Those Little Errors in Scoring

SkateFiguring said:

Indeed the GOEs for Chan's 4T are all over the place. There is a big spread even if the +2 (which I'm inclined to think of as a punching error) is taken out - from 0 to -3. There was some controversy about this UR call. Patrick himself seemed unconvinced and his coach said there were discussions about it, presumably among the officials, and even fans had arguments over it in some forums. So maybe the diverse opinions among the judges got reflated in the GOEs given, guidelines notwithstanding (just because I'm not 100% sure, and too lazy to look up right now, what the guidelines say about this. )

Click to expand...

I would be more inclined to guess that each judge was following the guidelines.

Which are (I was too lazy to look up the actual jump on You Tube, but I did look up the guidelines ):

1. Short rotation in the judge's opinion, but no call by the Tech specialist: -1 GOE

2. < -1 to -2 GOE

3. << -2 to -3 GOE

All of these can be mitigated by positive features of the jump and/or aggravated by additional negative features.

If the jump seemed to a judge to be only borderline under-rotated and was pretty good otherwise, that judge could have given -1 for the under-rotation, +1 for some other feature that the judge especially liked, for a 0 overall.

Another judge, following the rules equally conscientiously, might have given -2 for the < and -1 for a scratchy landing or poor height, ending up with -3.

The judge who gave +2 is "outside the corridor." So is the one judge that gave -3. The mean of the GOEs is -1 exactly (as far as I can tell from the protocols -- the score of the referee counts in determining the average, but does not figure in the actual scoring and is not listed in the protocols.) The corridor for a particular element is plus or minus 1 point, inclusive, from the mean. No "anomaly" is called, however, unless the +2 judge or the -3 judge consistently scored Patrick too high or too low over all elements.

:scowl:

Mathman said:

I think the tech panel would still have a role to play in identifying the elements and in assigning level of difficulty to spins and step sequences. It would be quite embarrassing for one judge to say, that was a pretty good triple Salchow; I'll give it a +1 GOE. Then the next judge says, no, that was triple loop.

Click to expand...

What is that gives this power of Artistic Accomplishment to the TECH PANEL? a) Does he hold a degree in Art Appreciation? b) Has he demonstrated before of his interest in Artistic viewing? Has he taken that quickie course in art appreciation? You can't be implying that he knows more than the Panel of Judges.

Of course a qualified judge knows the difference between a loop and a Salchow. But in a given competition a judge might be required to identify and evaluate 500 or more individual elements. A person cannot maintain lazer concentration hour after hour, and never miss one.

Click to expand...

That would be a terrible flaw in the system if judges can not identify elements because of overly concentration and Mighty Mouse comes to the rescue with his Panel to help them. I really don't think judges would appreciate reading that since they have been doing it for how many decades without a Tech Panel, and quite well.

As for the levels, here I think the rules for getting a certain level of difficulty are spelled out pretty objectively. To get a "4" in level of difficulty on a spin you have to change edges so many times, present so many different body position, so many changes of direction, so many revolutions on each foot, etc. It is the job of the tech specialist to count these out. The judges are looking at other things, like centering, speed, extension, etc.

Click to expand...

One would not need Levels, if one had a Scale of 0-10. It is all inclusive. There could be and should be Guidelines for each of the scoring levels 0-10 as a judgement. What would be the reason for a judge to accept the Panels statement that the element was at Level 4 when she saw the spin had too many bobbles in it which the Tech Panel overlooked. Is the Tech Panel infalible?

I know CHANGE is difficult for some fans, but they can be assured that my system will never see the light of day. :scowl:

Joesitz said:

What is that gives this power of Artistic Accomplishment to the TECH PANEL?

Click to expand...

As I understand it, the level of Artistic Accomplishment still falls to the judges. What the tech specialist does is count to see whether the skater actually spun for eight revolutions instead of seven, and to keep track, during the step sequence, of whether she was turning in the opposite direction at least one-third of the time -- stuff like that.

Counting revolutions is not "art." The tech panel performs this technical service for the judges so that the judges can concentrate on the actual quality of the spin.

That would be a terrible flaw in the system if judges can not identify elements because of overly concentration and Mighty Mouse comes to the rescue with his Panel to help them. I really don't think judges would appreciate reading that since they have been doing it for how many decades without a Tech Panel, and quite well.

Click to expand...

Strange as it seems, almost all judges that you talk to DO seem to like Mighty Mouse lending a helping hand (at least they say they do in interviews.) Tech specialists, being champion skaters themselves, are pretty good at spotting details of technique.

