Audience to Hear Tech Panel Calls on Errors

[Joesitz (RIP)]

RE: The EARBUDS

(from my post in another folder)

Praise to be! A good explanation for a nitpicking score in CoP is what the Sport needs. Not everyone runs to the protocols 2 days later for such information, and instant information will be appreciated by all including the casual fans who will catch on and appreciate the sport more.

I'm sure there is technolgy for bringing it to icenetwork and TV broadcasting, but they would have to bring the chatter of the commentators to a whisper similar to those commentators in golf sports.

Great idea those EARBUDS !!

There is nothing wrong with questioning a Tech Panel Call, but the bottom line is that the call is final, and afaik, cannot be changed. So wouldn't it be nice to hear the call by Earbuds, if it is too expensive to put the calls on the jumbothon?

 

[Tinymavy15]

I think we need the scores in real time (the tech scores) on the jumbotron and also on the lower screen during TV broadcasts. This is now a sport of numbers so let's watch it that way.

 

[janetfan]

I think we need the scores in real time (the tech scores) on the jumbotron and also on the lower screen during TV broadcasts. This is now a sport of numbers so let's watch it that way.

ITA. What are they trying so hard to hide?

 

[dorispulaski]

I've heard that all audience members will have earbuds available at Olympics. I hope that is true.

 

[nylynnr]

FYI, the calls and comments the audience gets via the earbuds are not the calls of the technical panel rating the event.

In Spokane, David Kirby was on one of the channels available via earbud, but his calls and comments did not necessarily agree with the calls being made by the technical panel for the event. I listened to him for two of the senior men's and ladies' events; Kirby pointed out edge calls and under rotations that were not called by the panel working the event.

 

[janetfan]

FYI, the calls and comments the audience gets via the earbuds are not the calls of the technical panel rating the event.

In Spokane, David Kirby was on one of the channels available via earbud, but his calls and comments did not necessarily agree with the calls being made by the technical panel for the event. I listened to him for two of the senior men's and ladies' events; Kirby pointed out edge calls and under rotations that were not called by the panel working the event.

Thanks for filling us in on that.
So now we have Scott telling the TV viewers what he is seeing and somebody else telling those willing to wear the earbuds in the arena somethig else.

In the meantime, people in the arena and watching on TV are kept in the dark about the edge/ur calls.

With so much technology readily available it still feels like there is a certain fear over loss of control keeping this secret from the fans.

Why do you suppose they don't want to announce and/or post dg's ?
Does it serve any purpose?

 

[Layfan]

Thanks for filling us in on that.
So now we have Scott telling the TV viewers what he is seeing and somebody else telling those willing to wear the earbuds in the arena somethig else.

In the meantime, people in the arena and watching on TV are kept in the dark about the edge/ur calls.

With so much technology readily available it still feels like there is a certain fear over loss of control keeping this secret from the fans.

Why do you suppose they don't want to announce and/or post dg's ?
Does it serve any purpose?

I think it's just that in the insular world of skating they are only slowly coming to realize what they need to do to make regular viewers understand CoP. I hate the idea that this is now a sport where people in the arena need some technician droning into their ear. Ugh. But if that's the way it is that they definitely need to find a way to let TV audiences in on things too.

 

[gkelly]

I hate the idea that this is now a sport where people in the arena need some technician droning into their ear. Ugh. But if that's the way it is that they definitely need to find a way to let TV audiences in on things too.

Actually I think perceptions of the sport would have been a lot more accurate all along if there had been technicians explaining in our ears all the little details that judges considered in the old system.

Commentary focusing on the artistic side of the performance may have made skating more accessible to casual audiences, but it also made the results often inexplicable. And when fans and media, and often apparently commentators, didn't understand the results because they paid less attention to technical details than the judges (and now technical panels), it's easy to jump to conspiracy theories.

 

[Spun Silver]

Personally I hate this idea. I don't want little drones in my ears while I'm trying to watch skating. I want something posted on a board that I can check whenever I feel like it, like in baseball, and I want at least a simplified version of protocols posted when the winners are announced.

The delays always make me think they are tinkering with the results to make them come out the way they want. :frown2:

 

[gkelly]

Personally I hate this idea. I don't want little drones in my ears while I'm trying to watch skating.

They're optional.

I wouldn't want to wear them either, now that I know most of what I need to know to understand the judging. I would have found them helpful when I was still learning.

The delays always make me think they are tinkering with the results to make them come out the way they want. :frown2:

See, that's the kind of jumping to conspiracy thinking I'm talking about.

 

[nylynnr]

Thanks for filling us in on that.
So now we have Scott telling the TV viewers what he is seeing and somebody else telling those willing to wear the earbuds in the arena somethig else.

In the meantime, people in the arena and watching on TV are kept in the dark about the edge/ur calls.

With so much technology readily available it still feels like there is a certain fear over loss of control keeping this secret from the fans.

Why do you suppose they don't want to announce and/or post dg's ?
Does it serve any purpose?

Probably wasting time here, as I've noticed you are fond of espousing conspiracies on the board. But --

"They" do post all of the judges' details right after the free skate. No one is kept in the dark. Furthermore, monitors and qualified tech specialists are available to visit rinks and view skaters' programs prior to competition, in order to give skaters and coaches input as to what needs to be improved.

I have to add here, that no explanation was ever given under the 6.0 system for anything; if you recall, Oksana two-footed several jumps in her '94 free skate, and we have no clue whether some of the judges deducted for them or not. Now I'm not saying IJS is automatically superior to 6.0, but the level of detail provided is far greater.

There is a monitor available to commentators and journalists that shows immediately after a skater's score is announced the levels and points. Perhaps Scott got carried away and called the winner prior to hearing the scores.

Scott is a wonderfully charismatic person who was hired by NBC because of his name recognition and personality, not his expertise in the judging system or even his expertise in evaluating who has won. If you recall, he also stated at the 2002 Games that Yagudin "conceded" the free skate to Plushenko, and was in danger of losing the free to Goebel as well. And that was 6.0.

I do agree that Scott should have modified his statements to say "That skate looked terrific, but let me check my monitor to see if Mirai got all her calls" since Nagasu has been dinged by multiple callers in multiple countries for downgrades.

I just don't see a conspiracy here -- different callers are going to be "easier" or "sticter" because they are human. Linesman in tennis, judges in other sports, umpires in baseball, etc. all work off the same rules and all make judgment calls every time they officiate.

Furthermore, had US Figure Skating truly "wanted" Wagner on the team, it could have put her there. She was only a few points out of second and had competed at the Grand Prix Final. The published criteria allowed for consideration of other events.

 

[i love to skate]

Do US commentators not get the protocals? On Canadian TV they have them as soon as the score is announced and therefore they can point out where the decutions took place. For example, she got downgraded on this element, two of her spins were level 2, but she got a level 4 on her footwork, etc.

 

[FlattFan]

Do US commentators not get the protocals? On Canadian TV they have them as soon as the score is announced and therefore they can point out where the decutions took place. For example, she got downgraded on this element, two of her spins were level 2, but she got a level 4 on her footwork, etc.

They do. They know she got 3 downgrades, but did not specify which one. Inept commentators we have.

 

[Spun Silver]

TV audiences ETA: and Icenetwork viewers don't see the protocols, and in a case like this, we needed both protocols and slow-mo. Happens all the time in baseball - why not FS?

 

[i love to skate]

TV audiences don't see the protocols, and in a case like this, we needed both protocols and slow-mo. Happens all the time in baseball - why not FS?

Well yes but if the commentator is telling you what is on the protocal and where the skater was deducted then you don't need to see it right at that moment. I was very surprised NBC didn't slow mo any of the jumps.

 

[Mrs. P]

It would be neat if there was a COP explanation segment during the broadcasts at the Olympics. NBC totally loves the personality fluff, but seems less than willing to do ones that actually shed insight on the sport.

I really like this one from ABC about compulsory figures during the 1988 Olympics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31-yn9XYq0k&feature=related
(Also worth watching pt. 2 because of the interesting bit on Katrina Witt's coach)

As I mentioned in other posts, I think the COP has plenty of flaws, but I don't think it's realistic nor a great idea to go back to 6.0, which has flaws as well. Perhaps after having wuzrobbed conversations in this board (which is appropriate in this forum), one can write letters to the ISU or talk to a technical specialist or judge that lives in or close to your area. I think people need to get these valid criticisms to the people who matter. As with anything else, if enough people talk, they're not going to ignore it.

I feel like too many people come in with the perception that ISU is going to do whatever they want so why bother to talk. But one has to remember the COP came about because there was widespread outrage of the skating world after 2002.

 

[nylynnr]

TV audiences don't see the protocols, and in a case like this, we needed both protocols and slow-mo. Happens all the time in baseball - why not FS?

Derek Jeter doesn't get marked in terms of 5 components on how he fields a ball, whether he did it in a difficult enough position to warrant a high level, whether his cleats were properly positioned in the turf, etc. It isn't too practical for commercial TV to post and review the entire details after each athlete skates. Interested fans can check on the Internet; I do believe commentators should review the details, though, for the highlights, i.e. URs and Es, and obviously low Levels, and explain those to the audience.

 

[Mrs. P]

Well yes but if the commentator is telling you what is on the protocal and where the skater was deducted then you don't need to see it right at that moment. I was very surprised NBC didn't slow mo any of the jumps.

I think part of it was because they ran out of broadcast time. By the time Mirai's scores came up there was only about 5 minutes to talk to everyone to get their reaction on the results. I think they did show it the next day in a rebroadcast.

 

[i love to skate]

I think part of it was because they ran out of broadcast time. By the time Mirai's scores came up there was only about 5 minutes to talk to everyone to get their reaction on the results. I think they did show it the next day in a rebroadcast.

Yes, I agree that might have been part of it and yes I did see the replays the next day. However, after reading all of this it sounds like NBC needs to learn how to produce and broadcast a figure skating event in terms of COP instead of 6.0. It just seems to me that there is this unwilligness to admit that the tides have changed.

If you compare this broadcast with CBC or any of the Eurosports it simply wasn't broadcast in the right way. Like I said before, there was way too much time wasted on fluff, talking to Dick, they didn't show replays, the commentators should have educated the viewers more, gone over the protocals, etc. IMO, it seems like there needs to be a change in their broadcasting culture.

 

[gkelly]

Perhaps after having wuzrobbed conversations in this board (which is appropriate in this forum), one can write letters to the ISU or talk to a technical specialist or judge that lives in or close to your area. I think people need to get these valid criticisms to the people who matter.

What kinds of criticisms do you think should be included in the letters?

It would be more effective to write to ISU headquarters or to members of the ISU technical committees than than to write to random tech specialists or judges who happen to live close to you -- they're just applying the rules, not necessarily at the events you're criticizing. You want to address the folks who make the rules.

Of course, if you actually get to meet a local judge or tech specialist and have a conversation about skating, by all means express your thoughts. They might agree with you on many points. They might have a good idea of where to address those observations.

I don't think it would do much good to criticize specific calls at specific events that resulted in unpopular results. The tech panels were just calling the event as well as they could in real time. Maybe they made a few mistakes, but it's too late to do anything about it after the medals have been awarded.

More comprehensive, thoughtful critiques of some of the rules, directed at the people who have the power to effect changes in the rules, might have some value.

E.g., maybe argue that scoring triple jumps just over 90 degrees short as if they were double jumps is too harsh a penalty compared to the difficulty of peforming an almost-rotated triple vs. a double, and it's confusing to audiences who see apparently successful triples. If enough fans and skaters and coaches and even judges express that opinion, maybe they'll choose a more generous point at which to draw the downgrade penalty and a less severe way to penalize moderately cheated jumps.

Or complain that too many of the step sequences, spiral sequences, and long program layouts look like they're following a template and limiting skaters' ability to showcase their individual strengths. Lament the loss of quick footwork that flies across the ice and spirals that interpret the music, and ask whether rules could be rewritten to encourage skaters to show off those skills.

Maybe if the decision makers hear enough voices asking reasonably for the same kinds of reasonable changes, they will consider making those changes.