Coaches proposals 16-21: GOEs, PCSs, Jumbotron and pairs

For the past six months a group of international coaches have been developing a set of proposals for the improvement of the International Judging System (IJS). These proposals were recently submitted to the ISU Singles and Pairs Technical Committee.

Click to expand...

16. Define the values of GoE points

Even when used correctly, the GoE points as they are conceived now, do not produce a fair and acceptable result. As the base value of an element goes up, the value of the GoE does not keep pace. A cheated triple or quadruple jump now may get more points than a well executed triple or double, which is unfair and wrong. For example: for a triple toe loop, -3 takes away 75% of the base points and +3 adds 75 % of the base points. For quad toe loop, however, -3 takes away only 33% of the base points and +3 adds only 33% of the base points.

The proposal is to revise the Scale of Values tables to use the following instead (rounded to the nearest 0.1 point):

* - 3 is 25% of base value
* - 2 is 50% of base value
* - 1 is 75% of base value
* 0 is 100% of base value
* + 1 is 125% of base value
* + 2 is 150% of base value
* + 3 is 175% of base value

This proportional approach solves other mathematical problems in the system. For example, the relative value of every element currently varies with each element and GoE. Under this proposal the relative value of all elements stays the same for each GoE.

Proposal # 17 Reduce PCs

17. Reduce the number of the Program Components to a maximum of three, with the marks ranging from 0 to 6, marked to the nearest 1/10th of a point.

The marking of the Program Components has been most disappointing despite significant efforts to train the judges. As it is described in the rules, the marking of the Program Components is much too complicated and idealistic. The judges have great difficulty in evaluating the skaters’ performance by assigning credible marks to five Program Components with 7 or 8 different criteria each. As a result pre-judging and the reputation of the skater can prevail.

It is recommended to reduce the number of the Program Components, as well as of the number of the criteria for each, with the marks ranging from 0 to 6.0. This would definitely be an improvement for the judges and the skaters. In singles and pairs it is proposed the following Program Components be used, with the criteria for each listed below. Each component will be given equal weight in the scoring.

* Skating Skills, Transitions and Linking Movements
* Performance and Execution
* Choreography and Interpretation

The above grouping seems the most practical. Skating Skills, Transitions and Linking Movement encompass all the technical aspect of skating outside of the individual elements. Choreography and Interpretation are more closely related concepts than Performance and Choreography. To make the analogy of a play, choreography is the script, and the interpretation is the "spin" given to the script by the director and actors. They go together. Performance/Execution is then how well the actors perform and execute the script and communicate the story and intended interpretation to the audience.

Skating Skills, Transitions and Linking Movements

* Cleanness and sureness of deep edges, steps, and turns
(Demonstrated in part through flow and effortless glide, balance, rhythmic knee action and precision of foot placement.)
* Varied use of speed and acceleration
* Mastery of one foot skating and multi-directional skating
* Variety of transitions and linking movements
(Includes variety of dance holds in Ice Dancing)
* Difficulty and intricacy of transitions and linking movements
* Quality of skating, transitions and linking movements
(Includes unison in Pair Skating and Ice Dancing)

For Pairs and Dance

* Equal mastery of skating technique by both partners shown in unison
* Balance of workload between partners
* Ice Coverage (CD)

Performance / Execution

* Personal Involvement
(Includes projection, physical, emotional, and intellectual involvement)
* Carriage and Clarity of Movement
(Clarity and control of positions and movements)
* Variety and Contrast
* Effortless movements in time to the music

For Pairs and Dance

* Unison of Movement, and "Oneness" of Performance
(Includes balance in performance)
* Spatial awareness
(Management of the distance between partners and management of changes of hold)
* Skating to rhythmic beat (Dance)

Choreography / Interpretation

* Unity, Continuity and Proportion
* Use of space
(Includes utilization of personal and performance space, and pattern and ice coverage).
* Expression of the music’s style, character, and rhythm
* Style and Individuality/Personality
* Originality of purpose, movement, and design

For Pairs and Dance

* Shared contribution to choreography and interpretation. responsibility of purpose
* Relationship between the partners reflecting the character of the music
* Appropriateness of music (OD and FD)

Proposal #18 Jumbotron!

18. List the elements on the large screen ("Jumbotron")in the arena and indicate in red when an element is being reviewed.

This will allow the audience to know what is really going on. When the total score is shown they at least can see WHY the score was higher or lower than they thought. This will create more audience participation and decrease audience confusion.

Coaches' proposals 19-21: Pairs

19. Abolish the use of "features" in side-by-side spins, side-by-side sequences, twist lifts and death spirals and adopt the same concepts as for Singles in step and spiral sequences.

It is proposed to abolish the use of "features" for these elements. The reasons for this are the same as described above for Singles. Features would be retained only in pair spins and overhead (group) pair lifts.

Proposal #20 Different death spirals

20. The death spiral executed in the Short Program cannot be repeated in the long (free skating) program.

This was once a requirement in pairs and should be brought back. It will promote variety in pairs programs.

Proposal #21 Death spiral values

21. Death spirals.

Definition: In all death spirals the man skates on a backward outside edge in a deep pivot position with his legs well bent while the lady skates around him on one foot with the body very close to the surface of the ice. The man holds one hand of the lady with one hand. Minimum 2 full revolutions of the lady while the man remains is in deep pivot position.

