Emily Hughes - What happened to her fans?

Technical specialists must make hundreds of calls during the course of a competition, many of them borderline judgment calls.

Any one those might turn out to be the one that determines who wins or loses. I think it is quite unrealistic to imagine that in every compettion there is a "rightful winner" who can be identified, without ambiguity or controversy, by adding up CoP points.

In the case of the 2007 U.S. nationals SP, if Kimmie's 3Lz+3T had been downgraded (or not) we would have simply said, well, the tech specialist is being strict (or lenient) today. The only reason there was a question is that Rachael came right behind Kimmie with a 3Lz+3T that appeared to be a carbon copy of Kimmie's.

In many sports, when a referee blows a call at one end, then he evens it out by making an equally questionable call at the other end on the next play. Maybe the caller gave Rachael an extra level on her combination spin to make up for being so hard-nosed on the jump combo.

I believe in the Tokyo 2007 Worlds, Emily got dinged on two URs.

I think it is the Tech Panel who makes the calls of URs and WETs. The judges, I believe can ignore the panel or give high GoEs if to compensate for what they bellieved were errors in calling. No?

Joesitz said:

I believe in the Tokyo 2007 Worlds, Emily got dinged on two URs.

I think it is the Tech Panel who makes the calls of URs and WETs. The judges, I believe can ignore the panel or give high GoEs if to compensate for what they bellieved were errors in calling. No?

Click to expand...

I don't think they can ignore an UR - it's an automatic downgrade if I understand correctly. As for edge calls, they can decide if it's quantified with a "!" - called a wrong edge take off (short). If it's listed with "e" it's an automatic violation resulting in fewer base points being allowed. that's not subject to judges views.

I suppose they could make up the difference in the GOEs but that's sort of like saying it was graded only a 2A, but the 2A was done well, essentially ignoring the fact it was SUPPOSED to be a 3A (just using axel as example) so it's really a 3A done badly. How do you give +GOEs for that.

IMO, the judges have to evaluate based on what the tech caller says is the base value. Only in the case of '!' can they decide for themselves it the caller was right. To me the "!" means the caller him/herself isn't sure, so he/she's passing the buck.

Long winded post - sorry about that. But what about the COP doesn't require lengthy ones to try to sort through the maze.

Joesitz said:

I think it is the Tech Panel who makes the calls of URs and WETs. The judges, I believe can ignore the panel or give high GoEs if to compensate for what they bellieved were errors in calling. No?

Click to expand...

merrybari said:

I don't think they can ignore an UR - it's an automatic downgrade if I understand correctly.

Click to expand...

To clarify.

The technical panel calls downgrades due to underrotation and calls wrong edge takeoffs (e) and unclear takeoff edges (!).

The judges give the GOEs.

For a downgraded jump, the base mark changes -- to the base value of the same takeoff with one fewer revolutions. E.g., a downgraded triple toe receives the base value of a double toe. This is a direct result of the technical panels decision and the judges have no input into the base mark.

Judges are supposed to consider underrotation in evaluating the quality of a jump and to reduce the GOE for underrotated jumps.

For a jump that is only slightly underrotated (90 degrees or less) and is not downgraded, judges can reduce the GOE. For an otherwise strong element, that might mean giving 0 instead of +1 or even +1 instead of +2. One judge might see a cheat of almost 90 degrees and take this reduction, and another judge might not see it and give full credit.

Up until 2009 season, judges were informed of the downgrades and were required to give negative GOE for any jump element with a downgrade, regardless of the quality of the rest of the jump or of other jump(s) in a combination or sequence.

As of 2009-2010, this will no longer be the case.
http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=1427

The tech panel will still call downgrades, which will result in the base mark being lowered. Of the "double penalty" for cheated jumps that we've complained about, this is the more severe penalty and will still be in effect.

But the judges will no longer be informed which jumps are downgraded. They will need to rely on their own perceptions of the rotation. And they will no longer be required to give negative GOE. So if a jump looks 3/8 short to the tech panel, it will be downgraded. But if it looks complete or only 1/8 short from a judge's point of view, that judge will be free to give the element 0 or positive GOE.

As for edge calls, they can decide if it's quantified with a "!" - called a wrong edge take off (short). If it's listed with "e" it's an automatic violation resulting in fewer base points being allowed. that's not subject to judges views.

