I think the different kind of spins are an area where the Tv commentators could help us out more. When they show spins in slow motion the commentators could point out where the skaters change edges, etc., and how that figures into the scoring.
I think the different kind of spins are an area where the Tv commentators could help us out more. When they show spins in slow motion the commentators could point out where the skaters change edges, etc., and how that figures into the scoring.
Originally Posted by mskater93
Yes, I'm sure they are extremely useful for people on the inside of the sport, but they also serve to make it harder for fans to understand the judging and protocol sheets. Good design and a computer program could so easily eliminate this point of confusion. If protocol sheets are to be made public, why not make them as readable as possible to the widest number of people?
I suspect that the ISU sees two groups of people:
*insiders (skaters, coaches, officials, etc., numbered in the thousands) who need and want the details, work with them on a frequent basis (sometimes daily), and have a vested interest in learning abbreviations
*the general public (numbered in millions) who might tune in to skating competitions on TV or attend an event that happens to be held near to home but who just want to be entertained with pretty movement and exciting tricks, and the sponsors or media outlets who may offer big sums of money to reach those eyeballs by presenting skating events
What they don't seem to take into account is the serious fans (numbered in thousands) who try to follow the sport closely, travel to events, watch events online, etc. Of those thousands of fans, some are willing to put in lots of effort to learn everything that the insiders need to know. Others don't really care about the judging and put more effort into learning about skaters' bios or music choices or similar details. Many here fall in between and do want to know details but want the ISU to make it easy for them.
The question is, once the primary stakeholders' needs are satisfied and there is some acknowledgment of the casual viewers and media sources that serve them, how can they address the in-between needs of the range of fans (including, perhaps, family members of competitors). Should they add another step to procedures to meet the needs of 1,000 fans? 10,000? 100,000?
I doubt there are actually 100,000 fans worldwide who want to see the detailed protocols. But it would be great if the ISU could find ways to grow its community of sportsfans to the point that they can make a profit from this group of intermediate stakeholders and meet their needs as well as those of the participants and of the casual mass audiences
thanks, gkelly, for the thoughtful breakdown of kinds of stakeholders here. For that middle group, I suspect that there are number of different 'easy access' kinds of info they want, making it difficult, perhaps, to satisfy them. But, some of it shouldn't be that hard. For example, the first few times I looked at protocols, I really didn't understand why some kind of key was not provided - one that would lay out the element abbreviation in addition to the small line of info they provide about 'x' and 'e'. I do understand there isn't room on the page, but why can't the key go at the bottom of the whole document? OR, why can't a list of these often used abbreviations be easily available on the ISU website, and a link to it provided at the top of the protocols? I really do understand the focus on the insiders and their 'needs'....but I see this as an opportunity lost by the ISU to generate a knowledgeable and engaged fan base.
The problem is, there are so many numbers, decimals, multipliers, etc. that it's just too much. This is a sport, and sports are supposed to be fun. The score sheet is almost like the score sheet a psychiatrist might use when declaring someone insane from a personality test, or what a child study team member might use when deciding if a kid needs an IEP. Well, she got a 4.5 on decoding, but she only got a 3.4 grade level on sentence structure. . .
This is what I would do.
1. Kill the decimals. Make everything a whole number.
2. Forget the positive grades of execution. If the jump is done perfectly, it gets full points.
3. Make a standard deduction that everyone can understand, like: -1 double foot, -2 hand down, -3 fall. They have something like this already, I think, so they can keep it. I am also not opposed to no credit for a fall at the senior levels, at least.
4. Someone suggested that they should do one of each jump type. I agree. They can subtract 5 if they don't try something. This would encourage quads.
5. Get rid of the choreography component. These "kids" don't do their own choreography. Give the points to Lori Nichol and judge what the actual skaters do.
6. Make "skating skills" a technical point. It seems to belong there more than with the program components.
7. Actually count the transitions (if they don't do that already). Don't say, "Oh, I remember this skater doing more transitions than this one, so she gets an 8, and the other one gets a 5.75. If skater #1 does 10 transitions, give her 10 points.
^^^
The #1 thing I would do is to have separate judging panels for TES and PCS. Due to financial reasons, I know this is probably impossible, but I sometimes can't help but think that judges are so busy evaluating each element separately that they don't have time to properly evaluate the program from a 'big picture' (or so to speak) sort of perspective that is required for the components of PCS.
The #2 thing I would do is to send out a LOT of memos reminding the judges that the categories of PCS should be evaluated separately! I'm tired of seeing the same pattern over and over again for every skater's PCS despite what they do on the ice: all the components boxed together within a point of each other, with TR always slightly lower than all the rest.
