General Skating Chat

[Kadova]

On 10/31/2019 at 8:51 PM, Sombreuil said:

Depressingly the more strident ‘fans’ would like to make the likes of  Yuzuru and Jason retire too, because they are ‘past their best’ ‘boring and repetitive ‘ and should ‘make way for younger skaters’.  I sometimes wonder who the hell these people are that feel entitled to make such pronouncements about the careers of intelligent talented hard working athletes.  I very much doubt there is a fraction of their talent or hard work, and as for intelligence......

The most stupid thing imho is that older skaters should make way for younger skaters...oh well.

[memae]

3 hours ago, Kadova said:

The most stupid thing imho is that older skaters should make way for younger skaters...oh well.

Yeah, that doesn't foster improvement . Like, Yuzuru is making it real difficult for younger skaters to come through and beat him - but they're better for it. No way would Nathan have 5 quads if he didn't need them to be competitive against Yuzu

[Veveco]

I don't know if you guys have noticed this exchange on Twitter but Meagan Duhamel responded about Nathan's "fall" not being counted as a fall as simply "you can't compare one panel to the next". The following response to her comment has been, shall we say, less than positive. (I'm not posting all the angry answers here, but you can imagine, or check for yourself....) People are not impressed by her opinion. 

 

 

Obviously, comparisons between competitions matter. Be it for GP, world records, or PB/SB used for various selections. That panels don't apply rules the same way is precisely what people are complaining so much about so... I'm confused about her stating this so calmly? Technically, in the current state of things, she isn't wrong, but that is an observation, not a justification that anyone should be happy about. Does she not realize that she's just poking the beehive? And it obviously echoes Eric's infamous comment of "GOE and PCS are subjective" (iirc). I know they have both been on the good side of this "subjectivity" but how can they be so deaf to the general mood on sns? They could just... not say such things like it is 100% reasonable? Keep it to themselves? It's not surprising but disappointing that it keeps happening. 

 

Also, this response to an apologist cracked me up. Cross-reference to Yuzu's Sponichi interview. (Queue also Javier complaining at EC)

 

 

[shanshani]

Yeah, it's obvious that consistency in scoring across different competitions does matter, because scores from different competitions are used for world records, qualifying for grand prix events, and tie breakers for qualifying for GPF. If making it on the top 24 SB list automatically qualifies you for a grand prix spot, being number 25 because you had a tough technical panel and number 24 didn't sucks. Obviously there's always going to be some luck involved and people aren't robots, but it's better to reduce the variation as much as possible.

 

In this case, the variation in tech panel strictness was particularly stark, because not only was Nate's arguable fall in the SP overlooked, so was Shoma's really obvious 3A UR/near downgrade, and I'm sure there were also other men's skaters whose tech errors were overlooked. But a few hours later, despite 2/3 of the panel literally being the same people, they were extremely strict on the ladies. Alina's Lutz was called e even though it would only have been called ! in most circumstances, and Alena got a < called even though at most her toepick had only just begun slightly brushing the ice at the quarter mark, which is only UR on the strictest possible interpretation of the rules (and who knows, maybe they decided they were overly strict and that's why they let her much more clearly UR 3A go in the free ). Most of the other ladies also got calls all over their protocols. The point is, the tech panel extended the ladies zero benefit of the doubt and essentially threw the book at them, whereas they let the men get away. Obviously the men and the ladies don't compete against each other, but still, what gives? Is it that hard to decide on a single standard of strictness, especially when 2/3 of the panel are the same people? Fine, Nathan's “fall” might be a grey zone, but so was Alina's lutz and Alena's UR and the tech panel called against the skaters there. (Also Shoma's 3A was not remotely a grey zone, tech panel was just asleep.) Either decide you're going to give skaters the benefit of the doubt or you aren't, don't go one way one time and the other another.

