Proposed CoP Changes for Singles

[janetfan]

The use of scoring individual numbers in the Tech works well together with the Tech Specialist's advice on individual errors of technique.

But how are the numbers reached in the PC scores? There are no base values or individual numbers for the PC scores. It simply is arbitrary as it was in the 6.0 system.

The whole package is reached by 25% math and 75% opinion.

That won't be a popular comment Joe.

And thinking of the jumps - isn't the scoring of the jumps subjective too?
Yuna got dinged on her 3x3 by a very subjective call from the tech caller, no?
But some of the judges thought it was actually a pretty good 3x3 and they awarded her +1.8 goe for it - which of course was also purely subjective.

Skating is still a judged sport and assigning values and points to various elements does not in any way make it less subjective.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

That won't be a popular comment Joe.[/Q UOTE]
I would be surprised if it if it were JF. The CoP stalwarts will not entertain any discrepancies one finds in the system, and blame me for not listening to their views, which I do, but I do not feel obliged to agree with some of them.

For Example, do any of the 6 bullits under Skating Skills have a numeric value? Do Flow and Deep Edges have the same value? and this one-foot skating? yet there is a numerical mark in the score. I would presume that mark was arrived at by opinion because there is no base values for Skating Skills or other component headings.

I'm not against opinions. I think yours are as good as theirs. Critics (judges) of Films also opine their views but they explain what was wrong or right. but only after years of study.

And thinking of the jumps - isn't the scoring of the jumps subjective too?

p
Well, they do have Base Values, and if they execute their jumps correctly (flow into, toe-off, air turns, landing, flow out of - all show a mastery of skill and techn should be given the full base values, and voila, we have a genuine numeric.

Yuna got dinged on her 3x3 by a very subjective call from the tech caller, no?
But some of the judges thought it was actually a pretty good 3x3 and they awarded her +1.8 goe for it - which of course was also purely subjnective.

In order to arrive at the best posible score, judged sports require more than one judge. The tech caller, btw, is part of a panel of three where majority rules.

Skating is still a judged sport and assigning value and points to various elements does not in any way make it less subjective.

I believe the GoE's can be subjective, moreso with plus GoEs than minus GoEs.
The plus GoEs open up the door to favoritism.

 

[janetfan]

posible[/I] score, judged sports require more than one judge. The tech caller, btw, is part of a panel of three where majority rules.


I believe the GoE's can be subjective, moreso with plus GoEs than minus GoEs.
The plus GoEs open up the door to favoritism.

Is it objective or subjective when judges decide how well a jump was executed?
Might one judge favor Sasha's air positions and another favor Miki's higher jumps? Do all judges agree on this and to what extent? Is a higher jump always better than a jump with terrific air position?
There are certain degrees of flow after each jump and they must be judged subjectively. Even the part of the rink where a jump was performed and the judges viewing angle could effect their "opinion" about the flow.

The fall in skating's popularity has forced ISU to cut the judging panel down to five marks that will determine a skater's score. The previous system used nine sets of marks. Does this make any difference? Are mistakes likely to be amplified with such a small panel?

At SA a judge left the official's area and was not replaced. I think this shows a very unacceptable attitude and even arrogance. Did ISU even bother to explain it and why they did not have an alternate judge available, or if they did have one why weren't they used?

I don't think five judges is ideal but maybe I am wrong. Maybe they should only have three judges, same as the tech panel and let the majority rule.

BTW, letting the majority rule does NOT make something more objective since the conclusions reached to form a majority are still 75% subjective. I believe the 75% you quoted is too low.

The + goe can be used to show favoritism. Isn't it always subjective and that when a judge awards +goe they are showing favoritism?
They are "favoring" the way a skater performed a certain element. That will always be subjective, no?

 

[Mathman]

Or should we take into consideration how we could get there from here?

I think the spirit of this this thread is, how can we get there from here. I will give one suggestion below.

The mess at 97 Euros with the old majority system. There's a detailed explanation in the middle of

this article.

The OBO system for calculating the results came about in response to that event and was adopted for 1998-99.

And here there's an analysis of 1998 season events as if they had been scored under OBO instead of the majority system. It demonstrates that there would still have been some flipflops, thus arguing that the change from majority ordinals to OBO was unnecessary if the justification for adopting OBO was to prevent flipflops.

Thanks for that history. Those were very interesting examples. Good reading for people who believe think that ordinal judging was "simpler" than point-total judging.

