Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 60

Thread: Thoughts on New guidelines for GOE and Levels of difficulty for 2009-10 Season

  1. #1
    Custom Title NatachaHatawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    724

    Thoughts on New guidelines for GOE and Levels of difficulty for 2009-10 Season


  2. #2
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,896
    First thing I note is that the reduction for "underrotated" under jumps is -1 to -3, but it's in the column for reductions that don't have to result in the final GOE being negative.

    So does that mean that a jump that looks good to the judge but is downgraded by the tech panel could get 0 GOE after reduction, or in theory +1 if it looked really good otherwise (or the rest of the combination was really good)? That's what some of us have been hoping for regarding the double penalty for underrotations.

    ETA: Also, I see that judges will not be shown the < sign for downgrades, so if they don't see the underrotation and the jump looks good they don't have to take any reduction at all. The only penalty would be in the downgrade from the tech panel.
    Last edited by gkelly; 04-16-2009 at 12:34 PM.

  3. #3
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    221
    The guidelines aren't new, they've been updated (changed) a bit. To me a big difference is it now requires six bullets to get a +3 GOE.

  4. #4
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,896
    Well, it says "It is at the discretion of each judge to decide on the number of bullets for any upgrade, but general recommendations are as follows"

    So there might be cases where a judge might use the discretion to think "That element only met 4 or 5 bullet points, but it met them really well -- some were not just "good," but amazing!" and give +3 anyway.

  5. #5
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Just a cursory look. It seems all things are being covered. I'll give a more serious look over the weekend. Can a judge really cover all the points listed when judging each skater? That would be monumental.

    Meantime, what is an unclear edge at take-off? Is it something a judge may have seen but the Tech Panel did not?

  6. #6
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    221
    It's true the system is one of guidelines and judges can do what they like, throw the guidelines out or whatever. However, any judge that is out of line with his/her GOEs (or PCS for that matter) will at some point be called to explain. Still overall, reading the changes seems to indicate IJS is making it a bit harder to gain higher scores on some elements. I kind of think jumps may be graded a bit higher for some skaters, since bullets about musicality and control have been added, and those are rather subjective.

  7. #7
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Musicality is very mathematical. Timing and Rhythm are quantifyable, but you don't want these poor youngsters to learn piano 101.

  8. #8
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz View Post
    Musicality is very mathematical. Timing and Rhythm are quantifyable, but you don't want these poor youngsters to learn piano 101.

    I think timing and musicality is quantifiable and precise during compulsory dances but not necessarily when a judge is determining whether or not the placement of a jump fits the music. It might be pretty obvious when a triple Lutz fits a crescendo but at other times it can be up to the judge's personal opinion.

  9. #9
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,348
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    First thing I note is that the reduction for "underrotated" under jumps is -1 to -3, but it's in the column for reductions that don't have to result in the final GOE being negative.
    I think this is not a change. I think here "underrotated" means that the judge thought it was underrotated (not necessarily as much as 90 degrees), rather than referring to a jump that was downgraded by the tech panel.

    IIRC the old rules had two separate items: Downgraded and Underroated. The instructions to the judges for "downgraded" is the one that has been removed.

    ETA: Also, I see that judges will not be shown the < sign for downgrades, so if they don't see the underrotation and the jump looks good they don't have to take any reduction at all. The only penalty would be in the downgrade from the tech panel.
    It will be interesting to see if this rule change makes any difference in practice. If a judge sees an underrotated triple and gives negative GOE for the underrotatation, then it is downgrsaded on top of that, we are back in the same situation as before.

    But it does seem like they are saying that a judge can give positive GOE for other features, which could result in string positive GOEs (but applied at the rate of a double) for a jump that is downgraded by the tech panel but not considererd to be underrotated by the judge.

    Maybe sometimes we will see judges disagreeing with the tech panel on underrotations.

    Meantime, what is an unclear edge at take-off? Is it something a judge may have seen but the Tech Panel did not?
    No, it's the other way around. It's when the tech panel thinks they see a "slightly" wrong edge and give a "!" The judges are supposed to take -1 to -2 GOE off in this case,but can mitigate this with positive features if they want to.

