Ways IJS Could Improve

[ice coverage]

Per Jackie Wong today (emphasis added):

As I write this, the ISU is preparing to test out a revamped GOE system at Tallinn Trophy later this season. It uses a wider GOE range of -5 to +5, where each "grade" is tied to a percentage add or drop in the base value, rather than a blanket set of deductions and additions that are given to a vast range of differently-valued elements. The percentage add or drop is still in debate, but it's supposed to be in the range of 10-15% per grade.

So that's to say that if a skater falls on a quad lutz, the element would receive a -5 GOE, which drops the base value of 13.60 to potentially 6.80 (10% of BV per negative GOE) or as low as 3.40 (15% of BV per negative GOE).

Of course, this system of -5 to +5 will still need to rely on judges giving positive GOEs when they are appropriate, not when there's a well-known skater on the ice. But if this GOE system is instituted, it is a huge step in the right direction for the IJS.

http://www.rockerskating.com/news/2...-on-rewarding-the-good-and-penalizing-the-bad (Nov 5)​

I knew in general that the expanded range of -5 to +5 was coming to the GOE system.

But am I the last to know about the test at Tallinn Trophy?

---

ETA (on Nov 8):

Noticed today that Jackie has added the following sentence to his article:

(The test will be behind the scenes with a different panel of judges.) ​

 

[Shayuki]

With the GOE change, I do agree it might be a good idea to bring up jump variation variety. It's fine if Tanos are rewarded but not on all of them. Perhaps have three categories like Tano, Rippon and another more creative category and limit the bonus they'd receive to 2 jumping passes per variation per program or something like that?

I think that the variations are nice to have overall and it only becomes a program if they are spammed everywhere. I'd also like to see some more creativity with the variations. Surely you can do something more than just have one or two hands above your head?

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

I don't like the idea of limiting arm variations or how many times they should get scored because it's possible that a skater could actually perform every jump and wow us. I would however like to see language in the guidelines that encourages judges to add or subtract based on the quality of the variation. The judges need to feel comfortable that they have latitude to say "all right.... this is just annoying now" thru their marks yet reserve the freedom to reward anyone who can perform many in one program with excellent quality.

FWIW: The judges don't have to award arm variations under the current rule but I don't think it is spelled out clearly enough that they don't have to or that they can penalize a program if they honestly think it causes the performance to suffer.

For instance: Excessive while lacking quality would be a nice addition to various aspects of scoring.

YMMV


Ps. I'm all for rewarding new arm variations. :thumbsup:

 

[Tastetherainbow]

The current system rewards backloading programs with the toughest elements just for the ten per cent bonus. While this isn't so much of a problem with the mens discipline since the top skaters need the stamina to complete the more difficult quads at the top of their program, this effects ladies and pairs too much. Some ladies backload their programs with all their jumps and most pairs now backload their programs with all of the lifts.

I don't know if anyone in this thread has told this to you, but the 10% bonus for pairs was removed after the 2013-2014 season. Pairs do lifts at the end of a program because they can do those elements reliably when they are exhausted as opposed to a gutsy move like saving throws for last (hence why Aljona Savchenko is such a queen). They get no bonus; otherwise, the WR would have been broken already.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

I don't know if anyone in this thread has told this to you, but the 10% bonus for pairs was removed after the 2013-2014 season. Pairs do lifts at the end of a program because they can do those elements reliably when they are exhausted as opposed to a gutsy move like saving throws for last (hence why Aljona Savchenko is such a queen). They get no bonus; otherwise, the WR would have been broken already.

Yeah, it's rather silly the bonus no longer exists. There's almost no way that S/K or S/H or D/R can crack the World Record, even though their max difficulty is considerably better than V/T's (and execution in some cases).

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Some of these GOEs are honestly ridiculous. They should do like diving and get rid of more outliers. i.e. throw out the top 2 and bottom 2 scores for both GOE and PCS.

So only 5/9 judges are counted for each element/PCS category score doled out.

It would render biased/skewed judges powerless, and ensure more consistency from the panel.

(And to cherry that sundae, judges who consistently get flagged for outlier scores should be scrutinized -- moreso for wonky GOE, since some judges score PCS on different scales of lenience.)

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Of course, this system of -5 to +5 will still need to rely on judges giving positive GOEs when they are appropriate, not when there's a well-known skater on the ice. But if this GOE system is instituted, it is a huge step in the right direction for the IJS.[/I]

http://www.rockerskating.com/news/2...-on-rewarding-the-good-and-penalizing-the-bad (Nov 5)[/INDENT]

Key words right here. It's fine to expand GOE scoring and even PCS scale, however it will only be leveraged by the judges to hold up their faves and hold back those who would contend with them. Expect to see -1's for falls now.

