Grade of Execution Scores

[isk82]

I'm sure this has been discussed here before, but I'm watching top level skaters never getting more than a 1.something for GOE, whether it's footwork, spins, jumps, etc. What is required to get even a 2 for GOE? For example, I just watched Alina Zagitova's Carmen from Helsinki. Her footwork/choreography (whatever they call it now) was amazing and yet she only got just over a 1 for GOE. Can someone explain this to me without overwhelming me?

I'm a long, long time skating fan and I'm just starting to take interest in the current scoring. I've also been a member on this board for YEARS, but very seldom post. Thanks much!

 

[lichi]

I'm sure this has been discussed here before, but I'm watching top level skaters never getting more than a 1.something for GOE, whether it's footwork, spins, jumps, etc. What is required to get even a 2 for GOE? For example, I just watched Alina Zagitova's Carmen from Helsinki. Her footwork/choreography (whatever they call it now) was amazing and yet she only got just over a 1 for GOE. Can someone explain this to me without overwhelming me?

I'm a long, long time skating fan and I'm just starting to take interest in the current scoring. I've also been a member on this board for YEARS, but very seldom post. Thanks much!

Maybe you're looking at the GOE after it's factored? If you look at the Judge's Scoring sheets, Zagitova's StSq should have mostly +2 to +4 from the judges. The average of the scores from the judges (after throwing out highest/lowest) is then multiplied by a factor. This number is what gets added on to the actual score.

It's probably to maintain the balance between BV and GOE. A StSq's BV is 3.9, so getting 4 or 5 extra points for that wouldn't make any sense.

 

[gizmo]

I'm sure this has been discussed here before, but I'm watching top level skaters never getting more than a 1.something for GOE, whether it's footwork, spins, jumps, etc. What is required to get even a 2 for GOE? For example, I just watched Alina Zagitova's Carmen from Helsinki. Her footwork/choreography (whatever they call it now) was amazing and yet she only got just over a 1 for GOE. Can someone explain this to me without overwhelming me?

I'm a long, long time skating fan and I'm just starting to take interest in the current scoring. I've also been a member on this board for YEARS, but very seldom post. Thanks much!

If the element got , say a +5 GOE across the board from all judges (then the average will be 5), that element got a 50% more of the Base Value, ie if the BV of the particular element is 3, then the actual points got added (what you see immediately on the screen) is 1.5. Thus if the averaged out actual GOE is for example 3.5, then the extra points added to the BV will be 35% of that BV.

 

[cohen-esque]

The actual points earned from GOE are not equivalent to the raw GOE mark.

GOE is marked at -5 to +5 but for each increment, the skater gains 10% of the element’s base value in paints. So +1 means +10%, etc. This is so you don’t see a single loop worth 0.50 points end up earning 10x that many points from GOE and out-earn a triple.

A “2” would not be possible for steps. The highest points a skater could possibly earn on a Step Sequence from GOE at the moment is +1.95. But that would correspond to straight +5 marks.

For your specific example, Alina earned: +3, +4, +3, +3, +4, +4, +3, +2, +2. Highest and lowest marks were dropped, after which it ended up being an average of around +3.15 GOE. That means that she earned 31.5% on top of the base mark for the steps, which were worth 3.90 points. So 3.90*0.315=1.23 points.

 

[Tavi...]

The ISU has defined for each type of element (say, jumps) what qualities (for example, jump height, distance, etc.) will give you a +1, +2, etc. The value of the GOE is a percentage of the base value of the element. So for example, a 3A is worth 8 points, so if a judge awards you +1 you get +.80 (because 0.8 is 10% of 8). You can read about this here:

https://www.isu.org/inside-single-p...s-for-marking-goe-2018-19-replacing-2168/file

Dave Lease of TSL (the Skating Lesson) is actually doing a really good series called +5/-5 in which he explores how the rules apply. You might find them helpful to understanding why a judge awards certain GOE and how it affects the score. There are only 3 videos so far. I actually really recommend them:

This is the first and shortest one, comparing jumps of Hanyu, Shoma, and Jason:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cvvxYr5HbqQ

This is the second one, looking at the top 7 ladies at Sochi:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wlVA2jBBsLw

This is the third and longest (and my favorite) and is a more detailed comparison of the ladies at Sochi:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ-G6mUVhfs

 

[bunnybarista]

The actual points earned from GOE are not equivalent to the raw GOE mark.

