Judging Critiques/Continuation of Plushenko’s Allegations

[anonymoose_au]

So basically the take away here is that Anna (and Kamila I guess) are so superior to Sasha in every way (jumps included seeing as the both got higher GOEs for their's) that even a foot-perfect Sasha cannot beat them even if they have a not insignificant error. (That spin was awful)

Had Sasha made the same entry mistake as Anna did, she would have got more negative GOE and probably would have lost PCS too and nobody would make a peep. Except probably to ask why the whole spin wasn't invalidated

 

[Blades of Passion]

Three seconds of the first postition are a short moment.

Not only the first position became worse, she had to continue to find centering, and the entire thing lost speed. 3 seconds of a program being worse is already something that needs to be deducted anyway. The program has factually become worse for that period of time, so the score needs to be lower in comparison to a perfect execution.

And what you probably consider "judging all in detail" doesn't help much.

It helps a lot, you just refuse to engage in it. You don't show the understanding of how elements and PCS should be evaluated. I obviously wrote in short hand for some of the things on the evaluation I linked, because it would be very boring to readers to list every little thing. If you have questions about something, then you can simply ask and we can discuss more in detail.

Just taking your first claim: "doesn't have the amplitude to deserve higher". What's that?

A judging criteria. Jumps need to have great amplitude to deserve full bonus.

 

[flanker]

Not only the first position became worse, she had to continue to find centering, and the entire thing lost speed. 3 seconds of a program being worse is already something that needs to be deducted anyway. The program has factually become worse for that period of time, so the score needs to be lower in comparison to a perfect execution.

That's why Anna lost two levels and that's why she received negative GOE. The program become worse for, if I can take my math above, cca 2.2 point in numbers.

It helps a lot, you just refuse to engage in it. You don't show the understanding of how elements and PCS should be evaluated. I obviously wrote in short hand for some of the things on the evaluation I linked, because it would be very boring to readers to list every little thing. If you have questions about something, then you can simply ask and we can discuss more in detail.

I believe it helps you, but has no impact on this conversation. Or, to be more precise, no impact that would lead to a satisfying conclusion, because in reality it has obvious the impact that it became significantly longer (though every good thing has to come to an end, it's 23:55 here, I have to go to bed ).

A judging criteria. Jumps need to have great amplitude to deserve full bonus.

Height and length then. You see, using your own terms not spread that require explanation what precisely you mean by that in official terms brings confusion. It's like when Richard GFeynman describes in his book Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! that when he was stil a high school student he introduced mathematical symbols just for himself, because he found the official ones unsatisfying. Of course he very soon met the limits of it when it brought the conclusion first to his teachers and then to him personally. In this chapter he smartly demonstrates how important it to use terms or symbols that are commonly accepted and don't bring confusion.

 

[Blades of Passion]

That's why Anna lost two levels and that's why she received negative GOE.

It needs to be accounted for in the PCS evaluation too. Again, everything in a program is choreography. Her program as a whole became worse as a result of the mistake.

I believe it helps you, but has no impact on this conversation. Or, to be more precise, no impact that would lead to a satisfying conclusion.

It exactly has impact on this conversation, LOL? We are discussing how the elements and PCS should have been evaluated. I've given detailed reasoning of why I believe the scores were very wrong. There still has yet to be anyone who can defend the skating skills score that was given to Shcherbakova, for starters. I'm not sure why you can't write a comparative analysis of the programs and why you think Shcherbakova deserved to be scored so much higher, if you really think the scores were accurate.

Height and length then. You see, using your own terms that require explanation what precisely you mean by that in official terms brings confusion.

The term "amplitude" isn't confusing to people; it's used commonly in figure skating discussions.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

You have the ludicrous audacity to claim I haven't watched the program, when I went through and judged them all in detail? Something which you are still failing to do? You need to defend the marks with actual analysis of the skating. Can't just blankly repeat the same thing over and over, that nothing was wrong with the judging. You need to prove it.

