The roles of PCS/GOE vs ISU's agenda in the new scoring system

[makebelieveup]

I have been wanting to start this thread to extensively discuss about the role of each aspect of the scoring like program component scores (PCS) and grade of execution points in figure skating and how they are being evaluated by ISU judges. One of the main reasons I want to have this discussion is because I have been seeing way too many people becoming used to the way that ISU judges have been scoring PCS based on the technical element scores (TES) that it actually has an effect on their own way of understanding the scoring system. I'm going to give a recent example like World Championships 2019.  I have seen many people come to an agreement that Yuzu should have received much higher PCS than Nathan -- they think he should have received mid 9s while Nathan's mid 8s - but that Nathan would still have won. The reason is because Yuzu made a costly mistake in each the short and free while Nathan was clean in both programs. However, when I tried rescoring both of their performances based on how many people think the PCS should have been given (along with the GOES rescoring) the results would have been in favor of Yuzu and the placement would have been different. Therefore, I feel like there has been a misconception about how PCS should actually be evaluated. Or perhaps rather than there being a misconception, more so there is a normalization of how judges have been evaluating it that we, as viewers, can't really see the extent of how incorrect scoring of program components (and grade of execution points) could do to the placement.

 

Now some could argue that Yuzu still received higher program components than Nathan albeit marginally with more mistakes, therefore, PCS are not contingent upon TES. However, if you follow the individual skater's track of scores like Yuzu, for example, you would find his PCS and TES are correlated. For example, Otonal received the highest PCS and TES at COR 18 (48.09|62.44), followed by Helsinki 18 (47.60|59.09) and then Worlds 19 (46.15|48.16). For Origin, he received the highest PCS and TES at Worlds 19(95.84|110.26), followed by Helsinki 18 (92.42|98.01) and then COR 18 (90.64|78.25). If you take some time to review other skaters' track of scores like Nathan Chen, Shoma Uno, Vincent Zhou, Evgenia Medvedeva, Alina Zagitova, Rika Kihira...etc. I'm sure you could find somewhat of a similar pattern. One of the biggest drivers behind the way PCS are evaluated is the reputation of the skaters. How is it that Vincent's PCS skyrocketed from the GP series to WTT with very similar performances and skating skills? It's because his underrotations began to get buried since Nationals. Then you have Rika getting higher PCS ever since she skated Beautiful Storm clean at NHK 18; she received 152 points at World 19 for a fall and 154 points for a perfect skate. I'm sure if she had skated Beautiful Storm clean once again at Worlds, she would have scored up to 160 points. 

 

I have not mentioned grade of execution points enough here but I would like to say the pattern is quite similar. In fact, I feel like program component scores are given the same role as grade of execution points. If grade of execution points are based on base values, program component scores are based on technical element scores. And both of these are also evaluated by taking into consideration the reputation of the skaters like how popular they are, how consistent they have been getting their elements done, how young the skaters are, what federation they have, their coaches' reputation, their track of record. However, even it's true that judges have been scoring program components based on technical element scores, their main agenda is to get the placement "right". Don't you feel like sometimes certain skaters are always given enough to win or taken enough to lose? There is always a way for judges and tech panalists to do enough performance on their end to give enough points to someone. Nathan getting higher PCS than Vincent at WTT. Evgenia scored higher than Elizaveta at Russian Final. So back to the example of Yuzu getting marginal PCS than Nathan at World Championship despite of the lower tech, was his PCS high enough for him to win? Could this be an attempt from the judges to dispel this idea that PCS = TES? But I genuinely believe that had Yuzu skated his programs clean, the judges would have given Nathan even higher program component scores. And I firmly believe that this is going to be what happened next season if Yuzu tries to up his base value. In fact, another way ISU could manipulate the results is through selective tech calls. Had underrotations/edge calls were given out correctly for all skaters, the placement could have changed drastically. 

 

So what do you guys think? Regardless of judges' agenda even if you agree or disagree with me, do you think PCS should be based on TES in any way? I believe there is a section in the rulebook that says you can't give 9s to a program with a fall. What about GOE under the new rule, aside from the fact that judges are giving them out incorrectly, do you agree that it should be contingent upon the base value of the element? Or what do you think the roles of TES, PCS, deductions, GOE points are, is it meant to be separately evaluated in order to balance out the artistic and athleticism aspects of this sport?

