- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
I think the ISU is trying to save money on rink time. They could give two hoots about "exhaustion."
Me on the other hand, I'm more than exhausted with ISU idiocy.
2018-2019 Season - New rules
- Thread starter enzofv
- Start date
I think the ISU is trying to save money on rink time. They could give two hoots about "exhaustion."
Me on the other hand, I'm more than exhausted with ISU idiocy.
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
Unless you have all judges from Antarctica, some degree of judging bias will exist
As long as competitions are structured by nationality, that is indeed the case.
While I agree that Nationality can certainly be a factor. I believe that there are regional practices that result in different styles that can appeal to different people. These are usually geographical, but not necessarily nationalistic.
There'll be bias regardless, it just won't be a "score competitors from my country higher" type of bias. Judges will still be biased in other things, like skating style (lyrical, fun, dramatic), mood (happy, sad, romantic), preferences with elements (higher jumps, faster spins) etc. In a sport like FS where programs can be so different from each other, there will always have biased judging (obviously the less the better, but can't fully eliminate it).
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2012
If pairs have a choice, I think most would want to take out the side by side spin. Most pairs cannot synchronize well. Well, I don't really like the changes, especially they are pretty big ones.
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2015
pairs won't have a choice.
ISU is going to split the spins between SP and FS.
one spin is going to be required in the short program and the other in FS.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
It makes you wonder if ISU even tried to collect some feedback from coaches & skaters -I guess not...sigh..
It would make more sense to cut out a jump AND a spin to make it work and even then it will be hard enough considering that all skaters probably will take out an easiest jump.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2012
Agreed. What has puzzled me is when people have been talking about the coming changes and that these will put a greater emphasis on the "artistic" - when, in fact, due to all the elements being squished together in a shorter amount of time, there'll be less time for any "art".
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2016
Might be a silly question, but: If a skater gets a ding (!) on a jump, do they lose base value points? GOE points? Both? Or does it differ for each skater and depend on what the judges decide to do?
Under the current rules, ISU communication 2089 (http://www.usfigureskating.org/content/ISU 2089-sptc-comm-goe-sov-2017-18.pdf):
For the edge alert symbol ! ("unclear takeoff"), there is no change to the base value for a ! call. ("The sign "!" allows to keep full original base value of the jump.")
Judges are supposed to reduce the GOE by -1 to -2 from whatever they would have given the element without the alert.
So the GOE for a jump with ! symbol could range anywhere from +2 (if it was otherwise excellent in enough ways to deserve +3 in a given judge's mind and the judge thought the edge was acceptable or close enough that the smaller reduction of -1 was appropriate) down to -3 (if there was also some other weakness or error, especially if the judge thought the takeoff edge itself was worth the -2 reduction).
So yes, it depends on what the judges decide to do -- which largely depends on the mix of positive and negative qualities in each such jump. The same skater might get different calls from the same judge on different jumps with the same call, as well as different calls on the same jump from different judges.
Details of these rules will probably change for the 2018-2019 season, but we don't know the details yet.
For the edge alert symbol ! ("unclear takeoff"), there is no change to the base value for a ! call. ("The sign "!" allows to keep full original base value of the jump.")
Judges are supposed to reduce the GOE by -1 to -2 from whatever they would have given the element without the alert.
So the GOE for a jump with ! symbol could range anywhere from +2 (if it was otherwise excellent in enough ways to deserve +3 in a given judge's mind and the judge thought the edge was acceptable or close enough that the smaller reduction of -1 was appropriate) down to -3 (if there was also some other weakness or error, especially if the judge thought the takeoff edge itself was worth the -2 reduction).
So yes, it depends on what the judges decide to do -- which largely depends on the mix of positive and negative qualities in each such jump. The same skater might get different calls from the same judge on different jumps with the same call, as well as different calls on the same jump from different judges.
Details of these rules will probably change for the 2018-2019 season, but we don't know the details yet.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
I don’t think I like the looks of the -5 to +5 GOE rules that seem inevitable at this point. .
