New ISU guidelines for positive GOEs

[Mathman]

Earlier ISU documents specified the particular errors that judges are supposed to take into account in determining negative GOEs. For positive GOEs the criteria were a little vague. Here is a new set of instructions to judges about what is expected for +1, +2 or +3.

http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=981

 

[merrybari]

Thanks!
Good to see more clarification being done. Perhaps this will improve the consistency of the judging. Is that wishful thinking?

 

[NatachaHatawa]

Thanks!
Good to see more clarification being done. Perhaps this will improve the consistency of the judging. Is that wishful thinking?

We'll have to wait and see. At least, I hope, GOE points will be less random.

 

[Medusa]

1. unexpected / creative / difficult entry

2. clear recognizable steps/free skating movements immediately preceding element

If you have Nr.2, don't you have automatically Nr.1 too? Let's say Spread Eagle into Triple Axel (or this Spiral Position Johnny had in Otonal before the Triple Lutz) is unexpected and difficult, on the other hand it's a free skating movement "immediately preceding the element". And is it even possible to have Nr.1 without having Nr.2? What else can be unexpected or creative before a jump other than free skating movements or steps?

5. superior extension on landing / creative exit

I get the extension part - but what the heck is a creative exit? Perhaps a high kick after the jump?

3. varied position in the air / delay in rotation

So basically a Tano Lutz - or these funny single Axels people used to do decades ago? Does anybody know more variations? It would actually be nice to see more variations I guess.

Skaters like Daisuke and Johnny have definitely covered points 4, 5 and 6 with most of their jumps - I would like to see skaters with great technique really rewarded for it.

 

[fumie_fumie]

I get the extension part - but what the heck is a creative exit? Perhaps a high kick after the jump?

Slutskaya was a good example of a creative exit. She did a spiral right at the exit of a double axel in her 2005-2006 SP. It did show off her supreme control of the jump and the landing edges.

 

[Mathman]

If you have Nr.2, don't you have automatically Nr.1 too? Let's say Spread Eagle into Triple Axel (or this Spiral Position Johnny had in Otonal before the Triple Lutz) is unexpected and difficult, on the other hand it's a free skating movement "immediately preceding the element". And is it even possible to have Nr.1 without having Nr.2? What else can be unexpected or creative before a jump other than free skating movements or steps?

What about Surya Bonaly's backflip (one foot landing) entry into a triple Salchow.

I think the ISU was trying to give two categories of positive features. The first three are, "do something extra." The last three are, "do the basic thing really, really well."

I think the distinction between 1 and 2 is intended to be something along these lines. In 2, the judges can say, "Aha, she did an Ina Bauer into a triple loop." I think 1 is more like, a jump that comes out of nowhere. IMO the key is "unexpected" in #1 versus "clearly recognizable" in #2.

I get the extension part - but what the heck is a creative exit? Perhaps a high kick after the jump?

Actually, I have seen quite a few "creative exits," as skaters defy the laws of physics trying desparately not to fall after a wonky jump.

But I took that to mean, having enough flow out of the jump to go immediately into another skating element, blending the jump exit into the program as a whole (although this also overlaps with #6.)

High kick? Why not? Michelle Kwan did some great ones as part of her choreography in the Fate of Carmen short program. It was very effective and highly original at the time.

So basically a Tano Lutz - or these funny single Axels people used to do decades ago? Does anybody know more variations? It would actually be nice to see more variations I guess.

I couldn't think of anything except the Tano Lautz and the delayed Axel, either. Most "unusual air positions" comprise the skater leaning off balance and fighting like the Devil to get straight before they fall.

The delayed Axel, however, is a gorgeous move. Dorothy Hamill can still do it. If someone could do a delayed double Axel with enough other features to get a +3 GOE, that woulf be worth 6.5 points -- more than a triple Lutz.

Skaters like Daisuke and Johnny have definitely covered points 4, 5 and 6 with most of their jumps - I would like to see skaters with great technique really rewarded for it.

In the case of Takahashi, I think he does get positive GOEs on almost all of his jumps (minus errors.)

 

[gkelly]

1. unexpected / creative / difficult entry

2. clear recognizable steps/free skating movements immediately preceding element

If you have Nr.2, don't you have automatically Nr.1 too?

Not necessarily. There could be clear recognizable steps/free skating movements immediately preceding the element that are not especially unexpected, creative, or difficult.

For example, a series of two or more back power threes (back outside threes-forward inside mohawks) leading right into loop or salchow jump with no break in rhythm. Or forward outside three, push to back outside edge, step forward to forward outside edge and repeat one or more additional times directly into a salchow or axel jump. With just one such turn, those are pretty standard setups for those jumps. Even two in a row is pretty common, so it's not especially creative or difficult in itself to do two or three. An experienced observer would have a pretty good idea of what kind of jump was coming up, so it wouldn't be unexpected either.

