- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
SkateFiguring said:Indeed the GOEs for Chan's 4T are all over the place. There is a big spread even if the +2 (which I'm inclined to think of as a punching error) is taken out - from 0 to -3. There was some controversy about this UR call. Patrick himself seemed unconvinced and his coach said there were discussions about it, presumably among the officials, and even fans had arguments over it in some forums. So maybe the diverse opinions among the judges got reflated in the GOEs given, guidelines notwithstanding (just because I'm not 100% sure, and too lazy to look up right now, what the guidelines say about this. )
I would be more inclined to guess that each judge was following the guidelines.
Which are (I was too lazy to look up the actual jump on You Tube, but I did look up the guidelines ):
1. Short rotation in the judge's opinion, but no call by the Tech specialist: -1 GOE
2. < -1 to -2 GOE
3. << -2 to -3 GOE
All of these can be mitigated by positive features of the jump and/or aggravated by additional negative features.
If the jump seemed to a judge to be only borderline under-rotated and was pretty good otherwise, that judge could have given -1 for the under-rotation, +1 for some other feature that the judge especially liked, for a 0 overall.
Another judge, following the rules equally conscientiously, might have given -2 for the < and -1 for a scratchy landing or poor height, ending up with -3.
The judge who gave +2 is "outside the corridor." So is the one judge that gave -3. The mean of the GOEs is -1 exactly (as far as I can tell from the protocols -- the score of the referee counts in determining the average, but does not figure in the actual scoring and is not listed in the protocols.) The corridor for a particular element is plus or minus 1 point, inclusive, from the mean. No "anomaly" is called, however, unless the +2 judge or the -3 judge consistently scored Patrick too high or too low over all elements.