What would you do to Improve the scoring sys?

One I had forgotten earlier: the bonus points for difficult elements late in the program would get increasingly higher as the program goes on: For 4-minute programs, a 10% bonus for 2-2.5 minutes, a 15% bonus for 2.5-3.5 minutes, and a 20% bonus for 3.5-4 minutes. For 4.5 minute programs, the 20% bonus would be for the last minute.

This is a great thread topic.

I really do think it's asking a lot of a judge to score individual elements, and also sit back and "take in" the whole program to properly score PCS. ITA about separating the judge panel into a Technical portion, and a Components portion. I still have faith that the lion's share of the judges really are trying to do a good and fair job. I think this would make it easier for judges to do their best.

I'm not so sure about a fall on a jump = no points at all. This is selfish in large part - I love competition skating for many reasons, but the big jumps are part of the excitement. I'd hate to see the penalty for failure get so bad that people have no incentive to try. Where the "reward for falling" seems to have the highest impact to my eyes is with quads. It is possible to fall on a quad, but still recieve as many points as a decent tripple. I would like to see the GOE factoring be increased for the super high point value items - which today is the 3A on up. (much like the GOE's are factored downward for lower point value elements). Maybe for 3A and the quads, "-3 GOE" would equal -3.5, or -4 or something like that.

I agree that intuitively, combination jumps should be worth more than the sum of the parts.

I'm not as convinced that limitations should be set on how many high level spins can be performed, or limiting the number of postitions. One obvious repurcussion of limiting high level non-jump elements would be a shift in the relative importance in the scores between jump and non-jump elements. (i.e. less points possible for non-jump elements, but potentially more points possible for jumps, especially if combos were to be more highly rewarded, or quads more highly rewarded, etc.) I sort of like the balance the way it has worked out to date.

I also think too many "limits" has the potential to further limit choreographic opportunities. Of course I've seen enough bad Beillmann positions to last me a lifetime. But I have a hope that bad Biellmann's will get penalized in GOE to a point where people who can't do a good one aren't motivated to do a bad one. I would rather see more tweaks and refinement to how GOE is utilized to create a natural shift toward the most pleasing elements that a given skater can do, rather than artificially limit things. Does that make sense?

Along these same lines, I think the Zayak rule has had some less than desireable consequences, especially in Men's where a quad either ends up being a tripple by the skater's choice, or is downgraded to a tripple for being short on rotation. I like the idea of a "bonus" for doing a variety of jumps - maybe one bonus for the full compliment, or maybe a tiered bonus. That way the Zayak rule could possibly go away. I think this would remove some of the potential for "double penalties" that seem to exist under a coupld of scenarios. One (downgraded jump) was already mentioned. The other form of "double penalty" related to Zayak is a missed combo. i.e. the skater intends a 3Z solo, and a 3Z/3T. Second 3Z doesn't come off quite right, and the 3T doesn't happen. Rightly, only the 3Z is scored, but it's considered a combo attempt which means the skater can't add a combo in later. (assuming they have planned the max number of allowed combos). Doing away with Zayak would give the competitors an opportunity to make up for that missed combo later. I don't want to see programs with all the same jumps, but a reward for variety might be better overall than the old Zayak rule.

I hope the definitions for GOE (both plus and minus) continue to be defined. I hope the definitions for position variety are loose enough to encourage creativity.

Oh well - just my random musings!! I wish I could be a fly on the wall at the ISU when the judges who judge the judges are at work. Actually, I think Speedy would be doing a positive thing for the sport to provide some sort of public summary in more detail than what I've ever seen. All I have ever seen is a summary of how many judges got "warnings" (or whatever they are called) for being out of line. I'm not necessarily talking about a level of detail such as "judge X doesn't know their head from their rear when it comes to FW GOE!" I'm talking more about a general summary that might say "as we continue to improve the system, we have found that further clarification and training is needed in X areas. Here is our plan."

Well, I think that's enough words for now...

DG