General Skating Chat

[ralucutzagy]

 

 

[mokjakarma]

I saw this a few days ago but I wasn't sure where to post it. What do you guys think of the suggestion to check off bullets and letting a program calculate how much GOE should be given based on those bullets? 

 

[Henni147]

6 hours ago, mokjakarma said:

I saw this a few days ago but I wasn't sure where to post it. What do you guys think of the suggestion to check off bullets and letting a program calculate how much GOE should be given based on those bullets? 

 

 

Yeah, I thought about that idea, too. However, some problems would still remain:

 

 

1. Example: a skater completes a heavily pre-rotated jump with stiff landing. The judges still consider it as "very good take-off and landing" and say that bullet 1 is satisfied. Can anyone complain against that decision? No.

 

 

2. If you look into the current GOE guidelines for negative bullets, you can only facepalm, seriously:

 

Wrong edge take off F/Lz (sign "e")	GOE -3 to -4
Unclear edge take off F/Lz (sign "!")	GOE -1 to -3
Unclear edge take off F/Lz (no sign)	GOE -1

 

How is an unclear edge without "!" even possible in the first place?! Does it mean, the judges have the written permission to veto the tech panel and fix their mistakes!? Eh ...LOL...?!?! It's not that the judges don't have enough other things to evaluate... They have to do the tech panel's job in addition. Great.

 

Next question: Why is the current reduction range for a "!" call so huge from -1 to -3?

Example: a skater jumps a 4F with "!" (which is not unlikely). GOE -1 equals a reduction of -1.1 points and -3 -3.3 points for a quad Flip. That's a really big difference and it's the judges' free decision, how hard they want to punish a flat edge at the moment.

 

 

Now... If we drop the current GOE system and only check bullets in the future, what do they want to do with:

 

a) "Unclear edge with no sign"? I'm really interested now. If they keep it, the judges have a bigger veto power. If they cancel it, the tech panel has more corruption power.

b) Let's say, the tech panel calls "!" for a jump. Does that count as one bullet with -10% or -30% then? Because that's a pretty huge difference.

 

 

 

These are only examples. There are countless other issues that wouldn't be fixed by just checking bullets. It's a good idea, but still not enough to avoid wrong/corrupt judging.

[Sombreuil]

It always comes down to the same thing - fix the judges and the system will work.  Start by appointing them independently of national federations. 

[mokjakarma]

8 minutes ago, Henni147 said:

 

Yeah, I thought about that idea, too. However, some problems would still remain:

 

 

1. Example: a skater completes a heavily pre-rotated jump with stiff landing. The judges still consider it as "very good take-off and landing" and say that bullet 1 is satisfied. Can anyone complain against that decision? No.

 

 

2. If you look into the current GOE guidelines for negative bullets, you can only facepalm, seriously:

 

Wrong edge take off F/Lz (sign "e")	GOE -3 to -4
Unclear edge take off F/Lz (sign "!")	GOE -1 to -3
Unclear edge take off F/Lz (no sign)	GOE -1

 

How is an unclear edge without "!" even possible in the first place?! Does it mean, the judges have the written permission to veto the tech panel and fix their mistakes!? Eh ...LOL...?!?! It's not that the judges don't have enough other things to evaluate... They have to do the tech panel's job in addition. Great.

 

Next question: Why is the current reduction range for a "!" call so huge from -1 to -3?

Example: a skater jumps a 4F with "!" (which is not unlikely). GOE -1 equals a reduction of -1.1 points and -3 -3.3 points for a quad Flip. That's a really big difference and it's the judges' free decision, how hard they want to punish a flat edge at the moment.

 

 

Now... If we drop the current GOE system and only check bullets in the future, what do they want to do with:

 

a) "Uclear edge with no sign"? I'm really interested now. If they keep it, the judges have a bigger veto power. If they cancel it, the tech panel has more corruption power.

b) Let's say, the tech panel calls "!" for a jump. Does that count as one bullet with -10% or -30% then? Because that's a pretty huge difference.

 

 

 

These are only examples. There are countless other issues that wouldn't be fixed by just checking bullets. It's a good idea, but still not enough to avoid wrong/corrupt judging.

Bit by bit I am drowning in the complicated scoring on figure skating. I'm surprised there's a thing for unclear edge with no sign. Also why do they like to give ranges for how much GOE could be given? If it's a wrong edge, why not just say that every wrong edge must be given a -3 instead of having a range of -3 to -4. A wrong edge is a wrong edge. The quality of how wrong it is shouldn't be up for debate, right? Same with an unclear edge. If it wasn't clear, why do they have to evaluate how unclear it is?

 

There is really so much more I need to learn regarding the scoring system, and all the things associated with it. 

[Henni147]

49 minutes ago, mokjakarma said:

Bit by bit I am drowning in the complicated scoring on figure skating.

 

I needed 3 years to dive into the rulebook, the SOV tables, the GOE bullets, the PCS guidelines etc. and there are still so many other things that I don't understand at all like the levels for spins and sequences... 

