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

Joesitz (RIP) · Apr 17, 2009

Mathman said:
1. Suppose you are judging, say, a novice competition, Someone does a pretty good triple jump. Not Brian Joubert pretty good, but pretty good for the competition at hand. Would that skater get a +2 GOE for doing the best jump of the day?

May I answer that with another question? What is the point of giving Plus GoEs if a skater has complied with the base value of the jump? He did what he was supposed to do. Now, if he adds something that is out of the ordinary, say a Tano, or even more difficult, 'hands on hips', then it is reasonable to give a plus GoE These instances and probably others show an addition which is the definition of plus in arithmetic as well as in life.

IMO, the entrance of a jump, is not the jump itself and should be covered in the PC scores. Jumps are Takeoffs, Air Turns and Landings.

Takoffs describe what the jump is! It's the only part of a jump that gives it a name.

Air Turns show the difficulty in rotations of all jumps. All jumps rotate in the favor of the skater except for rotations both to the left and right which are not considered other than 2 separate jumps.

Landing are covered by regulations in accordance with ISU.

Minus GoEs make sense since complicity of a jump has not been met.

Attemps are used to disguise faulty Take-offs. I'm not sure if the word is in the official vocabulary of the ISU.

Mathman · Apr 17, 2009

Joesitz said:
May I answer that with another question? What is the point of giving Plus GoEs if a skater has complied with the base value of the jump? He did what he was supposed to do. Now, if he adds something that is out of the ordinary, say a Tano, or even more difficult, 'hands on hips', then it is reasonable to give a plus GoE These instances and probably others show an addition which is the definition of plus in arithmetic as well as in life.

I think the idea is this. GOEs do not mean that the skater added something extra onto his jump. They reward the quality of the jump. A big jump that gets extraordinary height and superior distance is regarded as better than a tiny little jump (this is item #4).

Similarly if a jump landing has superior extension and flow (items five and six), that is better than a jump that lacks these qualities, even though both jumps satisfy the bare bones of the defintion for base value.

That's the theory, anyway.

gkelly · Apr 17, 2009

Mathman said:
I think the idea is this. GOEs do not mean that the skater added something extra onto his jump. They reward the quality of the jump.

Well, it's both.

-Unexpected/creative/difficult entry
-Clear steps preceeding (especially when we're not considering the short program element of which this is a required part)
-Varied position in the air / delay in rotation

could all be considered adding something extra on to the jump.

I'd also include unnexpected/creative/difficult exit, although that's not explicitly one of the bullet points, except insofar as it constitutes good extension.

The way the original guidelines read, to get +1, the jump has to be better quality than just adequate OR it has to have something added.

For +2, either the quality is good and something extra is added, OR the overall quality has to be better than good OR several somethings extra are added

For +3, you pretty much need to have both better-than-good quality and extra enhancements

These new guidelines focusing on the positives break down further which areas can be better quality or have something added.

Mathman · Apr 17, 2009

gkelly said:
Well, it's both.

I think there has been a progression, since the beginning of the CoP, away from the original intent of the GOEs. Here is what the ISU summary of the IJS says about the responsibility of the judges.

b) Judges

Under the ISU Judging System, the Judges focus entirely on scoring the quality of each element and the quality of the Program Components. Their scores will be based on specific quality criteria for each element and will provide a comprehensive assessment of each skater’s skills and performance.

I guess it is hard to keep quality and quantity entirely separate.

Joesitz (RIP) · Apr 18, 2009

Mathman said:
I think there has been a progression, since the beginning of the CoP, away from the original intent of the GOEs.
(snip)
I guess it is hard to keep quality and quantity entirely separate.

It is a thought but it doesn't seem to follow anything official. The description of a jump is quite clear that very first day a skater learned the difference between a loop jump and a salchow jump. There are differences. Scoring the quality of a jump are all included in those Guidelines. I have no problem with 'minus GoEs' My question:

How does one earn just the base value without any acoutrements? If there are two such skaters who meet that criteria, which skater performed the better jump without going into the guidelines. Has any skater actually just got the base value?

Mathman · Apr 18, 2009

Joesitz said:
How does one earn just the base value without any acoutrements? If there are two such skaters who meet that criteria, which skater performed the better jump without going into the guidelines. Has any skater actually just got the base value?