 

To me I think other than giving more metrics to some definition and criteria in the rulebooks in order to make it more quantifiable, I actually agree with how the scoring are broken down. PCS should not be contingent upon TES, that's the role of GOE and deductions. The base value for each element seems fair, except certain jumps like a 4loop and 4axel should have been given higher base value. Max from ITA Eurosport once suggested that if TES could go as high as 130 points, PCS should also go as high as 130 points. However, in my own belief, I think it is not necessary to raise the PCS. GOE, tech calls, PCS, deductions are all there for a purpose. The only thing that needs to change is how the judges and tech panelists use them. Because if PCS is raised, it is just another oppotunity to incorrectly give out high PCS to undeserving skaters. Judges will only use that in favor of them.

[hoodie axel]

13 hours ago, makebelieveup said:

So what do you guys think? Regardless of judges' agenda even if you agree or disagree with me, do you think PCS should be based on TES in any way?

You've phrased it as somewhat of a loaded question IMO, but: yes, a little. A (good) quad can produce a much stronger look on the ice than a double or a triple, and therefore it can add to the choreography/interpretation of the piece (or can take away). Stronger spins and footwork add to the piece. The type of entries you choose for your elements (considered in GOE) can add or detract. Good landings can add to the aesthetic, being able to use your knees on landings figures into SS, the outflow creates a more seamless link with the exit transitions.

 

That speaks nothing of whether or not a quad is needed. The minimum height needed for a quad lutz is higher than a 3Lz, but a great 3Lz can still beat an average 4Lz in terms of looking "powerful" (but it won't be as full of a jump, so depends). Not to mention, this happened, and that's probably the  best PCS performance ever, with "just" doubles and triples. It's really going to depend on the overall choreo.

 

13 hours ago, makebelieveup said:

I believe there is a section in the rulebook that says you can't give 9s to a program with a fall. 

I do not like this artificial limitation to PCS evalutation. I can see how it's necessary, but I place it onto the judges' lack of training instead.

 

13 hours ago, makebelieveup said:

What about GOE under the new rule, aside from the fact that judges are giving them out incorrectly, do you agree that it should be contingent upon the base value of the element? 

I don't think the percentage evaluation is correct; getting 50% of the BV for +5 GOE elements isn't a good thing, IMO. Getting more scaled GOE credit for a +5GOE quad than a +5GOE 2A is exactly right though (and that was true even in the previous system). It's a step they've taken to test it out, and I don't blame them for it. I hope they realize it's a failure, now.

 

13 hours ago, makebelieveup said:

Because if PCS is raised, it is just another oppotunity to incorrectly give out high PCS to undeserving skaters. Judges will only use that in favor of them. 

This isn't correct in my view. IDR exactly what Ambesi said, but if it's just rescaling the current PCS by 1.3, then the ones who are getting 90 will simply end up getting 117.

[WinForPooh]

I think the rule is that with a serious mistake (in the singular) you can't give 10s or 9.5s in certain components and with serious mistakes (plural) you're capped at 9 and 9.5 for different components?

 

I'm actually still confused about that one because I remember being surprised when Shoma doubled his toeloop in combo and got 9.5s at some competition but Yuzu invalidated his spin at ACI and got his PCS capped and some dipped into 8s, I think, so basically, ISU agrees with the people who believe that PCS and GOE are all subjective. I mean, after you have a two or three-day conference to clarify rules and discuss stuff, how difficult would it be to define something as basic as 'serious mistake'? It should be basic, right? It shouldn't be like when your teacher decides whether just lines will do or whether you deserve detention as well based on their mood that day, this is supposed to be a code of points so if there are deductions, they should define what the deductions are for.

 

Same for GOE. 'Very good'? What's 'very good'? That's like a primary school teacher commenting on your handwriting! There should be objective standards for what is perfect, absolutely perfect. I don't think that's so hard, ISU had those simulation videos of takeoffs for jumps, so you can absolutely have an objective standard for perfect technique! And an objective standard for average technique. That's the kind of thing I wish they'd focus on during their thrice-damned and accursed congress. But they never will because this whole sport is like a game of thrones politicking episode but with sad-looking coffee and many spiral-bound files instead of wine and swords. It's not like they're all too stupid to define these things that need to be defined, they just don't want to because once you define them, the judging can be questioned and they don't want that. 

 

I'm honestly waiting for them to stop making protocols public to avoid confusion, as they will call it, just like they eliminated the steps before solo jump in SP to avoid confusion. I mean that will be good for our blood pressure, I suppose, but it is a real pity that a sport where athletes break themselves trying to combine astounding physical skills with sometimes breathtaking beauty of spirit and movement is turning into a joke with ducking bathing beauty judging.

