press conference for judges and tech panel?

[daphenaxa]

I was thinking, after each competition we are all here on this forum moaning about overscoring, underscoring, national bias, crooked judging etc. and I thought it would actually be so so good that the judging panel and tech panel for each event held a press conference just like the skaters and explained their marks. Journalists could ask about the scores that look a bit weird or out of line or about the tech calls etc.

It think that would be such a good way to try to prevent or minimize all the sketchy stuff going on and it would also legitimate the marks with giving the possibility to the judges to explain their choices and even defend them. After all, those marks they give might actually be legitimate.

Maybe that way instead of seeing the judges as essentially working to put their own skaters on the podium/into GPF or whatever (which is the case 95% of the time, let's not lie to ourselves), we would actually understand their choices better, respect them more and also hopefully learn about the sport even more.

That'd be cool the tech specialists explain as well why teams lost levels or why some jumps got downgraded since the tech calls are so crucial nowadays...
I think overall it would really be a great stride into cleaning the image of FS and also into appeasing the fans that we are. It wouldn't change anything for casual viewers (only announcers and press could maybe use the info to explain some of the marks better) but i think it would mean a great deal for us (for me at least i guess), for the skaters and even for the judges tbh

I don't know if it is a solution that ISU could consider but now that I thought about it, i really really would like for this to happen. :thumbsup:

 

[AsadaFanBoy]

This sounds like it would rile up fans more than anything else. And there would be tons of questions that judges/tech specialists may not be able to answer because judging by its very nature is subjective.

You bring up great points though -- regarding levels or downgrades. The tech team should have to annotate the videos to show why levels were downgraded or jumps were UR or downgraded so things won't look like they came out of nowhere. Some jumps that were at 1/4 within full rotation were marked as UR and this shouldn't be the case.

I'm just afraid that if there were press conferences for judges and tech panels...because there are so many competitors, these press conferences would never end, and they'd only have enough time to do one or two skaters (assuming these skaters have ~3 URs +1downgraded spin) each.

Annotating the video replays seems like it would take no additional time (very tablet-friendly in fact) to do since the tech panel replays the questionable elements anyway. Tapping a video with a stylus close to the point where a level was lost or jump was called URed/Downgraded doesn't seem like it make things take longer.

The questionable elements should also be able to be contested by a coach/skater to avoid careless phantom UR or spin level calls because the judging shouldn't be a product of going mad with power. --looking at you, Shin Amano--

 

[daphenaxa]

yeah I didn't really think about the time logistics, i guess you are right it could be interminable, i guess I just would like some explanations about some of the scores maybe not all the methodology but the thinking behind some of the surprising ones etc.

I really like your annotation idea tho, that would be super cool and as you say pretty easy to put in place

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

The questionable elements should also be able to be contested by a coach/skater to avoid careless phantom UR or spin level calls because the judging shouldn't be a product of going mad with power. --looking at you, Shin Amano--

It seemed like there were a similar number of < calls at NHK as compared to previous events. Amano may be a bit harsher, but it seems like tech panels are coming down a lot harder on these calls generally.

 

[Ares]

It seemed like there were a similar number of < calls at NHK as compared to previous events. Amano may be a bit harsher, but it seems like tech panels are coming down a lot harder on these calls generally.

I really dislike obligatory knocking down of GOE after < calls. I mean jump could be of great quality with great flow, ticking all bullets but skater gets punished twofold for no good reason.

 

[frida80]

I can't imagine that will go well.

 

[NanaPat]

I thought levels were earned rather than lost? For example, you may get an extra level for catching your footing in a lift or spin. Some people attempt the catch, fail, and so "lose" a level. Others don't try at all. Have they also "lost" a level?

Here's a highly made-up example. Suppose an element has 10 possible features, and number of features included = level (max 3 or 4). It might be good for the specialists to indicate which features they are counting, so for example, someone could get a level 2 based on number of rotations (if that's a feature) and change of edge (if that's another one). But if Bielman position is another possible feature, and the person didn't achieve it, do we really want them to tell us every time there was no Bielman position? And so on for all the other possible features? If they were not credited, they weren't achieved at all, from the beginning of the element to the end.

So I'd support listing which features were "counted" in making up the level, but not justifying every feature that wasn't counted. Whether this information should be announced at a press conference, listed on the protocols, or just kept on file and reviewed by an super-tech-panel that's reviewing the work of tech panels is debatable.

