Article:"Rewarding Failure Diminishes Sport"

SkateFiguring said:

The opinion expressed by this Monica person pleases some, yet it is more flawed than the skating she criticizes and blames for the (localized) "demise" of popularity of the sport.

Click to expand...

Quite true!

CoP is not perfect. Another change might be on its way. However, the writer of this article has no more credit than an average poster on this board. The article carries a lot of faulty claims and stired up hatred quite a bit.

Everyone - including bloggers - are entitled to an opinion. I don't think getting our panties in a wad because they *gasp* dare to disagree is doing any good... you can argue till your fingers are blue (blue in the face), Mathman isn't going to change his opinion any more that I'm going to change mine...

if it bothers you enough, do as I do... take a break! :yes:

wallylutz said:

Gotta love the anonymity of internet - we can imagine who we want to be, easy eh?

Click to expand...

Gsrossano is one of the few people on GS who is not posting anonymously.

wallylutz said:

Monica Friedlander : http://www.linkedin.com/in/monicafriedlander
- This person has an agenda of her own, which appears to be one of those "CoP is the worst thing to happen to humanity since 9-11"

Click to expand...

And what´s your agenda wallyluz? To defend all day long the COP and Chan´s superiority while trashing skaters that you strongly dislike and accusing them of the failures of the system???? Calling them stupid too?
Don´t bother to explain me why Chan should have won because I have nothing against his victory, I like him very much, but if you imagine that we´re buying you´re "a passionate and life-long volunteer" who cares so much about FS....please!!!

Buttercup said:

Gsrossano is one of the few people on GS who is not posting anonymously.

Click to expand...

Thank you!

wallylutz said:

So let me ask you this, Mathman. Do you feel Michelle would have won under the CoP over Tara Lipinski for such skate at the 1997 U.S. Nationals (video link provided above)? This is a yes or no question but you may elaborate if you wish.

Click to expand...

No but under CoP she would have won the Olympics wityh 10 pcs.

wallylutz said:

The fact you chose to respond to my detailed response with such a childish reply only reflects poorly on you. I am not going to lower myself to your level. You are welcome to dispute any part of my statement if you really are as experienced as you claim to be. But 26 years of experience can't even get the amount of deduction for falling in a SP correctly? 26 years of experience doesn't know the balanced program mandate in the FS which clearly names jumps and such inclusion of at least one jump combination? Gotta love the anonymity of internet - we can imagine who we want to be, easy eh?

Click to expand...

Well, I know Dr. Rossano quite well. He is who he says he is in skating and as an astrophysicist. I never try to argue with him when it comes to mathematical computations.

Anonymity of judging and penalties on conspicuous errors have been the top two most frequently mentioned criticisms concerning the new judging system. I liked the idea of protecting judges with anonymity and laughed away such claims as "judges' pet" for I thought if the judges think highly of one's skating, he must be worthy of the scores. Not until yesterday thanks to a poster drawing my attention to judges' scores did I find anonymity might be a real issue here. For instance, the majority of judges preferred Abbott's short program performance/execution at GPF, but he did not end up with a higher PE than Chan's. Again, the majority of judges preferred Takahashi's long program performance, but he likewise did not end up with a higher PE than Chan's. It was not due to the luck of draws. A comparison of the mean scores before and after the draws showed that the luck actually went against Chan. So what happened? Well, it took only one generous score to negate two or more other judges' ranking order.

I think Friedlandear was wrong to claim that "blatant favoritism is...reaching unprecedented heights when Patrick Chan takes to the ice". Under the anonymity of judging, such favoritism is hard to detect, not "blatant" at all. The word "favoritism" never crossed my mind until yesterday I finally looked deep into the judges' scores.

prettykeys said:

It is a bit of a problem, and I love the CoP.

Click to expand...

See that everyone? Prettykeys agrees with me 100%! Now we're getting somewhere!

wallylutz said:

My point is, it wasn't because 6.0 was used that Kwan lost. But it was because it used 6.0 that she were given such ridiculously high Technical Merit marks. You may also want to take a look at her Artistic Impression marks because they were even more atrocious, speaking as someone who was very disheartened when Kwan lost her national title in 1997.