 

Tech panel inconsistency is confusing to viewers, unfair to skaters, and makes the sport seem less legitimate. The rules should be clarified and an equal standard of strictness applied across competitions. Moreover, the tech panel should be supported by improvements in technology, such as multiple camera angles. I'm sure some of the inconsistency comes from the fact that they only get one replay angle. I'm also pretty sure the way the tech panel works is that they first decide whether to flag an element for review in real time, then later only review the elements that were flagged. Meaning if they blink, or some other lapse of attention occurs and they don't flag, they don't review. Which seems like another source of inconsistency--they should just review every jump element, tbh. It might extend competition times a little, but I personally have never thought the time between the skate and the scores is excessive--I like it because it gives people time to react and talk about the skate. Maybe there's an issue with selling rights to broadcasting networks, but I hope we're moving away from that tbh.

[yuzupon]

16 hours ago, Kadova said:

The most stupid thing imho is that older skaters should make way for younger skaters...oh well.

If I was one of those younger skaters, I'd feel mightily insulted. It's as if the younger ones can only achieve high if the older ones give it to them, preferrably by leaving. *scoff*

Truly shows how pathetic some people are. Champions do not become champions by waiting/wishing/what-have-you for (better) competitiors to make way for them by leaving the competition. That's a loser mentality.

I wonder why these fans follow any sport at all.

[Henni147]

5 hours ago, shanshani said:

Yeah, it's obvious that consistency in scoring across different competitions does matter, because scores from different competitions are used for world records, qualifying for grand prix events, and tie breakers for qualifying for GPF. If making it on the top 24 SB list automatically qualifies you for a grand prix spot, being number 25 because you had a tough technical panel and number 24 didn't sucks. Obviously there's always going to be some luck involved and people aren't robots, but it's better to reduce the variation as much as possible.

 

In this case, the variation in tech panel strictness was particularly stark, because not only was Nate's arguable fall in the SP overlooked, so was Shoma's really obvious 3A UR/near downgrade, and I'm sure there were also other men's skaters whose tech errors were overlooked. But a few hours later, despite 2/3 of the panel literally being the same people, they were extremely strict on the ladies. Alina's Lutz was called e even though it would only have been called ! in most circumstances, and Alena got a < called even though at most her toepick had only just begun slightly brushing the ice at the quarter mark, which is only UR on the strictest possible interpretation of the rules (and who knows, maybe they decided they were overly strict and that's why they let her much more clearly UR 3A go in the free ). Most of the other ladies also got calls all over their protocols. The point is, the tech panel extended the ladies zero benefit of the doubt and essentially threw the book at them, whereas they let the men get away. Obviously the men and the ladies don't compete against each other, but still, what gives? Is it that hard to decide on a single standard of strictness, especially when 2/3 of the panel are the same people? Fine, Nathan's “fall” might be a grey zone, but so was Alina's lutz and Alena's UR and the tech panel called against the skaters there. (Also Shoma's 3A was not remotely a grey zone, tech panel was just asleep.) Either decide you're going to give skaters the benefit of the doubt or you aren't, don't go one way one time and the other another.

 

Tech panel inconsistency is confusing to viewers, unfair to skaters, and makes the sport seem less legitimate. The rules should be clarified and an equal standard of strictness applied across competitions. Moreover, the tech panel should be supported by improvements in technology, such as multiple camera angles. I'm sure some of the inconsistency comes from the fact that they only get one replay angle. I'm also pretty sure the way the tech panel works is that they first decide whether to flag an element for review in real time, then later only review the elements that were flagged. Meaning if they blink, or some other lapse of attention occurs and they don't flag, they don't review. Which seems like another source of inconsistency--they should just review every jump element, tbh. It might extend competition times a little, but I personally have never thought the time between the skate and the scores is excessive--I like it because it gives people time to react and talk about the skate. Maybe there's an issue with selling rights to broadcasting networks, but I hope we're moving away from that tbh.

