Available online www.ocpr.com Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research, 014, 6(3):99-303 Research Article ISSN : 0975-7384 CODEN(USA) : JCPRC5 Athlete technical motions execution quality consistency test based on SPSS gymnastics competition referee scoring Yunyu Tu and Shaogang Zhu Institute of Physical Education, Gannan Normal University, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China ABSTRACT Current gymnastics competition scoring methods have some disputes, which have already attracted many academic experts attentions. Utilize random method and antithetic indicated to research on athletes performance influences, and make comparison of advantages between antithetic indicated and random method. Use standardization method, through referee E score handling with women gymnastics individual event balance beam and women floor exercise, so as to reduce athletes performance deviation generated by referee s subective udgment. With current gymnastics competition laws, for the 34 th World Gymnastics Championship gymnastics women gymnastics individual event balance beam and women floor exercise event gymnasts performance, it handles by research newly established standardization model. Research shows that referee scoring random errors are quite small, obective coefficients are higher, near levels athletes differences distinction degree is quite lower. For less fault events, referee scoring errors are bigger, scoring levels are quite low. Key words: Standardization, Analytic hierarchy process, Gymnastics competition INTRODUCTION Reasons for gymnastics competitions are repeatedly questioned no doubt have connections with its opaque rules. Though some experts had ever appealed to establish transparent scoring system, such system hadn t appeared for a long time. Presently, gymnastics one set of motions is composed of D score and E score. D score is difficulty score, which generated by adding 8 most difficult motions and linkage scores. E score is completion score that referee according to players completion status, starts deducting from 10 score, deducting points are different from 0.1 to 1.0. Due to D score constitution is relative obective, and two referees can discuss and affirm the final difficulty score [1-3]. Therefore, it always E scores that arouses disputes. According to regulations, five E score referees only score by their subective impression, and they cannot discuss [4-6]. Even more important is their deduction points will not open. That is to say, E score referee gives E score; nobody knows why they score in that way. It is why people appeal for gymnastics transparent scoring system to open E score. In similar subective scoring system, figure skating rules are more transparent. Different from gymnastics deduct down since 10 score, figure skating adds up from 0 score [7, 8]. Each motion has a basic score; the score is marked in score table. Every referee gives each motion constant value execution score according to 7 grades, every grade has corresponding plus or minus score value, which are also marked in score table. group execution score is determined by calculating 9 scoring referees execution scores revising average values, avoid the most subective scoring generated deviation. The key is figure skating will announce these scores so as to let audiences see it. Of course, some imperfect areas exist on the system, but at least audiences understand figure skating players some motions scores [9]. Gymnastics events individual event finals starting order drawing rules are also always criticized by gymnastics fans. According to the rule, individual finals starting order will be well drawn before preliminary competition starting. That is to say, rank No.1 in preliminary competition will appear in any position. In this way, preliminary rank No.1 loses its due advantage, and even more players starting order might be controlled artificially. It is obvious that 99