GOE is marked at -5 to +5 but for each increment, the skater gains 10% of the element’s base value in paints. So +1 means +10%, etc. This is so you don’t see a single toeloop worth 0.50 points end up earning 10x that many points from GOE and out-earn a triple.

A “2” would not be possible for steps. The highest points a skater could possibly earn on a Step Sequence from GOE at the moment is +1.95. But that would correspond to straight +5 marks.

For your specific example, Alina earned: +3, +4, +3, +3, +4, +4, +3, +2, +2. Highest and lowest marks were dropped, after which it ended up being an average of around +3.15 GOE. That means that she earned 31.5% on top of the base mark for the steps, which were worth 3.90 points. So 3.90*0.315=1.23 points.

I learned something new today, thank you! Super helpful

 

[lesnar001]

I learned something new today, thank you! Super helpful

Me too.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

Dave Lease of TSL (the Skating Lesson) is actually doing a really good series called +5/-5 in which he explores how the rules apply. You might find them helpful to understanding why a judge awards certain GOE and how it affects the score. There are only 3 videos so far. I actually really recommend them:

This is the first and shortest one, comparing jumps of Hanyu, Shoma, and Jason:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cvvxYr5HbqQ

This is the second one, looking at the top 7 ladies at Sochi:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wlVA2jBBsLw

This is the third and longest (and my favorite) and is a more detailed comparison of the ladies at Sochi:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ-G6mUVhfs

I'm not sure how much his opinion is accurate and really helps in understanding why judges award certain GOE when his opinion is that much different from actual judges scores The GOE bullets were quite different back then, so its hard to apply current rules to past skatings, but good that he tried :thumbsup: But if you really want to understand it, a much better way is to look at exact protocols and GOE bullets defined by ISU and trying to find out which GOE bullets skater may fullfill based on the actual score he/she had gotten. For example - Alina GOE for step sequence in Helsinki is mostly scored +3, so we can guess which 3-4 GOE bullets she may checked by looking at her performance. Probably some of this: 1)edges, steps and turns 2)matching the music 4)originality(?) 5)excelent commitment 6)good acceleration and deceleration, but probably not some of this: 3)efforthless 4)originality(?) and 5)control etc etc

 

[isk82]

Thank you for your responses and explanations. So what I'm seeing on the screen while the skater is skating is not their final GOE on each element?

 

[Baron Vladimir]

Thank you for your responses and explanations. So what I'm seeing on the screen while the skater is skating is not their final GOE on each element?

What we see in a scores box are the GOE translated in actual points (in a way other posters have already explaned). Cause translation of GOE into the scores is dependable of the Base Value of the element, GOE of the elements with lower Base Value (like steps or double jumps) will be translated in a generally lower scores, while GOE of the elements with higher BV will potentially be translated in more points on a screen.

 

[Tavi...]

I'm not sure how much his opinion is accurate and really helps in understanding why judges award certain GOE when his opinion is that much different than actual judges scores The GOE bullets were quite different back then, so its hard to apply current rules to past skatings, but good that he tried :thumbsup: But if you really want to understand it, a much better way is to look at exact protocols and GOE bullets defined by ISU and trying to find out which GOE bullets skater may fullfill based on the actual score he/she had gotten. For example - Alina GOE for step sequence in Helsinki is mostly scored +3, so we can guess which 3-4 GOE bullets she may checked by looking at her performance. Probably some of this: 1)edges, steps and turns 2)matching the music 4)originality(?) 5)excelent commitment 6)good acceleration and deceleration, but probably not some of this: 3)efforthless 4)originality(?) and 5)control etc etc

Have you watched any of the videos or are you just assuming that because TSL did them they’re bad? They’re basically just one tool for understanding the rules. Dave explains his thought process which is the helpful part. You may not agree with his conclusions as to the appropriate level of GOE, but it helps to understand what he’s looking at, what the judges need to consider, and how quickly. And it trains your eye - how much height and distance does this jump really have. FYI, the men’s video uses current year competitions. In the Sochi stuff, he’s just using the elements as examples to which the new rules can be applied.