 

Honestly. Snooker is not a high profile sport either. It happens every day that a match lasts 2-3 hours longer than planned and it's no problem to change the broadcast schedule spontaneously. A detailed review in figure skating wouldn't need more than 30-45 minutes additional time, but it would help a lot to make the judging more transparent and consistent.

[SparkleSalad]

They took 30 seconds from the men’s FS, surely they could have used that for review...

[yuzuangel]

15 hours ago, Veveco said:

I don't know if you guys have noticed this exchange on Twitter but Meagan Duhamel responded about Nathan's "fall" not being counted as a fall as simply "you can't compare one panel to the next". The following response to her comment has been, shall we say, less than positive. (I'm not posting all the angry answers here, but you can imagine, or check for yourself....) People are not impressed by her opinion. 

Heh and Meagan herself is studying to be to be a technical controller  

[yuzupon]

1 hour ago, yuzuangel said:

Heh and Meagan herself is studying to be to be a technical controller  

That's, and I am quoting her here, "Unfortunate".

[shanshani]

8 hours ago, SparkleSalad said:

They took 30 seconds from the men’s FS, surely they could have used that for review...

Nope, instead it was just to make the discipline more palatable to increasingly irrelevant broadcast networks despite the fact that it (and other factors) have degraded the quality of the programs. So many men's programs feel like jump drills these days.

 

I mean, maybe the ISU gets most of its funding from television rights, but it would sure be nice if they diversified their revenue stream. Plus, television rights might be easier to sell if the programs were more entertaining...and ladies programs will likely go the same way once more ladies figure out how to jump quads.

[SparkleSalad]

@shanshani Yeah, I know why they shortened the programs, it’s just... nnnnggggg... guhhhhhh... the priorities...  this “sport”...   I’m struggling to think of one thing right with it.

[Salior]

Btw, if anyone is considering subscribing to VPN, NordVPN is offering a 70% discount from my favourite YouTube documentary channel. Not sure if it works but hope it does. It's a pretty reputable VPN. 
 

this is the YouTube channel if anyone’s curious, I like their in depth but neutral geopolitical analysis  

 

✔ GET NORDVPN ► https://nordvpn.com/caspianreport

✔ USE COUPON CODE ► caspianreport

✔ USE THE CODE SO YOU CAN GET 70% off 3-year plan + 1 month free

 

 

[memae]

On 11/4/2019 at 1:58 AM, Veveco said:

I don't know if you guys have noticed this exchange on Twitter but Meagan Duhamel responded about Nathan's "fall" not being counted as a fall as simply "you can't compare one panel to the next". The following response to her comment has been, shall we say, less than positive. (I'm not posting all the angry answers here, but you can imagine, or check for yourself....) People are not impressed by her opinion. 

 

 

Obviously, comparisons between competitions matter. Be it for GP, world records, or PB/SB used for various selections. That panels don't apply rules the same way is precisely what people are complaining so much about so... I'm confused about her stating this so calmly?

 

 

She has probably been burned by this lack of consistency more than anyone griping about her comment. She's just calling it as she has come to see it through her years of experience with panels and judging - I think the athletes themselves have to get to a point that they can be calm about it or it's just going to burn them up and distract from what they truly need to focus on (their skating). I'd say she wasted a lot of energy being angry about it early in her career and then grew to realise she can't change it so she just has to make sure she skates as well as she can. I think the 'unfortunately' tagged on the end of her comment indicates that she's not impressed by it, but that it's just how it is. It's crap of course, because the athletes should be able to rely on judging being accurate and consistent, but they also shouldn't have to be trying to fight the system when they have their training and skating to worry about. We have just seen this with Yuzu - he was not pleased with the tech calls and judging at ACI and, while he has spoken out a bit about it, his real response to it was his performance at SC. He didn't give them any room for shady grey areas because he skated so well. 

