Do we need a score box entry for PCS?

[Anna K.]

I think that we need a PCS score box entry. Currently, the level of PCS is awarded before the competition (6s, 7s, 8s etc.) so it would be easy to show it on the score box and to show how PCS caps are applied automatically after falls.

It would make the PCS section more transparent.
It would make possible also development of technical assistance to judges. In example, to use ice metric data about the speed and ice coverage to apply other PCS caps. Then, judges would only apply their tenths just like they apply GOE to TES.

That's what I think. What do you think?

Also, thanks to the highly detailed and knowledgeable discussion in 2023 Worlds Free Dance thread for the inspiration to start this thread.

 

[gkelly]

The judges generally don't input the PCS until after the program is over, so it's not something that can be shown during the performance like the tech score box.

Also, there wouldn't be time or space to show all the judges' individual scores.

When the total scores (TES, PCS, and TSS) are shown during the Kiss and Cry segment, it would be possible to show a box elsewhere on the screen showing the average Composition, Presentation, and Skating Skills scores for the program. That might be useful by showing where, e.g., a skater is rewarded significantly higher or lower for one of those three components reflecting what the panel thinks they were strongest or weakest at, and getting new/casual viewers to actually be aware of what the three components are now.

But even the strip with the TES, PCS, and TSS and deductions is onscreen so briefly already, especially in free skates where it is replaced almost immediately by the total competition score, that there is barely time for commentators to mention that this skater won the free skate but went into second because of short program scores or similar issues, let alone to point out that this skater is now leading on PCS but was too far behind in TES to win the segment (or vice versa). That would be useful information at times, but it would be hard to fit in commentator analysis during those few seconds after the score is announced, when viewers and commentators are also interested in focusing on the skaters' reactions to their scores and placements.

You wouldn't be able to tease out specifically where any falls affect the PCS. Only with top skaters who might otherwise have been earning scores well into the 9s, you can show why they're only low 9s or high 8s and point out that they aren't allowed to be higher than X.XX if there is one fall or more than one fall. But casual viewers would be unlikely to be wondering why a performance by their favorite skater with 2 falls only earned scores in the high 8s -- they know it wasn't his/her best.

Occasionally judges do ignore/forget that rule, so occasionally the average scores might be a little higher than they're supposed to be, and there isn't time for commentators not only to explain what the caps are but also to address why they may not have been followed.

For most skaters, they weren't going to be scoring 9.5 or whatever even at their best, so there's no way to show how much of scores in 8s or 7s are due to falls vs. to the overall quality of the performance as a whole.

What could also be useful would be for commentators to mention and for broadcasts to show onscreen at least once or twice per broadcast the URL to the official results page, telling viewers where they can find the detailed protocols if interested.

And there could be a segment of 1-5 minutes after the end of the event, after the protocols are published, e.g., during the wait for the medal ceremony, for commentators to offer some analysis with data about where the medal contenders gained or lost points relative to each other.

 

[4everchan]

The thing here is that the deduction should be applied automatically. As judges mark PCS at the end of the skate, the system could just warn them that there was a major mistake involving PCS capping and the max PCS should be started lower.

 

[DancingCactus]

They should manage to squeeze in a breakdown of the three categories' scores somewhere, even if it's brief. Maybe also show a detailed overview of the standings during the six minute warmup.

 

[skatedreamer]

They should manage to squeeze in a breakdown of the three categories' scores somewhere, even if it's brief. Maybe also show a detailed overview of the standings during the six minute warmup.

IMO this would be a good idea for all disciplines, not just Ice Dance.

 

[el henry]

It would be difficult to do, even "major mistake" is not so clear. (Fans: It's a fall, it's a fall, how major do you want?! Judges: Not on an element, not a major mistake, Fans: Wuzrobbed! )

Of course, I don't even want a tech box for TES. I have gone so far as to lift my left hand to cover that part of the screen during a live telecast. Somehow I managed to watch skating in the 70s and 80s and 90s and whenever without a tech box, how did I survive?)

Now let me go chase those goldarrned kids off my lawn

 

[4everchan]

It would be difficult to do, even "major mistake" is not so clear. (Fans: It's a fall, it's a fall, how major do you want?! Judges: Not on an element, not a major mistake, Fans: Wuzrobbed! )

Of course, I don't even want a tech box for TES. I have gone so far as to lift my left hand to cover that part of the screen during a live telecast. Somehow I managed to watch skating in the 70s and 80s and 90s and whenever without a tech box, how did I survive?)

