CoP Olympic report card | Golden Skate

CoP Olympic report card

Joined
Jun 21, 2003
The current issue of Blades on Ice has a feature by George Rossano critiquing the performance of the New Judging System at the Olympics. Dr. Rossano is a mathematician and space physicist with a keen interest in figure skating. He has written a goodly number of articles, some with non-trivial statistical content, pointing out the weaknesses of the ISU judging system.

Here are his main points, with regard to whether the ISU judging system "passed the test" at the 2006 Olympics.

1. In ice dance, despite the claim of the CoP to inject some objectivity into the process, the judges' scores did not reflect any systematic agreement. "In the Compulsory Dance segment, five couples were scored best by at least one of the 12 judges. Moreover, for each of these five couples, another judge considered them dreadful. Isabelle Delobel and Olivier Schoenfelder, for example, were scored best by one judge and ninth by another."

So much for objectivity.

2. The random draw might have had an impact in the results -- and it's just a matter of time before it does -- but it did not play much of a role in the 2006 Olympics.

3. The judges are using the program component scores pretty much the same way they used the second mark under the ordinal system. Under the ordinal system, the judges by and large gave a 5.9 to the skater they thought was best, a 5.8 to the second best, etc. Now they give 8.0 across the board to their first place choice, 7.5 for the person they think was second best, 7.0 for third, etc.

In some cases this led to puzzling results, such as Plushenko getting 8's in choreography (what choreography?) and transitions (what transitions?)

4. There was some concern that the NJS is leading to watered-down programs on the tech side (the ladies' medallists managed only 5, 4 and 4 clean triples compared to the 6 or 7 that we are used to seeing at championship events.) Time will tell whether this is a trend or an anomaly that is about to be set on its ear by a new wave of triple-Axels and quads.

Rossano did not have much to say about the pairs, completely passing over the Zhang and Zhang restart question.

At least there weren't any big scandals. But again, whether that has anything to do with the judging system cannot be determined from such a small sample.

Comments?

My overall feeling was that if this is the best that Rossano can do -- he is an inveterate CoP opponent and a perennial thorn in Speedy's side, LOL -- I guess the NJS did OK in its Olympic debut.
 
Last edited:

CDMM1991

Medalist
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
I don't think you can complete an effective CoP Olympic Report Card without mentioning the Zhang/Zhang restart controversy, because this was by far the most controversial use of CoP in the games, though Plushenko's 8s also caused a bit of a ruckus, but they didn't really impact the results in the end.

I'm sure that what he wrote was accurate, but I think his work was severly unfinished by not tackling the pairs.
 

hockeyfan228

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
CoP had nothing to do with the Zhangs results, especially if you follow Rossano's logic, and while he might not have mentioned them by name, he did cover them in his analysis. The restart rules were initiated in 6.0. It was the referee's responsibility to start the two-minute count as soon as the Zhangs did not result the program after her fall, and it is a 6.0 carryover that the skater/team starts over from the beginning of the program, if a re-start is allowed.

If the judges are using PCS like the old pre-ordinal, then the Zhang's results are same-old/same-old. It is an indictment of CoP that nothing has changed in this regard -- except for transparency of what the judges are doing, which gives Rossano so much data to work with -- but what's the argument that 6.0 would have treated this significantly differently?

Mathman said:
1. In ice dance, despite the claim of the CoP to inject some objectivity into the process, the judges' scores did not reflect any systematic agreement. "In the Compulsory Dance segment, five couples were scored best by at least one of the 12 judges. Moreover, for each of these five couples, another judge considered them dreadful. Isabelle Delobel and Olivier Schoenfelder, for example, were scored best by one judge and ninth by another."

So much for objectivity.

Why does agreement=objectivity? It seems to me that agreement=consensus, and the scores show that there wasn't consensus among the judges, which could be a legitimate spread of opinion, or a weakness in training, or unclear guidelines for scoring, or some judges judging under old criteria and others are judging under the written guidelines or at least to guidelines of their training.
 