Yunyu Tu and Shaogang Zhu J. Chem. Pharm. Res., 014, 6(3):99-303 scoring event first appear player has remarkable disadvantages in scoring, after all referees will take first appearing player as reference, even he plays perfect the score will be reduced [3]. Such drawing system totally doesn t encourage well played players in qualification competition. If not lucky enough, even preliminary ranks the first and second may be also first appearing in the court. Take China team as an example, no matter men team or women team all became the victims of the London Olympic Games; Rings preliminary competition ranking first Chen Yi-Bing, balance beam preliminary competition ranking first Kui Lu, high-low bars preliminary competition ranking the second He Ke-Xin all first appeared in their own individual finals [5]. Floor exercise preliminary competition ranking the first Zou Kai appeared in the second in finals; while the first appeared was ust his great rival, preliminary competition ranking the second NeiCunHangPing [6]. Define individual event finals ranking with random forms, such rules obvious is unequal to preliminary competition excellent performance players. In fact in scoring events, according to international conventions many events starting orders are antithetic indicated according to previous competition results, even belongs to same gymnastics bounding bed event also like that, bounding bed competition, qualification starting orders are decided by drawing, finals athletes starting orders are decided by ranking, athletes that got lowest score in qualification appears in the first. Such rules not only are encouragements for preliminary competition well-played players, but also let competition wonderfulness gradually go ahead, audiences can also get benefits [8]. Based on above problems, this research through current gymnastics scoring rules and figure skating rules comparing, so as to explain that figure skating scoring rules is more reasonable and effective, and put forward more reasonable gymnastics scoring plans, make foundation for future correlation research. GYMNASTICS COMPETITION SCORING PATTERN ANALYSIS AND TEST Referee subective score statistics technical analysis For athletes performance, it mainly affected by referee providing E score that is execution score.take 34th World Gymnastics Championship women gymnastics individual event finals balance beam event top eight gymnasts execution statuses as research obects. Adopt document literature consulting London Olympic Games in 01 scoring rules and relative documents, reference previous researches correlation results that provide theoretical basis for this research. Utilize SPSS 1310 mathematical statistics software and Microsoft Excel 003 carrying out correlation statistics technical analysis of individual event E score data, make evaluation of partial referees scoring obectiveness several data, indicators. As Table 1 E score data athletes performance standings and evaluated grades sum Ri as well as these sums average number Ri sum of deviation squares. Table 1: Referee given athletes performance standings evaluated grades sum Ri as well as these sums average number Ri sum of deviation squares Ranking 7 8 1 1.5 8 6 3 5 4 7 1.5 1.5 7.5 7.5 3 4.5 4.5 6 1.5 3 1 6 8 3 4.5 7 4.5 4 3.5 5.5 7.5 1.5 5.5 3.5 7.5 1.5 5 1.5 5.5 8 3 5.5 4 7 1.5 6 1.5 5.5 7.5 3.5 5.5 3.5 7.5 1.5 Ri 10.5 38 44.5 16 9 4 4 1 R i R * i 110.5 1444 1980.5 56 841 576 1764 144 Below use W expressing Kendall coefficient of concordance as following formula: W S 3 K i1 1S N N R 1 i Ri Ri i1 n i1 R i In formula: N Numbers of evaluated obects; K numbers of scorers or numbers of scoring referenced standards; S each evaluated obect grades sum Ri and these sums average number Ri sum of deviation squares. When scorers fully come to terms,s gets maximum value S and its most possible value ratio,so 0 W 1. 1 K N 3 N coefficient of concordance is real solved 300
Yunyu Tu and Shaogang Zhu J. Chem. Pharm. Res., 014, 6(3):99-303 Obectivity Test According to Kendall coefficient of concordance ( KendallpsW ) that is consistency coefficient test standard, utilize statistics software SPSS solving 34th World Gymnastics Championship women gymnastics individual event finals balance beam event finals referees evaluated top eight gymnasts execution quality scores consistency coefficient ( KendallpsW ). The 34 th World Gymnastics Championship women gymnastics individual event finals balance beam event finals referees evaluated top eight gymnasts execution quality scores consistency coefficient test result w=0.8489. Because that consistency coefficients all above 0.8 