Why a tiebreaker in gymnastics undermines the scoring system:
When the FIG (Federation Internationale de Gymnastique) revamped the scoring system, they did so to insure that the new scores were as fair as possible. 1 Judge is responsible for the A, or difficulty score, which is essentially a tally of the ten most difficult skills in the routine, plus connection bonuses. 6 Judges are responsible for the B, or execution score, which consists of deductions out of a possible 10.0. Of these six B scores, the high and the low are dropped, and the remaining 4 are averaged.
FIG says that this formula is “most fair.” However, when you introduce the concept of a tiebreaker, you are looking for a way to get different results. There is no way that these “new” results can be “equally fair,” otherwise they would be numerically equal to the original results.
What this means is that a tie is broken by deriving either a “more” or “less” fair score. If the tie breaking proceedure, which consists of further reducing the number of scores given until the results are no longer equivalent, produces a “more” fair result, why not use this superior formulation in the first place? If the reduction produces a result that is actually inferior to the original score - that is, if the result is less fair, more biased, or more subjective - then why break the tie at all?
Either way, tie breaking in this manner is a slap in the face to rationality, and a black mark on the sport.