 

[YesWay]

I don't like the idea of limiting arm variations or how many times they should get scored because it's possible that a skater could actually perform every jump and wow us. I would however like to see language in the guidelines that encourages judges to add or subtract based on the quality of the variation. The judges need to feel comfortable that they have latitude to say "all right.... this is just annoying now" thru their marks yet reserve the freedom to reward anyone who can perform many in one program with excellent quality.

FWIW: The judges don't have to award arm variations under the current rule but I don't think it is spelled out clearly enough that they don't have to or that they can penalize a program if they honestly think it causes the performance to suffer.

For instance: Excessive while lacking quality would be a nice addition to various aspects of scoring.

YMMV

Ps. I'm all for rewarding new arm variations. :thumbsup:

This may be of interest:

That reminded me, that Yukiko Okabe (an ISU judge and technical panellist) said something interesting recently, while she was doing some of her priceless commentary - this time on 4CC replays on Japanese J-Sports4 TV channel (I think it was 4CC, might have been another competition... but anyway...):

A skater was doing tano/rippon jumps and she said something along the lines of: "it's not enough any more, to simply 'do' a tano/rippon - it also had to look good, and the other aspects of the jump had to be solid, or it wasn't going to help the skater's GoE".

Now, that's "as I remember it", and we don't have recordings or anything to double check... So don't take the above as an exact quote, or the absolute truth.

But I definitely raised an eyebrow at the time, at the implication that judges might be shifting how they view tano/rippon jumps... that if simply 'doing' a tano/rippon automatically ticked a GoE bullet point in the past, it might not be so any more...

 

[Bluediamonds09]

By giving PCS accordingly and not using favoritism.

 

[Ares]

With the GOE change, I do agree it might be a good idea to bring up jump variation variety. It's fine if Tanos are rewarded but not on all of them. Perhaps have three categories like Tano, Rippon and another more creative category and limit the bonus they'd receive to 2 jumping passes per variation per program or something like that?

I think that the variations are nice to have overall and it only becomes a program if they are spammed everywhere. I'd also like to see some more creativity with the variations. Surely you can do something more than just have one or two hands above your head?

I agree with uou.

As for other arms variation ... Midori Ito was known for her arms / hands on the hip variation that she was sometimes doing.

 

[Globetrotter]

By giving PCS accordingly and not using favoritism.

1000% agreement! Consistency in applying PCS evaluation standards for individual judges.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

1000% agreement! Consistency in applying PCS evaluation standards for individual judges.

I too agree. I don’t even care if their scale is very different then mine so long as they stay consistent with ALL of the skaters. I’m the most disappointed when they break their trends for one or two skaters. That’s when it’s time to grab the torches. :dev2:

 

[bobbob]

I agree with consistency for all skaters, but I think one thing to keep in mind is that if judges are punished for "bucking the trend" and say giving PCS values of 8 to Evgenia, then the vicious cycle of inaccurate scores will continue to get worse. I think one of the main issues is when skater X skates consistently for a while, their PCS goes up with no actual improvement in skating because some judges give higher PCS, then all the judges feel the need to go higher to keep up, etc. Conversely, skaters who have a few bad skates are dumped even though their skating may not have actually gotten worse because judges are going lower and everyone else feels the need to go lower as well.

 

[OS]

Is there any particular reason they don't randomise the skating orders? Other than broadcasting?

Given they tends to show all the skates in a GP series, seems it doesn't matter?

 

[YesWay]

That reminded me, that Yukiko Okabe (an ISU judge and technical panellist) said something interesting recently, while she was doing some of her priceless commentary - this time on 4CC replays on Japanese J-Sports4 TV channel (I think it was 4CC, might have been another competition... but anyway...):

A skater was doing tano/rippon jumps and she said something along the lines of: "it's not enough any more, to simply 'do' a tano/rippon - it also had to look good, and the other aspects of the jump had to be solid, or it wasn't going to help the skater's GoE".

Now, that's "as I remember it", and we don't have recordings or anything to double check... So don't take the above as an exact quote, or the absolute truth.

But I definitely raised an eyebrow at the time, at the implication that judges might be shifting how they view tano/rippon jumps... that if simply 'doing' a tano/rippon automatically ticked a GoE bullet point in the past, it might not be so any more...

A little follow up to the above: Nobunari Oda was commentating on Internationeaux de France yesterday, and he said something very similar.

Both jumps in Sotskova's SP combination were Tano's, but Oda said that they needed to look better than that, to get the best GoE...

 

[lappo]

Get rid of the Zayak rule and put one when skaters have to show all the six jumps in the long program inside a limited number of jumping passes. It would be easier for them not to do the maths, encourage them to have proper technique on all the jumps and it would be immediately understandable for the public.