that belong to high correlated, referees scoring differences is relative smaller than athletes individuals spot performance differences, which are scoring has small variance to athlete, so distinction degree is relative higher. That indicates athlete performance has large correlation with referee evaluated E type score. Therefore sub model mainly takes referee evaluated athletes E type score as research obects. At first, numbers of referees affect athletes E type score rankings as following Table : Table : Numbers of referees influences on athletes E type score rankings Numbers of referees 3 4 5 6 Kendall coefficient 0.854 0.8304 0.8433 0.8489 It indicates 6 referees is relative proper, while the London Olympic Games only selected 5 referees, so it affected on athletes equity. Make comparison between current rules Kendall coefficient of concordance and optimized Kendall coefficient of concordance, it gets that numbers of referees after optimization is relative proper. Apply current Olympic Games gymnastics competition rules getting athletes the 34 th World Gymnastics Championship women balance beam finals gymnasts scoring data (Table 3) and the 34 th World Gymnastics Championship women floor exercise finals gymnasts scoring data (Table 4). Table 3: The 34 th World Gymnastics Championship women balance beam finals gymnasts scoring data 1 9.7500 9.7500 9.8000 9.6500 9.8000 9.8000 9.7750 1 9.000 9.4000 9.6000 9.5000 9.5000 9.6500 9.5000 6 3 9.4500 9.4000 9.4000 9.4500 9.3000 9.5500 9.450 8 4 9.7000 9.7000 9.7500 9.7500 9.7500 9.7500 9.7370 3 5 9.5500 9.6500 9.7000 9.5000 9.5000 9.6500 9.5870 5 6 9.6500 9.6500 9.6500 9.6500 9.5500 9.7500 9.6500 4 7 9.4000 9.4500 9.5000 9.4500 9.4500 9.5500 9.460 7 8 9.7500 9.7500 9.6500 9.7500 9.8000 9.8000 9.760 Table 4: The 34 th World Gymnastics Championship women floor exercise finals gymnasts scoring data 1 9.7000 9.7500 9.6000 9.8000 9.7500 9.7500 9.7370 4.5 9.5000 9.5500 9.6500 9.6000 9.6000 9.6500 9.6000 7 3 9.8000 9.7000 9.7500 9.8000 9.8500 9.8000 9.7870 3 4 9.5000 9.5500 9.5500 9.5500 9.4500 9.6000 9.5370 8 5 9.8000 9.7500 9.7000 9.7000 9.7000 9.8000 9.7370 4.5 6 9.7500 9.8500 9.8500 9.8500 9.8500 9.8500 9.8370 1 7 9.6000 9.6500 9.6500 9.6500 9.5500 9.5000 9.610 6 8 9.8000 9.8000 9.8000 9.8000 9.8000 9.8500 9.8000 This paper firstly carry out standardization of each referee evaluated all performance, then solve sums of performance after handling as final scores, and define rankings according to final scores. That is given X express 1 xi x the referee(=1,,l,n) scoring on the i gymnast(i=1,,l,m): m i1 It is the referee evaluated average score of all gymnasts: S 1 m m 1 i1 x x 301
Yunyu Tu and Shaogang Zhu J. Chem. Pharm. Res., 014, 6(3):99-303 It is the referee scoring on all gymnasts standard deviation: Z x x S It is score from the referee giving to the i gymnast after standardization: u i z 1 It is the i gymnast final score. The method is based on all referees take the same scoring standards for gymnasts, which means evaluated average value, variance should be the same (that x1 x L xn, S1 S L SN ). It is a common method to standardize handling with data so as to overcome or reduce errors caused by dimensions. It is reducing influences caused by individual referee meant or unconsciously excessive high or low scoring here. As our Table 3, Table 4 data are taken standardization, respectively get new scoring rules after improvement through standardization model the 34 th World Gymnastics Championship women balance beam finals each gymnast score Table 5 and the 34 th World Gymnastics Championship women floor exercise finals each gymnast score data list Table 6. Table 5: The 34 th World Gymnastics Championship women balance beam finals each gymnast standard score and ranking 1 0.9917 1.065 1.905 0.4903 1.1947 1.0960 6.0897 1-1.835-1.79-0.390-0.6864-0.4437-0.3653-4.839 6 3-0.5438-1.79-1.7685-1.0786-1.5360-1.3396-7.5394 8 4 0.7358 0.6980 0.908 1.748 0.916 0.6089 5.1473 3 5-0.030 0.3695 0.558-0.6864-0.4437-0.3653-0.631 5 6 0.4799 0.3695 0.1434 0.4903-0.1707 0.6089 1.913 4 7-0.7998-0.9444-1.0037-1.0780-0.7168-1.3396-5.8890 7 8 0.9917 1.065 0.1434 1.748 1.1947 1.0960 5.771 Xi 9.5560 9.5940 9.6310 9.5580 9.5810 9.6880 Si 0.1950 0.150 0.1310 0.170 0.1830 0.1030 Table 6: The 34 th World Gymnastics