Going through and judging them all in detail doesnt make you a real judge. And looking at your numbers, im very glad you are not one of them and some others are

 

[Blades of Passion]

Going through and judging them all in detail doesnt make you a real judge. And looking at your numbers, im very glad you are not one of them and some others are

Another useless statement, yawn. I am a real judge FYI, and involved with the ISU tech committee. I simply haven't gone through the process of kissing butts and spending my time slaving away at the National level with people who I heavily disagree with (and who have tried to silence abuse victims), in order to possibly become a selected World/Olympic representative for the country I have to apply through. But sure, you go on and keep thinking that proven cheaters like Yuri Balkov, who are still approved by the ISU, and countless people who could barely pass the proctored exam that I scored perfectly on, are more qualified.

 

[Alex65]

Another useless statement, yawn. I am a real judge FYI, and involved with the ISU tech committee. I simply haven't gone through the process of kissing butts and spending my time slaving away at the National level with people who I heavily disagree with (and who have tried to silence abuse victims), in order to possibly become a selected World/Olympic representative for the country I have to apply through. But sure, you go on and keep thinking that proven cheaters like Yuri Balkov, who are still approved by the ISU, and countless people who could barely pass the proctored exam that I scored perfectly on, are more qualified.

If everything you wrote is true ... Let me show you my respect. And wish you good luck in your work. With the hope that sometime in the future, judges will judge based on rules rather than preference.

 

[FelineFairy]

Another useless statement, yawn. I am a real judge FYI, and involved with the ISU tech committee. I simply haven't gone through the process of kissing butts and spending my time slaving away at the National level with people who I heavily disagree with (and who have tried to silence abuse victims), in order to possibly become a selected World/Olympic representative for the country I have to apply through. But sure, you go on and keep thinking that proven cheaters like Yuri Balkov, who are still approved by the ISU, and countless people who could barely pass the proctored exam that I scored perfectly on, are more qualified.

Oh, it is fabulous to have a judge on the board. Could you be so kind as to answer some questions from the point of view of an independent judge who has no national preferences? I studied what you wrote in the SP thread. Everything in the TES part is understandable for me. It's the PCS part that I have questions about.

1) How do judges decide something is "outstanding"? Do they compare it with some skill previously displayed by a skater phenomenal in that aspect? Or is it outstanding in the competition they are judging? Or among the recently competing athletes in the whole world? I mean, if only Kostner is deemed to have had outstanding skating skills, then every top lady competing at present can have only smth between 7 and 8,5? To add, it is more tangible with skating skills and transitions, but less so with other PCS. Is it possible that a judge has one ideal in, say, choreography and compares everyone else with it? Do judges get instruction in seminars about what is outstanding, excellent, good etc.?

2) Is this (your post) the choice of words FS judges use for PERFORMANCE when judging competitions? What I mean is that in the rules the words are more exact, while in your post you have words like "confident, radiant, elegant, flourish" without using the criteria from the rules "carriage, clear movements, variety of movements" which seem to me more tangible than confidence and projecting. Is it because you wanted it to be shorter for this board, and normally judges use all the criteria from the rules? Or is it your opinion that all the ladies you analysed are totally equal on those criteria, so you omitted them?

3) It is very interesting for me to understand the difference between CHOREOGRAPHY and INTERPRETATION in some aspects you mentioned while judging those components in your post: a movement used in the programme not matching the idea is choreography, while the same movement not matching the musical accent/highlight is interpretation, as I understand from the rules. So isn't Sasha's cantilever more a choreographic mismatch? Another question on choreography - should there always be strongly standout moves, even for calm and flowing music?

4) Do judges apply all criteria, including "nuances" to analysing INTERPRETATION? I mean, in your post you have exact analysis of movements matching or not matching the music for Sasha, Kamila, Daria, Liza T., (but not for Anna, using for the latter general words of dislike "generic, respectable, not inspired") but I couldn't find a description of nuances. I am asking about general judging practice.

