How Would You Explain And Apply GOE Rules?

[Bluebonnet]

As a former marketing director for the educational division at Warner Bros Music it was my business to know these things as it related to the music activities of students.

One of the jobs I used to do was design mailing lists for our mail promotions based on a state by state and county by county expenditure by school districts on music and the arts. This was before desktop computers

I have been to the TBA and TMEA about 15 times. The first two days of the TMEA are dedicated primarily to orchestral and string music along with elementary vocal music.

I have been to hundreds of music conferences and exhibitions all over USA and Europe.

This and many other activies related to the music business was what I did for my living for many years.

Now let's get back to skating........

Very impressive resume! But "before desktop computers"... That was before early 1970s.

I'd love to get it back to GOEs.

 

[gkelly]

I'd love to get it back to GOEs.

What about them?

 

[janetfan]

What about them?

Do you have any idea what the average mark for GOE is....let's say on jumps?

I would like it if 0 was the most common but my reason might not be so good.

I would like to think 0 as most common simply because it would take the skating out of the judges hands to an extent and give it back to the skaters.

But my reasoning seems flawed at several levels.

1. Is that 0 is just as subjective as the other possible marks.

2. Judges are not potted plants and are there for a reason which is to offer their opinions.

Since ISU sends every score from every event to their headquarters for anaylsis it seems that all kinds of stats should be availailable.
Is any of it available for fans to look over?

 

[gkelly]

Do you have any idea what the average mark for GOE is....let's say on jumps?

I would like it if 0 was the most common but my reason might not be so good.

At what level of competition, and what kind of jumps?

Among top-10 skaters at Worlds, the average on triple jumps might be approximately +1.

For senior ladies at competitions below the elite level, it might be 0 or +1 for double jumps and -1 for triples in the long program, but lower in the short program because they're required to attempt jumps that many of them can't do. So either their triple attempts are failed or doubles (and single axels) receive mandatory -3 for not meeting the requirements.

In a juvenile-level competition, the average on double jumps might be -2.

I would like to think 0 as most common simply because it would take the skating out of the judges hands to an extent and give it back to the skaters.

I think this is good reasoning and is true to a large extent. I haven't done the math, but I'd guess that if you look at all jumps without falls or underrotation or edge calls, across a broad range of competition where most skaters are attempting jumps they are capable of landing, the average will be pretty close to 0, perhaps a little lower because more jumps will be slightly flawed than good enough for pluses.

However, for skaters who actually can do jumps that are better than just satisfactory, it's not fair to give a good-to-excellent jump the same score as one that's just OK.

1. Is that 0 is just as subjective as the other possible marks.

2. Judges are not potted plants and are there for a reason which is to offer their opinions.

Exactly.

I think in the first few years of IJS a lot of judges were reluctant to give pluses -- especially +2s and +3s -- probably because they didn't want to be out of line with the rest of the panel and/or because they were used to thinking in terms of deductions from years of judging 6.0 short programs. But my impression is that there has been a push more recently to encourage judges to award positive GOEs when warranted. The current guidelines about counting positive bullet points that came out a few years ago are clearer and easier to apply consistently than the original descriptions for positive GOE.

Nevertheless, it's still up to each individual judge to draw the line between "satisfactory" and "good" -- some judges will consistently be more lenient and others stricter, even leaving aside any possible biases about specific skaters.

 

[Bluebonnet]

Question: "How Would you explain and apply GOE rules?"

My Answer:
1. GOE stands for "Grade of Execution"
2. It ranges from -3 to +3 in increments of one (seven possible grades)
3. GOE applies to the technical elements.
4. The number and type of elements varies from discipline to discipline; the free program has more elements than the short program.
5. Each element is assigned a base value, depending on it's difficulty.
6. The judges judge each element based on a variety of factors (for example, a jump is judged on it's entry, rotation, and landing, among other things).
7. Once the judges give the element a grade of execution (from -3 to +3), that number is factored (based on the base value of the element; so a harder element getting +1 gives a higher GOE than an easier) and then added to the Base value to get the element score.
8. The total element score is the sum of the scores of each element.

Which means that the more difficult elements including more difficult jumps have already gotten heavier reward as well as heavier punishment from GOE alone.

 

[gkelly]

Which means that the more difficult elements including more difficult jumps have already gotten heavier reward as well as heavier punishment from GOE alone.