Last edited by evangeline; 02-15-2012 at 07:13 PM.
That would not work and would not be good at all, particularly no credit for choreography and crediting transitions like that.
There are a maximum of 13 elements per program. Judges can pretty well know what GOE they're going to give the element as soon as it's over. They're not going to spend more than a second or two worrying about an element that already happened -- just put in the score, or make a note to come back to it at the end (e.g., if they're waiting to see if the tech panel downgrades a jump)
They already tried #1 and the judges complained of boredom!
They've already done #2 and Joe Inman got blasted for it!
Jackie Wong said in his article, "The technical specialist is the person who identifies the error as a fall, and then the technical panel votes on whether or not it should be counted as a fall. The technical panel is made up of three people, the technical controller, the technical specialist, and the assistant technical specialist." I am confused. Does that mean there will be no vote if the technical specialist does NOT call out a "fall" in the first place? If so, it's easy for a "lenient" specialist to manipulate the outcomes, isn't it? Also, how do they "vote"? Anonymously, or through discussion like "I think we should give him the benefit of doubt. What do you think?" If there is a brief talk before the "vote", group dynamics (e.g., conformity to the "leader", to a friend, or to whoever expresses his judgment first) would play a significant role.
Last edited by skatinginbc; 02-16-2012 at 09:37 AM.
The new judging system is a logical product of globalization and standardization. Minimum of originality, individuality and quality. Maximum of effectiveness, predictiveness and control. MacDonalds on the Ice. That is where figure skating has turned out to be. (*for now, I hope).
Nice article I think:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...bd33d3df72b0fa
A compromise -- assuming that it were financially feasible to assign more officials -- could be to have one set of judges assigned to judge GOEs plus Skating Skills and Transitions (i.e., focusing on the technical execution of the elements and the technical content and execution of everything between the elements), and a second set to judge only Performance/Execution, Choreography, and Interpretation.
It probably needs to be done as official communications from the technical committees. It would also help to have clearer guidelines and training about how to assign specific numbers to the various other components completely independent of the Skating Skills score.They've already done #2 and Joe Inman got blasted for it!
I think it's much easier to get consensus among skating experts about what constitutes 5.0 or 7.0 or 9.0 skating skills than it is to figure out what level of choreography or interpretation would correspond to those numbers.
Maybe some professional practitioners, theorists, and critics of the visual and performing arts could offer some guidance on how to evaluate those aspects of skating performances on a scale of 1 to 10. (Even though art is rarely competitive and rarely scored numerically for such purposes)
Obviously a skater with more skating skill would have better possibilities for scoring well in the other areas, but it should come down to how they actually use those skills for those purposes that day
Here's a scale used in Dressage - another judged and some what subjective sport:
10 Excellent
9 Very good
8 Good
7 Fairly good
6 Satisfactory
5 Sufficient
4 Insufficient
3 Fairly Bad
2 Bad
1 Very bad
0 Not performed
It is used to evaluate each individual move - sometimes with a coefficient, as well as to provide overall scores for the horse and rider (similar to PCS in away)
It helps me relate to the numbers - A good triple lutz or a satisfactory triple lutz or maybe an excellent one?
Last edited by ivy; 02-16-2012 at 11:21 AM.
That's similar to the way the 0-10 scale is defined for program components (aspects of the whole performance) under IJS
http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/...-0-file,00.pdf
Then there are some more detailed lists of what's supposed to be considered under each component
http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/...-0-file,00.pdf
But what there isn't a document for is how to apply the numbers to the specific criteria. What do the percentages in that colored scale actually represent? Amount of time alone isn't sufficient because I would think that meeting the criteria in an in-depth detailed way 90% of the time interrupted only to telegraph the hardest jumps would be worth more than superficial involvement 100% of the time
I would want more guidance. Judge training seminars and experience can help provide more language and more examples, but unless it's in an official document not all judges will work with the same trainers or get the same experience
Skating historically used a 0-6 scale similar to the above for figures and later for whole programs
With IJS, the individual elements are on a similar scale, essentially
+3 excellent
+2 very good
+1 good
0 satisfactory
-1 minor flaw
-2 two minor flaws or one moderate flaw
-3 serious and/or multiple flaw(s)
The negative grades can get complicated because there are other penalties for poor performance in addition to the GOEs (downgrades, lower levels than attempted, fall deductions, extended lift deductions in dance). And even 0 and +1 grades sometimes reflect punishable minor flaws reducing what would otherwise be a higher positive grade
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks