The Official London 2012 Summer Olympics Thread

Loved the ceremony, but yes, the NBC commentators kinda ruined it for me. They were boring, annoying and disrespectful to some countries.
 
Does anybody know if the music is going to be released somehow? I loved the music, during the presentation of the industrial era, with all the percussion and electronic sounds.

When GB's athletes came out, Matt said something like "There's the queen cheering on her team" and she's just sitting there emotionless.  FAIL!

goo-goo

Does anybody know if the music is going to be released somehow? I loved the music, during the presentation of the industrial era, with all the percussion and electronic sounds.

 
Yeah, I really enjoyed that, too.

I'm sure they said on the UK commentary that the track would be available on iTunes. Not sure which track they were referring to, but it's worth having a look on there. 
 
I love watching the Olympics! I was disappointed with the Mens Road Race yesterday, currently have the Womens on. It's a shame that the weather hasn't stayed bright and sunny for the girls today. I managed to catch some Boxing, Judo, Swimming, Cycling, Rowing and Shooting yesterday. I always have to watch the Rings - Gymnastics never fails to amaze me. 
 
 
EDIT: There is a pretty good app up for grabs I downloaded yesterday to my smart phone. It's powered by Samsung I think and it works really well. It's a great way of keeping up to date with what events are going on, and the results. 

dparrott


When GB's athletes came out, Matt said something like "There's the queen cheering on her team" and she's just sitting there emotionless.  FAIL!

I noticed that too.  It was pretty funny.  She looked like she's rather be anywhere else but there.  LOL

Best part of the opening? Lighting the cauldron + fireworks + PF's Eclipse was fucking epic! 
Check it here!
http://vimeo.com/46538163

Can't help it but every time I see Misty May Treanor, I see a female Mike Portnoy. 

So, how about those Australians crashing and burning in the 4x100m Men's Freestyle Relay?

What's the deal with this stupid rule in gymnastics?
 
They take 24 women for the all-around final, but they don't take the best 24, as you're only allowed a maximum of 2 per country.  So, the USA's Jordan Weber will finish in about 5th place overall, but won't be in the all-around as two of her teammates finished higher?
 
This makes no sense whatsoever - especially in a sport that is so subjectively judged.
 
Why would anyone think this is a good idea?

Absolutely ridiculous rule. I feel horrible for Jordan as she was devastated. I just don't understand why they wouldn't want the top 24 in the final.

AND, while the scoring has an element of subjectivity, it isn't ONLY opinion and almost everyone who would know was unequivocal that she got jobbed on some of the scoring.  That doesn't solve the problem, as that would only put someone else on the outside looking in, but all in all a heartbreaking experience for that young girl. 
 
 

spikelineus
 
currently have the Womens on. It's a shame that the weather hasn't stayed bright and sunny for the girls today. 

The weather was perfect for the gold medallist, as she is known for driving good in bad weather (probably because she started out in cyclo-cross. And she managed to perform very well at the end with a nice sprint and a good lead when she crossed the line. First gold medal this year for The Netherlands (yeah, I'm dutch, so I'm happy).
 
On another subject:
I know the boys and girls who do the gymnastic events train very hard and are very athletic, but I always have a problem with sports that have to be judged. I have the same with figure skating during the winter olympics. I'd rather have only sports that are measurable (cycling, running, swimming, etc).

Couldn't agree more about sports that are judged. I refuse to watch them.
 
Also, I'm about to boycott these games on TV because there's too many commercials. It pisses me off that there are so many wonderful athletes doing amazing things, and we miss a lot of it (especially real time) because a handful of cocksuckers at NBC are getting richer than any of us could ever dream. It's complete and utter bullshit.

Bails


What's the deal with this stupid rule in gymnastics?

They take 24 women for the all-around final, but they don't take the best 24, as you're only allowed a maximum of 2 per country.  So, the USA's Jordan Weber will finish in about 5th place overall, but won't be in the all-around as two of her teammates finished higher?

This makes no sense whatsoever - especially in a sport that is so subjectively judged.

Why would anyone think this is a good idea?

This stems from the days when the soviet union would dominate the sport and have 5 girls in the finals, claiming the whole medal podium.  The rule was put into place to give more countries a chance to compete in the finals.  I agree that it is a silly, unfair rule.  If you are in the top 24, you go on to the finals.  PERIOD!
 
I wonder if this is only in gymnastics...  If there are 5 US swimmers in the qualifying heats, and they all advance to the semis, can there be 5 US swimmers in the final??

