the team at the very top but is often someone else in the running for silver or bronze or even the top ten or the cut to make the free).

All the dance judges at the Olympics who judged both the SD and FD portion of the event had at least one team whom he/she placed higher than all the other judges on the panel in at least one portion of the event. Plus three of the dance judges who only judged half of the event.

Canada-W&P SD (3rd) FD (3rd)
Russia- B&S SD (3rd)
Ukraine-N&N SD (15th)
Turkey-A&U SD (15th)
Slovakia-M&C FD (17th)
Japan-M&R FD (10th)
United States-C&B FD (7th)

Note:
-China only judged in the FD, and since the Chinese team was eliminated during the SD, the Chinese judge had no opportunity to place them highest.
-Two more judges, France & Poland, only escaped the list above because one other judge matched their high score.

With national bias being so common, it does seem kind of crazy that two judges from only one country are being called to the carpet.

But maybe it's a harbinger for the future.

It does seem like I've read in several different places over the past couple months that national bias is being looked at now rather than simply judging outside the corridor. And while I totally agree that the Turkish & Belarussian judge from Golden Spin should have had longer suspensions, I'd like to think the longer suspensions here are a positive move.

A heads up that, folks, we do see what you're doing & it isn't OK. Stop pushing or you too may end up at the top of that list.

 

[Meoima]

Interesting how all those who were feeling so strong against Russia’s doping cheating are not feeling as strong about western judges cheating.

Bomb! Of course the US judge won’t be investigated. I am afraid if she were Russian and did the same for her countrymen, people would have been gagaing and demanding some suspension.

 

[Erin]

With national bias being so common, it does seem kind of crazy that two judges from only one country are being called to the carpet.

Well, only two judges from one country were suspended, but it seems that many other judges were warned, which I hope is a positive sign. I also hope that if those judges that were warned don't shape up, they are shipped out with a suspension that has teeth, like Huang got.

 

[overedge]

@clairecloutier Given that one of the judges was already "on warning" after a previous event, IMO any penalty other than a lifetime ban for that judge is too light.

 

[giselle23]

Nathan may have been nearly out of the running after the SP but Parker's scores for the FS would have had him ultimately with a silver medal. Since Parker wasn't on the panel for the SP, I summed the SP score with what Parker's scores for the top 6 men's free skates and these are the results I get:

YH: 111.68+ 196.76 = 308.44
NC: 82.27 + 225.41 = 307.68
SU: 104.17 + 202.84 = 307.01
JF: 107.58 + 199.21= 306.79
BJ: 103.32+185.50 = 288.82
VZ: 84.53 + 199.29 = 283.82

When you look at what her free skate scoring was compared to actual scores, this is what you see.
Her FS scores had Nathan +9 above his actual score.
Her FS scores for Shoma and Javier were within 2 points of their actuals.
Her FS score for Yuzuru and Boyang were ~ -9 points below their actual scores.
To throw it in there, her FS score for the other US men would have had Adam +10 points and Vincent +7 points above their actual FS score

We can argue that she didn't suppress every skaters scores (maybe that would've been too obvious if she did this to everyone), but there's a marked difference with her score for the US men and her own scores would've placed Nathan on the podium.

But she wasn't the only judge. No judge can assume that a generous score (not just for Chen, by the way) will apply across the board. And your skewed/hypothetical analysis shows a razor-thin margin between first and third place (and also between second and fourth place), showing how difficult it would be to affect the results even if a single judge were trying to do so.

 

[Deleted member 74551]

This has been fascinating reading. Is there any sense at all that the ISU would like to crack down on the judging or is it just surface level investigations of the ones that can’t be ignored?

Just for the database, there’s a claim on GS that two of the judges on the OAC for Ice Dance were Molina (FRA) and Engel (USA). I don’t know how reliable that info is but they did have the names of the Canadian and Russian judges who were present for Singles and Pairs so that matches up.

ETA: I know they will tend to be the more experienced judges and it’s much better than nothing, but is it the most failsafe way to oversee the judging to have those on the OAC from federations highly likely to medal in those events?

 

[overedge]

How about the French judge, Anthony Leroy? In his world, S/M were only 0.1 better than S/H and 0.4 better than D/R. And in his opinion, S/M's PCS at the GPF was 77.2, but with a better performance two months later, the PCS was 74. Somehow they managed to make the composition and interpretation worse without changing a thing!

The quality of the interpretation can vary between performances. I don't see a change in that mark as being indicative of something sleazy going on.

