General Skating Chat

[Tsubakindy]

13 hours ago, WinForPooh said:

The difference in how individual judges scored an element on GOE is the really wild bit. It's almost as if having actual clear rules for bullets instead of freewheeling guidelines might have been wise.

 

Im preparing myself for a wild ride this season. Wont be surprised for +4 and +5 being thrown at quad flip and quad lutz for just being landed 

 

I thought+4 and +5 are reserved for something special like Yuzu's triple axel...what are we heading into? A season with judges who are confused with new judging system?  

 

[WinForPooh]

8 hours ago, Tsubakindy said:

 

Im preparing myself for a wild ride this season. Wont be surprised for +4 and +5 being thrown at quad flip and quad lutz for just being landed 

 

I thought+4 and +5 are reserved for something special like Yuzu's triple axel...what are we heading into? A season with judges who are confused with new judging system?  

 

The judges looked over at Yuzu and was like, 'This boy! He be wildin'! Let's be wildin' too! You get a +4, you get a +5, everybody gets a candy!'

 

I hope it's not like this for international competitions. Hope, it springs eternal. 

[monchan]

Seems like things don't go very well for ISU this yr  (Karma exists )

[sallycinnamon]

ISU has published the updated SOV & GOE Guidelines (ISU Communication No. 2186)

 

https://isu.org/communications/17795-2186-s-p-scale-of-values-levels-of-difficulty-and-guidelines-for-marking-goe-2018-19-replacing-2168/file

 

They added the definition of serious error:

 

Quote

Serious error (error that impacts the integrity / continuity / fluidity of the composition and/or its relation to the music) 

 

Also this is new:

 

Quote

GOE evaluation In case of significant error (e.g. fall, landing on two feet, stepping out of landing, wrong edge (e), downgraded (<<), serious problems on the descent of the lift, serious problems on the catch of the Twist) the starting GOE for the evaluation cannot be higher than +2.

 

So we have now serious and significant errors?

 

They also added to ChStq second bullet point ('element matches the music') that it also reflects the concept/character of the program.

 

[Murieleirum]

7 minutes ago, sallycinnamon said:

GOE evaluation In case of significant error (e.g. fall, landing on two feet, stepping out of landing, wrong edge (e), downgraded (<<), serious problems on the descent of the lift, serious problems on the catch of the Twist) the starting GOE for the evaluation cannot be higher than +2.

 

Wait, in case of fall isn't there the obligation to give -5? Hahahah I am so bad at keeping up with them! 

[WinForPooh]

What is 'starting GOE for the evaluation'? Isn't that supposed to be, you know, 0? And then you add or subtract depending on what features there are, or what errors there are? How can starting GOE for evaluation for anything be +2?

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

3 時間前, WinForPoohさんが言いました:

What is 'starting GOE for the evaluation'? Isn't that supposed to be, you know, 0? And then you add or subtract depending on what features there are, or what errors there are? How can starting GOE for evaluation for anything be +2?

 

Well, if they're gonna judge on a constrained scale with the new +5 being the new +3, it stands to reason that the new +2 would be the new 0. It's pretty simple and sound logic and completely reasonable, in ISU's books. Anyway, isn't this whole thing more about simply repackaging the surface rather than really revamping the mechanics? Kinda like, if what they're serving before was beef stew, what they're saying is they're serving something "different" called chuck goulash now in a different colored dish and look! They even changed the utensils and the table cloth! So they do hope you enjoy their earnest effort to improve upon the previous dish, even though the food itself essentially looks and tastes the same.

[Neenah]

2 hours ago, WinForPooh said:

What is 'starting GOE for the evaluation'? Isn't that supposed to be, you know, 0? And then you add or subtract depending on what features there are, or what errors there are? How can starting GOE for evaluation for anything be +2?

I think it is related to something that was said before about a landed jump deserving of positive GOE and not actually starting from 0. Can't remember when that was said but I am sure we discussed it before.

 

3 hours ago, Murieleirum said:

 

Wait, in case of fall isn't there the obligation to give -5? Hahahah I am so bad at keeping up with them! 

It is mandatory to deduct -5 GOE, not that the final GOE should be -5. So a judge can say "I thought it could have been a (+4)  jump if the fall didn't happen so I gave it  (-1),  I am justified in my scoring".

We will probably be seeing -3,-4,-5 for falls in the future unless the ISU say clearly that the final GOE must be -5

 

[WinForPooh]

But none of that makes sense, the base value has 'base' in it. So if a jump with a fall has an actual BV of BV+20%, what does a landed jump have?

 

My head. It hurts. 

[Tsubakindy]

Landed jump automatically get +2? Wow, then all of Yuzu's cleanly landed jump must get +5 then -__- My brain hurts...no wonder Nam's 4S got almost +4 goe the other day if they're starting with +2....I cant anymore

[Pamigena]

No idea if this makes sense but whatever... I guess "GOE evaluation" to them is a 2-step process? Like, step 1: you start out with 0, you look at all the positive aspects and add GOE points accordingly. Step 2: you look at all the bad things and subtract accordingly. But when there's a serious error, then the positive GOE from step 1 cannot be higher than +2, no matter how many bullet points the skater ticked off. So, for example, in case of a fall, you have the mandatory -5 deduction, and GOE for the good parts cannot be more than +2, so a jump with a fall should always have a final GOE of -3 or less.

Maybe?  

[Neenah]

Just now, WinForPooh said:

But none of that makes sense, the base value has 'base' in it. So if a jump with a fall has an actual BV of BV+20%, what does a landed jump have?

