strapping wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2024 2:28 amIn my opinion,maybe wait for at least the 24th of this month??My original plan was to put it up in late June or early July, about a month out from the Olympics. The reason being that athlete allocation basically ends in late June, along with not wanting to clutter the thread.
If others also want to put it up earlier, I'm happy to do it earlier.
News
Re: News
Re: News
https://iwf.sport/2024/05/21/lima-previ ... pionships/
Two platforms at World Youth Championships: the right way to make competitions more interesting (and quicker)?
Two platforms at World Youth Championships: the right way to make competitions more interesting (and quicker)?
-
brian.degennaro
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2022 3:19 am
Re: News
I believe they experimented with this format in the '90s at one or several Junior World Championships. It makes more sense now especially with the given number of athletes competing in modern weightlifting.
Re: News
I haven't watched any sessions as I rarely watch or care about youth competitions unless I'm involved in some capacity.
Presumably the CMS being used is the IWF TIS, as the scoreboards are available via the IWF website.
If they are using the IWF TIS, I would imagine they have a separate network/setup for each of the sessions and separate TOs, marshals, competition management tables etc. Having a single team of marshals/comp management operate two separate networks seems unlikely as it would be too much workload under time pressure. Following from that, I would expect issues to be caused by something else.
I still don't fully know what happened at the World Cup regarding Bidani, whether it was a software error and/or a user error. My inclination is usually the latter, but a CMS *should* have a manual override in case of software issues.
I personally think having 3 referees is not a big problem but I dislike that the jury has 3 or 5 members and 0-2 reserve jury members.
The jury basically nullifies the 3 referees in the first place AND takes up more space/money than the referees themselves.
With only one referee, you have more risk of bias affecting results (by accident or deliberate). One referee per platform is fine for a club level competition, but not when money/politics/personal bias can influence decisions. We already saw that happen with the Press before 1972, so I think we should still be cautious about that risk.
I would also be curious. Large venues often charge exponentially more, so I'm not sure if it would reduce costs. I think it might a bit cheaper but I wouldn't be surprised if costs end up evening out, especially if the competition is run in a poorer/cheaper country.
Equipment costs wouldn't just be the additional competition platform (~10-15k USD) but also extra warmup platforms and weight plates (~35-45k USD?), extra equipment for the CMS/scoreboard/broadcasting (~5-6 more laptops) and so on. Of course, many of these costs can be covered if the federation or local organizing committee have existing equipment that is brought to the competition or if they already own/lease the venue. In some countries, this can also be made possible through sponsorships and/or political connections (KAZ, TKM, UZB etc).
There are typically multiple groups of juries, referees and officials at any big IWF competition, so simply splitting them between platforms means that the number would increase slightly but you'd save money on accommodation due to the shorter stay (~30k USD in Peru). However, this is assuming that referees/juries get no rests between sessions. This is fine for a smaller and short competition like a Youth Worlds, but would likely be problematic for a WWC with 3-4 times as many athletes.
Re: News
A 5 person judge/review system I think has merit, though it would be more tech heavy.
3 referees stay as they are but they have a screen with them at their table.
2 jury members are seated separately - and not next to each other. (That removes the power plays going on like we saw at the World Cup.)
Each lift, all 5 make their determination, white or red. Jury reviews occur when both jury members rule contrary to the referees on a 2 to 1 call. That way no lifts of 3 white lights gets a jury stop. Only when there is a 2 to 1 and both jury members have made the same determination will a review occur.
Coaches can also challenge as is the current rule.
In the event of a review, all 5 technical officials (3 referees, 2 jury) view the replay and a majority from the 5 gives the final decision. One of the Jury members is considered the 'President' and they control the replay system.
Thoughts?
3 referees stay as they are but they have a screen with them at their table.
2 jury members are seated separately - and not next to each other. (That removes the power plays going on like we saw at the World Cup.)
Each lift, all 5 make their determination, white or red. Jury reviews occur when both jury members rule contrary to the referees on a 2 to 1 call. That way no lifts of 3 white lights gets a jury stop. Only when there is a 2 to 1 and both jury members have made the same determination will a review occur.
Coaches can also challenge as is the current rule.
In the event of a review, all 5 technical officials (3 referees, 2 jury) view the replay and a majority from the 5 gives the final decision. One of the Jury members is considered the 'President' and they control the replay system.
Thoughts?
Re: News
IMO the 3+2 system you have proposed is effectively having 5 referees. I really have no problem with that for international events.Hawkpeter wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 11:00 pm A 5 person judge/review system I think has merit, though it would be more tech heavy.
3 referees stay as they are but they have a screen with them at their table.
2 jury members are seated separately - and not next to each other. (That removes the power plays going on like we saw at the World Cup.)
Each lift, all 5 make their determination, white or red. Jury reviews occur when both jury members rule contrary to the referees on a 2 to 1 call. That way no lifts of 3 white lights gets a jury stop. Only when there is a 2 to 1 and both jury members have made the same determination will a review occur.
Coaches can also challenge as is the current rule.
In the event of a review, all 5 technical officials (3 referees, 2 jury) view the replay and a majority from the 5 gives the final decision. One of the Jury members is considered the 'President' and they control the replay system.
Thoughts?
Personally I think it's better than the constant competition stopper we have currently, but I don't think jury interference really necessary. At certain points in weightlifting, the jury's role was to remove a referee and appoint a reserve referee, if said referee was shown to be incompetent. Not common, but obviously something that needs to be prevented.
I am of the opinion that three referees is sufficient, with video playback on challenges only. There will be controversial decisions and complaints, regardless of how strictly or loosely the calls are made, by referees or jury and numbers thereof. People will always find something to complain about, regardless of the material reality of the situation. That's life.
Tangentially related, the other issue I have is that IMO video playback is different in weightlifting compared to something like tennis. Where the tennis ball lands is objectively measurable against the lines because the geometry of the ball and court are known quantities.
Slow motion playback and analysis of micro-movements removes the human element of weightlifting which has subjectively determined rules. It makes everything look like a pressout to the average person, even if it's objectively not (see: Max Lang 186 @ Euros 2024, amongst others). The jury doesn't always solve these problems either, given that Lang remains uncredited with that lift. If we are going to use video playback to create the illusion of objectivity, we may as well mandate motion capture suits to get empirical data.