Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 46 to 56 of 56

Thread: ISU experiment: dividing tasks among judges??

  1. #46
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Alba View Post
    But not impossible right? As with all things, it just needs more time to figure out.
    In the proposed system an individual unscrupulous judge, or a small coalition working in concert, has less effect on the total score than in the current system. However, this is due to having more judges each with somewhat less voting power, rather than to anything unique about how the responsibilities are divided up.

    In the proposed system if you had enough money to bribe, say, four judges, all those judges could do is throw a few extra points your way and hope for the best.

  2. #47
    Ice is slippery Meoima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    North of the world
    Posts
    5,516
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Here is the proposal for the tasks of the twelve judges, which will be tested at Nebelhorn.

    Judge #1 SS TR PE
    Judge#2 TR PE CH
    Judge #3 PE CH INT
    Judge #4 SS TR CH
    Judge #5 SS TR INT
    Judge #6 SS PE INT
    Judge#7 TR CH INT

    Judge #8 GOEs and also SS
    Judge #9 GOEs and PE
    Judge #10 GOEs and CH
    Judge #11 GOEs and INT
    Judge #12 Just GOEs

    This way each of the five program components is evaluated by five judges, and GOEs are judged by 5 judges also. (Too bad the math worked out so that there was one GOE judge left over with no component to judge -- TR already had five judges. Oh well, nobody's perfect.)

    The judges must arrive a day early to attend a seminar, led by the technical specialist, at which the duties of each judge will be assigned and explained.

    So this isn't crazy after all -- except that it is.
    I am very sorry to think that there are many of our beloved judges couldn't tell the difference between SS, PE, and INT... they couldn't tell the different before, why now?

  3. #48
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,932
    Quote Originally Posted by Meoima View Post
    I am very sorry to think that there are many of our beloved judges couldn't tell the difference between SS, PE, and INT... they couldn't tell the different before, why now?
    It will be interesting to see in the Nebelhorn protocols whether there are significant differences among the different components, or whether it appears that most judges simply estimate the skating skills score and then peg whatever component scores they are responsible for against skating skills.

    Meanwhile, can we do any better? Join me in the PCS academy thread to give it a try. Suggest some programs.

  4. #49
    Yuna's Ice Rink cooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,279
    meh..

    so.. they're not addressing that the judges = the main problem..

    like the known cheater balkov getting a shot at judging again.. the same people.. different script..

  5. #50
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,657
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    It will be interesting to see in the Nebelhorn protocols whether there are significant differences among the different components, or whether it appears that most judges simply estimate the skating skills score and then peg whatever component scores they are responsible for against skating skills.
    A variant of that question: Five of the 12 judges will judge SS and four of those five also grade two other components. Some judges grade other components but not SS. Will there be a recognizable pattern for the SS judges and a different pattern for the judge that does, say, TR, CH, and INT?

  6. #51
    Missing Tdizzle and SDiggity golden411's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    5,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    ... Here is the proposal for the tasks of the twelve judges, which will be tested at Nebelhorn.

    Judge #1 SS TR PE
    Judge#2 TR PE CH
    Judge #3 PE CH INT
    Judge #4 SS TR CH
    Judge #5 SS TR INT
    Judge #6 SS PE INT
    Judge#7 TR CH INT

    Judge #8 GOEs and also SS
    Judge #9 GOEs and PE
    Judge #10 GOEs and CH
    Judge #11 GOEs and INT
    Judge #12 Just GOEs

    This way each of the five program components is evaluated by five judges, and GOEs are judged by 5 judges also. (Too bad the math worked out so that there was one GOE judge left over with no component to judge -- TR already had five judges. Oh well, nobody's perfect.) ...
    Thx to Mathman for figuring out how to convert the chart within the Nebelhorn PDF to a version that is compatible with the limitations of GS formatting.

    I have added Mathman's version to the OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    ...
    Here, one judge has nothing to do except evaluate GOEs. What I heard from the last time they tried a similar test at Nebelhorn, with two separate panels judging either GOEs or PCS, was that the GOE judges were bored because they had so little to do. Nothing to think about between elements. If this division were adopted, I wonder if judges would welcome that assignment or disdain it. Probably depends on the schedule.
    gkelly, thanks for your prolific and informative contributions to this thread (and others).

    Question:

    Does anyone from the technical panel ever say that s/he gets bored?

    I remember Judy Blumberg mentioning (I'm paraphrasing) that when she is on the technical panel, she is concentrating so hard on the elements that she is oblivious (not her exact word) to the overall program -- unless the program as a whole is exceptionally good or exceptionally bad.

  7. #52
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,657
    Quote Originally Posted by golden411 View Post
    Thx to Mathman for figuring out how to convert the chart within the Nebelhorn PDF to a version that is compatible with the limitations of GS formatting.
    That clever method being to type it all out from scratch from the link that you provided.

  8. #53
    Missing Tdizzle and SDiggity golden411's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    5,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    That clever method being to type it all out from scratch from the link that you provided.
    In that case, then you deserve even greater thanks for taking the trouble.

    [ And now you have me pondering whether brute force could be a form of being clever... ]

  9. #54
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,932
    Quote Originally Posted by golden411 View Post
    Does anyone from the technical panel ever say that s/he gets bored?
    I haven't heard that.

    I do know a few people who are both judges and tech specialists or controllers and heard them say that they prefer judging or that they miss it when they're always assigned to tech panels.

    And some judges who miss 6.0.

    I think they enjoy integrating and balancing out different aspects of the programs, or at least of each component, rather than just checking off bullet points.

    I remember Judy Blumberg mentioning (I'm paraphrasing) that when she is on the technical panel, she is concentrating so hard on the elements that she is oblivious (not her exact word) to the overall program -- unless the program as a whole is exceptionally good or exceptionally bad.[/INDENT]
    Doesn't surprise me.

  10. #55
    Matt K
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    334
    This is horrific. I wonder if the public will get to know the specific tasks assigned to each judge. On the bright side though, a certain judge who is constantly lowballing his team's rivals in every area, like was done in the past, would not have the same amount of control under this current system.

  11. #56
    Missing Tdizzle and SDiggity golden411's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    5,441
    BC SummerSkate is trying out the concept of separate judges for GOE and PCS for Pre-Novice Women U14 groups.

    This pilot will have a panel of three judges giving a joint GOE and another set of four judges giving the Program Component marks, allowing the individual judge to put more focus on a particular aspect of the program - either technical GOE or the five program components.

    The panel of judges giving the GOEs will operate like a Technical panel with headsets and will be able to discuss their GOE.
    The panel of judges giving the Program Components will work independently.
    Skater Details sheets will look the same as before, with the exception that an identical GOE will show up for all of the judges. This will have been arrived at by consensus by the GOE panel.

    We are very fortunate to have Sissy Krick and Joe Inman joining us at BC SummerSkate this year. Sissy and Joe are highly respected ISU officials and were both very involved in the development of the Program Component criteria for the ISU Judging System.
    Joe will be one of the program component judges on Group 1 and Sissy will be on Group 2. They will hold a small seminar with their judges after the event to review the PC marks. ...
    Each of the GOE judging panels will be led by one of our BC ISU officials - Beth Crane, Susan Heffernan or Sally Rehorick.

    There will be feedback to the Judges Committee and Beth Crane will provide feedback to Skate Canada's Officials Development Committee.
    It is interesting that the ISU is operating a two panel judging system at ... Nebelhorn ... so we are not the only ones thinking that this is worth exploring!

    http://www.skatinginbc.com/sites/def...03_aug2014.pdf (Aug 11)

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •