Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 30 of 30

Thread: New ISU guidelines for positive GOEs

  1. #16
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    652
    Yukari Nakano used to do a spread eagle into double axel into catchfoot spiral in her short in the 2006-2007 season that was absolutely gorgeous and also seemingly textbook COP. It only received 0.71 in GOE at 2007 Worlds

  2. #17
    Beliver in Sasha's Perfect Program Tinymavy15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    4,989
    wow. i loved peggy's spread eagles into the 2 axel. lovely. i would love to see that from Mao.

  3. #18
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    199
    Does this mean we will finally see again...:

    1. Real footwork directly into jumps
    2. SHOOT THE DUCK!!!! YEAH! Wanna see someone do that into a Lutz Jump!
    3. Hydroblading into jumps
    4. Ice Split into T.Toe or T.Loop (That would be hard!)
    5. Standstill D.axle (days of Surya Bonaly....)
    6. And My Personal Favorite: The Half - Axle into T.Salchow

    I'm just excited about this. Variation at last. I just hope that not everyone does a spread eagle into a jump, but actually try some new and different tricks.

  4. #19
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    820
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinymavy15 View Post
    Well I guess we will have to wait and see how the judges use this. I sure hope we will see more + grades of execution in this next season. We never really saw them used when due before, but they sure loved using the negatives!
    As I understand it, similar guidelines had been published for the negative GOEs, which may account for their more frequent use.

    Before now, it seemed to me that the judges were more or less operating in the dark and didn't understand the intent, purpose or how to use the positive GOEs.

    Maybe now they'll "get it" and be able to use them effectively to reward elements that were formerly not given their just due.

  5. #20
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    So appently judging the quality of each element separately (GOEs) is not always the same as scoring the program as a whole (PCSs) after all.
    It was always different - It was the same since in the days Sonia Henie. In the 6.0 system, there was a definite score for the Technical and Presentations. They were not intended to be the same. Of course, there was much cheating due to favoritism. The end result in the CoP can very well show that favoritism too.

    Voronov is a good example. In the 6.0 and the CoP he would have scored the same. So why tag all those bullets on to breaking down an element. It does make it more interesting for those who want a partial explanation of the scoring of an element. [I]"Oh how beautiful he looked in the air!" but he to did a wrong edge take off[I] Means he didn't do the jump correctly (technical) but he looked good doing it (presentation) and this will mediate the GoE for that jump, and it will not affect the PCS scores?

    It just does not seem to me, fair when giving the rush to judgements of the scores for an official to gather the bullets of a jump and the bullets of a presentation before scoring. Knowledgeable fans on the Boards rush to the protocols. General fans don't have a clue. However, I see double jeopardy for the skater that falls, and is marked down for that jump, and then again in the PCS.

    No height in the air a negative and less impressed in the PCS.

  6. #21
    Sestriere 1999 ChrisH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    373
    There are older guidelines for positive GOEs, at least for US judging. I assume the following were based on an older ISU document:
    http://www.usfigureskating.org/conte...les-GOE-SP.pdf
    http://www.usfigureskating.org/conte...les-GOE-FS.pdf

    Adding creativity/originality is the obvious across the board change to the GOEs.

    The PCS criteria should have creativity/originality more explicitly stated. At the moment it settles on variety, which only separates elements within the same program, not across multiple programs. Also, to have variety, IMO it pays to be faster and emphasis quantity. Not so with creativity/originality which emphasizes quality.
    http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/...-0-file,00.pdf

  7. #22
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,183
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz View Post
    Voronov is a good example. In the 6.0 and the CoP he would have scored the same. So why tag all those bullets on to breaking down an element. It does make it more interesting for those who want a partial explanation of the scoring of an element. [I]"Oh how beautiful he looked in the air!" but he to did a wrong edge take off[I] Means he didn't do the jump correctly (technical) but he looked good doing it (presentation) and this will mediate the GoE for that jump, and it will not affect the PCS scores?
    Well, all those bullets -- that's the CoP. The whole point of the CoP is to list as many "bullets" as possible, then check them off and add up the score. Many people (I am one of them) have come more and more to feel that this whole approach is wrong.

    Actually, I think your basic idea is dandy.

    1. Give a base score for a correctly done element.

    2. Have specific deductions for specific errors (double footing the landing, for instance.)

    3. Now, what about extra high quality? That goes into the PCSs.

    (a) Outstanding flow out of the landing = Skating Skills.

    (b) Unusual entrance out of steps = Transitions

    (c) Extra pop and pizzaz = Presentation/Execution.

    (d) Timing the jump to the music = Interpretation

    (e) Does the jump fit into the conception of the program as a whole? = Choreography.

    Why do we need positive GOEs?