Yes.
Although the absolute amount of punishment for harder elements is greater than for easier ones, the percentage of base value that the punishment represents is lower.

The effect is to value risk more than to value clean programs, at least for certain kinds of elements at certain levels.

It's debatable whether the priorities are balanced "correctly."

 

[janetfan]

Which means that the more difficult elements including more difficult jumps have already gotten heavier reward as well as heavier punishment from GOE alone.

Sorry......I am not sure about this - the factoring part.

If a great 3Lz gets +3 GOE and a great 2A gets +3 GOE how much is the GOE actually worth?

If it changes for the base value on an element by element basis it is not just too much for fans but even announcers would be forced to shun this in an attempt to explain to fans what the heck is going on.

BTW, I have watched many clips with the British Euro sport announcers and can't recall them ever trying to explain this. Indeed, they seem to avoid it like the plague.

This seems to be just one of the reasons NBC makes little or no attempt to educate the viewers. I don't think there is a reasonable way to do it that would keep casual fans interested let alone understanding it.

Any help here appreciated ..............

Before we get into the argument that 6.0 had factoring let's keep this about the CoP and in fairness admit that 6.0 atleast gave the illusion to fans that they understood it.

Is this important? Only if we assume most people enjoy feeling stupid - and the goal of the IJS is to have a shrinking fan base.

 

[gkelly]

If a great 3Lz gets +3 GOE and a great 2A gets +3 GOE how much is the GOE actually worth?

In the current scale of values, +3 on a 3Lz is worth 2.1 points, +3 on a 2A is worth 1.5 points.

It's not a simple percentage, which would certainly be easier to explain. You have to go to the scale of values.

If it changes for the base value on an element by element basis it is not just too much for fans but even announcers would be forced to shun this in an attempt to explain to fans what the heck is going on.

Casual fans don't really want to know the details.

For serious fans who want to know more, what the TV networks should do is acknowledge that it is not possible to provide all the details of the scoring and all the qualitative aspects of the performance from a TV broadcast and should let viewers know where they could find more information and how they could seek out opportunities to watch live skating.

The federations could encourage this by devising educational materials like viewers' guides and advertising them on the TV broadcasts, and advertising live events nationally where relevant, and sources of information about more local events.

Really, getting people more interested in following figure skating itself is not going to make them stop watching packaged figure skating on TV. I don't see any real value in TV networks treating all viewers like dummies who need to have the sport predigested for them.

Before we get into the argument that 6.0 had factoring let's keep this about the CoP and in fairness admit that 6.0 atleast gave the illusion to fans that they understood it.

Is this important? Only if we assume most people enjoy feeling stupid

Just as an aside, I recently heard a story about a young beginning skater who went to her first competition and received ordinals of 2 2 5 5 5.

She came in 6th.

After consulting the rules, the parents figured out that that the placements had indeed been calculated correctly according to the ordinal majority rules. But it was hard to explain to a little girl how that happened.

The kid's response was to work hard at her skating so she could get to juvenile level as soon as possible so she could get IJS scores that would make more sense to her.

 

[janetfan]

After consulting the rules, the parents figured out that that the placements had indeed been calculated correctly according to the ordinal majority rules. But it was hard to explain to a little girl how that happened.

The kid's response was to work hard at her skating so she could get to juvenile level as soon as possible so she could get IJS scores that would make more sense to her.

That's a good story involving one skater and two parents.

Here is another story - at 2012 Worlds thousands of fans at the Men's final did not get the judging and expressed their opinions quite openly.

I think it is important for one skater to want to improve.

I think it is atleast as important that thousands of fans who care enough to attend Live events also understand what in the heck is going on.

What do you think? This is the third time I have asked you about the fans' reaction to the Men's LP at 2012 Worlds.
Are you going to make it a perfect "3 for 3" by ignoring something somewhat important to the future of skating?

Or is it going to be "three strikes and you're out"

I am also curious why you would write "Casual fans don't really want to know the details" and yet seem to feel it is the fault of NBC for not doing a better job of explaining the scoring system to casual fans - while constantly lobbying for more efforts at educating these same casual fans.

What do you really mean :think:

 

[Bluebonnet]

That's a good story involving one skater and two parents.

Here is another story - at 2012 Worlds thousands of fans at the Men's final did not get the judging and expressed their opinions quite openly.

Yeah, right!

Just from the bolded words, one could easily see that this is totally not true.

