How Would You Explain And Apply GOE Rules?

[Bluebonnet]

To continue the discussion regarding to GOE rules from "What are you looking forward to most this season?" thread, I copied a part from ISU Communication 1724:

SINGLE SKATING

JUMP ELEMENTS

Errors for which final GOE must be in the minuses:

SP: One or more rev. less than required GOE -3
SP: Combo consisting of one jump only GOE -3
Downgraded (sign << ) -2 to -3
SP: No required steps/movements preceding Jump -3
Fall -3
Landing on two feet in a jump -3
Stepping out of landing in a jump -2 to -3
Touch down with both hands in a jump -2
2 three turns in between (jump combo) -2
SEVERE WRONG EDGE TAKE-OFF F/Lz (sign “e”) -2 to -3

Errors for which final GOE is not restricted:

Poor speed, height, distance, air position -1 to -2
Lacking rotation (no sign) -1
Under-rotated (sign < ) -1 to -2
SP: Break between required steps/movements & jump/only one step/movement preceding jump -1 to -2
Poor take-off -1 to -2
Loss of flow/rhythm between jumps (combo/seq.) -1 to -2
Weak landing (bad pos./wrong edge/scratching etc) -1 to -2
Long preparation -1 to -2
Touch down with one hand or free foot -1
UNCLEAR EDGE TAKE-OFF F/Lz (sign “e”) -1 to -2

It also says:

Elements with no Value are indicated to the Panel of Judges. GOE of such elements does not influence the result. In case of multiple errors the corresponding reduction are added.

By the way, I question whether this -3 GOEs on "landing on two feet in a jump" is a typo or not because in the same document, further down to Pairs Skating, you could see that there is only -2 GOE deduction for "Starting or landing on two feet in a jump".

My question is how would you apply these rules to a jump element which contains not just one but multi-errors?

[Mathman]

The -3 GOE for "landing on two feet" is not a typo, because if you compare the latest rules with the rules that came out in 2011 (ISU communication 1611), the -3 is there, too (for the first time). in earlier rules the penalty was less. I don't know why this is more heavily penalized in singles than in pairs -- I guess jumping is more of a "singles skill." I would imagine that the judges would be especially lenient in the case of a throw jump.

The GOEs do add, but no matter what you can't get more than a floor of -3 no matter grow many mistakes you make on the element. I think it goes like this. If you did two three turns between your two jumps in a combo (-2) and put a hand down on the landing (-2), that would still just give you a -3 overall.

Except for doubling an intended triple in the short program and committing the second jump of a combo in the short program (automatic -3 GOE no matter what), the negative GOEs can also be balanced to some extent by positive features. So you could get, say, -3 for a fall, but if the jump had exceptional height and distance, that's +1 so you end up with -2 GOE for the element.

I think in practice the judges have quite a bit of leeway in putting the final numbers together.

Under-rotation also affects the base value, but that is another thing.

[Bluebonnet]

Thanks, Math!

I guess in reality, two huge mistakes in one element which would get double -3 penalties rarely happen. So -3 GOE cap will be fine in most of the cases. Besides, a -3 element might have a chance to get positive GOEs. So its final GOEs would be higher than -3. A jump with two foot landing might get final GOEs in -3, -2, or -1. A jump with a fall might get final GOEs in -3, or -2. A jump without required steps/movements preceding the jump might get final GOEs in -3, -2, or -1. A jump with two foot landing then fall will probably get final GOEs in -3. It seems starting to make sense.

ETA:

So where is the unfair play in the rule like someone insisted?

[Mathman]

By the way, another thing to keep in mind is that when the judge hits the botton for "-3 GOE" that means different things for different elements, and it never means "take away three points" except for a quad or triple Axel.

A -3 GOE on a triple Lutz means take away 2.1 points, but a -3 on an upright spin (any level) means take away 0.9 points. A +3 GOE on an upright spin means add 1.5 points.

I think that what the controversy is about is that a fall is treated pretty much the same way as other types of errors, whereas some people think that a fall is so terrible that it should be severely hammered, maybe even to the point of negating the whole jump.

IMHO the basic problem in figure skating judging comes down to this. In many sports it is an either/or deal. Either the puck goes into the net or it doesn't. But in figure skating you try to measure along a continuum. This triple Lutz was a little better than that one but not as good as the other one. This quad had some positive feature and some negative. I belive that in CoP judging, as in 6.0, in the end the judges go with their gut rather than with a precise analysis of the details of the guidelines.

[mskater93]

So where is the unfair play in the rule like someone insisted?

The unfair play in many minds is that a jump without preceeding steps and a two foot landing = -3 GOE and a jump without preceeding steps is *supposed* to be a -3 GOE; the first one had MORE problems with it but it looks the same in the "box scores", kind of like in baseball if you hit a blooper between the base and the short stop and beat out the throw because it was tricky to get a single or if you hit a line drive with one bounce to the left fielder to get it single, it looks the same in the box score the next day.

I believe GOEs should have gradients better than 1 point differentials (either 1/2 or 1/4 points) and that there should be a minimum for a type of error but a way to grade something so severely bad/lacking to differentiate it from an *almost* jump where it's pretty close to the definition but something minor went awry. Right now by writing the rules as they did, basically there is no differentiation.