It's unfortunate that NBC can't get with the times and offer some sort of option for those of us who got rid of cable/satellite/etc.  I imagine lots of advertising opportunities and dollars have been wasted because they completely ignored this market.  I'm not going to subscribe to TV service just for the Olympics, but I'd gladly pay a fee and/or watch commercials to stream them online.

AdRock18


Couldn't agree more about sports that are judged. I refuse to watch them.

Also, I'm about to boycott these games on TV because there's too many commercials. It pisses me off that there are so many wonderful athletes doing amazing things, and we miss a lot of it (especially real time) because a handful of cocksuckers at NBC are getting richer than any of us could ever dream. It's complete and utter bullshit.

God bless the BBC.

Thankfully there are no commercials here in Finland neither. 
 
Just watching gymnastics, crazy-good athletes they are. 

Traveller69


On another subject:
I know the boys and girls who do the gymnastic events train very hard and are very athletic, but I always have a problem with sports that have to be judged. I have the same with figure skating during the winter olympics. I'd rather have only sports that are measurable (cycling, running, swimming, etc).

 
Absolutely agree.  I've always felt this way.
 
Once it is judged, it ceases to be sport and becomes exhibition, IMO.

Bails

Traveller69


On another subject:
I know the boys and girls who do the gymnastic events train very hard and are very athletic, but I always have a problem with sports that have to be judged. I have the same with figure skating during the winter olympics. I'd rather have only sports that are measurable (cycling, running, swimming, etc).

Absolutely agree.  I've always felt this way.

Once it is judged, it ceases to be sport and becomes exhibition, IMO.

Though I see the problem, and I agree that it is very subjective and open to interpretation and is an open invitation for bribing...

How do you propose they determine who the best is in sports like gymnastics or figure skating? Or any other sport where "how well someone completes anything that can't be measured with a stopwatch or ruler" ? (does that cover all judged sports?)
 
Should they just all be abolished?

liquidrsr

Thankfully there are no commercials here in Finland neither. 

 
Thank god we have a channel with no commercials!
 
I don't often watch to TV but now I have been in the front of it many hours per day. I'm waiting when track and field starts! Basketball is interesting too.
 
btw, I'm training hard to get to Rio 2016, just a one meter to reach in long jump

konstant motion

 Thank god we have a channel with no commercials!

That must be so nice. Commercials are the #1 reason I don't watch TV often. Reason #2 is that most shows over here in america suck. (that's a whole different discussion though )

The Male Artistic Gymnast finals were absolutely superb today.

enchantgy

Bails

Traveller69


On another subject:
I know the boys and girls who do the gymnastic events train very hard and are very athletic, but I always have a problem with sports that have to be judged. I have the same with figure skating during the winter olympics. I'd rather have only sports that are measurable (cycling, running, swimming, etc).

Absolutely agree.  I've always felt this way.

Once it is judged, it ceases to be sport and becomes exhibition, IMO.

Though I see the problem, and I agree that it is very subjective and open to interpretation and is an open invitation for bribing...

How do you propose they determine who the best is in sports like gymnastics or figure skating? Or any other sport where "how well someone completes anything that can't be measured with a stopwatch or ruler" ? (does that cover all judged sports?)

Should they just all be abolished?

Again, I just don't consider them to be sports.  Athletic exhibitions, sure.  But once judging is involved. I'd remove it from the Olympics.
 
And I've heard every argument - forget it, they don't hold water.

Well, as long as the judges are the same for all contestants, I think the arguments AGAINST judged events don't hold water.  Some of the greatest athletes in history have participated in judged events.  There can be controversy in events with set standards as well.
 
Also, if you are going to throw out "judged" events, why do major sports with referees/umpires get a pass?  That there is a score doesn't mean it wasn't achieved without the aid of "judgement" from a supposedly arbitrary official. 

Speaking of gymnastics, here's a pointless, inconsequential rant, important probably only to me:
 
...what happened to the word "the"?  Why all the disrespect? 
 
It started, in my estimation, with the concept of the end-of-the-year bacchanalia for high school seniors.  In my day, that was called "the prom".  We went to "the prom", we asked others that we liked if they wanted to go to "the prom", and some of us made asses of ourselves at "the prom".  Now, apparently, kids go to "prom".  I don't really know what it means "to prom", but I don't think that is how it is meant.  I also heard this usage when those idiotic, self-serving, lack-of-any-perspective-that-I-can-see mothers would refer to their little cheerleading angels as going to "Nationals".  Not "the Nationals", but "Nationals". 
 
