Great site shows Protocols with Videos | Page 2 | Golden Skate

Great site shows Protocols with Videos

Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I for one do not see anything to be outraged about in the fact that different judges evaluated Brezina's quad differently. In fact, in general I would be more suspicious if all the judges agreed all the time.

Four judges thought the jump was just dandy and gave +2 GOE.

Three judges thought the jump satisfied the required definition for the element and gave 0 GOE (or else saw some extra good points balanced by some flaw in execution).

Two judges saw a flaw somewhere and gave it -1.

After throwing out the higest and lowest, the average of these opinions was +0.71. That seems about right to me, reflecting the consensus.

Should it have been +0.86 instead? I am not going to have a heart attack over it.
 

seniorita

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Maybe in the future you will be able to see protocols as the skaters skate live, on your screen. :D
Cause I was watching Mao sp and I couldnt figure out how she got so low marks, even with the ur axel I was not counting well.
 

seniorita

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Two judges saw a flaw somewhere and gave it -1.
The problem is when the rest of audience doesnt see the flaw. Did you see his quad? what flaw it had to get a -1? It was gorgeous. I dont want judges to agree in everything, but from +2 to -1, it is like one says it is sunny today and the other says it rains, have an umbrella.
What feedback did Brezina got about his quad?Isnt TES supposed to be a little less subjective and clear? Goe is like pcs.
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
I for one do not see anything to be outraged about in the fact that different judges evaluated Brezina's quad differently. In fact, in general I would be more suspicious if all the judges agreed all the time.

Four judges thought the jump was just dandy and gave +2 GOE.

Three judges thought the jump satisfied the required definition for the element and gave 0 GOE (or else saw some extra good points balanced by some flaw in execution).

Two judges saw a flaw somewhere and gave it -1.

After throwing out the higest and lowest, the average of these opinions was +0.71. That seems about right to me, reflecting the consensus.

Should it have been +0.86 instead? I am not going to have a heart attack over it.

Looking at it from your POV (which obviously doesn't include Nagano :)) I guess you are right.

What difference does a point here or a point there make in CoP skating. :think:

Thinking back to Vancouver did a point here or there matter for Plushy? And having very accurate PCS certainly didn't matter as Evan could have had a few less and what difference would it have made :eek:

How in the world can a guy as smart as you think a few points here and there don'tt matter in CoP skating :think:

Points are everything and the only thing in CoP skating.

But then again, Yuna winding up only 2 measley points short of winning means nothing to you since you are a Miki fan. :p
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
^ A point here and a point there can be the difference between winning and losing.

That said, I do not see how it is possible to achieve unanimity among a panel of judges no matter what we do. The CoP is not a magic mind meld that robs people of their opinions, their preferences, their biases, their convictions. The CoP does make people have better eyesight (even in slo-motion), keener attention, or better training.

I think it is foolish to believe that the CoP or the PoC or the PDQ or the 6.0 or the 9.3 can turn figure skating into something other than a judged sport.
 

Violet Bliss

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
There are reasons qualifications are required of judges, technical elements are assigned base values, there is a tech panel to focus on qualifications of elements, there is a large panel of judges to evaluate the qualities of elements and components, and the high and low scores of the panel are thrown out. No one is absolutely right. So the final scores are always a general agreement of these experts.

Self appointed armchair judges are much less trained and much more biased. Just look at the big variation of points/opinions they are giving here! Yet each believes in his/her absolutely astute and correct judgement. Honestly, I trust them less.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Did you see his quad? what flaw it had to get a -1?

Yes. The landing was slightly forward, causing him to swing his free leg through with a tiny bit of wildness. Then after the landing he was still off-balance a little and had to correct by stepping down hard and awkwardly with his left foot.

So, how do you score that?

Four judges said, forget all that, IT WAS A QUAD! and gave him +2

Two judges said, well, overall it was fine, taking the good with the bad, and gave him a 0.

Two judges were more picky about the landing and gave him a -1.

His opening triple Axel, on the other hand, was superb. Nothing to spit hairs about there :). All the judges gave him +2 or +3. There was nothing about the jump to invoke a difference of opinion.
 

seniorita

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
So, how do you score that?

You know i m the worst at scoring.:eek::
Actually did you see all this in Brezina in real time or replay? Cause I must be the blindest judge ever, I didnt see all the wombling and all that in his quad toe, I saw great height and distance and effortless skate after the exit it, would make more sense to mark his salchow like this because of his one leg in the landing but still the distance it covered and the height❤
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Joe, you keep insisting on COP being a total subjective crap. I started a thread showing videos of jumps with their marks in ascending orders. The same thread drift happened into the same arguements as in just about every thread. But I didn't see anybody argue about the jumps' marks not reflecting their qualities in the order they are rated, i.e. the COP scores awarded/received are appropriate in relation to other jumps in the same competition. Isn't that what matters as far as scoring individual elements are concerned?
SkateFiguring - That's just my take on Fans bowing to the voice of a Higher Power or better known as the CoP. The GoEs are as subjective as the PC scores. There is little difference between the 6.0 and the CoP except the names of the judges are secret. IMO, the CoP would have more clout if the judges were known and they explained their decisions in some cases. Most of the judging is NOT quantifiable and therefore similar to 6.0. It is not a foolproof method of finding a winner, and in the case of Chan, did you need a system?