 

It's not even ENTIRELY based on the technical components of the programmes because look, Nathan's programmes had watered down content last season. He never did more than three separate types of quads. His combos were usually with 4Ts. His BV was about four points higher than Yuzu's BV at Worlds and that was down to Yuzu's sequence being so undervalued. If landing a 4F or a 4Lz will give you that PCS boost, by the same damn logic, landing a 4T-3A in competition should give you the boost! It had never been done before! Can you imagine if a skater with the right flag had landed a 4T-3A in competition? Do you think their PCS would have got an extra boost? 

 

As an aside, I am also entirely DONE with people who go 'ooooh you stupid fanyus talking about scores' because you know what, if these people would just DEFINE these vague terms, and it turns out that the perfect jump needn't have the pure technique Yuzu has, then that's fine! Fine, go right ahead, Yuzu can water his programmes down, land all those quads, and he can save all our souls when he skates the gala finale like only he can. I for one am ducking done with this ducked up ducking sport once he retires because I do NOT deal well with all this vague bullcrappery of 'very good' and 'serious' and 'good flow' and whatever else. If they won't let technology into the actual judging, they could at least use it to define standards to be held up, but they won't even do that. All this vague wording isn't some kind of accident or mistake, it's deliberate.

 

Bunch of power-hungry, resentful, old-fashioned doubledippers who just want to control the sport even if it means it dies. 

[hoodie axel]

1 hour ago, WinForPooh said:

sad-looking coffee

Don't diss the coffee!

 

1 hour ago, WinForPooh said:

'good flow'

Well, IDK about the other things, but how would you describe flow?

[makebelieveup]

6 hours ago, hoodie axel said:

That speaks nothing of whether or not a quad is needed. The minimum height needed for a quad lutz is higher than a 3Lz, but a great 3Lz can still beat an average 4Lz in terms of looking "powerful" (but it won't be as full of a jump, so depends). Not to mention, this happened, and that's probably the  best PCS performance ever, with "just" doubles and triples. It's really going to depend on the overall choreo.

So do you mean technical elements can affect the PCS? I think the only thing it could affect is performance. Therefore, maybe the definition of performance in program components needs to be more defined since its one of the most subjective component in order to separate it from the TES. Because to me if a skater fall like Keegan Messing but stood up immediately and smile or not seem affected, it doesnt make sense to take away more from his performance. its the job of a deduction. i agree that if a skater falls and they started to look tentative in their performance like Kolyada then yes, you can take away pts from his performance. However, it is the role of GOE in evaluating these technical elements on their own. Having steps or transitions as an entry or exit in their technical element is part of showing how well they execute their elements, hence, they should be given higher GOE. a powerful 3ltz getting +5 goe should get more points than a poorly done quad that is underrotated or fall, which would get a negative goe and a deduction or downgrade. The problem we are seeing is often time underrotated quads are selectively not called in favor of certain skaters. GOES are given more generously to poorly done quads than nicely done triples for men, which widens the gap of overall points for quadsters from the rest. It's insane. 

 

6 hours ago, hoodie axel said:

I don't think the percentage evaluation is correct; getting 50% of the BV for +5 GOE elements isn't a good thing, IMO. Getting more scaled GOE credit for a +5GOE quad than a +5GOE 2A is exactly right though (and that was true even in the previous system). It's a step they've taken to test it out, and I don't blame them for it. I hope they realize it's a failure, now.

Just to ask for clarification, do you mean you prefer the previous +3 system? In the old system, the bv point difference between each type of jumps are higher. i think like 2.5 difference for each quad. but the GOE is not contingent upon the bv. In the new system, since the GOE is contingent upon the bv, they close up the difference between each jump a little. However, the difference in points for each jump when given the same GOE is larger in the new system. I dont have a calc with me but for example, a quad toe given +3 GOE in the old system is lower than a quad toe given a +3-5 GOE in the new system. So as long as judges give the same high GOE for Nathan's Quad Ltz and Yuzu's Quad Loop, Nathan would win by TES alone even if he had lower PCS (not anymore). So in the past, a 6 quad nathan only gets around 4 quad nathan today since his GOEs were less. But with the new system, say if he was still getting 90 PCS in the new system, if judges all gave him +5 for all his TES for all his jumps, since his bv is higher, his differencr in GOE will cover the gap for PCS difference with Yuzu. The reason why he won by so much now at Worlds is because his PCS is also raised. 

