Interesting CoP description / breakdown

Blades on Ice updates their news page on the first of each month. This month, there's some material on the first person to win a medal under the new system, who the victor would (probably) have been under the old system, and a rundown of some numbers.

It's just over a third of the way down the page. Search for "Nebelhorn".

http://www.bladesonice.com/mag/blaweb1.htm

Interesting. I'll admit I haven't done my research on the CoP, but I'm asking anyway ... what is this Grade of Excellence? Is it a way to bring subjectivity into this supposedly more fair method of judging? Am I being too cynical here?

Very interesting! Mathman, I think this answers your question as to what happens if a jump the skater executes gets downgraded, and than the skater repeats that jump (In the article, skater does triple instead of quad, so his next triple does not count).

Tharrtell, there is ALWAYS some subjectivity. GoE is basically how well an element is executed. Think about it -- otherwise, all skaters who do a spiral would get the same number of points regardless of what extension they got and how they used their edges. So yes, this is subjective, but it is only subjective within given limits (for every element there is a minimum and a maximum GoE; the judge only says -2, -1, 0, 1, or 2, and the computer figures out exactly how much it should add or subtract for the given element). Thing about it this way -- it's like sentecing guidelines -- the law tell the judge what the minimum and maximum are for the given offense, and the judge passes out the sentence within those limits.

Ptichka, I know there will always be subjectivity in figure skating - if for nothing more than it's judged by humans. However, I was reading the GoE as a legit way of factoring subjectivity into the equation. Your explanation makes a lot of sense. Thanks!

The biggest question I have about the CoP is how the up to 50 points in the five "presentation" categories will work into the equation. If the difference between a great triple Lutz (+2) and a bad one (-2) is only a few points, it seems like all this technical bean-counting can be swept away anyway and it will just come down to who the judges liked the best. Just like it always has.

Mathman

Mathman said:

The biggest question I have about the CoP is how the up to 50 points in the five "presentation" categories will work into the equation. If the difference between a great triple Lutz (+2) and a bad one (-2) is only a few points, it seems like all this technical bean-counting can be swept away anyway and it will just come down to who the judges liked the best. Just like it always has.

Mathman

Click to expand...

The criteria for the "presentation" categories is very strict. There's a 1-point discretionary spread per description. In the past if a judge were asked why s/he gave skater A 5.8, s/he could justify just about anything: "she made me feel the tragedy, he was so powerful, etc. etc." If s/he gives someone 8-8.75 in skating skills, s/he better be able to explain why skater A had:

*Speed attained easily through very good skating technique, *Ability to skate easily and quickly with minimal effort
*Very good command of steps and edges in general
*Skating includes examples of most complex turns (i.e., rocker, counter, choctaw)
*Very good flow throughout program - very strong glide and flow sustained; skater is comfortable on different deep edges
*Very strong use of lean to achieve edge quality

Otherwise, s/he hasn't followed the scoring guidelines, like when there are few complex turns, use of inner and flat on the blade only, and/or chugging to gain speed.

Likewise, even for choreography, arguably with interpretation the foofiest of all,
*Skater includes original, interesting, and varied high risk linking steps and moves throughout program to enhance presentation and add to difficulty of elements completed
*Program includes many known and several creative and unspecified elements all very well executed
*Program elements regularly incorporate original and difficult entry and exit phrases, positions, and/or moves adding to the difficulty of the elements.

If there are no moves that add difficulty, but a lot of posturing and flailing or cha-cha-ing, it would be impossible to justify an 8 for choreography.

I can't find the Interactive Guide anymore on the ISU site, but they've posted a printable (alas but not cut-and-pastable) Adobe file at Points Code . It's 159 pages long, and has all of the detail for each points spread, and takes forever to download. "Points Code" is also the name of the link from the ISU Home Page.

My question is whether the ISU will enforce the rules, or whether current high-ranked skaters will get the benefit of the doubt in presentation scores. If they have the will to enforce it, the audit trail is there.

