How Would You Explain And Apply GOE Rules?

gkelly said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's fair this way. It's to punish the most advanced skaters more than the less skilled skaters. I think it might hurt the sport side of the skating.

gkelly said:

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.

Click to expand...

This method is what I've always been thinking of. What if we give -1 fall deduction for the first fall, -1.5 for the second, and -2 for the third, and so on? Will that be OK for both high level and low level skaters?

mskater93 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Could you please elaborate it? Thanks!

So instead of 1 point for each fall, you deduct 1% off the entire TSS per fall. So, if the skater falls one time and the TSS is 200 points, the loss of score is 1% or 2 points and will score a 198. If the total program is worth 45 points, you deduct 1% off the TSS or 0.45 points and score 44.55 points. To implement it would be simple, you change the 1 to an algorithm in IJScalc that multiplies TSS by 1% and then deducts it off the TSS

gkelly said:

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

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.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think the PCSs are working pretty well. Maybe a little "grade inflation" lately at the highest end.

However, both the GOEs and the PCSs show the split personality of the IJS. On the one hand they would like everything to be spelled out in the rule book so that the only thing the judges have to do is add up well-defined pluses and minuses. On the other hand, that is not humanly posssible, in addition to running counter to the nature of a judged sport. So here we are.

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.

Click to expand...

Bluebonnet said:

This method is what I've always been thinking of. What if we give -1 fall deduction for the first fall, -1.5 for the second, and -2 for the third, and so on? Will that be OK for both high level and low level skaters?

Click to expand...

The problem I see with that suggestion is that it runs exactly counter to the basic idea of the score for technical elements. That is, each element is judged on its own. You should not get a higher or lower score for your triple Axel in the second half of the program because you made a mistake on your quad at the beginning.

I think the idea proposed by mskater93 deserves consideration. But I think the judges can do that anyway without re-writing the rule book. That is, thay can say to themselves, "He fell all over the ice; he deserves substantially lower program components scores across the board."

Another thought: If one of the "errors" contributing to -3 final GOE for a solo jump in the short program is lack of preceding steps, that lack could also be reflected with a lower score in the Transitions component.

Several good suggestions here - but none that might help make the scoring even slightly easier for casual fans to understand.

Is it just a foregone conclusion that casual viewers don't get the CoP very well so no point in making the system less complex?

janetfan said:

Several good suggestions here - but none that might help make the scoring even slightly easier for casual fans to understand.

Is it just a foregone conclusion that casual viewers don't get the CoP very well so no point in making the system less complex?

Click to expand...

I think if anyone who are interested in a sport enough, they should take their time to learn something about it's scoring system. A sport like figure skating is as complicated as the scoring system made it to be if you want it to be an Olympic sport. I think the complication of the scoring will remain no matter if the sport is popular or not. And this sport might prosper or shrink but it won't die.

Bluebonnet said:

I think if anyone who are interested in a sport enough, they should take their time to learn something about it's scoring system. A sport like figure skating is as complicated as the scoring system made it to be if you want it to be an Olympic sport. I think the complication of the scoring will remain no matter if the sport is popular or not. And this sport might prosper or shrink but it won't die.

Click to expand...

Figure skating was an Olympic sport long before the CoP.

In all the years I watched skating it was never necessary for the announcer to tell the audience, "make sure you have your calculator handy" or "you will need to have a computer and internet service to try and understand how the scores were arrived at for today's event."

I watch gymnastics and don't feel nearly as puzzled by the scoring system.

It's a different sport but the CoP seems to work so much better for gymnastics than skating.

Micro-managing the scoring for falls (severely I might add ) might make for an interesting discussion at a skatingboard but would most likely have TV viewers reaching for their clickers. That's if they were even watching in the first place.

Anyway, I don't watch cricket coz I don't understand the rules. I am sure the same is true for figure skating these days.

Part of the topic here asked "how would you explain it"?
I like to think how it would be explained to the TV audience....

janetfan said:

Several good suggestions here - but none that might help make the scoring even slightly easier for casual fans to understand.

Is it just a foregone conclusion that casual viewers don't get the CoP very well so no point in making the system less complex?

Click to expand...

I don't know much about the scoring of other judged sports (or even about US football, for that matter). If I cared enough about any of those sports to become a serious fan rather than casual viewer, I would make the effort to learn. As long as I consider my interest casual, I'll just get a rough overview from the TV commentators and enjoy watching the athletes do their thing and try to get a rough idea of what helps or hurts their results. But the fact that my understanding is only rough and I don't always understand why one athlete placed ahead of another isn't the fault of those sports. As long as the athletes understand their results, it would be my responsibility to learn more if I want to understand more.

Unless you're invested in learning more about the sport and how it's scored, there isn't an easy way to rank multiple athletes performing multiple different kinds of skills by a system that's simple and easily transparent.

Casual skating viewers didn't understand ordinals very well either, and factored placements could cause confusion whenever overall standings were announced after long programs without separating out the long program placements, especially if there were flipflops involved. And those complexities had more to do with math than with skating technique.