Thank you in advance if you decide to reply. I hope it has been clear from all my previous posts that I am trying to be balanced in my opinions, trying to find something really objective to rely upon instead of my own tastes and gut feelings and not trying to denigrate or deify national judging, Sasha or Anna.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

Another useless statement, yawn. I am a real judge FYI, and involved with the ISU tech committee. I simply haven't gone through the process of kissing butts and spending my time slaving away at the National level with people who I heavily disagree with (and who have tried to silence abuse victims), in order to possibly become a selected World/Olympic representative for the country I have to apply through. But sure, you go on and keep thinking that proven cheaters like Yuri Balkov, who are still approved by the ISU, and countless people who could barely pass the proctored exam that I scored perfectly on, are more qualified.

A judge who is not involved in a real judging is not a real judge. We can read what nine of them said on the topic of that matter

 

[FelineFairy]

A judge who is not involved in a real judging is not a real judge. We can read what nine of them said on the topic of that matter

That's a bit exaggerated I believe. A hyperbole again, . You probably meant "not an actual judge of that event". I would very much like to find out what the judges of the event could say, but as it is not possible why not try to learn about some judging practices, not rules which everyone can read and sometimes wonder?

 

[Alex65]

A judge who is not involved in a real judging is not a real judge. We can read what nine of them said on the topic of that matter

LOL. A judge who explains and questions the correctness of the assessment is doing it wrong - he is not a real judge. Facts that don't fit the agenda are bad and false facts, and the people who cite these facts are liars. What else have I forgotten?

 

[Baron Vladimir]

That's a bit exaggerated I believe. A hyperbole again, . You probably meant "not an actual judge of that event". I would very much like to find out what the judges of the event could say, but as it is not possible why not try to learn about some judging practices, not rules which everyone can read and sometimes wonder?

I meant 'not an actual judge of any (current) event'. There is nothing wrong to have your own opinion on the topic. However, the fact is how that opinion is not shared by any other judge on the panel (some of them being the international ones) and as that would not be taken in the consederation at all. What judges of the event could say is already written.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

LOL. A judge who explains and questions the correctness of the assessment is doing it wrong - he is not a real judge. Facts that don't fit the agenda are bad and false facts, and the people who cite these facts are liars. What else have I forgotten?

I didn't hear of any judge questionned the correctness of those particular results. Or we should call Plushy 'a judge' now.

 

[Alex65]

I didn't hear of any judge questionned the correctness of those particular results. Or we should call Plushy 'a judge' now.

I have not heard that at least one independent and objective acting judge (do they exist at all?) Confirmed the correctness of these results with their detailed analysis. Judges generally prefer to be silent. Even when an interview is taken from them, they prefer to be tongue-tied and avoid any direct answers. I can understand them. It is very easy to lose your job after using a careless word and falling out of favor with your superiors.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

I have not heard that at least one independent and objective acting judge (do they exist at all?) Confirmed the correctness of these results with their detailed analysis. Judges generally prefer to be silent. Even when an interview is taken from them, they prefer to be tongue-tied and avoid any direct answers. I can understand them. It is very easy to lose your job after using a careless word and falling out of favor with your superiors.

No, they don't exist at all. They are all payed to judge against Plushenko (or our favorites).

 

[Alex65]

No, they don't exist at all. They are all payed to judge against Plushenko (and our favorites).

Do you not like the opinion of a person who has knowledge and experience, who conducts analysis, gives specific reasons and considers a specific event, juxtaposing the facts? You have the opportunity to point out the erroneousness of his conclusions, arguing your opinion with specific facts. Do it.
But instead, you question the competence of that person. That supposedly should make his opinion worthless. And of course you will get support in this here. This can hardly serve as a constructive basis for dialogue in order to find the truth.

 

[sinus]

You can't persuade self-proclaimed social media 'judges' in anything. They 'judge' by the 'fair rules' existing mostly in their own imagination.