Ptichka

Forum translator
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
CoP and Ice Dance

In general, I think CoP has been beneficial to all disciplines except for ice dancing. However, the above mentioned example does not convince me. Quite the opposite - the change under 6.0 has been that all dancers receive the same ordinals from all the judges; CoP was supposed to bring some variety in marks, and it did. Also, this Olympics so an unprecedented number of top notch ice dancing teams; though how in the world FP&M could have won the compulsories is still beyond me.
 

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll
Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
I think, save for the olympics, the CoP has done well more for ice dance than anything else... we're seeing movement, we're seeing how the skaters stack up... you're right FP&M getting the win during the CDs was odd... but I have hope in this system, no it's not perfect but nothing ever is.
 

JonnyCoop

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
ITA. The problem I have with CoP and Dance is the fact that they had to get a little more rigid with "required elements" in the free dance which can, and has, led to a lot of "same old stuff" (despite some terrific stuff in Torino). But as far as seeing MOVEMENT in standings and no more of that 1-1-1, 2-2-2,3-3-3, routine, HALLELUJAH!! For me, one of the big unanswered questions in Olympic figure skating history, will always be, how would this competition have turned out had the OD not been Festival di Splatto '06?

In general in Torino regarding CoP, I found the scoring extremely uneven in some cases. So Plushy racks up those overinflated transitions scores; as far as I'm concerned, if Plushy was pulling 8s for transitions, then Shawn Sawyer and Matt Savoie should have been pulling 10s. That's just one example I can think of.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
CoP works as a sport, imo. However, judges are human and have the same prejudices other judges have. I'm not speaking of anything illegal. Just the things one sees and another doesn't. With 7 judges and with good nationalities difference, it's better than 6.0.

However, 6.0 had skaters with much more polish to their routines. This I think has been lost somewhat in the CoP.

Like the 6.0, the Cop judges will be influenced by the clean jump technique moreso than any other element and GoEs will make the difference.

Joe
 

gio

Medalist
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Plushenko's overinflated scores for transitions and choreography were a shame.:scowl: But this would have happened also with the old system.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
gio said:
Plushenko's overinflated scores for transitions and choreography were a shame.:scowl: But this would have happened also with the old system.
gio - That is exactly what I was saying, his high jumps influenced the judges to avoid his weaknesses.

Joe
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Joesitz said:
Like the 6.0, the CoP judges will be influenced by the clean jump technique moreso than any other element and GoEs will make the difference.
One advantage to the New System, though, is that this is made perfectly clear in the allocation of points. A triple Axel is worth 7.5 points. If it is clean, high, specacular, with an interesting entrance and a smooth exit edge, it could get as much as +3 GOE on top of that, for a total of 10.5 for the element.

In contrast, for a fancy level four combination spin, with excellent speed and centering and with several unique changes of edge and changes of position, the most you can get is 3.5 and the highest GOE you can get is +1.5.

Conversely, if you miss your jumps, all the GOE in the world won't save you. A flubbed triple Axel, downgraded to a double with a fall, gives you a grand total of 0.2 points for the element. Even if you get the maximum possible GOE on all of your non-jump elements, you can't make up what you just lost for the flub on the Axel.
 

Spirit

On the Ice
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Ptichka said:
though how in the world FP&M could have won the compulsories is still beyond me.
Even before the world saw it, the judges knew all about her death stare ability and they did not want any of that coming their way.

Or it was the fact that they are Italian, Cinquanta is Italian, they were in Italy, and so orders were handed down. :scratch:
 

JonnyCoop

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Spirit said:
Or it was the fact that they are Italian, Cinquanta is Italian, they were in Italy, and so orders were handed down. :scratch:

Part of me will always wonder if one of the reasons why Barbara was so mad about the fall in the OD (aside from the fact that it gave her a reason to be Signora Ultradrama which she seems to thrive on), was because there WAS some sort of fix in and Maurizio ruined the whole thing with his error.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Mathman said:
One advantage to the New System, though, is that this is made perfectly clear in the allocation of points. A triple Axel is worth 7.5 points. If it is clean, high, specacular, with an interesting entrance and a smooth exit edge, it could get as much as +3 GOE on top of that, for a total of 10.5 for the element.
Does that mean there really is no way for a skater to get 7.5 points for the axel"?
If a skater does a 3A+3 with what appears to be one or two faults, his GoE is reduced to +1 or +2. If he completes the 3A but has a poor entrance, landing, all on an awkward edge, his score would be 7.5-Goe 3.

What I'm getting at (and badly) is that there will never be a mark for the standard score. Is that correct?

In contrast, for a fancy level four combination spin, with excellent speed and centering and with several unique changes of edge and changes of position, the most you can get is 3.5 and the highest GOE you can get is +1.5.
I can see where Plushenko gets the highest scores for his uninteresting spins. since you left out 'no.of rotations' as being part of the combo.

Conversely, if you miss your jumps, all the GOE in the world won't save you. A flubbed triple Axel, downgraded to a double with a fall, gives you a grand total of 0.2 points for the element. Even if you get the maximum possible GOE on all of your non-jump elements, you can't make up what you just lost for the flub on the Axel.
Didn't Lambiel get high GOEs for his 3A in Calgary despite the ruling of the Caller which reduced it to a double A?

One other thing, what about Attempts? Is that clear?

Joe
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
JonnyCoop said:
Part of me will always wonder if one of the reasons why Barbara was so mad about the fall in the OD (aside from the fact that it gave her a reason to be Signora Ultradrama which she seems to thrive on), was because there WAS some sort of fix in and Maurizio ruined the whole thing with his error.
But if so, the majority of the judging panel didn't get the memo. Only three of the twelve judges put F-P & M first in the CD.

But with the other 9 all over the lot, that was enough for the Italians to end up on top.

(There might have been a little home cooking to let Sylvia Fontana :love: make the cut, however.)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Joesitz said:
What I'm getting at (and badly) is that there will never be a mark for the standard score. Is that correct?
No. Most triple Axels (or any other element) get a GOE of 0.

So if you do a pretty good run-of-the-mill triple Axel, with no glaring errors but nothing out of the ordinary on the positive side either, you will get 7.5.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Mathman said:
So if you do a pretty good run-of-the-mill triple Axel, with no glaring errors but nothing out of the ordinary on the positive side either, you will get 7.5.
No rush MM, but I would like to see a score with just the standard score involved with no goes. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I can see how a judge can use it for argumentive purposes such as "Well I did give full credit for the jump".

Still any comments on Attempts? I think they will do something about the unspeakable flutz if it has not already been taken up.

Joe
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Joesitz said:
I can see where Plushenko gets the highest scores for his uninteresting spins, since you left out 'no.of rotations' as being part of the combo.
The only requirement on the number of revolutions in a combination spin is that you must do at least two (?!) revolutions in each position, and at least six total on each foot.

I suppose the judges could give a higher GOE if you did more than the minimum.

Didn't Lambiel get high GOEs for his 3A in Calgary despite the ruling of the Caller which reduced it to a double A?
Not exactly. For GOEs he got three +1s, two -1s, one -2 and five 0s, for a total of -0.06 GOE for the element.

I think -- but I am not completely sure, that the rule goes like this. The judges give GOE for what they saw. Some judges might have seen a flawed triple Axel and given negative GOEs, while others saw an excellent double Axel and gave positive GOEs.

I don't know exactly which features of the jump the judges thought deserved to be rewarded or penalized. It might have been the other way around. Some judges saw an excellent triple Axel and gave +GOEs, while others saw an overrotated double and gave negatives.

In the meantime, the technical specialist ruled that his rotation was short by more than a quarter of a turn. (As I understand it, this ruling is up for review and if the tapes show that the caller was in error, presumably he will receive some sort of reprimand or sanction.)

One other thing, what about Attempts? Is that clear?
Well, I think it is fairly clear what the rules actually say. Whether we agree with them or not is another story.

