How Would You Explain And Apply GOE Rules? | Golden Skate

How Would You Explain And Apply GOE Rules?

Bluebonnet

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
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?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
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

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
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.:p

ETA:

So where is the unfair play in the rule like someone insisted?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
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

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
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.
 

Cherryy

On the Ice
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
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

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
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

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
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?
 

Cherryy

On the Ice
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
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? :)
 

Bluebonnet

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
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?
 
Last edited:

mskater93

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
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...)
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
To expand on what mskater93 just said, I think that at the beginning of the CoP there was just a range of 7 categories from -3 to +3, with -3 being terrible and +3 being amazing. Seven seems to be about the right number of categories that human judges can classify things into with some degree of consistency. (In fact, one of the criticisms of the program component scoring is that judges must classify performances into 1 of 40 categories, from 0.00 up to 10.00 in increments of 0.25.)

But over the years the judging panels were not consistent or unanimous about why a particular element deserved a -1 or a -2, or deserved a 0 or +1. Each year the ISU made the criteria more and more objective. They instituted specific deductions for particular kinds of errors, and on the plus side they required the judges to keep track of how many positive bullets the skater achieved on each element. They also manipulated the GOE rules in order the force skaters to correct certain faults, like wrong edge takeoffs and especially under-rotation.

I think Bluebonnet has a great point. That was then, but what should we do now? If the penalties strictly added without a floor of -3, then a jump with several serious errors could lose up to the whole base value and end up with no credit for a deeply flawed and highly unsuccessful attempt. I think this would be a step in the right direction and provide a response to critics who say that the judging system babies the athletes with too much partial credit for failed attempts. (Joesitz hasn't posted in a while -- I hope he is hale and hearty.)
 

Bluebonnet

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
That was then, but what should we do now? If the penalties strictly added without a floor of -3, then a jump with several serious errors could lose up to the whole base value and end up with no credit for a deeply flawed and highly unsuccessful attempt. I think this would be a step in the right direction and provide a response to critics who say that the judging system babies the athletes with too much partial credit for failed attempts. (Joesitz hasn't posted in a while -- I hope he is hale and hearty.)

That was what I was trying to say, Math! But I haven't figured out how to say it clearly and correctly. You are brilliant!:bow:

However, there might be something which could not satisfy the biggest critics of all - the fall. If we add up all the mistakes and minus the GOEs according to the rules, the element with the most errors will disappear in the final result. But an element with a fall but no other errors will still get some credit for the rotations in the air.:)

To me, a fall is acceptable. It represents of pushing the envelopes, and the limits in the name of "sport". But too many falls in a single program should be more heavily punished in order to balance the performance side of the sport.
 
Last edited:

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
To expand on what mskater93 just said, I think that at the beginning of the CoP there was just a range of 7 categories from -3 to +3, with -3 being terrible and +3 being amazing. Seven seems to be about the right number of categories that human judges can classify things into with some degree of consistency.

I was waiting for you to chime in with that response.

(In fact, one of the criticisms of the program component scoring is that judges must classify performances into 1 of 40 categories, from 0.00 up to 10.00 in increments of 0.25.)

I don't know what the best response is to that objection.

I could think it through, but probably better in a thread about PCS than this one that's supposed to be about GOEs.


I think Bluebonnet has a great point. That was then, but what should we do now? If the penalties strictly added without a floor of -3, then a jump with several serious errors could lose up to the whole base value and end up with no credit for a deeply flawed and highly unsuccessful attempt. I think this would be a step in the right direction and provide a response to critics who say that the judging system babies the athletes with too much partial credit for failed attempts.