 

My head. It hurts. 

No, a landed jump gets the +GOE. A jump with a fall will be - GOE in any case just not necessarily -5

 

Thinking more about, the positive GOE criteria for a jump are

1) very good height and very good length (of all jumps in a combo or sequence) - Possible with a fall

2) good take-off and landing - Not possible with a fall

3) effortless throughout (including rhythm in Jump combination) - Not possible with a fall

4) steps before the jump, unexpected or creative entry - Possible with a fall

5) very good body position from take-off to landing - Not possible with a fall

6) element matches the music - Possible with a fall

 

Based on that, no jump with a fall can get more than -2 GOE, and if we consider that falls happen for a reason (UR, bad air position, bad take off, etc.) then that should add to the -5 fall deduction,which means no jump with a fall should ever get more than -4 GOE 

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

This is all.so...convoluted and complicated. Not to mention vague. I'm beginning to think the judges shouldn't be scorned but commended for being willing to judge at all...

[WinForPooh]

6 minutes ago, Neenah said:

No, a landed jump gets the +GOE. A jump with a fall will be - GOE in any case just not necessarily -5

 

Thinking more about, the positive GOE criteria for a jump are

1) very good height and very good length (of all jumps in a combo or sequence) - Possible with a fall

2) good take-off and landing - Not possible with a fall

3) effortless throughout (including rhythm in Jump combination) - Not possible with a fall

4) steps before the jump, unexpected or creative entry - Possible with a fall

5) very good body position from take-off to landing - Not possible with a fall

6) element matches the music - Possible with a fall

 

Based on that, no jump with a fall can get more than -2 GOE, and if we consider that falls happen for a reason (UR, bad air position, bad take off, etc.) then that should add to the -5 fall deduction,which means no jump with a fall should ever get more than -4 GOE 

 

I see. So "starting GOE for the evaluation cannot be higher than +2" refers to the GOE before the fall itself is taken into account, not GOE before anything about the jump is taken into account. A two-stage process, like @Pamigena put it.

 

My head hurts a little bit still, but I get it now. Thank you! 

 

ETA: I think I need antacids for this season.

 

 

[EisElle]

6 hours ago, sallycinnamon said:

Serious error (error that impacts the integrity / continuity / fluidity of the composition and/or its relation to the music) 

I LOVE that they added that to clarify, but it doesn't clarify anything. Masterful! 

And I wonder, does falling on the music cue interrupt the flow? Because I kinda love Yuzu's fall in gpf14 SP, so swishy, such a flow, so fitting the music  

More seriously, I guess techical mistakes on jump take off are not serious, since a casual viewer wouldn't be aware nor care (or is 'timing of the jump not fitting the music' something that interrupts the integrity and flow? Whoa, all jumps with long preparation are serious errors then ).

I guess stumbles, falls, issues on jump landings (not UR tho, I think, unless it results in some other 'visible' mistake) would count, maybe a particularly ugly pop too?  lots of room for subjectivity, once again.

Tbh,  while in general I can agree a stumble makes performance worse, I don't think I would have liked to see olympic Seimei receive no more than 9 in PE and IN, and not because it's Yuzuru (well, maybe a bit of that too) but because I think it was one of his strongest Seimei ever, interpretation-wise. And while it is reasonable not to give that one the highest score possible, it's really annoying to see clean but much more shallow programs get the same score, just because of that.

And again, why should a couple stumbles on a jump landing mean otherwise outstanding SS shouldn't be rewarded as such? A landing can go wrong for reasons not related to the take off itself, that would be the only thing connected to SS (and if good SS and good jumps were really that related I would expect current Nathan and Boyang to have better SS than current Patrick...and current Jason would be one of the best quadsters out there)

And there are no GENERAL guidelines on how a 'serious error' affects PCS for all the skaters who are in the 0-9 range. How is it supposed to be fair for all skaters? (Of course, if judges had judged properly all this time, if they had NOT done things like awarding a personal best in PCS to a bombed program,  ISU wouldn't be doing this...but it's only judges's mentality and training that should be addressed)

 

6 hours ago, sallycinnamon said:

GOE evaluation In case of significant error (e.g. fall, landing on two feet, stepping out of landing, wrong edge (e), downgraded (<<), serious problems on the descent of the lift, serious problems on the catch of the Twist) the starting GOE for the evaluation cannot be higher than +2.

EDIT:

as @Nenaah said, I think they wanted to say 'all positive features added can't be more than +2, before starting subtracting', meaning that with a negative feature worth -3 you would have at most +2+(-3)=-1, and e.g. with a fall the final GOE could be +2+(-5)=-3 at most (if it is indeed true GOE deduction for falls will be addedd to positive features).

For jumps and going by memory it's actually reasonable, since a jump with a issue on landing wouldn't hit any positive bullet for good landing, effortless and good flow. It could hit bullet for height&distance, bullet for creative entry and...matched to music? wait,  that would be a +3...I guess falls timed to the music won't get that bullet, after all 

Imo ISU is just trying to remind judges a two footed landing isn't effortless and doesn't hit two out of 3 bolded bullets...

 

Wait, now I'm confused: is a serious mistake worse than a significant one? Can a mistake be serious but no significant? Significant but not serious?

In theory could one mistake interrupt the flow and integrity without deserving capped GOE?

Wait, jumps with endless preparation and 0 relation to music would be exactly that!

And a fall timed to music could be significant error but not serious! 

I KNEW IT!!! 

JK