If we kept IJS for scoring each program but then converted results for each program to factored placements and threw out the scores, there would once again be misleading interim standings. E.g., Tony places behind Nick in the long program. Tony's scores are announced, and the standings are announced as Tony 1st, Nick 2nd...Then Angelo skates and places behind both of them, but now Nick is in 1st place overall and Tony is 2nd. Flipflop!

Actually, I do have a suggestion for that. But I will state it instead in terms of the problem that we are encountering under the IJS when one skater gets too far ahead in the Short Program and cannot be overtaken even by a superior LP from a rival.

The reason that this is a problem is that the audience who pay their hard-earned money to go to the skating match, and all the television viewers who watch the big show -- the LP for all the marbles! -- what they might see is one skater skating circles around another, but still losing.

This is bad theater. It just reinforces the notion that skating judging is a crock.

Yes, intellectually, viewers can understand that someone scored so many points in the first half that he/she can snooze through the second half. But the majoroity of the spectators did not even see the first half.

To address this question what the promoters and announcers ought to do is play up the LP as a separate event and a big whoop all on its own. You could show the total SP and LP combined in small print off to the side if you wanted to, but the emphasis would be, here goes underdog Rachael Flatt, David against World Champion Yu-na Kim's Goliath -- in the SKATE AMERICA FREE-SKATING CHALLENGE! Ta-da.

Wow, Rachael got a huge score. She's leading. Can Kim do even better. Oh, no! Kim faltered. Rachael wins! Yay!!!

Whew, what a rush., what a contest!

Now we will combine the two programs and award medals for the overall winner of Skate America. After combining the two programs, Yu-na Kim wins the overall Skate America gold medal and Rachael Flatt gets silver. Clap, clap, clap. Thank you and good night.

 

[gkelly]

To address this question what the promoters and announcers ought to do is play up the LP as a separate event and a big whoop all on its own. You could show the total SP and LP combined in small print off to the side if you wanted to, but the emphasis would be, here goes underdog Rachael Flatt, David against World Champion Yu-na Kim's Goliath -- in the SKATE AMERICA FREE-SKATING CHALLENGE! Ta-da.

Wow, Rachael got a huge score. She's leading. Can Kim do even better. Oh, no! Kim faltered. Rachael wins! Yay!!!

Whew, what a rush., what a contest!

Now we will combine the two programs and award medals for the overall winner of Skate America. After combining the two programs, Yu-na Kim wins the overall Skate America gold medal and Rachael Flatt gets silver. Clap, clap, clap. Thank you and good night.

Yes, with either system we could change the emphasis of the way results are announced during the long program, so that it's much clearer to audiences who won the competition phase they just witnessed. This was a problem with the announcements in the old system and is still a problem in the new system.

But what about the medal ceremonies? Have one public ceremony for the short program right after it concludes, one for the long ditto, and one for the combined event at some later point in time, maybe during the exhibition?


I have a dream to scrap the short program and have separate events for jumps, spins, skating skills/interpretation, and well-balanced freeskating, with separate medals for each. At the big championships, results/points from the individual skill events could be used as qualifiers for the combined-skills final.

But it would cost more to hold an event structured that way, so I'm afraid it will never happen.

 

[Mathman]

Is it objective or subjective when judges decide how well a jump was executed?

Might one judge favor Sasha's air positions and another favor Miki's higher jumps? Do all judges agree on this and to what extent? Is a higher jump always better than a jump with terrific air position?

I think a first step is to get people to stop equating "objective" with God and "subjective" with the Devil. Yes, judging is subjective. Now that we've got that point settled, on we go with trying to come up with the best possible system. :yes:

The fall in skating's popularity has forced ISU to cut the judging panel down to five marks that will determine a skater's score. The previous system used nine sets of marks. Does this make any difference? Are mistakes likely to be amplified with such a small panel?

To get a feel for the effect of trimming the mean (using only the middle five numbers instead of all seven), here is a little bench experiment.

Suppose that the entire universe of Interpretation scores given to a particular performance is

{6.00, 6.25, 6.50, 6.75, 7.00}

That is, for the purpose of this experiment we are pretending that there are only five well-qualified, competent, honest, experienced, and well-trained figure skating judges in the entire potential judging pool, and these are the scores that those five judges would give to the particular performance under view if they were on the panel. The average taken over all judges in the universe is 6.50, and this is the best we can ever hope to do at defining the “correct” score for this performance.