 

It's one thing for fans to be getting outraged on behalf of athletes, but calling out the athletes themselves (even retired ones) for their nonchalant/jaded/whatever attitudes to inconsistent judging feels like a bit of a low blow because none of us have been in their shoes when it comes to dealing with and working around it. Like, if they're just resigned to be disappointed with it instead of angry and outraged, let them. They've put in the work. Fans, federations, gambling, and sponsors bring money to the sport. That's where the push has to come from.

[Veveco]

4 hours ago, memae said:

 

She has probably been burned by this lack of consistency more than anyone griping about her comment. She's just calling it as she has come to see it through her years of experience with panels and judging - I think the athletes themselves have to get to a point that they can be calm about it or it's just going to burn them up and distract from what they truly need to focus on (their skating). I'd say she wasted a lot of energy being angry about it early in her career and then grew to realise she can't change it so she just has to make sure she skates as well as she can. I think the 'unfortunately' tagged on the end of her comment indicates that she's not impressed by it, but that it's just how it is. It's crap of course, because the athletes should be able to rely on judging being accurate and consistent, but they also shouldn't have to be trying to fight the system when they have their training and skating to worry about. We have just seen this with Yuzu - he was not pleased with the tech calls and judging at ACI and, while he has spoken out a bit about it, his real response to it was his performance at SC. He didn't give them any room for shady grey areas because he skated so well. 

 

It's one thing for fans to be getting outraged on behalf of athletes, but calling out the athletes themselves (even retired ones) for their nonchalant/jaded/whatever attitudes to inconsistent judging feels like a bit of a low blow because none of us have been in their shoes when it comes to dealing with and working around it. Like, if they're just resigned to be disappointed with it instead of angry and outraged, let them. They've put in the work. Fans, federations, gambling, and sponsors bring money to the sport. That's where the push has to come from.

 

You bring some good points, and I would like to expend on my original post to explain my own point of view a bit more.

 

First, I absolutely agree that that athletes themselves (or anyone, really) should not be harped on on social media. If my comment hinted at that I apologize because that was really not my intention. That being said, I don't see why people wouldn't be allowed to disagree with her. She stated her opinion publicly, in response to a discussion pointing out at the inconsistency of the panels, so obviously people are going to react. She chose to get involved in the discussion and she essentially gave ammunition to the people complaining about the system in the first place. I wish some fans were more subtle in their answer, but unfortunately social media is rarely the best place for a nuanced debate (particularly Twitter).

 

Her being a skater (active or not) doesn't really change anything about the issue as far as I am concerned. I don't expect any individual skater to either support or attack the system. Some will speak out, some won't. She or anyone else doesn't owe us anything, it's 100% their choice. But since she gave her opinion, people are allowed to react.

 

I will say, however, that more so than her own personal opinion, what disturbs me in her reaction is the fact that the ISU has essentially created a culture in which unfairness is not only expected, but thought to be impossible to avoid by the athletes and judges alike. While she says it is "unfortunate", she makes it clear that for her "it is what it is". I blame the ISU for this, not her personally, because I don't think any individual person can be held responsible. Not even judges themselves, given the conditions they have to work with (vague rules, limited angles & replays, limited time for scoring, having to stay focus for about 2h in a row, etc.). There are so many reasons for this mess. Even the most willing judge would not be able to be fair all the time (and that is without even poking at the issue of nationalistic bias which is a different story altogether). In reality, the ISU could implement a number of measures to improve the situation. Simply clarifying the rules would go a long way (what is a "serious mistake"?? What is "good height"??). Not allowing judges to enter a GOE that is outside of the "guidelines" on the screen. There are also methods to scientifically study inconsistency in scoring (as brought up by some Twitter comments, actually), statistical models have been developed for this and used in other sports. For instance, it's not a secret that panels are often more lenient on the last group than the lower-ranked skaters. This could be systematically studied. And while grey areas will always exist, clearer rules and investing in new technologies to assist the judges are some obvious answers to limit them. Yes, it is all costly. But it is the responsibility of the ISU to tackle the issue.

