Are spins being judged correctly?

zamboni step · Nov 24, 2013

gkelly said:
Do you know that Leonova was awarded the "good position" feature for this spin?

I don't think the positions in this spin are bad or worthy of reduction -- they're well controlled, within the degree of flexibility that she has, which is not exceptional.

What GOE did she earn?

I can see enough bullet points for +2 easily and possibly even +3 without awarding a point for the position:

1) good speed or acceleration during spin
2) ability to center a spin quickly
3) balanced rotations in all positions
4) clearly more than required number of revolutions
7) good control throughout all phases
8) element matched to the musical structure (she changes to the haircutter and to the Biellmann with the new phrase of music, and then exits the spin on the new phrase after that)

It's not all about positions.

The spin was not exceptionally fast nor was it terribly slow, so I disagree with that bullet.
It was decently centered but travelled a little on the biellmann.
It did have balanced rotation in all positions but the biellmann which had three rotations
There wasn't clearly more than the required revolutions in my opinion.
I'd give her the final bullet for musical structure.

That's not enough for +1, I'm sorry but I could concede the +1 might be a matter of opinion, but +2 is a bit biased and +3 is just insanity. Mirai, Karen Chen and Elena Radionova don't receive straight 3s most of the time so how could Leonova deserve even one 3?

gkelly · Nov 24, 2013

The required revolutions for the short program layback spin is 8. I counted 18 in this spin -- clearly more than required.

That was an exceptionally well centered spin. The circles got a little larger in the Biellmann position, but it didn't go anywhere.

I really think the GOE for this spin needs to be at least +2. Not for every spin by this skater -- each spin needs to be evaluated on its own merits. Not compared to some other skater or to what this skater did last year or 30 seconds ago.

I suspect you've seen mostly good-to-exceptional spins, so what looks "average" to you is well above average for the field as a whole. Watch some more average and bad spins by non-elite skaters.

The ISU has put all the JGP events on their youtube channel. If you go to youtube and search for ISU JGP SP (or for a specific JGP event), you should be able to find lots of junior short programs. There will be a wider range of spin skill at that level than you see on the senior Grand Prix. Watch several short programs by low, middle, and top-ranked juniors; decide for yourself which ones merit positive bullet points for positive GOE or reductions in GOE for various weaknesses and errors and maybe compare your spin scores with the official protocols.

Then go back and watch the elite skaters with that context.

Blades of Passion · Nov 26, 2013

gkelly said:
zamboni step said:

This is very true, and another thing that drives me up the wall is the boost in GOE for "Good positions" in the layback when they just about inch their leg up enough for it to count as a biellmann for instance this spin. There was nothing at all about it that stood out, but if she can manage a biellmann position then clearly it must be a good position. Achieving the position itself is being rewarded in both level and GOE with the quality of the position mattering very little now.

Click to expand...

The required revolutions for the short program layback spin is 8. I counted 18 in this spin -- clearly more than required.

That was an exceptionally well centered spin. The circles got a little larger in the Biellmann position, but it didn't go anywhere.

I really think the GOE for this spin needs to be at least +2.

If this spin is "at least +2", then how on Earth is an actually great Layback supposed to be properly rewarded in comparison?

As for the bullet points you gave, I do not find "clearly more revolutions than required" to be an accurate assessment. When you are trying to do the 8 revolutions in a single position to get a level feature, plus multiple other positions to get the level features, you aren't doing clearly more than is required for that Level of spin. She did what was required to get a Level 4. You can't inherently give a spin +GOE just because it met the Level 4 criteria.

She definitely doesn't have "balanced rotation in all positions". She holds one position for 8 revolutions the other two positions for just a few revolutions. This bullet point is more about change-of-foot spins, matching close to the same revolutions on each foot. For a spin trying to get the "8 revolutions" feature, that would appear to automatically negate this GOE guideline, unless 8 revolutions are done in all positions. A very poorly explained CoP guideline. And, therefore, since it is not properly defined by the rules themselves, logical thinking means it should be thrown out.

I also HIGHLY disagree on "matched to the musical structure". The music changes while she is holding that poor sideways layback position for the 8+ revolutions. She is ignoring the music in order to gain a Level feature.

That would leave us with 3 positive bullet points for this spin - centering, speed, and good control.

But then you have to apply the negative GOE markings, which is WEAK POSITION for this spin. Her sideways "layback" is barely a layback. She tries to do a nice arm position to cover it up, but her free leg position is weak as well. This has to be -1 against the spin's final GOE, which would be at +1 based on the other bullet points. So, in the end, this is a 0 GOE, Level 4 Layback.

Moment · Nov 26, 2013

I don't think her sideways position is so bad? Sure it isn't great, but if that's barely layback, then Daisuke Takahashi's and Carolina Kostner's laybacks should be called as upright.

zamboni step · Nov 26, 2013

gkelly said:
The required revolutions for the short program layback spin is 8. I counted 18 in this spin -- clearly more than required.

That was an exceptionally well centered spin. The circles got a little larger in the Biellmann position, but it didn't go anywhere.

I really think the GOE for this spin needs to be at least +2. Not for every spin by this skater -- each spin needs to be evaluated on its own merits. Not compared to some other skater or to what this skater did last year or 30 seconds ago.

I suspect you've seen mostly good-to-exceptional spins, so what looks "average" to you is well above average for the field as a whole. Watch some more average and bad spins by non-elite skaters.

The ISU has put all the JGP events on their youtube channel. If you go to youtube and search for ISU JGP SP (or for a specific JGP event), you should be able to find lots of junior short programs. There will be a wider range of spin skill at that level than you see on the senior Grand Prix. Watch several short programs by low, middle, and top-ranked juniors; decide for yourself which ones merit positive bullet points for positive GOE or reductions in GOE for various weaknesses and errors and maybe compare your spin scores with the official protocols.

Then go back and watch the elite skaters with that context.

I have seen many of the non-elite skate, some at my own rink. But if you're going to give her a +2 with a positive bullet for speed then you're saying basically that the speed in her layback is as good and as worthy of points as Mirai's or Karen's especially considering the haircutter and biellmann both have less speed than the sideways, how can you have good speed/acceleration if two thirds of the spin is slowing down....that's just not right, and the circle getting bigger doesn't happen to those with truly superb centering so I'd disagree with that too. She'd be lucky not to get a -1 because the haircutter and sideways leaning positions are quite weak. Also some of the non-elite have much better laybacks than this.

gkelly · Nov 26, 2013

Different judges will have mental cutoffs for "good" at different points. I tend to be pretty generous, so I would give +2s and +3s fairly often.

It's true that the bullet point system for +GOE doesn't distinguish between good and very good the way the original GOE descriptions did. I figure that "very good" (or better) can be a tiebreaker if there are an odd number of bullet points -- if you have 3 things that are just good, you get +1. If you have 1 thing that's good and 2 that are very good, the judge can round up to +2.

I have definitely seen some +3 spins from lower level skaters. For one thing, smaller skaters tend to spin faster.

I've also seen young juniors with very fast spins end up with just above average spin speed after they grew.

But there are also a lot more unfinished-looking positions from younger, lower level skaters, often with wiggling or straining to get the difficult features, even if they have a lot of speed and flexibility. Some will improve as they move up, others will lose speed and flexibility without improving positions and control.

Skaters who are naturally less flexible are less likely to earn higher levels unless they're smart about which features they attempt, and less likely to get credit for "good" positions. But showing decent alignment and control of what they attempt can keep them from losing points for poor/awkward positions.

Those who have the speed and the flexibility and the polished controlled positions and can center their spins and hold them for many revolutions are already on the way to +3 every time they achieve all of the above -- one more bullet would guarantee it.

mateusp1 · Nov 26, 2013

How would you reward this spin?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IutFxNBUujU#t=141

I see the following bullets:

1) good speed or acceleration during spin
4) clearly more than required number of revolutions (I counted about 24-25 rotations for this spin)
7) good control throughout all phases
8) element matched to the musical structure

4 bullets = +2

It is a level 3 layback.

Features:

1- At least 8 revolutions in one position(broken leg layback)
2- Sideway Leanin Position
3- Difficult Variation(Haircutter)

LuisRollerArg · Nov 26, 2013

do you think about this? at 1:18 min, the hottest swedish, Viktoria Helgesson.. laybaack level 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9caBRBZyGM

daisies · Nov 26, 2013

Blades of Passion said:
As for the bullet points you gave, I do not find "clearly more revolutions than required" to be an accurate assessment. When you are trying to do the 8 revolutions in a single position to get a level feature, plus multiple other positions to get the level features, you aren't doing clearly more than is required for that Level of spin. She did what was required to get a Level 4. You can't inherently give a spin +GOE just because it met the Level 4 criteria.

