From: rachele@cs.rice.edu (Rachele Harless)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.olympics
Subject: Re: Gymnastics: Instant Replay for Judging
Date: 21 Aug 1992 22:12:16 GMT
Organization: Rice University, Houston

In article <claypool.714419998@pico> claypool@pico.cs.umn.edu (Mark Claypool) writes:
>My instant replay idea received some praise and several criticisms.
>Since I started it, I want to push it a step further by answering the
>complaints.  Let me paraphrase the opposing ideas and respond to them:

[some stuff throughout deleted]

>   "Technical execution is only one part of gymnastic routines.  There is
>   also form, style, ... by showing off their instant replay prowess, T.V.
>   makes technique look all important."
>
>Don't use instant replays to judge the whole routine; just the
>technical parts.  Granted, technical execution is emphasized by T.V.,
>but it is one part on which a gymnastic routine is judged.  And that
>part should be judged as accurately as possible.  Instant replay gives
>us this greater accuracy.

It might be a nice idea to attend several meets live in person to
realize how much execution is emphasized by TV...

>   "Using instant replays will take too long.  Especially for the longer
>   routines."

>As for time ... quick math.  Replays take one minute (impose this
>limit, if you like), tops.  So a meet of forty gymnasts gives us forty
>extra minutes.  Since meets are 4+ hours (right?), this isn't that
>long. Plus, isn't there some lag time given to the gymnasts between
>competitors? Use some of this for more accurate scoring.

The place where one would most want to use an instant replay is in the
Worlds and Olympics, because this is where everything is scrutinized
to the highest degree.  At the Worlds, there are well over 200 females
(and more males), but let's just say 200 girls.  Each girl performs
eight routines in prelims (1600 routines).  In the all-around, 36
perform 4 more (+144).  Then there are event finals (+32 routines).
This is 1776 female routines.  This is means 2664 men's routines.
4440 routines total.  At one minute per routine, that makes 74 hours.
Let's say just 30 seconds per routine... that makes still 37 hours.

Actually though, think about it... if judges are allowed instant reply
to judge, then they should be allowed instant replay for disputes, and
that would take just ages...

There isn't any lag time between competitors, from what I've observed.
As soon as the judges are finished, the head judge signals the next
gymnast to go.

>   "Too expensive.  All that high tech. equipment must cost a lot."
>
>Maybe.  Probably.  But the gymnastic world must spend a bundle every
>year; gymnasiums (stadiums?) cost a lot, advertising takes some money,
>qualified judges cannot be cheap, and the gymnastic equipment must be
>very expensive.  The replay equipment would not be too sizable a chunk
>out of the budget. And if it is?  Save up.  Allocate a bit of money
>each year. In five years, release the wonderful new tools on the
>gymnastics sport. Or, better yet, find a company which is doing video
>research. Chances are, they will donate the equipment (with certain
>rights, advertisements, etc.)  for free.

The replay equipment would cost some money, true, but the extra time
to rent the stadium would be the primary concern, I think.  Gymnastics
is a relatively poor sport.  Two examples: the Worlds are being broken
up now, with different competitions (team, all-around, events) in
different years simply because it is too expensive to hold the
competitions the old way (with all three competitions every two
years).  There will be a "traditional Worlds" every pre-Olympic year.
Second example: they are considering dropping compulsories
all-together at the international level.  Only the very dedicated
enjoy to watch them, and it costs too much money in terms of training
time and stadium time.

>   "Use it to hold judges accountable.  Use it for complaints.  Use
>    it for score reversals."
>
>So ... using the replay, reprimand a judge or reverse a call if there
>was a mistake.  Sounds good on the surface, but used this way, instant
>replays cause more overrules and punishments.  Bad news.  Any benefit
>in scoring consistency would be out-weighed by the damage to the
>judges' credibility.  We want to increase the confidence in judges,
>not decrease it.

So... from my perspective, maybe some judges *deserve* to have damage
done to their credibility.  If they know that their judging is being
judged, maybe they won't give in as much to bias.  Perhaps we can also
award judges for a job well-done, in addition to reprimanding some.

>Ok.  Two more of my cents.

Hey Mark, I'd say I'm up to about $10 by now.  =)

Rachele
Xref: sparky rec.sport.olympics:4413 soc.culture.indian:28122 rec.sport.hockey.field:539 rec.sport.cricket:14303