 

I can give as one last example, a recent discussion I had with my neighbor at Skate Canada. The lady next to me was a judge for lower level competition, and she asked me how much I knew about jumps (as a relatively new fan of the sport). I told her I could recognize most of them but that flip and lutz were still hard for me at real speed. And she answered right away: "oh, but most judges don't see the difference". And I felt so bad, honestly. I'm nobody, my incompetence in the matter doesn't impact anyone whatsoever - but judges? Shouldn't they know better? Shouldn't the ISU provide better training? Even at the lower levels? It was quite disheartening to hear.

 

 

[shanshani]

1 hour ago, Veveco said:

 

You bring some good points, and I would like to expend on my original post to explain my own point of view a bit more.

 

First, I absolutely agree that that athletes themselves (or anyone, really) should not be harped on on social media. If my comment hinted at that I apologize because that was really not my intention. That being said, I don't see why people wouldn't be allowed to disagree with her. She stated her opinion publicly, in response to a discussion pointing out at the inconsistency of the panels, so obviously people are going to react. She chose to get involved in the discussion and she essentially gave ammunition to the people complaining about the system in the first place. I wish some fans were more subtle in their answer, but unfortunately social media is rarely the best place for a nuanced debate (particularly Twitter).

 

Her being a skater (active or not) doesn't really change anything about the issue as far as I am concerned. I don't expect any individual skater to either support or attack the system. Some will speak out, some won't. She or anyone else doesn't owe us anything, it's 100% their choice. But since she gave her opinion, people are allowed to react.

 

I will say, however, that more so than her own personal opinion, what disturbs me in her reaction is the fact that the ISU has essentially created a culture in which unfairness is not only expected, but thought to be impossible to avoid by the athletes and judges alike. While she says it is "unfortunate", she makes it clear that for her "it is what it is". I blame the ISU for this, not her personally, because I don't think any individual person can be held responsible. Not even judges themselves, given the conditions they have to work with (vague rules, limited angles & replays, limited time for scoring, having to stay focus for about 2h in a row, etc.). There are so many reasons for this mess. Even the most willing judge would not be able to be fair all the time (and that is without even poking at the issue of nationalistic bias which is a different story altogether). In reality, the ISU could implement a number of measures to improve the situation. Simply clarifying the rules would go a long way (what is a "serious mistake"?? What is "good height"??). Not allowing judges to enter a GOE that is outside of the "guidelines" on the screen. There are also methods to scientifically study inconsistency in scoring (as brought up by some Twitter comments, actually), statistical models have been developed for this and used in other sports. For instance, it's not a secret that panels are often more lenient on the last group than the lower-ranked skaters. This could be systematically studied. And while grey areas will always exist, clearer rules and investing in new technologies to assist the judges are some obvious answers to limit them. Yes, it is all costly. But it is the responsibility of the ISU to tackle the issue.

 

I can give as one last example, a recent discussion I had with my neighbor at Skate Canada. The lady next to me was a judge for lower level competition, and she asked me how much I knew about jumps (as a relatively new fan of the sport). I told her I could recognize most of them but that flip and lutz were still hard for me at real speed. And she answered right away: "oh, but most judges don't see the difference". And I felt so bad, honestly. I'm nobody, my incompetence in the matter doesn't impact anyone whatsoever - but judges? Shouldn't they know better? Shouldn't the ISU provide better training? Even at the lower levels? It was quite disheartening to hear.

 

 

Wait what, most judges can't tell the difference between a flip and a lutz? what, that better not be true. 

 

(btw, the easiest way to spot whether a jump is supposed to be a flip or a lutz is to look at the entrance. if the skater glides backwards for a bit before jumping, it's lutz, and if a skater turns into the jump, it's a flip. this way, even if the skater messes up the edge, you know which jump is intended.)

 

elsewhere, I mentioned that I thought judges should be able to ID steps and turns in real time, bc it's hard to judge transitions and skating accurately if you can't. little did I know that there are apparently even judges who can't ID jumps in real time