  10. #10
    The burr up Speedy's Butt! visaliakid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    437
    If I wanted to take the time to read and digest everything listed and all the background information related to how each would,could,should be applied I might become more understanding and conversant in this detailed scoring system. Regardless, I continue to fathom how any judge can absorb, and retain all this and then apply said info to the judging of each skater during a program? I simply believe it is all too technical and all too encompassing for any one human to utlize with any semblence of accuracy.

    The more they adapt, add, subtract or revise this system the more overbearing it becomes.

    BAH HUMBUG! It needs simplification not increased mechanization!

  11. #11
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by visaliakid View Post
    If I wanted to take the time to read and digest everything listed and all the background information related to how each would,could,should be applied I might become more understanding and conversant in this detailed scoring system. Regardless, I continue to fathom how any judge can absorb, and retain all this and then apply said info to the judging of each skater during a program? I simply believe it is all too technical and all too encompassing for any one human to utlize with any semblence of accuracy.

    The more they adapt, add, subtract or revise this system the more overbearing it becomes.

    BAH HUMBUG! It needs simplification not increased mechanization!
    It doesn't help when changes are made after every season. Judges would actually remember the rules if they stayed the same long enough for them to digest it.

  12. #12
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,348
    Quote Originally Posted by visaliakid View Post
    Regardless, I continue to fathom how any judge can absorb, and retain all this and then apply said info to the judging of each skater during a program?
    I think at the elite level what the judges do is something like this. They already know pretty much what to expect of each skater. They know that Brian Joubert is going to demonstrate 7.75 worth of Performance and Execution, but only 6.75 worth of Transitions. Then when they see the actual program they add or subtract a little depending on how he skates today.

    BAH HUMBUG! It needs simplification not increased mechanization!
    Actually, compared to last year's rules, I think these revisions are a tiny baby step in the direction of simplification. Or if not simplification, at least in the direction of empowering the judges to have greater leeway in making their judgements about the quality of the skating that they see.

    Every little bit helps.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    452
    Quote Originally Posted by visaliakid View Post
    it is all too technical and all too encompassing for any one human to utlize with any semblence of accuracy.

    The more they adapt, add, subtract or revise this system the more overbearing it becomes.
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkestMoon View Post
    It doesn't help when changes are made after every season. Judges would actually remember the rules if they stayed the same long enough for them to digest it.
    It is overwhelming, and that is the nature of this system. DarkestMoon, CoP is flawed. Either throw the whole thing out, or allow them to put these bandaids on it. No way in the world can CoP just limp along as it is, burying its head in the sand to all the contradictions like the double penalty for underrotation, etc. This is the absolute minimum they can do to keep CoP from being completely laughable.

    The best system would still be a FAIR 6.0. That would be a 6.0 where the judges and other officials are overseen by an independent authority that actually keeps them fair, and actually kicks out judges and officials FOR LIFE who are corrupt. 6.0 still had required elements, but didn't have everything chopped up into tiny pieces. Humans work much better on a relative scale. 6.0 and 5.9 etc also MEANT something to the audience and to the skater. 6.0 was a mark of excellence. A clear way to signify that skater on that night had achieved a pinnacle of performance. 71.23 -- what's that? Ask a computer.

  14. #14
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,348
    Quote Originally Posted by Particle Man View Post
    That would be a 6.0 where the judges and other officials are overseen by an independent authority that actually keeps them fair...
    And a super independent authority that keeps the independent authority fair.

  15. #15
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by nylynnr View Post
    I think timing and musicality is quantifiable and precise during compulsory dances but not necessarily when a judge is determining whether or not the placement of a jump fits the music. It might be pretty obvious when a triple Lutz fits a crescendo but at other times it can be up to the judge's personal opinion.
    If you mean landing a jump on the swell of the music as in Nessum Dorme, then one has to Time the Jump to the Rhythm of the music. Not easy. Anything can happen in figure skating and it usually does.

    I think the judges by-pass the timing if it is done with the crescendo of the music, but the judges may raise eyebrows if the jump landings miss the crescendo.

    Also remember, if a skater is portraying an Opera or Ballet character, that character does not do a triple salchow on stage.Best to just use the music without the story.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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