Analyzing Sotnikova and Kim's footwork in the FS

It is kind of interesting how the new judging system has not brought the expected clarity into the judges' marks that were hoped for. The knock on the old system was, OK, judge number four gave my skater a 5.7. Where did that number come from -- it seems completely capricious.

Now we have thread after thread saying, "How was this step sequence called a level four? It seems utterly capricious with no connection to what happened on the ice. How did that judge come up with a 9,5 for this mess, it must be a conspiracy. How could judge number 7 give higher GOE to this skater's terrible double Axel than to that skater's excellent one? How could the tech caller miss this under-rotation, which was clearly 135% short? (No it wasn't, you're blind.)

Transparency is the answer. That is a democratic principle. The more open and transparent a process is, the less prone it is to corruption. If the judging and the oversight of the judging and everything else was independent, transparent, and forthcoming, then potential cheaters would be less likely to cheat, because they would be more likely to be caught and suffer the consequences. The ISU itself would be less likely to aid and abet cheating, because it would be more likely to be discovered and ruin the reputation of the organization and the sport.

But rather than clean up figure skating in the wake of the 2002 scandal, the ISU and the federations did the opposite. They made everything less transparent, and thereby even more prone to corruption than ever before.

This is telling because it implies the ISU and the federations have no desire for a fair sport. They are motivated by other factors.

This means figure skating needs to end anonymous judging, and they need to simplify the scoring system so it's more accessible to all.

DarR said:

Sorry to bring this up in this topic, but I don't get how Julia was awarded [10.10 1.10 2 2 2 1 3 0 0 1 3 11.20] for her wonky 3Lz-3T. See 11:10 of this video. Another instance of poor scoring by the judges again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5fA9o2sBis

Click to expand...

She scored even higher at Worlds this year for the same jump. In fact it was the highest scoring element by any lady at 2014 WC's

For this particular jump 1's and 0's would be more appropriate IMO no need for negative GOE..there is still something to be saod for muscling thru a jump and saving it. In the SP however she did the 3lz-3t much better and deserved those marks. During the FS, judges 5 and 9 were a bit more than overzealous IMO.

Alba said:

Why don't you open a new topic? We really need a new one, this time on Yulia.

Click to expand...

How about a thread about GOEs in general, starting with Yulia's 3Lz-3T as an example?

I'd like another thread about PCS in general as well.

Personally, I prefer to look at the topics in broader terms first to try to understand specific decisions. Starting with one specific famous skater or one controversial decision tends to start out contentious and continue to shed more heat than light.

Mathman said:

Now we have thread after thread saying, "How was this step sequence called a level four? It seems utterly capricious with no connection to what happened on the ice. How did that judge come up with a 9,5 for this mess, it must be a conspiracy. How could judge number 7 give higher GOE to this skater's terrible double Axel than to that skater's excellent one? How could the tech caller miss this under-rotation, which was clearly 135% short? (No it wasn't, you're blind.)

Click to expand...

Any judging system is going to have people complain when they don't like the results. It is an improvement over 6.0 but there's more than can be improved.

CarneAsada said:

3Lz-3T is obviously easier than a quad, which no women perform, and I was referring to the men with this example. Though the number of ladies attempting 3Lz-3T successfully has greatly increased in recent years: Gold, Lipnitskaya, Kim, Radionova, a bunch of the junior ladies are all doing it. As for this talk about skaters with superior technique being punished, GOE is still worth points, and a skater with better technique will obviously beat a skater with poor technique attempting the same tech content. A smaller advantage is still an advantage. Sotnikova "beating" Kim was because her technical flaws were totally ignored, which is not a fault of the rule changes at all. I mean, she was even gifted higher GOEs; do you really think reverting to Vancouver CoP would've helped Kim win?

Click to expand...

I was actually talking about ladies because it is moot comparing to men’s that women don’t do. Since you mentioned it is easier to do 3Lz-3T and get +GOE so I was wondering if that’s the case because I don’t see many girls are very successful at it.

