Thread: More on the Code of Points

1. 0
I agree. Couldn't believe it when I read it.

2. 0
Mathman,
In that post you refer to, I was trying to think outside the box. As you suggested, stats has a limited applicability in the real world of competition judging. But then you went ahead and did an inferential statistical analysis, even though you cannot make generalizations about the population from a non-random sample (the panel of judges, who are appointed):
Well, in the actual contest at Nagano the judges split 6-3 for Tara, so (as required by sampling theory) in the absence of any better estimate, let's pretend that in the great imaginary population of all possible figure skating judges, 2/3 of them would give Tara the first-place ordinal and 1/3 Michelle. What percent of the time would an arbitrary sample of nine judges have a majority for Michelle?

giseledepkat and CassidyL,
Nothing wrong with calling twisted logic when I see it.

3. 0
Seems perfectly clear to me.

4. 0
Originally posted by hockeyfan228
An an FYI,

a) Falls don't receive 0 points. The only elements that are worth 0 points if the final score is -3 is in Dance for Optional Level 1 Lifts and Spins. (ISU Comm 1207. I haven't seen any subsequent updates to this.) The higher the difficulty for the jump, the more points the skater gets for attempting it. Weiss should try to rotate that 4Lz; it's worth at least 10.0 points if he falls (13.0 base -3.0), vs 9.1 for a +3 3Lz vs. 9.0 for a +1 4T.

b) Mandatory deductions of -1, -2, and -3 don't necessarily mean that the final score must be -1, -2, -3. It means that the judge starts with the mark before the error, and subtracts that from the score. According to Marie Hughes' posts, the ISU confirmed this at the seminar she attended.

I still don't understand how a jump could have been scored a +2 before the fall, change of edge, or double-foot, since the definition of +2 is that all phases of the jump be better than base, but the definition may have been changed. But it is very possible for the score to have started as a +1, to which -1 (base final), -2 (-1 final) or -3 (-2 final) was added.

c) Grades of +/-1, +/-2, and +/-3 don't necessarily mean the number of points added to/subtracted from base. Nor are all of the differences between grades exactly the same, or the differences the same between + and -. For example, a 1CUSP (Level 1 change of foot upright spin) has a base of 1.5. Each + represents + .5. -1 represents -.3, -2 represents -.6, and -3 represents -1.

Only when you get to triple jumps and higher are the differences between +/- points the same and in whole points.
Hey Hockeyfan,
Thank you for correcting me on my embarrassing blunder of saying that falls (meaning in singles) received zero points. And especially thanks for correcting me in a neutral way, although given the way things can get with some posters, I would even call it nice--but I wouldn't want to give you a bad reputation Seriously, speaking only for myself, I know when I post when I'm tired or haven't been thinking in COP mode for a while, I tend to make air-brained mistakes and the COP is still a learning process--but that's no excuse for the mistake, I just plain screwed up. Anyway, I always appreciate corrections when I've made factual mistakes, and alluding to the recent posts about the way disagreements are worded, I also appreciate it when someone sticks to the facts and doesn't try to use such situations to denigrate other posters. I know other posters appreciate your approach too, no matter who you would have been correcting.

And thanks for clarifying the way the +/- scores work. In trying to be succinct (Rgirl--succinct?!) I wasn't clear on those things. As for the question about how can a jump receive a +2 before the fall, change of edge, or double-foot, I don't understand that either. Do you have a specific example for a skater in an event where that happened? I don't doubt that it did, I'd just like to see if I have it on tape so I can look at it and see if it makes any sense in any universe I know of.

Finally, at least for this part of the post, some people may recall that I tried starting, with contributions from others, a COP "tutorial" thread back in I think October. While people gave excellent COP "lessons," in retrospect I think the better way to learn the way the COP works is a little at a time while watching competitions so that you can see in action what can be very abstract reading the COP rules. Also, as posts such as yours and Marie Hughes's come up about the seminars she attended, I think it also makes it easier to discuss and understand the pros and cons of the COP as it now stands. In keeping with the saying, "We learn best from our mistakes," posts like yours will certainly make me remember the "fall rule" (I hope!) and by clarifying information that was not fully explained, I think it makes it easier for people to relate to. +3 to Hockeyfan, not that I'm any judge
Rgirl

---------------------------
Moyesii,
Rgirl

5. 0
Originally posted by Joesitz
__________________________________________________ __
Quote:
One question I do have: I've heard Terry Gannon say that the judges can look at the video tape of any part of a skater's program to see if the skater hit the right edge on a jump or not.
__________________________________________________ __

If Terry is right, and I have no reason for him to be wrong then do the judges look? are they compelled to look? do they care? Imo, so much credit is given to attempt rather than correctness. (This goes for all contestants.)
Joe
Joe,
The commentators have been wrong before re the COP, so at least I'm not putting all my faith in Terry Gannon, although he does get all my votes for cutest and least annoying guy commentator, lol. (Susie Wynn gets my votes for cutest and least annoying gal commentator--unless you count Daria Grinkova, who didn't really commentate but was cute through the roof!) I wouldn't think the judges are compelled to look. As for do they care, I think the answer is the same as all questions re judges--some do, some don't.

Re your opinion that so much credit is given to attempt rather than correctness, in some cases I agree, in others I disagree. For example, some mistakes on jumps always get a full -3 deduction whereas others don't get any deduction, at least from what I've seen so far in the GP series. For example, two-foot landings seem to always get a -3 from every judge, but incorrect take-off and/or landing edges, wide swinging free legs, and free turns on landings don't get deductions. Also, when it comes to step-outs, sometimes they get deductions, sometimes not. Same thing with pre-rotated and/or under-rotated jumps. Back to 2-ft landings, I'm all for mandatory deductions for this, however I'd like to see some allowance for "degree of two-footedness." That is, I think there should be a greater deduction for landing fully on both blades than for a slight touch down with the toe pick.

If the judges can indeed view any part of the program on video after the skater finishes, I think it's not conceivable nor necessary for the judges to review every single element. However, at least in singles, I think certain jumps should always be reviewed by every judge. For ladies, 3Lutz, 3Lutz combo, and 3/3 combos. For other elements, the caller should have the autority to decide if every judge should review an element. However, I think the caller is the weakest part of the COP system since no matter what kind of background the caller has, some are great at seeing mistakes and others seem to be of the "Hogan's Heroes" "I see NOTHING!" school. But with the best of all possible callers, examples of elements s/he might require the judges to review would be spins that travel, completed jumps but with wonky landings, footwork with errors, straightline fw that does not go the full length of the ice, circular fw that does make a full circle, or shallow serpentine fw. Also, edges on spirals. These are just some examples of things I've seen skaters make mistakes in or execute in a subpar manner that I felt should have received a deduction but didn't. And as you said, this goes for all skaters. I didn't get to what elements should require mandatory reviewing for the men, but basically it would be quads, quad comboes, and the rest that would be comparable to what I outlined for ladies. In pairs it obviously would be different and in dance, Oy! where to begin?!

BTW, there was something you said about the COP vs. the 6.0 system that we will have to agree to disagree on--I can't remember what it was, though it's at the beginning of the thread and on my computer I can't scroll back that far--but I just wanted to say, "Fair enough." Sometimes it's beneficial to continue a discussion but often one can tell early on that the"agree to disagree" approach is best

Finally, and this is just in general, not directed at you, Joe, I don't think we will be able to accurately assess a lot of things concerning the COP vs. the 6.0 system until not only the end of the '03/04 season, but also the end of the '04/05 season. IMO, we should bear in mind that these judges have been judging according to the 6.0 system for years, some for decades. Some judges are naturally going to take to the COP system easier than others, and some judges are goingto hae the COP system for any number of reasons, including those who just don't like change period. Also, although I've voiced my negative opinion about Speedy countless times, the COP was designed by what seems to me to be a good combination of coaches, judges, choreographers, skaters, statisticians, and others who truly understand the sport. No speed skaters on the COP development Anyway, I agree with Mathman that despite its growing pains that the COP is already a much better judging system than the 6.0 system and that eventually the bugs will be worked out. However, there will never be a solution to the human or "x" factor. Even in the best of all possible judging systems, occasionally there are going to be unfair results. This is axiomatic of any system that has human involvement. Also, although I think it's good to look at the details of how much is being deducted or not for improper jump edges or whatever, I think it's important not to lose sight of the outcomes. That is, overall, are the right skaters winning the right medals? Are the overall final placements fair? Even if a skater or team only wins by a few tenths of a point, it's still a win.

