Should the Technical Panel call jump GOE?
The life of a judge is hard and stressful. You get only minutes to decide GOE and PCS for things that take even expert viewers quite a bit of discussion. Sometimes when in a hurry, a judge might be forced to completely make things up. It's a similar principle to overworked, stressed-out college students making up data in lab reports or making up inventive reasons for why their experiment went wrong (where you'll fail if you just write "we screwed it all up"). But what if the technical panel did GOE for the jumps? They can view things in slow motion and see all the flaws in detail. And would be less likely to just give out straight +1 for a good skater and straight +3 for a great skater when intoxicated. That also gives the other judges more time to mull over PCS and pay attention to the spins and steps, deciding whether they actually fit the music, had decent transitions, etc.
Not a bad idea. If they are deciding the GOE's for jumps, they should also decide them for other technical elements (spins, steps).
Of course, that would just make the lives of the tech panel members harder and more stressful.
Would they confer about the GOEs as well as the levels, or each give their own?
The reviews would take much more time, which would give the judges more time to think about the PCS based on memory of what they just saw, or just sit their waiting even longer than they do now for the tech panels to finish their job.
And the GOE bullet points about element matched to musical structure, etc., would become moot because the tech panels are not paying attention to the music, -- especially during replays, of course. Would there be ways to encourage judges to reward that even more than now under the CH and IN components?
Bona Fide Member
IIRC the ISU did try an experiment where they split the judges' panel into judges for GOEs and judges for PCSs. Both sets of judges complained that they did not have enough to do.
Theoretically, I think I understand the idea behind the current set-up. Quantity and quality. The tech team measures and the judges judge. Things that can be determined objectively, like number of degrees of rotation, or wrong edge take-offs, belong on the tech side. In principle, this is cut and dried and requires no judgement or interpretation.
The quality of an element, together with the quality of the program taken as a whole -- that requires judgement.
Maybe it would work better like this. Give the tech panel jurisdiction over Skating Skills and Transitions, and let the judges do choreography, interpretation, and presentation, along with GOEs?
Last edited by Mathman; 11-12-2013 at 11:23 PM.
Six Point Zero
The tech panel's job is a lot more demanding than the judges. This is particularly the case when counting features, revolutions and positions in spins, and when determining the level of the step sequence. Adding GOE on top of this is a bad idea, I think, since it gives the tech panel even more power than they already do, while overburdening them with too much to do in the short span of a program. I would imagine we'd actually get even less variation and thought put into each GOE, if this were implemented. Moreover, since the tech panels are often exclusively focused on the skating feet during elements, they'll miss other aspects that may add to GOE, as gkelly mentioned above, like elements being matched to the musical structure.
No, too much power to the three people already
My idea was something like the technical panel calling GOE for jumps and only jumps. I left out the GOE for other elements specifically because the rest of the judges would have more time to judge things like matching the musical structure, aesthetic/unaesthetic positions, etc.
Originally Posted by gkelly
Yes, it's true that they might miss things that add to GOE, but if you review the protocols from competitions in the last year, the judges handing out overgenerous GOE and missing things that should be subtracted is a far more pressing issue.
Originally Posted by Krislite
Examples? Where are you finding consistent patterns of judges missing things that should be subtracted?
Originally Posted by CarneAsada
If your problem is specifically with judges not taking necessary GOE reductions on, let's look at the different areas where this may be happening, and if it's a significant problem there may be other ways to address it.
Seems to me there are four categories of jump errors to be considered:
1) Final GOE must be -3
*One or more rev. less than required (SP only)
*Combo consisting of one jump only (SP only)
Yes, judges do occasionally miss these errors because the same element would not require -3 in a freeskate, or at a lower level where doubles are allowed, and in some cases it may actually be a high-quality element that would deserve positive GOE in a different context.
Maybe the tech panel could flag these specific short program errors (for the latter, the code +COMBO already exists, so it's just a matter of adding a code for single jumps or doubles where triple/quad is required) and the computer should be programmed to accept only -3 as the GOE for these flags.
2) Final GOE must be negative (reduction -2 to -3) and there is already a technical panel call with code.
*Severe wrong edge takeoff (e)
They could go back to using a different symbol (!) for unclear takeoff edge and program the computers to accept only -1, -2, or -3 as final GOE if there is << or e symbol.
If a judge had already entered 0 or positive GOE before the call and didn't go back to change it, the computer could automatically subtract -2 from whatever the judge had input.
Or there could be a flashing symbol on the screen that would force judges to go back and review that element and change the GOE to a negative value before the computer will accept their marks for program as a whole.