Click to expand...

For edge calls, the "they" who decide whether it the call is "!" or "e" is the technical panel.

The base mark does not change if there is an "e" call. E.g., 3Lz e still receives 6.0 base points. But the judges are required to give negative GOE. How far negative (-1, -2, or -3) is up to the judges' discretion depending how severe they thought the change of edge was and what else was good or bad about the element. So the maximum score a skater should receive for 3Lz e should be 5.0 (6.0 base mark and -1.0 GOE).

For a ! call, the judges are not required to give negative GOE. They're supposed to reduce the GOE from what it would have been otherwise, but again, as with minor underrotations, that can mean a reduction from +1 to 0 or from +2 to +1. And if the judge saw a clearly correct takeoff and disagrees with the tech panel, s/he doesn't have to reduce the GOE at all.

chuckm said:

I think there is evidence that the USFS judges ignored Emily's underrotations which had been frequently dinged by the ISU judges that season. In the 2006-2007 GP, she had popped both flips and a lutz in her FS at Skate America, and at the Cup of China FS, she doubled one lutz and underrotated the other, and underrotated and fell on the flip. It's just odd that she was underrotating her triples in the GP and at Worlds, but at Nationals, suddenly she wasn't?

OTOH, Kimmie won gold at 2006 Skate America, and she got credit for rotating all her jumps, including the 3Z+3T, in the FS. At TEB, Kimmie underrotated and fell on her 3A attempt, but she again got credit for rotating the 3Z+3T in the FS.

At least the USFS judges were in sync with the ISU Judges as far as Kimmie was concerned. IMO, Emily was given a huge break by the USFS judges, and I think they were more than ready to award her the championship if she hadn't fallen in the FS.

Click to expand...

But yet again absolutely nothing you have posted talks about the actual competition of US Nationals. Did you watch the competition? Do you think she underrotated her jumps are US nationals? Because every other competition she skated in is completely and utterly irrlevant to how she skated at US nationals.

Ant

gkelly said:

But the judges will no longer be informed which jumps are downgraded. They will need to rely on their own perceptions of the rotation. And they will no longer be required to give negative GOE. So if a jump looks 3/8 short to the tech panel, it will be downgraded. But if it looks complete or only 1/8 short from a judge's point of view, that judge will be free to give the element 0 or positive GOE.

Click to expand...

This is new to me. It suggests that the Tech Panel is not really needed except to cite an UR without notifying the judges on the size of the UR. I'm not objecting but is it humanly possible for measuring 1/8th and 3/8s even in slomo?

The rest of your informaton regarding !s and (e)s, which I appreciate, leaves me thinking that the judges are under orders, and wonder what happens if they do not obey these orders.

There is more directives to drive the casual fans (and some ardent fans) away.

Joesitz said:

This is new to me.

Click to expand...

It's a recent rule change. It's new to everyone.

It suggests that the Tech Panel is not really needed except to cite an UR without notifying the judges on the size of the UR.

Click to expand...

The tech panel still does exactly what it used to do, including downgrading jumps. But they do a lot more than downgrade jumps.

The main thing that the tech panel are needed for is establishing what elements were performed, to be entered by the data entry operator. For jumps that includes determining the name of the takeoff and how many rotations were performed. For spins it includes determining the type of spin. For step sequences and spiral sequences it includes identifying when the skater performed an official sequence as distinct from steps or spirals as connecting moves.

If each element is to receive a base mark, there needs to be an official means of determining what elements each skater performed. Sometimes there is ambiguity in what the skater performs, and someone has to resolve the ambiguity.

The tech panel also determines whether each non-jump element meets the requirements for level 2, level 3, or level 4. It determines certain specific errors such as underrotation or wrong takeoff of jumps.

But even if you took those functions away from the tech panel and gave them to the judges, there would still be a need for someone other than the judges to identify elements and resolve ambiguities. Was that a straight-line step sequence, or was it just an almost-full-rink length of steps leading into the jump that followed? Which of those two unsuccessful triple jump attempts in a short program should count as the combination attempt? Was that spin on the right foot followed by a spin on the left foot one spin with a change of foot or was it two separate spins?

Individual judges might have different answers to those questions, and we don't want all nine or however many of them discussing the elements during or immediately after the performance; they're supposed to judge independently and they have many other things to concentrate on as well. But the computer program can't assign the base marks for these elements without a single official determination of what the elements were.

