The Level Calls

Wrlmy said:

I have one question. I don't know this has been discussed or not, but why is it that we see so many spiral sequences called lv1 or lv4 but not lv2 or lv3?

I've seen so many descent spirals, which would be called lv4 under most circumstances, called lv1 just because of one tiny error such as holding a position for only 2.99 seconds.

Click to expand...

There are several aspects of spiral sequences that are requirements for the sequence even to be considered for higher levels. If those requirements are not met, then the sequence is required to be called as Level 1 (or in some cases as no level, i.e., doesn't count as a valid element for points, e.g., no positions held for at least 3 seconds; no change of foot in short program), no many how many other features the sequence might achieve.

Same as with step sequence needing to have feature #1 before any of the other features can be considered, except with spiral sequences some of the requirements don't themselves count as features.

Some of these requirements, e.g., change of foot in the short program, were also required during the last years of the 6.0 system and would require deductions if not present.

http://www.usfigureskating.org/content/First Aid Singles 2008-09.pdf

Agree or disagree, but them's the rules.

Short Program
No Spiral position is held for 3 (three) seconds
A spiral sequence in which all executed spiral positions are held with less than 3 sec.
Not according to requirements.
no Level

Not all three Spiral position are held for 3 (three) seconds
In Short Program a spiral sequence in which not all the executed spiral positions are held for at least 3 sec. can receive Level 1 (but not higher).
Short Program only. Level 1

Less positions
A spiral sequence in which less than three positions (with at least 3 sec. hold) are executed.
Not according to requirements, but there is at least a part of the sequence performed.
Level 1

No change of foot
No change of foot at all.
no Level

Change of foot: Spiral position maintained for less than 3 seconds after
or before the change
If there is a change of foot but any spiral position before or after the change is shorter than 3 sec. the sequence can receive Level 1 (but not higher).
Short Program only.
Level 1

No unsupported spiral position of 3 seconds
A Spiral Sequence which has no unsupported position (3 sec.) will be called not higher than Level 1.
Level 1

Click to expand...

and

Free Skating
Less holds
A spiral sequence in which all executed spiral positions are held with less than 3 sec.
Not according to requirements.
no Level

Less positions
Only one position with at least 3 sec. hold is performed.
Level 1

Free leg height
Any part of the free leg lower than the hip level. Might “break” a spiral position into 2 positions: before and after the leg drops (only the first 3 positions count).
no credit for a position if it’s duration is less than 3 sec.

No unsupported spiral position of 3 seconds
A Spiral Sequence which has no unsupported position (3 sec.) will be called not higher than Level 1.
Level 1

Click to expand...

So with any of those mistakes, even if there are 2 or 3 other features successfully performed, the sequence will be called level 1.

Wrlmy said:

II've seen so many descent spirals, which would be called lv4 under most circumstances, called lv1 just because of one tiny error such as holding a position for only 2.99 seconds.

Click to expand...

The most common reason for a level 1 (in upper level skaters) is not holding enough positions long enough (3 sec) to meet requirements.

For the person who asked when the step sequence gets called, my experience in USFSA competitions has been that the caller usually does not call the pattern until it is about 1/2 done, and genernally never before the skater is 1/4 into it. The level usually gets called after 3/4, or at the end of it. I enter my GoE at the end of the pattern, but I am starting to make up my mind about it 1/2 way through.

gsrossano said:

I enter my GoE at the end of the pattern, but I am starting to make up my mind about it 1/2 way through.

Click to expand...

Do you have a notion of "level" in mind when you give GOEs? Do you tend to give higher GOEs to a difficult and full sequence, compared to a simpler one done equally well?

Thanks gkelly for all that breakdown. It has been very helpful.

I gather that the tech panel and the judges are completely independent from each other in what they are assigned to do. To reach a final mark, the Techn Panel must be in unanimous agreement for their part of the contribution while the judges continue in their usual modus operandi for theirs.

(There must be some directive showing the glossary of the shorthand (CiST1, etc.) that I can find at the ISU for my own study purposes.)

Vlaurend. Do the members of the Tech Panel actually get extensive training and need to take tests. Who are the authors of the Level requirements, who authored the test and who marks the tests. It seems like Viktor Petrenko who, I believe, was the first one was just assigned to it with a briefing.

My personal question on this particular issue: does it actully help in the final tabulations of who was the best in the competition.

