Base Value and GOE: Double Rewards or Penalties?
This is my first post even though I have been here for quite awhile. I really enjoy your guys' wonderful posts.
I have been very puzzled by the Base Value and GOE. If a 3-3 is downgraded, the base value gets deducted, and mostly GOE is a less as well. It could result a huge difference in the result by a single element. One example is Chan's jumps vs. Kevin Renolds' in this worlds.
Does anyone feel this is too much? Or just me.
At the rink. Again.
No, but there should be more penalty for disruptions to the program (ie, noticeable errors like falls).
It isn't too much at all. And URed jumps should receive the base value of like 50%, not 70% IMO.
At the rink. Again.
70% for mostly rotated (1/4-1/2 short) is OK - the skater has done most of the work on the element and GOE is almost always negative.
Downgrade for 1/2 or more is somewhat harsh, though, IMO. This should be 50% BV and an automatic -2 or worse.
PS: Reynolds didn't deserve a big score in the LP and IMO was somewhat overscored on PCS in the SP as well. While I didn't think Chan should have won overall (that would be D10 in my mind), he should have been on the podium somewhere with the stellar-ness of his SP and the other aspects of the LP that WERE good (the two opening quads, for example)
Welcome, Jay Jay! Thanks for the thread.
Never. There is a very good reason for the increased credit given to 1/4-underrotated jumps. 2010 Worlds was the epitome of what was wrong with the way jumps were credited/downgraded.
Originally Posted by Moment
I agree with Jay's original point, though. If you do a 3Lz, the base value is 6.0 points. If you under-rotate slightly you might get -.7 GOE.
If you do a 3Lz<, the under-rotation is already taken into account in the reduction of base value. To take off more, it seems like you would have to say that is was an under-rotaed 3Lz< (say, 170 degrees short), not just a plain 3Lz< (120 degrees short).
What they could do is stop showing judges the < and << calls so judges would no longer be required to reduce the GOE for jumps that look clean to them in real time.
That way a jump that is otherwise good, with flow out on the landing after the cheat, could still get positive or at least 0 GOE, and the only penalty would be the lower base mark.
But jumps that are obviously flawed will get negative GOE along with the lower base score.
Of course this means that if judges are seeing the jump from in real time from different angles, or if some of them have sharper eyesight than others along with being pickier about cheats to begin with, and more inclined to check replay when available, we could easily see GOEs ranging from +2 to -2 for the same element. If we're willing to live with such discrepancies, repeating the mantra "that's why there are 9 judges on the panel," this might be a good solution. Certainly it would be no less inconsistent than the variation in how judges evaluated individual jump landings under 6.0.
At least the base value penalty from the technical panel would remain standardized.