Now if you like conspiracy theories -- I do! -- I think the question of how much power to give to the tech panel and how much to the judges is part of the politics of the ISU: Cinquanta and his administrative staff versus the individual federations. Who holds the true power? The tech specialists work directly for Cinquanta. Each judge works for his or her individual federation.

One would not need Levels, if one had a Scale of 0-10. It is all inclusive.

Click to expand...

I guess I didn't understand your proposal completely. Aren't there two parts, the quality judged from 0 to 10 and the degree oif difficulty?

The "level" of a spin is the degree of difficulty. If you change edge three times, the degree of difficulty goes up, but not necessarily the quality.

The job of the tech specialist is to call the degree of difficulty. Then the judges judge the quality of the dive (spin) from 0 to 10.

Isn't that it?

All technical specialists should have been athletes themselves? I didnt know that.

Mathman said:

As I understand it, the level of Artistic Accomplishment still falls to the judges. What the tech specialist does is count to see whether the skater actually spun for eight revolutions instead of seven, and to keep track, during the step sequence, of whether she was turning in the opposite direction at least one-third of the time -- stuff like that.

Counting revolutions is not "art." The tech panel performs this technical service for the judges so that the judges can concentrate on the actual quality of the spin.

Click to expand...

I agree, but it also implies that the Judges are not capable of viewing quantity but are capable of viewing quality, or is it that the CoP system has the poor judges overworked and the Tech Panel can be of assistance. Well, maybe! but It certainly did not affect all those podium winners in years gone bye without a Tech Panel. If a slomo machine can absolutely spot URs and Wets, then all the judges should have one. I'm not against keeping the Tech Panel, but it just seems superfluous.

Strange as it seems, almost all judges that you talk to DO seem to like Mighty Mouse lending a helping hand (at least they say they do in interviews.) Tech specialists, being champion skaters themselves, are pretty good at spotting details of technique.

Click to expand...

And that is exactly what the TP does. It helps the poor overburdened judges which for me, is totally unnecessary (JMO). I think the judges at the senior level should know what is going on, on the ice. The TP is just emphasizing a few errors which are not always in accordance with what a Judge had viewed.

From what I hear about the Judges praise of the Tech Panel, it makes judging quite simple. Yet on several occasions, there is a delay in announcing the score. What caused the delay? if all was perfect. Answers to that query by fans would be pure guess work.

Now if you like conspiracy theories -- I do! -- I think the question of how much power to give to the tech panel and how much to the judges is part of the politics of the ISU: Cinquanta and his administrative staff versus the individual federations. Who holds the true power? The tech specialists work directly for Cinquanta. Each judge works for his or her individual federation.

Click to expand...

I love conspiracy theories. I'm not so sure, though, we can place blame on Cinquanta for everything. He likes his job and he learned a huge lesson at that 2002 Olys. I don't think he will want to get mixed up again with a buddy buddy Federation.

I do believe the TP has too much power both overtly and covertly. It's Terms of Reference are clear but its practice is questionale but then so is all of Figure Skating.

I guess I didn't understand your proposal completely. Aren't there two parts, the quality judged from 0 to 10 and the degree oif difficulty?

The "level" of a spin is the degree of difficulty. If you change edge three times, the degree of difficulty goes up, but not necessarily the quality.

The job of the tech specialist is to call the degree of difficulty. Then the judges judge the quality of the dive (spin) from 0 to 10.

Isn't that it?

Click to expand...

Competitive skaters know that somethings are difficult, others are not. From the very beginning of a skater: he knows that certain edges are more difficult for him to the ultimate trick (the quad) which is not all the difficult for him. Each skater knows his limits. He must work harder on what is difficult for him. I just don't see the TP knowing more than the competitive skater. The TP should stick to the errors of defined elements and forget about how difficult a bielman spin is.

Joesitz said:

And that is exactly what the TP does. It helps the poor overburdened judges which for me, is totally unnecessary (JMO). I think the judges at the senior level should know what is going on, on the ice. The TP is just emphasizing a few errors which are not always in accordance with what a Judge had viewed.

From what I hear about the Judges praise of the Tech Panel, it makes judging quite simple. Yet on several occasions, there is a delay in announcing the score. What caused the delay? if all was perfect. Answers to that query by fans would be pure guess work.
I do believe the TP has too much power both overtly and covertly. It's Terms of Reference are clear but its practice is questionale but then so is all of Figure Skating.
Competitive skaters know that somethings are difficult, others are not. From the very beginning of a skater: he knows that certain edges are more difficult for him to the ultimate trick (the quad) which is not all the difficult for him. Each skater knows his limits. He must work harder on what is difficult for him. I just don't see the TP knowing more than the competitive skater. The TP should stick to the errors of defined elements and forget about how difficult a bielman spin is.