Then, and why this is coming up now, it progressed to gymnastics.  The kids I'm watching last night, according to Tim Daggett, were alternately "on balance beam", "on pommel horse", and "on floor".  From my position, though, it looked like they were competing on "the balance beam", twirling like gypsies on "the pommel horse", or jumping like crazy people on "the floor".   In all seriousness, I get that linguistically you could be talking about a piece of equipment or an event, so the noun could be refering to two different things, and like we talk about "baseball" and not "the baseball", we could in theory talk about "floor" in the same way, but I still ask the question, why now?  Why didn't Jim McKay refer to Olga Korbut dominating in "uneven bars"?  It was after all, "the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat", wasn't it?
 
Thankfully we aren't going to "World Series", "Stanley Cup", or "Super Bowl" yet.  But I might "wang-chung" tonight if I'm lucky.
 

I agree with Stadler. In fact, I would take it a step further. I would say some of the sports with referees who facilitate the game might be even more influenced than those who "judge" ones like gymnastics, skating etc.
 
Basketball, for example. The referees can dictate the flow of the entire game by how many and when fouls are called. If they call it tight, then it can slow things down to a ploddingly pace......which would favor a team that relies on more half court sets to run their offense. A more "letting them play" approach would benefit greatly a team that runs in transition or a big, physical team. If you don't think that matters, then you don't know the game well enough to comment.
 
Also, while there is definitely a certain degree of subjectivity involved......the judges for gymnastics and skating do have specific tangible things they are looking for to make their final grade. And the athletes and coaches know what those things are and try to tailor their routines accordingly. THE USA women's gymnastic team did so well in team competition the other night precisely because they were pushing the envelope of difficulty.....which makes the final score higher even with the deductions taken into account. Those things are not all that open to interpretation. You get so many points for a certain amount of rotations, etc. or so many points for sticking a landing without taking a step. You either do those things or you don't.
 
As far as the rule about taking the top 2 from each team.....Enchantgy is correct. And I remember what that was like back in those days (cuz I'm old)......it was ridiculous seeing that many Soviet Union (as it was known back then) or Romanian men/women in the all around competition. It wasn't helping the sport grow globally that way......and it certainly didn't capture the "spirit" of diversity of representation by the other countries. Generally speaking, I agree with the idea of having the best athletes. I like that the NBA for example takes the top teams from each conference and does not factor in division except for seeding. But in this case, for this competition and this perennially historic and inclusive venue.....I think it makes sense.
 
Finally, if you took out all the sports that had some form of subjective "judging", besides gymnastics and skating, you also wouldn't have:
 
- Boxing
- Diving
-  Synchronized Swimming
- Freestyle Skiing
- Snowboarding
 
That's a significant list. And what would an Olympic official tell those athletes for future Olympics....."Sorry, you can't compete because your sport is too subjective and imprecise"???
 
-

Stadler


Speaking of gymnastics, here's a pointless, inconsequential rant, important probably only to me:

...what happened to the word "the"?  Why all the disrespect? 

It started, in my estimation, with the concept of the end-of-the-year bacchanalia for high school seniors.  In my day, that was called "the prom".  We went to "the prom", we asked others that we liked if they wanted to go to "the prom", and some of us made asses of ourselves at "the prom".  Now, apparently, kids go to "prom".  I don't really know what it means "to prom", but I don't think that is how it is meant.  I also heard this usage when those idiotic, self-serving, lack-of-any-perspective-that-I-can-see mothers would refer to their little cheerleading angels as going to "Nationals".  Not "the Nationals", but "Nationals". 

Then, and why this is coming up now, it progressed to gymnastics.  The kids I'm watching last night, according to Tim Daggett, were alternately "on balance beam", "on pommel horse", and "on floor".  From my position, though, it looked like they were competing on "the balance beam", twirling like gypsies on "the pommel horse", or jumping like crazy people on "the floor".   In all seriousness, I get that linguistically you could be talking about a piece of equipment or an event, so the noun could be refering to two different things, and like we talk about "baseball" and not "the baseball", we could in theory talk about "floor" in the same way, but I still ask the question, why now?  Why didn't Jim McKay refer to Olga Korbut dominating in "uneven bars"?  It was after all, "the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat", wasn't it?

Thankfully we aren't going to "World Series", "Stanley Cup", or "Super Bowl" yet.  But I might "wang-chung" tonight if I'm lucky.

