I think the problem is not just about judges, is also about the scoring system. That's why they are planing to make changes.
If this trend continues, there will be less people finding figure skating enjoyable to watch. The scores are supposed to encourage skater to deliver better programs.
Hahaha...oh gods. How about the Federations (at least the more powerful ones) are actually okay with this? The judges are after all, members of the federations, and are not necessarily true neutral observers punching numbers. When things are on the line, there is more national bias; when less, judges tend to score as neutral as possible. National biases in judging is pretty well known. Under such an overview, no system can maintain neutrality.
@Metis: the scary part is that there are youtube videos about what IJS ranks as difficult transitions. See the one here:
https://youtu.be/HM-jtNEnZVQ
There's actually a list that's all about IJS definitions, and it's shocking how they are not followed.
And thank you for your post and clarifying a point that people seem to ignore all the time:
- PE/CO/IN which can vary from competition to competition because they are affected by the cleanliness of the program that day
-SS/TR which actually do not vary that greatly from competition to competition, so long as the program is the same. These are the scores that even if they fluctuate, should not fluctuate much if there is not significant, noticeable difference and improvement. Something that frankly does not change easily in the span of half a season or a season, unless the skater has been bombing all season so nothing shown was correct (which I find a bit hard to believe since rockers are rockers, edge control is edge control).
- That SS/TR are quantifiable and separate from the GOE marks that already measure jumps
By the way, I hope people realize no one is disputing Nathan's win. Given what the final flight guys were doing, mathematically Nathan had the BV to secure a win, he may have even fell 2-3 times and still won since his BV was just...that high. The issue that is being argued is sadly, independent of Nathan himself- just that his PCS scores sadly are indicative of what is wrong with how PCS fluctuates and are far from measuring how a skater actually did that day.
I hope people who argue that Nathan's PCS in Milan are justified, are aware that those SS marks for the performance in Milan, are the same score as what Patrick Chan got at the Olympic Games. Are we seriously trying to make the statement that somehow, in the span of about a month, Nathan's SS just grew to match Patrick Chan's? Yes, he was cleaner at Milan, but is cleanliness enough to warrant such a jump in scores in a program component that is probably closer to "objective"?
There are 2 arguments that are being made about the PCS, both of which are faulty.
1) Nathan was the only guy who skated clean in the last group, thus the scores:
- a. Yes, and he went last in skating order, add in the PCS scores for Shoma for a messy skate, so Nathan obviously will get more. That is probably what happened. No doubt about it.
b. But the argument is whether or not such an effect (halo effect perhaps), is desirable, especially when it comes to SS and TR which are quantifiable scores and can be measured across a skater's competition season? Should we go with averages? No, but skaters don't usually magically jump around 0.5 points in 1 component element alone over the course of a month, and averages at least gives a bandwidth of where scores tend to lie.
2) Nathan did more quads than the other men, and quads count for something, quads should get leeway in PCS because they are difficult, and we shouldn't expect the same type of programs:
a. Metis already made the argument that quads/jump quality are already measured in GOEs, and should not be counted in TR and SS.
b. This also goes down a slippery slope of how much leeway are you giving for quad-filled programs when it comes to PCs scores. For example, for each quad that a skater does, are you giving the skater a 0.1 point leeway in SS/TR/CO/PE/IN? Given the 0.25 point skips, is it 0.25 per quad? In which case, you are saying that a skater who is normally an 8.25 TR/SS skater suddenly can become a 10 SS/TR skater because he added 7 quads. Think about it for a minute: the same skater skating with triple jumps, having the same choreography, same program, same demonstration of skills, may score only a 8.25 SS/TR. Making no other changes, but just adding in 7 quads, somehow now this skater should be given more leeway, and is no longer 8.25 SS/TR, but instead higher, much higher. Not because the rockers/counters/edges have improved dramatically, but because of quads. Imagine this using not a skater you like, but a skater you dislike-and ask yourself, is this a conclusion you can live with.
c. More to the point, if you argue and allow that slippery slope, you are not judging skaters for what they do on the ice that day, but based on potential (justified or not) or past history. This is another slippery slope, but also begs the question about averages. If a skater historically have not averaged above 8.5 in SS/TR this season, why is the skater suddenly beating that average if that day's performance is not significantly better?