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 01:34 PM.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.Meantime, what is an unclear edge at take-off? Is it something a judge may have seen but the Tech Panel did not?
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!
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.BAH HUMBUG! It needs simplification not increased mechanization!
Every little bit helps.
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.
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.