FYI, I agree that looking at the bullet points and then watching a particular performance and trying to apply them yourself is useful, which is why I linked the rules in my post.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

Have you watched any of the videos or are you just assuming that because TSL did them they’re bad? They’re basically just one tool for understanding the rules. Dave explains his thought process which is the helpful part. You may not agree with his conclusions as to the appropriate level of GOE, but it helps to understand what he’s looking at, what the judges need to consider, and how quickly. And it trains your eye - how much height and distance does this jump really have. FYI, the men’s video uses current year competitions. In the Sochi stuff, he’s just using the elements as examples to which the new rules can be applied.

FYI, I agree that looking at the bullet points and then watching a particular performance and trying to apply them yourself is useful, which is why I linked the rules in my post.

Yes, i watched it. Otherwise, i wouldn't comment. I'm just saying that what he is 'looking at' is not always the same with what judges are 'looking for'. What judges are 'looking at' is in the protocols, so protocols are the best equipment to understand the judging... and... i mean, his video is named with 'Was Yuna Kim robbed?' Does that sound to you as a genuine try to explain something, or just a tool to gain something else?

 

[Metis]

Thank you for your responses and explanations. So what I'm seeing on the screen while the skater is skating is not their final GOE on each element?

Unless the technical panel makes a call, what you’re seeing in real time is probably what the final +/- GOE (after factoring) will be. To give an example: say a skater lands a triple Axel, which has a base value (BV) of 8 points, so the maximum +/- GOE is 4. Let’s say the skater has a serious fall, so the GOE displayed in real time is -4.0 (in red), next to the name of the element and its BV; we already established the 3A is worth 8.0 points, so with -5 GOE from the judges for the fall, half of the element’s BV has been deducted, so the element has only earned 4 points.

However, upon review, the TP determines that same 3A was under-rotated. The skater has already left for the K&C and the real-time TES box has disappeared. But an under-rotated 3A (3A<) has a BV of 6.0, not 8.0. The fall warranted a unanimous -5 from the judges in GOE, and half of 6.0 is 3.0. When you check protocols, you should then see 3A< listed as an element, with the scores of the panel being -3.0. You can see something similar here if you look at Nathan Chen’s SP (third on the list). He fell on his quad flip, and every judge gave him a -5 in GOE — this means we don’t have to worry about what the average is — and the technical panel marked the jump as under-rotated. The 4F’s BV is 11.0, but because it was under-rotated, the BV became 8.25, and half of 8.25 is 4.12 (more or less). If a skater’s final TES (shown when they get their total score in the K&C) is a few points less than their TES shown when leaving the ice, then that’s largely due to the technical panel making various calls that reduce an element’s base value.

What you’re seeing in real time is the average being calculated as the judges input their GOE for a given element. If two elements closely follow each other, the first one may be replaced before all marks were submitted and the final average calculated. (Keeping in mind that the highest and the lowest value are both removed before the average is taken.) So sometimes, a skater will have a visible error but the first judge will feel that the element had enough positive features that offset the negative and award it, say, 0 or +1. Then other judges will input -1, and the GOE will change from being green/positive to red/negative in real time.

With the exception of the Choreographic Sequence in the free skate, one level of GOE is 10% of the element’s base value. This is NOT affected by the 10% BV bonus for jumps performed in the second half. A 3A done as the final jumping pass and in the second half of the short programme is worth BV +10% of BV, or 8.0+0.80 or 8.80. The GOE range is still +4 to -4, not +/-4.4.

