I wonder if it was ever a thought to go gymnastics style, where you start with a "0 GOE", and then deduct from the base value. No bonuses.
Single webinar
Skaters used for examples: Hanyu, Fernandez, Medvedeva, Zagitova, Osmond, Myahara, Higuchi, Kostner, Kolyada, Ge, both Hendrickx siblings, Giada Russo, Rizzo, Brezina, Messing, Rippon and Chan.
but the main points were pretty clear: these are guidelines, not rules (surprise!); the examples illustrate the best possible execution of each bullet point, but you can still award that bullet point for someone who doesn’t execute it quite that well; the system isn’t that different from the old one, it’s just intended to make it possible to distinguish different levels of performance better.
Listening to them, it was easy to see why some of us get frustrated: we want clear rules so that no skater ever gets the “wrong” score, but the ISU has built subjectivity into the scoring system.
I know I am expecting far too much out of the ISU to have a semblance of logic, but why do jumps have "compuslory" bullets, if they are still just "guidelines"? Do they expect the judges to simultaneously use these just as "guidelines" and still go through the "compulsory" bullets when grading jumps? Why do these videos exist if they're just "guidelines"? Who cares? Can't the judges just give +5s to whatever they want if these are just "guidelines"? How do these videos help anyone? What information did the skaters gain? I didn't even think the "compuslory" bullet solution was good or even well-thought, but this is just about the most useless thing they have come out with. And this is the ISU. The uselessness was already at infinity. They adopted a new number system just to label themselves with a new level of uselessness.
'So, basically, I want to recommend all judges, don't be afraid, it is absolutely like before (...)'.
well it's a major rule change and they have to notify the judges that and I quote Fabio biancetti here:
otherwise they might make the mistake to assume they have to change the way they were judging ...
Given that the ISU doesn't seem to want to go to the obvious solutions to the real problems (stronger penalties, split panels for components, independent judging panel), I would agree with most that the system should err on the side of caution and objectivity, however, I do understand the reasoning behind it. When I was judging old programs, there were so many incidents where there were significant differences in quality yet the elements got the same score if you strictly followed the bullets - and in some incidents, especially in spins, I thought the better spin actually got a lower score.
skaters are getting better and we need more marks to evaluate the better and better elements.
apart from that I really enjoy the ice dance video way more than the single and pair's video. .
I quite liked the ice dance seminar. It’s the discipline I know the least about and they made the effort to be clear and informative. Their examples actually make some sense.In the Ice Dance webinar they adopted a different system for examples. They show the whole element and then they go through both positive and negative bullets and at the end they show the GOE they would give
They start from a couple from, I think, the Open of Andorra to show a 0 GOE dance lift.
Virtue/Moir's twizzle from Olympics FD should be +3.
+4 for Green/Green's twizzles
Gilles/Poirier's choreographic lift in Olympic FD as an example of +5
Loboda/Drozd used to show a - 2 set of twizzles
Manta/Johnson's spin at Nebelhorn used for the -3 example
Muramoto/Reed's Step Sequence in Team Event used as example for a -4
"the worst of the worst. A -5"....example is a team I don't know from Lubjana Junior GP
I quite liked the ice dance seminar. It’s the discipline I know the least about and they made the effort to be clear and informative. Their examples actually make some sense.
Although I feel like I remember V/Ms twizzles earlier being used as an example of an easy +5...
And while scoring inflation is a big issue I also genuinely feel like the ice dancing field has gotten better.
I actually also wonder if might be from the team event? There’s a photographer missing from the boards and they seem further apart than in the Individual video.yes, I also recall V/M being used for +5 at the Technical Committee Meeting with coaches held in Milan.
Now after they showed the video, they said something like "at first you say wow, it is a +5. There are all positive features, but there was a negative feature (being more than 2 arms apart). So it can't go over +3".
Single webinar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN4RFeiuGn8
Pair webinar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLxv9NeuLXM
yes, they are using current skaters as examples
I've started to watch Pair and the examples for Lifts positive bullets are Laura Barquero/Aritz Maestu, Duskova/Bidar, Della Monica/Guarise, Denney/Frazier, James/Cipres and Marchei/Hotarek.
In the Single webinar, a lion suddenly appears before the step sequences features!
Skaters used for examples: Hanyu, Fernandez, Medvedeva, Zagitova, Osmond, Myahara, Higuchi, Kostner, Kolyada, Ge, both Hendrickx siblings, Giada Russo, Rizzo, Brezina, Messing, Rippon and Chan.
No video examples for the negative features.
In the Ice Dance webinar they adopted a different system for examples. They show the whole element and then they go through both positive and negative bullets and at the end they show the GOE they would give. I agree, it is clearer and more useful.
They start from a couple from, I think, the Open of Andorra to show a 0 GOE dance lift.
Virtue/Moir's twizzle from Olympics FD should be +3.
+4 for Green/Green's twizzles
Gilles/Poirier's choreographic lift in Olympic FD as an example of +5
Loboda/Drozd used to show a - 2 set of twizzles
Manta/Johnson's spin at Nebelhorn used for the -3 example
Muramoto/Reed's Step Sequence in Team Event used as example for a -4
"the worst of the worst. A -5"....example is a team I don't know from Lubjana Junior GP
yes, I also recall V/M being used for +5 at the Technical Committee Meeting with coaches held in Milan.
Now after they showed the video, they said something like "at first you say wow, it is a +5. There are all positive features, but there was a negative feature (being more than 2 arms apart). So it can't go over +3".