[Olympia]

Thanks, Math!

[Cherryy]

There is no differentiation in the single jump when it's two-footed to when it's two-footed with a fall or just two-footed more badly, which may seem unfair and strange. But there's a simple solution. Judges can give less points in skating skills and execution for a skater who had a worse fall. It does not have to be a huge difference but it would make sense and be a bit more fair. We may not see it, but who knows if the judges haven't already done it. That would also make sense as a program with a blatant fall is actually executed poorlier.

[gkelly]

There is no differentiation in the single jump when it's two-footed to when it's two-footed with a fall or just two-footed more badly, which may seem unfair and strange.

Well, if it's two-footed with a fall, then the skater will also get a fall deduction in addition to the -3 GOE.

The worse errors are more likely to occur on underrotated jumps, so then the skater would also lose points in the base mark in addition to the -GOE.

If there is very little weight on the free foot, which comes down only briefly after landing on the correct foot, that would be considered a "touchdown" of the free foot, not "landing on two feet," so the GOE reduction only needs to be -1, and the final GOE doesn't even need to be negative if there are enough other good things about the element.

Putting the free foot down, with or without a turn, after landing on the correct foot only would be "stepping out of the landing," not "landing on two feet," so the reduction could be either -2 or -3.

And again, if there are enough other good aspects to the element, the final GOE could be as high as -1.

Still, if there is no fall and the amount of rotation is the same category (either full value, underrotated, or downgraded), and there are no mitigating positive aspects of the jump, then yes, severe and less severe examples of the same -3 error would both take the same penalty.

But there's a simple solution. Judges can give less points in skating skills and execution for a skater who had a worse fall. It does not have to be a huge difference but it would make sense and be a bit more fair. We may not see it, but who knows if the judges haven't already done it. That would also make sense as a program with a blatant fall is actually executed poorlier.

Yes, that option is available to judges. If they think one mistake is especially disruptive, or if they see lots of little weaknesses throughout that may not require additional reductions in GOE (or if the GOEs are already at -3), they can still reflect the disruptions and weaknesses with lower scores for the program components affected. That's more subjective, but some subjectivity is inevitable when dealing with qualitative evaluations.

[Bluebonnet]

The unfair play in many minds is that a jump without preceeding steps and a two foot landing = -3 GOE and a jump without preceeding steps is *supposed* to be a -3 GOE; the first one had MORE problems with it but it looks the same in the "box scores",...

Has anyone seen a jump without required preceding steps + two foot landing before?

[gkelly]

Sure. And if it's a lutz or flip it could have a wrong edge takeoff as well.

[Bluebonnet]

Sure. And if it's a lutz or flip it could have a wrong edge takeoff as well.

Then why do they give a cap of -3, not -4, At least to reflect more than one mistake have been made?

[Cherryy]

Then why do they give a cap of -3, not -4, At least to reflect more than one mistake have been made?

It's not possible to give someone GOE lower than -3 or higher than 3. The think about adding some mistakes or good qualities of a jump exists only, when deductions are lower than -3. For example, if you touch the ice with both hands (-2) and do a three turn in between the combo (-2) you will get -3 as a GOE, (although (-2) + (-2) equals -4) because it just can't be lower.

If the jump has a poor speed (-1) and lacks rotation a bit (-1) the final GOE for this jump would be -2. But if the skater jumped really high, judges can add +1 GOE because of that and final GOE would be -1 only. That's how it works when you mentioned adding GOEs. You have to remember, that GOE lower than -3 or higher than +3 just doesn't exist. That's why we all think it's not fair sometimes to give -3 for one mistakes and -3 for a bigger mistake, but you just can't give someone -5. Do you understand now?

[mskater93]

Then why do they give a cap of -3, not -4, At least to reflect more than one mistake have been made?

Because it's +3 to -3 as a range by rule.

[Bluebonnet]

It's not possible to give someone GOE lower than -3 or higher than 3. The think about adding some mistakes or good qualities of a jump exists only, when deductions are lower than -3. For example, if you touch the ice with both hands (-2) and do a three turn in between the combo (-2) you will get -3 as a GOE, (although (-2) + (-2) equals -4) because it just can't be lower.

If the jump has a poor speed (-1) and lacks rotation a bit (-1) the final GOE for this jump would be -2. But if the skater jumped really high, judges can add +1 GOE because of that and final GOE would be -1 only. That's how it works when you mentioned adding GOEs. You have to remember, that GOE lower than -3 or higher than +3 just doesn't exist. That's why we all think it's not fair sometimes to give -3 for one mistakes and -3 for a bigger mistake, but you just can't give someone -5. Do you understand now?

That was not what I was asking.

Because it's +3 to -3 as a range by rule.

You both have misunderstood my meaning, sorry.

I knew there was a cap of -3 in the rules and the range is from +3 to -3, and it cannot go lower according to the rule. What I was asking was why? Why does the rule set up it at +3 to -3, but not set up at +4 to -4 in order to measure more than one error, or more than one good thing for that matter?

[mskater93]

Because someone felt +3 to -3 should be the range but didn't really think hard about the delineation of what that really means now that they are trying to put hard limits on things (this MUST be a -3, this MUST be a...)