Hockeyfan - Quote:The criteria for the "presentation" categories is very strict. There's a 1-point discretionary spread per description. In the past if a judge were asked why s/he gave skater A 5.8, s/he could justify just about anything: "she made me feel the tragedy, he was so powerful, etc. etc." If s/he gives someone 8-8.75 in skating skills, s/he better be able to explain why skater A had:

*Speed attained easily through very good skating technique, *Ability to skate easily and quickly with minimal effort
*Very good command of steps and edges in general
*Skating includes examples of most complex turns (i.e., rocker, counter, choctaw)
*Very good flow throughout program - very strong glide and flow sustained; skater is comfortable on different deep edges
*Very strong use of lean to achieve edge quality Unquote
____________________________________________________
If a judge were asked....... Who will ask the judge? The Caller? and what if there is a bad explanation? Is any of this covered in the Code of Ethics?

Joe

Joesitz said:

If a judge were asked....... Who will ask the judge? The Caller? and what if there is a bad explanation? Is any of this covered in the Code of Ethics? Joe

Click to expand...

There was a provision last year that a certain number of months after competition, the ISU would lift the veil of secrecy and review judges scores. According to one of the ISU Communications, they called a series of judges on the carpet to explain their judging, because they were out of whack from the rest of the panel and/or showed national bias. I haven't heard that this will change for CoP.

What I think is great about CoP is that it isn't a matter of just agreeing with your peers on the score, but whether the score is matches the description. If they interview a bunch of judges who seem to be out-of-line for a given element or type of element, they can find out if the judges can't see something from ice level, if there's something inconsistent or unclear in the scoring rules, or if the judges need to be re-educated about certain elements.

Examined correctly, intent doesn't matter, whether it be cheating, incompetence, or bias. The only thing that matters is behavior, i.e., how close to the rules each judge's scores are. Then they can either fix the rules, or give the judge X amount of time to get with the program.

It's a matter of whether the ISU will use the data that they'll be gathering.

(PS. I sent you an PM regarding Worlds )

hockeyfan228 said:

What I think is great about CoP is that it isn't a matter of just agreeing with your peers on the score, but whether the score matches the description.
...
It's a matter of whether the ISU will use the data that they'll be gathering.

Click to expand...

I think those are two very excellent points. I'm sure I'll get to them somewhere in this rambling post...

I've been pretty excited about the CoP since seeing the ISU interactive website. I hope that's still available- hockeyfan mentioned earlier that he couldn't find it anymore. Also, the results from the Nebelhorn competition were interesting. You could look at each individual score, for each element, grade of excellence, and for each of the "program components" (read: presentation) marks. (I have been called a "data pig" before.)

I hadn't seen the information on the "marking range" before (it's in the pdf that hockeyfan mentions). Before it sounded like the program components score could be abused, but I think the marking range standards bring it back to the score matching the standards matching the skate, as hockeyfan mentioned.

I noticed on the Nebelhorn thread that many people were still concerned about the anonymity of the judges, and how that lends itself to collusion among judges and nationalistic favoritism. I think that there is a difference in the conception of the problem between most US vs. international observers. We tend to think of it in terms of individual judges who collude with others or mark up their own skaters; the ISU seems more concerned about pressure on judges from their national federations- that by freeing them from the scrutiny of their own federations they are able to judge fairly. It's a somewhat (stereo)typical division in thinking- we see it as an individual problem, they as a systematic one. Neither is right or wrong, or excludes the other, it's just a question of emphasis.

That does bring me to the second part of hockeyfan's statement; we have to wonder if the ISU will actually use any of this information they're collecting. Will they challenge judges on their marks. That has been an extremely weak point for the ISU (e.g. why is the foot-tapper still judging?!!). I think this gives them the information they need, but they have to act on it (which is always the way with data- collecting great, useful data is only the first step!)