3) Errors for which the final GOE must be negative but there is no code from the tech panel.
*Landing on two feet
*Stepping out of a landing
*Touch down with both hands
*Two three turns in between combo
*Unequal number of revs. by partners (Pairs)
Have you consistently been seeing 0 or positive GOEs for any of these?
If so, maybe the tech panel should add a code -- perhaps T or 2 for two foot/two hands/two threes -- that would operate the same as described for the previous category.
4) Final GOE is not required to be negative
All other errors listed on the right side of the GOE reduction chart, with recommended reductions of -1 to -2.
The ISU has decided that these errors do not require negative final GOE -- they want to allow rewards for positive aspects of the jumps as well as reductions for these errors.
Do you agree with this principle but think that judges are inconsistent in applying it?
If so, maybe the tech panel should add more codes for these kinds of errors to prompt judges to take a reduction. This would be most applicable to the touchdown with free foot error, since if it's very slight it might not be noticeable in real time without video replay.
Are you fundamentally disagreeing with that principle? In that case, you'd have to change the rules first -- but you'd have to get the majority of the technical committee (or the majority of posters here) to agree with you that penalties for small to moderate errors should be harsher and positive aspects of slightly flawed jumps should not be rewarded. Good luck with that.
Either way -- whether the tech panel goes through an additional step of determining and inputting GOEs after they make the call, or the tech panel calls all errors with codes and the computer forces judges to go back and change earlier inputs to comply with required reductions -- the wait for scores after the program is over will be longer than is now the case.
Then there is a specific special case for short programs solo jumps that I have left out above:
*No required steps/movements preceding solo jump in SP (must be negative)
*Break between steps/movements and jump or only one step/movement before jump (-1 to -2 but need not be negative)
That one does more often tend to be missed. Especially when the skater makes an error on what should have been the combo jump and changes plan as to which element is the solo and which is the combo, so it's not clear until after the program.
It also sometimes happens with planned quads as solo jump, with nothing except simple stroking and a three turn or mohawk to get into the jump.
However, it's trickier to define what constitutes "No" steps or "Break" between steps and jump. Do you want to write specific guidelines that tech panels could apply, either to take the reduction themselves or to flag the element to remind judges to take the reduction?
To verify, it might be necessary (for the tech panel or the judges, as applicable) to go back and look at the video starting before the point where the video operator had marked the start of the element.
Implementing this requirement might be a significant technological problem, moreso than certain codes forcing specific GOE ranges.
Originally Posted by Moment
Simply the best.
Jumps only? Rules need to be consistent. Tech panels examine elements so if they were to give GOE on them, it'll have to be on all elements.
But as others said, too much power, and burden for those three people already. I think current system, judges give out GOE and PCS, panels give out levels and check rotations, is the best fit in terms of balance between two parties.
At the rink. Again.
Also, talking to judges, you'll find that sometimes their place on the panel (what seat they are in) gives them a different view than someone two seats over which changes their GOEs.
Skeptic Satirist Critic Muppet Fan
I don't think Technical panel should be given so much power.
I also think the there should separate judging panels into two groups; one for PCS, the other for elements + GOE. PCS is the biggest problem right now. If you look at the pattern of judging, they are practically predetermined.
My biggest complaint is that I don't understand why judges arn't able to give a 2nd chance to review their judgement after everyone finished. In exams, it is one of the most important aspect of checking your answers. Technology and tools are available such as visual aids, and even good at quantifying and measuring athletic abilities, to be accountable for marking.
If the objective is to make the most accurate assessment then clearly they should make better use of tools and improving methods to provide the most accurate assessment. Human judgement in such short time are vulnerable to inaccuracies, it seems terribly backwards as sport judging for the 21st century.
I've got your program components right here.
I read the OP. My first thought was, "How interesting!"
My second thought was, "How many questions unanswerable for a single person suggesting a novel idea will gkelly throw up?" Love, gkelly, love.
My unoriginal suggestion would be that there be three groups judging the skate: (1) the tech panel, determining what was performed; (2) the execution panel, who would judge GOEs and old people's eligibility for health care; and (3) the presentation panel, judging program components.
(Please understand the joke I made.)
This would cost more money, I know, gkelly. The sport has a ridiculous amount of money. It's figure skating. The whole thing is money spent on nothing important, really. If they can't find the money to spend on good judging, the sport may as well not exist.
True, but that would also give them the opportunity to fix the results if they didn't like the outcome...
Originally Posted by os168