 

 

Last year I tried to create a table for jumps, steps and turns (how to tell them apart). That was really challenging and I still struggle to identify them in competition (especially the steps and turns...) I'm still not sure, if everything is correct, so if anyone finds flaws, please scream 

 

Jumps	Change of foot	Change of edge	Change of curve	Change of direction	Toe assist
Toeloop	-	-	-	-	X
Salchow	X	X	-	-	-
Loop	-	-	-	-	-
Flip	X	X	-	-	X
Lutz	X	-	X	-	X
Axel	X	-	-	X	-
Steps	Change of foot	Change of edge	Change of curve	Change of direction	Toe use
Toe-step	(X)	-	-	(X)	X
Change of edge	-	X	X	-	-
Chassé	X	X	-	-	-
Crossroll	X	-	X	-	-
Mohawk	X	-	-	X	-
Choctaw	X	X	X	X	-
Turns	Change of foot	Change of edge	Change of curve	Change of direction	Toe use
3-turn	-	X	-	X	-
Bracket	-	X	-	X	-
Rocker	-	-	X	X	-
Counter	-	-	X	X	-
Loop	-	-	-	-	-
Twizzle	-	(X)	-	(X)	-

 

[mokjakarma]

17 minutes ago, Henni147 said:

 

I needed 3 years to dive into the rulebook, the SOV tables, the GOE bullets, the PCS guidelines etc. and there are still so many other things that I don't understand at all like the levels for spins and sequences... 

 

 

Last year I tried to create a table for jumps, steps and turns (how to tell them apart). That was really challenging and I still struggle to identify them in competition (especially the steps and turns...) I'm still not sure, if everything is correct, so if anyone finds flaws, please scream 

 

Jumps	Change of foot	Change of edge	Change of curve	Change of direction	Toe assist
Toeloop	-	-	-	-	X
Salchow	X	X	-	-	-
Loop	-	-	-	-	-
Flip	X	X	-	-	X
Lutz	X	-	X	-	X
Axel	X	-	-	X	-
Steps	Change of foot	Change of edge	Change of curve	Change of direction	Toe use
Toe-step	(X)	-	-	(X)	X
Change of edge	-	X	X	-	-
Chassé	X	X	-	-	-
Crossroll	X	-	X	-	-
Mohawk	X	-	-	X	-
Choctaw	X	X	X	X	-
Turns	Change of foot	Change of edge	Change of curve	Change of direction	Toe use
3-turn	-	X	-	X	-
Bracket	-	X	-	X	-
Rocker	-	-	X	X	-
Counter	-	-	X	X	-
Loop	-	-	-	-	-
Twizzle	-	(X)	-	(X)	-

 

Ahhh steps and turns. They're so difficult. I mean RBI RBO LBI LBO RFI RFO LFI LFO ???? I always go huh   when I see them in analysis videos. I would need a slowed down version of the 0.25x speed before I can see what steps a skater is actually doing

[sweetwater]

 

[Old Cat Lady]

13 hours ago, Sombreuil said:

It always comes down to the same thing - fix the judges and the system will work.  Start by appointing them independently of national federations. 

 

I used to think that way too but the tech panel is independent of federations and look what happened this weekend

[sallycinnamon]

Entries for Finlandia Trophy is out: http://www.isuresults.com/events/fsevent03111915.htm

[WinForPooh]

Shoma will be at Finlandia...

[shanshani]

6 hours ago, Old Cat Lady said:

 

I used to think that way too but the tech panel is independent of federations and look what happened this weekend

Is the tech panel independent of federations? I often see the same names show up on the tech panel as I've seen on past judging panels

 

for instance the tech controller at ACI has been on past judging panels for many competitions

[Old Cat Lady]

1 minute ago, shanshani said:

Is the tech panel independent of federations? I often see the same names show up on the tech panel as I've seen on past judging panels

 

for instance the tech controller at ACI has been on past judging panels for many competitions

 

tbh, I only heard that from other posters so I could be wrong. I never saw it in a rule book. 

 

I'm thinking that the ISU needs to start limiting region members in the tech panel.  They have a lot more power over the score than the judges and having every single one as well as the referee from N. America was too much.

 

But just because it didn't work this weekend (if I'm correct about ISU choosing them), doesn't mean that the judges/tech panel wouldn't benefit from being appointed by independent organization rather than federations.  Though it would be nice if a whole third party chose the judges/tech panel so there's no special interest from anyone at play.

 

What really needs to happen is direct and severe consequences but I'm not sure how to do that without also further encouraging lemming judging.  Sometimes the judge that's completely out of line with the panel has completely valid reasons 

[shanshani]

10 minutes ago, Old Cat Lady said:

 

tbh, I only heard that from other posters so I could be wrong. I never saw it in a rule book. 

 

I'm thinking that the ISU needs to start limiting region members in the tech panel.  They have a lot more power over the score than the judges and having every single one as well as the referee from N. America was too much.

 

But just because it didn't work this weekend (if I'm correct about ISU choosing them), doesn't mean that the judges/tech panel wouldn't benefit from being appointed by independent organization rather than federations.  Though it would be nice if a whole third party chose the judges/tech panel so there's no special interest from anyone at play.

 

What really needs to happen is direct and severe consequences but I'm not sure how to do that without also further encouraging lemming judging.  Sometimes the judge that's completely out of line with the panel has completely valid reasons 

yeah, the tech panel is in dire need of more transparency and oversight. at least I can see individual judges scores. can't see what decisions each panelist did or did not contribute to

 

re: judge oversight, I agree, I don't think one oddball score, especially on a random skater (eg not home country or direct rival of home country), is reason to can a judge. but if there's a pattern...there's statistical methods to detect judging bias. I'm working on a project to do so right now, basically a revision of a similar project last season. It's very labor intensive though so I won't have full results for a couple of weeks. but so far the number of most likely biased judges outnumber the number of fair judges significantly, at least among the judges that have a decent amount of judging data to their names...

[Yuzurella]

Just out of curiosity. Would it be allowed for a lady to do two 3As in her short program? Would a layout of e.g. 3A-3T, 3A, 3Lo be valid?