Mathman said:

Do you have a notion of "level" in mind when you give GOEs? Do you tend to give higher GOEs to a difficult and full sequence, compared to a simpler one done equally well?

Click to expand...

no and no

Joesitz said:

Vlaurend. Do the members of the Tech Panel actually get extensive training and need to take tests. Who are the authors of the Level requirements, who authored the test and who marks the tests. It seems like Viktor Petrenko who, I believe, was the first one was just assigned to it with a briefing.

Click to expand...

You will find the requirements here, on page 57 (Rule 416).
http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-191592-208815-140518-0-file,00.pdf

mskater93 said:

ANT:
I am only giving the ISU party line as to why a tech panel was created versus having the judges do their own calls as was one of the questions. I did not state my opinion as to what I think of it.

Click to expand...

mskater - no worries at all - i didn't think you had passed an opinion as i recognised what you wrote as the reason the ISU justified having the tech panel. :agree:

Ant

Ant-
Just trying to suggest what my opinion might be in that comment.

Mskater93 said:

Ant-
Just trying to suggest what my opinion might be in that comment.

Click to expand...

Say it, say it!

Joesitz said:

It seems like Viktor Petrenko who, I believe, was the first one was just assigned to it with a briefing.

Click to expand...

That got me curious, Joe, so I looked it up. Petrenko was indeed the Assistant Technical Specialist for the men's event in the first Worlds that was scored by the new judging system in 2005. I don't know how extensive the training was for the 2004-05 season.

The very first event judged by the CoP was the 2003 Nebelhorn Trophy. The techies were

Men: Vladislav Petukhov (technical controller),
Alexei Urmanov (technical specialist)
Karin Hendschke (assitant technical specialist)

Ladies: Alexander Lakernik
Katerin Kamberska
Ricardo Olavarrieta

Pairs: Alexander Lakernik
Bruno Marcotte
David Kirby

Dance: Ann Shaw
Andrzej Dostatni
Ilona Berecz-Vedres

The first Grand Prix event to use the new judging system, Skate America 2003, had pretty much the same crew (Sergei Ponomarenko joined the dance team in the place of Berecz-Vedres).

Mathman said:

Say it, say it!

Click to expand...

OK, I think it's very silly!!

MM. Thank you for reminding me of that Worlds with all those Russian panelists.

I think Nebelhorn was the first to use the Tech Panel, and Amber Corwin got hit with an underrotation. She commented her jump was downgraded and scored even less at the downgraded level. We then talked about the 'double whammy'.
I think viktor was at the job, which, of course, was new to him.

I read the link vlaurend offered regarding Levels (stuffy reading, imo) but it did not say when and why it started this phase of the Panel's work. I think the paper was dated 2006.

So who came up with the idea that some Spirals, et al, are more difficult than others and that the judges do not catch this?

Joesitz said:

I read the link vlaurend offered regarding Levels (stuffy reading, imo) but it did not say when and why it started this phase of the Panel's work. I think the paper was dated 2006.

So who came up with the idea that some Spirals, et al, are more difficult than others and that the judges do not catch this?

Click to expand...

I think levels were part of the CoP from the very beginning. In the 2003 Nebelhorn -- the "trial run" for the new judging system -- the ladies' winner, Jennifer Don, got credit for a level 2 circular step sequence abd a level 1 spiral sequence.

In the first major international event using the CoP, Skate America 2003, Sasha Cohen did a level 2 spiral and a level 2 serpentine step sequence.

If I remenber correctly, in those days there were only three levels instead of four.

Also, I believe that the list of "features" and other considerations was not as full and explicit then as now. Every time the ISU tweaks the rules, they add extra detail as to what the technical specialists should be looking for.

As to the "why," I think there were two reasons.

1. The ISU wanted to separate the question of "what did the skater do" (the provenance of the tech crew) from "how well did he/she do it" (the bailiwick of the judges.)

2. They wanted to push the "complete program" idea. Just like you get a higher base value for a triple jump than for a double, likewise they thought it was fair to get a higher base value for a step sequence that featured many different kinds of steps and turns, compared to one where the skater only did a few simple ones.

I am sure that the judges do "catch this" -- that some spirals are harder than others. However, under the CoP the job of "catching this" has been assigned to the tech side rather than to the judging side. Same with things like edge calls and underrotations. The judges could rule on these matters, as they did under 6.0 judging. But the new judging system, for better or for worse, has assigned this duty to the technical panel instead.

As to which sysem is better, I can't seem to make up my mind.