Now let me go chase those goldarrned kids off my lawn

it is not complicated actually . A fall is a fall... I cannot speak for anyone else than myself here but from reading this thread, it seems to me that many agreed that they simply wanted the PCS scores to reflect the competence of the judging panel. A couple judges didn't apply the mandatory PCS capping... which then leads to speculation about whether or not the judges were fair and/or competent. The fans saying wuzrobbed are actually for once correct. Fans WERE ROBBED of decent and fair scoring. As many have pointed out, the correct PCS scoring would not have changed the order of things... and there would be no polemic. You know who suffers the most from the WUZROBBED in this case : the skaters themselves... because their win is tainted.

BTW, it doesn't even have to be left to the judges discretion. The tech panel and/or referee can rule on all deductions. Extended lift is minus 1. Time violation is minus 1... Fall is minus 1+ PCS capping so why not set up the scoring system when there is a fall for a minus 1 deduction, + PCS capping.

Fall happening on an element are more costly because they may affect the BV of the element as well as the GOE. At times, it may even invalidate completely the element. But that has NOTHING to do with PCS capping. A fall, whether or not it is on an element is supposed to limit the PCS scoring... so let it be so. There is ABSOLUTELY no confusion about this in the rules...

You better run faster if you want to chase me off your lawn but I remember you said you have a cane...maybe if you throw it far enough in my direction, I may leave this one alone

 

[gkelly]

The thing here is that the deduction should be applied automatically. As judges mark PCS at the end of the skate, the system could just warn them that there was a major mistake involving PCS capping and the max PCS should be started lower.

The fall deduction is automatic and is shown in the segment score graphic shown with the rest of the scores in the Kiss and Cry.

The PCS cap is not a deduction per se -- it's a cap on the score that judges are permitted to award to specific components in the case of one or multiple falls or major errors. The absolute cap is really only relevant to a handful of skaters in the whole world -- the vast majority of skaters are going to score less than 8.75 on all components in any case, so there's no way of knowing whether or how much each judge lowered their scores because of the errors.

If we want commentators to educate viewers about PCS, it would be better to start by showing the averaged scores for the three components separately, explaining the factoring, and at some point explaining what criteria are actually being evaluated in each component. That would be much more valuable information to help viewers understand what program component scoring is all about.

Only after that knowledge base has been established somehow would it be helpful to mention -- for exceptional skaters who often score in the 9s and who happen to have one or more major errors in a given performance -- Oh, by the way, a few years ago the ISU instituted a cap on PCS for programs with major errors.

But that cap is very much a by-the-way factoid compared to understanding how PCS work in the first place. Starting with that exceptional detail would only give casual viewers wrong ideas about how PCS are scored.


Yes, it might be helpful if the computer software could note the number of fall deductions already applied by the tech panel and lock out the top PCS scores above the cap so that judges could not input 9.5 if that rule doesn't allow that score as an option for that component with that number of falls.

But other "major errors" would be much harder for the tech panel to quantify since they don't result in automatic deductions from the total segment score.

 

[4everchan]

The fall deduction is automatic and is shown in the segment score graphic shown with the rest of the scores in the Kiss and Cry.

The PCS cap is not a deduction per se -- it's a cap on the score that judges are permitted to award to specific components in the case of one or multiple falls or major errors. The absolute cap is really only relevant to a handful of skaters in the whole world -- the vast majority of skaters are going to score less than 8.75 on all components in any case, so there's no way of knowing whether or how much each judge lowered their scores because of the errors.

If we want commentators to educate viewers about PCS, it would be better to start by showing the averaged scores for the three components separately, explaining the factoring, and at some point explaining what criteria are actually being evaluated in each component. That would be much more valuable information to help viewers understand what program component scoring is all about.

Only after that knowledge base has been established somehow would it be helpful to mention -- for exceptional skaters who often score in the 9s and who happen to have one or more major errors in a given performance -- Oh, by the way, a few years ago the ISU instituted a cap on PCS for programs with major errors.

But that cap is very much a by-the-way factoid compared to understanding how PCS work in the first place. Starting with that exceptional detail would only give casual viewers wrong ideas about how PCS are scored.


Yes, it might be helpful if the computer software could note the number of fall deductions already applied by the tech panel and lock out the top PCS scores above the cap so that judges could not input 9.5 if that rule doesn't allow that score as an option for that component with that number of falls.

But other "major errors" would be much harder for the tech panel to quantify since they don't result in automatic deductions from the total segment score.

I am aware that capping PCS scores to 9.5 makes no sense for a skater who was never going to score in the 9s... BUT it still sends the wrong message when there is an obvious fall and near perfect scores for presentation.

My suggestion would be the following then : let the judges judge PCS. Then, let the machines remove 0.5 from PCS when there is a fall
I also believe that falls in ice dance should be more costly than in singles and pairs skating. As a fan, I expect skaters may fall on their quad jumps... but a fall in ice dance, rarely is "expected" and thus the surprise effect is even more disruptive to the performance than falling on a jump....