Relating to the scores as appropriate in relation to other jumps is a comparison judgement. JMO.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Actually did you see all this in Brezina in real time or replay?

Replay. I had to play it over and over to get all the details straight in my mind.

I am not a trained figure skating judge. I hope that the judges are better at seeing things like that in real time than I am.
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
Replay. I had to play it over and over to get all the details straight in my mind.

I am not a trained figure skating judge. I hope that the judges are better at seeing things like that in real time than I am.

Four of them were much better than you were and two were just as bad. ;)
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
That's just my take on Fans bowing to the voice of a Higher Power or better known as the CoP.

I do not see any posts like that on the board. What I do see is a lot of discussion and difference of opinion about whether the judges got this or that call right or wrong, just like with 6.0.

At best some fans hope that the CoP carries a tiny bit of objectivity in the base value part of the scoring. But even there, it is up to the judgment of the technical panel.

Four of them were much better than you were and two were just as bad. ;)

There you go. :) You can't blame the CoP for the fact that four of the judges went your way and two went mine.
 
Last edited:

seniorita

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Replay. I had to play it over and over to get all the details straight in my mind.

I am not a trained figure skating judge. I hope that the judges are better at seeing things like that in real time than I am.
thanx, i was just wondering. :)I saw nothing in real time myself neither replay, I m much worse. Even more so in live competitions, I sat once behind judges and found extremely difficult to focus on details without earplugs. I think if I were a judge Iwould push any button I would find in front of me,and then leave the fans of a skating board explain why i did it.:cool:
 

Layfan

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Thanks for sharing this cool site.

I'm glad Carolina got the second highest PCS of the night. (FS) I wonder, did she and Miki really deserve to be practically tied on PCS? Miki skated so well but her performance just fails to completely draw me in no matter how many times I watch it. Certainly, I think Carolina, Alena and Alissa deserved better marks than her on choreo. Probably interpretation too, especially Caro. I don't know about the rest - SS, performance/execution... Miki is a powerful skater and that is probably a lot more exciting live than on youtube. But Caro is pretty powerful herself, really, when she skates this well.

It is interesting to see how the judges differ. They especially seemed to with Alissa. One judge clearly was in love and gave her 8+ in every PCS category. Another kept her in the 6.75-7 range. Obviously, these things are subjective. Alissa's lack of power and lack of speed probably just bothers some judges more than others. It's a judged sport, what are you going to do?
 
Last edited:

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be
Record Breaker
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Country
France
RE: Brezina's 4Toe...it looked a bit short to me in a real time and replay shows that he did indeed land 1/4 turn short, plus on the inside edge. That's what caused the jerkiness. So, despite the excellent height, he squeaked the jump out and -1 GOE would have been deserved (it certainly didn't deserve positive GOE). The judges who awarded +2's were the off-base judges.

His arms on that jump are pretty distracting; he really forces them up into the rotation. No wonder his season was plagued with injury, given the technique he has. Brezina jumps like I do - massive amplitude but not the best control. I think we both get overanxious about rotating. It comes with the territory on such difficult jumps although CoP makes you quite paranoid about underrotating, so that further messes with your head with regards to forcing the rotation. Finding the right technique to perfect these jumps is extremely difficult. All I can say is, make sure not to break your ankle. Trying to rebuild your skating from this kind of injury sucks.
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
RE: Brezina's 4Toe...it looked a bit short to me in a real time and replay shows that he did indeed land 1/4 turn short, plus on the inside edge. That's what caused the jerkiness. So, despite the excellent height, he squeaked the jump out and -1 GOE would have been deserved (it certainly didn't deserve positive GOE). The judges who awarded +2's were the off-base judges.

.

This is interesting to consider. The first thing I thought about was the camera view BOP watched. Is it the same as what the tech panel watched? Or maybe a second view is not necessary on Brezina's 4T.

Do the judges get to see the program again on replay or did they mark the 4T based on seeing it once in r/t?

Here is what seems puzzling to me. The NFL uses instant replay. Watching for many years I very rarely disagree with the referees decision when a play is reviewed.

Let's assume for arguments sake that BOP's analysis is correct. Let's also assume the techpanel saw it the same way on replay.

In the NFL the purpose of replay is to GET THE CALL RIGHT.

Judge #1's opinion is that the 4T deserved +2.
Judge #2's opinion is that the 4T deserved -1.

That is a pretty big difference and it is impossible that both judges are right. The CoP marking in this case is purely subjective, same as 6.0.

Because it is subjective and judges are human CoP scoring will always be inaccurate and full of mistakes.

As I see it now, the CoP is 6.0 in sheep's clothing.

There is a strong consensus at GS that in Vancouver Evan and Plushy were both overmarked on the PCS.

Evan won the tech and the OGM.

I have as little faith in the tech score as I do in the PCS.

Is there a better way :think:
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Judge #1's opinion is that the 4T deserved +2.

Judge #2's opinion is that the 4T deserved -1.