That's not how it works. The bullet is not "clearly more revolutions than required for level 4." It's "clearly more revolutions than required," period, and what is required for that spin is 8.

drivingmissdaisy · Nov 26, 2013

It also seems, if I read an earlier posting right, that centering is a feature that can get you +GOE but not being centered is not a deduction, meaning if you have a spin that travels but also has enough other features than +3 can be appropriate.

gkelly · Nov 26, 2013

Traveling in a spin is a reduction ("Poor/awkward position(s), slow, traveling -1 to -3"). But there's no documentation on how much travel is required to incur that deduction. Seems like it's left up to each judge's discretion.

E.g., on the layback mateusp1 linked in post 27, I'd say the centering is neither good enough for a positive bullet point nor bad enough for a reduction. A real stickler judge might reduce. (It's hard to see just how much the spin travels because the camera also travels, but the markings on the ice provide some reference points.)

Actually, the positive bullet point is worded as "ability to center a spin quickly." Still, I'm not sure that judges would award it if the skater centers the spin quickly and then loses the centering a few revolutions later. Similarly, they might give credit for centering on a spin that's shaky or travels for the first 1-2 revolutions (i.e., not centered quickly) but then finds the center and stays there perfectly for the rest of a nice sustained spin afterward.

Blades of Passion · Nov 26, 2013

Moment said:
I don't think Leonova's sideways position is so bad? Sure it isn't great, but if that's barely layback, then Daisuke Takahashi's and Carolina Kostner's laybacks should be called as upright.

Kostner definitely has more of a layback. Let's look at an example someone else just linked in this thread:

mateusp1 said:
How would you reward this spin?

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IutFxNBUujU&t=2m22s

I see the following bullets:

1) good speed or acceleration during spin
4) clearly more than required number of revolutions (I counted about 24-25 rotations for this spin)
7) good control throughout all phases
8) element matched to the musical structure

1) I would not give good speed. Her speed is just a little above average.
4) This point could apply, she does hold the standard layback position quite a bit more than is needed to get the "8 revolutions in a position" feature.
7) I wouldn't give her this bullet. She travels at the start of the spin and her free leg continuously drops lower while holding the position, not in an intended manner.
8) I would not give this point either. A layback with the calm arm position she chooses really doesn't have much to do with the sharp intensity of the music.

So, 0 GOE. She has a better position than Leonova, but not as good on the centering and not quite as much speed.

luisARG said:
what do you think about this? at 1:18 min, the hottest swedish, Viktoria Helgesson.. laybaack level 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9caBRBZyGM

0 or -1 GOE. I'd settle on the former. The speed is good and the spin is matched to the music (the entrance to sideways layback, change to standard back position, and increase of speed all go with the music) but the positions are sub-par and she travels during one of them.

Choreographically, I wish we would see more Laybacks using this idea. The spin doesn't take too long and it's Level 4 with NO catch-foots. I'd love to see it attempted by someone with better positions.

gkelly · Nov 26, 2013

phaeljones said:
I know that it is subjective as to what weight a bullet gets, but:

I) shouldn't some bullets carry way more weight than others with more of a difference than presently is the case?

I guess it would be hard to enforce that through even more complicated rules. There could be guidelines to emphasize to judges what they should be extra sure to reward (or penalize, as the case may be).

And as I mentioned before, there could be some official recognition that "very good" or "exceptional" quality in any of the bullet points could count for more than just "good" -- at least as a tiebreaker when there are odd numbers of bullet points, or in outweighing reductions for small weaknesses.

II) even at the elite level, where there can be distinguished such a variation in spins as between the different competitors at the top level, shouldn't (can't) the judges still use the scoring system to reward the betters ones over the less better ones? (There are clearly differences that the scoring is not catching or not wanting to catch or caring to catch.)

If skater A is generally a better spinner than skater B, then A will likely earn higher average GOEs across all spins in both programs, even if B has one spin s/he does especially well on some occasions and earns as high or higher GOE on those occasions.

If skater C has especially good positions, that can be rewarded not only in the GOE for the spins themselves, but also under the "carriage" and "clarity of movement" criteria in the Performance/Execution component.