Base value of death spirals:

* Backward outside: base value 4.5
* Backward inside: base value 3.5
* Forward outside: base value 4.0
* Forward inside: base value 3.5

I like #18 especially.

..unacceptable,... unfair and wrong...

Click to expand...

I wish people would just make their proposals and support them with logical arguiments, instead of invoking language that says, " You are a wicked sinner if you don't like my scale of values."

Pegging GOE scores as a percentage of base values is a fine idea, but it is not morally superior, more "fair," or "righter" in the ehtical sense than giving them a straight point value.

Other than that , I like this proposal for GOEs. It has the virtue of applying a single rule for every element, plus or minus.

Mathman said:

I wish people would just make their proposals and support them with logical arguiments, instead of invoking language that says, " You are a wicked sinner if you don't like my scale of values."

Click to expand...

Word.

:yes: The past season it's the PCS that always confused me.

I would LOVE to see a rule saying that at least one death spiral must be performed the classic way, where the lady tries to get her whole body as close to the ice as possible and arches her back in a nice line. It kills me seeing skaters who are capable of beautiful death spirals look like they are being dragged around the ice in a heap by the man. It may gather points but it is just ugly.

I like the GOE proposal quite a bit. Reducing the Program Components from 5 to 3 makes a lot of sense to me (one more step and we can reduce it from 3 to 1 and score it from 0 to 6.0, instead of from 0 to 10.0. Then we could have a similar combined mark for the technical side, eliminate the role of the technical specialist, and... )

Trying to distinguish between "interpretation" and "choreography," and to give a meaningful mark for each separately, has been especially problematic, IMO.

My overall question, though, is whether we are making too much of these proposals. Ordinary mortals propose, Cinquanta disposes. Do we have any reason to think that the powers-that-be care what some coaches think, any more than they care what we write on Internet message boards?

Mathman said:

Trying to distinguish between "interpretation" and "choreography," and to give a meaningful mark for each separately, has been especially problematic, IMO.

Click to expand...

I agree. Part of choreography is already included as 'transitions', so why have another, separate mark for choreography? It also seems elitist to me. Few skaters choreography their own programs, and most of the top level skaters hire expensive choreographers that lesser skaters could probably never afford. So why give a 'grade' for the work of someone other than the skater? It seems to me that 'Interpretation' is what the skater DOES with the choreography. Keep IT and dump CH.

My overall question, though, is whether we are making too much of these proposals. Ordinary motals propose, Cinquanta disposes. Do we have any reason to think that the powers-that-be care what some coaches think, any more than they care what we write on Internet message boards?

Click to expand...

If coaches are really serious about rule changes, then these ideas should have been brought up in discussion with their federations prior to the ISU congress, so that they could have been on the agenda with other proposed rule changes.

Mathman said:

My overall question, though, is whether we are making too much of these proposals. Ordinary motals propose, Cinquanta disposes. Do we have any reason to think that the powers-that-be care what some coaches think, any more than they care what we write on Internet message boards?

Click to expand...

The proposals are heart warming for the fans. Why succumb to the brass even though you can not beat them? But if you lived through the 60s, you would understand the power of pressure. It works!! The times could be a changing for figure skating.

IMO, it's all about the Obvious versus the Secrecy.

Joe

KBell said:

I like #18 [jumbotron] especially.

Click to expand...

I 2nd that. A win-win proposal. Also gives the fans something to look at rather than waiting and waiting ...

Does the ISU regulate the jumbotron? Could venues start broadcasting details on it without their say-so?

MissIzzy said:

Does the ISU regulate the jumbotron? Could venues start broadcasting details on it without their say-so?

Click to expand...

From a previous discussion on this, I believe that the Officials of the Event have nothing to do with the Jumbotron. I think, however, they could if they wanted.

Joe

Which elements should be displayed? What the skater/team has on his/her/their elements sheet? That is the only thing that is available to the press and could be made public, and it may or may not have anything to do with what was landed. On the one hand, it makes it clearer that a Joubert lost mega base points with the 2A/1T at the end of his program at 2008 Worlds, but it doesn't help explain downgrades.

The ISU would have a problem with allowing the elements to be displayed as called: first because they could be reviewed and changed before the scores are posted, and then there are certain things that can be challenged before the referee signs off on the scores for the event.

On the jumbotron, there dould be the elements that the skater was planning on performing and then the elements that the skater actually did perform

EX:

3Lutz-3loop
2A
3F-3T
Level 4 SS

Then, let's say that the skater under-rotated 2 jumps and only got a level 3 on the spiral sequence. WHILE THE JUDGES ARE REVIEWING each element, they should be changed correctly.

EX:

3Lutz-2 loop
2A FALL
2F-2T
Level 3 spiral sequence.

This would also give the skater some input of how he/she did before the marks are announced.

I like Skatergirl's interpretation. I think that would work fine.

One of the criticisms of the ISU judging system is that the spectators have no idea of the connection between what they see on the ice and the point total that is eventually announced.

The men's free skate at Worlds is a good example. The spectators saw Joubert skate lights out, quad and all, only to lose to a pleasant easy-does-it performance by Buttle. Why did Buttle win the tech mark by a huge margin?