Turin 2006: Jury is out on skating's latest judging system

Perhaps the skating world has had enough of controversy. There was certainly a reluctance among the skating press to make more of the Chinese pair Zhang and Zhang falling over, having a coffee break, a biscuit and a quick nap, coming back to finish their routine and still winning a silver medal. Had Chinese pairs not been lying third and fourth as well, there may have been more of a stink.

Imagine the fuss if an American or Canadian pair been deprived of a medal because of the generous interpretation of the rules governing an interruption to a programme. The rules state that 'if medical attention is required, the competitor must continue immediately or within two minutes of the interruption'. Zhang and Zhang took almost four minutes to resume their routine.

After the 'skategate' scandal of the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City, when the French judge admitted (and then later retracted the admission) that she had been pressured into favouring the Russia pair over the Canada pair of Sale and Pelletier, the International Skating Union (ISU) overhauled the scoring system.

Instead of each judge giving marks out of 6.0, skaters are now given an overall value, intended to reward the difficulty of their routine. Nine of the 12 judges' scores are chosen at random, the top and bottom marks eliminated and the remaining seven averaged out to give the final score.

No longer will we have the Eurovision Song Contest-like drama of watching the judge from Belarus supporting his neighbours and condemning the rest. But, in theory, we should also be spared a voting system than can be prejudiced by political allegiance.

The rules are supposed to be less ambiguous, more transparent and less open to the vagaries of personal preference. But as the ISU's rules handbook runs to 107 pages, with 349 rules, the guidelines serve to confuse rather than clear the muddy waters.

The press reaction in China has been overwhelmingly sympathetic, with Dan Zhang a national heroine because of her bravery. I do not wish to be cruel to the poor woman, who was undeniably courageous in continuing at all, but come on. How could a horrendous fall while attempting a 'throw quad salchow', followed by a break, earn them only a one-point deduction?

Time to ask Robin Cousins, Britain's gold medallist in 1980, for guidance. 'Zhang and Zhang had 19 elements in their programme,' he explains, '18 of which they did very well. For nearly half of those, they were better than anyone who had gone before them. They racked up some very impressive points, even with her not being on top of her game. As a performer, the last thing you want to do is to stop your routine. You want to continue the flow and, in one respect, it was very impressive that they could go on at all.'

Because the referee stopped the fight, as it were, rather than the performers, they were granted very generous interpretation of rule 353, which states: 'Deductions are applied for each violation as follows:

-1.0 for every fall. Deductions will be applied for interruption to the programme:

-1.0 for 11-20 seconds interruption, -2.0 for 21-30 seconds interruption, etc.'

By my maths, that means a minimum 20-point deduction. If ice skating followed the rules of show jumping or eventing, a fall would either eliminate a competitor or earn enough penalty marks to put him, her or them out of contention.

Yet Zhang and Zhang were far enough ahead of the field, with the exception of the gold medallists Totmianina and Marinin, that they could afford to fall, get up and still finish second. It was a far cry from the hapless American Lindsay Jacobellis, who showboated her way out of certain victory in the snowboard cross final. In the men's individual figure skating, however, the Swiss world champion Stephane Lambiel fell twice during his free programme and still took silver.

Cousins explains the reasoning behind what looked to the uninitiated observer a strange decision. 'He racked up the points with his spins, his transitions and his footwork. It's not only about the jumping and that's the one thing that is good about the judging system. If I had been judging, I probably wouldn't have been too far different.

'In the old days, it used to be that a jump in which you fell was not marked and you'd be deducted for the artistic side because you lost the flow of the programme. Now, you can still get marks for the jump if you land it before you fall, as Lambiel did.

'I'm not a huge fan of the new system, but mainly because I don't fully understand it. But I do understand the need for change - and I think it will work for the betterment of the sport.' If Robin Cousins does not fully comprehend the new system, what hope have the rest of us?

Cousins is convinced that skating is in a healthier state than it was four years ago, which is not difficult, but even he is still mystified by some decisions, such as how the Italian pair Fusar-Poli and Margaglio, who have come out of retirement to compete in front of their home fans, could have been ranked top after the compulsory dance on Friday night. Crowd pressure is the only conceivable explanation.

One question that bothers me in ice skating is this: when did an individual or a pair last come from nowhere to win a gold medal? It happens all the time in other Olympic sports - Antoine Deneriaz in the men's downhill skiing being one example. In ice skating, however, there seems to be a tradition of earning your stripes before you are allowed to win anything. The phrase 'dead man's shoes' springs to mind.

Even Yevgeny Plushenko has been made to wait his turn, finally winning an Olympic gold medal seven years after he burst on to the scene. It seems accepted wisdom, then, that John and Sinead Kerr, Britain's sibling duo, will not achieve any recognition from the judges until Vancouver in 2010. How come? Do they have to be a certain age before they are 'allowed' to score well?

Sinead smiles through the poor marks, adopting the obligatory brave face. 'We are looking for something to make the audience to sit up and take notice,' she says. 'The judges are only human and they react in the same way.

'The difficult thing with the new marking system is to try and do something that will get points for technical difficulty as well as being new and innovative.'

The Kerrs predicted no better than a top-12 finish for themselves, which seems remarkably modest. Remarkably accurate, as well, considering they are lying eleventh after the compulsory dance. The medals will be decided tomorrow night.

'This is probably the strongest depth of ice dance competition ever,' Sinead points out, acknowledging the greater experience of the pairs against whom they are competing. It may be, but there still won't be a shock result because in ice skating it just doesn't happen.

Perhaps it is unfeasible for the human brain to judge entirely on the performance in front of it with no reference to previous form, reputation or standing. It seems that the new system of judging ice skating has a way to go before it will accurately reward the artistic merit and technical ability of a complete performance.