I think it is atleast as important that thousands of fans who care enough to attend Live events also understand what in the heck is going on.

How can you make anyone understand if one determined not to learn?!

 

[janetfan]

Yeah, right! Just from the bolded words, one could easily see that this is totally not true.



How can you make anyone understand if they are determined not to learn?!

Are we back to being in different universes again? Are you saying the fans at 2012 Worlds applauded the Men's scores and podium with no sign of dissent?

Yikes

A smarter organization would make it a point - even part of their mission to make sure fans were getting it.

I don't see that as a priority with ISU and thus the correct correlation is a shrinking fan base due to indifference.

 

[gkelly]

I mean that casual fans who want to stay casual fans don't care about details, especially if it means work. So either the sport and the media digesting the sport can oversimplify to the point that the fans

Casual fans who want to become more than casual need to know that really understanding the fundamentals of this particular sport IS NOT POSSIBLE from the cheap seats and never was. In my opinion, it's a great sport on its own terms, and it's worth putting in more effort. If fans want to understand, they will need to go beyond what fits easily into a 2-hour television package. Studying the rules helps. But more than that, even just a few hours sitting rinkside at a competition with a wide range of skill levels will teach them more than many hours of TV will make clearer the importance of basic quality of movement across the ice aside from elements completed.

TV commentators tend not to say as much about skating quality as about jump difficulty and success, or spin and spiral positions, or musicality, because it's harder to see on TV. So even when they do mention it, it often doesn't really register with the viewers.

In my ideal world, TV commentators would acknowledge this fact, insert an occasional two-minute educational spot to explain basic skating skills, and encourage viewers to get off the couch, go down to the nearest rink, and see for themselves, even encourage them to take lessons themselves if possible.

And also tell viewers where to find the rulebooks or other relevant documents if they want to know details.

Encourage interested fans to pursue the interest beyond the TV broadcasts.

For those who don't want to know details, who want to remain casual viewers comfortable on their couches, a summary will suffice.

"Triple lutz is harder than double axel so it's worth more points. If it's an excellent jump, the judges will award positive grades of execution. This adds even more points to the harder elements than it does to the easier ones, because it's harder to do the harder elements that well."

Casual fans can understand that.

"For the current point values for all the possible elements and the grades of execution, check out the scale of values in ISU communication 1724 at isu.org."

That would take 10 seconds of broadcast time to say. Interested fans can go look it up. Uninterested fans can move on to the more TV-friendly parts of the commentary.

For 2012 Worlds,
I believe that
1) some knowledgeable fans and some less knowledgeable fans who were rooting for Chan did not object to the results
2) other knowledgeable and less-knowledgeable fans who were rooting for Takahashi or Hanyu (or rooting against Chan, e.g., because they don't like his personality or don't like the fact that he wins so often without skating clean) perceived those skaters' strengths as being stronger than Chan's strengths at that event and objected to the results
3) fans who are neutral about one skater vs. or another but who place high on value clean programs or emotional connection were outraged that the skater they felt did best on the areas that were most important to them did not win
4) fans who are neutral about one skater vs. another but who place high value on skating skills understood why Chan won, even if he's not their favorite

Among fans present at the event, I don't know whether those in groups 2 and 3 outnumber those in groups 1 and 4, but because they were unhappy, even outraged, at the results, they were certainly more vocal and made their feelings known.

Among fans who were not present at the event and watched on video, especially those who favored Takahashi for reasons of artistry, musicality, emotional connection, I would say that, for better or for worse, those are qualities that video tends to highlight, whereas it tends to flatten out differences in skating skills

 

[Bluebonnet]

Are we back to being in different universes again? Are you saying the fans at 2012 Worlds applauded the Men's scores and podium with no sign of dissent?

Yikes

A smarter organization would make it a point - even part of their mission to make sure fans were getting it.

I don't see that as a priority with ISU and thus the correct correlation is a shrinking fan base due to indifference.

A bunch of Takahashi fans who had disagreed with the result were not thousands of fans.



By the way, do you know how to open a new thread?