Finally, going back to hockeyfan's first point, I think the CoP wins big because it brings the scores back to the skate itself- does the score apply the standard to the skate. While there's room to wiggle, and ISU needs to stay on top of it, it certainly brings it back to what's actually happening on the ice. However, I personally will miss the thrill of seeing 6.0 flash up for those great skates. CoP may lose big in that sense. Can anyone tell me how scores are reported at the event- will there even still be a kiss and cry? One last question that I haven't seen at USFSA or anywhere else- will the CoP be used for Nationals?

thanks for listening...
sk8fanconvert (Jeff)

spins and footwork

Okay, in all that previous rambling, I forgot one disappointment I have with CoP that I just have to air out. That is that spins and footwork count for relatively very little compared with other elements. Considering you have one footwork sequence, maybe 3 or 4 spins, compared to 6-8 jumps, and the possible scores for the spins and footwork are low in comparison to begin with.

Those are interesting points, sk8fanconvert. It has already been reported that both Michelle and Sasha have planned to downsize their spirals because the reward for a super one is not that much better than for just a pretty good one. In some of her recent interviews Sasha has made the point quite explicitly that the CoP does not reward "pushing the envelope." For instance, the extra points that you get for attempting a triple-triple instead of a triple double, is not worth the risk of failing. So we will probably see less adventuresome skating, at least until the skaters and their coaches get used to the new system.

Mathman

Mathman said:

Sasha has made the point quite explicitly that the CoP does not reward "pushing the envelope." For instance, the extra points that you get for attempting a triple-triple instead of a triple double, is not worth the risk of failing. So we will probably see less adventuresome skating, at least until the skaters and their coaches get used to the new system.
Mathman

Click to expand...

Yes, this is disappointing. When I first looked at the CoP, I thought the rewards seemed like it would challenge skaters, but that's not what they're thinking. The deemphasis of spirals and other elements (spins, footwork) is, to me, even more disconcerting. We've recently seen the footwork sequences become major elements- at the very least from choreography and crowd-enthusiam standpoints. If these or other elements truly start to suffer under the CoP, I hope ISU will be prepared for revisions... I'm prepared to be optimistic for now.

sk8fanconvert said:

Yes, this is disappointing. When I first looked at the CoP, I thought the rewards seemed like it would challenge skaters, but that's not what they're thinking. The deemphasis of spirals and other elements (spins, footwork) is, to me, even more disconcerting. We've recently seen the footwork sequences become major elements- at the very least from choreography and crowd-enthusiam standpoints. If these or other elements truly start to suffer under the CoP, I hope ISU will be prepared for revisions... I'm prepared to be optimistic for now.

Click to expand...

This brings up two points:
*There seems to be an historical trend whereby clean skates and/or great presentation takes precedence over harder jumps, and then there's a shift towards rewarding harder jumps and combinations. Although I think CoP tends toward the former, it will be a few years of watching how strictly CoP rules are retained and enforced before it's clear if the trend will move again toward the latter.

*We tend to equate "pushing the envelope" with jumps. I share your disappointment with the lowballed point values for spins and footwork. I wonder if this is the ISU's way of balancing a quantity limit for jumps with rewards for jumps.

I am glad that Kwan has dropped the changing edge spiral, at least for now, because it's in every one of her competitive programs. As beautiful as it is, like any signature move, it gets old after a while. I also don't know why she'd change it to adjust to CoP this year, when CoP won't be used for Nationals or Worlds, and it sounds like "Tosca" isn't fully cooked yet.

It's clear that Cohen hasn't read the CoP very well if she's "dumbed down" her spirals. I think one of the great things about CoP is that it codifies difficult entrances and exits throughout. There are only a couple of ways to increase difficulty in entrances of jumps, spins, footwork, and pairs throws, lifts, twists, and death spirals: add steps, moves in the field, and spirals. Case in point: Cohen's half-rink-length Charlotte with an immediate reverse of direction into the footwork section in Rach 2. Under the recent CoP clarification, a spin in both directions counts as a single spin and ups the difficult by one level.

In transitions, the levels are based on varying steps, penalizing programs that rely primarily on cross-overs, and using moves in the field and spirals going into the other elements. In choreography, linking steps and elements are rewarded.