Click to expand...

In ordinal scoring the 5.7s and 5.8s are just window dressing. The only thing that mattered were the ordinals. Kwan lost because she fell.

As for her presentation scores, it is possible that she was the best of the lot, minus Lipinski, thus justifying first-place ordinals. Unsatisfying, but what can you do? (Just like CoP.)

The bottom line is no system is perfect. You tweak one thing, some people aren't happy. You change it back, then the other group complains. This has been the story of CoP. No one is ever happy... You feel skaters who had several visible errors shouldn't win, but how does that work? How do you input that into an evalution framework - a scoring model - so that it can churn out results that are fair?

Click to expand...

I don't know. Here is what I think -- or rather, what I wish. I wish that the ISU would take the following two issues more seriously.

(a) Figure skating is a sport. Awarding points for failed attempts, however valiant, is antagonistic to the spirit of sport. This is the thrust of the article referenced in this thread.

(b) Figure skating is entertainment. It is immensely antagonistic to the spirit of entertainment not to take into account what the audience likes to see.

My beef is that whenever these issue raise their hopeful little heads, CoP supporters go into their three monkeys act, covering their eyes and ears (if not their mouths ). Either that or they say, stop hating on my favorite skater, you bad person. (Huh?)

Again, using the GPF as an example, if we use your logic...

Click to expand...

I am not exactly sure what "logic" you are referring to. I have no logic. I have a few opinions, most of them half-baked.

My opinion is that figure skating would be the winner if the ISU could figure out a way better to incorporate points (a) and (b) above into the scoring system.

Bluebonnet said:

Quite true!

CoP is not perfect. Another change might be on its way. However, the writer of this article has no more credit than an average poster on this board. The article carries a lot of faulty claims and stired up hatred quite a bit.

Click to expand...

Monica is a writer by trade and has been a fan of the sport for many years. She has strong opinions like most everyone here, but I don't think she wants to stir up hatred.

Mathman said:

See that everyone? Prettykeys agrees with me 100%! Now we're getting somewhere!



In ordinal scoring the 5.7s and 5.8s are just window dressing. The only thing that mattered were the ordinals. Kwan lost because she fell.

As for her presentation scores, it is possible that she was the best of the lot, minus Lipinski, thus justifying first-place ordinals. Unsatisfying, but what can you do? (Just like CoP.)



I don't know. Here is what I think -- or rather, what I wish. I wish that the ISU would take the following two issues more seriously.

(a) Figure skating is a sport. Awarding points for failed attempts, however valiant, is antagonistic to the spirit of sport. This is the thrust of the article referenced in this thread.

(b) Figure skating is entertainment. It is immensely antagonistic to the spirit of entertainment not to take into account what the audience likes to see.

My beef is that whenever these issue raise their hopeful little heads, CoP supporters go into their three monkeys act, covering their eyes and ears (if not their mouths ). Either that or they say, stop hating on my favorite skater, you bad person. (Huh?)



I am not exactly sure what "logic" you are referring to. I have no logic. I have a few opinions, most of them half-baked.

My opinion is that figure skating would be the winner if the ISU could figure out a way better to incorporate points (a) and (b) above into the scoring system.

Click to expand...

But I'd argue that presenting a few half baked opinions really does nothing for serious debate and it's disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise. And whenever COP defenders even attempt to articulate a defense, you make the same comment over and over again as if that's debate.

Mathman said:

Here we go again. The posts justifying the CoP get longer and longer and more and more passionate. "Read more ISU scripture and you will be saved."

Click to expand...

And posts lamenting about the loss of the 6.0 system isn't as long and "passionate"?

Friendlander's concern is not to pick on Patrick Chan. She, too, wants to save figure skating. The ISU thinks that figure skating is not in need of saving, we're doing just fine, thanks. I guess time will tell.

Click to expand...