If they want to make it generally available, the protocols are probably the best place for it.

 

[skylark]

This sounds like it would rile up fans more than anything else. And there would be tons of questions that judges/tech specialists may not be able to answer because judging by its very nature is subjective.

this transcendant sport relies on emotion and beauty every bit as much as technical excellence. Giving a judge press conference would simply mire us even more in the mud of accusations of bias, politics, and so forth.

It's a matter of values and taste. Judges are human beings like the rest of us. They like and value different things. The more you try to make figure skating objectively standard, the more people nitpick, and the more the heart-stopping beauty of this sport gets lost.

And per your comment on Shin Amano; this scoring system gives too much power to too few. End of story.

 

[skylark]

This sounds like it would rile up fans more than anything else. And there would be tons of questions that judges/tech specialists may not be able to answer because judging by its very nature is subjective.

this transcendant sport relies on emotion and beauty every bit as much as technical excellence. Those are intangible qualities. Giving a judge press conference would simply mire us even more in the mud of accusations of bias, politics, and so forth.

It's a matter of values and taste. Judges are human beings like the rest of us. They like and value different things. The more you try to make figure skating objectively standard, the more people nitpick, and the more the heart-stopping beauty of this sport gets lost.

And per your comment on Shin Amano; this scoring system gives too much power to too few. End of story.

 

[karne]

I like Shin Amano. URs should be called and punished harshly, same with <<. (Of course falls should be punished even more harshly). In no way shape or form should there be ANY kind of reward for an UR jump because it's a BAD JUMP regardless of anything else.

 

[shyne]

Q: Mr.President of USFA, why would you give Boyang Jin 9.25 and Patrick Chan 8.75 for skating skills?
A: Oops, I entered the wrong number, my bad.
Q: Which one?


Something like that?

 

[AsadaFanBoy]

this transcendant sport relies on emotion and beauty every bit as much as technical excellence. Giving a judge press conference would simply mire us even more in the mud of accusations of bias, politics, and so forth.

It's a matter of values and taste. Judges are human beings like the rest of us. They like and value different things. The more you try to make figure skating objectively standard, the more people nitpick, and the more the heart-stopping beauty of this sport gets lost.

And per your comment on Shin Amano; this scoring system gives too much power to too few. End of story.

Truncating the response and then responding to it in that manner gives the impression I'm in favor of press conferences. I am not. And seems to respond to additional points i didn't make...

 

[AsadaFanBoy]

I thought levels were earned rather than lost? For example, you may get an extra level for catching your footing in a lift or spin. Some people attempt the catch, fail, and so "lose" a level. Others don't try at all. Have they also "lost" a level?

Here's a highly made-up example. Suppose an element has 10 possible features, and number of features included = level (max 3 or 4). It might be good for the specialists to indicate which features they are counting, so for example, someone could get a level 2 based on number of rotations (if that's a feature) and change of edge (if that's another one). But if Bielman position is another possible feature, and the person didn't achieve it, do we really want them to tell us every time there was no Bielman position? And so on for all the other possible features? If they were not credited, they weren't achieved at all, from the beginning of the element to the end.

So I'd support listing which features were "counted" in making up the level, but not justifying every feature that wasn't counted. Whether this information should be announced at a press conference, listed on the protocols, or just kept on file and reviewed by an super-tech-panel that's reviewing the work of tech panels is debatable.

If they want to make it generally available, the protocols are probably the best place for it.

I agree with most of this. Since there are 'counts the first time used only' features, the tech panel is no doubt keeping track.

As for the hypothetical: yes, actually. Because it's possible to attempt something and have it look like it should get credit but credit isn't given. Like illusion entries into laybacks. Some illusion entries look like they weren't counted even if they should have been.

Your points also make me wonder, why not put the features/variations down in the protocols? The tech panel is keeping track of these anyway.

 

[karne]

\
Your points also make me wonder, why not put the features/variations down in the protocols? The tech panel is keeping track of these anyway.

LSp4illaccchg8?

Really?

 

[gkelly]

I really dislike obligatory knocking down of GOE after < calls. I mean jump could be of great quality with great flow, ticking all bullets but skater gets punished twofold for no good reason.

At least now it is no longer required for the final GOE to be negative. So if other aspects of the jump or especially jump combo are good, it's possible for the final GOE to be 0 or +1, or even possibly +2 for an otherwise great combo with <, but not <<.

