- Joined
- Feb 26, 2014
ISU experiment: dividing tasks among judges??
- Thread starter ice coverage
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2014
That is the one good thing about it. It is harder to beat!
But not impossible right? As with all things, it just needs more time to figure out.
There are other kinds of errors besides falls. Some aren't even obvious at a casual glance, don't disrupt the overall impression of the performance, but do cost a lot of points in TES.
If any single component should have the most weight, I would want it to be Skating Skills. This is, after all, a skating competition first and foremost.
But should that be happening because it's the first one listed and therefore the first one most judges score, because some of the criteria for other components presume skating competence to fulfill?
Or should it be possible to evaluate some or all of the other components completely independently from Skating Skills, but then give them lower factors because they're less important in determining how well each competitor skated?
I totally agree about increasing penalties for mistakes. But also: What if one skater skates a super easy program, but performs it beautifully? While another skater skates a far tougher program but comes across as "lacking" in PCS areas? I think PCS should take into the account the difficulty of doing transitions, showing off skating skills, emoting, ect. while doing far harder elements. The second skater isn't necessarily worse in PCS areas--it's just harder to do these things as your elements get harder. So I think the second skater should be compared in PCS to those with similar technical content. Within reason, of course. I wouldn't want everyone to turn into Timothy Goebel and still get sky-high PCS.
I don't mind skating skills being rewarded, but not at the expense of other components. Even those with good skating skills should be encouraged to show off their edges/turns in ways that relate to the music and project to the audience. Right now, it seems a little "Well, if I do this hop or that turn, my SS and TR go up and the rest of the components just follow suit automatically."
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
In general I would prefer a scoring system that does not artificially separate or compartmentalize these three features. (In this regard I agree with Sandpiper's post above.) A well executed triple flip should avoid errors such as wrong edge take-off and short rotation, should exhibit athleticism as measured by height and ice coverage, should have pleasing embellishments such as a proper air position and well-controled flow on the landing edge, should match the musical phrasing, and should serve as a well-integrated choreographic highlight.
I would not like to see a system where one judge is assigned to watching the replay for edge calls, another times how long the skater is suspended in the air, a third records the loudness of the accompanying musical crescendo, a fourth evaluates the placement of the jump within the vision of the choreography, and so on.
To me, a judging system like that deliberately misses the heart of figure skating. It does not honor those marvelous performances in which the whole is greater than the mini-sums of all of its parts of parts.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
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.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2014
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?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.
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.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
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?
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2012
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.
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.
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.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
That clever method being to type it all out from scratch from the link that you provided.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2012
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... :think:
]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.
Doesn't surprise me.
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.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2012
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/de.../resources/bccommunication2014-03_aug2014.pdf (Aug 11)
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/de.../resources/bccommunication2014-03_aug2014.pdf (Aug 11)
Similar threads