However, if these familiar skating turns turns are clearly recognizable and if they immediately precede the jump so that there's no telegraphing, then point 2 would be satisfied, and it does make sense to reward that kind of seamlessness.

On the other hand, it's possible that the preceding moves could be unexpected and/or creative but not especially recognizable -- maybe because the turns are shallow so it's hard to identify what kind of turns they were intended to be, maybe because the moves were two-foot grapevine-like steps that are not currently part of the standard freestyle vocabulary.

Or they might be recognizable and also meet at least one criterion for point 1, but not immediately precede the element. Examples that come to mind would be a reverse walley, bracket, or choctaw leading into a lutz in which the skater takes a full second or more after the jump or turn to settle onto and deepen the back outside edge before takeoff.

5. superior extension on landing / creative exit

I get the extension part - but what the heck is a creative exit? Perhaps a high kick after the jump?

I think Stojko's landing on the triple lutz in this program would qualify:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpDaWDlwi2E

I can also think of some examples from lower ranked skaters in the same era of edge change and double three or other one-foot turns on the landing before the other foot touched the ice. I don't think they're available on youtube. I *think* Lysacek did something along those lines in his long program last year, but I'll have to wait till I get home to check.

3. varied position in the air / delay in rotation

So basically a Tano Lutz - or these funny single Axels people used to do decades ago? Does anybody know more variations? It would actually be nice to see more variations I guess.

On triple jumps: both arms overhead, both hands at the waist/hips, arms crossed over the chest in the air as well as on the landing

For delayed rotation, possibly something like these triple lutzes would qualify:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCRaoNfU0r8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_QpLHHMqsA&feature=related

For elite skaters who do triples, all sorts of variations to the air position are possible in single jumps. Delayed axel, split-flip or split-lutz, axel or loop with the free leg parallel to the ice in the air and the landing leg tucked, etc.

The question is whether it would be worth the skaters' while to include a single jump in their program at the expense of a double or triple they could have done instead. If they can put a triple toe on the landing and have a reasonable chance of +2 or at least +1 GOE for the combination because of the enhancement to the first jump and quality of the combo as a whole, it could be more valuable than a simple triple toe-double toe combination.

Even as a solo jump or in combination with a double toe, it might not earn the skater more TES points than s/he could have earned with another triple or double axel in that slot, but it could add to the choreography component score if used effectively and at the same time might be less risky especially late in the program.

 

[Mafke]

My problem with GsOE for jumps is that basically there's a lot more that can go wrong with a jump than can go right and unlike spins and footwork, once something starts to go wrong with a jump the chances of more things going wrong is just going to mount.

I think the scale (to be realistic) needs to be something like up to minus -6 and +1 (maybe 2 though I can hardly think of any jumps that really deserve that).

 

[chuckm]

I just wish the ISU would clarify the rules on NEGATIVE GOE, particularly with regard to flutz and lip.

It's not uncommon to see a range of -1 to -3 for edge calls, and it can vary per skater. Mao Asada got only -1 or -2 GOE, while Ashley Wagner got hammered with mostly -2s and -3s.

I have seen patterns indicating that judges use the GOE and PCS as ordinals to "place" skaters, and it can make enough of a point difference to move the skater up or down a place or two.

ETA: I just noticed in another thread that there will be a new symbol on the protocols: ! for 'slight' wrong edge entries. "e" will be reserved for egregious flutzing and will require a -1 to -3, while ! is left to the discretion of the judges.

To me, that STILL gives judges the green light to ding skaters they don't favor.

It also expands the ability of the tech panel to nitpick and give the judges more excuse to ding skaters.


If they were going to bring in the !, they should have LIMITED the range of GOE to no worse than -1 and no greater than +1.

 

[jimreuter]

Limiting the range of GOE doesn't work. If there are multiple errors, you need the freedom to go lower.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

All that gobbledegook about 5 or 6 bullits to judge a jump or whatever is nothing more than PCS talk.

The argument that the GoEs just moderate a single element and not the whole program is not true. The sum of all the GoEs arrive at the same sum of all the PCS.

Can anyone give some examples where a skater got high GoEs and low PCS in the same competition?

 

[Mathman]

Can anyone give some examples where a skater got high GoEs and low PCS in the same competition?

The most prominent recent example of the reverse is Carolina Kostner's LP at Worlds. She got negative GOEs on five of her seven jumps and a total of negative 5.55 GOE overall on jump elements.

Yet all five of her program component scores were above 7. She got a total of 58.52 in PCSs, compared to LP winner Yuna Kim's 58.56.

Edited to add: On the men's side, both Van der Perren and Voronov had high GOEs but low PCSs, while Weir was the other way around.

Van der Perren got positive GOEs on 7 out of 8 jumps, for a total of +3.98 GOE on jumps. But his PCSs were only in the mid sixes, for atotal of 67.00.