How ironic, interestingly enough, here is someone else posting his reaction to the blog and I quote:

Dean said:

I just want to explain to you the reasoning behind “partial credit” on jumps in the IJS so that you don't have misplaced frustrations with the system. Without partial credit, a fall on a 3A has 0.00 value and results in a -1.00 deduction, the skater would have made more points by doing a waltz jump (0.40?) or just doing a three turn and marking the jump, resulting in 0.00 but no deduction. When a skater feels a take-off where they're not sure if they will land the jump in your system, their best bet is to abort the jump completely and land on two feet or just do a single/double. Popping would become a strategy. You don't want that.

Yuzuru's quad toe in his long netted him 11.44 points. It was clean and had positive GOEs. Daisuke's quad toe in his short, which he was planning on landing and lands all the time, ended up getting him only 4.77 AND -1.00 because he fell, it was under-rotated (meaning 70% of the base value) and got negative GOEs. That's a difference of 7.67, which is like a 3A with minuses. I assure you NONE of these men are just trying to rotate the jumps and fall to get points, they know better.

“and you still rack up some 7.6 points! That's nearly as much as a perfectly executed triple axel! For an outright fall!” A perfectly executed 3A (base value 8.50 with all +3s) is worth 11.50 for the record. Quite a bit more than a fall on a quad toe. I'm sorry you've been watching splashfest competitions that you've paid money to see, I assure you none of the skaters want you to see them fall on the ice during their programs. The whole point of training is to increase their odds of not falling.

“Not surprisingly, skaters at all levels who know they can't land a jump will go for it anyway to get that all-important partial credit,” How did you even come up with this? Research? Skaters know they will get more points landing a jump they know they can do. It's a little disturbing that someone who is misinformed is writing such an opinionated blog about how flawed figure skating is. Please read my post and consider making necessary adjustments to your blog before people start believing what they read and tune out of skating for good.

Click to expand...

If Figure Skating needs to be "save" in the United States, it sure isn't by posting numerous error filled and grossly exaggerated statements & examples to further dishearten and misinform the public at large. You believe her intent is to save this sport, I don't doubt her intent but I think instead of saving, she is doing the exact opposite. That's the irony.

skateflower said:

Zero point for a fall on any jump. A fall is a fall, period.

Click to expand...

I don't think you really care much about the sport side of this sport.

Mathman said:

Friendlander's concern is not to pick on Patrick Chan.

Click to expand...

KKonas said:

Monica is a writer by trade and has been a fan of the sport for many years. She has strong opinions like most everyone here, but I don't think she wants to stir up hatred.

Click to expand...

Whatever this blogger's intention you both say she has, I don't know. All I can see clearly is the faulty claims, strong words, and the center of the focus in this blog. No matter who or what she hates, she hates. She pretended she knew everything about CoP with her half full of bottle of vinegar. Yet her personal opinions which were no more value than anyone's opinions here on this board has been given a special attention as if it worths more of anything.:disapp:

Mathman said:

See that everyone? Prettykeys agrees with me 100%! Now we're getting somewhere!

Click to expand...

I agree with Prettykeys on this one too. This is the way to address the concerns.

Mathman said:

See that everyone? Prettykeys agrees with me 100%! Now we're getting somewhere!



In ordinal scoring the 5.7s and 5.8s are just window dressing. The only thing that mattered were the ordinals. Kwan lost because she fell.

As for her presentation scores, it is possible that she was the best of the lot, minus Lipinski, thus justifying first-place ordinals. Unsatisfying, but what can you do? (Just like CoP.)



I don't know. Here is what I think -- or rather, what I wish. I wish that the ISU would take the following two issues more seriously.

(a) Figure skating is a sport. Awarding points for failed attempts, however valiant, is antagonistic to the spirit of sport. This is the thrust of the article referenced in this thread.

(b) Figure skating is entertainment. It is immensely antagonistic to the spirit of entertainment not to take into account what the audience likes to see.

My beef is that whenever these issue raise their hopeful little heads, CoP supporters go into their three monkeys act, covering their eyes and ears (if not their mouths ). Either that or they say, stop hating on my favorite skater, you bad person. (Huh?)



I am not exactly sure what "logic" you are referring to. I have no logic. I have a few opinions, most of them half-baked.