  8. #23
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by TtonyV7 View Post
    Does this mean we will finally see again...:

    1. Real footwork directly into jumps
    2. SHOOT THE DUCK!!!! YEAH! Wanna see someone do that into a Lutz Jump!
    3. Hydroblading into jumps
    4. Ice Split into T.Toe or T.Loop (That would be hard!)
    5. Standstill D.axle (days of Surya Bonaly....)
    6. And My Personal Favorite: The Half - Axle into T.Salchow

    I'm just excited about this. Variation at last. I just hope that not everyone does a spread eagle into a jump, but actually try some new and different tricks.
    You are lucky if you see jumps from a shoot the duck or hydroblading. If you give an example, they do not jump from that down position, but rise up, take a breath and jump in the normal way. Those moves are very tireing for the skater like going all th way down in a sitsspin. Are you old enough to remember when skaters (particularly male) would do a straight leg sitspin go down all the way, come up and go down again with equal revolutions. Boy did that take the spring out of their legs. I think one has to consider the points gained by doing these leg tiring moves.

    Loved Bonaly's move but don't know what a half axel is.

  9. #24
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Well, all those bullets -- that's the CoP. The whole point of the CoP is to list as many "bullets" as possible, then check them off and add up the score.
    Do they really have time to do all that? Scenario: Oh, he did a Tano, he was a bit askewd in the air, and I think he really flutzed, it wasn't really innovativ - and for each jump, and each skater - yeah.

    Why do we need positive GOEs?
    Personally, I think it should be covered in the PCS.

  10. #25
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,183
    Just for fun, I wondered how much agreement/disagreement typically exists in the GOEs. Here are Jeff Buttle’s GOEs on jump scores from his Worlds LP (all scores, before random draw and trimming.) The last three columns are the mean, standard deviation (a measure of how far off a typical judge is from the average), and the number of judges who were more than two standard deviations out of line. (IIRC the “corridore” for bringing a judge’s scores to the attention of the judges’ evaluation committee is plus or minus three standard deviations.)

    3A+2T+2Lo…0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1, Mean = 0.5, SD = 0.76, None outside.
    3F+3T……….1 1 1 1 2 0 2 2 1 2 2 1, Mean = 1.33, SD = 0.62, One
    3A……………1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 0, Mean = 0.58, SD = 0.76, None
    3Lz+2T………1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 Mean = 1.08, SD = 0.28, One
    3Lo…………..2 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 1 1, Mean = 1.08, SD = 0.64, None
    3S……………0 1 2 0 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 0, Mean = 1.25, SD = 0.83, None
    2A……………0 1 1 1 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 1, Mean = 1.17, SD = 0.80, None
    3Lz…………..0 0 0 –1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, Mean = 0.08, SD = 0.28, One.

    I guess there was nothing controversial in Jeff’s performance…

    But now, for us grassy knoll buffs…Note that Jeff had a friend on the panel. Judge number 10 gave him +2 on every element but the last. Yet Canada did not have a judge on the men’s panel.

    Your task, should you choose to accept it…search the protocols of the other three disciplines (Canada did have a judge for Ladies, Pairs, and Dance) and figure out who men’s judge #10 was in cahoots with.

  11. #26
    Vancouver 2010, 247.23, Bronze
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Note that Jeff had a friend on the panel. Judge number 10 gave him +2 on every element but the last. Yet Canada did not have a judge on the men’s panel.
    I think, he did have a friend, but not on the panel. The tech controller was Ms. Sally REHORICK. Jeff did win fairly though, with that boring and cautious, yet technically perfect, program. There was nothing controversial in Jeff’s performance, IMHO.

  12. #27
    it's olympic season :D bethissoawesome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    NYC; Tokyo
    Posts
    495
    Some of those points are pretty vague... "unexpected" for jumps? "creativity", "originality"... it made me laugh thinking of the spiral sequences for ladies, because the best spirals are generally.... the same.

    Even with these additional points, I'm sure GOE's will still be scattered across the board. Someone will give a negative GOE to something that another judge will give a +2. /shrug

  13. #28
    Beliver in Sasha's Perfect Program Tinymavy15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    4,989
    I am pretty sure that Kimmie Meissner did a hyroblade just before her 3 loop this past season, but I could be wrong.

  14. #29
    it's olympic season :D bethissoawesome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    NYC; Tokyo
    Posts
    495
    how about extra points for a nice creative butt slide exit on a jump? hehe. bonus if you slide far enough to hit the wall.

  15. #30
    Rinkside
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    1

    Pass mark...

    I am so confused by some of the new regulations which seem to conflict within themselves.
    But i was wondering whether, with the junior men, because they now have only one step sequence in the long programme, does that mean the pass mark has changed. I don't know if in the US there is a pass mark for junior mens but if any one knows i'd really appreciate it!
    x

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •