The Increase of 'Questionable' Judging Trends | Page 2 | Golden Skate

The Increase of 'Questionable' Judging Trends

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Here are some numbers. I haven't added them up to see what result they would produce.

When I watched the men's long programs from the GPF live on TV, I tried scoring along for fun. So these are my numbers based on what I saw on TV, my understanding of the rules, my perception of the quality. Your mileage, or that of the official judges, may vary.

At the end of the event I expected Takahashi to win the freeskate but not by enough to make up for his short program deficit. I was surprised Chan took the freeskate. Adding up the PCS, I see I gave them different scores for each individual component but the same overall total, so the TES would make the difference. I haven't done the math yet to figure out how the results would have come out with these tech panel calls if I were the only judge. Should I?

Takahashi
4T -2
3A +2
3S +2
CCSp2 +1
CiSt4 +2
FCCoSp4 0
3A+3T 0
3F+2T +1
3Lo 0
3Lz+2T +1
3F +1
ChSt1 +2
CCoSP4 +1
8.5 8.0 8.75 9.0 9.25

Chan
4T -2
4T+2T -2
3A +2
CiSt4 +2
FCCoSp +1
3LZ+1Lo+3S 0
3Lo +1
3F+3T +1
FCSSp4 +1
3Lz -3
2A +1
ChSt1 +1
CCoSp4 0
9.0 8.75 8.25 9.0 8.5
(1.00 fall deduction)

I calculated it for you, just in case you didn't get the memo about Communciation 1672 re: SOV changes. The ISU website still hasn't updated the proper SOV under their judging system main page for some recent changes in 2011, post Worlds. Your scores come out as follows:

Takahashi: TES = 86.09 and PCS = 87.00 Total Score = 173.09

Chan: TES = 84.68 and PCS = 87.00 Deduction = -1.00 Total Score = 170.68
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
OK, assuming I've done my math correctly, I get a total of 85.39 TES for Takahashi and 85.55 TES for Chan, for a difference of 0.14 in Chan's favor in TES.

Remember I gave them the exact same total PCS.

After the fall deduction, that means I would have had Takahashi ahead in the free program by 0.86.

I was just calling each element and each component as I saw it. I didn't know what the levels were and I certainly haven't memorized all the point values for elements with and without second-half bonus and the point values for all the plus and minus GOEs. That's why I had no idea which of these two skaters my scores would have put ahead in this program until I sat down and did the math after the fact, with the tech panel level calls in front of me.

ETA: OK, thanks, Wallylutz. I was working from an older Scale of Values.
 

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
As a point of comparison, here is how mine would come out:

Takahashi
4T -3
3A +2
3S +2
CCSp2 +1
CiSt4 +1
FCCoSp4 +2
3A+3T +1
3F+2T +1
3Lo +1
3Lz+2T +2
3F +2
ChSt1 +2
CCoSP4 0
8.25 8.25 9.00 9.00 9.25

TES= 87.99 PCS = 87.50 Total Score = 175.49

Chan
4T -2
4T+2T -3
3A +2
CiSt4 +2
FCCoSp3 +2
3LZ+1Lo+3S +1
3Lo +2
3F+3T +2
FCSSp4 +1
3Lz -3
2A +1
ChSt1 +2
CCoSp4 +1
9.25 8.75 8.50 9.00 9.00

TES = 87.45 PCS = 89.00 Deduction = -1.00 Total Sore = 175.45
 

Bluebonnet

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
That's my opinion. I care far less for what you tried, in comparision to what you actually did. And if you think its about hating on Patrick, I had no problem with Patrick beating Daisuke at Skate Canada earlier this year. Chan's a fabulous skater when he skates well this wasn't his bets performance technically or performance wise.

You know what i find is ridiculous. When skaters ubers are so caught up in their skater, that they think their skaters deserve ridiculously high scores no matter how their skater actually skated. That they can't sit there and say you know what maybe the other skater out skated my skater this time.

I adored Yu-na Kim back in the day, but I was also able to appreciate Asada. And while I was rooting for Kim to win, I certainly wasn't rooting for Kim to win regardless of how she or Asada skated. I felt that Kim winning 2010 worlds long program showcased all the problems with this sport.

At the end of the day I'm a fan of this sport, far more than I'm a fan of a particular skater. And I don't know how this sport can survive if people want to argue that how the skater skates, that night just doesn't matter.

These kinds of talks are so empty. In the end, it makes no difference between you and me as a fan. I am, like you, a fan of this sport far more than a fan of any individual skater. But our starting point and baseline are different. Your subjective feelings are different from my subjective feelings. Feelings aside, everything has to come down on paper with careful considerations and transforms the observations into numbers. The numbers are not subjective free. But they are far more detailed and logical than yours and my gut feelings. Also, the numbers are the results of a group experts' decision instead of individuals'. Therefore, any judged results deserved more respect and careful study than yours and my feelings. There might have rooms for some sort of tweaks on GOEs and PCSs. I have no objection on perfecting the judging system further. But some people's reactions and outrage these past a few days (I didn't mean you.) could only be explained by non other than the word "hate".
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
This is quite interesting. You guys have quite a few variations on GOES. I would love to hear you discuss them, like why gk gives Dai a 0 on the 3A-3T while wl gives him a 1, why you guys reverse the GOE for the final combo spins, etc.

Gkelly, is wallylutz correct that for you Dai wins the whole thing?
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
This is quite interesting. You guys have quite a few variations on GOES. I would love to hear you discuss them, like why gk gives Dai a 0 on the 3A-3T while wl gives him a 1, why you guys reverse the GOE for the final combo spins, etc.

I'd have to watch again to give my reasonings on the GOEs. I will say that for both guys there were some elements for which I wrote +2+ . . . i.e., I considered +3 but didn't quite go there. Maybe live and up close I'd be that much more wowed to give top marks to those elements.

Gkelly, is wallylutz correct that for you Dai wins the whole thing?

Takahashi was ~10 points behind after the short program, so winning the freeskate by ~3 points would not give him the overall win.
 

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
This is quite interesting. You guys have quite a few variations on GOES. I would love to hear you discuss them, like why gk gives Dai a 0 on the 3A-3T while wl gives him a 1

Well, let's take a look at this specific element:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNQnevifJKQ#t=3m0s

What's your take?

What I noted from set up to execution:

- Preceded by intricate connecting steps
- Set up a little long before the jump
- Very good height and fully rotated on the 3A
- Good flow out of the 3A
- Landing of the 3T is a little unclean, may have finished about a little less than 1/4 of the rotation on ice
- Flow out of the 3T is not optimal

All the + and - considered, I went with a +1. I can see how gkelly may have been more bothered by the landing on the 3T than I did to give it a 0 though but she is generally more strict overall in this competition than I, so nothing out of ordinary here.

If you average our scores, you can see it's awfully close to that of the panel's average. That's just what the word "average" means. Some people are going to be more lenient, while others, more strict. What it serves to confirm though, there is no anomaly to the judging of the event as some have been alluding to. The scoring were fairly close and between a difference of 0.04 to 2.5 - it was mathematically impossible for Takahashi to make up 10+ points of difference from the SP no matter who you put on the panel. The closeness of the scores also showed the call could have gone either way in the FS, there is really no point being hang up about who was technically 1st or 2nd in the FS.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
The actual article makes two points, both very interesting. The two points are supported by one example each.

Point #1.

(In the past) scores rarely branched much out of the zero zone to a minus or plus 3 for Grades of Execution [GOEs] unless for clearly failed elements deserving a -3. In recent times, the ISU Technical Committee urged judges to explore the range of -3 to +3, especially higher values for exceptional elements deserving of such credit.

This season we are seeing a huge range of minus and pluses on a given element that are not following the intended purpose of the range and are questionably defying the definitions as written.

Is this true? Did the ISU Technical Committee change the guidelines deliberately to encourage judges to give a wider spread of GOEs?

Is it true that the GOEs we are seeing this year are not following the intended purpose of the new rules? (I am not completely sure what the author means by "questionably defying.")

I assume quite a few judges are under severe scrutiny so far this season.

Is three any justification for this assumption? (I haven't looked it up recently but typically there are a dozen or so reprimands given out to judges at the end of each year.)

Point #2.

However, in Paris (Patrick Chan's) program was marred by some technical element errors and other unfortunate, unusual mistakes that clearly lead me to question the PC values given to Chan. Such scores are not consistent with the intent of the written definitions for PC scoring.

Ignoring the irony of "PC scoring" :) is the author correct in stating that giving high program component scores for a program that has falls and errors on elements is contrary to the intent of the ISU rules? Or is the intent of the ISU rules that the elements and program components should be scored independently?
 
Last edited:

genki

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
That's my opinion. I care far less for what you tried, in comparision to what you actually did. And if you think its about hating on Patrick, I had no problem with Patrick beating Daisuke at Skate Canada earlier this year. Chan's a fabulous skater when he skates well this wasn't his bets performance technically or performance wise.

You know what i find is ridiculous. When skaters ubers are so caught up in their skater, that they think their skaters deserve ridiculously high scores no matter how their skater actually skated. That they can't sit there and say you know what maybe the other skater out skated my skater this time.