That is a pretty big difference and it is impossible that both judges are right.

I think it is possible that both judges are right. The GOE judges the quality of the jump, not a measurable quantity that you can put a tape measure or a stop-watch to.

Just like under 6.0, some judges liked Lulu, some liked Michelle. Who was right?

The CoP marking in this case is purely subjective, same as 6.0.

I think we can all agree on that. This does not make the CoP any worse (or better) than 6.0, though.

Th Golden Skate CoP judges panel weighs in on this element as follows.

Hernando: +2
Seniorita: +2
Mathman: 0
Blades of Passion: -1

Now let's do 2004 Worlds (6.0). Who should have got bronze?

Hernando: Lindemann
Seniorita: Lambiel
Mathman: Lindemann
Blades of Passion: Lambiel

Why is the first list something to get upset about, while the second is -- "oh well, that's figure skating."

Because it is subjective and judges are human CoP scoring will always be inaccurate and full of mistakes.

I would say, "full of judgment calls" rather than of mistakes.

As I see it now, the CoP is 6.0 in sheep's clothing.

True.

But there is one difference that is kind of interesting to me. The kind of judgment calls that both systems require the judges to make are questions of balancing. In 6.0 the judges had to decide how much weight to give to one aspect of a performance compared to another. If one skater's spins were great but she didn't do a triple Lutz, how did that stack up against a strong jumper with a weak spiral position and simpler moves in the field?

In CoP, judges must do their balancing act on each element, in addition to overall in the case of the Program Components. On Brezina's 4T, he got exceptional height (yay!) but landed weakly on an inside edge (boo!). The CoP does not instruct the judges as to whether the jump deserves a +2 or a -1 in this case. Nor, in my opinion, should it attempt to do so.

By the way, of the four amateur GS judges, only Blades of Passion has a good enough judge's eye to see exactly what was the problem on the landing. I only noticed that it was a little off. One hopes that the real ISU judges are more like BoP and less like me. :)

Is there a better way :think:

I'm all ears. :)
 
Last edited:

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Do the judges get to see the program again on replay or did they mark the 4T based on seeing it once in r/t?

As far as I know the judges only see it live in real time -- the tech panel gets replay.

Judge #1's opinion is that the 4T deserved +2.
Judge #2's opinion is that the 4T deserved -1.

That is a pretty big difference and it is impossible that both judges are right. The CoP marking in this case is purely subjective, same as 6.0.

Yes, the tech panel's calls are much more objective. They're not judging quality, only identifying what is done. Sometimes the execution is borderline and they have to make a judgment call over whether to give credit for something or not, but they're not making value judgments.

The judges are making value judgments, and therefore their scores are more subjective. They may see several good aspects and several bad aspects of the same element. So then they have to make decisions about how to balance out all those different qualities to come up with one GOE.

Some judges will focus on some of the aspects and not notice others. A different judge may notice different aspects. This may be because of their habitual pet peeves and preferences, or because of the angle at which they saw the element, or because of a momentary lapse of attention, or because they specifically happened to be looking at the whole body or only at the blade at a crucial moment, etc. etc.

Or they may see exactly the same things but make different value judgments about how much to reward the good things and how much to penalize the bad.

Imagine the following element:
A skater performs difficult clockwise steps halfway around the rink right into a triple lutz with arms overhead, Midori Ito-like high wrapped free leg and Ito-like height in the jump, good speed on landing, some change of edge right before takeoff.

The tech panel awards an e call, which now applies to both "starting from wrong edge" (GOE must be negative) and "unclear edge at takeoff" (judge must reduce the GOE by -1 to -2 from what they would have given otherwise, but the GOE need not be negative).

Judge A thinks "That was a good jump except for the wrap and the edge change, which I could see in real time. I need to penalize both of them. -2"

Judge B thinks "Wow, those were really difficult steps and that was a great jump with an extra enhancement in the arm position in the air; too bad about the wrap otherwise I'd be thinking +3, but I guess I'll go with +2. Oh, the tech panel called an "e" on the takeoff edge. I didn't see a problem in real time, but I'll take off for that too. +1 final GOE."

So there you have a range of -2 to +1 for the same jump, depending what each judge saw and what their priorities are. Eliminate the e call from the panel but make judge A an especial stickler for lutz takeoffs who sees unclear edges even when the panel doesn't, or give her a phobia about leg wraps, and then -1 to +2 would be a possible GOE range for that element.

Neither of those judges would be wrong in their assessments, but they disagree strongly because they have different priorities.

Because it is subjective and judges are human CoP scoring will always be inaccurate and full of mistakes.

Is there a better way :think:

I don't know. Maybe someday technology can allow precise scoring of the technical aspects of some elements so it wouldn't be necessary to rely on human eyesight. But meanwhile, we need to accept that there is never going to be exactly one correct answer to ranking whole performances, or even to scoring many individual elements, as long as human perception is involved. Each official does the best they can, and the consensus of the group will be more accurate overall than only one individual's perception. As the saying goes, in IJS as well as under 6.0, that's why we have X judges on the panel.

Which means that one individual is never in a position to declare that everyone else is wrong.
 
Top