 

6 hours ago, hoodie axel said:

This isn't correct in my view. IDR exactly what Ambesi said, but if it's just rescaling the current PCS by 1.3, then the ones who are getting 90 will simply end up getting 117.

 

Yeah and this is exactly what I believe. this will basically give an opportunity to raise Nathan's or Vincent's scores. at least we know now their PCS are almost capped.

[hoodie axel]

3 hours ago, makebelieveup said:

So do you mean technical elements can affect the PCS?

Yes. Every single element and movement on the ice is a part of the choreography and interpretation (along with the technique imparted by skating skills, the difficulty and creativity of transitions, and the overall execution and engagement via performance). Why else do you think they are artificially trying to limit PCS for "serious errors"?

 

You ignored the fact that transitions and skating skills are in play when it comes to a part of TES, though, even ignoring spins and steps. That's already a link between TES and PCS.

 

3 hours ago, makebelieveup said:

The problem we are seeing is often time underrotated quads are selectively not called in favor of certain skaters. GOES are given more generously to poorly done quads than nicely done triples for men, which widens the gap of overall points for quadsters from the rest. It's insane. 

I took your prompt as "ignore the judging agenda", and so I did. I've already spoken up against this multiple times before.

 

3 hours ago, makebelieveup said:

Just to ask for clarification, do you mean you prefer the previous +3 system?

No. I don't see the point of +GOEs scaled as they are currently, is all, because the rewards are too great. The harsher penalties as dealt by the -GOEs, OTOH, is desirable, for me; I would even say they should be harsher.

 

3 hours ago, makebelieveup said:

Yeah and this is exactly what I believe. this will basically give an opportunity to raise Nathan's or Vincent's scores. at least we know now their PCS are almost capped.

But this is directly against what I'm saying. If everyone's PCS is to be scaled by 1.3, then EVERYONE's PCS will be higher. Take whatever PCS the top 6 got at worlds, and multiply those by 1.3. That's what we'll have. Their PCS will still be capped: at 130, instead of 100.

 

The differences will be scaled by 1.3, too, but those almost never decide podium spots with men, nor are the differences too great in the 1x vs the 1.3x scale. Take a 9.0 point gap in PCS currently. This difference will become 11.7 point in the 1.3x scale, so an additional gap of 2.70 points appears. Not particularly worthy of consideration the way (current) men's skating goes. As a matter of principle, I guess I have no qualms with PCS rescaling, but I just don't see the point.

 

These slight margins might change the way the judges deal with PCS raw scores, but I don't think it will be anything significant there, either.

[makebelieveup]

2 hours ago, WinForPooh said:

I'm actually still confused about that one because I remember being surprised when Shoma doubled his toeloop in combo and got 9.5s at some competition but Yuzu invalidated his spin at ACI and got his PCS capped and some dipped into 8s, I think, so basically, ISU agrees with the people who believe that PCS and GOE are all subjective. I mean, after you have a two or three-day conference to clarify rules and discuss stuff, how difficult would it be to define something as basic as 'serious mistake'? It should be basic, right? It shouldn't be like when your teacher decides whether just lines will do or whether you deserve detention as well based on their mood that day, this is supposed to be a code of points so if there are deductions, they should define what the deductions are for.

thats why I think everything is basically utilized with an agenda. If a skater who judges favor bomb so hard at an event, suddenly an underrotation or two would be looked past or the PCS would not be too dipped in order for them to at least get a pass or podium. It's all about the judges' performance. 

 

What is very good height? So how much height or distance is need in order to get a +5? is it 70cm or 60cm? is it 2.5 m or 3 m? What is effortless throughout? All of this is so subjective and not quantifiable enough. Thats why Japan came out with ice scope but even so what is the point of this when a backcounter 3a with the highest height and longest distance doesnt get unanimous +5? Shouldnt it get as much points as an average quad? 

 

oh btw the creative entry def anr step before a solo jump are taken out and you can guess their agenda

 

2 hours ago, WinForPooh said:

I'm honestly waiting for them to stop making protocols public to avoid confusion, as they will call it, just like they eliminated the steps before solo jump in SP to avoid confusion. I mean that will be good for our blood pressure, I suppose, but it is a real pity that a sport where athletes break themselves trying to combine astounding physical skills with sometimes breathtaking beauty of spirit and movement is turning into a joke with ducking bathing beauty judging.