 

[janetfan]

I mean that casual fans who want to stay casual fans don't care about details, especially if it means work. So either the sport and the media digesting the sport can oversimplify to the point that the fans

Casual fans who want to become more than casual need to know that really understanding the fundamentals of this particular sport IS NOT POSSIBLE from the cheap seats and never was. In my opinion, it's a great sport on its own terms, and it's worth putting in more effort. If fans want to understand, they will need to go beyond what fits easily into a 2-hour television package. Studying the rules helps. But more than that, even just a few hours sitting rinkside at a competition with a wide range of skill levels will teach them more than many hours of TV will make clearer the importance of basic quality of movement across the ice aside from elements completed.

TV commentators tend not to say as much about skating quality as about jump difficulty and success, or spin and spiral positions, or musicality, because it's harder to see on TV. So even when they do mention it, it often doesn't really register with the viewers.

In my ideal world, TV commentators would acknowledge this fact, insert an occasional two-minute educational spot to explain basic skating skills, and encourage viewers to get off the couch, go down to the nearest rink, and see for themselves, even encourage them to take lessons themselves if possible.

And also tell viewers where to find the rulebooks or other relevant documents if they want to know details.

Encourage interested fans to pursue the interest beyond the TV broadcasts.

For those who don't want to know details, who want to remain casual viewers comfortable on their couches, a summary will suffice.

"Triple lutz is harder than double axel so it's worth more points. If it's an excellent jump, the judges will award positive grades of execution. This adds even more points to the harder elements than it does to the easier ones, because it's harder to do the harder elements that well."

Casual fans can understand that.

"For the current point values for all the possible elements and the grades of execution, check out the scale of values in ISU communication 1724 at isu.org."

That would take 10 seconds of broadcast time to say. Interested fans can go look it up. Uninterested fans can move on to the more TV-friendly parts of the commentary.

For 2012 Worlds,
I believe that
1) some knowledgeable fans and some less knowledgeable fans who were rooting for Chan did not object to the results
2) other knowledgeable and less-knowledgeable fans who were rooting for Takahashi or Hanyu (or rooting against Chan, e.g., because they don't like his personality or don't like the fact that he wins so often without skating clean) perceived those skaters' strengths as being stronger than Chan's strengths at that event and objected to the results
3) fans who are neutral about one skater vs. or another but who place high on value clean programs or emotional connection were outraged that the skater they felt did best on the areas that were most important to them did not win
4) fans who are neutral about one skater vs. another but who place high value on skating skills understood why Chan won, even if he's not their favorite

Among fans present at the event, I don't know whether those in groups 2 and 3 outnumber those in groups 1 and 4, but because they were unhappy, even outraged, at the results, they were certainly more vocal and made their feelings known.

Among fans who were not present at the event and watched on video, especially those who favored Takahashi for reasons of artistry, musicality, emotional connection, I would say that, for better or for worse, those are qualities that video tends to highlight, whereas it tends to flatten out differences in skating skills

Thanks for your explanation. I think you have it right.

BTW, Scott and Kristi in an interview that was part of NBC's 2010 Olympic coverage on the "Today Show" about the Ladies event made it very clear that Yuna was more impressive in person than on TV. Scott mentions that seeing Mao and Yuna skate Live and back to back made the difference very obvious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrEyNpZ5nVo&feature=related

My feeling is that any organization, sport or corporation trying to sell a product has the responsibilty of offering the necessary tools to make this possible.

I don't think it is the responsibilty of NBC to make ISU's scoring system easier to present to the fans.

Everything I ever learned and experienced in life makes it clear it is the sole resonsibilty of a sport, manufacturer, publisher, etc to make sure retailers or in this case broadcasters of a product have not just a product or system but a clear way to present it to the marketplace.

When this does not happen the results are amost always the same. Call it diminishing sales or less interest - but it is a constant,

 

[janetfan]

A bunch of Takahashi fans who had disagreed with the result were not thousands of fans.



By the way, do you know how to open a new thread?

Yes I do. As do most of the other contributing posters to this thread.

Are you aware that die hard fans have "fanfest" threads where all posts not based on praise for your favorite are frowned upon?

 

[Bluebonnet]

Yes I do. As do most of the other contributing posters to this thread.

Are you aware that die hard fans have "fanfest" threads where all posts not based on praise for your favorite are frowned upon?

Are you aware that this thread is clearly a CoP learning thread for people who want to learn and/or discuss the details about this scoring system, but it is NOT a CoP/ISU bashing or a specific skater bashing thread?

 

[gkelly]

My feeling is that any organization, sport or corporation trying to sell a product has the responsibilty of offering the necessary tools to make this possible.