I'm not objecting but is it humanly possible for measuring 1/8th and 3/8s even in slomo?

Click to expand...

Exactly, no. Nor is it necessary to measure exactly, beyond determining whether it's more or less than 90 degrees. I chose those numbers as examples because they are points that can be estimated visually and that are clearly less and more, respectively, than the 90-degree cutoff point.

antmanb said:

But yet again absolutely nothing you have posted talks about the actual competition of US Nationals. Did you watch the competition? Do you think she underrotated her jumps are US nationals? Because every other competition she skated in is completely and utterly irrlevant to how she skated at US nationals.

Ant

Click to expand...

Yes, I did see 2007 Nationals.

My point was that since Emily had historically been underrotating jumps, it was not unreasonable to question the tech calls at Nationals re her triples. After all, it seems no one questioned the claim that Kimmie's 3/3 should have been called underrotated---even though the ISU callers had twice given Kimmie credit for fully rotating that 3/3.

chuckm said:

Yes, I did see 2007 Nationals.

Click to expand...

Now we're getting somewhere

chuckm said:

My point was that since Emily had historically been underrotating jumps, it was not unreasonable to question the tech calls at Nationals re her triples. After all, it seems no one questioned the claim that Kimmie's 3/3 should have been called underrotated---even though the ISU callers had twice given Kimmie credit for fully rotating that 3/3.

Click to expand...

But what did YOU think about her jumps having WATCHED the competition? Everyone seems to be in agreement about kimmie yes. But only you seem to be querying Hughes jump rotation, based on how she did in the GP and Worlds, not based on the way she skated at teh competition in question. You don't need to question anything, or specualte based on past and future performances if you watched the competition do you?

Is this really such a hard question to answer? Is it because the answer is - she fully rotated her jumps?

Ant

No, I don't think Emily completely rotated her jumps at Nationals 2007; I think she URd the 3F she fell on, for one.

The USFS has always pushed Emily because of the Hughes name: it's great for publicity purposes.

Here is Kimmy's SP. The triple-triple comes at about the one minute mark (of the video, not the program). Watching closely, there is a pretty noticeable hook on the landing of the second jump.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61nI65VaOcQ

Only one judge gave the element a negative GOE (-2 from judge 8, so evidently that judge thought it was underroated even though the caller did not.

Here is Emily's SP. As a whole, I thought this was one of Emily's best performances ever. I liked it better than Kimmie's (but the CoP doesn't care what I liked. )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MYJm-snH0Q

She got some negative GOEs on her Lutz. I thought it was great -- excellent height, nice landing. Maybe a questionable edge for some of the judges?

Mathman said:

Only one judge gave the element a negative GOE (-2 from judge 8, so evidently that judge thought it was underroated even though the caller did not.

Click to expand...

This is a perfect example of my problem with looking at protocols: Who is the Boss for calling the shots?

Mathman said:

Technical specialists must make hundreds of calls during the course of a competition, many of them borderline judgment calls.

Click to expand...

But the TV fans see the 2 dimentional look at close calls and feel they are correct., As for Slomo on Jumbothon, there is little if any showing WETs and URs. There is nothing we can do except pout, and there is no way of knowing which judge is not doing a proper job. The TV view is misleading as is sitting in a wrong seat LIVE. Only slomo will give a more accurate look at correct landings and takeoffs. Until then, we just have to suck up the protocos with all their variances.

And don't forget some judges pick up on branding certain skaters (Kimmie URs) and when in doubt will score a faulty jump to stay on the safe side of scoring. Which judges? - you'll never know.

The technical panel is the boss for determining what elements were performed. Of those three panel members, the Technical Specialist does the real-time calling and then all three members have a vote in any elements that need to be reviewed.

The judges are each their own boss in determining how well they believe each element was performed, within the rules and guidelines for scoring elements. They each judge independently and don't consult.

Each of their opinions is considered equally valid even when they don't agree -- there is not any boss to force them to agree any more than there was a boss to force them to agree on how to rank skaters under the 6.0 system. The scoring system (either one) sorts out the disagreements into a collective decision that might not exactly match any one individual judge's.

^^^
And the beat goes on. All judges are equal even if they don't agree. They are no different than fans on a blog who do not agree. No?