The new system is heavy on math and employs two sets of judges, an A panel and a B panel, to do the computations. Two A-panel judges determine the difficulty and technical content of each routine. Six B-panel judges score routines for execution, artistry, composition and technique.
The A-panel judges’ scorecards start at zero, and points are added to give credit for requirements, individual skills and skills performed in succession.
The A panel counts only the gymnast’s 10 most difficult skills, which are ranked from easiest to most difficult (from A to G for women and from A to F for men). An A-level skill, like a back handspring in the floor exercise, is worth one-tenth of a point. The value increases by one-tenth of a point for each subsequent level, meaning a B-level skill is worth two-tenths and an F-level is worth six-tenths.
Required elements add a maximum of 2.5 points to the score. Extra points, either one-tenth or two-tenths, are given for stringing skills together.
Each judge adds the marks, then the two reach a consensus. Elite gymnasts usually have a difficulty score in the 6’s; the toughest routines generally have difficulty scores in the high 6’s or 7’s.
The system rewards difficulty. But the mistakes are also more costly.
Which is where the judges on the B panel come in. They rate the execution, artistry and technique of a routine, starting at a score of 10.0 and deducting for errors.
This score, called an execution score, is where the perfect 10.0 still exists. But reaching it is unlikely.
A slightly bent knee can be a deduction of one-tenth of a point. A more drastically bent knee can cost three-tenths. In this system, the deductions jump from one-tenth to three-tenths to five-tenths. A fall costs a gymnast eight-tenths. In the old system, a fall was a five-tenths deduction.
The highest and the lowest of the judges’ scores are thrown out. The remaining four scores are averaged to obtain the final B-panel score.
On the scoreboard, the final score appears in big numbers, just above the gymnast’s marks for difficulty and execution.
Apart from my grumble about the level of 'math', it's an interesting way of doing the scoring.
I wonder if this could work for conferences: replace 'degree of difficulty' by 'hardness of problem, general hotness of the area, etc', and then you could deduct points for things like
- More than two digits after the decimal point in the approximation ratio
- exponent of running time requires the \frac environment
- More than two parameters in the running time
- Gratuitous use of O() notation to hide dependencies you don't like (yes I'm talking to you, high dimensional clustering folk)
- Requiring your winged pigs to be large in dimension, have extra glitter on the wing tips, and carry golden harps in order to make the horses take off (Hi there, complexity denizens)