/ 28 March 2009

Gymnastics looks at ways to revamp scoring

Motivated by unhappy TV executives and confused fans, international gymnastics officials are looking at reworking the revamped scoring system that eliminated the perfect 10 at last year’s Beijing Olympics.

Bob Colarossi, president of the marketing commission of the International Gymnastics Federation, is tinkering with formulas that could make the open-ended scoring system easier to understand. He hopes to have at least some minor changes in place before the London Games in 2012.

”I don’t think there’s any way it goes back to the old system,” Colarossi said. ”We’re looking at what we can do with the results mathematically to make the scores easier for the average person to understand.”

One possibility, not likely, is condensing the current system — which grades execution on a 10-point scale and difficulty on an open-ended scale — into a formula that ends with a maximum of 10 points. The problem there: It wouldn’t really bring back what was once considered the perfect 10, and scores might have to be pushed out to so many decimal points that it won’t diminish the confusion.

The biggest problem with the new scoring system was not only that 16s and 17s replaced 9,6s and 9,7s, but that the scores meant different things on different events. Vaults were overvalued, pommel horse routines were undervalued.

The scoreboard often lied at big meets — with leaders not truly ahead because they had been on higher-scoring events earlier in the session.

One of Colarossi’s goals is to even out the disparities between events. Another is to include more ways for fans on TV and at the events to know more about what’s going on. For example, posting scores for longer and adding in-arena radio with commentary from ex-gymnasts.

Broadcasters at the Olympics have met with FIG and talked about the difficulty of explaining the scoring system to viewers, most of whom tune into the sport once every four years.

”Whenever there’s a major change like what we did, it’s going to be a little confusing for a while,” Colarossi said. ”The object is to make it so people understand things better.” – Sapa-AP