From: europa@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (r.j.capik)
Subject: Re: Women's Olympic Gymnastics
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:31:29 GMT
Keywords: Team Selection, Judges


%% Sorry, I lost part of the references list %%
>In article <1992Jul27.174928.28445@cbnews.cb.att.com>, tcr@cbnews.cb.att.com (toby.c.rabold) writes:
>|> 
>|> TO:	USA OLYMPIC TEAM SUPPORTERS
>|> 
>|> FROM:	Kim Kelly/Parkettes National Gymnastics Training Center
>|> 
>|> DATE: 	July 27, 1992
>|> 
>|> Kim Kelly placed 6th at the US Olympic Trials. Kim performed
>|> her FLAWLESS routines on July 9th in Florida in a required
>|> selection process. Following this performance Kim was removed
>|> from the team due to a subjective vote by the coaches of each
>|> gymnast and one USGF official. The USGF by-laws, article 8.01 (B)
>|> states: the selection process shall be based primarily on current
>|> objective performance-related criteria, eliminating any reliance
>|> on subjective criteria.
>
The above statement is very very hard to evaluate without more
insider knowledge. However, I do have some judging experience
in another sport so I think my views may have some value here.
First off, article 8.01(B) seems to be lacking some definitions.
From the above wording, if the officials at the Florida "event"
did a numerical evaluation then they are in the clear. There is 
no question that the Florida event was "current", and the team
was selected based on "performances" at that "event". If numbers
were written, then the letter of the above "law" was followed.
Problem is, "current objective performance-related criteria"
seems to be subject to interpretation.

NOW, from my experience as a judge, I have found that coaches
do not generally score performances the same as judges. Coaches
tend to score based on performance of a skill as compaired to
the way THEY coach competitors to perform the skill. Each coach
has a slightly different style so they evaluate/grade performances
by other coaches athletes based, for the most part, only on their
yardstick. 

Judges, on the other hand, don't look at skills from a coaches
perspective. Judges look at a more idealized composit of the
skill. An idealization that has come from years of looking at
many variations of styles from many different coaches.
[It should be noted here, that viewing one style too much
can lead to a bias for that style. This can be a major
source of local/regional/national bias.]

My main point here is that the objective scores given by the
coaches at the Florida "event" MAY not have ranked the competitors
the same way that an international judges panel would have ranked
them in the same "event". Then too, they may have ranked the athletes
exactly as the judges would have. [but I'll bet the raw scores wouldn't
look the same]
I often wonder what the scores would be like if the events were
judged by the coaches. Problem is, you can't judge  the people
you coach with out adding some bias.

Was Kim wronged? I don't know. It's not my sport, and I don't have
enough information to figure it out. But NBC did a real good job
of making the procedure look sleazy!

Ron Capik       AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel N.J.    europa@cbnewsh.att.com
US Ski Association
Eastern Freestyle Judges Chairman

Subject: Re: Women's Olympic Gymnastics
Newsgroups: rec.sport.olympics
Distribution: usa
Keywords: Team Selection, Judges



%% Sorry, I lost part of the references list %%
>In article <1992Jul27.174928.28445@cbnews.cb.att.com>, tcr@cbnews.cb.att.com (toby.c.rabold) writes:
>|> 
>|> TO:	USA OLYMPIC TEAM SUPPORTERS
>|> 
>|> FROM:	Kim Kelly/Parkettes National Gymnastics Training Center
>|> 
>|> DATE: 	July 27, 1992
>|> 
>|> Kim Kelly placed 6th at the US Olympic Trials. Kim performed
>|> her FLAWLESS routines on July 9th in Florida in a required
>|> selection process. Following this performance Kim was removed
>|> from the team due to a subjective vote by the coaches of each
>|> gymnast and one USGF official. The USGF by-laws, article 8.01 (B)
>|> states: the selection process shall be based primarily on current
>|> objective performance-related criteria, eliminating any reliance
>|> on subjective criteria.
>
The above statement is very very hard to evaluate without more
insider knowledge. However, I do have some judging experience
in another sport so I think my views may have some value here.
First off, article 8.01(B) seems to be lacking some definitions.
From the above wording, if the officials at the Florida "event"
did a numerical evaluation then they are in the clear. There is 
no question that the Florida event was "current", and the team
was selected based on "performances" at that "event". If numbers
were written, then the letter of the above "law" was followed.
Problem is, "current objective performance-related criteria"
seems to be subject to interpretation.