Also, there's a two-point bonus for an original move, good for the entire season if the skater/team is the first to do it and no other skater/team performs it in that first competition. The bonus is scored each in each program the skater/pair performs it for the rest of the season. (Also in the clarifications.)

So there are many cases that reward steps, moves in the field, spirals, and spins like Klimkin's bi-directional camel into 3Sal in both the GOE scores and the program elements scores, besides the point differential for elements.

About the tapping judges, despite the videotape and the resulting placement, the ISU is stymied to an extent, because they couldn't quite prove intent to cheat. It's not like the teacher found the note. Under OBO any judge could talk their way out of any placement. Each year, when the ISU looks at scoring patterns among the judges, they have a little more ammo, and each year, they call judges on the carpet. Under CoP they don't have to prove intent, just results, because very little is relative, and behavior is the only thing that counts.

BTW, I'm actually a she, who grew up in Madison Square Garden watching the Rangers and Knicks

It seems to me as if maybe they need a robot for a judge.

sk8fanconvert said:

However, I personally will miss the thrill of seeing 6.0 flash up for those great skates. CoP may lose big in that sense. Can anyone tell me how scores are reported at the event- will there even still be a kiss and cry? One last question that I haven't seen at USFSA or anywhere else- will the CoP be used for Nationals?

thanks for listening...
sk8fanconvert (Jeff)

Click to expand...

skafanconvert - I can't help but agree with you and Hockeyfan and of course, there is room to wiggle. Yet your last few sentences (above) got to me. Will the CoP lose interest for the average viewer? I am wondering if interest in figure skating will continue to decline. It appears that Pro skating has already been replaced by NASCAR on US television.

Joe

Joesitz said:

Will the CoP lose interest for the average viewer?

Click to expand...

While "6.0" certainly can invoke a visceral reaction, the rest of the OBO system is a mystery to the average skating viewer. Back in the day, when all of the scores counted and they were added up, it made a bit more sense, but ordinals? Skaters swapping places? A fantastic 6th place performance mired in certain defeat? Boitano, Browning, and Petrenko with virtually no chance to medal in the 1994 Olympics because of their disastrous SP's? Skater A can win only if these three skaters place this way? Don't we like to see the last-inning winner or the Hail Mary touchdown? (Unless of course Bill Buckley's on our favorite team or our favorite skater is protected )

Under CoP, the same program can be ranked throughout the year. Skaters can have higher or lower scores. Since there are scores for each element, commentators can do slo-mo side-by-side comparisons of elements, to point out the differences. There are no ordinals blocking someone moving from 6th to podium, and skaters are dependent only on their own performances. Just like in diving, while the scores come up, the commentators will be able to say things like, "Jenny Kirk needs 56.8 points to take the lead, but to stay there, she'll need closer to 60, because AP McDonough has been scoring 59's with this program all year."

"+3" may become the new 6.0, because I don't think there are going to be that many of them.

We always talk about making things fairer for the skaters. I think it's more informative to know that three sets of five judges hae scored your 3L/2T in the -1 to 0 range. Then you can go work on it, and the judges can give you more specifics, because it's still perfectly legal for them to talk to skaters. (I don't know about the caller, though.) Or that the caller has called your spin or spiral a level 2, not a level 3. (I wonder if callers will be influenced by the levels called in previous competitions, though.)

Also, if you're a parent of a skater, or an older skater with a lot of control over your coaching, you can see trends -- for example, if all of Coach A's skaters are marked down for Lutzes consistently, then you can send your kid to a Lutz specialist, or to someone's summer camp. Or you can change coaches and choreographers, based on patterns you see.

It's difficult to find out this information using relative scores, because, under placements, your lutz (or your kid's lutz) is lumped in with everything else, and even if you perform it the same way all season, in one competition, it might be the best relatively, in another, it might be the worst relatively.

Hockeyfan and Skatefan - Your posts are making my mind boggle. They are so fascinating. However, I am wondering:

When you speak of the ISU and "They". Who exactly are "They" that will call the judges to the carpet if necessary?