 

[gkelly]

I like the idea of rewarding all 6 basic takeoffs.

Not every senior skater can do triples from all takeoffs. (And a handful of men can do quads from at least half of them)

Should planned doubles count? What about singles, which would be mistakes?

Do failed jumps count, as long as the skater has shown the takeoff correctly?

I assume even otherwise beautiful flips and lutzes with e calls should not.

For those who can't do triple loops, I'd expect double loops planned at the ends of combos. But if the first jumps fail, the skater might end up not being able to attempt the planned loop at all.

Is it better to make a requirement and subtract points if a skater doesn't fulfill it? Or to give a bonuses for achieving it?

 

[Hevari]

Yeah, it's rather silly the bonus no longer exists. There's almost no way that S/K or S/H or D/R can crack the World Record, even though their max difficulty is considerably better than V/T's (and execution in some cases).

So what? Braking the WR is such and important thing for you or for the sports in whole? For me I thing that the WR's in the judged sports is nonsence - the rules are changing, the people are changing, all is changing in the sports. Let the scores be just the scores for particular competitions and skaters' PB's....

 

[lappo]

I like the idea of rewarding all 6 basic takeoffs.

Not every senior skater can do triples from all takeoffs. (And a handful of men can do quads from at least half of them)

Should planned doubles count? What about singles, which would be mistakes?

Do failed jumps count, as long as the skater has shown the takeoff correctly?

I assume even otherwise beautiful flips and lutzes with e calls should not.

For those who can't do triple loops, I'd expect double loops planned at the ends of combos. But if the first jumps fail, the skater might end up not being able to attempt the planned loop at all.

Is it better to make a requirement and subtract points if a skater doesn't fulfill it? Or to give a bonuses for achieving it?

In a fairer and better world, when takeoff are properly called for ALL the skaters then:
- it would be better for ladies to have all the five triples + 2A but of course there are skaters who don't have them or who don't them properly; if they can do a 2Lz/F with proper takeoff it would fulfill the rule and reflect with a lower TES score than someone with a correct triple; don't know how to handle singles but without the Zayak rule, if you single or pop a jump you could be able to try again in the seventh jumping pass (the seventh jumping pass could become a kind of "emergency jump" if you for example lip/flutz a previous one or cannot do the combo 2Lo before.
- maybe language problem: what do you mean by fail? Because if it means that the landing is not smooth that maybe could be addressed in 0 or less GOES (sorry, English is not my first language...).
- I think it would be better to make it a requirement and subtract points if a skater don't do it (even though maybe considering the entire jump invalid would be too harsh...but then, they could do it as a double and get their TES with other jumps when they are more comfortable, for example 3-3-3).
Don't have any better idea as of now, sorry! But I really find it difficult to explain the Zayak rule to non FS fans and they all come out as "why such a complicated stuff?"; and maybe the skaters would have less to worry about their maths and could be more focused on interpration.
I would like to hear your own opinion about your own question, though, if you have time!

 

[gkelly]

In a fairer and better world, when takeoff are properly called for ALL the skaters then:
- it would be better for ladies to have all the five triples + 2A

Look at the protocols for senior B events and the lower ranks at Four Continents. You will see that there are quite a few ladies who compete internationally without a full complement of triples. Even more who don't make it out of their nationals (or to their nationals, in larger countries).

They can only do what they can do and do their best maximize their own points based on their own skill sets.

In most cases, it's not that they haven't tried to learn harder jumps, but that after years of trying they still haven't gotten close enough to put those jumps in their programs.

And anyone, even the best skaters in the world, can make mistakes on any jump during a competition.

By "fail," I meant any kind of failure where you would say the skater did not land the jump successfully:
pop, blatant two-foot landing, blatant downgrade, blatant incorrect takeoff, step out, fall, etc.

If you require skaters to attempt jumps they haven't quite mastered, there will be more failed jumps. Is making the attempt more worthy of reward than a clean performance?

Up to what point do you give the skater credit for trying all takeoffs, and at what point do you say "That wasn't even a recognizable try"?

So what is the goal?

Requiring skaters to show a good faith effort to execute jumps (double or higher?) from all takeoffs, regardless of how well they succeed?

Or rewarding skaters who not only try but who succeed on that day?

Making it easier for skaters to keep track of whether they have met the requirements so they don't have to do math and have multiple backup plans? Whether the requirements are maximum repeats or minimum attempts or both, I think there will still be confusion when the plan starts to go wrong and the skater tries to rearrange jump content on the fly.

Making it easier for fans to understand the rules? If it makes things harder for the skaters, I'd be opposed.

More later...