As for the GOE at Vancouver, it isn’t my point to apply it at Sochi since we already know how poorly the judging there. What I’m trying to say in general is the way they changed to cut down 30% points for a great executed element and benefiting the mistake one is illogical. It doesn’t get rewards as it should be to whomever could master the technique for their hard training to perfect it as opposed to helping the lesser skilled jumpers instead.

gkelly said:

How about a thread about GOEs in general, starting with Yulia's 3Lz-3T as an example?

Click to expand...

Yeah let's start with her as an example. After all this became a problem once she started competing in senior level. The GoE's on the 3Lz-3T were fine till know. She the little devil.

Personally, I prefer to look at the topics in broader terms first to try to understand specific decisions. Starting with one specific famous skater or one controversial decision tends to start out contentious and continue to shed more heat than light.

Click to expand...

I agree, but apparently it's too hard for some people to do that.

I was actually talking about ladies because it is moot comparing to men’s that women don’t do. Since you mentioned it is easier to do 3Lz-3T and get +GOE so I was wondering if that’s the case because I don’t see many girls are very successful at it.

As for the GOE at Vancouver, it isn’t my point to apply it at Sochi since we already know how poorly the judging there. What I’m trying to say in general is the way they changed to cut down 30% points for a great executed element and benefiting the mistake one is illogical. It doesn’t get rewards as it should be to whomever could master the technique for their hard training to perfect it as opposed to helping the lesser skilled jumpers instead.

Click to expand...

Same thing happens with spins. People with average spins score pretty close to people with superior spins. It actually forces skaters to have more strength in their all around performance if you think about it. I certainly don't want jumps to be the main deciding factor of who wins...spins either. We need artistic skaters and skaters with strong skating skills to be able to compete and ultimately put together a coheicive program. I really don't like the idea of a jump having too much weight on a the final score but rather and IMO more importantly the way the jump is presented within the program:yes:

Plus reducing the GOE impact takes some power away from would be over scoring judges.

Alba said:

Yeah let's start with her as an example. After all this became a problem once she started competing in senior level. The GoE's on the 3Lz-3T were fine till know. She the little devil.



I agree, but apparently it's too hard for some people to do that.

Click to expand...

It's apparent that people tend to weigh certain bullets more than others. I probably do it with flow for example. Others do it with height. I don't think that's how bullets are intended to work though. Each should carry equal weight but it doesn't fairly get discussed this way very often. people's most important bullet is what becomes the focus and then gradually agree to others with more of a "meh" attitude.

Figure said:

I was actually talking about ladies because it is moot comparing to men’s that women don’t do. Since you mentioned it is easier to do 3Lz-3T and get +GOE so I was wondering if that’s the case because I don’t see many girls are very successful at it.

Click to expand...

It is not moot at all as the controversy with difficulty not being rewarded enough was a problem for BOTH men and ladies, is that so hard to grasp? It is easier to do a 3Lz-3T than a quad, which is demonstrated by the various ladies now successfully completing a 3Lz-3T in competition: Gracie Gold, Yuna Kim, Julia Lipnitskaya, Elena Radionova, plenty of junior ladies, to name just a few. And how many women complete quads? None. How many women complete 3Axels or 3-3Loop combinations of any kind, let alone the higher-level ones like 3Lz-3Lo? 1 or 2. The point is that GOE was weighted too heavily last quad, where completing easier elements like 3T, 2A, etc. with slightly more difficult entries was rewarded too highly. Again, GOE still exists to distinguish between good technique and bad, more difficult entry/exit/air position, but the ISU tried to change it so that it doesn't trump the reward of doing a hugely difficult jump with a higher risk of failure.

Alba said:

Why don't you open a new topic? We really need a new one, this time on Yulia.

Click to expand...

For what? Julia is fine. The judges scoring the two female Russian skaters at Sochi weren't fine.

Do you agree with the GOEs given by the judges? +2? +3? I don't.

+GOE:
2) clear recognizable steps/free skating movements immediately preceding element

I'd given her +0 GOE or +1 GOE max.

Sam-Skwantch said:

Same thing happens with spins. People with average spins score pretty close to people with superior spins. It actually forces skaters to have more strength in their all around performance if you think about it. I certainly don't want jumps to be the main deciding factor of who wins...spins either. We need artistic skaters and skaters with strong skating skills to be able to compete and ultimately put together a coheicive program. I really don't like the idea of a jump having too much weight on a the final score but rather and IMO more importantly the way the jump is presented within the program:yes:

Plus reducing the GOE impact takes some power away from would be over scoring judges.

Click to expand...

I don’t think spins can really comparing to jumps because their BVs are quite smaller and they are not likely to get – GOEs as opposed to the falls or wrong technique on jumping that could happen more often. However, I do agree about skaters who could perform exquisitely with technical prowess.

Regarding to taking some power away from the judges by reducing GOE, hmm… I’m not sure if they could fix that, if ever.

CarneAsada said:

It is not moot at all as the controversy with difficulty not being rewarded enough was a problem for BOTH men and ladies, is that so hard to grasp? It is easier to do a 3Lz-3T than a quad, which is demonstrated by the various ladies now successfully completing a 3Lz-3T in competition: Gracie Gold, Yuna Kim, Julia Lipnitskaya, Elena Radionova, plenty of junior ladies, to name just a few. And how many women complete quads? None. How many women complete 3Axels or 3-3Loop combinations of any kind, let alone the higher-level ones like 3Lz-3Lo? 1 or 2. The point is that GOE was weighted too heavily last quad, where completing easier elements like 3T, 2A, etc. with slightly more difficult entries was rewarded too highly. Again, GOE still exists to distinguish between good technique and bad, more difficult entry/exit/air position, but the ISU tried to change it so that it doesn't trump the reward of doing a hugely difficult jump with a higher risk of failure.

Click to expand...

It seems like we’re comparing apple to orange here. I understood men and women are different gender. Since I’m referring to ladies alone so dumping the guys and their quad which girls don’t do is reasonable.

The point is comparing 3Lz-3T to what element the ladies actually doing in competition, not the quad of men. So if it’s easier to garner + GOE than other elements plus high BV then I’m wondering why some of the top female skaters didn’t include that combination on their protocol to earn big points. I don’t know whether or not there is some restriction that not allowing them to do so based on their TES or some other reason.

Figure said:

Regarding to taking some power away from the judges by reducing GOE, hmm… I’m not sure if they could fix that, if ever.

Click to expand...

The way to "fix" it would be to determine TES entirely by what the tech panels call, with no input from the judges at all.

That would mean skaters would have incentive to attempt the hardest elements they can pull off successfully enough to get credit for them, but there would be no advantage to doing those elements very well instead of just acceptably.

The results would be more objective, but much of what skating fans tend to find enjoyable about figure skating would get lost. Already, the emphasis on pleasing the tech panel's criteria to earn higher levels gets in the way of pleasing the judges and fans with better quality. Eliminating or reducing GOEs would just intensify that trend.

The point is comparing 3Lz-3T to what element the ladies actually doing in competition, not the quad of men.

Click to expand...

That wasn't the point of mentioning that combination in the explanation of why GOE values were reduced after 2010, though. The Scale of Values is the same for both sexes, so rule changes that were inspired by reasons more relevant to men will also have an impact on women, and vice versa.

So if it’s easier to garner + GOE than other elements plus high BV then I’m wondering why some of the top female skaters didn’t include that combination on their protocol to earn big points.

Click to expand...

Because that combination is too hard for most female skaters. They don't do it in competition because they can't do it at all.

Or for some good but not exceptional jumpers, they can make a credible attempt, but not consistently, not well enough to avoid underrotations/downgrades, edge calls, and -GOE. More valuable to do an easier combination that they can actually pull off well enough for +GOE.

It's not so hard for the average senior man, because men are built differently than women.

Mathman said:

It is kind of interesting how the new judging system has not brought the expected clarity into the judges' marks that were hoped for. The knock on the old system was, OK, judge number four gave my skater a 5.7. Where did that number come from -- it seems completely capricious.

Now we have thread after thread saying, "How was this step sequence called a level four? It seems utterly capricious with no connection to what happened on the ice. How did that judge come up with a 9,5 for this mess, it must be a conspiracy. How could judge number 7 give higher GOE to this skater's terrible double Axel than to that skater's excellent one? How could the tech caller miss this under-rotation, which was clearly 135% short? (No it wasn't, you're blind.)

Click to expand...

This is completely due to the anonymity. If judges' scores could be plainly attributed to them, they wouldn't be nearly as audacious about handing out GOE and PCS however it suited them.

Mathman said:

It is kind of interesting how the new judging system has not brought the expected clarity into the judges' marks that were hoped for. The knock on the old system was, OK, judge number four gave my skater a 5.7. Where did that number come from -- it seems completely capricious.

Now we have thread after thread saying, "How was this step sequence called a level four? It seems utterly capricious with no connection to what happened on the ice. How did that judge come up with a 9,5 for this mess, it must be a conspiracy. How could judge number 7 give higher GOE to this skater's terrible double Axel than to that skater's excellent one? How could the tech caller miss this under-rotation, which was clearly 135% short? (No it wasn't, you're blind.)

Click to expand...

But the thing about levels is that there are quite specific rules, ie. for stsq a level requires a certain number of turns and steps in different directions, upper body movement etc. So it's relatively straightforward to analyse a step sequence. Granted there will be arguments about whether a certain move constituted a legal step/turn or not, for instance, but when there are very clearly several steps/turns missing and the skater is still given a high level...well, that's not really capricious, it's either intentional or incompetency. PCS is a different animal altogether and cannot be established as objectively as levels.

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

This is completely due to the anonymity. If judges' scores could be plainly attributed to them, they wouldn't be nearly as audacious about handing out GOE and PCS however it suited them.

Click to expand...

I agree with this to a certain extent. Corruption, bribery, cheating, etc, were all there during the 6.0 era when there was no anonymous judging.

TMC said:

well, that's not really capricious, it's either intentional or incompetency.

Click to expand...

Of course it was intentional. There wasn't just one discrepancy in Sotnikova's score.

Jumps: not called for downgrades correctly

Levels: called incorrectly higher

PCS: magical overnight increase to match Kim and exceed Kostner and Asada

If there had been one mistake in the scoring, it would not be suspicious. But it takes a real fool to not see how her score was increased artificially in every way imaginable.

AliceInWonderland said:

I agree with this to a certain extent. Corruption, bribery, cheating, etc, were all there during the 6.0 era when there was no anonymous judging.

Click to expand...

Oh of course. But judges could actually be called out on it. There's nothing to stop a judge from giving 10's across the board to a skater who didn't deserve it and then saying "Wasn't me!" after. Or at least I don't know if there would even be any inquiry.

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

Oh of course. But judges could actually be called out on it. There's nothing to stop a judge from giving 10's across the board to a skater who didn't deserve it and then saying "Wasn't me!" after. Or at least I don't know if there would even be any inquiry.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that a computer program keeps track of which judge gave which marks before they're scrambled in the protocols, but without identifying the judges to the referees or any other person at the time. At the end of the season the programs track each judge's deviations from the rest of the panel, and judges who vary too much are flagged for a commission that reviews the discrepancies. That commission has access to the names and can ask the judges for explanations and impose disciplinary assessments. I'd have to find the documentation and read up on the details.

I guess that keeps the judges from feeling pressured by the event referees to vote a particular direction, in case that's where pressure was coming from.

Of course, having to give explanations for aberrant marks months after the fact is not ideal, as judges may have forgotten their reasoning at the time.

But no, a judge couldn't just give 10s across the board to a skater who didn't deserve it and escape undetected. If all the other judges were giving scores in the 8s, those scores would get flagged by the computer and the judge would be called out by the commission at the end of the season. Too late to change the results of the event, though.

And if several judges agreed to systematically overmark certain skaters and undermark rivals, that could tip the results the way they wanted with much less likelihood of getting flagged since that bloc of conspirators would shift the corridor for the whole panel.

Is that what happened here, several judges conspiring to overmark some skaters and undermark others, in cahoots with a technical panel who conspired to give overly lenient calls to some and overly harsh to others?

Maybe.

Or maybe a combination of some judges' unconscious bias and unconscious reaction to the Russian audience's response to Russian skaters, some honest mistakes by judges and tech panel, and some entirely justifiable honest calls by both tech panel and judges that observers who prefer a different skater happen to disagree with.