 

[starrynight]

I thought the Canadian ice dance judge (and federation president), Leanna Caron, should have been suspended immediately after the original dance, placing Virtue and Moir first and Weave and Poje second. In what universe is that even remotely reasonable, and what explanation exists other than national bias? This looks way worse, on so many levels, than anything China, Sharon Rogers, or Lorrie Parker did.

At the same time, to be devil's advocate... at Worlds when V/M had effectively retired again and they were Canada #1, Weaver/Poje's FD score rose by 7 points and they won bronze. So it's interesting to ask at what point it was wrong to score them at that level. When it's all agreed amongst the judges beforehand that a certain team is in or out of political favour? I honestly do wonder if these things are all agreed upon, because how else do all the judges get the memo that they are going to change a team's fortunes over night.

On an unrelated note, this is how the PCS surge happens with the young ladies skaters. Once a few judges start doing it, everyone else has to keep up not to be outliers.

 

[Orm Irian]

Also, the Australian judge on Pairs who clearly knows NOTHING and thought the top 4 teams were all the freaking same in terms of PCs.

I suspect that could be inexperience as much as anything. When was the last time Australia had a pair anywhere as high up the rankings as Alexandrovskaya/Windsor to help our pairs judges get in their judging experience?

But that bit of defensiveness aside, thanks for your post; it's good to get a sense of how things work overall when you don't have the time to dig through all the docs on the ISU website or a sense of where to start looking. It's also helpful to know that letters of warning etc do get issued without being publicised. I think I'd prefer it if they were made public, for the sake of transparency, but I'm sure that would cause a range of issues with federations/skaters contesting scores and placements till kingdom come, so they'd have to put procedures in place to deal with that first...

 

[overedge]

IMO any disciplinary action, including letters of warning, should be public - not necessarily the content of the action, some of which could be confidential, but some public notification that the action was taken. The ISU is terrible about this, and it just adds to the negative perception that the sport is crooked and the results are fixed.

I don't see publicizing discipline as leading to a flood of related complaints. It's an issue between the official/judge and the ISU. The ISU is completely entitled to disregard complaints from other parties, and there's the option of going to the Court for Arbitration in Sport if someone thinks an issue affects them but they aren't being fairly heard or included.

 

[ChiquitaBanana]

I thought the Canadian ice dance judge (and federation president), Leanna Caron, should have been suspended immediately after the original dance, placing Virtue and Moir first and Weave and Poje second. In what universe is that even remotely reasonable, and what explanation exists other than national bias? This looks way worse, on so many levels, than anything China, Sharon Rogers, or Lorrie Parker did.

I do think there are unique circumstances with China's suspension: the judge twice marked up his own skaters while marking down their closest competitors, in close succession, in a really obvious way. In terms of cheating, this is L4. But why is the standard this high? Let's suspend the L3 cheaters like Leanna Caron (who should be excluded on account of her role as Skate Canada president, but Skate Canada lobbied against that change), too.

But ordinals are not what the system is about. The real question is how big of a lead she gave W/P in front of their competitors. I am lazy enough not to go back to the protocols. How much was it?

 

[Marco]

Question 1: will the sanction still have happened if the Chinese judges scored outside the corridor but not to the immediate benefit of Chinese skaters? i.e. were the ISU only alarmed about the questionable judging because there seemed to have been a motive? Does the ISU have mechanism or criteria to spot out the Vanessa Rileys and Joe Inmans of the current crop?

Question 2: is it procedurally fair that the guilt of the Chinese judges were determined by the opinion of the other judges at the panel? the Chinese judges were only isolated BECAUSE they marked outside the corridor vis-a-vis the other judges, so by definition the other judges would already have disagreed with the scores of said Chinese judges.

 

[Willin]

@Marco
I think one of the reasons the ISU was out to punish them was the increased media focus on biased judging. I think BuzzFeed was the first one to write an article about it before the Olympics, but certainly they weren't the only ones to pick up the story. Heck, the skatingscores twitter account had a whole series of tweets tracking things suggesting political bias - not just from the Chinese judges but from the US, Canadian, and French ones as well.
Personally I think the Chinese ones got punished because it was the most blatant - if you look at what the US judge did in men's and the Canadian judge did in dance, it does seem biased, but you could make an argument that each mark was justifiable by some measure, if on the more lenient side.
That is, judges may give a range of say +1 to +3 on GOE and 8.00-9.00 on skating skills for a given skater. While a single judge may give marks in that range, the biased judge (ie. US or Canada) may give all +3 and all 9.00 on skating skills. But, given that at least one or two other panel members agreed with those marks on that element, it may just seem that the judge was technically correct, if more lenient. In fact, in the Pair's event the report admits that the Chinese pair's score being all +3 and good PCS could seem biased if it wasn't justified by other judges' agreement. If that pair's judge hadn't tanked Savchenko and Massot below what was agreed upon by the other judges as appropriate, that judge wouldn't have likely gotten into any trouble.