My opinion is that figure skating would be the winner if the ISU could figure out a way better to incorporate points (a) and (b) above into the scoring system.

Click to expand...

For on Mathman it is because anti-cop rarely bring up those issues directly. It is usually i don't like cop because i think the programs are ugly and a prefer skater X. If we are here to discuss the issue of the popularity of figure skate in North America. Then just state the real problem. Figure skating is less popular than fans will like and how do we solve this issue. Point(A) have already been taken in to account and it is obvious that skater prefer to actually get partial credit for what they do just like in most of life you get partial credit. If you miss one question you don't fail a class. If only work part time you don't get 0.00$ on your pay check, etc. B if skating is not entertaining to audiences that could be because skaters don't skate to popular music like lady gaga and Jay Z. Or because we don't have a celeberty in the limelight with juicy gossip to bring attention to skating. Or because of the other million things out there begging for peoples attetion they find those a lot more intersting than figure skating.

As for why audience are confuse when a less than clean skater whens. That is because we don't have live scoring like football, tennis , or basketball. If there was a way to show point pop up on the bill board right after a skater completed an element.(of course PC's will not be determine until the end of the program) Audiences could watch the points totals add up and will not have to be an expert to see Skater A scored more points the B. But the money and technology that will required. I am not sure ISU would want to invest in that.

This monica person's blog doesn't address anything positive for the future concerns of figure skating. It was only one side of complaining. It doesn't represent both sides argument. Therefore it is not worth to have a thread title for it.

This post is going to be long because I came to this thread late and will respond to several points in the same post.

I'll skip some where other posters have already made the same points I would have made.

Kwanford Wife said:

Having said that - whomever wrote this article is correct: modern skating allows for flaws in the chasing of points and it hurts the sport when champs are awarded outlandish scores for skating that is lacking. At this point, the judging system and the skaters should've merged together and yet the scores get higher while the skating gets weaker... regardless of who the champ is and who is writing about it...

Click to expand...

Really?
1) define "weaker" skating
2) choose a a recent IJS competition and a comparable competition (same event, e.g., Worlds, Grand Prix) under 6.0 or the first year or two of IJS, at the same point in the Olympic cycle. 2011 and 2003 would work, for example
3) choose a representative sampling of performances from those two events; e.g., all the medalists, all the top 5, all the odd-numbered places in the top 10, the 1st, 6th, 11th, 16th and 21st places, etc. Do this for several disciplines.
4) describe to me in what ways the recent performances are weaker than the earlier ones -- and also, if possible, the reverse

Of course, if you choose the examples randomly and then look at the performances, you might happen to get one very strongly skated again and one especially weak one, which would skew the results in favor of one era or the other depending on the luck of the draw. So better to do this several times for several different events.

Whenever I see claims like this, I always wonder if poster is remembering only the best/most memorable of the old events and all of the recent ones, warts and all.

Kwanford Wife said:

Please. Flawed skating is flawed skating. I don't care WHO points it out... there is a reason skating is struggling and part of this is watching these flawed performances equated with brilliance.

Click to expand...

Define "flawed." Do only flaws that anyone can see, or also flaws that only knowledgeable viewers can see? Under all judging systems, judges have always paid attention to details that casual viewers didn't notice and commentators rarely bothered to point out. If that led to results under 6.0 that didn't match the casual viewer's impression, there would usually be cries that the judges were blind, cheating, holding up favorites, playing politics, etc. It's not as though casual impressions always matched trained impressions under 6.0 either.

ImaginaryPogue said:

ETA: How much of a penalty do you think falls should incur? Should visible errors have more weight than invisible ones?

Click to expand...

Invisible to trained eyes or invisible to untrained?

skateflower said:

Zero point for a fall on any jump. A fall is a fall, period.

Click to expand...

So imagine the following scenario. Short program. Skaters A and B both perform 3Lz+3T and solo 3F, comparably well, and earn the exact same scores for those two jump elements. Skater A rotates and falls on a 3A. Skater B rotates and falls on a 2A. Should they both get the exact same score (0) for their solo axel attempts?

