Considering the overwhelming response to my article
on the half-point, I think this is an issue with which
many people in dressage identify and would like to
see implemented. National and international riders,
trainers, judges, a few Official judges (“O” judges)
and marketing communications experts have written to
me in support of the idea.
Since the last article, I
have had the expert input from other fields who have
spent considerable time
and effort in calculating the theoretical accuracy
of integer scoring versus half points and analysing
the actual results of over 1,800 Grand Prix tests.
I will incorporate their conclusions in the discussion
below. But first, I think it is fair to give an airing
to the very few but influential dissenters.
Dissenters
Several O judges had concerns and the more substantive
were:
that it would just encourage the less experienced
judges to give a “safe 6.5” rather than
to take the “risk” and go for a 7.
Even
worse, it would stop the awarding of 9s and 4s.
To
improve accuracy we should try adding 1 or 2 more
judges around the area.
The better judges use a “big 6” or
a “small 7” anyway. This is a sort of carry
forward system whereby a judge will give a 7 for a “small
7” and on one of the next movements give a 6
if it was also “small 7”. The same idea
for a “big 6”.
In Germany they use decimal
point scoring for the freestyle and this results
in lower marks.
My response
In my conversations with several O judges, they seem
to fall into two camps, those that are not mathematical
and feel that it would stop the higher points being
awarded and those that are mathematical and see that
this would bring greater accuracy to the sport.
Psychology
First, it is worth looking at the psychology of riders
and judges – we have different motivations:
Senior
judges want other judges to give riders a clear statement
of what they believe the mark should
be and be brave enough to say “it is a choice
between a 7 or an 8 and it really is more an 8 so
I will give it!” I can understand this and
I believe they are right as a judge training other
judges.
Riders want judges to give a clear statement
too, but we are not so concerned about then being
brave and reaching for the higher mark. We just want
to know
what we have earned. If they could say it was a 6.7
(and if normally our mark was a 6.5) then we would
be delighted, because we would know that we had made
progress. It is too far from a 6 to a 7 and most
judges, when in doubt, give the lower mark.
Detailed response
To look at these points in more detail:
The safe mark would become a 6.5. If the movement
is a 6.5 then give a 6.5. If it is a 7, then give
a 7. The idea is to be accurate, not generous or
mean.
It is a lot easier to take the “risk” and
go from 6.5 to 7 than from 6 to 7.
But taking the
point at face value, do less experienced judges take
the risk and round up to a 7? I don’t
really believe it – it is a lot easier and safer
for a judge to give a 6 rather than a 7 when they are
in doubt.
It would stop the awarding of 9s and 4s. This is really the same point as above – it
is about accuracy not risk, this is a sport not a
casino.
If
it is between an 8 and a 9 then give an 8.5. If it
is nearer the 9 give a 9. A 9 is closer to an 8.5
than an 8 and a lot less risky decision to take,
if they
believe they have to take risks.
More judges around
the arena will make the average more accurate. Well,
actually it won’t. As I
will explain below, the basic accuracy of our system
is just under 1%. As I showed last time, when you get
your score of 64%, it could have been anywhere between
69% or 59%. And on average it was probably somewhere
between 63% or 65%. Having more judges using an inaccurate
system does not make it more accurate.
What it will do,
is reduce the influence of one rogue judge who randomly
gives too high and too low marks
distorting the placings. If the judge were consistent
in awarding higher marks for all competitors then they
would not have a positive or negative influence – it
is when they are high for some competitors and low
for others that they distort the test results.
Actually,
our senior judges are very good and, within the accuracy
afforded by the system, most of the time
get it spot on. Rogue judges are not really our problem
so why to fix this when we have a real problem in system
accuracy?
The Big 6 or Little 7 concept. Many of the
more experienced judges I spoke to felt that they
already had a “big 6” or a “small 7” and
they would then adjust up or down on the next movement
to compensate. This requires more explanation: when
a judge sees something that is not quite a 7 but is
not a 6 they give a 7 but they remember that it is
a “small 7”. On the next movement that
is a small 7 they then give a 6. This make the average
6.5 for each movement. So what they are doing is
mentally awarding half-points!