And at least the jumps underrotated by 91-180 degrees are punished less in base value than was the case through 2010.

I agree with most of this. Since there are 'counts the first time used only' features, the tech panel is no doubt keeping track.

As for the hypothetical: yes, actually. Because it's possible to attempt something and have it look like it should get credit but credit isn't given. Like illusion entries into laybacks. Some illusion entries look like they weren't counted even if they should have been.

So if it were publicized which features a skater got credited, then we could assume anything they attempted obviously attempted but did not get credit for must not have met the requirements for that feature. Though we might have to guess why they didn't get credit, or read the tech panel rules more carefully to be able to figure it out for sure sometimes.

Which would be an improvement over having to figure out or guess about all features.

Your points also make me wonder, why not put the features/variations down in the protocols? The tech panel is keeping track of these anyway.

Possible in theory. It would require new programming for the data entry, and new design for the protocols, which would probably have to take a whole page per skater instead of the current half page.

 

[skylark]

Truncating the response and then responding to it in that manner gives the impression I'm in favor of press conferences. I am not. And seems to respond to additional points i didn't make...

I didn't mean it that way, and I don't think it gives that impression. I wasn't writing a point by point rebuttal. I said I agreed with the words that I quoted from you; that's all, and it doesn't imply anything more.

 

[AsadaFanBoy]

At least now it is no longer required for the final GOE to be negative. So if other aspects of the jump or especially jump combo are good, it's possible for the final GOE to be 0 or +1, or even possibly +2 for an otherwise great combo with <, but not <<.

And at least the jumps underrotated by 91-180 degrees are punished less in base value than was the case through 2010.



So if it were publicized which features a skater got credited, then we could assume anything they attempted obviously attempted but did not get credit for must not have met the requirements for that feature. Though we might have to guess why they didn't get credit, or read the tech panel rules more carefully to be able to figure it out for sure sometimes.

Which would be an improvement over having to figure out or guess about all features.



Possible in theory. It would require new programming for the data entry, and new design for the protocols, which would probably have to take a whole page per skater instead of the current half page.

They might be able to keep the current protocols format and have an expanded link or key on a separate page for each skater.

A lot of excel sheets can be automatically generated as cross linked expansions of a separate sheet and don't require much more input. This is if the elements are input into a module that accepts them similarly to excel, which the current protocols sheet looks like.

Of course I'm not familiar with the judging program/software/entry system itself, so not sure how this would translate.

And you're right, if it were listed which features got credit, a lot of guess work would be taken out and it would be an improvement.

 

[NanaPat]

So if it were publicized which features a skater got credited, then we could assume anything they attempted obviously attempted but did not get credit for must not have met the requirements for that feature. Though we might have to guess why they didn't get credit, or read the tech panel rules more carefully to be able to figure it out for sure sometimes.

Which would be an improvement over having to figure out or guess about all features.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Now, if a skater thinks they're doing features a,b and c for a level 3, and they get a lower level, they don't always know which of a,b or c was counted, and which wasn't.

Sometimes commentators tell us that so-and-so tried for some feature and missed, and will "lose a level" for it, Presumably in many of those cases, the skater and/or coach also knows what they did. But why always be negative? Why not tell us sometimes about features that were included, especially if they are unusual or striking or especially well done, or let us read about why an element got a HIGH level. And why not give skaters as much feedback as possible.

 

[nolangoh]

LSp4illaccchg8?

Really?

Well that looks cool to me It adds a bit of mysteriousness to the protocols that not even Sherlock Holmes can decipher

LSp4DifEDifCoPSFBDirIS (Difficult Entry, Difficult Change of Position on Same Foot, Both Direction, Clear Increase of Speed)

 

[NanaPat]

Well that looks cool to me It adds a bit of mysteriousness to the protocols that not even Sherlock Holmes can decipher

LSp4DifEDifCoPSFBDirIS (Difficult Entry, Difficult Change of Position on Same Foot, Both Direction, Clear Increase of Speed)

Maybe they could go whole hog and actually use words instead of just letter abbreviations? Or, at the least, separate the different features in some way. For example: LSp4-DifE/DifCoPSF/BDir/IS See, that's perfectly clear.

Thanks for giving a meaningful example. I was reduced to "features a, b and c".

ETA: Sorry I messed up your user name. I was editing, pasted the text in the wrong place, and didn't realize what I'd done. Still, it would make an interesting user name.