I adored Yu-na Kim back in the day, but I was also able to appreciate Asada. And while I was rooting for Kim to win, I certainly wasn't rooting for Kim to win regardless of how she or Asada skated. I felt that Kim winning 2010 worlds long program showcased all the problems with this sport.

At the end of the day I'm a fan of this sport, far more than I'm a fan of a particular skater. And I don't know how this sport can survive if people want to argue that how the skater skates, that night just doesn't matter.

:clap::clap:

Exactly my thought. I guess some ubers get so ridiculous to defend horrible judging. I do not get it. Even 5years old know that you are not going to win when you have so many mistakes. You do not need a number, you just need your normal eye sight.
 

Violet Bliss

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Thanks to gkelly and Wallylutz for their effort in judging the two top skaters according to the IJS.

My observation in relation to what this thread claims, with which some agree heartily:

Wallylutz is the generous judge, more so to Takahashi than to Chan. The PCS difference stays about the same as the official judges'. I think his being there and seeing the performances in person helps in accurate assessment of the PCS which are more holistically viewed than individual technical elements which the camera shows well.

gKelly is stingy to Chan and generous to Takahashi, relative to the official panel. Her GOEs for Chan are in the corridor but mostly corresponding to the lowest by the official judges, with one mark out of the corridor. Her GOEs for Takahashi are in the corridor and quite a few corresponding to the highest official scores.

Now let's take the lowest score for Chan, i.e. according to gkelly, which is lower than the official and Wallylutz's, in fact lower than the stingiest official GPF judge's score, and we get 170.68. Guess what, that's higher than any GP LP this season, beating out his own SC score of 170.46 and Takahashi's NHK score of 169.32, leaving the rest of winning LP in the dust.

I still go by the official scores since they were scored in person by 9 trained experts, with the highest and lowest thrown out and the rest averaged. However, the lowest Chan's mark scored by rule we've seen is still up there similar to what he usually gets, in his own corridor, like it or not. The judges have different personal opinions but when they do their job by rules, the results don't vary that much.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Wallylutz, it's very polite of you to ask what my take is since I'm not a skater and miss most of the details. But in reply, the jump looks so solid, tightly rotated, and strong to me, with the complex entry you mention, that I can't see giving it 0 GOE. I do see the skate completing the rotation on the ice on the 3T and the jump having less flowout than it ideally would, so I wouldn't expect a +3. I don't see the setup being notably long.

Another question about it: does the difficulty of the combination enter into the GOE (in theory or in practice)?
 

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
:clap::clap:

Exactly my thought. I guess some ubers get so ridiculous to defend horrible judging. I do not get it. Even 5years old know that you are not going to win when you have so many mistakes. You do not need a number, you just need your normal eye sight.

Well, did the 5 years old who obviously knows better than many trained judges also happen to sleep through the SP as well?
 

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Wallylutz, it's very polite of you to ask what my take is since I'm not a skater and miss most of the details. But in reply, the jump looks so solid, tightly rotated, and strong to me, with the complex entry you mention, that I can't see giving it 0 GOE. I do see the skate completing the rotation on the ice on the 3T and the jump having less flowout than it ideally would, so I wouldn't expect a +3. I don't see the setup being notably long.

If a jump is UR, even though it's not noted with a < or << from the Technical Panel, it is still considered an actionable error and should be penalized by the judges. This is why sometimes you see negative GOE from judges on seemingly "clean" jumps when in reality, the judges were noting details that may have been easily missed by an average fan. I feel 0 on this element is justifiable if one really hammers on the noticeable UR on the 3T because you can visually notices the error, therefore, it's defensible to emphasize on that. If the UR is only noticeable on slow motion but not to the naked eyes, then it wouldn't be justified to penalize the skater for it. But I wasn't the one proposing the 0 for GOE so I'll let gkelly answer your question herself. Then again, not a single person who have been loudly complaining about Takahashi being undermarked at the GPF, has the honesty to present the fact that Takahashi didn't just have an error on the Quad. To the untrained, maybe that's true but in reality, Takahashi made enough little errors here and there such as this one that hurt his own GOE. Not that it was decisive in any means because he was so far behind but it could have made the difference between 1st and 2nd in the FS. gkelly is one of the most neutral person you can find here so even she would give Takahashi several 0 for GOE demonstrates that the judging panel weren't just making up numbers to purposely hold up Chan as some have been alleging here and there.

Another question about it: does the difficulty of the combination enter into the GOE (in theory or in practice)?