My concern really is that expanding the GOE scale may lead to further inflation and deflation for some judges who lack resitraint when judging their own and rival skaters. We saw several judges who were scoring their home federation skaters higher than the other judges and then scoring the lowest marks of those skater’s direct competitors. I don’t think we need to point out the specific instances but I think we can see that there were several this season alone.
There is speculation that in order to hit +4 or +5 GOE a skater must satisfy 3 specific bullets first. Good Height, Good Take Off and Landing, Effortless Throughout. Ok that sounds good but let’s think on that a second. What is good height? Can it be measured and quantified as a specific point above the ice? Do we need to factor in the different sizes and even weights of skaters to determine what qualifies as “good height”. I’m not trying to be difficult but I’m legitimately curious as to how this can be applied any more fairly than what we already have in place.
Another concern is the scoring. Will a 3t-3t (+5 GOE) outscore a 3z-3t with +1 or +2? Are we going to see more 3t-3t as a result? :disagree:
Finally...well...this is a bit out there but I believe what the ISU is trying to address is poor judging. This proposal not only misses that mark but potentially could make it worse. If the effort is to curb poor judging then perhaps a better method would be to come up with a scoring/ranking system of the judge’s marks. Not if they stay within a corridor but rather if they are scoring skaters on a consistent scale. I’d even consider a fine for federations whose judges violate certain consistency principles.
Someone please convince me that this isn’t a terrible decision
My concern really is that expanding the GOE scale may lead to further inflation and deflation for some judges who lack resitraint when judging their own and rival skaters. We saw several judges who were scoring their home federation skaters higher than the other judges and then scoring the lowest marks of those skater’s direct competitors. I don’t think we need to point out the specific instances but I think we can see that there were several this season alone.
There is speculation that in order to hit +4 or +5 GOE a skater must satisfy 3 specific bullets first. Good Height, Good Take Off and Landing, Effortless Throughout. Ok that sounds good but let’s think on that a second. What is good height? Can it be measured and quantified as a specific point above the ice? Do we need to factor in the different sizes and even weights of skaters to determine what qualifies as “good height”. I’m not trying to be difficult but I’m legitimately curious as to how this can be applied any more fairly than what we already have in place.
Another concern is the scoring. Will a 3t-3t (+5 GOE) outscore a 3z-3t with +1 or +2? Are we going to see more 3t-3t as a result? :disagree:
Finally...well...this is a bit out there but I believe what the ISU is trying to address is poor judging. This proposal not only misses that mark but potentially could make it worse. If the effort is to curb poor judging then perhaps a better method would be to come up with a scoring/ranking system of the judge’s marks. Not if they stay within a corridor but rather if they are scoring skaters on a consistent scale. I’d even consider a fine for federations whose judges violate certain consistency principles.
Someone please convince me that this isn’t a terrible decision
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
^^^
I dont think proposed GOE will change much of subjective influences of individual judge. We will still have 9 different judges on the pannel with theirs average counting. Distribution of GoE per skaters will be stranger, with higher range of GOE, and thats the reason of making average GOE to give skater as a final mark.. What new GOE proposal will do in first place is to make a bigger difference between a fall or visibly bad landing on jumps, and visibly clean jumps.
I dont think proposed GOE will change much of subjective influences of individual judge. We will still have 9 different judges on the pannel with theirs average counting. Distribution of GoE per skaters will be stranger, with higher range of GOE, and thats the reason of making average GOE to give skater as a final mark.. What new GOE proposal will do in first place is to make a bigger difference between a fall or visibly bad landing on jumps, and visibly clean jumps.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
And to think that men and pairs were doing 5 minute long programs - truly free programs - up till the early 1980s. Yes I know someone will say or think oh but they weren't doing a bunch of quads...but, but, but...and they think that will improve the artistry? By cutting the program down. Good luck with that.
And the purpose of skating pairs is to do pairs move synchronously - that means a side by side spin done well. It doesn't mean you take it out because its hard to get in sync. Cry me a river. It is suppose to be a challenge to skate as one. And now the ISU wants to eliminate one or a pair spin - another reason for pairs skating - two bodies entwined and spinning together. Is that so we can watch the lady grab her free leg boot before heading down into a mediocre, non-arched back, non-head reaching the ice death spiral - in the name of being a "transition"?