Yes. In fact, most of the time a skater gets just the base value. If the judges think that he satisfied the definition of the jump, did the proper air turns, etc., with nothing special about it, that skater will get 0 GOE.

I look at it like this. Let's say you, I, and Klutzenhopper are in a square dancing contest. We all do a do-sa-do. Mine is satisfactory. I do what the definition of the move says to do. I get base value.

Klutzenhopper gets his feet tangled up, stumbles and bumps into his partner. The judges decide that he did complete the element, but with errors. He gets base value with minus 2 GOE taken away.

You do a dandy, with great posture and a lively step right on the beat. You show elan, musicality, a feel for the character of the dance, and you throw in a little wink to your corner as you pass by. You get base value plus an extra +2 in GOE for the quality of your element.

Joesitz (RIP) · Apr 18, 2009

Thank you MM, and fyi, I do square Dance, Level 3A. It can be mind boggling.

Mathman · Apr 18, 2009

Joesitz said:
Thank you MM, and fyi, I do square Dance, Level 3A. It can be mind boggling.

I knew you were a top level square dancer, which is what made me think of that particular analogy. When I was a teenager I was in a group called "Silver Spurs," from Spokane, but I never got good enough to join the touring group.

One thing that made me pause when I was thinking about "GOE" for square dance was the part about "winking at your Corner." Is this really something that the scoring system ought to reward?

Under the figure skating GOE, I think there are two bullets that might be relevant.

Bullet #7. "Effortless throughout." If you are so sure of the element that you can wink in the middle of the step, that shows a degree of "effortlessness" not shown by a dancers whose face is a mask of grim concentration.

Bullet #8. "Element matched to the musical structure." If the music is sassy and flirty, a wink could express the character of the music and the spirit of the dance.

dorispulaski · Apr 18, 2009

Level 4 +2/+3 elements

In fact, this sort of ease with the element is what got Davis & White a number of +3's throughout the season for their FD pair spin.-Meryl grabs her skirt to make a different shape in the middle of the spin, and they both do a bunch of graceful (Meryl) or not so graceful (Charlie) little arm movements. Meanwhile, the spin is a back entry spin with great speed and centering and a lot of transitions. So it gets level 4, and +2 or +3 GOE, depending on the judge. Plus the spin actually seemed to be part of the choreo rather than just an element.

They scored similarly on their swooping lift that follows the pair spin.

Another effect that I firmly believe is happening is what I would call the "Frank Luntz" effect. Luntz gives people dials and tells them to turn them to right if they like what a person is saying, left if not. Depending on what they feel about the person coming in, the first bit is more negative or more positive. However, if the speaker is knocking it out of the park on the first couple minutes, there's a hang time before the overawed dialturner starts to turn the other way.

The judges are hitting numbers throughout the program, just like Luntz dial-turners. Once you've given a team a +3, it's easier to give them the next +3. And if the performance starts to stink out, it takes an element for the drop to solidify.

Thus D&W did 2 wonderful elements back to back. However, the lift got more +3's than the spin, despite the spin being as good or better than the lift, because of the Luntz effect. And the twizzles (the 3rd element in their program following the lift) , which were good, but didn't have the extra little touches got as many +3's as the spin, despite being more generic--more Luntz effect..

That's what I'm speculating :chorus:

Joesitz (RIP) · Apr 18, 2009

Mathman said:
I
Under the figure skating GOE, I think there are two bullets that might be relevant.

Bullet #7. "Effortless throughout." If you are so sure of the element that you can wink in the middle of the step, that shows a degree of "effortlessness" not shown by a dancers whose face is a mask of grim concentration.

Bullet #8. "Element matched to the musical structure." If the music is sassy and flirty, a wink could express the character of the music and the spirit of the dance.

That would be John Curry definitely, and maybe Kurt Browning and Michelle Kwan. They were more into beautiful skating and never emphasized "big tricks".