This sort of works
some of the time for the more experienced
judges and I see this a lot but it has downsides:
It
reduces transparency – when I see a
rider get an 8 for one pirouette and a 7 for
the next and
they both look about the same to me, I wonder
what the judges are doing. Even though I know
they are
probably doing the Big 6 Little 7 thing it
does not help transparency
in the sport. To the amateur rider or even
layman, who we are trying to attract to the sport
we are
really not helping with this trick.
They should mark
what they see – there is
no reason why we should be restricted to integer scoring
and the judges would find it a lot easier to give half
points. I really don’t see the downside
Real
life means that it is not always possible
to carry the half point forward.Something happens
in the test and there is a couple of problems and
the judge forgets that he or she “owes” a
7 for the next big 6. I am told by several judges
that
this happens quite often in the many tests.
Can every
judge do this? In reality, no. Most inexperienced
judges are so worried about getting it wrong or working
out what the mark should be that they don’t
really have time to think about carrying anything
forward.
At the top of the sport, the national and international
judges can do this. That is why they are at the top
of the sport. I believe it behoves them to give the
tools to their less experienced colleagues that they
take for granted.
Decimal scoring results in lower
marks for the freestyle – the implication is that
half-point scoring will result in lower scores. This
point is
also saying that we prefer to be inaccurate because
it enables us to give higher scores. As a competitor,
I want accuracy. I don’t want the gift
of higher scores, I want to earn my points.
Anyway, I can see how this happens in the kur. This
is because the artistic mark is only 5 “movements” and
accounts for 50% of the total mark so each movement
has a very large coefficient. With decimal scoring
the result would be accurate – whatever you get
is what you really should have had. With half point
scoring, each movement is rounded to the nearest 0.5.
And each 0.5 accounts for at least 0.5% of the total
test. So if the judges round up on the artistic score
then it will add 2.5% to the final result compared
with decimal scoring.
Greater analytical analysis
Mathematical analysis
It is clear that such a change needs this kind of
debate and investigation, following this the idea will
be tried or rejected. To further support this proposal
I asked a mathematician at Imperial College, London,
to give his view on our current system. His view was
extremely interesting.
He analysed our current scoring
system and pointed out a possible perverse result
of integer scoring.
Take two horses, Horse A is a 6.4 mover for all 36
moves and Horse B is a 5.7 mover for 34 moves and
a 6.6 mover for the other two.
Clearly, horse A is the better horse of the two and
should score more highly. However, when you work out
their score for a Grand Prix test, the result is amazing:
Horse A scores 6.4 at all 36 moves and
hence is awarded a mark of 6 for every move and gets
an average
of 6.0 or 60%. Horse B scores 5.7 at 34 moves and
6.6 at the two remaining moves which happen to have
a coefficient
of two. The judges would award 34 times the mark 6
and twice the mark 7. The average is 6.083 which amount
to a total mark of 60.83%
So Horse B would win by 0.83%
If the precision
of the individual scores would be decimal, then
the correct scores would be
Horse A 64% and Horse B 57.75%. This is the problem
with integer scoring!
FEI Dressage Committee
So, to summarise:
Several mathematicians, including theoreticians,
statisticians and experimentalists have shown that
we can easily improve the accuracy of our system
by using half points
Implicitly, experienced
judges do it anyway
It will improve transparency
and this is very important
It has a wide
base of support from riders, trainers, judges and
communications experts
There is
now considerable information available that I believe
warrants further investigation by the FEI
Dressage Committee and/or the International Dressage
Judges' Club.
For fun, please vote For or Against and
we will publish the results!
All images and text on this website are copyrighted. Reproduction is strictly prohibited without permission/payment
All photos are copyrighted Astrid Appels, Dirk Caremans, Barbara Schnell, Mary Phelps, or David Charles