Having said that, I just watched the ice dancing finals for Trophee Lalique and for the first time since the implementation of the COP, I felt the final placements were very wrong and that the judging was very poor. I won't go into detail here but rather in the Lalique folder, but let's just say that at least in ice dancing with this caller and this group of judges, the "x" factor seemed to play a major negative role. But then ice dancing has always been the discipline most difficult to judge, even under the 6.0 system, so it's no surprise that this would be the first place we would see some significant problems, at least IMO. BTW, I probably won't get to that post in the Lalique folder until later this afternoon or evening, in case anyone is waiting with bated breath for my incredibly important opinions, lol.
Rgirl

6. 0
Hi GKelly,
I'm sorry I didn't see your post until after I'd seen and responded to HockeyFan's post, but everything I said in my post to HockeFan goes for you too in terms of my appreciation for your corrections to the errors in my post re the COP and falls. Please see the edits to my post of 12-12-03 on p2 for the details. As I said in another post, I'll be spending the morning studying the ISU Communique on the COP, and getting my wrists slapped, natch But here suffice it to say, thanks.
Rgirl

7. 0
never, ever did I not maintain the utmost respect for Mathman's absolute knowledge of mathematical facts.
Wow, absolute? like the CoP? or the vodka?

I don't think there is anything wrong with my posts. I think I have a right to criticize Mathman's absolut logic when I see that he is knowingly manipulating the statistics in order to make a point. As a mathman, he knows about the laws of random sampling, and when they don't apply. In my opinion, spreading misinformation knowingly is much more offensive than anything I have posted here.
But it's one thing to speak your mind and another to speak it while attacking others.
I have never attacked anyone on this forum. I think I hurt your feelings when I called you on your "embarrassing blunder" (your words). I think you should let it go. In the future, you may want to follow your own advice and withhold stating your opinions as fact unless you really know what you're talking about.

8. 0
Originally posted by Rgirl
As for the question about how can a jump receive a +2 before the fall, change of edge, or double-foot, I don't understand that either. Do you have a specific example for a skater in an event where that happened? I don't doubt that it did, I'd just like to see if I have it on tape so I can look at it and see if it makes any sense in any universe I know of.
The only place I've seen this happen was at TL in the OD, when Delobel and Schoenfelder took a nasty fall on the last original lift (OL1) and received two -1's, three -2's, and six -3's. I only looked because Susie Wynn was very upset about the TL scoring, and felt that mandatory deductions weren't being taken. This was the only one I could find on the technical side; the rest seemed to be on the PE side.

It was the same issue in the FD's that made me go back to the scale of values printout to look at the scoring. Wynn was very upset that Del/Sch did not beat Den/Sta in the FD at TL, and she kept talking about the fall on the COE lift. (That Den/Sta performed six other very good to superb Level 3 elements in the first 2/3 of the program didn't seem to count.) When I looked to see what credit Den/Sta received for the fall, I found a .32, which was due to some of the five -2's they received, presumably for how they performed the first half of the lift, and looking at the chart, and realized that with the automatic downgrade to Level 1, it was one of the few elements for which they would have received no points if they had gotten -3's across the board. (The mandatory deduction worked just as Marie Hughes reported in her post: against the GOE and level.)

Once I pick up a numbers chart, it's hard for me to put it down. Perusing the Scale of Values made me realize that a number of assumptions were not quite accurate, exacerbated by incorrect and out-of-context commentary on TV, and the truism that well-performed elements are worth more than missed attempts. (Mostly when the jumps aren't downgrade by one rev, an overrotation GOE deduction is taken, and the skater loses credit for the "same" jump down the line, which, according to Hughes' report, will be changed.)