If you can do the percentages in your head and keep track of all the rules, GOE is relatively straightforward even in real time. You can find the values for every element here, which I don’t recommend consulting when watching. But if you can get a sense of what +3 on a common element is — for the 3A, it’s 2.4 points — you can make sense of the real time average, as you rarely see unanimous GOE grades except in cases of serious error. Using Jason Brown’s first element as an example: the +3 and one +5 are dropped before taking the average (the +3 is the lowest mark and one of the +5s has to be dropped as the highest). That leaves two +4s and five +5s. If you do the subsequent computations, you’ll realize that you aren’t going to arrive at a whole number such as +4 or +5, which is why the final GOE is +2.50, a value between 2.12 (+4) and 2.65 (+5). If you can get used to the idea that +4 is about 2.10 and +5 is 2.6, then you can see a real time GOE of 2.5 and immediately recognize that 2.5 is closer to 2.65 than 2.12 and that the average GOE includes some very favorable marks.

(For more fun with averages, look at Samarin’s 3A. One of the 3s and one of the 1s are tossed, leaving five +2s and one +1 and one +3... and when calculating the average, the +1 and +3 effectively cancel each other out and become another +2, which is why his GOE is precisely +1.60 points, or exactly 20% of 8.0. +2 was also the modal value given by the judges. In the case of Jason’s flip, his actual average GOE is 4.71, but the modal value was 5, which is the more common scenario — a judging split.)

 

[Tavi...]

Yes, i watched it. Otherwise, i wouldn't comment. I'm just saying that what he is 'looking at' is not always the same with what judges are 'looking for'. What judges are 'looking at' is in the protocols, so protocols are the best equipment to understand the judging... and... i mean, his video is named with 'Was Yuna Kim robbed?' Does that sound to you as a genuine try to explain something, or just a tool to gain something else?

Well clearly we’re not going to agree here. IMO reading a protocol by itself will not necessarily explain a score. For example, I watched the IDF men’s competition in real time and was shocked by some of the positive GOE that was awarded for jumps with obviously poor landings. Take Samarin’s 4Z in the SP. He got plus GOE of 0.33 with a really noticeable turnout. That’s supposed to get -3 to -4. For positive GOE he could get good height and distance for +1, but I can’t really see anything else you could give him unless you’re just making it up. So the judges should have been at -2 to -3. Most of them were at 0 but he actually got two +1s and a +2. Why? A protocol won’t tell you any of that or even the bullet points. That’s the kind of stuff Dave discusses. I’m sorry if you don’t find it useful. I do.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

^^^
Ok. So Samarin did three turn/step out on a landing of a 4 Lz. For that jump you can give him following positive bullets 1)height and distance 2) efforthless 3)with the music. Some of the judges gave him one, some gave him 2 pluses to start. Then to deduct for a weak landing which is from -1 to -3, and i guess nobody would deduct -3 or -4 for a three turn on a 4Lz with that amount of height (especially cause he was staying on a same landing foot which is quite different than two foot landing or step out) so in the end we came to around 0, or even +1 if you found more than one positive GOE bullets to start (or -1 if you wanted to deduct a litle bit more, but 0 for that jump is perfectly fine). You see, it is not that hard

 

[Tavi...]

^^^
Ok. So Samarin did three turn/step out on a landing of a 4 Lz. For that jump you can give him following positive bullets 1)height and distance 2) efforthless 3)with the music. Some of the judges gave him one, some gave him 2 pluses to start. Then to deduct for a weak landing which is from -1 to -3, and i guess nobody would deduct -3 or -4 for a three turn on a 4Lz with that amount of height (especially cause he was staying on a same landing foot which is quite different than two foot landing or step out) so in the end we came to around 0, or even +1 if you found more than one positive GOE bullets to start (or -1 if you wanted to deduct a litle bit more, but 0 for that jump is perfectly fine). You see, it is not that hard

No way! . I mean you’re right that some judges might think that way, but I really disagree with it. Just because he did a big 4Z doesn’t mean he should only get dinged a little for a terrible landing. Seriously, it wasn’t just a little bobble - he basically couldn’t control it and spun around in a circle. Which is also why he shouldn’t get effortless throughout, because the landing is part of throughout. As for with the music? Ha. It’s not like he was keeping up with the Figaro overture or something. JMO I have nothing against the guy but I do think the judges got it wrong there.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

No way! . I mean you’re right that some judges might think that way, but I really disagree with it. Just because he did a big 4Z doesn’t mean he should only get dinged a little for a terrible landing. Seriously, it wasn’t just a little bobble - he basically couldn’t control it and spun around in a circle. Which is also why he shouldn’t get effortless throughout, because the landing is part of throughout. As for with the music? Ha. It’s not like he was keeping up with the Figaro overture or something. JMO I have nothing against the guy but I do think the judges got it wrong there.