Click to expand...

But how can you determine how much more difficult one spin or step sequence is than another under the current rules? This is where you have confusion - previous rules versus the current rules (definitions of level of difficulty).

As for delays, the longer the delay, the more reviews there are to a program and the more likely you are to see lower levels and UR/DG calls. If, for example, there are 11 called elements in a program (7 jumping passes, 3 spins, and a step sequence), all 11 items could be reviewed - jumps for take off/landing cleanliness, spins for levels (did they get the required revolutions? Were the positions really difficult positions or simple variations?) steps for clarity of turns (Was that 4 brackets or 2 brackets and 2 counters in the step sequence or did the skater two foot half those turns?)

In trying to quantify elements with numbers and assign a method of determining difficulty, the tech panel is necessary. Having competed and talked to a couple TCs and many TSs, it's not easy - each takes 1-2 bullets for step sequences to look for which they decide in advance on the split, at lower levels from Senior, there are typically a lot of review and debate on spin levels and there is typically wide variation from competition to competition as the skaters have consistency issues (this competition they got level 3s on their spins as they held positions and a level 2 on their footwork, two weeks ago they got all level 1s on their spins since each position got shorted rotation and a level 1 on their footwork since a couple of the turns were garbled and the body movement wasn't as distinct).

mskater93 said:

But how can you determine how much more difficult one spin or step sequence is than another under the current rules? This is where you have confusion - previous rules versus the current rules (definitions of level of difficulty).

Click to expand...

That's my point. A TP or anyone else can not tell a skater what is difficult and what is not. The skater knows what is difficult for him and only him. Of course, there are scales of difficulty but were they well thought out by an unknown group in the back room?

As for delays, the longer the delay, the more reviews there are to a program and the more likely you are to see lower levels and UR/DG calls. If, for example, there are 11 called elements in a program (7 jumping passes, 3 spins, and a step sequence), all 11 items could be reviewed - jumps for take off/landing cleanliness, spins for levels (did they get the required revolutions? Were the positions really difficult positions or simple variations?) steps for clarity of turns (Was that 4 brackets or 2 brackets and 2 counters in the step sequence or did the skater two foot half those turns?)

Click to expand...

And who makes these changes while we all wait with batedbreath for a score? does the power of the TP override what the judges see? I don't have an answer, I just put forward my question.

In trying to quantify elements with numbers and assign a method of determining difficulty, the tech panel is necessary. Having competed and talked to a couple TCs and many TSs, it's not easy - each takes 1-2 bullets for step sequences to look for which they decide in advance on the split, at lower levels from Senior, there are typically a lot of review and debate on spin levels and there is typically wide variation from competition to competition as the skaters have consistency issues (this competition they got level 3s on their spins as they held positions and a level 2 on their footwork, two weeks ago they got all level 1s on their spins since each position got shorted rotation and a level 1 on their footwork since a couple of the turns were garbled and the body movement wasn't as distinct).

Click to expand...

I don't think you are concerned about all those results of past competitions without technical panels make those champions invalid.

The footwork example is a good one. What is the need for a TP? The definitions of footwork are quite clear. The judges see all of that and judge accordingly. We don't have to agree with the results, but the judges did their job of judging. What makes a TP more astute in leveling some footworks higher than others? Is the Panel overly enthused about the constant arm movments? the easy toepick steps? the bombastic music?

Can we consider doing away with the Judges Panel and just having a Technical Panel since quantity and quality are in the domain of both?

Joesitz said:

That's my point. A TP or anyone else can not tell a skater what is difficult and what is not. The skater knows what is difficult for him and only him.

Click to expand...

To me, the question is not what an individual skater finds easy or difficult, but rather, what base value should be assigned to each element. That's where the technical panel comes in.

For instance, a (F)CCoSp4 spin has a base value of 3.5, while a (F)CCoSp2 has a base value of 2.5. It is the job of the technical specialist to keep track of whether or not the skater satisfied the definition of (F)CCoSp4 and so gets the higher base value.