That is the main reason, I would want to eliminate music competitions, and just let the skaters each do 5 jumps and 5 spins of their choices.as the Tech program and a musical program the next day where musicality is the biggest factor.

nylynnr · Apr 19, 2009

George Rossano has written an interesting analysis of how the change in treatment of under rotated jumps could impact the judges:

http://www.iceskatingintnl.com/current/content/Downgrade Rule.htm

(Sorry if it's already been mentioned!)

Mathman · Apr 19, 2009

Thanks for the link, nylynnr. (No, it hadn't been posted yet.

)

Dr. R.'s analysis makes it clear that the new rule does not really address the two big criticisms of the downgrade rules: the double punishment and the discontinuous jump in penalty at the 90 degree underrotation mark.

With regard to the latter, I think it is the ISU's intent -- for better or for worse -- to retain this either-or rule. Either you do a triple jump or you don't. 90 degrees might seem arbitrary, but wherever you draw the line it is an arbitrary choice.

About the double penalty, as Rossano's tables show, the change probably will not amount to much in practice. In any case, since the GOE penalty is taken at the rate of a double jump, the GOE penalty will never be as severe as the downgrade in base value.

DorisPulaski said:
Another effect that I firmly believe is happening is what I would call the "Frank Luntz" effect.

Cool. I think there also might be a "cumulative" effect in the case of a program that brings the audience to its feet. The judges start to realize that this is a great performance and respond by giving out higher GOEs near the end.

Joesitz (RIP) · Apr 19, 2009

It would be good for skating if someone would write a decent paper on the ERRORS AND PENALTIES IN FIGURE SKATING.

An underrotation is a problematic short landing of a jump

A wrong edge takeoff absolutely changes the name of the jump.

A fall disrupts the program and more than one fall is a disaster to the program.

I believe if the system is to judge what is seen, then why make up excuses?

Automatic Negative GoEs are needed, and no need for judges to go further. The Tech Panel can deal with these,.

mskater93 · Apr 20, 2009

Mathman said:
2. Is the IJS used for Adult Skating competitions?

IJS is used for Masters Intermediate, Novice, Junior, Senior (and the two Championship Masters levels) and Adult Gold FS (open and Championship) but not lower in the US. It is always used at US Adult Nationals and there is a proposal on the table to use it at Sectionals (with paper version) beginning next season (we've been doing the qualifying for Championship levels under 6.0). Many local competitions will do IJS for Gold and Masters levels on request (or have already converted those groups on their announcement) At the ISU Adult Competition in Obertsdorf, it's used for ALL levels.

FWIW, last year a skater in an open masters level scored really well with only an Axel and some high level spins. I believe she finished 2nd.

steyn · Apr 20, 2009

Mathman said:
With regard to the latter, I think it is the ISU's intent -- for better or for worse -- to retain this either-or rule. Either you do a triple jump or you don't. 90 degrees might seem arbitrary, but wherever you draw the line it is an arbitrary choice.

I think this is consistent with the system of the levels in other elements. 3 second rule in spiral, 2 revolutions in spin and so on. The only difference in jump is that it is not called "level." The reason that people are uncomfortable with underrotation is probably because the base value differences between doubles and triples are quite big compared to level 3's and level 4's in other elements. Other than that, I see no essential difference in the basic philosophy throughout the whole judging system. So I guess this feature will not be easily changed in the current system, which is a kind of digital rather than analog.

Joesitz said:
It would be good for skating if someone would write a decent paper on the ERRORS AND PENALTIES IN FIGURE SKATING.

An underrotation is a problematic short landing of a jump

Not quite true from the point of view of physics. For a successful triple, you need a minimum amount of time on the air and it come from the force(or impact) which a skater must act on the ice. Underroration means the skater fails to do it. In this sense this is not much different from, say, wrong edge takeoff.

A wrong edge takeoff absolutely changes the name of the jump.

From the point of view of jump mechanism, I believe the jump should not be identified entirely by the takeoff edge but by the whole process including the movement of the skater before takeoff. For example, to see whether a lutz of a flip is properly done, I think it is important to judge how much the so-called counterrotation is involved in the whole jump process. In this sense GOE system is meaningful, in my opinion.

Joesitz (RIP) · Apr 20, 2009

steyn said:
From the point of view of jump mechanism, I believe the jump should not be identified entirely by the takeoff edge but by the whole process including the movement of the skater before takeoff. For example, to see whether a lutz of a flip is properly done, I think it is important to judge how much the so-called counterrotation is involved in the whole jump process. In this sense GOE system is meaningful, in my opinion.

Your opinion. OK. But for me, all jumps look the same in the air and all land the same way. To identify a jump, one must go to the Take-off. That's where the differences are in jumps.

If a skater does not take-off on a back outside edge, it is not a loop jump. No?

Why would a Lutz have a higher base value than a Flip? The take-off - No?

steyn · Apr 21, 2009

Joesitz said:
Your opinion. OK. But for me, all jumps look the same in the air and all land the same way.

I agree except some possible difference in the angle of the rotation axis makes to the vertical axis.

To identify a jump, one must go to the Take-off. That's where the differences are in jumps.

What I am interested in is not only the exact moment of takeoff but also the pre-takeoff period. Or I would say those period plus the moment of takeoff consist of the "takeoff period." It determines substantial part of jump quality in my opinion.

If a skater does not take-off on a back outside edge, it is not a loop jump. No?

Why would a Lutz have a higher base value than a Flip? The take-off - No?

As I wrote above, I consider takeoff not as a moment but a process happening for some period just like an airplane takes off on a runway.

If the difference between a lutz and a flip is just the edge at the very moment of toe pick, you will really need a very high-resolution video and some high-precision device with mathematical certainty to see whether the edge is tilted inside or outside. Then if the edge is inside by 0.0001 degree you would identify it as a flip and give 5.5 base value, while if it is 0.0001 degree outside, it would be a lutz worth 6.0 base value. I don't think this is the fundamental difference between the two jumps.

Joesitz (RIP) · Apr 21, 2009

Mathman;39112[/QUOTE said:
Cool. I think there also might be a "cumulative" effect in the case of a program that brings the audience to its feet. The judges start to realize that this is a great performance and respond by giving out higher GOEs near the end.

It is a wonderful feeling sitting in the audience when the audience gives an ovation but it is not often and rare for 2 ovations in one competition (Buttle/Joubert was a 2 ovatiion comp)

Joesitz (RIP) · Apr 21, 2009

This thread has all gone awry.

Anyway. The jumps was clearly made up by the author of the jump Alois Lutz. It is a difficult jump to master and for those who want to rush into being number One in the world will not have the time to master it.

Therefore there are so many excuses to not do it the way Alois said to do it. What with leans, angles, physics. I'm sure there are more. Americans are the most offended by this in their rush to be the youngest ever champion. If a loop jump took off on a back inside edge, it would be called a wally. No problem. But If a lutz jump took off on a back inside edge it would be called a flip. And that's a NO NO for people who can not master the lutz.

Just continue the excuses for not doing a proper lutz.

steyn · Apr 22, 2009

Joesitz said:
This thread has all gone awry.

Anyway. The jumps was clearly made up by the author of the jump Alois Lutz. It is a difficult jump to master and for those who want to rush into being number One in the world will not have the time to master it.

Therefore there are so many excuses to not do it the way Alois said to do it. What with leans, angles, physics. I'm sure there are more. Americans are the most offended by this in their rush to be the youngest ever champion. If a loop jump took off on a back inside edge, it would be called a wally. No problem. But If a lutz jump took off on a back inside edge it would be called a flip. And that's a NO NO for people who can not master the lutz.

Just continue the excuses for not doing a proper lutz.

Not to make myself misunderstood, I just want to add one more thing. Probably I have more strict standard than you. I don't think a jump is a proper lutz just because it takes off on an outside edge; so is a flip or any other jumps. I want to stick to more fundamental mechanisms to identify jumps and if they are not realized in a reasonably way those jumps should not be considered OK; they are cheating in disguise.

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

Joesitz (RIP)

Mathman

gkelly

Mathman

Joesitz (RIP)

Mathman

Joesitz (RIP)

Mathman

dorispulaski

Wicked Yankee Girl

Joesitz (RIP)

nylynnr

Mathman

Joesitz (RIP)

mskater93

steyn

Joesitz (RIP)

steyn

Joesitz (RIP)

Joesitz (RIP)

steyn

Similar threads

Connect with us