Your question is a little unclear to me. If I understand what I think you meant - by difficulty, you mean the difficulty of the jumps executed (e.g. Quads and Triple Axels), then the answer is no in theory but in practice, yes. Judges are more likely to give out +2 or +3 for jump combinations that are composed of high value jumps such as Triple Axel and Quads for men, and Triple Lutz + Triple Toe for ladies. But nothing in theory supports such tendency except perhaps these jumps generally demand greater speed in/out of the jump, hence tend to execute with a lot of height, power and flow. So the effect in practice may simply be coincidental, not because the jumps are of high degree of difficulty.

Jump combination can be also difficult not for the jumps executed but for the entry, creativity, connecting steps and set up. Some do jumps straight out of a spread Eagle, like the reigning World Junior Champion in men, that can make a seemingly hard 3A looks even harder. Some jumps pop out of nowhere. Or like this skater here, a Double-Triple combo being difficult simply by reversing the order of execution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl3PelmX05M#t=0m48s
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Thank you both for all the explanations. I need to rewatch both skates carefully in light of your analyses. I do take your point, wallylutz, about gkelly being a fair observer.

With regard to the last point, yes, that was what I meant. Another poster commented that Daisuke's 3A-3T was one of the hardest combos and I wondered if it did or should enter into the GOEs for that combo.
 

skatinginbc

Medalist
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Huh, both wallylutz and gkelly placed Takahashi over Chan in the LP? I love wallylutz. I love gkelly. I love them both. :bow::clap::yay:
 
Last edited:

Dragonlady

Final Flight
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
Aside from poor use of statistics, the first thing that caught my eye was the name of the author. Rick O'Neill was the head coach at a number of Greater Toronto area clubs in the late 1990's and early 2000's. When I went to the 2005 GPF, he was there with the Mexican Team. Now he's involved with the Puerto Rican Federation. It would take someone with a lot more power and influence in the ISU to effectively raise this issue for it to have an impact within the ISU.
 

visaliakid

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Country
United-States
Aside from poor use of statistics, the first thing that caught my eye was the name of the author. Rick O'Neill was the head coach at a number of Greater Toronto area clubs in the late 1990's and early 2000's. When I went to the 2005 GPF, he was there with the Mexican Team. Now he's involved with the Puerto Rican Federation. It would take someone with a lot more power and influence in the ISU to effectively raise this issue for it to have an impact within the ISU.

I received a message from Mr. O'Neill letting me know that he was informed by David Dore ISU VP, Figure Skating that the article he wrote and published early yesterday on my site, has been read and circulated among President Cinquanta, Mr. Krick, members of the ISU Technical Committee and throughout the ISU Leadership and that much discussion has insued from it. Mr. Dore further indicated that he expects it is going to have a major impact on the issues raised by Mr. O'Neill's article.

Added: Since the article was published on Dec. 17 it has received some 3,280 views.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
In seponse to Dradonlady's post number 37, when someone shouts "the emperor has no clothes" it is not the prestige and influence of the speaker that matters but the merit of the observation.

In reponse to Visaliakid's post just above, I think David Dore is blowing smoke up Mr. O'Neill's behind. O'Neill is only repeating what has been said and written a thousand times by eveyone with an interest in figure skating, incuding the Zamboni driver. The ISU is well aware of this crisis of confidence and either will or will not address these issues.

Unfortunately, it is not possible rationally to discuss the ISU scoring system without the conversation devolving into "Patrick Chan is virtuous," "No, Patrick Chan is evil."

Leaving Patrick Chan out of it for a minute, in my opinion the two issues are

(1) Should mistakes on elements factor into the program component scores, and if so, how?

(2) Should falls and other errors that are obvious to inexpert spectators be more heavily penalized?

Mr. O'Neill's other point, that judges are misusing their discretion in awarding GOEs, personally I don't think is a problem.
 
Last edited:

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Mr. O'Neill's other point, that judges are misusing their discretion in awarding GOEs, personally I don't think is a problem.

I'll say this much, Mathman, don't expect anyone in the know to publicly comment on Mr. O'Neill' claims except the hot air he thinks he is getting. Not to deny he may or may not have merit in his statements, that's besides the point, it's what he is really trying to do. I am not sure the reasons are as noble as you think they are.

As for misusing GOE, I had a chuckle on that. Really? Unless you really believe some of the misleading statements out there that we have heard before, the judging panel really doesn't feel that anonymous when it comes to disciplinary actions. Remember the judge who gave D/W 10's at Cup of Russia's flawed SD? Anyone who believe that judge can hide behind anonymity with no checks in place is seriously delusional no matter who have told him otherwise.
 
Top