 

[skatedreamer]

It would be difficult to do, even "major mistake" is not so clear. (Fans: It's a fall, it's a fall, how major do you want?! Judges: Not on an element, not a major mistake, Fans: Wuzrobbed! )

Of course, I don't even want a tech box for TES. I have gone so far as to lift my left hand to cover that part of the screen during a live telecast. Somehow I managed to watch skating in the 70s and 80s and 90s and whenever without a tech box, how did I survive?)

Now let me go chase those goldarrned kids off my lawn

We survived because that was before the Brave New World of the IJS. We didn't know any better!

 

[fallingsk8er]

I thought PCS was completely subjective. If the judge didn’t like the skater or the program, they give a lower score. No questions asked.

 

[lariko]

I think that falls, pops and deviations from the filed content--yes, because it impacts composition--should all cap PCS, and the max PCS that could be awarded should be immediately displayed for all viewers and judges, to prevent the disaapointment when a skater had falls, but then gets huge PCSs passing the skaters with cleaner programs. There is so many ways a skater can be nicked and dimed on TES, there should be equal scrutiny to PCS. It is a measurable quantity, so it should not be based on a vague feeling of either the judges or the audience as much as possible. I also would like the cap to PCS to be higher if the failed technical element is lower level, as expectaion of a clean delivery is higher for simple element, so failure indicates lower skating skill and presentation. There is too much discretion and variance in PCSs applications and it has to stop.

 

[gkelly]

There is so many ways a skater can be nicked and dimed on TES, there should be equal scrutiny to PCS. It is a measurable quantity, so it should not be based on a vague feeling of either the judges or the audience as much as possible.

Competition scores should not be based on feeling of the audience. They're not judging, and most of them are not experts on skating technique.

Historically, Presentation scores under 6.0 were based on holistic impressions of the whole program by trained judges.

Under IJS, the aspects of the whole program are broken down into (now) three separate areas of the whole program, but they're still primarily scored holistically for each component.

Here are the current program component criteria:

Composition
The intentional, developed and / or original arrangement of the repertoire of all types of movements into a meaningful whole according to the principles of proportion, unity, space, pattern and musical structure.
Unity
Connections between and within the elements
Pattern and ice coverage
Multidimensional movements and use of space
Choreography reflecting musical phrase and form

Presentation
The demonstration of engagement, commitment and involvement based on an understanding of the music and composition.
Expressiveness & projection
Variety of contrasts of energy and of movements
Musical sensitivity and timing
Unison, oneness and awareness of space (Pair Skating, Ice Dance, Synchronized Skating)

Skating Skills
The ability of the skater to execute the skating repertoire of steps, turns and skating movements with blade and body control.
Variety of edges, steps, turns, movements and directions
Clarity of edges, steps, turns, movements and body control
Balance and glide
Power and speed

Most of these criteria are qualitative, to be scored on range (of 0 to 10 with 0.25 increments) rather than simple yes/no decisions like most of what the tech panel does. And the different criteria within the same component need to be balanced against each other.

Do you have suggestions for how these could be better quantified into numerical scores, within the time allotted during and immediately after the performance?

Judges need to do as good a job as possible on scoring those components overall before worrying about scoring caps for Serious Errors. First come up with the overall score for that component, and then consider how errors should affect the overall score.

"Serious errors are falls and/or mistakes which result in a break in the delivery of the program. This break can be minimal or more pronounced and noticeable. These errors must be reflected in the mark awarded for each program component. The consequence depends on the severity and impact they have on the fluidity and continuity of the program."

Falls are defined and called by the technical panel to receive fall deductions.

Other kinds of errors/breaks are more subject to interpretation -- different judges (and different fans) might see different levels of severity to various errors. There will probably always be some subjectivity in determining whether a break was "minimal" or "pronounced and noticeable." And even the same kind of error may be more or less disruptive depending on exactly how that skater executed the flawed move at exactly that moment in that particular program, and even depending on the viewing angle. So it's difficult to write rules in advance that certain kinds of errors should always receive exactly the same penalty. That's why many of the negative GOE values are a range of -1 to -2 or -2 to -4, etc. The same would be true of any program component reductions.

Everyone may have their own pet peeves, and their own areas of particular expertise, so there will always be some differences of opinion.

 

[yesterday]

ad topic "falls":

Maybe ID should get some different rules here? In Pairs or Singles, you can have several "types of falls". Not only on element vs. not on element, but you have riskier elements (jumps, throws), so statistically way more falls than in ID.

ID can "only" have falls on/not on elements. And I'm not sure I'd distinguish here at all cause one goal is to put everything together and to make it look like it's a dance and not element after element. Why not say, first fall in ID is a -2 (and second then -1)? Because of lack of the "riskier elements". So it happens less often and distracts even more during a program. And at the senior/elite level, how many falls in general happen during a whole season?

If it's not "possible" to go with a PCS cap or whatever, just increase the deduction to achieve the same effect.

 

[Minz]

I think that falls, pops and deviations from the filed content--yes, because it impacts composition--should all cap PCS, and the max PCS that could be awarded should be immediately displayed for all viewers and judges, to prevent the disaapointment when a skater had falls, but then gets huge PCSs passing the skaters with cleaner programs.

I disagree (with what I bolded). If the skater can still perform, then I don't think that them deciding to do a 3S instead of a 3Lz should get a PCS deduction. Especially because some skaters don't even bother/forget to update their planned program content. So in that case, I don't think it's fair that skaters get a score deduction for not updating a piece of paper when the actual skating was not affected at all.

But I get what you mean, especially about falls and very obvious pops.

 

[NanaPat]

So it happens less often and distracts even more during a program. And at the senior/elite level, how many falls in general happen during a whole season?

You must not have watched the rhythm dance at 4CC. Three teams had a skater fall; it seemed like more at the time! One skater fell twice in the FD (on the last two elements; he just ran out of steam at the end).

 

[icewhite]

There are so many different topics in this thread... what bothers me most about ice dance is the general attitude towards its scoring, like, there isn't even a decent effort being made to actually objectively define the scores on a pure sportive level. All this "figure skating is always subjective" talks really puts me off. The terms that are used in figure skating in general are not really helpful there, like "artistry" which can mean everything. In ice dance all these problems are still worse. Actually I think it is not subjective and every effort should be made to make the scoring as transparent and coherent as possible. Everything else is Eurovision song contest. Sorry for becoming agitated about this, I don't want to offend people, but that's what I think.

With that being said, I don't know how a PCS scoring box could work when those scores are only decided at the end. As soon as they are decided they are shown on screen. The only thing we don't see is the difference between the individual components, and it would take too long to show that, since the overall score is only shown for two seconds anyway. Maybe I am not getting your post?

Using the technical possibilities of today for better, more objective judging, actually seems like a no brainer to me, but everyone says it is to expensive and I don't have the knowledge to say whether that is actually true or if just too many people are more happy with the way that it is.

gkelly has made some good recommandations.

For me the major issues are: Firstly, the commentators are often bad, especially in ice dance. I have heard them say things like "I don't know anything about ice dance, but it's always nice to watch, you can just enjoy the performances" or "well, I am not very knowledgable about ice dance"... Like, wtf. You should not commentate this event then, dude. Leave your place and ask someone else to do it.
And secondly, more importantly, like I said, the general attitude about ice dance, this "in the end it's in the eye of the beholder anyway" stance.

(That judges don't keep to the rules regarding caps and that aren't consequences for this afterwards is actually outrageous for a sport in my opinion. Whether it actually has an effect on the overall result doesn't even matter, these are basics for a judge.)

 

[dorispulaski]

Actually, ice dance PCS was less subjective in the 2011-2014 Quad. We had a thread about its intracacies:

Ice Dancing PCS Rules 2011-2012

After reading all the different comments in the FD and SD threads for GPF, and also the thread where Maxim Trankov, long time pairs competitor, has trouble understanding his score, I thought it would be interesting to see whether I could put together a thread that would help all of us get a...

www.goldenskate.com

There has been a general watering down of ice dance PCS scores since:

• Now we have 3 choreo stunts per FD, which are entirely subjective
• The near disappearance of timing and rhythm requirements, where to get a top score you used to need to have 100% timing
• Knee slides are good instead of bad
• Sitting on someone's head is ok as long as it is not for long
• And there are now 3 PCS components instead of 5

It is not surprising that we don't see young teams advance as fast as they used to since more subjective scores has meant that past reputation has become more important.

 

[yesterday]

You must not have watched the rhythm dance at 4CC. Three teams had a skater fall; it seemed like more at the time! One skater fell twice in the FD (on the last two elements; he just ran out of steam at the end).

Well, you say it, that was a special occasion because of the venue. Look up seasons without such an extreme.

 

[BlissfulSynergy]

PCS has never been scored fairly or accurately. Obviously, much of this aspect of performance judging is subjective anyway. Still, as we've seen all the time, PCS scores are manipulated for placements. The way the scores are closely ranged with small percentage point differences between equal competitors, and sometimes widely varying competitors in terms of PCS skill-sets, evidences the scoring manipulation.

Another obvious factor is how PCS can tend to increase with strong, consistent tech performance, regardless of whether or not high PCS in individual categories are deserved. The recent elimination of some PCS categories is also an indication of ineptitude and unfairness in scoring, as well as too much complexity and overlap among the former designated categories.