I suppose the judges could be made responsible for this determination, too. But the judges are looking for things like

1) good speed or acceleration during spin
2) abiltity to center a spin quickly
3) balanced rotations in all positions
4) clearly more than required number of revolutions
5) good positions (including height and air position in flying spins)
6) creativity and originality
7) effortless throughout
8) element matched to the musical structure

I do not see anything so terrible about having the tech panel and the judges working together. The tech panel, by identifying the element and level, determines the base value. The judges determine whether the element was performed well or poorly.

And who makes these changes while we all wait with bated breath for a score? does the power of the TP override what the judges see? I don't have an answer, I just put forward my question.

Click to expand...

According to gkelly, posting on another thread, it goes like this. The tech specialist makes the call in real time -- let's say, "wrong edge!" The judges are expected to take this call into account in their scores for that element -- let's say they reduce the GOE by 2 points from what they would have given if the edge had been correct.

Then either the tech specialist himself, or the assistant tech specialist or the technical controller (maybe also the referee?) can call out "review!"

After the performance all the questionable elements are reviewed by the three people on the technical panel, using slow motion.

At the end of the review, either the original call stands or else it is changed by the technical panel (majority rules). At this point the judges have an opportunity to change their scores to correspond with the new call if they want to. Or the judges can stick with their original scores. Even if the tech panel decides, no, the edge was OK after all, the judges can still disagree and mark the element down anyway.

Joesitz said:

That's my point. A TP or anyone else can not tell a skater what is difficult and what is not. The skater knows what is difficult for him and only him. Of course, there are scales of difficulty but were they well thought out by an unknown group in the back room?


And who makes these changes while we all wait with batedbreath for a score? does the power of the TP override what the judges see? I don't have an answer, I just put forward my question.


I don't think you are concerned about all those results of past competitions without technical panels make those champions invalid.

The footwork example is a good one. What is the need for a TP? The definitions of footwork are quite clear. The judges see all of that and judge accordingly. We don't have to agree with the results, but the judges did their job of judging. What makes a TP more astute in leveling some footworks higher than others? Is the Panel overly enthused about the constant arm movments? the easy toepick steps? the bombastic music?

Can we consider doing away with the Judges Panel and just having a Technical Panel since quantity and quality are in the domain of both?

Click to expand...

You can't do away with the judging panel and just keep the tech panel - the tech panel judges level of difficulty or quantity (calls jumps/UR/DG, spin levels, and step sequence levels) but the judging panel judges the quality of that difficulty and in many cases, just because you can do it and it's hard to do (quantity) doesn't mean it's well executed (quality). That's the difference between the tech panel and the judging panel.

Also, based on the current rules, there are ways to boost levels to get the necessary difficulty. Does that mean it's better or worse than before? Does that mean I have angst that someone won events before IJS or I have angst about people who win events now under IJS? No, it just means I have to understand what the rules are and figure out who is best playing by those rules in my opinion and see if I am close to the tech and judging panels. Does that mean I agree with all the calls made now? No, I can argue about borderline UR/DG/no calls and spin and step levels but calling spin and step levels is HARD in real time and I don't think a judge could do that while trying to ascertain the quality of these elements. Heck, a lot of times there are several minutes worth of reviews for each skater by the tech panel for those borderline calls.

6.0 is a holistic approach to judging summed up in two numbers per judge in a technical elements score and a presentation score. It was a relative scoring system where these numbers were just placeholders for the actual placement from each judge and whether you got a 5.4 or a 3.2 didn't matter specifically, it mattered relatively. IJS is (supposedly) an absolute scale where the numbers are supposed to add up to "mean" something which is how you can have PB and SB scores. This means that someone has to be paying attention as to how each element fullfills the definitions for the technical points. I have this discussion often with both of my coaches (one of whom IS a TS) and we work hard to make sure that the turns and steps in my footwork are clear and I have 1 or more other bullets from the list so that levels will be called by the tech panel but, as my one coach says, judges don't nitpick your transitions and count up the number of counters/rockers you did as opposed to the number of three turns and mohawks, they just see that you are doing more one foot skating than the other people in your group and mark it accordingly for that.

Joesitz said:

Of course, there are scales of difficulty but were they well thought out by an unknown group in the back room?

Click to expand...

We can have different opinions about how "well thought out" the scale of base values is, but certainly thousands of hours have been spent by the ISU in hashing it all out. Each year they make revisions, either major or by way of fine-tuning.