How much would you like to bet extended spread eagles and ina bauers begin to disappear?
And will the new scoring system DING a skater who falls once or twice or steps out of two jumps - in the choreography and transition and performance part of the scoring? Because if you fall twice and three turn out of another - you shouldn't be getting 9.75 or 9.5 in those categories...maybe a 0.25 or 0.5 automatic deduction there since all of those are affected, or will judges give 9.75 to a skater who falls one and pops another etc simply because its Medvedeva or Kostner or whomever has a reputation of being an artistic skater?
SMH
And the purpose of skating pairs is to do pairs move synchronously - that means a side by side spin done well. It doesn't mean you take it out because its hard to get in sync. Cry me a river. It is suppose to be a challenge to skate as one. And now the ISU wants to eliminate one or a pair spin - another reason for pairs skating - two bodies entwined and spinning together. Is that so we can watch the lady grab her free leg boot before heading down into a mediocre, non-arched back, non-head reaching the ice death spiral - in the name of being a "transition"?
How much would you like to bet extended spread eagles and ina bauers begin to disappear?
And will the new scoring system DING a skater who falls once or twice or steps out of two jumps - in the choreography and transition and performance part of the scoring? Because if you fall twice and three turn out of another - you shouldn't be getting 9.75 or 9.5 in those categories...maybe a 0.25 or 0.5 automatic deduction there since all of those are affected, or will judges give 9.75 to a skater who falls one and pops another etc simply because its Medvedeva or Kostner or whomever has a reputation of being an artistic skater?
SMH
I've been having a think about how this might work. Apologies if I'm wrong...
Taking quads as an example, it looks as if the Base Value will be reduced by 10%, and then it'll be 10% per GOE added or subtracted depending on the quality of he jump.
Hence under the new system reduced BV plus +1 GOE will get you back to the old Base Value. I can't imagine they'll give a +1 GOE for zero bullet points. Hence to get the old score you'll need to get 1 more bullet point than now, but it'll still only be 1 bullet point.
For reduced BV plus +2 GOE, you'll get back to about old BV plus +1 GOE, so I imagine this will be 2 bullet points.
Then for reduced BV plus + 3 GOE you'll be at about old BV plus +2 GOE, so that'll be 4 bullet points.
Finally there's reduced BV plus +4 GOE, and that'll be very close to old BV plus +3 GOE i.e. 6 bullet points.
Finally, there's new BV plus +5 GOE, and I expect that'll be either 7 or 8 bullet points, assuming that the bullet points are exactly as now, and that the judges follow them in giving out GOEs - there's the rub.
When it comes to triples it's slightly different as the base values haven't reduced by as much, plus the GOE can be considerably more than 10% for the lower value triples e.g. for Toe Loops and Salchows it's more than 15%.
However doing the above, reduced BV plus +1 GOE will score about old BV + '0.5 GOE'. Hence 1 bullet point will be about right.
Reduced BV + 2 GOE will be about old BV + 1.25 GOE, so getting 2 bullet points will score you slightly higher than now.
Reduced BV + 3 GOE will be about old BV + 2 GOE, so 4 bullet points should be the same as now.
Finally reduced BV + 4 GOE will be about old BV + 2.75 GOE, so 6 bullet points will score you a bit less - it will all depend on the triples though, a 3Lz plus +4 GOE looks as if that's going to score 8.26 vs 8.1 for a +3 GOE one, so it'll depend on what you're good at/get high scores on (...).
Lastly reduced BV + 5 GOE would be at about 'old BV + 3.5 GOE' so about 7 bullet points would be necessary. It'll be interesting to see on what how they decide you'll get +4 or +5, but the judges aren't exactly generous with +3s at the moment, so I imagine +4s and certainly +5s will be a lot rarer than people are imagining (I may be wrong of course).