For instance, suppose you "attempt" a triple/triple combination, but pop the first jump into a nothing-at-all, then do the second jump. Does that count as a combination? Yes! (See ISU Communication #1319, paragraph 2, page 7, ammending "Special Regulations for Single and Pairs Skating as accepted by the 50th ordinary Congress of the ISU, June, 2004" :laugh: )

There is also that strange rule that says if you "plan," say, a 3Lz/2Lo combo as your first element, but have a shaky landing on the Lutz and are unable to do the loop -- then later you do a solo 3Lutz -- well, you might think that's a Zayak violation. But no, they score the second Lutz as a failed combo (even though it was really a solo jump), and they score the first element as a successful solo jump, even though it was supposed to be a combo.

As weird as that sounds, I actually think that's a good rule. The reason I like it, convoluted though it seems, is this. Otherwise, if you flubbed the second element of your combo, not only are you penalyzed for that element, but you would get doubly penalized by not being allowed to skate the rest of the your program as planned.

The whole "flutz" thing is another can of worms. If you "intend" to do a Lutz, but do a flip instead, what then? As far as I can tell, the rules give the caller quite a bit of leeway in making his/her decision. In practice, so far, callers have been pretty consistent in calling it a Lutz (and letting the judges take off points in negative GOE if they don't like the take-off edge), provided the approach, counterrotation and other characteristics of the Lutz are properly executed.

That is, the way the rules have been interpreted so far, the callers have not put the whole burden on one single aspect of the jump (the uncheated outside edge).

There has been a lot of discussion of this. Maybe the ISU will tighten up the rules next year. But at least the rules are, as far as I can tell, being applied consistently. Callers are not penalyzing one skater for a flutz while letting another get away with it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Joesitz said:
No rush MM, but I would like to see a score with just the standard score involved with no goes. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I can see how a judge can use it for argumentive purposes such as "Well I did give full credit for the jump".
Joe, the vast majority of GOEs are 0.

For instance, click here

http://www.isufs.org/results/wc2006/WC06_Men_FS_Scores.pdf

and scroll down to Joubert, for Brian's scores at Worlds. There were a total of 168 possible GOEs for the whole program (14 elements times 12 judges). Ninety of them are 0.

In particular, his triple Axel line reads

3A 7.5 (base) 0.00 (average GOE) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (individual judges' GOEs)

And his triple loop:

3Lo 5.0 (base) 0.00 (average GOE) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (individual judges' scores)

This is no surprise. 0 GOE means average. Well, the average jump is -- average. So, the typical and most common GOE score is 0.

To get a negative GOE there are certain insufficiencies which are spelled out pretty precisely. It's not just whether the judge liked the jump or not.

If you make this kind of mistake, that's a negative 1. If you make this kind of mistake and that kind of mistake, that's a minus 2. If you fall down and don't complete the element, that's a minus 3.

On the plus side, it is the same way. There are specific "plusses" that judges are looking for (such as interesting and unusual footwork into the entrance, etc.), that gives you bonus points. In general, you do not get any positive GOEs just for doing it pretty well with no errors. That's what 0 means.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
MM - I remember checking the details of the Men's scoring when the questionable 3A was called by the Caller (how powerful this position is!! and people think he is God.) I saw +3s across the board. And Joubert had several plus GoEs. Can you direct me to that detailed judging. I don't have it anymore.

Also you avoided the flutz which is just as well. Nobody wants to deal with that jump made famous by the 98 Olympic Champ, not the least of which is the ISU. It only concerns American skaters who are incapable of doing a proper lutz.

Please the details of the worlds scoring.

Joe
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Joesitz said:
MM - I remember checking the details of the Men's scoring when the questionable 3A was called by the Caller (how powerful this position is!! and people think he is God.) I saw +3s across the board. And Joubert had several plus GoEs. Can you direct me to that detailed judging. I don't have it anymore.

http://www.isufs.org/results/wc2006/

All the Worlds protocols are available here. Click the link for the event you want in the right column.

I have never seen +3 across the board for any element. I expect it will be years before that ever occurs.
 
Top