Similarly, if skater D is especially good at matching the entry, exit, position and foot changes, rotational speed, etc., of the spin to the music, s/he can be rewarded for that both in GOE and under Interpretation, and possibly under Choreography. Original or thematic positions, or timing, in the spins can be rewarded both in GOE and under Choreography.

Official reminders and ongoing training would help in getting judges to use these options more consistently.

phaeljones · Nov 26, 2013

Thank you gkelly for your courteous and very complete answer.

Blades of Passion · Nov 26, 2013

daisies said:
Blades of Passion said:

As for the bullet points you gave, I do not find "clearly more revolutions than required" to be an accurate assessment. When you are trying to do the 8 revolutions in a single position to get a level feature, plus multiple other positions to get the level features, you aren't doing clearly more than is required for that Level of spin. She did what was required to get a Level 4. You can't inherently give a spin +GOE just because it met the Level 4 criteria.

Click to expand...

That's not how it works. The bullet is not "clearly more revolutions than required for level 4." It's "clearly more revolutions than required," period, and what is required for that spin is 8.

That IS how it works, if we use logical thinking.

EVERY Layback planned in Senior competition for the SP has 12+ revolutions. Therefore, unless we evaluate the number of revolutions against what should be expected for the features of the spin, every spin would automatically qualify for this bullet point. In which case it would be pointless.

It would be like jumps having a bullet point for "clearly more revolution than required". Only one rotation is "required" for a jump in the LP. Should every jump with 2 revolutions or higher automatically get +GOE just because it's more than a "lower level" jump? Think about how little sense that would make.

David21 · Nov 26, 2013

gkelly said:
Traveling in a spin is a reduction ("Poor/awkward position(s), slow, traveling -1 to -3"). But there's no documentation on how much travel is required to incur that deduction. Seems like it's left up to each judge's discretion.

E.g., on the layback mateusp1 linked in post 27, I'd say the centering is neither good enough for a positive bullet point nor bad enough for a reduction. A real stickler judge might reduce. (It's hard to see just how much the spin travels because the camera also travels, but the markings on the ice provide some reference points.)

Actually, the positive bullet point is worded as "ability to center a spin quickly." Still, I'm not sure that judges would award it if the skater centers the spin quickly and then loses the centering a few revolutions later. Similarly, they might give credit for centering on a spin that's shaky or travels for the first 1-2 revolutions (i.e., not centered quickly) but then finds the center and stays there perfectly for the rest of a nice sustained spin afterward.

Two questions:

1) Would you say that Lipnitskaya's combo spins in the SP and LP deserve a +3 GOE even though they traveled quite badly on the last position?

2) As far as I understand, the bullets in the CoP rules are only guidelines for the judges. Judges can award positive GOEs based on fewer or more or different things than those that are explained in the guidelines. Is that not correct?

gkelly · Nov 26, 2013

mateusp1 said:
How would you reward this spin?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IutFxNBUujU#t=141

I'd probably only give it credit for the more than required revolutions bullet point.
Maybe good control -- it does travel, although not egregiously, but her body stays nice and still except when she's intentionally changing position.

So +1 at most, probably 0.

luisARG said:
do you think about this? at 1:18 min, the hottest swedish, Viktoria Helgesson.. laybaack level 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9caBRBZyGM

Good speed, more than required revolutions -- I'd go with +1. The positions are not very attractive, but well enough controlled that I don't think I would take off. Possibly +1/-1 = 0.

David21 said:
Two questions:

1) Would you say that Lipnitskaya's combo spins in the SP and LP deserve a +3 GOE even though they traveled quite badly on the last position?

From her SP and LP this past weekend?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouE8p2J7gOU&t=2m09s
Speed, centering, revolutions. That's three. I could go with good control for four bullets and give +2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9X5xn5GL14&t=3m30s
Not quite so much speed or as many revolutions, so probably only +1.

2) As far as I understand, the bullets in the CoP rules are only guidelines for the judges. Judges can award positive GOEs based on fewer or more or different things than those that are explained in the guidelines. Is that not correct?

The communication says

To establish the starting GOE Judges must take into consideration the bullets for each ele
ment. It is at the discretion of each Judge to decide on the number of bullets for any upgrade, but general
recommendations are as follows:
FOR + 1 : 2 bullets FOR + 2 : 4 bullets FOR + 3 : 6 or more bullets

So yes, there is some discretion.