I agree that in my ideal world the ISU and USFS would do a better job of offering tools to the public to help them understand the sport.

However,
1) selling the sport to the public is a secondary or tertiary mission for these mostly-volunteer organizations, so it often takes a backseat to the primary mission of administering the sport for the benefit of the participants
and
2) even if the organization makes the information available in formats easily accessible by individuals and by TV networks, they can't force the TV networks to use them. If the networks think they'll attract more viewers by selling skating as soap opera to casual fans than by selling a technical sport to fans who are interested in details, that's how they'll package it, and there's not much the federations can do about it.

Everything I ever learned and experienced in life makes it clear it is the sole resonsibilty of a sport, manufacturer, publisher, etc to make sure retailers or in this case broadcasters of a product have not just a product or system but a clear way to present it to the marketplace.

It sounds like you have an extensive background in marketing and so you look at everything in terms of how best to market it. When it comes to making rules for sport, that's a secondary consideration.

 

[janetfan]

It sounds like you have an extensive background in marketing and so you look at everything in terms of how best to market it. When it comes to making rules for sport, that's a secondary consideration.

You think so?
I think a more accurate answer to this might depend on how extensive one's knowledge is of sports in general. In fact I think it is essential to have any real credibility on this topic.

You have said several times you really don't know that much about many other sports so I think your answer might be coming through a more narrow corridor than mine.

Technology and sport in the 21st century is something that is ever changing and at times challenging and even controversial.
The best drug gurus have stated publicly, even under oath in courts that they have no problem keeping a step (or two) ahead of the testing.

Many sports fans are now aware that passing a drug test is not conclusive proof that an athlete is not doping. In fact it has become somewhat laughable to think so. But I doubt if Lance is laughing about this........ :think:

Did you know the world's most popular sport is still resisting the technology that would provide instant replay for the purpose of making sure refs are getting it right?

Very good goal line technology has existed for years now but FIFA (soccer/football) officials refuse to use it.

Since you might not follow soccer the reasons for this would not be very clear to you.

I can tell you it has NOTHING to do with the various tech systems that have been tried out.

I can tell you the head of FIFA has said many times "the disputes are good for football. It is what keeps fans talking and arguing about the games."

I won't deny there is some truth in that - just as fans talking and arguing about skating results can help keep interest up.

But as far as football goes it is strictly a political decision. The top teams in the top leagues do not want instant replay and their influence is great enough that they manage to defeat it everytime it comes up.

So why would Man U, Real Madrid, Juventus, Barcelona, AC Milan, Bayern Munich, etc be against instant replay?

Because they have great political influence over the refs, their governing federations and even FIFA.

More last minute penalty shots are awarded to the very top teams. Goals that might appear to be offsides are let go more for the big monied elite teams than the "minnows" of the soccer world.

In short those with great influence are fighting very hard to keep it that way. One does not need to know much about "marketing" to know that "money doesn't talk, it swears."

Back to skating - it must be the only sport I know of that uses instant replay but refuses to share the replays it uses with the fans.

I don't see any way for any sport to thrive and even exist for very long in today's world without good marketing and exposure to it's fan base.

I don't think sports that are so inward looking and have scoring systems that seem unnecessarily complicated will be sports that thrive and grow in the future.

If I argue about this stuff it is because I wish skating was doing better. I wish I could see it more often on TV.

For the $40 bucks I would have had to spend to see the new US senior B on the internet only - the same money will allow me to watch about 1000 soccer games this year on my big screen hi-def TV.

Actually, I won't watch 1000 games but will have access to them to pick and choose as I see fit. Thankyou soccer Gods!!! :yes:

That is successful packaging of a product or sport.

This is why we see this billboard in LA:

https://twitter.com/alexmorgan13/status/240485611402846208/photo/1/large


I think skating, ISU and US Skating are pathetically lacking in the area of expertise so necessary to make a sport prosper in this era.

Personally I think it begins and ends with a scoring system the fans readily embrace and understand.

Back to GOE....if that was enough for me to really understand the CoP I would be very happy and would make it a point to learn and even memorize it.

But it's not enough - and in fact is only a small segment and pretty much worthless without a tremendous amount of more studying of the many other aspects of the IJS.

 

[Bluebonnet]

 

[Tonichelle]

Yeah, it sucks because we are the fractional minority in North America.

i used to think that, but my rap and pop loving cousin schools me on classic music trivia, too...