And also: From what you say, I would conclude that STRATEGY will be of the most importance. No extra air turns unless one is 99 per cent sure of making it. So if a skater like MK who does not exactly specialize in 3x3s will be at ease with a 3x2, and her competitors have to think should I take the chance and 3x3 her or let her win over the presentation.

If what I am thinking, I see CoP bringing STRATEGY to the Sport. I like that.

Joesitz said:

Hockeyfan and Skatefan - Your posts are making my mind boggle.

Click to expand...

I can relate! Mine is definitely boggled!

Already I have a lot to catch up to! First to hockeyfan, my apologies on the injudicious and presumptive use of pronouns.

Joesitz, I think you're right, strategy could come into play, although since programs are set long in advance, that could be tricky. But skaters may decide that yes they really do need that triple-triple, or as hockeyfan seems to imply, maybe many will decide they don't. I think hockeyfan may be right (if I'm interpreting this right- or was it Mathman who said it... I'm so confused!!) that the CoP, for now, may be a conservative force on jumping, at least for the ladies. I think enough top men are doing quads, and the rewards are high, that the pressure to land one will continue. For the ladies it doesn't seem so sure to me...

I still think that missing the possibility of the 6.0 mark will be a bit of a letdown for a crowd. The competition could be more exciting (if several skaters do well in the short), and more strategic, but the rush of seeing a great skate recognized just won't be there- the +3 mark for goe is for each element rather than the whole skate. All we have is a total points (picture it... MK skates and it's announced... "a total of 184.32 points!!!! the crowd goes wild!!"- kinda hard to picture). That said, I think fans know a great skate anyway, but I can't help but wax nostalgic for the 6.0 marks... I remain very curious about how the scores are announced. Is anyone out there listening who was at Nebelhorn? Was it televised anywhere? Oh well, I guess we'll find out at Skate America. There's got to be a way to keep the drama- if the tech scores are announced as one mark, then the program components as the 2nd mark, it keeps to form (some familiarity is helpful when adjusting to change) and may preserve some of that drama of seeing the scores revealed.

Now I think I'm well into another ramble, but I have to ask hockeyfan, who is "we" when you say

We tend to equate "pushing the envelope" with jumps.

Click to expand...

I see your point I guess- particularly with the men, the quad has been the standard, but for the ladies, it's seems to me it's been more about flexibility (aside- Sasha's split jumps are divine!!), spirals (okay hockeyfan, I will most grudgingly agree that MK's spiral has been a little overworked of late) and, especially most recently, innovative footwork sequence. We have these brief flashes of triple-triples and triple axles, but they haven't sunk in.

I'd like to wrap this up with a big finish, but I think I'm too out of breath. Hockeyfan, I think we both found a lot to like in the rewards the CoP provides for things like entrances and moves in the field, and innovation. I think I'm having a harder time with the spins and stuff- I don't understand your comment about balancing the quantity limit for jumps- there will always be more jumps than spins, spirals and footwork, and they have higher point potentials.

Is your point that a lot of these things- the artistry of skating- will be rewarded in the program components score? Or that they are factored in to the jumps with the goe? That makes me feel a little better about it. It might be more advantageous for a skater to do complicated steps into a triple-double than to telegraph a triple-triple. I guess I can take solace in that.

And now I finish, LONG after my music has already stopped!

sk8fanconvert (Jeff)

Already I have a lot to catch up to! First to hockeyfan, my apologies on the injudicious and presumptive use of pronouns.

Click to expand...

No problem at all. I didn't want you to feel bad after another 60 posts, when it became more obvious.

(picture it... MK skates and it's announced... "a total of 184.32 points!!!! the crowd goes wild!!"- kinda hard to picture).

Click to expand...

But what if the announce is "a total of 184.32 points -- that's a world record and personal best!"

hockeyfan, who is "we"

Click to expand...

(I'm not sure what happens to quotes within quotes )
I think the general public, at least in NA, equates the technical ante with the jumps. If you look at the pairs competition in SLC, most fans didn't recognize the issues that were part of the trade-offs in the final equation, such as difficulty of transitions, distribution of elements, etc. It sounds like Cohen does, too, and Goebel.