I also think it was fair to use the other judges on the panel. As people constantly point out on this forum, there aren't enough high level international judges (and therefore experts in judging those elements) to make an entirely unbiased panel. I would imagine they brought in non-Pyeongchang judges as well, but having the Pyeongchang judging panel would help them understand what was happening at the event and what could be seen by the judges at the time of judging. That was also only one factor - they looked at the rules for each mark compared to the marks given (ie. the bullet points they brought up for the men's event) and used that in conjunction with the expert opinions.

 

[misskarne]

I wonder if part of the issue could be a perception that Huang effectively "thumbed his nose" at the ISU by so flagrantly ignoring the warning given only a few weeks before, and thus the ISU wanted the punishment to be fitted to that.

 

[Marco]

I also think it was fair to use the other judges on the panel. As people constantly point out on this forum, there aren't enough high level international judges (and therefore experts in judging those elements) to make an entirely unbiased panel. I would imagine they brought in non-Pyeongchang judges as well, but having the Pyeongchang judging panel would help them understand what was happening at the event and what could be seen by the judges at the time of judging. That was also only one factor - they looked at the rules for each mark compared to the marks given (ie. the bullet points they brought up for the men's event) and used that in conjunction with the expert opinions.

Although, if 8 judges gave an element a +2 and one judge gave it a 0 or -1, those 8 judges are not going to suddenly say, hey I agree with the 0 or -1 now. They will stick with their +2s. The same for "good height" or "excellent ice coverage".

It really isn't about merit. Instead of finding another group of independent judges to assess all the criteria / bullets, they used a group of judges who had essentially already voiced their disagreements with their scores as evidence against the odd one out. I find that very weird. They are essentially asking a bunch of "laurel" people to prove that "yanny" was wrong.

 

[Orm Irian]

Instead of finding another group of independent judges to assess all the criteria / bullets, they used a group of judges who had essentially already voiced their disagreements with their scores as evidence against the odd one out. I find that very weird.

I don't think they had the option of bringing in judges who weren't on the original panel to comment, because that would have effectively constituted re-scoring the performances (because they would have had to decide what scores they would have given and why, and then compared them to those of the judges being assessed), and the rulings specifically state that that isn't allowed.

 

[alchemy void]

They are essentially asking a bunch of "laurel" people to prove that "yanny" was wrong.

Leave Medvedeva out of this!

 

[bardtoob]

I am bias towards Lorrie because she called it like her eyes told her, giving both the right scores AND ORDINALS, on one very important skate to me, when the skater was absolutely not politically favored, did not have Richard Callaghan for his coach, Sandra Beszic for a choreographer, Vera Wang as his costume designer, his ex-boyfriend or mom on the selection committee, blah, blah, blah ... And we rarely even know generic judge #9 by name.

https://youtu.be/0lH9mg_ZneA

Wait and hear Uncle Dick commentate on the scores.

 

[Vagabond]

Judges are supposed to mark what they see in real time, with a limited ability to review elements but not other parts of the program. It isn't feasible for anyone who wasn't on the panel at the time to do this.

 

[gkelly]

And when did they start using placements in IJS?

In fact, we know exactly when they stopped.

In ice dance it's different, because judges could assume that all the top teams are aiming for the same base value.

But in freestyle, judges don't really have time, or usually the memory and mental math skills, to keep track of the base values of all the elements (including guessing/estimating the likely levels on the non-jump elements) and the factored GOE values and keep a running tab in their heads of what the skater's TES is likely to be and balance that with the PCS they award (easier to calculate for men than for disciplines with fractional factors), and then to remember what estimated score they gave a previous skater, especially an hour later, in order to precisely place other skaters above or below.

At most, if they're trying to manipulate the scores, they can intentionally give their home country skaters the highest possible GOEs and PCS they think they can get away with for each element/component and rival skaters the lowest they could justify for each, and hope it falls out to help their preferred skater(s). But they might be just as surprised as anyone else to learn how their scores combined with the tech panel calls/scale of values to produce pseudo-ordinals.

And of course, if they have unconscious preferences or biases, they might be scoring some skaters higher or others lower than the rest of the panel without realizing it, believing they are well in line.

Judges are supposed to mark what they see in real time, with a limited ability to review elements but not other parts of the program. It isn't feasible for anyone who wasn't on the panel at the time to do this.

That's what the officials assessment committee is there for, right?

They're there to assess the officials, not the skaters. The scores they give have no effect on the medal results, so they have no motivation to manipulate their own scores outside what they believe is justifiable. And don't they discuss acceptable scoring ranges among themselves before analyzing what the judges did?

Of course the individuals on the OAC all come from their own federations and have their own personal preferences and positive feelings toward their own countries' skaters, and judges, just like any human being. But they don't have much incentive or scope to manipulate their own scores.

 

[overedge]

there are so many judges that need to be reviewed where the problem is really institutional and part of the culture of skating. No one individual or individuals are really at fault for the judging issues our sport has because it’s a part of the “game”.

I agree with you about the problem being institutional - but institutions don't make decisions, individuals within institutions make decisions. The individuals in the ISU who didn't, or don't, take crooked judging seriously and who won't do anything significant or meaningful to end it are definitely at fault.

 

[Marco]

I don't think they had the option of bringing in judges who weren't on the original panel to comment, because that would have effectively constituted re-scoring the performances (because they would have had to decide what scores they would have given and why, and then compared them to those of the judges being assessed), and the rulings specifically state that that isn't allowed.

But it isn't re-scoring for the purpose of affecting the actual result of the competition, but to assess whether a judge could have reasonably arrived at those GOEs and PCS without being bias. What is the point of asking judges who had already judged differently?

 

[gkelly]

But it isn't re-scoring for the purpose of affecting the actual result of the competition, but to assess whether a judge could have reasonably arrived at those GOEs and PCS without being bias.

That's what the members of the Officials Assessment Commission are there for, judging along live and in real time.

"Re-scoring" by experts watching on video and already knowing the results will never be as accurate an assessment.

 

[sleepingsleeping]

YUZURU 2016-2017 2017-2018
FS PCS

97.08：ISU World Figure Skating Championships 2017 　no mistake
94.34：ISU Four Continents Championships 2017
94.38：ISU GP Rostelecom Cup 2017
93.56：ISU World Team Trophy 2017
92.52：ISU GP NHK Trophy 2016
92.36：ISU Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final 2016
89.50：2017 Autumn Classic International
88.12：ISU GP 2016 Skate Canada International
86.60：2016 Autumn Classic International

Olympic Games2018
YUZURU
FS PCS

98.00:Japan
97.50:Kazakhstan、Uzbekistan、Czech
96.50:RUSSIA、China、Latvia
94.50:USA
94.00:Israel

Yuzuru made two big mistakes. The judge who gave PCS higher than Helsinki World is strange. I think the USA judge is making better judgment than the Japanese judge. It is unfair to give 10.00 to a performance with big mistake.

 

[sleepingsleeping]

https://www.jsfresults.com/data/fs/pdfs/comm/comm2089.pdf

Additional Remarks
Program Components
As a guideline the score ten (10) should not be awarded for any of the components in a program containing a Fall or Serious error.

What is "Serious error"?

REDUCTIONS FOR ERRORS

Fall -3
Landing on two feet in a jump -3
Stepping out of landing in a jump -2 to-3

From the rule, "Landing on two feet in a jump" and "Stepping out of landing in a jump" should be considered as "Serious error".

https://www.isu.org/inside-single-p...ications-fs/17142-isu-communication-2168/file

Additional Remarks
Program Components
In a program containing a Fall or a Serious error the score ten (10) shall not be awarded for any of the Components.
In a program containing Falls or Serious errors the score nine-fifty (9.5) or higher should not be awarded for Skating Skills, Transitions and Composition and the score nine (9.0) or higher should not be awarded for Performance and Interpretation.

According to this rule, the upper limit of PCS when there are multiple serious errors is 90.50.

The Japanese judge gave 9.75, 9.75, 9.75, 10.00, 9.75 PCS to the performance of HANYU which had multiple mistakes. This is a high score of 98.00. I think that this is an incorrect judgment from the rule.

I think that it is not enough to discuss only the distance from the average judge in thinking about this problem.

 

[Willin]

@sleepingsleeping So it’s not that I don’t agree that a 10 is unwarranted based on those rules (although I can’t recall an error, I haven’t watched it since the Olympics), it is a bit strange to have a new member show up solely to post that information.

As your post said, that is a guideline. Guidelines can be broken if appropriate. I think it was completely warranted in the case of Hanyu’s Olympic performance - it was truly a stunning skate the likes of which we rarely see.

 

[DreamSkates]

p. 13 of the document: the ISU Official Assessment Commission finds the Alleged Offender scored Jin higher in SKATING SKILLS than Patrick Chan!

Moral of the story: if when you're going to overscore "your" skater, please be slightly smarter/subtler about it than Ms. Chen was.

Wow, I can't imagine being that ... (fill in the blank). He must have been under great pressure from the Chinese government. Doubt he would just do that on his own.