There are certain kinds of errors that result in larger penalties than just -3 GOE:

*falls also get a fall deduction; for lower-value elements that are worth less than 1.0 after -3 GOE is applied, the net effect of the attempt on the overall score is less than 0

*underrotated and downgraded jumps get a lower base mark

*"popped" jumps that were required to be at least double but come out as single (or required to be at least triple and come out as single or double) also get a lower base mark

*spins and step sequences and various leveled pair elements that include errors that interfere with executing features at all, or well enough to count, result in lower levels and therefore lower base mark

*elements that are flawed in ways that they don't meet the definition of a "listed" element at all (e.g., an axel popped to a waltz jump, a spin with fewer than 3 revolutions) get no credit at all

*elements that are flawed in ways that they don't meet the definition of what is required for that element slot, especially in short programs, get no credit at all

*intended combination elements that are flawed in ways that split them into two separate elements result in the second half of that element and/or a completely different element later in the program get no credit at all (This is probably not a good thing in long programs)

That leaves elements that still qualify for their full base mark as intended but have multiple errors that would add up to worse than -3 but can't be penalized more than -3 GOE under the current rules. We have thought of some examples -- e.g., a solo SP jump with no preceding steps, two-foot landing/step out, and/or wrong edge takeoff.

If there are several such errors or if one is especially disruptive, some judges might also penalize it in one or more of the program components.

Otherwise, if you have two skaters who execute approximately the same content, each with one failed element that is approximately equally disruptive (or not), but one of them had only -3 worth of error and another had several errors that would add up to -4, -5, or -6, there isn't a good way to distinguish between those two elements. So their respective results will depend on what else they did and how well the judges thought they did those other things.

However, there might be something which could not satisfy the biggest critics of all - the fall. If we add up all the mistakes and minus the GOEs according to the rules, the element with the most errors will disappear in the final result. But an element with a fall but no other errors will still get some credit for the rotations in the air.:)

To me, a fall is acceptable. It represents of pushing the envelopes, and the limits in the name of "sport". But too many falls in a single program should be more heavily punished in order to balance the performance side of the sport.

We've discussed this before. A program with multiple falls is likely to have lower program component scores than it would have had with no falls or only one, but that difference might not be significant compared to the base mark for the program if it includes many fully rotated difficult jumps, successful as well as unsuccessful.

The trick is to find ways to penalize them in ways that are commensurate with the value of the elements and also with the disruption to the program regardless of the level of content in that program.

I would first recommend going back to the larger negative GOE increments for triple axels and quads (-3 = 4.5 points off) that were in place ca. 2010. That would affect only those skaters who are benefitting from the high values for rotating those jumps without successful completion and wouldn't trickle down to skaters who are doing only doubles and easier triples.

An additional possibility would be to prorate the fall deduction somehow, so that a first fall would have a smaller deduction and each subsequent fall in the same program would lose more points. But if you make it 1.0 for a first offense, 2.0 for the second, 3.0 for the third, etc., that would have disproportionate effect at the lower skill levels compared to the quad jumpers who earn most of the complaints for winning with falls. On the other hand, if you make it 0.5 for a first fall, 1.0 for the second, 1.5 for the third, etc., that would actually result in less penalty than now for elite seniors who fall once or twice, although it would probably be more appropriate for average novice level and below, where most jumps are doubles.
 

mskater93

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
I've always suggested falls be punished with a defined percentage reduction per fall from either total TES value or TSS value. This would make a skater weigh the risk/reward factor of the entire content of the program AND if they used a percentage deduction of TSS, it would show a punishment to both marks for a fall (this is an area that a lot of people feel things AREN'T being considered with a multiple fall program by judges due to the need for corridor marking to keep from coming under scrutiny - how can you have a high PE mark around your "normal clean program score" if you just fell three times? You didn't EXECUTE well but you just got a 9.25 for PE! What were they going to give you for PE if you didn't fall? 12 on a 10 point scale?)
This would also make the punishment less painful at the lower levels (like at the Juvenile level when the winning program is around 45 points total where a 1 point deduction is 2.2% of the total score versus a Senior Men's FS worth around 200 points where it would be 0.5% of the total score) and encourage risk/reward throughout.
 
Top