And despite having the sheet in front of me, I made an even more inexcusable mistake -- a fall on a 4A, not a 4L, is worth 10.0 points, not a fall on a 4Lz. (Doh!!!!) A complete wipeout fall on a 4Lz is worth 7.5 (11 less 3 less a mandatory .5 deduction in Performance/Execution) points, a little less than a base 4T, and more than a double-footed 4T (6.0-7.0). (Which would still make it a better percentage attempt for Weiss, but still...)

9. 0
hockeyfan, I've really enjoyed your dispassionate and informed posts on the CoP! This last one makes me wonder, is anyone working on a quad axel? That would be something to see! Who does anyone think will be the first to land it?

I remember a couple of years ago, Brian Boitano said in an interview that if boots were revolutionized in figure skating the way equipment has been revolutionized in so many other sports, that we could expect to see quintuple jumps! I guess the designers of the CoP aren't looking that far ahead!

10. 0
Originally posted by giseledepkat
This last one makes me wonder, is anyone working on a quad axel? That would be something to see! Who does anyone think will be the first to land it?

I remember a couple of years ago, Brian Boitano said in an interview that if boots were revolutionized in figure skating the way equipment has been revolutionized in so many other sports, that we could expect to see quintuple jumps! I guess the designers of the CoP aren't looking that far ahead!
giseledepkat,
Thanks!

At one point I read that Plushenko was going to try all of the quads, but given his injury, I would think he's putting that plan on hold, at least until after he recovers from planned knee surgery. I wondered when the ISU didn't put 5T and 5S on the list, because I'd think that the Men would try the 5T before the 4A.

I wish Boitano had explained what about the current equipment would make the quint out of the question -- impossible to land on current skates? boots don't support and/or are restricting the movement necessary to get the proper force on push-off? equipment would have to "help" rather than simply not hinder in some way? I don't know enough about physics to know if there's a practical weight limitation for getting the combination of height and speed to perform 5 revs. I think we need Rgirl's help on this one

11. 0

Twisted Logic

I have a habit of reading threads backwards, it makes me feel like a time traveler. So based on all the verbose and righteous accusations on the latter part of this thread, I expected Moyesii to have used all sorts of awful and vulgar pejoratives. Alas, the most he did was describe something as "twisted logic." Moyesii, would you kindly reedit your posts and put in actual insults and name-calling to justify the level of anguish and righteousness you received? That would go a long way in removing the "twisted logic" from this thread. Thank you!

12. 0
HockeyFan,
The fall you describe by Delobel and Schoenfelder and the lack of deduction is one that really made me drop my jaw too. In another thread in the Trophee Lalique folder, I posted about that dance competition as being the first one in which I felt the COP was really abused by the judges. So yeah, I wonder big time about that one too, and can only explain it as a screw-up by the judges and something that needs to be changed in the future. BTW, I second Gisel's opinion about your posts on the COP. Knowing from my own experience of how long "ISU Communique 1204" is (I want them to entitle a horror movie with that), believe me, any mistakes you may have made are understandable and more than offset by the info you've provided.

Moyesii,
You didn't alert me to my embarrassing blunder, GKelly and Hockeyfan did. Also, posters who have been around GS for a while can judge for themselves how I handle things when my mistakes have been pointed out to me. If you think your posts are just fine, then by all means keep posting them just the way you have. BTW, do I have the the excerpt from a quote by you from the NHK "Ladies Free Skate and Results + GPF Finalists" thread correct? "In my stats course in college..." Do you mean you've had one statstistics course, or were there more? Undergrad or grad? Just curious.

Cactus,
I would hope you check out the "Ladies Free Skate and Results + GPF Finalists" thread in the NHK Folder and read Moyesii's posts there. Based on his/her posts on this thread alone, you're right, they just have a snotty attitude. It was the combination of Moyesii's posts in the NHK Folder and this one that prompted myself and others to react the we have. It goes without saying that you will decide for yourself.
Rgirl

Page 3 of 3 First 1 2 3

Posting Permissions

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