  Very amusing rant and I agree. And what about:
 
- An ice cream? What the hell is that? I can get  "some" ice cream. Or I can get an ice cream cone. But how can you get an ice cream?
- RBI vs RBI's. Since you brought up baseball. Are you old school and prefer the original plural version......or the technically accurate but still somewhat strange sounding singular one?
- I live near Denver and go see THE Nuggets and THE Avalanche at PEPSI CENTER. No disrespectful THE in that case either. I still often refer to it as The Pepsi Center out of spite.
- Scorpions. The band. Woe to you, evidently, if you refer to them as The Scorpions.
- Also in the wonderful state I live (even with the fires and shooting), Colorado, there is a town called Buena Vista. How would YOU pronounce that? It's obviously the SPANISH words for Good (or Great) View, right? Colorado's history is defined by Spanish influences. So it's BWAYNA, correct? Just like buenas nochas.  But how do many of the people here......including the lion's share of the towns folk themselves pronounce it? BYOONA.  I know, right? At least they don't say VEESTA.

crazy climber dude

- I live near Denver and go see THE Nuggets and THE Avalanche at PEPSI CENTER. No disrespectful THE in that case either. I still often refer to it as The Pepsi Center out of spite.

 
Don't even get me started on the arena/stadium names.  I am an avowed capitalist, but even for me, the "1-800-Ask-Gary Center" is pushing it.  I used to go to places like the "New Haven Coliseum" and the "Hartford Civic Center".  Now you look at a tour itinerary for a band and the first thing I think is that some middle schooler hacked the site and put in fake names. 
 

- Scorpions. The band. Woe to you, evidently, if you refer to them as The Scorpions.

Nice call!  I was actually thinking of that when I was writing my little diatribe, but I couldn't fit it in anywhere.  Haha.  I blame that on the German language barrier, as evidenced in some of their lyrics.  You can tell that Herman Rarebell didn't quite get the American idioms he was going for.  Or, then again, maybe he did.  :)

Stadler

Also, if you are going to throw out "judged" events, why do major sports with referees/umpires get a pass?  That there is a score doesn't mean it wasn't achieved without the aid of "judgement" from a supposedly arbitrary official. 

 
There's a GREAT difference between officiating and judging.
 
Put it this way:  we can play baseball, basketball, football, soccer, etc. in our backyards with 6 kids and no officiating at all.
 
You can't do that with gymnastics, figure skating or boxing.

crazy climber dude


I agree with Stadler. In fact, I would take it a step further. I would say some of the sports with referees who facilitate the game might be even more influenced than those who "judge" ones like gymnastics, skating etc.

 
The outcome of the game is still decided by the participants.
 

crazy climber dude

Also, while there is definitely a certain degree of subjectivity involved......the judges for gymnastics and skating do have specific tangible things they are looking for to make their final grade. And the athletes and coaches know what those things are and try to tailor their routines accordingly. THE USA women's gymnastic team did so well in team competition the other night precisely because they were pushing the envelope of difficulty.....which makes the final score higher even with the deductions taken into account. Those things are not all that open to interpretation.

 
Then why were Dagget and Schlegel saying that Wieber didn't get credit for some of the things that she did?  They openly said that she could have been given a higher score.
 

crazy climber dude
As far as the rule about taking the top 2 from each team.....Enchantgy is correct. And I remember what that was like back in those days (cuz I'm old)......it was ridiculous seeing that many Soviet Union (as it was known back then) or Romanian men/women in the all around competition.

 
Are you nuts?
 
So, you'd rather see a lesser athlete compete in a medal event because of some handicapped "let's include everybody" rule?  No thanks.  I want to see the best compete for medals.  Charity had no place AT ALL in the Olympics.
 

crazy climber dude
It wasn't helping the sport grow globally that way......and it certainly didn't capture the "spirit" of diversity of representation by the other countries.

 
WHO GIVES A SHIT?!!!!!
 
Again, I don't want diversity - I want the best athletes.
 
 

crazy climber dude
Generally speaking, I agree with the idea of having the best athletes. I like that the NBA for example takes the top teams from each conference and does not factor in division except for seeding. But in this case, for this competition and this perennially historic and inclusive venue.....I think it makes sense.

 
Obviously, I could not disagree more if you told me the sky was orange.
 

crazy climber dude
Finally, if you took out all the sports that had some form of subjective "judging", besides gymnastics and skating, you also wouldn't have:

- Boxing
- Diving
-  Synchronized Swimming
- Freestyle Skiing
- Snowboarding

 
I don't see a problem here.
 