Well, three turn on a landing is not consider as that big mistake. You can compare judges scores for other skaters who did exact the same landing on theirs jump. For example Tuktamysheva for her three turned 3A in Japan got -1,1,0,0,-1,0,-1. That is not much different score than Samarin's 0,0,1,0,1,0,0.

 

[Tavi...]

Well, three turn on a landing is not consider as that big mistake. You can compare judges scores for other skaters who did exact the same landing on theirs jump. For example Tuktamysheva for her three turned 3A in Japan got -1,1,0,0,-1,0,-1. That is not much different score than Samarin's 0,0,1,0,1,0,0.

You can’t compare men’s at IDF with ladies at NHK - different day, different competitors, different discipline, different panels. This was a super obvious error that interrupted the flow of his program, and technically it was a really poor landing - he spun around completely, showing inability to control it. Even if you choose poor landing as the category, imo they should have started at -3 and ended up with -2, rather than starting at -1 or 0 and ending at 0 or +1.

Since you chose Tuk as the comparison, what I think you’re really saying is she did a 3A! He did a 4Z! So they shouldn’t get dinged as much for errors because those are more difficult jumps. And maybe that’s how the judges rationalized it. But if you’re doing a 4Z you start with 11.5 points bc it’s a hard jump. He ended up with 11.83 points for a jump with a very flawed landing. I think that’s wrong.

 

[gkelly]

There's no actual written GOE reduction for turning a double three on the landing of a solo jump (ending up on the back outside edge with two three turns in between).

The current reduction for "2 three turns in between (jump combo)" is -2 to -3, and a turn like that between jumps does not invalidate the combo -- the skater still gets credit for both jumps as long as they take off from the same edge they landed on without putting the other foot down.

So for a solo jump, it's not going to be more than that and would tend toward the lower end. I'm guessing -2 would be the most common reduction for that error, after whatever pluses the element might have earned. Given that there's nothing about this error written in the rules about this error at the end of an element, if it's really well controlled a judge could make a case that it only deserves -1 reduction. If there are also other problems, like break at the waist, then maybe -3.

Remember that under 6.0 these jumps were ratified as the firsts of their kind, whereas jumps that were underrotated and/or that had the other foot touch the ice were not.

"Stepping out of landing in a jump" means not only turning off the back outside landing but also putting the other foot down with full weight on it. That's a much more serious error. The current GOE reduction is -3 to -4, and if that happens on the first jump of an intended jump combo the skater gets no credit for the second jump (and in the freeskate loses value in the first jump because it will be called as +SEQ).

And this combination (with the step out on the second landing) was not ratified as a first.

 

[Tavi...]

I appreciate your thoughts @gkelly, but have you seen the video? This was not a well controlled landing imo - he essentially did a complete spin out. He’s fast and did have great height and distance, but I don’t see how he could possibly have gotten more than one positive bullet point for the jump. A poor landing is -1 to -3 and the description is “etc”. So that would have to be where this falls if not a step out. And if so, I’d say it’s worse looking than a scratchy landing. If part of the point of the new system is to make judging more transparent- so that people don’t wonder why the guy with the fall won - then I think an error this obvious should be dinged pretty heavily, whether or not it involves a weight transfer or bending at the waist. You could argue that maybe it’s more appropriate to take it out of PCS, but in fact his PCS is also too high for what he put out on the ice, compared to both the requirements and to other guys who fulfilled more PCS requirements but were marked lower. I think this is a case where the judges wanted to reward the guy and they did.