For 6.0 judging, TV commentators could say that all skaters were judged against a perfect mark of 6.0, with two marks (technical and artistic/presentation) for each program; that the scoring was comparative against other skaters in the same event; that the actual scores didn't matter but only served as placeholders for ordinal rankings; the skater with the most first-place ordinals wins that phase of the event; and the free program counts for two-thirds of the final score (or one-half, in events with more than two phases).

That seems simple enough, and the expectation would be that the casual viewer really only cares about the medal placements, but there were often other wrinkles and exceptions to the general summary. If they affected the placements of skaters the TV networks thought viewers might care about, the commentators might take the time to explain. Otherwise viewers who were paying attention and did care but didn't have access to explanations outside of what they were told on TV were confused.
Similarly for spectators at live events when the mixes of ordinals and factored placements behaved in more complicated ways than the explanation in the event program could cover, or when they didn't have an explanation in the program or didn't read it, or when overall standings but not long program standings were announced.

For IJS, the commentators can say something like "Skaters earn points for what they do (each element as called by the technical is assigned a base value depending on difficulty) and how they do it (judges award grades of execution from -3 to +3 to reflect errors or elements that are especially well done). The base values plus the grades of execution make up the Technical Elements Score. Then the judges also score each performance as a whole on a scale of 0 to 10 in five areas that together make up the Program Components score. The scores for Technical Elements and Program Components are added together, there may be deductions for falls or rule violations, and that produces the total score for that segment of the competition.

That should give casual viewers the gist of what's going on.

If they want to know more, they need to find sources of information outside what TV commentators can provide during a live play-by-play. Same goes for understanding what judges considered under the criteria for each mark under 6.0 and what all the short program deductions were, not just the most blatant ones.

I.e., if they really want to understand on more than a casual level, they will need to do some outside reading and/or spend time in rinks watching and learning. TV networks can help with explanatory segments at the beginning of broadcasts or during resurfaces of live events, replays after each skate, analyses of confusing points after the fact. That will help the TV fans who want to learn more, but too much might turn off more casual fans who are happy to keep their interest casual and just enjoy the exciting tricks and pretty movement.

So I'd really like to see TV broadcasts do a better job of pointing viewers to other resources where they can learn more -- on the network's website, on the federations' websites, mentioning useful books and videos, etc. Telling interested viewers where to find the protocols online would be a big help, but of course they first need to understand how to read the protocols.

Federations can help by providing explanatory material in programs, in announcements and displays of scores and standings, maybe educational video clips (or live demonstrations) in the arena during events that attract paying fans.

I don't like some of the "judgment calls/rules" of football, but I still learn the basics to keep up with ref calls... figure skating is the only completely judged sport I follow, and I don't study up on the new CoP changes every year... don't care to... and I still follow along just fine. :scratch: I don't really see the argument that all enjoyment of the sport comes strictly from how it's scored.

Tonichelle said:

I don't like some of the "judgment calls/rules" of football, but I still learn the basics to keep up with ref calls... figure skating is the only completely judged sport I follow, and I don't study up on the new CoP changes every year... don't care to... and I still follow along just fine. :scratch: I don't really see the argument that all enjoyment of the sport comes strictly from how it's scored.

Click to expand...

That is a good point which I think might not go far enough......

Do the vast majority of folks watching skating do so primarily to see rotated vs under-rotated jumps?
Do they watch primarily to see the scores and how the tech panel rated the jumps?

We all know back when skating had the big tV ratings and packed arenas it was something else about skating that captured their imagination.

Some could say it was the music or the costumes. Others might think it was the skater's personality that made them a fan.
But we still have that today......

Presentation used to count for alot....like 50% of the score.

Presentation has several aspects but they were the things the majority of skating fans enjoyed and the reason they watched.

Under CoP the "Presentation" value has been greatly reduced.
It is the reason why we saw the Men's podium booed at Worlds last season.

I don't think the fans were against Patrick - but without doubt they were against the scoring system that placed him first.

From time to time I read here that Kwan was a "flutzer" or that she never mastered more than one 3x3.

News flash - that has nothing to do with why Michelle was such a beloved skater.
She was a great performer with an elegant skating style and that is why so many fans loved her.


If I complain too much - OK, way too much ) it is because I don't like seeing skating slipping so far under the radar in N. America.

Has it slipped much in Canada (or Mexico) compared to 10 years ago?

gkelly said:

Has it slipped much in Canada (or Mexico) compared to 10 years ago?

Click to expand...

A few Canadians claim skating is more popular than ever in Canada but my impression from seeing the attendance at SC, remarks from Patrick and Toller, not enough interest/money for Canada to have a senior B event .......

I have no idea whether skating is up or down in Mexico but do kow it has never been popular there the way it was in USA or Canada.

janetfan said:

A few Canadians claim skating is more popular than ever in Canada

Click to expand...

I'd very much like to see you bring the evidence to support your this statement which I don't think you could find.

Bluebonnet said:

I'd very much like to see you bring the evidence to support your this statement which I don't think you could find.

Click to expand...

You already forgot how Chan told us that he makes next to nothing being WC from Canada?
Something like he barely covers his expenses?

Why is that :think:

Do I need to dig up that interview for you or others who read this board

I watched several clips from SC last year and the arena looked small and only half full at times.