 
Look.  This isn't little league, and it's not intra-mural sports.  This is a competition to find the best competitors in the world in their chosen sport.  This is an elite international competition.  These events should not be dumbed down in an effort to avoid hurting someone's feelings - or to get ratings.  FUCK THAT.  Give me a pool full of Australians, a gym full of Chinese, and a baseketball court full of Americans, if they're the best in the world.  Don't pretend that lesser athletes can compete for a medal if the world knows that there are others better - that makes the whole games a sham.  The creed is "Faster, Higher, Stronger," not "as fast, high and strong as you can but we're going to award those who aren't quite as fast, get as high, or display as much strength."

crazy climber dude


- RBI vs RBI's. Since you brought up baseball. Are you old school and prefer the original plural version......or the technically accurate but still somewhat strange sounding singular one?

 
Actually, the correct term is RBIs - plural.  It stands for "Runs Batted In," but the acronym "RBI" is singular, so to indicate plural, you would use "RBIs," no apostrophe.
 

Stadler

Don't even get me started on the arena/stadium names.  I am an avowed capitalist, but even for me, the "1-800-Ask-Gary Center" is pushing it.  I used to go to places like the "New Haven Coliseum" and the "Hartford Civic Center".  Now you look at a tour itinerary for a band and the first thing I think is that some middle schooler hacked the site and put in fake names.

 
Yes!  God, I hate that!  My favorite is the Yum! Center.
 
 

Bails


The outcome of the game is still decided by the participants.

 
As are the judged events. 

Then why were Dagget and Schlegel saying that Wieber didn't get credit for some of the things that she did?  They openly said that she could have been given a higher score.

 
How is this any different than an umpire blowing a call at home plate?  Or a ref throwing/not throwing a flag for pass interference in the end zone?  I think we're confusing the fact that mistakes can be made with "totally unfounded subjectivity".  They are not the same thing.

So, you'd rather see a lesser athlete compete in a medal event because of some handicapped "let's include everybody" rule?  No thanks.  I want to see the best compete for medals.  Charity had no place AT ALL in the Olympics.

 
It didn't take long; I'm back with Bails.  Give me the 24 best, I don't care if they are all Chinese.  I may not watch it, but to me, the leaving of better athletes on the sidelines (assuming they earned the spot through their performance) is far more egregious than the "subjectivity" of the judging.
 

Look.  This isn't little league, and it's not intra-mural sports.  This is a competition to find the best competitors in the world in their chosen sport.  This is an elite international competition.  These events should not be dumbed down in an effort to avoid hurting someone's feelings - or to get ratings.  FUCK THAT.  Give me a pool full of Australians, a gym full of Chinese, and a baseketball court full of Americans, if they're the best in the world.  Don't pretend that lesser athletes can compete for a medal if the world knows that there are others better - that makes the whole games a sham.  The creed is "Faster, Higher, Stronger," not "as fast, high and strong as you can but we're going to award those who aren't quite as fast, get as high, or display as much strength."

Ultimately, Bails is right, because at the end of the day it will tarnish the reward, or force competitors to game the system.  I'm fifth best American gymnast?  Rather than get better like Bruce Jenner did and spend four years perfecting their craft, they can say "Whoa, my grandma was born in Poland... maybe I can be best (only?) Polish gymnast?!"

Stadler

Bails


The outcome of the game is still decided by the participants.

As are the judged events. 

 
No.  Not at all.
 
At the end of a baseball game, who wins?  The team with the most runs.
At the end of a basketball game, who wins?  The team with the most points.
At the end of a soccer game, who wins?  The team with the most goals.
At the end of a swim meet, who wins?  The athlete who swam fastest.
At the end of a gymnastics even, who wins?  The team/athlete awarded the best score by judges.
 
Completely different.
 
Again, you can do all the other sports in your backyard.  You can't determine a winner in gymnastics without a judge.

Bails

At the end of a baseball game, who wins?  The team with the most runs.
At the end of a basketball game, who wins?  The team with the most points.
At the end of a soccer game, who wins?  The team with the most goals.
At the end of a swim meet, who wins?  The athlete who swam fastest.
At the end of a gymnastics even, who wins?  The team/athlete awarded the best score by judges.

Completely different.

Again, you can do all the other sports in your backyard.  You can't determine a winner in gymnastics without a judge.