It also emphasizes that judges should award pluses for positive aspects first and then reduce for errors. Which means that if there are enough positive aspects, even an element with errors can earn positive GOE, unless the error is in the "GOE must be negative" column.

For spins, the only errors that require negative GOE are Fall, Position in the air not attained (flying spin) (short program only), and Touch down with both hands.

Obviously, if there are multiple smaller errors, there would be more points lost so positive or 0 GOE is not likely.

gkelly · Nov 26, 2013

Blades of Passion said:
That IS how it works, if we use logical thinking.

EVERY Layback planned in Senior competition for the SP has 12+ revolutions.

Not true.
Almost every layback by skaters skilled enough to be shown on TV will aim for 12 or more, but even then they won't always succeed.
At lower senior ranks, some skaters may be better at spinning than at skating or jumping, but others will be weakest at spinning and be happy if they just get at least 8 and don't get minuses for insufficient revolutions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGq_rFo5Psw&t=1m56s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbd28BQimwI&t=1m39s
Not quite 12, no Biellmann

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE2uDA5ohk0&t=1m22s
Ditto, and doesn't seem to aim for the 8-revolution feature either (but does have the haircutter)

There are, of course, plenty more that do achieve 12-15 revolutions but don't deserve +GOE, and probably not the clearly more than required revolutions bullet point.

I tend to use twice the required revolutions as my definition of "clearly more than required" -- although I might relax it a bit for a SP flying camel with 14-15 revs.

Pepe Nero · Nov 26, 2013

gkelly said:
It would be interesting to look at some spins by skaters who are not at Grand Prix/Worlds final round skill level and see what the range of spin quality is below the top tier.

What are some of the worst spins you've seen, that clearly deserve negative GOE?

What are some just average spins that meet the criteria and don't deserve reductions, but don't deserve any positive bullet points either?

What about spins that start strong but then lose control, grind to a halt, attain awkward positions, etc.? Or that bobble or travel on the entry but then settle onto a solid center? Or flying spins that don't achieve a correct air position but the spin itself is nice?

After you add pluses for positive bullet points and subtract for errors or weaknesses, do you end up at +1? 0? -1?

How does a typical spin from, e.g., Chan or Kostner compare?

Gkelly, I was ready to call you Socrates, in virtue of your asking questions without giving your own account.

I'm still working my way through your subsequent posts.

But in the meantime, I want to give my opinions on some particulars.

I find Lipnitskaia's spins over-rated. She evinces circus-like flexibility, but I don't think this is a virtue, nor do I think it should be rewarded in the score.

There is a real problem if spins are not being judged critically. It's hard enough for skaters whose spinning ability exceeds their jumping to do well in figure skating (owing to the privileging of jumps in the current and previous judging systems). Exceptional spinners ought, in an ideal judging system, have the same advantage as exceptional jumpers, unless it can be established that jumping (by its nature) is objectively more difficult than spinning (by its nature). Having very limited skating experience myself, I could not say.

(As a hypothesis, I would say that the conventional view that jumping is more point-worthy than spinning reflects in a perfectly predictable way privileging of male-typical physiology in figure skating.)

Blades of Passion · Nov 26, 2013

gkelly said:
At lower senior ranks, some skaters may be better at spinning than at skating or jumping, but others will be weakest at spinning and be happy if they just get at least 8 and don't get minuses for insufficient revolutions.

The Laybacks you speak of are Level 1. Therefore, those spins are already getting less points for having less revolution.

gkelly said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGq_rFo5Psw&t=1m56s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbd28BQimwI&t=1m39s
Not quite 12, no Biellmann

Flatt's was 14 rotations.
Clara Peter's was 13 rotations. It was also an abomination that deserves -3 GOE.

gkelly said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE2uDA5ohk0&t=1m22s
Ditto, and doesn't seem to aim for the 8-revolution feature either (but does have the haircutter)

This layback is 16 revolutions.

Are spins being judged correctly?

zamboni step

gkelly

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be

Moment

zamboni step

gkelly

mateusp1

LuisRollerArg

daisies

drivingmissdaisy

gkelly

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be

gkelly

phaeljones

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be

David21

gkelly

gkelly

Pepe Nero

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be

Similar threads

Connect with us