2024 GP France: Women's Thoughts?

[Magill]

The most hilarious response of the ISU to the Salt Lake City judging scandal was this: We will solve the probelm by introducing anonymous judging. That way, when judges cheat, no one will be able to figure out which jusdges were doing it.

What, you don't see how this will help? Well, that way when a crook like federation president Gailhaguet makes a deal to fix the results and orders the French judges to go along, he won't know if they followed orders or not, allowing the individual judges to double-cross him.

So why should we believe they don't make these deals anymore? I mean, obviously they were shocked with the way it was found out and with the response it received, but not with the deals being made. In such circumstances, an assumption they would just stop making deals sounds like wishful thinking to me....

 

[Mathman]

So why should we believe they don't make these deals anymore?

Oh, I don't know. I just don't have a suspicious mind. I guess. As a casual fan, it seems to me that most of the time the skaters who perform the best, win.

 

[Joekaz]

The most hilarious response of the ISU to the Salt Lake City judging scandal was this: We will solve the probelm by introducing anonymous judging. That way, when judges cheat, no one will be able to figure out which jusdges were doing it.

What, you don't see how this will help? Well, that way when a crook like federation president Gailhaguet makes a deal to fix the results and orders the French judges to go along, he won't know if they followed orders or not, allowing the individual judges to double-cross him.

Yep. And it seems like every rule change they make with scoring involves giving even more influence to the judges. How can you call a q when it's almost impossible to tell where most of these girls even take off with all the pre rotation they are allowed? And as Artunyan said, the GOE scale should be +1 -1. Its either done poorly, decently, or very good. ISU just wants total control all the time in everything. Even the way they now make sure the announcers get the direct tech scoring while they comment on the replays so their is no disagreement. Lol

 

[Magill]

Yep. And it seems like every rule change they make with scoring involves giving even more influence to the judges. How can you call a q when it's almost impossible to tell where most of these girls even take off with all the pre rotation they are allowed? And as Artunyan said, the GOE scale should be +1 -1. Its either done poorly, decently, or very good. ISU just wants total control all the time in everything. Even the way they now make sure the announcers get the direct tech scoring while they comment on the replays so their is no disagreement. Lol

If that's what Raf said, I absolutely agree with him. This sport is subjective enough and it needs being made more objective and not even more subjective.

 

[Magill]

Well, I admit no matter how hard I am trying to be trusting and naive, Malinin getting 10 in PCS, Cha 6,5, and Sota Yamamoto 5,5 makes my casual fan heart extremely suspicious and I find no arguments to persuade it otherwise... and I do not think I am ready to trust anyone who had anything to do with these scores with respect to any other scores, past or future. And these are not the only scores my poor heart is responding to in such a way.
The problem is nothing is scandalous enough to shake this system up. There will always be fans of those who are held up with the manipulated scores to defend it, and so it keeps rolling. It just needs another Salt Lake City.

 

[Mathman]

Yep. And it seems like every rule change they make with scoring involves giving even more influence to the judges. How can you call a q when it's almost impossible to tell where most of these girls even take off...

I look at it like this. Figure skating is a judged sport. As pairs skater David Pelletier once put it, "If I had wanted to be scored by a stop-watch I would be going downhill on skis."

Is the IJS system better than what it replaced? In spite of everything, I knid of think that it is. Back in the day the judge gave a skater a 5.6. Why? Well, ithe performance seemed sort of 5.6-ish to that judge.

Nowadays if the technical panel calls a q, at least we have video to help us evaluate whether the call was correct or not, and the ISU has procedures -- reviews after each event and oversight by the Officials Assessment Committee -- to shine a light on the officiating. Even the part that is left up to the judges -- GOE and PCS -- have relatively firm guidelines as to what is expected of the judgingg.

Crooks will be crooks no matter what. But to me, the glass is half full rather than half empty. I have only a finite amount of righteous indignation in me.

 

[Joekaz]

I look at it like this. Figure skating is a judged sport. As pairs skater David Pelletier once put it, "If I had wanted to be scored by a stop-watch I would be going downhill on skis."

Is the IJS system better than what it replaced? In spite of everything, I knid of think that it is. Back in the day the judge gave a skater a 5.6. Why? Well, ithe performance seemed sort of 5.6-ish to that judge.

Nowadays if the technical panel calls a q, at least we have video to help us evaluate whether the call was correct or not, and the ISU has procedures -- reviews after each event and oversight by the Officials Assessment Committee -- to shine a light on the officiating. Even the part that is left up to the judges -- GOE and PCS -- have relatively firm guidelines as to what is expected of the judgingg.

Crooks will be crooks no matter what. But to me, the glass is half full rather than half empty. I have only a finite amount of righteous indignation in me.

I completely disagree. This system is nothing more than 6.0 disguised by numbers that are completely subjective as well. My point is a UR is a jump clearly more than a quarter short. If its close then it's good. Being close doesn't make it a q. Being able to discern a jump is exactly on the quarter is unrealistic, especially when it is called so often. You do make a good point that its not the system, but the judges that are crucial. Without competent fair judging, no system can work.

 

[Mathman]

My point is a UR is a jump clearly more than a quarter short. If its close then it's good. Being close doesn't make it a q. Being able to discern a jump is exactly on the quarter is unrealistic, especially when it is called so often.

I think that every sport faces this dilemma. The referees must make borderline calls that could go either way. I like the way it is handled by the (U.S.) National Football league. The officials make the call as best they can in real time. If the call is challenged, there is a review featuring instant replay. If the review shows clear evidence that the call was incorrect, it is overturned. If the evidence is still not decisive, the ruling on the field stands.

As for a q in figure skating, this means that the jump was under-rotated, but the amount of under-rotation was not greater that 45 degrees.True, even the most sharp-eyed technical specialist will not be able to distinguish an under-rotation of 46 degrees form an under-rotation of 44 degrees. But what about the skater who consistently achieves full rotation with 0 degrees of under-rotation. Does she get nothing for her superior jump technique?

Same with the "unclear edge"call. If the edge is so weak that an expert observer can't decide if she was on the outside edge or the inside edge -- well, that's not a "wrong edge" call, but still it does not inspire enthusiastic praise like a Boyang Jin Lutz edge does, and this should be reflected in the scoring.

 

[Joekaz]

I think that every sport faces this dilemma. The referees must make borderline calls that could go either way. I like the way it is handled by the (U.S.) National Football league. The officials make the call as best they can in real time. If the call is challenged, there is a review featuring instant replay. If the review shows clear evidence that the call was incorrect, it is overturned. If the evidence is still not decisive, the ruling on the field stands.

As for a q in figure skating, this means that the jump was under-rotated, but the amount of under-rotation was not greater that 45 degrees.True, even the most sharp-eyed technical specialist will not be able to distinguish an under-rotation of 46 degrees form an under-rotation of 44 degrees. But what about the skater who consistently achieves full rotation with 0 degrees of under-rotation. Does she get nothing for her superior jump technique?

Same with the "unclear edge"call. If the edge is so weak that an expert observer can't decide if she was on the outside edge or the inside edge -- well, that's not a "wrong edge" call, but still it does not inspire enthusiastic praise like a Boyang Jin Lutz edge does, and this should be reflected in the scoring.

A border line q is supposed to be called clean. Anything under a quarter is considered clean. A fully rotated jump should get higher GOE than barely under a quarter. The fact that the judges dont seem to do that is the problem, not that particular rule. The unclear edge is already a lesser penalty than the e, but is penalized ,so I don't get your point there.

 

[Mathman]

A border line q is supposed to be called clean. there. Anything under a quarter is considered clean. A fully rotated jump should get higher GOE than barely under a quarter. The fact that the judges dont seem to do that is the problem, not that particular rule. The unclear edge is already a lesser penalty than the e, but is penalized ,so I don't get your point there.

My point is that a border line under-rotation is not clean. It is not not-clean.That's why we have judges, to rule in border line cases.

The unclear edge call is a more pristine example, I think. Unclear means unclear. Unclear situations arise in every sport with rules. Did the wide receiver get his big toe down a split second before his knee hit the turf, or a hundredth of a secod after, Did he have full control of the ball at that instant, or on;y 80% control?

Two baketball players collide -- is a a blocking foul on the defense of a charging foul on the offense?

The fLutz call has a particularly tangled history. Back in the day, almost every woman and a whole lot of men "failed to present a clear outside edge" on their triple Lutz. For those who did, it is not apparent from the judges' scores whether they received any scoring benefit or not.

Fans as well as the ISU Technical Committee went round and round on the question, if you slip over to the inside edge at the last moment, is the jump to be scored as a "flawed Lutz" or as a "flip" -- taking the definition of the jump from the take-poff edge alone. If the technical panel gives a "!" I suppose that is them saying, "Don't ask me, I haven't got the foggiest."

After years of hand-wringing and fights between the "purists" and the "even more pure purists" as to what a Lutz jump is, they (we) kind of settled down to something like the following compromise:

The most important factor in a Lutz jump is the counter-rotation. (This is also the reason that a pure Lutz is rarely under-rotated,-- compared with a Salchow, for instance, which is almost always under-rotated.) If the skater slips over onto the flat or onto the inside edge, this releases the counter-rotation prematurely and the result is a flawed jump. In a proper Lutz the skater rides that outside edge and, if anything, deepens it at the moment of take-off.

In a questionable case, when the tech specialist says"!," how much GoE should be taken off? That's up to the judges. It is the responsibility of the judges to offer their judgement on that question.

(A hat-tip to GS poster gkelly for explaining that to me. )

 

[lariko]

Personally, I really liked GoE from -3 to +3. Amazballs, good, average for everything rotated, no mistakes. And q/edge but visually clean, noticeable mistakes like two-footed and God knows how that wasn’t a fall.

 

[Mathman]

Personally, I really liked GoE from -3 to +3.

This scale has the support of behavioral/psychological scholarship. Human brains can distinguish between 7 alternatives of scale, but no more. (So can tuffted capuchin monkeys.) That's also why 6.0 was cool. You could get 0, 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 , or 6 -- this is within the capacity of a human judge. Scoring on a sclae from 1 to ten? Nope.

So when you neurologist asks you to rate your pain from 1 to 10, tell him he doesn;t know what he is talking about. Or tell her.

 

[Joekaz]

My point is that a border line under-rotation is not clean. It is not not-clean.That's why we have judges, to rule in border line cases.

The unclear edge call is a more pristine example, I think. Unclear means unclear. Unclear situations arise in every sport with rules. Did the wide receiver get his big toe down a split second before his knee hit the turf, or a hundredth of a secod after, Did he have full control of the ball at that instant, or on;y 80% control?

Two baketball players collide -- is a a blocking foul on the defense of a charging foul on the offense?

The fLutz call has a particularly tangled history. Back in the day, almost every woman and a whole lot of men "failed to present a clear outside edge" on their triple Lutz. Those who did, it is not apparent from the judges' scores whether they received any scoring benefit or not.

Fans as well as the ISU Technical Committee went round and round on the question, if you slip over to the inside edge at the last moment, is the jump to be scored as a "flawed Lutz" or as a "flip" -- taking the definition of the jump from the take-poff edge alone. If the technical panel gives a "!" I suppose that is them saying, "Don't ask me, I haven't got the foggiest."

After years of hand-wringing and fights between the "pursts" and the "even more pure purists" as to what a Lutz jump is, they (we) kind of settled down to something like the following compromise:

The most important factor in a Lutz jump is the counter-rotation. (This is also the reason that a pure Lutz is rarely under-rotated,-- compared with a Salchow, for instance, which is almost always under-rotated.) If the skater slips over onto the flat or onto the inside edge, this releases the counter-rotation prematurely and the result is a flawed jump. In a proper Lutz the skater rides that outside edge and, if anything, deepens it at the moment of take-off.

In a questionable case, when the tech specialist says"!," how much GoE should be taken off? That's up to the judges. It is the reponsibility of the judges to offer their judgement on that question.

(A hat-tip to GS poster gkelly for explaining that to me. )

Until the advent of the q, which we agree is too precise to call, it was a clean jump if it wasn't more than a quarter short. Borderline was supposed to be called clean. Now the q is often used to call jumps that are less than a quarter, if a caller so wishes, which isn't supposed to be the purpose. The problem is when you often see very strict application to some, and very lenient to others, in the same competition.

 

[Mathman]

Borderline was supposed to be called clean.

I cannot find this language in any ISU publication. My understanding is that if the technical panel (two out of three) thinks that the jump was under-rotated by more than a quarter, then they are expected to give a q mark. After that, it is up to the judges to exercise their judgment.

In other words, the technical panel is instructed to look the other way if the under-rotation is less than 45 degrees. If the under-rotation is, in the judgment of the technical specialist and his cohort, more than 45 degrees short then they are instructed to give a q.

I don;t think we want to get into "what if it's in the hard-to -discern range of, say, 45 degrees to 50 degrees. If we say, OK, that's borderline so we have to call it clean -- well, all that does is more the line of demarcation from 45 degrees to 50 degrees. But then a jump that is 55 degrees off becomes "borderline."

I think that if we want to complin about the judging we will have to base our arguments on data showing that some skaters always get a break and others always get nailed, even when the jumps are pretty much the same in terms of under-rotation. This is hard to prove -- who determines whather the jumps are "pretty much the same" or not? But in any case, fiddling with definitions does not, in my opinion, get us any further along.

 

[Joekaz]

I cannot find this language in any ISU publication. My understanding is that if the technical panel (two out of three) thinks that the jump was under-rotated by more than a quarter, then they are expected to give a q mark. After that, it is up to the judges to exercise their judgment.

In other words, the technical panel is instructed to look the other way if the under-rotation is less than 45 degrees. If the under-rotation is, in the judgment of the technical specialist and his cohort, more than 45 degrees short then they are instructed to give a q.

I don;t think we want to get into "what if it's in the hard-to -discern range of, say, 45 degrees to 50 degrees. If we say, OK, that's borderline so we have to call it clean -- well, all that does is more the line of demarcation from 45 degrees to 50 degrees. But then a jump that is 55 degrees off becomes "borderline."

I think that if we want to complin about the judging we will have to base our arguments on data showing that some skaters always get a break and others always get nailed, even when the jumps are pretty much the same in terms of under-rotation. This is hard to prove -- who determines whather the jumps are "pretty much the same" or not? But in any case, fiddling with definitions does not, in my opinion, get us any further along.

I agree. No matter how you define it, if the judges aren't consistent and fair equally with everyone, then it doesn't really matter. This in my view is a major reason skating will always be a niche sport. Fans want to see a winning performance as it occurs, not be told what they saw didn't really happen after the fact. Lol

 

[Skating91]

It's out of control. Gubanova absolutely destroyed again by the judges for small errors. This is not a skater without a solid reputation, we're talking a European champion. The judges treat her like something they found on the bottom of their shoe.

Glenn's 78 in the short program I agree with energetic program to the end, but to be getting similar PCS marks in the free skate for a program littered with errors one fall and hands down on the ice twice, didn't have the energy of the free skate, not a memorable program, it's not right, and Glenn has never excelled in this aspect she's always been a jumper.

Even with the jumps there was a clear q with the lutz but not called and the ISU sneaky as always not showing it on the replay. Get away with it but they don't miss anything with anyone else. I saw the same thing at World's this year for a silver medallist except that judges were more bold that day bad technique on every jump that had no effect on GOE, there was barely a jumping pass that wasn't cheated, but just the solitary q handed out in the free skate.

Because everyone has such close technical content now, it's giving skaters of a particular region an extraordinary advantage over the field it's like a 15-20 point head start at every event.

The most extraordinary one at World's was probably the hope of western Europe, an important area for the ISU marketing team and bereft of top skaters. Tech content score of 54, base value of 49, but 69 for PCS. Such an insult to all the skaters with great technical content and skating free of errors.

Still, congratulations to Amber for a wonderful short program performance, that 3A is so consistent now. I believe she can win big medals on merit she doesn't need gifts.

 

[lariko]

I cannot find this language in any ISU publication. My understanding is that if the technical panel (two out of three) thinks that the jump was under-rotated by more than a quarter, then they are expected to give a q mark. After that, it is up to the judges to exercise their judgment.

In other words, the technical panel is instructed to look the other way if the under-rotation is less than 45 degrees. If the under-rotation is, in the judgment of the technical specialist and his cohort, more than 45 degrees short then they are instructed to give a q.

I don;t think we want to get into "what if it's in the hard-to -discern range of, say, 45 degrees to 50 degrees. If we say, OK, that's borderline so we have to call it clean -- well, all that does is more the line of demarcation from 45 degrees to 50 degrees. But then a jump that is 55 degrees off becomes "borderline."

I think that if we want to complin about the judging we will have to base our arguments on data showing that some skaters always get a break and others always get nailed, even when the jumps are pretty much the same in terms of under-rotation. This is hard to prove -- who determines whather the jumps are "pretty much the same" or not? But in any case, fiddling with definitions does not, in my opinion, get us any further along.

I think they need to reign in negative GoEs for q'd jumps that are visually clean and recieve high marks from judges during the Skate when they do not have feedback from the tech that it was 0-45 degrees under. Taking off as much negative GoE for a q jump that looks great as for a step-out or another easy to spot mistake feels unfair/counterintuitive

 

[gkelly]

q stands for "on the quarter" -- it is used only for jumps that are exactly 90 degrees short of rotation, in the assessment of the technical panel after watching the replay.

If a jump is 45 degrees short (which is normal because of the curve of the entry and exit edges, except with lutzes that curve the other way on takeoff), or even 89 short if the tech panel decides it was not quite 90, there will be no call.

If there is a q call, judges are supposed to lower whatever GOE they would have given otherwise by -2. And they really shouldn't be awarding the "good take-off and landing" bullet point. So in theory they could be starting from as high as +3, subtract the -2 for the q call, and end up with +1. It doesn't need to have negative final GOE.

If there is no call by the tech panel, then judges are free to give whatever GOE they think appropriate, up to +5 if they saw at least 5 positive bullet points (including the three mandatory ones) and no negatives (including no underrotation).

If they did see underrotation that the tech panel didn't call, they're supposed to reduce the GOE by -1, which would be appropriate if they saw the rotation as short by 45 to 89 degrees. Or maybe they saw it as shorter than that, in disagreement with the tech panel, in which case they could reduce the GOE further.

The base value penalties only kick in if the tech panel calls < or <<.

 

[lariko]

q stands for "on the quarter" -- it is used only for jumps that are exactly 90 degrees short of rotation, in the assessment of the technical panel after watching the replay.

If a jump is 45 degrees short (which is normal because of the curve of the entry and exit edges, except with lutzes that curve the other way on takeoff), or even 89 short if the tech panel decides it was not quite 90, there will be no call.

If there is a q call, judges are supposed to lower whatever GOE they would have given otherwise by -2. And they really shouldn't be awarding the "good take-off and landing" bullet point. So in theory they could be starting from as high as +3, subtract the -2 for the q call, and end up with +1. It doesn't need to have negative final GOE.

If there is no call by the tech panel, then judges are free to give whatever GOE they think appropriate, up to +5 if they saw at least 5 positive bullet points (including the three mandatory ones) and no negatives (including no underrotation).

If they did see underrotation that the tech panel didn't call, they're supposed to reduce the GOE by -1, which would be appropriate if they saw the rotation as short by 45 to 89 degrees. Or maybe they saw it as shorter than that, in disagreement with the tech panel, in which case they could reduce the GOE further.

The base value penalties only kick in if the tech panel calls < or <<.

They can tell if it is 90 degrees under specifcially? How? Also, I swear, I saw q'd jumps have running score of over 2, but they went way under after q was called. And -2 sounds terribly high, since it's 2x penalty for a fall. Anyway, I feel that penalties for q'd but landed jumps are too much.

 

[Mathman]

q stands for "on the quarter" -- it is used only for jumps that are exactly 90 degrees short of rotation, in the assessment of the technical panel after watching the replay.

I think that is where the problem lies. It is absurd to think that anyone can tell whether the jump is "exactly" on the quarter, using the ordinary common-sense definition of what "exactly" means.

If the rule were something like, 0 to 45 degrees, no call; 45 to 90 (q), reduce DOE by -1; 90 to 180 (<), reduce GOE by -2; 180+ (<<), downgrade -- at least that would have the advantage of being well-defined, although it would still be up to the judgment of the tech panel.

Still, overall I am satisfied with the current conventions, compared to earlier attempts to incorporate these considerations into the IJS. (Especially the part about, all jumps except the Lutz are automatically under-rotated because of the mechanics of the jump.)