(Edited to add: Under 6.0, Skater A would have started with a higher base mark because of the higher difficulty attempted, and that would likely also have affected presentation score. E.g., Skater A might have earned 5.4/5.8 for that program with fall on 3A, and skater B might have earned 5.0/5.4.)

Alter the question for either of the other jump elements in the SP, or for an LP where most of the jump passes are comparable and each skater has one fall on jumps that are very different in difficulty.

Reward more for difficult jumps that are well executed, penalize more for jumps that are poorly executed. Male skaters are always starting to try quads than ever due to the increased value assigned to quads. However, if you want to shoot for high values, you always need to be aware of the huge risks.

Click to expand...

Any visible errors should be penalized more than invisible ones.

Click to expand...

Why? And where?

I think that errors resulting from a flaw or failure of technique should be penalized more in the GOE than errors resulting from, e.g., a flaw or obstacle in the ice surface. But in the program components, especially Performance/Execution, perhaps a flaw that disrupts the program even for 1-2 seconds out of 240+ should be penalized more than a technical flaw that doesn't break the surface enjoyment of the program.

ImaginaryPogue said:

And the latter is what I don't get. If you do a jump from a wrong take off, you haven't done the jump. Period. If you flutz, that means you can't do a lutz. Why should you get credit for doing a lutz?

Click to expand...

I would disagree. If you do a jump from a wrong takeoff, you have done a jump. A flawed jump. Depending on the severity of the flaw, it may or may not meet the definition of the intended listed jump. If the takeoff error is very severe, it might turn the jump into a different listed jump (e.g., lutz into flip) or into a nonlisted jump. If the error is small to moderate, then the intended jump is still recognizable

Some skaters who have a tendency to flutz still try very hard to takeoff the correct edge and sometimes come closer to succeeding than others. And some skaters who usually do the jump correctly will on rare occasions make errors on the takeoffs.
I think each attempt needs to be evaluated on its own merits and not on a skater's reputation for whether s/he "can" do that jump or not. Of course, a reputation for making the same mistake repeatedly will cause judges and tech panels to be on the lookout for that mistake every time the skater executes that jump. A skater with a reputation for doing it right might escape the same scrutiny and be able to get away with the same mistake on the rare occasions it does happen. But that's not the ideal situation.

Mathman said:

What frustrates me about this endless debate is that one side utterly dismisses the other, as if their opinions and observations deserve nothing but to be thrown into the garbage can.

Click to expand...

Which side would that be, the posters and bloggers who mourn the loss of the old system and write long posts blaming everything they don't like about the current state of skating on the change in judging system, wanting throw the whole new system into the garbage can?

I've seen more threads and blog posts started by people taking the position that everything about the IJS is evil than by anyone posting that everything about the IJS is perfect or everything about 6.0 was evil.

People say, I don't like this scoring system very much. Many people say this. People both knowledgable and otherwise. The anointed say, "what fools," and go on with business as usual.

If we refuse to admit that there is a problem, then there is no possibility of arriving at a solution.

Click to expand...

There are going to be disagreements about what would be the best approach to scoring, in general or on specific issues, among knowledgeable people within the skating community, among knowledgeable fans, and among casual fans. I'd much rather see attempts to identify and imagine solutions to the problems that don't reduce to taking sides for or against the existing reality. There's always room for improvement.

If we want to analyze specific problems with the existing system, then let's focus on defining the problem and proposing solutions within the current reality. Or let's ignore the current system and envision how to avoid or solve the problem with a radical paradigm change.

Either way, if complaints and efforts to find solutions are to be more than idle griping or idle fantasy, they have to take into account the facts of the sport as it is practiced in the rinks, not just what makes for good TV.

If less-knowledgeable fans offer complaints or suggestions based on limited knowledge and personal preference, I'm not going to dismiss them as fools, but I am going to challenge them to consider how any proposed changes would affect situations other than the ones they first considered.

For that matter, I'd do the same to a skating insider with more experience and knowledge than me, if the proposals leave out issues I think need to be considered.

Mathman said:

Here's the thing. Michelle fell twice, had other serious and visible errors, and she lost because of it. If she had not fallen she would have won.