Championship women floor exercise finals each gymnast standard score and ranking 1 0.1434 0.4537-0.8874 0.7387 0.3815 0.1950 1.049 5-1.3861-1.361-0.958-1.0796-0.6358-0.5851 5.3436 7 3 0.908 0.0000 0.8874 0.7387 1.0597 0.5851 4.1791 3 4-1.3861-1.361-1.4790-1.534-1.6531-0.975-5.3888 8 5 0.908 0.4537-0.958-0.1705 0.044 0.5851 1.531 4 6 0.558 1.361 1.4790 1.1933 1.0597 0.9754 6.5944 1 7-0.614-0.4537-0.958-0.650-0.9749-1.7554-4.76 6 8 0.908 0.9075 0.8874 0.7387 0.706 0.975 5.1376 Xi 9.6810 9.7000 9.6750 9.7190 9.6940 9.750 Si 0.1310 0.1100 0.0850 0.1100 0.1475 0.180 Scoring pattern analysis result Transparent score results can effective reduce black-box operation occurrence probability, gymnastics scoring rule refusing open deduction points, players failure causes can only by guessing, let audience and coaches have great dissent on players failure causes, or it is hard to accept the competition result. Top eight athletes preliminary performance has no effect on finals starting order, it seems that random sampling method is relative equal, but actually it is not and affects players normal performance. First from the aspect of audiences, for very stronger players, they would try to reduce their ability in preliminary competitions with normal performance, only with the hope of entering into the finals, which violates competitive sports higher, quicker, stronger aims, meanwhile let competition become not so intensely ornamental. The next is using random sampling, if player ranked first in preliminary competition appears first in final, it will seriously affect the athlete performance in final, however it will not happen if using antithetic indicated, it is an encouragement of preliminary competition ranked first athlete on the contrary, let him play better in final. Kendall coefficient of concordance obective shows referee scoring influences on athletes performance, it asks high for referees quality, meanwhile numbers of referees also have great effects on athletes equity. After standardizing data, make scientific revising on referees intentionally or unintentionally excessive high or low scoring, which respects all referees score results and meanwhile out of excessive relying on scores errors. Due to eliminate fewer 30
Yunyu Tu and Shaogang Zhu J. Chem. Pharm. Res., 014, 6(3):99-303 referees excessive low score or high score influences, competition equity is guaranteed. By analyzing current rules and results after standardization, it is clear that data after standardization can reduce deviation caused by referee subectivity as much as possible. CONCLUSION World Gymnastics Championship referee scoring has small random errors, higher obective coefficients, near levels athletes differences distinction degree is quite lower, athletes final scores obvious differences tend to caused by great faults in competition. For less fault event, referee scoring errors are bigger, so that indicates that referees haven t better understood and seized new rules, scoring levels are relative lower so that cannot catch up with gymnastics technical development requests. It suggests that athletes should be well adapted to new rules, meanwhile it also require referees get familiar and master the new rules as soon as possible, improve enforcement levels, increase competition results reliability. Competition organization structure evaluation on referees should udge according to every referee scoring sequence and final ranking correlation, encourage referees widen scoring gap so that reduce scoring errors. REFERENCES [1] Liu Qin-long. Journal of Hubei Sports Science, 004, 3(1), 66-68. [] Li Liang-ping; Wang Yun-liang; SUN Jian. China Sport Science and Technology, 006, 4(4), 70-71. [3] Xue Minglu; Li Xinhong. Journal of Jilin Institute of Physical Education, 007, 3(3), 46-47, 141. [4] Wei Deng-yun. China Sport Science and Technology, 000, 36(7). [5] Chen Bo-ian. Journal of Guangzhou Physical Education Institute, 005, 5(4), 81-83. [6] Cui Yuan-yuan; Zheng Xing-hong. Sports Sciences Researches, 010, 14(), 71-73. [7] Xu Rui-fang. Sports Sciences Researches, 009, 13(3), 50-51. [8] Wei Deng-yun. China Sport Science and Technology, 001, 37(3), 38-40. [9] Zhang B.; Zhang S.; Lu G.. Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research, 013, 5(9), 56-6. 303