Judging adds controversy, confusion

"Where is it in hockey that you're going to get points just for shots on goal?" Elvis Stojko complained at U.S. nationals last month. " ... Now you can still make a mistake. You can fall down and get up and you got points for falling down? That's like getting a medal for being in 10th place."

He's right. There should be no reward for a jump you don't land, just as there is no point for a shot you miss.

The judges also must be identified with their scores as they were in the past. This not only provides accountability, it adds old-fashioned geopolitical intrigue.

The point system must also be modified so that there is a top score people can readily recognize, like the old 6.0. Whether it is 6.0 or 60.0 or 600.0 doesn't matter, just so there is a top possible score people instantly know.

Was Thursday's scoring fair? Yeah, probably. Kim was excellent but not at her absolute best -- she said she was just relieved to have the Olympic pressure over -- and Sotnikova was very good. Did Sotnikova also benefit from skating in Russia? Sure. But there is a home-field advantage in every sport. LeBron doesn't get called for traveling in Miami. Clayton Kershaw gets a bigger strike zone at Dodger Stadium. It's just the nature of sport.

There is always controversy in every sport, and there certainly always will be in a subjective one like figure skating. But the key is to have a better scoring system so that the controversy makes people want to watch the sport rather than throw up their hands in confusion.

-- This embed didnt make it to copy for story id = 22609740.
  • 1
  • |
  • 2
Join the Discussion
You are using an outdated version of Internet Explorer. Please click here to upgrade your browser in order to comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus
You Might Also Like...