 

[FelineFairy]

What I would really like to know is how FS judges are educated. I started researching and couldn't find a system, maybe somebody could guide me? What I saw was just manuals and judging schools in clubs, aimed at training national judges at most.
I stumbled on the website for roller skating, and you know what? A well-developed system of webinars for judging artistic roller skating, with prominent personalities lecturing. On ISU website? Nothing, or maybe there is a restricted area?
There are several articles on pubmed, researching bias, expertise and errors in judged sports: recent ones about diving, gymnastics, both rhythmic and artistic; all I could find about FS refers to 6.0 years. It seems almost that there are no more problems in FS as compared to gymnastics.
Judging decisions as opposed to spectator opinion should be if not totally unquestionable, then at least explainable. Explainable not by supporters of this or that athlete, but generally, based on the rules and judging practice. If expert judges from time to time explain their decisions or those of other judges not just by saying "That's how I see it" it would be beneficial.
In my opinion, an expert judge whose opinions would be a model for everyone should have the following education:
both theoretical and practical, comprising several years, where theory would include not only the rules of the respective sport but also short basic courses in related fields (in case of FS it is e.g. human anatomy and physiology, choreography and musical theory) and practice should include both national and international events and would be invalid without at least some training sessions abroad.
Examinations with theoretical and practical parts, where the examiners would be internationally recognised judges, but not those under whom the candidate studied.
After the exams, they should be awarded a beginner's category and have a prescribed number of successful national, then international assignments to be granted the successive categories. Regular participation in or (later in career) lecturing in judging seminars should be a requirement for the whole period of activities.
As for personal qualities, there should be a healthy combination of self-confidence and constant awareness of a possible hidden bias or error. No one is free from hidden bias! But one needs to be aware of it to overcome it. There should be a feeling of independence from peer pressure but never a feeling of knowing all. There should be an openness to innovations and a habit of learning by own initiative. And of course a healthy balance between lenience and strict judgment, always in favour of all athletes, never in favour of ONE athlete over others.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

What I would really like to know is how FS judges are educated. I started researching and couldn't find a system, maybe somebody could guide me? What I saw was just manuals and judging schools in clubs, aimed at training national judges at most.
I stumbled on the website for roller skating, and you know what? A well-developed system of webinars for judging artistic roller skating, with prominent personalities lecturing. On ISU website? Nothing, or maybe there is a restricted area?
There are several articles on pubmed, researching bias, expertise and errors in judged sports: recent ones about diving, gymnastics, both rhythmic and artistic; all I could find about FS refers to 6.0 years. It seems almost that there are no more problems in FS as compared to gymnastics.
Judging decisions as opposed to spectator opinion should be if not totally unquestionable, then at least explainable. Explainable not by supporters of this or that athlete, but generally, based on the rules and judging practice. If expert judges from time to time explain their decisions or those of other judges not just by saying "That's how I see it" it would be beneficial.
In my opinion, an expert judge whose opinions would be a model for everyone should have the following education:
both theoretical and practical, comprising several years, where theory would include not only the rules of the respective sport but also short basic courses in related fields (in case of FS it is e.g. human anatomy and physiology, choreography and musical theory) and practice should include both national and international events and would be invalid without at least some training sessions abroad.
Examinations with theoretical and practical parts, where the examiners would be internationally recognised judges, but not those under whom the candidate studied.
After the exams, they should be awarded a beginner's category and have a prescribed number of successful national, then international assignments to be granted the successive categories. Regular participation in or (later in career) lecturing in judging seminars should be a requirement for the whole period of activities.
As for personal qualities, there should be a healthy combination of self-confidence and constant awareness of a possible hidden bias or error. No one is free from hidden bias! But one needs to be aware of it to overcome it. There should be a feeling of independence from peer pressure but never a feeling of knowing all. There should be an openness to innovations and a habit of learning by own initiative. And of course a healthy balance between lenience and strict judgment, always in favour of all athletes, never in favour of ONE athlete over others.