NOW, from my experience as a judge, I have found that coaches
do not generally score performances the same as judges. Coaches
tend to score based on performance of a skill as compaired to
the way THEY coach competitors to perform the skill. Each coach
has a slightly different style so they evaluate/grade performances
by other coaches athletes based, for the most part, only on their
yardstick. 

Judges, on the other hand, don't look at skills from a coaches
perspective. Judges look at a more idealized composit of the
skill. An idealization that has come from years of looking at
many variations of styles from many different coaches.
[It should be noted here, that viewing one style too much
can lead to a bias for that style. This can be a major
source of local/regional/national bias.]

My main point here is that the objective scores given by the
coaches at the Florida "event" MAY not have ranked the competitors
the same way that an international judges panel would have ranked
them in the same "event". Then too, they may have ranked the athletes
exactly as the judges would have. [but I'll bet the raw scores wouldn't
look the same]

Was Kim wronged? I don't know. It's not my sport, and I don't have
enough information to figure it out. But NBC did a real good job
of making the procedure look sleazy!

Ron Capik       AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel N.J.    europa@cbnewsh.att.com
US Ski Association
Eastern Freestyle Judges Chairman


I often wonder what the scores would be like if the events were
judged by the coaches. Problem is, you can't judge  the people
you coach with out adding some bias.
Subject: Re: Women's Olympic Gymnastics
Newsgroups: rec.sport.olympics
Distribution: usa
Keywords: Team Selection, Judges


%% Sorry, I lost part of the references list %%
>In article <1992Jul27.174928.28445@cbnews.cb.att.com>, tcr@cbnews.cb.att.com (toby.c.rabold) writes:
>|> 
>|> TO:	USA OLYMPIC TEAM SUPPORTERS
>|> 
>|> FROM:	Kim Kelly/Parkettes National Gymnastics Training Center
>|> 
>|> DATE: 	July 27, 1992
>|> 
>|> Kim Kelly placed 6th at the US Olympic Trials. Kim performed
>|> her FLAWLESS routines on July 9th in Florida in a required
>|> selection process. Following this performance Kim was removed
>|> from the team due to a subjective vote by the coaches of each
>|> gymnast and one USGF official. The USGF by-laws, article 8.01 (B)
>|> states: the selection process shall be based primarily on current
>|> objective performance-related criteria, eliminating any reliance
>|> on subjective criteria.
>
The above statement is very very hard to evaluate without more
insider knowledge. However, I do have some judging experience
in another sport so I think my views may have some value here.
First off, article 8.01(B) seems to be lacking some definitions.
From the above wording, if the officials at the Florida "event"
did a numerical evaluation then they are in the clear. There is 
no question that the Florida event was "current", and the team
was selected based on "performances" at that "event". If numbers
were written, then the letter of the above "law" was followed.
Problem is, "current objective performance-related criteria"
seems to be subject to interpretation.

NOW, from my experience as a judge, I have found that coaches
do not generally score performances the same as judges. Coaches
tend to score based on performance of a skill as compaired to
the way THEY coach competitors to perform the skill. Each coach
has a slightly different style so they evaluate/grade performances
by other coaches athletes based, for the most part, only on their
yardstick. 

Judges, on the other hand, don't look at skills from a coaches
perspective. Judges look at a more idealized composit of the
skill. An idealization that has come from years of looking at
many variations of styles from many different coaches.
[It should be noted here, that viewing one style too much
can lead to a bias for that style. This can be a major
source of local/regional/national bias.]

My main point here is that the objective scores given by the
coaches at the Florida "event" MAY not have ranked the competitors
the same way that an international judges panel would have ranked
them in the same "event". Then too, they may have ranked the athletes
exactly as the judges would have. [but I'll bet the raw scores wouldn't
look the same]
I often wonder what the scores would be like if the events were
judged by the coaches. Problem is, you can't judge  the people
you coach with out adding some bias.

Was Kim wronged? I don't know. It's not my sport, and I don't have
enough information to figure it out. But NBC did a real good job
of making the procedure look sleazy!

Ron Capik       AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel N.J.    europa@cbnewsh.att.com
US Ski Association
Eastern Freestyle Judges Chairman

Newsgroups: rec.sport.olympics