Click to expand...

(1997 Nationals?)

She fell twice, had other serious and visible errors, and beat skaters who did not fall or have disruptive errors.

(BTW, here's one of my favorite performances from that competition with only one fall)

If Michelle had won in spite of her falls, the audience would have gone away with a certain amount of puzzlement and disgruntlement, muttering WTH was that?

Click to expand...

Really, even if Lipinski had withdrawn or also fallen at least twice? Yeah, Bobek would probably have won the LP but was too far behind in the short program (with falls) to win the title.

Sometimes the best skater falls.

The same is true today. When someone falls and has multiple serious and visible errors, and wins anyway, the audience feels like WTH?

I do not know the answer. What I wish is that enthusiastic supporters of the CoP would step back a moment and say, oh, yeah, that is sort of a problem.

Click to expand...

It's not a new problem, though.
I think it's happening more often in the men's event right now because of the high residual value for rotated quads and triple axels even with falls. And because there happens to be one particular male skater who stands out significantly (to experts in the arena) from the rest of the world in skating skills and is also quite good in the other component areas, but often rotates those difficult jumps even when he falls.

So I think the -GOEs for quads and 3A need to be larger. And I think there can be tweaks to the way disruptive errors are evaluated in PCS, especially Performance/Execution. And I think judges should be encouraged to separate the component scores more, for example to reward other skaters who are outstanding in Interpretation even if their skating skills are merely good to very good.

But no matter how we tweak the current system, or no matter if we went back to 6.0 exactly as it was practiced 10-15 years ago, there would still be times when the best overall skater would deservedly win with falls. So I think the most important thing is to educate viewers to understand more about what's being judged beyond number of falls and the aesthetic areas that attract artistically inclined fans.

My take on the issue: A visible error should be penalized in PCS as well as in TES (if on an element). Here, “visible error” is defined as a flaw that can be easily detected without the use of any skating knowledge or training.

In the current system, a fall results in a negative GOE, which reflects the imperfection of its technique but not necessarily its impact on the 2nd mark (For instance, at the GPF men’s short, Hanyu received -2.43 for his hand-down quad attempt, whereas Chan received -2.29 for his fall that caused a relatively longer interruption than Hanyu’s). Although the mandatory -1 deduction for a fall was created so that the judges need not worry about deducting for it within the component marks, it fails to reflect the varying degree or severity of its impacts. It is unfair that an ugly fall that took forever to recover receives the same -1 penalty as one with minimal interruption.

The impact of a fall on the esthetic value (2nd mark) is really so insignificant that it took away only 0.57% (= 1/174.67) of Chan’s long program score? Something really has to be done about the CoP.

I always enjoyed reading your thought gkelly. As someone who prefers 6.0, I still agree with much of what you said. Being a superior all-around skater can (and should) in many cases compensate for mistakes versus other skaters who are not as talent. My problem with the judging is when that gap in marks is too large between, arguably, the FIRST and SECOND best skaters in the world. I'm ok with a three-error Chan beating a clean Ross Miner. What I wouldn't like to see is a two-error (and I'm talking about glaring errors) Chan beating clean performances from the second and third best skaters in the world. These guys right behind Chan are not awful skaters by any means. From that perspective I find it boring to watch because I am almost rooting for Chan to fall just to make the competition more compelling. (And I do like Chan and think he's marvelous, btw)

skatinginbc said:

Anonymity of judging and penalties on conspicuous errors have been the top two most frequently mentioned criticisms concerning the new judging system. I liked the idea of protecting judges with anonymity and laughed away such claims as "judges' pet" for I thought if the judges think highly of one's skating, he must be worthy of the scores. Not until yesterday thanks to a poster drawing my attention to judges' scores did I find anonymity might be a real issue here. For instance, the majority of judges preferred Abbott's short program performance/execution at GPF, but he did not end up with a higher PE than Chan's. Again, the majority of judges preferred Takahashi's long program performance, but he likewise did not end up with a higher PE than Chan's.

Click to expand...