Now let’s say that the actual judging panel comprises three judges. We will compare the full mean using all three numbers to the trimmed mean obtained by discarding highest and lowest.

Here are all the possible outcomes, for the ten different judging panels that might be chosen to officiate at the actual contest.

{6.00, 6.25, 6.50} Untrimmed mean = 6.25, trimmed mean = 6.25. Both are “off” by 0.25. Tie.

{6.00, 6.25, 6.75} Untrimmed mean = 6.33, trimmed mean = 6.25. Untrimmed mean is off by 0.17, trimmed mean is off by 0.25. Untrimmed mean is better by 0.08.

{6.00, 6.25, 7.00} Untrimmed mean = 6.42, trimmed mean = 6.25. Untrimmed mean is off by 0.08. Trimmed mean is off by 0.25. Untrimmed mean wins by 0.17.

{6.00, 6.50, 6.75} Untrimmed mean = 6.42. Trimmed mean = 6.50. Untrimmed mean is off by 0.08. Trimmed mean is exactly right. Trimmed mean wins by 0.08.

{6.00, 6.50, 7.00}. Both exactly right, 6.5. Tie.

The other five are similar. In all, the untrimmed mean is better four times out of ten, the trimmed mean is better two times out of ten, and they are the same four times out of ten. The greatest difference between the trimmed mean and the untrimmed mean is 0.17 points, and the most that either is off from the “true and correct” mean is 0.25.

I have a dream to scrap the short program and have separate events for jumps, spins, skating skills/interpretation, and well-balanced freeskating, with separate medals for each. At the big championships, results/points from the individual skill events could be used as qualifiers for the combined-skills final.

But it would cost more to hold an event structured that way, so I'm afraid it will never happen.

Why would that cost more money?

I love the "skating skills/interpretation" combination.

 

[gkelly]

Why would that cost more money?

More ice time and more total athletes.

Shall I try to think through the specifics in more detail?

 

[Mathman]

^ Sure. But for a less radical version, it could still be the same athletes in all phases of the competition -- like the decathalon. Or would it be more like separate winners on different apparatuses, and then an all-around, in gymnastics?

Edited to add Is there something like the skating skills/interpretation competition for adult skaters? I would imagine there would be a lot of interest for people who love skating but cannot do double jumps.

I have only been to one adult skating competition (as a spectator). Nationals was in Ann Arbor one year. It was pretty cool. The ladies were flouncy and flirty and the men were soulful and artistic.

 

[janetfan]

I think a first step is to get people to stop equating "objective" with God and "subjective" with the Devil. Yes, judging is subjective. Now that we've got that point settled, on we go with trying to come up with the best possible system. :yes:

OK, but first I wanted to hear one of the CoP whiz kids admit that Cop is just as subjective as 6.0.

Now continue......

 

[gkelly]

^ Sure. But for a less radical version, it could still be the same athletes in all phases of the competition -- like the decathalon. Or would it be more like separate winners on different apparatuses, and then an all-around, in gymnastics?

I was thinking separate winners for each of the four phases, and at big competitions only those who entered and did well in the first three phases would qualify for the fourth.

That way at the Olympics someone like Nathalie Krieg could have gone to compete just in the spin event and win a medal for Switzerland even if they didn't have anyone good enough to enter in the jump event or have a chance at the final.

But the details of how many skaters from each country could be sent to Worlds, who might or might not be trying to reach the final, would be more complicated than the current qualification rules, and then the Olympics would have their own rules.

Let me just describe the events as they would take place at a small event like a Grand Prix with 12 men and 12 women all competing in every phase.


Edited to add Is there something like the skating skills/interpretation competition for adult skaters? I would imagine there would be a lot of interest for people who love skating but cannot do double jumps.

I have only been to one adult skating competition (as a spectator). Nationals was in Ann Arbor one year. It was pretty cool. The ladies were flouncy and flirty and the men were soulful and artistic. [/QUOTE]

U.S. Adult Nationals has interpretive competitions. A lot of club competitions have interpretive competitions, for adults and for kids.
National Showcase is a US showcase for interpretive events.

But a lot of these events allow props or elaborate "theatrical" costumes and are scored at least as much on entertainment value as on skating skill. That's not what I have in mind.

 

[Blades of Passion]

OK, but first I wanted to hear one of the CoP whiz kids admit that Cop is just as subjective as 6.0.

Now continue......

It's not as subjective because the base value for technical elements in set in place.

Nearly as subjective, yes.

 

[gkelly]

Here's what I think would be the most efficient way to run these events, and proposals for what the rules would be. I'm open to making the requirements more restrictive. Or possibly somewhat less restrictive, although these versions are pretty open.

Jumps

Skaters warm up in groups of 6 as for freestyle programs and then compete one at a time.

Each skater has 2:00 minutes to complete three required jump elements. The skater is allowed but not required to attempt each element twice. They do not have to be done in order.

The announcer says "You may begin" and the referee starts timing. When time is up the ref blows the whistle. (If applicable, the ref will not blow the whistle while the skater is in the air, but immediately after the landing. However, if the skater did not actually leave the ice until after the 2-minute mark, then that attempt won't count.)

Technical scores only; no PCS.

The jumps are called by a technical panel and scored with GOEs as in freestyle programs. If there are two attempts at an element, the better score counts.

At the senior level, I suggest the following requirements:

Any solo edge jump, double axel or higher
Any solo toe jump, triple or quad
Any combination of two jumps, of which one is at least a triple and the other at least a double

Across the four jumps, least three different takeoffs must be performed. The exact same jump may not be used in two different elements but may be repeated in the combination (3T+3T or 3Lo+3Lo, or, heck, 4T+4T or 3S+3S with other-foot landing on the first jump, if someone wants to get ambitious).

Downgrade rules apply, and required -3 GOE for not attempting the minimum required revolutions.

Preceding steps or skating moves are not required for the solo jumps. However, all the elements can earn higher GOEs by enhancing the approach phase . . . or the landing phase. Judges will also take telegraphed entries into account.

The skater is allowed to stop and catch his/her breath between jump attempts -- it's not necessary to keep skating continuously for 2 minutes. However, once the 2 minutes are over and the referee blows the whistle, no more attempts will be allowed or counted.

This would be an opportunity for skaters who can rotate and land cutting-edge jump elements to attempt them in competition without affecting the rest of a program.

If we give a scoring bonus for the second jump in a combination, then we might see attempts at 3T+4T or 2T+4T. Or 2Lz+3T for some ladies.


Spins

This competition can be held on half ice, so the men's and women's spin events can take place at the same time on opposite ends with different technical and judging panels.

Skaters warm up on half ice in groups of six and then skate a 2:00 minute spin program one skater at a time per event. No music.

The skater is allowed but not required to attempt each element twice. They do not have to be done in order. If there are two attempts at an element, the better score counts.

The announcer says "You may begin" and the referee starts timing. When time is up the ref blows the whistle.

Technical scores only; no PCS.

The technical panel calls the type of spin and level, and judges award GOEs, as in freestyle programs.
Transitions directly into and out of the spins, or from one spin to the next, count toward the GOE.

Skating moves done in between spins (e.g., spiral to get from one part of the ice to the other, with simple strokes separating it from the spins) are allowed but do not earn points. So there's no real penalty for stopping to catch one's breath and shake off dizziness in between spins.

The required spins could be as follows:

A. Spin in one basic position, change(s) of foot optional.

B. Flying spin in one basic position, no change of foot.

C. Combination spin with all three basic positions, one change of foot.

The basic positions chosen for A and B must be different. Features such as backward entry, jumpover to change feet, or change of direction can be used in A or C but not both.


It would probably be wisest for skaters to attempt all three jumps or all three spins once each and then go back to reattempt whichever of those elements they were not happy with the first time. Making an immediate second attempt at a so-so first element might backfire if that means running out of time to attempt the third element at all. But that's strategy for the skater and coach to decide.


Skating Skills and Music Interpretation

2:00 program? 2:30?

Vocal music is allowed. Skaters are strongly encouraged to choose music with strong rhythm or complex or varied melodic lines and to interpret the rhythm and melody, not to act out the lyrics. Judges will be instructed to reward matching the movement to the musical phrasing, rhythm, and nuances in the Interpretation component and to reward relationships between the movements and the lyrics under Choreography only if they also relate to the music and showcase blade-related skills. It's a skating competition, not a mime-and-facial expression competition.

No props, no theatrical costumes. In fact, I'd even go so far as to require skaters to wear solid colors only for this event, no ornamentation, although ladies have the option of wearing nude-colored tights and men or women could wear a different color shirt than trousers.

No required elements. No element scores. Unlimited jumps of up to 1.5 revolutions and brief spinlike movements up to 3 revolutions. Maybe allow a total of two double+ jumps or full spins, but it would be advisable to keep them simple because these moves will not be scored for difficulty -- skaters will get credit for those elements only insofar as they enhance the musical interpretation.

Five PCS scores only. Possibly Skating Skills should have a higher factor than the other components. The second component will be called Highlights and will give credit for the difficulty and quality of moves like spread eagles or split jumps. The connections between highlight moves would be considered under Choreography.



Those three events could be held in any order, depending how the scheduling works out. Men and women can do the spin competitions at the same time, but maybe one sex will have the jump competition first and the other will have the Skating Skills competition first, and at another event it would be reversed.

Instead of two blocks on the schedule for the ladies' and men's short programs, there would be five: ladies' jumps, men's jumps, ladies' SS/interp, men's SS/interp, spins for both. Each actual event would be shorter than a short program, but the whole process would still end up taking at least twice as much ice time.

Probably the skaters should be able to practice all kinds of skills on the practice sessions all week. The practice session earlier in the day or the evening before the SS/interp event would be designated to have that music played in rotation, and the skater whose music was playing would have right of way over anyone practicing spins and jumps. Six 2-minute programs wouldn't fill a whole practice session anyway. The rest of the practices the skaters could have a choice whether to play their SS/Interp music or their LP music.

Still have to figure out how this concept could work for pairs. But this thread is for singles anyway.

 

[Blades of Passion]

I don't think this needs to be like gymnastics.

Skating is about everything combined. There is only one "apparatus" - the ice.

An artistic short program with no (graded) technical elements and points given solely on a Program Components basis is possibly interesting, though.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I have not seen objectivity and subjectivity personified with god and devil by others in this thread. Wow, that's almost as bad as imaginery conspiracy theories.

The fact is that Transitions/Linking. Footwork & Movement is scored by how a particular judge feels about the component. It is a god given opinion. It is a random numerical score without reference to the total bullits within the Component other than noting the criteria. The PC scores are not quantifiable. What was it that they reached that particular numerical?

In order to accept these opinions, we must accept these judges as expert opinioners They know more than former champions, present competitive skaters, student skaters, coaches, choreographers, and the die hard fans. Do we? It maybe one more reason for lost interest in the sport.

 

[janetfan]

I wonder if part of a figure skating competition for singles could include a compulsary event with all of the skaters using the same piece of music.

The purpose of this event would be to judge IN and choreo and also skating skills.

Maybe a couple of jumps - a required 2A and one triple of the skaters choice. The triples would have the same value and would only be judged by how well it was executed and how it highlighted the program.

A lutz would not be worth more than a 3T, and only how well the jump was executed would matter. The two jumps would not be weighted so heavily either so if a skater missed they would still have a chance to finish high in this portion of the competition.

Watching the same piece of music might be tedious to some - although I always enjoyed the compulsary dance in Ice Dancing because it offered a good way to compare teams.

Since the skaters would not be so hung up on completing difficult jump combinations or even problematic jumps this would let them really focus on interpreting the music and trying to bring out the best in their choreo.

The three positions for spirals would be eliminated and a skater could use a spiral(s) only for interpretive purposes. I think it makes sense to keep similar spin requirements since it would be asking too much for skaters to have different spins in a free skate that would follow an IN/Choreo event at a competition.

I think judging and scoring IN and choreo in today's SP's and LP's is still very subjective and often leads to disputes over marks.

If this part of skating was to have it's on event it might help set better standards for scoring and lead to better marking in the LP/freeskate.

I think if this was done properly it would be enjoyable for skating fans and even the skaters themselves.

What might be interesting would be to see how different skaters would be scored. Would Carolina do well in this type of event? I think she would and it might help fans better understand why she is capable of receiveing such high marks in SP's.

What about Miki? I think this might not be her strength if the focus was off jumping and about IN. I would think posture, positions and extensions would be more important in this event than in a longer free skate.

For steps I would suggest levels be de-emphasized and musicality, expression and flow be the determining factor in the marks. I think of the way Lambiel or Akiko perform steps to be the model as opposed to what we typically see in today's LP's.