The group that does this meets in the front room. It is the ISU Technical Committee for Figure Skating. The members are

Alexander lakernik (Russia), chairman
Fabio Bianchetti (Italy; son of Sonia B.)
Rita Zenneyken (Belgium)
Susdan Kynch (Austraklia)
Patrick Meier (Switzerland; skater representative)
David Kirby (USA; coach representative)

The recommendations of the Technical Committee must be approved by the general membership. These recommendations are usually passed, but not always. Last year there was a recommendation to give an extra bonus for jumps done in combination, but this was not approved by the full membership.

In addition, individual ISU members can submit proposals for changes to the general congress. Japan submitted several last year, for instance. (These are more often often defeated in the full vote than are resolutions put forward internally by the Technical Committee.)

The extensive proposal of the international coaches group were submitted to the ISU technical committee through the coaches representative. This was Oleg Vassiliev last year. Vassiliev did not think much of this particular set of proposals and did not forward them to the full Technical Committee for consideration. Maybe the coaches group will have better luck with the new coaches' representative, David Paul Kirby.

Can we consider doing away with the Judges Panel and just having a Technical Panel since quantity and quality are in the domain of both?

Click to expand...

I don't think this is correct. If you look at the eight features of spins that the judges are supposed to be evaluating (post 28 above), all eight are about quality and none is about quantity.

On the other hand, if you look at the list of what technical panel is supposed to be determining, there is nothing about quality at all. It is all about how many rotations a skater did on her right foot (count them, one, two, three), compared to how many she did on her left foot -- things like that.

Joesitz said:

The footwork example is a good one. What is the need for a TP? The definitions of footwork are quite clear. The judges see all of that and judge accordingly. We don't have to agree with the results, but the judges did their job of judging. What makes a TP more astute in leveling some footworks higher than others? Is the Panel overly enthused about the constant arm movments? the easy toepick steps? the bombastic music?

Click to expand...

Here is an example of what the technical panel is supposed to be able to do better than the judges.

Did the skater do

(a) “At least half a pattern on one foot?” (Yes or no.)

(b) “Combination of difficult turns (rockers, counters, brackets, twizzles) quickly executed in both directions (at least twice within the sequence)?” (Yes or no.)

While the tech panel is doing that, the judges are supposed to be evaluating the quality of the half-pattern on one foot and of the rocker-twizzle combinations.

Thing like bombastic music fall to the judges (was the element "matched to the musical structure?")

I am not saying that this is a good system or a bad. It is just a division of labor.

Mathman said:

Here is an example of what the technical panel is supposed to be able to do better than the judges.

Did the skater do

(a) “At least half a pattern on one foot?” (Yes or no.)

(b) “Combination of difficult turns (rockers, counters, brackets, twizzles) quickly executed in both directions (at least twice within the sequence)?” (Yes or no.)

While the tech panel is doing that, the judges are supposed to be evaluating the quality of the half-pattern on one foot and of the rocker-twizzle combinations.

Thing like bombastic music fall to the judges (was the element "matched to the musical structure?")

I am not saying that this is a good system or a bad. It is just a division of labor.

Click to expand...

Thank you for succinctly stating what took me much longer.

Mathman said:

Here is an example of what the technical panel is supposed to be able to do better than the judges.

Did the skater do

(a) “At least half a pattern on one foot?” (Yes or no.)

(b) “Combination of difficult turns (rockers, counters, brackets, twizzles) quickly executed in both directions (at least twice within the sequence)?” (Yes or no.)

While the tech panel is doing that, the judges are supposed to be evaluating the quality of the half-pattern on one foot and of the rocker-twizzle combinations.

Thing like bombastic music fall to the judges (was the element "matched to the musical structure?")

I am not saying that this is a good system or a bad. It is just a division of labor.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I've been saying. The TP observes and counts and answers yes or no. Their calls can always be verified visually, real time or slo mo. The judges watch and do subjective human evaluation, deciding on mostly "how" questions: How good is it? How steady? How centred? How much flow? How deep? How fast? How expressive? How in tune? etc. etc. These evaluations are quantified with numbers - -3 to +3 in GOE points on prescribed elements and 0 to 10 in program components.

Lastly, the computor does the computation with the judges' numbers.

It's hard to argue with the TP and the computor but we will argue with the judges till the cows come home. And then we will light the candles to continue.

SkateFiguring said:

That's exactly what I've been saying. The TP observes and counts and answers yes or no. Their calls can always be verified visually, real time or slo mo.

Click to expand...

It's hard to argue with the TP and the computor but we will argue with the judges till the cows come home.

Click to expand...