Here is where we are helpless. It is not possible to tell from the protocols whether a majority of judges favored Chan or Takahashi in P/E. The random order in which the judges' scores are presented is as follows.

Chan 9.25 8,00 8.25 8.50 9.50 8.50 8.75 8.50 8.75
Taka 8.00 9.50 8.50 9.00 8.75 9.00 8.00 8.00 9.00

If you compare the two lists ordered in this way, Takahashi is favored by the judges listed 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 9yh. Takahashi wins, 5 judges to 4.

But if we take the same scores and put the second set in a different order we get:

Chan 8.00 8.25 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.75 8.75 9.00 9.25
Taka 9.50 9.00 9.00 9.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.75 8.50

Now Chan wins judges 5,6,7,8 and 9. Chan wins, 5 judges to 4.

Which order is right? The ISU isn't telling.

It was not due to the luck of draws.

Click to expand...

There isn't any random draw anymore. The highest and lowest scores are discarded and the remaining seven are averaged. (You can tell because all of the final component scores end in decimals that correspond to fractions with denominator 28. Chan and Takahashi both got 8.61 = 241/28 for P/E in this contest. )

Actually, the random draw has an interesting history. When the CoP first came out after the Salt Lake City controversy the ISU touted the random draw as a marvelous innovation which would cut would-be cheaters and conspiring judges off at the knees. The public said. "Huh? That's stupid. How is this going to stop politicking and bias in judging? You are just throwing away relevant data for no reason." (The good Dr. Rossano gave a careful analysis at the time of just how much statistical accuracy was lost by this silly scheme.)

The response of the ISU was, "You are not the experts, we are. We know what we are doing."

A few years later the ISU decided, deep in its inner sanctum, "You know, this random draw thing is pretty silly." And they quietly abandoned it.

skatinginbc said:

My take on the issue: A visible error should be penalized in PCS as well as in TES (if on an element). Here, “visible error” is defined as a flaw that can be easily detected without the use of any skating knowledge or training.

In the current system, a fall results in a negative GOE, which reflects the imperfection of its technique but not necessarily its impact on the 2nd mark (For instance, at the GPF men’s short, Hanyu received -2.43 for his hand-down quad attempt, whereas Chan received -2.29 for his fall that caused a relatively longer interruption than Hanyu’s). Although the mandatory -1 deduction for a fall was created so that the judges need not worry about deducting for it within the component marks, it fails to reflect the varying degree or severity of its impacts. It is unfair that an ugly fall that took forever to recover receives the same -1 penalty as one with minimal interruption.

Click to expand...

So an error that anyone with no skating knowledge can see, and that is ugly and disruptive, should be penalized more than a brief, nondisruptive, not-unattractive fall?

That means that the degree of disruption, the level of ugliness, etc., is subject to the subjective judgment of the judges on the panel (and the subjective opinions of fans).

Actually I think this is a good starting place for changes in rules or guidelines.

Every fall receives a mandatory deduction, so there's no possibility of it going completely unpunished even if wasn't on an element.

Falls on elements reduce the GOE for that element by a significant amount, allowing for the possibility that there was enough else good about the rest of the element to earn better than -3 final GOE.

And then there could also be guidelines -- unenforceable, but clearly spelled out -- that in addition to the existing penalties judges should reduce the Performance/Execution component by at least 0.25-0.5 for each fall, depending on disruptiveness. For a major disruption (e.g., one partner falls and doesn't catch up with the other partner until >10 seconds later at the other end of the ice) then judges are encouraged to lower the P/E score, and other components, even further.

But if both partners fall in perfect unison perfectly in time with the music, then maybe the good aspects of the fall can add to the PCS enough to counteract the recommended reduction in the component score. (They'd still get 2.0 mandatory fall deduction though)

Or a skater who falls and plays it off as part of the choreography could earn back as much in goodwill as s/he loses to the recommended reduction.

Guidelines could also recommend that falls that clearly result from and/or result in sloppy skating for several seconds before and/or afterward should be reflected with a lower Skating Skills score.

It would still be up to each judge to decide when a reduction is warranted and by how much. But there would be written guidelines supporting them in that decision.