(okay hockeyfan, I will most grudgingly agree that MK's spiral has been a little overworked of late)

Click to expand...

From Paula Slater's article on Golden Skate, it sounds like it was too early to play "taps" for the changing edge spiral in "Tosca."

I think I'm having a harder time with the spins and stuff- I don't understand your comment about balancing the quantity limit for jumps- there will always be more jumps than spins, spirals and footwork, and they have higher point potentials.

Click to expand...

The old rules stated the number of times a triple or quad jump could be repeated, not the number of combinations or sequences or jumps. Under CoP, there's a limit to the number of jump elements in a program (7 for women, 8 for men), with a max of two jump combos or sequences. One combo may have three jumps, and the other may have two jumps. There weren't restrictions on the number of combos before. Also, in the LP, jumps in violation used to be ignored. Under CoP it's more complex: if the skater hasn't completed all 7/8 jump elements, a repeated solo or triple quad is scored as a missed combo, or in the negatives. If the skater has already completed all 7/8 jump elements, then it doesn't count at all.

The percentage split of elements looks innocent enough (57/43 for Men, 54/46 for Ladies), but the stronger the jumper, spins and steps being equal, the greater the difference in the split; the ratio of points can go to 80% (jumps)/20% (steps seqs and spins).

Is your point that a lot of these things- the artistry of skating- will be rewarded in the program components score? Or that they are factored in to the jumps with the goe?

Click to expand...

In both. In program components, notably in choreography and transitions, although indirectly in interpretation. In GOE, by upping the level of an element: for example, to have a Level 2 or 3 death spiral, a difficult entrance is required. Also in the GOE score, to get a +3 in a jump, adding an unusual and difficult entry can qualify as excellence toward a "+" score, like Slutskaya's and Kostner's 3-turn into 3Loop would score higher than a regular 3Loop, execution being equal.

hockeyfan228 said:

The old rules stated the number of times a triple or quad jump could be repeated, not the number of combinations or sequences or jumps. Under CoP, there's a limit to the number of jump elements in a program (7 for women, 8 for men), with a max of two jump combos or sequences. One combo may have three jumps, and the other may have two jumps. There weren't restrictions on the number of combos before. Also, in the LP, jumps in violation used to be ignored. Under CoP it's more complex: if the skater hasn't completed all 7/8 jump elements, a repeated solo or triple quad is scored as a missed combo, or in the negatives. If the skater has already completed all 7/8 jump elements, then it doesn't count at all.

The percentage split of elements looks innocent enough (57/43 for Men, 54/46 for Ladies), but the stronger the jumper, spins and steps being equal, the greater the difference in the split; the ratio of points can go to 80% (jumps)/20% (steps seqs and spins).

In both. In program components, notably in choreography and transitions, although indirectly in interpretation. In GOE, by upping the level of an element: for example, to have a Level 2 or 3 death spiral, a difficult entrance is required. Also in the GOE score, to get a +3 in a jump, adding an unusual and difficult entry can qualify as excellence toward a "+" score, like Slutskaya's and Kostner's 3-turn into 3Loop would score higher than a regular 3Loop, execution being equal.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, I hadn't picked up on some of the nuances I suppose- mostly I saw the 7-8 jump element limit as a reflection of what they do already. So a repeated jump/missed combo could result in negative marks?

Yes, I agree, the point potential of jumps could overshadow these other elements (but then again, haven't they always?).

I guess I was hoping that CoP would give more credit to spins/spirals/footwork vis-a-vis jumps overall, without necessarily working against tougher jumps. I don't think it quite does that (nor is it meant to).

You are right that many of the things that contribute to a great skate are found in the choreography and transitions scores, and the GoE will really tell, I think. It will be nice if skaters see that telegraphing jumps gets lower marks, and start working on the skating between the jumps! I think CoP will encourage that!

Thanks hockeyfan!

Sk8convert