Not sure if this idea would be useful or practical but think as just one part of a competition it would help determine who the best skaters really are - and in a way the casual fan could better relate to and understand. I would hope this might be an enjoyable portion of a skating competition that could increase fans interest.

 

[gkelly]

I wonder if part of a figure skating competition for singles could include a compulsary event with all of the skaters using the same piece of music.

The purpose of this event would be to judge IN and choreo and also skating skills.

If the skaters are going to make up their own choreography, I'm not sure they would need to use the same piece of music.

Maybe there could be a general type of music required each season, as with the original dance.

What kinds of music do you think would work well for this?

 

[janetfan]

If the skaters are going to make up their own choreography, I'm not sure they would need to use the same piece of music.

Maybe there could be a general type of music required each season, as with the original dance.

What kinds of music do you think would work well for this?

I thought of using the same music for each skater purely for comparitive reasons and to see how they interpret it.
I think something about 3:00 minutes to 3:30 in duration would be long enough.

Music would be selected with the purpose of letting skaters demonstrate their IN, choreo, spins and steps. Also their flow/stroking/edges would be judged so the music would need to be suitable.

Someting in ABA or even ABC form would do as long as it had tempo changes, something with rhythmic vigor/syncopation for steps, and generally was suitable for IN/Choreo purposes.

Typically most music used for SP's would be OK and I don't see a specific style of music as the key as long as it had variation to it.

I see this as part of a three way competition and would like a jumping event also done with music. A mini program, no more than two minutes with the skaters showing us their best jumps. Haven't worked it out but SENSE this would be much more audience friendly than something done like a diving competition.

This would be part of a three way competition, with one portion for jumps and another for In/Choreo. Both would be worth 25% and I would still like a freeskate worth 50% included.

My thoughts are with fans whether in the arena or watching at home.
Music is not necessary but I believe the majority of skating fans like music.

On my way out so can't give a better explanation. But I like the idea where there could be three different winners or one skater showing exceptional talent and winning 2 or even all 3 parts of this type of competition.

 

[i love to skate]

I don't think this needs to be like gymnastics.

Skating is about everything combined. There is only one "apparatus" - the ice.

I agree! In lower level competitions there are already competitions for skating skills - like a compulsory dance but for singles but without music. There are artistic competitions where there are no jumps and there is another event where you have to come up with your program on the spot.

All of these events are very boring to watch and there is no way that the ISU would implement these as they won't bring in any money. Even in the lower competitions these events drag on and on and waste valuable time in the day. For the senior level it would be a nightmare. There are already invidual medals handed out at Worlds for Short and Long program. Leave things as they are.

IMO, skating is going to lose it's lustre if all these new events are introduced. In skating you've got four minutes to make your lifetime of work count. No other sport has that and it would be awful if that was to be lost.

 

[fairly4]

blades on passion--
i like the fact you think the plus and minuses of goe's has no impact on bad judging/cheating.
at least you do a good job .
but part of the reason 6'0s was bad was ordinal juding and they had the plus/minus goe's under the 6'0's it was just the public didn't know about it and how the judges valued it was different than

unless they get rid of the goe's minues/pluses and/or tell the exactly with no leeway what so ever for the judges in accounting for mistakes or a clean program the judges will used whatever means possible to keep the skater they want up there no matter how they skate.
in other words your first example -the score should included let say the basic jump should be a 20 with a 7 for pcs scores and 21 for 8 in pcs scores and 22 for 9 in pcs scores and 25 for 10 in pcs scores,
let say they ur the jump it goes down to a10 with 7 in pcs scores a 8 in pcs 6 in pcs scores a 7 with pcs scores
let say they if nothing is right with the jump and they fall it goes down to a 5 no lower
still the goes get in the way -the scores should be definite quantitive not arbitary decision making what so ever . it should be clean/cut and spelled out exactly to what constiutes a 12, 13 what no leeway. otherwise still leaves room for cheating/held up or whatever you call it.politics

 

[kate]

What was it that they reached that particular numerical?

Hundreds of hours of training and trial judging (at least in this country). Do you have any idea what kind of commitment it takes to become a judge on the national or international level? It's not a random number at all -- judges undergo intense amounts of training. Every single judge judging on a national or international level has examined more skating more closely than fans, because that's what's required of them in order to get a judge's appointment. There are some bad calls, yes, and some differences of opinion, but to suggest marks are random or to compare the level of knowledge that an international judge has to that of an average skater suggests that you know very little about the training process.