Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 48

Thread: Great site shows Protocols with Videos

  1. #31
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    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.

  2. #32
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hernando View Post
    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 by Mathman; 05-06-2011 at 09:07 AM.

  3. #33
    leave no stone unturned seniorita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    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.

  4. #34
    she takes the audience on her journey of emotions Layfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mexico City
    Posts
    3,637
    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 by Layfan; 05-05-2011 at 09:23 PM.

  5. #35
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,967
    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.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by SkateFiguring View Post
    Artur GACHINSKI Worlds 2011 SP

    Artur GACHINSKI Worlds 2011 LP

    He is missing from the greatest jumps and jump combination lists, mistakes that should be rectified by the site.

    The site is probably Norwegian and they don't have much presence in Pairs and Dance.
    The site is Norwegian, and they don't have pairs or dance at all. They barely have men skating.

  7. #37
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    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

  8. #38
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Hernando View Post
    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
    I'm all ears.
    Last edited by Mathman; 05-06-2011 at 04:17 PM.

  9. #39
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Hernando View Post
    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
    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.

  10. #40
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,389
    Which means that one individual is never in a position to declare that everyone else is wrong.
    WHAT? You must be kidding!

  11. #41
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    Thanks mathman and gkelly for such excellent, detailed repiles. Both posts made me think and especially gkellys last remark:

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

    I am not sure if that is necessarily a good thing.

    In football, a ref is sometimes proven wrong by use of replay. The NFL could get rid of replay and let the ref's r/t call stand. Or they could use a consensus opinion from all of the refs on the field to decide a questionable calls.

    They don't do that and the use of replay technolgy has the sole purpose of getting the call right.

    One offical reviews the play and makes the decison. It is not done by consensus yet the replay calls are IMO almost always (98%) correct.

    Why isn't the use of replay by the tech panel which offers such an obvious advantage over a r/t impression being used with more weight?

    It is nice the judges can all offer various subjective scores based on a r/t impression. Does it make sense for the TP to have a little more authority since they clearly have a better chance to assess the jumps more accurately?

    Or maybe this is just to picky and the system is fine the way it is now.

  12. #42
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by seniorita View Post
    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.
    Everyone doesn't see everything in real time, including the judges, the tech team, and us. The arguments put forth by the CoP that it is never wrong adherents would say is simply we don't have any other way to go. Well, if one looks at the Men's results, do you really need a nitty gritty CoP score to place Chan first and Taka second? The Protocols were totally unnecessary. Most events they are not necessary for podium results. Without cheating, the 6.0 would be the same. They are obvious. Occasionally the CoP comes in handy (or is there a better method) to discern who could have been 3rd in this case. Was it Gachinsky, Brezina, Takahashi, or Oda? IMO, only a slomo would show the correct placement on the elements because performance would not be counted. In such instances, my question would be: What is the Rush To Judgement?

  13. #43
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Hernando View Post
    Why isn't the use of replay by the tech panel which offers such an obvious advantage over a r/t impression being used with more weight?
    The tech panel does use replay for everything that they can't determine in real time. There are no time-outs during a skating program, but there is time taken after each performance for the tech panel to review any questionable elements. Sometimes that takes more time than the program itself. The audience doesn't like to sit and wait 15 minutes for detailed review of 12 elements in a 4-minute program, plus the next skaters also get cold waiting, so that kind of overkill review is discouraged.

    There are three people on the tech panel whose input all counts.

    It is nice the judges can all offer various subjective scores based on a r/t impression. Does it make sense for the TP to have a little more authority since they clearly have a better chance to assess the jumps more accurately?
    The technical panel already does have more authority in terms of establishing what the element was and what the base mark will be.

    Downgrades make a huge difference in the base scores, much more than the GOEs. As of this past season, there's also an intermediate rotation call that earns 70% of the base mark. Again, that's going to have much more effect on the score for the element than one judge's GOEs and usually than the whole panel's GOEs.

    Same for calling levels on non-jump elements, or whether an element fails so significantly to meet requirements that it just doesn't count at all.

    All of the above are the province of the technical panel, not the judges.

    One area where both panels work in concert is penalizing wrong-edge takeoffs. The tech panel calls "e" if there was any question after the review, and then the judges each have to decide how much to take off from their GOE.

    Or maybe this is just to picky and the system is fine the way it is now.
    Well, there's always room for improvement, but at this point it's going to happen on an incremental basis, probably until there's some technological breakthrough that can identify elements and errors better than human perception.

    Since so much of what actually counts in skating is qualitative, both in assessing the quality of elements (GOEs) and in assessing the quality of each program as a whole (PCS), there's always going to be a subjective element to the decisions.

    In football, it doesn't matter how smoothly the ball goes into the goal, or how well timed to the music. And in or out is essentially a two-dimensional decision. Skating is more three-dimensional. Even just tech panels looking at rotation on a jump -- do they go by when the blade is in contact with the ice at all, or when there is weight on it?

    In skating, the smoothness and depth of the curves does matter, and so does the musical timing, and the position of the skater's body, and so forth. Those kinds of assessments are necessarily going to be subjective. It's the nature of the sport.

  14. #44
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    There are some replay calls in football that are much more difficult than what you described. So much so that a call seen with a certain degree of regularity is that "the ruling on the field stands as not enough evidence can be seen to overrule it."

    We seem to get that in skating from time to time with UR's and edge calls. Or what we more realistically see is that different tech panels and even different events have much different standards.

    This must be mighty confusing to skaters when at one event their edges called are good and at the next event they are called bad. Same with UR's and I believe Frank Carroll has mentioned this (not in a good way).

    The lack of transparency works against ISU on several different levels just as the inconsistent calls (strict vs lenient) do not do the skaters and coaches any favors.

    It does lead to much dispute from the fans though, no?

    Maybe in the future ISU will share the reviews with the fans as the tech panel is making it's decisions. Wouldn't that be fascinating. If they did that an extra minute or two between skates might be of greater interest than watching the K&C.
    Last edited by janetfan; 05-06-2011 at 11:41 AM.

  15. #45
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Downgrades make a huge difference in the base scores, much more than the GOEs. As of this past season, there's also an intermediate rotation call that earns 70% of the base mark. Again, that's going to have much more effect on the score for the element than one judge's GOEs and usually than the whole panel's GOEs.
    Not all downgrades are genuine. A Lutz that switches over to the a Flip is not downgraded to a Flip but given a penalty only because it is believed that the skater attempted a Lutz yet a popup result on another jump is not considered an attempt, but a genuine single jump.

    Since so much of what actually counts in skating is qualitative, both in assessing the quality of elements (GOEs) and in assessing the quality of each program as a whole (PCS), there's always going to be a subjective element to the decisions.
    It seems to me the only qualitative judgements are in the Elements with opinions in the GoEs. The PC scores are the same as they were in the 6.0 system. Opinions. No real change.

    Skating is more three-dimensional. Even just tech panels looking at rotation on a jump -- do they go by when the blade is in contact with the ice at all, or when there is weight on it?
    It's more like a Pagaent. Talent, Beauty, and Promenading correctly. Every jump has a base value. One could argue if the values are correct. The rotations add to the difficulty. They do not affect the wrong edge takeoffs, and the landings. They are not blade-to-ice.


    In skating, the smoothness and depth of the curves does matter, and so does the musical timing, and the position of the skater's body, and so forth. Those kinds of assessments are necessarily going to be subjective. It's the nature of the sport.
    Given the CoP's penchant for putting numbers wherever they can, it's impossible to do so in the PC scores. So yes those PC scores one sees in the protocols are pure 6.0 opinions.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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