They need to pass National exams. Then international and ISU exams/practices. They need to continue education and training (i will quote one of the recent posts i remember which explained it closely)

Judges with ISU status (able to judge at ISU Championships and GP Final) to be re-appointed need to
- have served, during the thirty-six (36) months preceding July 31st of the calendar year of the nomination, as a Referee, Judge, Trial Judge, Technical Controller or OAC Member on site in one (1) International Competition

-have completed, during the forty-eight (48) months preceding July 31st of the calendar year of the nomination, an ISU Seminar for first appointment or re- appointment of ISU Judges. An ISU Seminar for re-appointment of ISU Judges may also be a webinar organized and controlled by the respective Technical Committee(s).

Judges with International status (able to judge at GPs, Junior GPs and other international events) to be re-appointed need to
- have served, during the thirty-six (36) months preceding July 31st of the calendar year of the nomination, as a Referee, Judge, or Technical Controller in one (1) International Competition

-have completed, during the forty-eight (48) months preceding July 31st of the calendar year of the nomination, an ISU Seminar for first appointment or re- appointment of International Judges. An ISU Seminar for re-appointment of ISU Judges may also be a webinar organized and controlled by the respective Technical Committee(s).

Here you can find about existence of ISU forms and seminars https://www.isu.org/figure-skating/rules/fsk-forms-reports-seminars
Some of them you can watch on youtube https://www.youtube.com/ISUDevelopmentProjects?sub_confirmation=1
And this is the example of a judge explaining the process of judging https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpqIc5Dg3mQ

 

[Magill]

What I would really like to know is how FS judges are educated. I started researching and couldn't find a system, maybe somebody could guide me? What I saw was just manuals and judging schools in clubs, aimed at training national judges at most.
I stumbled on the website for roller skating, and you know what? A well-developed system of webinars for judging artistic roller skating, with prominent personalities lecturing. On ISU website? Nothing, or maybe there is a restricted area?
There are several articles on pubmed, researching bias, expertise and errors in judged sports: recent ones about diving, gymnastics, both rhythmic and artistic; all I could find about FS refers to 6.0 years. It seems almost that there are no more problems in FS as compared to gymnastics.
Judging decisions as opposed to spectator opinion should be if not totally unquestionable, then at least explainable. Explainable not by supporters of this or that athlete, but generally, based on the rules and judging practice. If expert judges from time to time explain their decisions or those of other judges not just by saying "That's how I see it" it would be beneficial.
In my opinion, an expert judge whose opinions would be a model for everyone should have the following education:
both theoretical and practical, comprising several years, where theory would include not only the rules of the respective sport but also short basic courses in related fields (in case of FS it is e.g. human anatomy and physiology, choreography and musical theory) and practice should include both national and international events and would be invalid without at least some training sessions abroad.
Examinations with theoretical and practical parts, where the examiners would be internationally recognised judges, but not those under whom the candidate studied.
After the exams, they should be awarded a beginner's category and have a prescribed number of successful national, then international assignments to be granted the successive categories. Regular participation in or (later in career) lecturing in judging seminars should be a requirement for the whole period of activities.
As for personal qualities, there should be a healthy combination of self-confidence and constant awareness of a possible hidden bias or error. No one is free from hidden bias! But one needs to be aware of it to overcome it. There should be a feeling of independence from peer pressure but never a feeling of knowing all. There should be an openness to innovations and a habit of learning by own initiative. And of course a healthy balance between lenience and strict judgment, always in favour of all athletes, never in favour of ONE athlete over others.

I would add that judges selected for any given competition should sign a mandatory conflict of interest statement with penalties in place for those signing a false statement. Those related to the competing athletes, their coaches or coaching schools by any family, personal or financial ties (or any other way that might affect their unbiased assessment) should be excluded from the judging panel and replaced by those free of any conflict of interest in the context of the given competition. This is a professional standard for any judging committees.