:o You're welcome!
Under the 6.0 system a fall was not a complete faux pas. If a skater made an attempt to land a difficult jump - say the quad - they were still given marks for the effort. If they planned to do a jump and then left it out completely or opened up in the jump and didn't rotate at all - now that was and still is a complete faux pas - even under the new marking system.
With CoP there is a run out of individual scores for elements in the TES. So it is not too difficult to understand the mentality of the judges for faux pas.
Judging under 6.0 was all about who was better than who. What constituted 'better', at an elite-level well skated event, often rode on who skated cleanly. A mandatory .2 deduction for a fall is huge when you're fighting for the top. What attempting a quad and falling could do is give skaters a higher 'base'... so you're right in that it wasn't necessarily a faux pax. Whether or not it 'counted' for anything in the minds of judges depends on how good the attempt was. For example, 'this is a jump I can land all the time, but in this instance I didn't make it' it's far better than 'I'm throwing this in and praying that just maybe it'll work this time'. But ultimately, and I think this is the same think Joe was getting at, in 6.0 it doesn't matter what 'math' the judges did because it was all about the ordinals.
But certainly CoP has changed the way skaters view attemping jumps/falling on jumps... the risk factor is not as high anymore since they have so many other opportunities to 'make up points'.
Erica, I have heard judges comment that what they like about the new judging system is that the burden is lessened in coming up with an overall assesment of the competition.
That is, under ordinal judging each judge must juggle in his/her mind whether skater A's fast well-centered spin is more meritorious than skater B's beautifully extended spirial. Under CoP judging, you can just give out a number for each element and let the totals fall where they may.
From your experience, what do you think about that?
Erica - I just want to wish you all the best as an up and coming judge.
As to the two separate panels for judging COP TES and PCS, I was all for that on day one of the intro to COP. I can not believe a single mind can concentrate on all the explicit factors that go into judging.
Mathman - I can imagine that I'll have a more informed opinion once I have judged under both systems, but going from the practice judging I've done and just my own gut feeling.... I like CoP a whole lot better. The reason you named is definitely a big one, and I've heard that same comment from many experienced judges. With 6.0 you essentially have to remember, and hold in memory, your impressions of all skaters in that event. With CoP you're relieved of that pressure, because you don't have to compare skater A with skater X, Y and Z - you just need to compare skater A against a set standard and award GOE and PCS accordingly. Where before the judge had to do the math and keeping track of who was where and why and how... the computer now takes care of it for you. You are still under stress in that you still want to be fair and still want to have the right outcome, but it does make things easier in one sense.
However, what I am less sure of is whether I agree with that ideology at all - do we really get better results by losing sight of direct comparaison? There are certainly valid merits and complaints as far as CoP goes. For one, some people complain now that flawed performances end up taking medals where "better performances" (in their opinions) lose. And that will probably the eternal debate. I don't think there's a right answer. We are human, the system is created by human, it's still a subjective sport - as much as we try to quantify it, it's still highly qualitative.... no system will produce 100% accurate results 100% of the time.
Erica, "knowing" you via these boards will make it a lot harder to grouse about judging results. Best of luck to you, and thanks for all your dedication.
Yes, that's the very point that causes me misgivings about the whole CoP approach. Figure skating is a judged sport. Ordinal judging acknowledges that fact of life in a straightforward way. CoP kind of dances around it, neither fish nor fowl.Originally Posted by Erica Lee
Posters who figure skate in competitions past or present understand the scoring of contestants. There should not be any arguments but plenty of discussions. Joe Inman popped in here a few times and it was a pleasure to read what he considered "the character of the music".
Thanks everyone... but hey, I've complained about my fair share of results and judging panels too (especially when I was competitive, and certainly as a fan), so don't let me get in your way