I am actually thankful that we at least get to see the protocols because we get to see the extent of this corruption. yes, it might seem like we are powerless and even more helpless that we cant change the system. but actually, there are still people out there who try to analyze and look into it. some make videos to compare to raise awareness. imagine not having any protocol at all. I dont think i would even know why the scores are that way.

 

2 hours ago, WinForPooh said:

 

It's not even ENTIRELY based on the technical components of the programmes because look, Nathan's programmes had watered down content last season. He never did more than three separate types of quads. His combos were usually with 4Ts. His BV was about four points higher than Yuzu's BV at Worlds and that was down to Yuzu's sequence being so undervalued. If landing a 4F or a 4Lz will give you that PCS boost, by the same damn logic, landing a 4T-3A in competition should give you the boost! It had never been done before! Can you imagine if a skater with the right flag had landed a 4T-3A in competition? Do you think their PCS would have got an extra boost? 

sorry for keep quoting myself but i think thats also what i meant by saying its all about the agenda. this season suddenly nathan becomes a high 90s skater so even with less quads he won through PCS. and this is also where the new GOE system comes into play. it favors higher bv tech so as long as you dont have an obvious fall, you can cover the PCS gap with higher GOE, not just the bv. But of course, Nathan now has PCS so thats why he won with such a gap. thats why now a clean Yuzu cannot win with lower bv bc his pcs and goes are not even higher. And yes, the right skater with the right fed will receive a boost in PCS if they landed a 4t3aseq. not yuzu though 

[WinForPooh]

2 hours ago, hoodie axel said:

Well, IDK about the other things, but how would you describe flow?

 

Describe the mark you'd like to see on the ice? The ideal landing posture? Whether dipping back and forth like that thing - that long-necked glass bird with the liquid inside that dips forward and backward, you know the thing - is 'good flow', whether the bullet can be ticked if you can see the blade scratching the ice, whether UR within 90 degrees can be good flow out of landing, demonstrate choreographic element or skating step/turn out of exit? If it can't be described as something more detailed than 'good flow' which apparently any landed jump can have because it's subjective, they should come up with a better way of describing what they are giving points for. The thing with describing something as just 'good flow' is that if you say skater A, whoever it is, has good flow enough times, they will suddenly have good flow because there's nothing to measure against it.

 

I saw somebody say (on twitter, I know, I know) that soft knees on landing was NOT part of good flow out of jumps because... idk why tbh I expect because the skater they want winning doesn't land like that and something as vague as 'good flow' can be made to mean anything if enough people say it loudly enough. 

 

Right now the only way I can explain judging to anybody who doesn't follow figure skating the way I have doomed myself to do is by shrugging and going 'ah well, it's just like that' (after I have a fit, of course). I know what kind of sense it makes sometimes, but none of it is fair, and the CoP rules guidelines are deliberately written to give room for manipulation.

[hoodie axel]

2 hours ago, WinForPooh said:

Describe the mark you'd like to see on the ice? The ideal landing posture? Whether dipping back and forth like that thing - that long-necked glass bird with the liquid inside that dips forward and backward, you know the thing - is 'good flow', whether the bullet can be ticked if you can see the blade scratching the ice, whether UR within 90 degrees can be good flow out of landing, demonstrate choreographic element or skating step/turn out of exit?

OK, so you were talking about jump landings. "Good flow" is also a way to judge SS, though. How would you describe "good flow across the ice" less vaguely?

 

I also don't know if there's such a thing as an "ideal" landing posture, as much as there is a correct "over the skates" alignment.

 

2 hours ago, WinForPooh said:

I saw somebody say (on twitter, I know, I know) that soft knees on landing was NOT part of good flow out of jumps because... idk why tbh I expect because the skater they want winning doesn't land like that and something as vague as 'good flow' can be made to mean anything if enough people say it loudly enough.  

Even for this though, I don't think the "must use eyes" part of the sport can ever be discarded... I think it's less a problem of the rulebook (in this particular case, but also many others: how do you describe depth of edge?) and more a part of the training.

 

I also don't care (or at least have begun to stop caring) about what fans say on Twitter, or even here or other websites, in the context of their favorites. The competitive spirits are high, the objectivity is out of the window, and I hardly expect everyone to know the rulebook and skating (and I'm fine with it). It's the judging that bothers me, not the inane justifications for it from fans.

 

(It must be said, I find your use of language absolute hilarious. It's great.)

[makebelieveup]

4 minutes ago, WinForPooh said:

I saw somebody say (on twitter, I know, I know) that soft knees on landing was NOT part of good flow out of jumps because... idk why tbh I expect because the skater they want winning doesn't land like that and something as vague as 'good flow' can be made to mean anything if enough people say it loudly enough.

the break down of scoring seems right to me i think like having pcs and tes to balance out the artistic and athletic aspects of the sport. deduction for falls or violation. calls to punish incorrect tech. goe to reward or punish good or bad element..but the rulebook itself is flawed with subjective definitions. the judges and tech are corrupted. 

 

and yh i saw that. and i just wanna say it sounds as subjective as the rulebook sometimes

[WinForPooh]

@makebelieveup I meant I'm waiting as in I fully expect it to happen, not in the eager 'I can't wait to not have protocols to read and contemplate breaking a bottle over my head!' though from the POV of what's good for our sanity, it might end up being better. The making protocols public was supposed to give transparency and legitimacy after THAT scandal but I don't think they counted on some of us being utterly mad enough to actually read their damn rules guidelines and watch their conferences and seminars and actually go through protocols and do analysis videos. I think it might have backfired for them a bit and they might not like it. 

[WinForPooh]

10 minutes ago, makebelieveup said:

the break down of scoring seems right to me i think like having pcs and tes to balance out the artistic and athletic aspects of the sport. deduction for falls or violation. calls to punish incorrect tech. goe to reward or punish good or bad element..but the rulebook itself is flawed with subjective definitions. the judges and tech are corrupted. 

 

and yh i saw that. and i just wanna say it sounds as subjective as the rulebook sometimes

 

I don't have a problem at all with having PCS and TES separate, but I really hate the whole PCS=artistry thing because TR and SS are very definitely technical skills, just not distinct elements that can be judged from one specific point of the programme like a jump or a spin. PCS is for skills that are judged over the course of the entire programme, while TES is the score for mandatory individual elements within the programme. That's how it should be approached during judging, and that's also why things should be made clearer in their rules and guidelines. CoP, once made clearer and less vague, could work, if applied properly. But it just feels futile to talk about what kind of a scoring system would adequately reflect the skating we see when the problem is that whatever the system is, it will be implemented by the same people who will manipulate it to suit the same goals that they have now.

 

(I am fed up and might also be very fed up with the last episode of GoT so my frustration with everything is frothing like boiling broth.)

[Paskud]

42 minutes ago, WinForPooh said:

 

I don't have a problem at all with having PCS and TES separate, but I really hate the whole PCS=artistry thing because TR and SS are very definitely technical skills, just not distinct elements that can be judged from one specific point of the programme like a jump or a spin. PCS is for skills that are judged over the course of the entire programme, while TES is the score for mandatory individual elements within the programme. That's how it should be approached during judging, and that's also why things should be made clearer in their rules and guidelines. CoP, once made clearer and less vague, could work, if applied properly. But it just feels futile to talk about what kind of a scoring system would adequately reflect the skating we see when the problem is that whatever the system is, it will be implemented by the same people who will manipulate it to suit the same goals that they have now.

 

(I am fed up and might also be very fed up with the last episode of GoT so my frustration with everything is frothing like boiling broth.)

It's not only ss and tr. Body movements in PE. Ice coverage in CO. I agree, PCS is definitely much more than feelings only.

(You can't be frustrated by GoT if you don't watch it.)

[WinForPooh]

lol I thought I was done but I'm not because I just read @hoodie axel's comment properly and I don't know if this is what you're getting at but I don't think a really great jump should get an additional 50% of its BV.

 

That was supposed to reward quality, that rule, but what that actually did is just lower the bar so much for what an acceptable jump is. What would have got a +1 before now gets +3 (if the flag is right, of course) and the only way they give anything lower than -2 is if they splat. Now the BV seems to be for 'on their feet, no hand down, no foot down'. How many quads have got just the BV in the last season? What exactly is a quad that just gets its BV now? I haven't the slightest clue. An average in every way quad should get BV, I think, but it automatically gets +2 or +3! Visible wobbliness in the air or on landing should get negative GOE but ??????? I don't know. The new GOE system is turning out to be a modern mini 6-point system for the highest value individual elements in a programme and that's not a step forward. Well unless they know what they're stepping towards and this is where they wanna go, in which case I suppose it is.

[hoodie axel]

9 minutes ago, WinForPooh said:

but I don't think a really great jump should get an additional 50% of its BV.

This is exactly what I meant.