Voronov was similar. He got positive GOEs on 7 of 8 jumping passes (with one 0), for a total of +4.28 GOE on jumps. But his component scores, like Van der Perrens, were only in the sixes for a total of 67.50.

Johnny Weir, on the other hand, had negative GOEs on five of his eight jumping passes for a net GOE of -2.57. But his program component scores were about a full point higher than Van der Perren's and Voronov's, for a total of 73.84 PCSs.

So appently judging the quality of each element separately (GOEs) is not always the same as scoring the program as a whole (PCSs) after all.

 

[Tinymavy15]

Well I guess we will have to wait and see how the judges use this. I sure hope we will see more + grades of execution in this next season. We never really saw them used when due before, but they sure loved using the negatives!

 

[gkelly]

I can also think of some examples from lower ranked skaters in the same era of edge change and double three or other one-foot turns on the landing before the other foot touched the ice. I don't think they're available on youtube. I *think* Lysacek did something along those lines in his long program last year, but I'll have to wait till I get home to check.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv46RERVaUo
See the triple loop landing at about 1:20 here.
It's really just an edge change into a one-foot stop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAuk-KDeb5k
Something similar on the landing of the double axel @2:29.

Sorry I can't find the examples with more turns.

Another way to enhance the landing of a jump:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdPKgg8SGys
Double axel @2:47

Check out the double flip and double axel in this program:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KbV1spRR0M
The double axel at the end has a difficult entrance and a difficult arm position in the air and maintained through the landing. Would that be enough for +3?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuH8tl6WRIg&feature=related
Double flip with hands on hips at 3:02, and an attempt at triple toe with the same arm position at 4:10

 

[Mathman]

Another way to enhance the landing of a jump:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdPKgg8SGys
Double axel @2:47

Thank you! Seeing a program like this makes me want to pass a new rule for ISU competitons: no jumps allowed of more than two-and-a-half revolutions.

None of the ladies out there today, with their triple-triple this and their thriple-triple that, can touch that performance, IMHO. Every element had something special about it which enhanced the quality of the program. If we took out all the struggling to twist around 1080 degrees, then we could see who can really skate!

How about that flying sit-combination spin at the end, where she already achieves the sit position in the air!

IMHO figure skating is jumping its way into oblivion. Soon it will be no more interesting to watch than skateboarding.

 

[mizu_iro]

Yukari Nakano used to do a spread eagle into double axel into catchfoot spiral in her short in the 2006-2007 season that was absolutely gorgeous and also seemingly textbook COP. It only received 0.71 in GOE at 2007 Worlds

 

[Tinymavy15]

wow. i loved peggy's spread eagles into the 2 axel. lovely. i would love to see that from Mao.

 

[TtonyV7]

Does this mean we will finally see again...:

1. Real footwork directly into jumps
2. SHOOT THE DUCK!!!! YEAH! Wanna see someone do that into a Lutz Jump!
3. Hydroblading into jumps
4. Ice Split into T.Toe or T.Loop (That would be hard!)
5. Standstill D.axle (days of Surya Bonaly....)
6. And My Personal Favorite: The Half - Axle into T.Salchow

I'm just excited about this. Variation at last. I just hope that not everyone does a spread eagle into a jump, but actually try some new and different tricks.

 

[merrybari]

Well I guess we will have to wait and see how the judges use this. I sure hope we will see more + grades of execution in this next season. We never really saw them used when due before, but they sure loved using the negatives!

As I understand it, similar guidelines had been published for the negative GOEs, which may account for their more frequent use.

Before now, it seemed to me that the judges were more or less operating in the dark and didn't understand the intent, purpose or how to use the positive GOEs.

Maybe now they'll "get it" and be able to use them effectively to reward elements that were formerly not given their just due.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

So appently judging the quality of each element separately (GOEs) is not always the same as scoring the program as a whole (PCSs) after all.

It was always different - It was the same since in the days Sonia Henie. In the 6.0 system, there was a definite score for the Technical and Presentations. They were not intended to be the same. Of course, there was much cheating due to favoritism. The end result in the CoP can very well show that favoritism too.

Voronov is a good example. In the 6.0 and the CoP he would have scored the same. So why tag all those bullets on to breaking down an element. It does make it more interesting for those who want a partial explanation of the scoring of an element. "Oh how beautiful he looked in the air!" but he to did a wrong edge take off Means he didn't do the jump correctly (technical) but he looked good doing it (presentation) and this will mediate the GoE for that jump, and it will not affect the PCS scores?

It just does not seem to me, fair when giving the rush to judgements of the scores for an official to gather the bullets of a jump and the bullets of a presentation before scoring. Knowledgeable fans on the Boards rush to the protocols. General fans don't have a clue. However, I see double jeopardy for the skater that falls, and is marked down for that jump, and then again in the PCS.

No height in the air a negative and less impressed in the PCS.