Except that the tech panel's video feed isn't released to the public, and it's different from the network/broadcast feeds for events. They also only use one camera angle, unlike other high-profile sports that use instant replay. The tech panel can and should be argued against. Sometimes it might be political, sometimes it might just be simple non-malicious mistakes, but they can and do eff up, both in terms of consistency (ie, not calling an obvious flutz on Skater A but calling it for Skater B) and just being flat-out wrong.

Mathman said:

Here is an example of what the technical panel is supposed to be able to do better than the judges.

Did the skater do

(a) “At least half a pattern on one foot?” (Yes or no.)

(b) “Combination of difficult turns (rockers, counters, brackets, twizzles) quickly executed in both directions (at least twice within the sequence)?” (Yes or no.)

While the tech panel is doing that, the judges are supposed to be evaluating the quality of the half-pattern on one foot and of the rocker-twizzle combinations.

Thing like bombastic music fall to the judges (was the element "matched to the musical structure?")

I am not saying that this is a good system or a bad. It is just a division of labor.

Click to expand...

For the division of labor since the judges can not possibly do it all by themselves. Is that the official rationale of dividing labor? Maybe it just seems to be. What exactly does the TP announce before the judges' input on flailing arms to bombastic music?

School Figure turns are not difficult when they are executed in a program; they are difficult when they are executed and traced on circle eights. Check out those Rockers on the Juvenile Division in their LP.

Much of what is said here is a question of choreography for which the skater gets all the credit (or discredit) and the labor of the choreographer is negated. It could make or break a skater's championship.

I and others are not wedded to the rules of the game. We are just not good little boys and girls when an issue is debatable. (My History teacher was furious towards me for suggesting we should have more than two major Parties, like the Europeans.)

Joesitz said:

What exactly does the TP announce before the judges' input on flailing arms to bombastic music?

Click to expand...

"CiSe3." (Circular step sequence, level 3)

Joesitz said:

School Figure turns are not difficult when they are executed in a program; they are difficult when they are executed and traced on circle eights.

Click to expand...

I don't see your point. Are you suggesting they get rid of step sequences? All the turns can be more or less sloppy and more or less difficult outside of figures. All the errors that would make a bad figure are still errors when they're done while freeskating. The level requirements for footwork mean that all the different kinds of turns and moves need to be counted and up verified, that's what the tech panel does.

doubleflutz said:

Except that the tech panel's video feed isn't released to the public, and it's different from the network/broadcast feeds for events. They also only use one camera angle, unlike other high-profile sports that use instant replay. The tech panel can and should be argued against. Sometimes it might be political, sometimes it might just be simple non-malicious mistakes, but they can and do eff up, both in terms of consistency (ie, not calling an obvious flutz on Skater A but calling it for Skater B) and just being flat-out wrong.

Click to expand...

I posted before that if you assume the worst of all these officials and their tools and trust only your own eyes and opinions, then there will never be a satisfactory system to you, unless you are the sole decider of every thing. But then how do the rest of us trust you, especially since you are so aware of all the opportunities and ways to be unfair?

ISU is the official sponsoring organization and it's rules are what the competitors go by. Skaters and fans can opt out of ISU but then where are the opportunities, prizes, fame, and fun? ISU do need fans too so they do take their reacions into consideration. But they have other considerations as well, such as maintaining FS as a sport, an Olympic one at that.

As much as I like to pore over the protocol to understand the judges' decisions, I don't judge when I watch skating. I just enjoy and marvel and be moved by good skating, get nervous or excited for those I care more about, feel sad for unfortunate events and under-performances, notice the obvious general quality of the skater's skills.......IOW, being a fan. I'll study the protocol later if I have questions about the marks and generally don't have many issues with them. Then I rewatch those I have enjoyed and those I want to understand better.

I don't decide the placements and I don't need or have such responsibility. I always hope my favorites will do well on ice but their performances decide their placements, not my wishes.

Figure skating has remained for me a source of joy and a great distraction from stressful events in life rather than being another source of stress.

^ Still, it's fun to yell at the TV screen, "You called that a flutz?! Are you crazy? That was a perfect outside back edge! Boooooo!"

Mathman said:

^ Still, it's fun to yell at the TV screen, "You called that a flutz?! Are you crazy? That was a perfect outside back edge! Boooooo!"

Click to expand...

As long as it's fun for you. Throw a rock at your TV while you're at it too. That should feel good, eh?

Do you wear facepaint, wave flags, chuck down beer by the pitcher, and curse like a Swedish skater when you watch FS? Is your shrine given a place of prominence at home or down in a corner of the basement? Do you define and argue over what a good fan is? A good fan does that. :yes: