Common mistakes in judging (ISU Global Seminar 2019)

[Lambari]

I came across this video from a global seminar held by the ISU this year (not sure of the exact the date) containing a section about common mistakes in judging PCS. But I can't find the other sections of the seminar or any more info on it so I would be glad if someone can help me. It would be better if it was easily accessible but this video is unlisted by the channel.

The presenter mentioned that they would have a copy of these slides at competitions, but does it mean only the attendees would have it or at most competitions all judges have this presentation available? How often does the ISU require judges to attend these seminars? I've heard it's only once every 4 years but I'm not sure If I'm right and where this is written.

Several of these issues have already been discussed ad infinitum here by fans such as increasing PCS according to the number of quads, not evaluating one foot skating, the effect of the starting order and the skaters' previous results etc. What are your thoughts about the points they chose to address? What other topics would you like them to cover? At last how do you evaluate ISU's approach for continuous education in judging?

 

[Mathman]

I liked this one:

Performance is related to more than just involvment and projection and include carriage and clarity of movements.

To me that "clarity of movements" thing is super important. It is more beautiful to do a few sharply defined movements well than to rush thrpugh a a hodge-podge of activity.

 

[Lambari]

I wonder if that 'arriving at an average for a program' was their way of addressing PCS corridor, If I understood it right. That's for me one of the most important points. I would appreciate if they could go into more detail about each point instead of just list them.

Also wish they made the comment section available and list the video, since there is no point in even posting the video is it isn't accessible. It obviously could turn into a catfight, but at least it could be some good feedback if they actually go through the comments.

For me the 'Involvement versus musical sensivity' is the trickier one as it is the most subjective:

Common mistakes in judging interpretation: Involvement and musical sensivity are not synonymous
Involvement is rewarded under performance
Musical sensivity is one's ability to hear and demonstrate an appreciation for the musical detail, character and structure through appropriate movement.

There's programs that are performed with good projection but with sections that have little to do with the music or vice versa. However this is really hard to evaluate.

Maybe it could use some video examples. I know there was this guide from a while back, to demonstrate what would be 'good', 'average' and 'weak', but since there are far more ranges now based on the components charts (outstanding, excellent, very good, good, above average, average, fair, weak, poor, very poor and extremely poor), they could make an updated version. Wonder if it is doable.

 

[WeakAnkles]

Well obviously the number one mistake in judging is they didn't agree with me.

Work on that ISU, m'okay?

:hap36:

 

[Ice Dance]

Clarity of movement does not have to be sparse. Sharp rapid movement can be clear, well-defined, & exciting.

 

[yude]

I came across this video from a global seminar held by the ISU this year (not sure of the exact the date) containing a section about common mistakes in judging PCS.

Yukiko Okabe (ISU judge/technical controller) tweeted "the global seminar of ISU will start in Frankfurt today!" on June 30, so I think this video was taken recently if it was the same seminar.

https://twitter.com/QzrWQ5xVuMyTrCA/status/1145425979063590913

And this is a blog post includes Japanese translation of the video, for Japanese speakers who are not good at English listening (like me).
Very interesting.

https://ameblo.jp/popular2/entry-12491026428.html

 

[Andrea82]

I came across this video from a global seminar held by the ISU this year (not sure of the exact the date)

The Global Seminar was held this week.

It included
seminar for re-certefication of Technical Specialists
seminar + exam for new International judges
seminar + exam for new International and ISU referees (this video looks like part of the seminar for Referees)

I How often does the ISU require judges to attend these seminars? I've heard it's only once every 4 years but I'm not sure If I'm right and where this is written.

To be eligible for re-appointment, judges must have attended a seminar or webinar in the 48 months before the 31th July of the relevant calendar year. So yes, 4 years. It is rule 413
Initial Judge meeting + Round table at ISU Championships and Olympics count as a seminar if a member of the Technical Commitee is present conducting it along with the Referee.

For Technical Controllers and Specialists it is a seminar/webminar in the previous 36 months. The on-site training for those named at ISU Championships and Olympics count as seminar for them too.

 

[Jeanie19]

Scoring is so important, I think every 4 years is not sufficient. It should be no more than every two years.
And I don't understand why the starting order should matter. Just the skater skating, no other thought should be in the judges thoughts.

 

[Roast Toast]

And I don't understand why the starting order should matter. Just the skater skating, no other thought should be in the judges thoughts.

The old excuse used to be that judges were used to the old 6.0 system, where you couldn't start handing out the 5.8s and 5.9s too early. I wonder how many judges currently available used to officiate in the old system.

 

[nussnacker]

Well obviously the number one mistake in judging is they didn't agree with me.

Work on that ISU, m'okay?

:hap36:

 

[gkelly]

The old excuse used to be that judges were used to the old 6.0 system, where you couldn't start handing out the 5.8s and 5.9s too early. I wonder how many judges currently available used to officiate in the old system.

If they've been judging for more than 15 years, they were originally trained in the old system.

Many who have received their first international appointments within the last 15 years had already been judging for years before that at a domestic level.

 

[Lambari]

To be eligible for re-appointment, judges must have attended a seminar or webinar in the 48 months before the 31th July of the relevant calendar year. So yes, 4 years. It is rule 413 (...).

Thank you!

Scoring is so important, I think every 4 years is not sufficient. It should be no more than every two years.
And I don't understand why the starting order should matter. Just the skater skating, no other thought should be in the judges thoughts.

I agree. Once every 4 years is probably too little, reinforcement is important. I'm also not sure how accountability works when these errors do occur.

Some of these issues are just so ingrained that even we sometimes take it as a given. "X will receive World/Olympic champion bonus", "Y have been so consistent, PCS will shoot up / Y have been so inconsistent the judges have dropped them", "If only Z was in the final group..." "Let's just wait until B receive senior PCS" It's hard to break up this culture. The fact that ISU indeed addresses it is already a great step.

 

[nussnacker]

Thank you!



I agree. Once every 4 years is probably too little, reinforcement is important. I'm also not sure how accountability works when these errors do occur.

Some of these issues are just so ingrained that even we sometimes take it as a given. "X will receive World/Olympic champion bonus", "Y have been so consistent, PCS will shoot up / Y have been so inconsistent the judges have dropped them", "If only Z was in the final group..." "Let's just wait until B receive senior PCS" It's hard to break up this culture. The fact that ISU indeed addresses it is already a great step.

I don't think all of this is intentional. Judges can have subconscious biases that affect their judgement, even if they try hard to avoid it.
Imagine having a job candidate from Harvard and another one from Arizona state U. As much as you would tell yourself that this doesn't matter, and you need to find out who's going to be better at this job regardless of their University, a guy from Harvard will possibly get a pass even if he makes mistakes, while a guy from Arizona despite being better might not make the cut. There will be subconscious thought that the guy from Harvard MUST be better, although, it might not be that at all.
There would be a bar of expectations for skaters from earlier groups, and it's quite difficult to close it out completely.
They have to judge without that bias, but they are humans not robots, and things like that mess with their minds too. I think people often forget about that.

If figure skating was as popular as tennis or football, we'd get those seminars more often, I'm sure.

 

[tokoyami]

in my opinion, they should make it so no judges who were trained in the old system can be allowed to judge major international competitions. It's hard to unlearn something, especially as a (presumably) 60+ year old person

 

[Mathman]

It's hard to unlearn something, especially as a (presumably) 60+ year old person

On the contrary, as a 60+ person I can assure you that it is very easy to forget everything you ever knew. Now where did I put my car keys?

 

[Mathman]

This one is interesting.

Forgetting part(s) of the program with no transitions or very few transitions (e.g. in anticipation of a quad).

There is a tendency to think, well of course he didn't do any transitions there -- he's setting up a quad!!! (This is separate from a GOE deduction for "telegraphing").

I guess the idea is, if you do a quad you get credit for a quad. If you do transitions you get credit for transitions. If you want credit for both, do both.