But they aren't, though, Bails.  The mechanism may be different, but the outcome isn't.  Your "difference" is one of semantics.  Look at it this way:
 
In baseball you have to advance your runner from home to home, touching all bases in between.  If you don't, if you only make it halfway, you don't get any points.  Football gives you partial credit; if you don't advance the ball past the endline for six points, you can still get three points for kicking it.   In gymnastics, you have to complete this list of moves, and if you do, you get a score.  For every move you do not complete you get partial credit.   Just like the official in football stands there and tells you when you cross the goal line, the judge stands there and tells you when you completed the move.
 
Your mantra that "you can't do this in your back yard without a judge" is also semantics.  You can box in your backyard; first kid with his ass on the ground loses.  And it isn't like baseball is so "easy" to self-police.  I think sometimes I have boxed as a result of playing baseball in the back yard.  :)  We used to do synchronized swimming in the lake behind my house all the time, and in winter we would figure skate when the lake froze. 

Okay, that last part isn't true.  But we could've if we wanted to. 
 
 

Sorry buddy.  We're going to have to disagree here.
 
There is a great difference between officiating and judging.  I don't see it as a semantics issue at all.
 
There are no "style" points, no "level of difficulty" in baseball, football, soccer, etc.
 
 

Stadler


Speaking of gymnastics, here's a pointless, inconsequential rant, important probably only to me:

...what happened to the word "the"?  Why all the disrespect? 

It started, in my estimation, with the concept of the end-of-the-year bacchanalia for high school seniors.  In my day, that was called "the prom".  We went to "the prom", we asked others that we liked if they wanted to go to "the prom", and some of us made asses aof ourselves at "the prom".  Now, apparently, kids go to "prom".  I don't really know what it means "to prom", but I don't think that is how it is meant.  I also heard this usage when those idiotic, self-serving, lack-of-any-perspective-that-I-can-see mothers would refer to their little cheerleading angels as going to "Nationals".  Not "the Nationals", but "Nationals". 

Then, and why this is coming up now, it progressed to gymnastics.  The kids I'm watching last night, according to Tim Daggett, were alternately "on balance beam", "on pommel horse", and "on floor".  From my position, though, it looked like they were competing on "the balance beam", twirling like gypsies on "the pommel horse", or jumping like crazy people on "the floor".   In all seriousness, I get that linguistically you could be talking about a piece of equipment or an event, so the noun could be refering to two different things, and like we talk about "baseball" and not "the baseball", we could in theory talk about "floor" in the same way, but I still ask the question, why now?  Why didn't Jim McKay refer to Olga Korbut dominating in "uneven bars"?  It was after all, "the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat", wasn't it?

Thankfully we aren't going to "World Series", "Stanley Cup", or "Super Bowl" yet.  But I might "wang-chung" tonight if I'm lucky.

I love it when I come to forum and see a post like this

Bails


Sorry buddy.  We're going to have to disagree here.

There is a great difference between officiating and judging.  I don't see it as a semantics issue at all.

 
Hey, that's fine.  As always it is with respect, and it isn't as if I am making my living from my gymnastics judging or anything.  :)
 

There are no "style" points, no "level of difficulty" in baseball, football, soccer, etc.

I was hoping you wouldn't notice that.  :)   That is a pretty big flaw in my argument, I'll give you that.

So, any "sport" that involves aspects that could involve "judgement calls" should be abolished? That means that every "sport" that has rules should be abolished because all rules are enforced by humans and that by definition makes it a "judgement call".
 
You can't say that "in baseball the team with the most points wins" without considering the influence of the umpires.  Especially the one judging whether something is a "ball" or a "strike". There is a pretty exact area that is considered the "strike zone". But EVERY game, an ump judges a pitch wrongly and "balls" are called "strikes" and "strikes" are called "balls". Now, imagine that the ump wasn't impartial...  Would the ump be able to influence the outcome of the game?  (my answer would be YES!!!)
Granted, some sports make use of technology to verify if a call is correct (like Tennis, icehockey and football) but in some sports the referee's call is final.  (like soccer)
 
I think that we need to put a little faith in the ability of the judges/referees and trust that they have integrity and can "judge" or "rule" with impartiality/fairness. Lets enjoy the sports for what they are and if you can't stand watching it because the "judging" bothers you, don't watch it.
 
 

There's a big difference between judging and RATING.
 
In Football, you may need to call in a judge to determine if a play ended in a touchdown, or if that was really a pass interference.  These judges typically give a binary result... either it was or was not. They don't say "I rate this touchdown a 15.886, but the other team got a 16.412 touchdown, so they win the game."