Not like it used to be.....

If attendance is lower at Skate Canada now than at a comparable time in the past, that would be one indication that skating has slipped under the radar in Canada.

Lack of funding for a senior B wouldn't really say anything one way or another about skating's place on the radar, considering there wasn't a senior B there at any past date to compare to.

When you said "North America" in your previous post, I think you probably meant mainly the US.

We've argued before that there are many reasons why skating is less popular with audiences in the US now than 10 or 20 years ago. I don't think anyone would argue that it is less popular now than 30+ years ago.

Some of those reasons have absolutely nothing to do with skating itself and more to do with changes in media and changes in other sports and other forms of entertainment.

Other reasons are definitely about skating but not about the scoring system.

If the goal is to increase popularity with audiences, then let's look (in another thread) at varying ways to increase popularity with audiences of the sport as it now exists.

Undoubtedly there will be small changes to the scoring every year and someday there will be other significant changes. But they should be developed in relation to what the athletes are doing, not to some marketer's idea of what audiences who don't know a lutz from a mohawk might want to see.

janetfan said:

You already forgot how Chan told us that he makes next to nothing being WC from Canada?
Something like he barely covers his expenses?

Why is that :think:

Do I need to dig up that interview for you or others who read this board

I watched several clips from SC last year and the arena looked small and only half full at times.

Not like it used to be.....

Click to expand...

I'm really confused what you were saying.

In your statement, you said "A few" which means several. So you meant several Canadians said skating is more popular than ever in Canada. Then you used "But" which means you did not agree with those several Canadians on that.

If you said "Few Canadians claim skating is more popular than ever in Canada", then it would be the opposit meaning. Then again, you should not have used "but".

Am I not right?

gkelly said:

If attendance is lower at Skate Canada now than at a comparable time in the past, that would be one indication that skating has slipped under the radar in Canada.

Lack of funding for a senior B wouldn't really say anything one way or another about skating's place on the radar, considering there wasn't a senior B there at any past date to compare to.

When you said "North America" in your previous post, I think you probably meant mainly the US.

We've argued before that there are many reasons why skating is less popular with audiences in the US now than 10 or 20 years ago. I don't think anyone would argue that it is less popular now than 30+ years ago.

Some of those reasons have absolutely nothing to do with skating itself and more to do with changes in media and changes in other sports and other forms of entertainment.

Other reasons are definitely about skating but not about the scoring system.

If the goal is to increase popularity with audiences, then let's look (in another thread) at varying ways to increase popularity with audiences of the sport as it now exists.

Undoubtedly there will be small changes to the scoring every year and someday there will be other significant changes. But they should be developed in relation to what the athletes are doing, not to some marketer's idea of what audiences who don't know a lutz from a mohawk might want to see.

Click to expand...

I meant USA and Canada......but not Mexico.

My comments were directed in response to the Topic header that asked "how would you explain it" regarding the GOE's.

You did attempt to answer that and your comments were pretty good but I don't think the idea of "self-education" works in reality any better than Romney's idea of "self-deportation" as a solution to immigation problems.

I think if US Skating came up with a good way for NBC to present the CoP to fans it would be a good thing.
So far I don't think they have and don't think they can explain it in the time that couldbe alloted during a typical broadcast.

I am with Toni on this and will still watch skating this season whether I am up to date or not on the new GOE rules.

In my wildest dreams I can't imagine how most viewers will get it though - and don't see that as a good thing - or as a way to grow the sport.

I like mskater's idea best but mostly because it is an attempt to streamline it.

You made some good points as well....but I did disagree with a comment you made several posts ago......something like too much GOE makes it a little subjective.

Isn;t GOE purely subjective?
And the more it is used the more subjective the scoring becomes :think:

Bluebonnet said:

I'm really confused what you were saying.

In your statement, you said "A few" which means several. So you meant several Canadians said skating is more popular than ever in Canada. Then you used "But" which means you did not agree with those several Canadians on that.

If you said "Few Canadians claim skating is more popular than ever in Canada", then it would be the opposit meaning. Then again, you should not have used "but".

Am I not right?

Click to expand...

If it will end this discussion ...I emphatically say yes.

janetfan said:

If it will end this discussion ...

Click to expand...

Not unless you say you were wrong about your assertion, or to better save yourself, just say that you didn't mean to say that way.

If you say a jump is worth 5 points and the jump was done well it could be worth 7 or if it was poorly it would be worth 3 but you don't really know until all the scores are released. So you hava a landed jump maybe with a hand down and gets all GOE but so many years of 6.0 was all about flawed jumps being a total loss. Last 6.0 Olympics was 2002 and now there have been 2 Olympics with with factors like GOE and PCS and TES and spins that have points and step sequences that have points. With gynmastics movie from a perfect 10 to a dedecution system from 10 it seems to have been fine. But skating is not like that at all the scoring is much more wild. In gymnastics there is a D and E score but it's funny that it seems to be more accepted. But with figure skating the D score of elements and e score of goe is not as clear becaue the E score does not affect the entire routine like 6.0 was about the entire routine but every single element and it is only based on 3.