Finally to answer the question re +5 GOE 3T-3T vs +1/+2 3Lz-3T, I think the former will score 10.5 on the new scale (if 3T is 4.2 points). This is compared with 10.7 for +3 GOE at the moment, while a +1/+2 GOE 3Lz-3T will score 10.69/11.28 under the new system. However you're not exactly comparing apples with apples, +1 GOE will probably only require 1 bullet point as above, and +2 two, so actually +1 and +2 3Lz-3Ts will tend to score quite well compared with now, but lower value triples such as 3Ts will do less well - if I'm right to get the same score as now for a +3 3T-3T you're going to need more bullet points, not fewer, and even then you can never reach the old score of 10.7.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
^^^
I think values of the triples (except flip) will be also lowered a little bit (0.1 - 0.3)... But in your example of 3t-3t, the score with average of +5goe will give 4.2 + 4.2 = 8.4 + 50%8.4 = 12.6, while 3lz-3t with average +2goe will give 6 + 4.2=10.2 + 20%10.2 = 12.25. Or im getting the new proposal wrong?
I think values of the triples (except flip) will be also lowered a little bit (0.1 - 0.3)... But in your example of 3t-3t, the score with average of +5goe will give 4.2 + 4.2 = 8.4 + 50%8.4 = 12.6, while 3lz-3t with average +2goe will give 6 + 4.2=10.2 + 20%10.2 = 12.25. Or im getting the new proposal wrong?
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
I don’t think I like the looks of the -5 to +5 GOE rules that seem inevitable at this point. .
My concern really is that expanding the GOE scale may lead to further inflation and deflation for some judges who lack resitraint when judging their own and rival skaters. We saw several judges who were scoring their home federation skaters higher than the other judges and then scoring the lowest marks of those skater’s direct competitors. I don’t think we need to point out the specific instances but I think we can see that there were several this season alone.
There is speculation that in order to hit +4 or +5 GOE a skater must satisfy 3 specific bullets first. Good Height, Good Take Off and Landing, Effortless Throughout. Ok that sounds good but let’s think on that a second. What is good height? Can it be measured and quantified as a specific point above the ice? Do we need to factor in the different sizes and even weights of skaters to determine what qualifies as “good height”. I’m not trying to be difficult but I’m legitimately curious as to how this can be applied any more fairly than what we already have in place.
Another concern is the scoring. Will a 3t-3t (+5 GOE) outscore a 3z-3t with +1 or +2? Are we going to see more 3t-3t as a result? :disagree:
Finally...well...this is a bit out there but I believe what the ISU is trying to address is poor judging. This proposal not only misses that mark but potentially could make it worse. If the effort is to curb poor judging then perhaps a better method would be to come up with a scoring/ranking system of the judge’s marks. Not if they stay within a corridor but rather if they are scoring skaters on a consistent scale. I’d even consider a fine for federations whose judges violate certain consistency principles.
Someone please convince me that this isn’t a terrible decision
This is my biggest gripe with the scale increase. Judges can't help but prop their faves and hold back the second-tier skaters.
Like PCS, I think the -5/+5 scale will be used as a means to prop up some skaters and hold back others. Similarly, the judges might show restraint initially, with just +1 and +2 and reserving +5 for only the very best elements but over time, they will start handing out GOE like candy when politics inevitably take over (the same way judges would give like 8.00s/9.00s only for very good performances, and now they give out mid 9's and even 10.00's for falls).
I also fear that this will make some skaters add the maximum number of features to their spins and jumps in order to maximize GOE (i.e. tanos on everything, exit transitions on everything instead of having a few jumps with nice, held landings).
Regarding scoring there's a point where harder elements should score higher, but quality should still be important. Gabby Daleman's 3T+3T should score higher than many 3Z+3Ts and 3F+3Ts out there, for example. Obviously more difficulty is better, but some skaters are so scrappy with their higher difficulty that I'd wish they'd do an easier jump with better execution and score the same or more than a harder jump with sloppy execution.
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
A ding (!) is just the technical caller saying that based on the review of the jump the edge was unclear which means it may or may not have been the right edge. There's no mandatory deduction in BV or GOE though. It's up to the discretion of the judges when it comes to what kind of GOE it gets. Depends on the skater how the judges feel about them. If judges go hard on a skater they will usually give out -GOE; if they like a skater they'll go easier.
