Thoughts on New guidelines for GOE and Levels of difficulty for 2009-10 Season | Golden Skate

Thoughts on New guidelines for GOE and Levels of difficulty for 2009-10 Season

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
First thing I note is that the reduction for "underrotated" under jumps is -1 to -3, but it's in the column for reductions that don't have to result in the final GOE being negative.

So does that mean that a jump that looks good to the judge but is downgraded by the tech panel could get 0 GOE after reduction, or in theory +1 if it looked really good otherwise (or the rest of the combination was really good)? That's what some of us have been hoping for regarding the double penalty for underrotations.

ETA: Also, I see that judges will not be shown the < sign for downgrades, so if they don't see the underrotation and the jump looks good they don't have to take any reduction at all. The only penalty would be in the downgrade from the tech panel.
 
Last edited:

nylynnr

On the Ice
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
The guidelines aren't new, they've been updated (changed) a bit. To me a big difference is it now requires six bullets to get a +3 GOE.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Well, it says "It is at the discretion of each judge to decide on the number of bullets for any upgrade, but general recommendations are as follows"

So there might be cases where a judge might use the discretion to think "That element only met 4 or 5 bullet points, but it met them really well -- some were not just "good," but amazing!" and give +3 anyway.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Just a cursory look. It seems all things are being covered. I'll give a more serious look over the weekend. Can a judge really cover all the points listed when judging each skater? That would be monumental.

Meantime, what is an unclear edge at take-off? Is it something a judge may have seen but the Tech Panel did not?
 

nylynnr

On the Ice
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
It's true the system is one of guidelines and judges can do what they like, throw the guidelines out or whatever. However, any judge that is out of line with his/her GOEs (or PCS for that matter) will at some point be called to explain. Still overall, reading the changes seems to indicate IJS is making it a bit harder to gain higher scores on some elements. I kind of think jumps may be graded a bit higher for some skaters, since bullets about musicality and control have been added, and those are rather subjective.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Musicality is very mathematical. Timing and Rhythm are quantifyable, but you don't want these poor youngsters to learn piano 101.
 

nylynnr

On the Ice
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Musicality is very mathematical. Timing and Rhythm are quantifyable, but you don't want these poor youngsters to learn piano 101.


I think timing and musicality is quantifiable and precise during compulsory dances but not necessarily when a judge is determining whether or not the placement of a jump fits the music. It might be pretty obvious when a triple Lutz fits a crescendo but at other times it can be up to the judge's personal opinion.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
First thing I note is that the reduction for "underrotated" under jumps is -1 to -3, but it's in the column for reductions that don't have to result in the final GOE being negative.

I think this is not a change. I think here "underrotated" means that the judge thought it was underrotated (not necessarily as much as 90 degrees), rather than referring to a jump that was downgraded by the tech panel.

IIRC the old rules had two separate items: Downgraded and Underroated. The instructions to the judges for "downgraded" is the one that has been removed.

ETA: Also, I see that judges will not be shown the < sign for downgrades, so if they don't see the underrotation and the jump looks good they don't have to take any reduction at all. The only penalty would be in the downgrade from the tech panel.

It will be interesting to see if this rule change makes any difference in practice. If a judge sees an underrotated triple and gives negative GOE for the underrotatation, then it is downgrsaded on top of that, we are back in the same situation as before.

But it does seem like they are saying that a judge can give positive GOE for other features, which could result in string positive GOEs (but applied at the rate of a double) for a jump that is downgraded by the tech panel but not considererd to be underrotated by the judge.

Maybe sometimes we will see judges disagreeing with the tech panel on underrotations.

Meantime, what is an unclear edge at take-off? Is it something a judge may have seen but the Tech Panel did not?

No, it's the other way around. It's when the tech panel thinks they see a "slightly" wrong edge and give a "!" The judges are supposed to take -1 to -2 GOE off in this case,but can mitigate this with positive features if they want to.
 

visaliakid

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Country
United-States
If I wanted to take the time to read and digest everything listed and all the background information related to how each would,could,should be applied I might become more understanding and conversant in this detailed scoring system. Regardless, I continue to fathom how any judge can absorb, and retain all this and then apply said info to the judging of each skater during a program? I simply believe it is all too technical and all too encompassing for any one human to utlize with any semblence of accuracy.

The more they adapt, add, subtract or revise this system the more overbearing it becomes.

BAH HUMBUG! It needs simplification not increased mechanization!
 

DarkestMoon

On the Ice
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
If I wanted to take the time to read and digest everything listed and all the background information related to how each would,could,should be applied I might become more understanding and conversant in this detailed scoring system. Regardless, I continue to fathom how any judge can absorb, and retain all this and then apply said info to the judging of each skater during a program? I simply believe it is all too technical and all too encompassing for any one human to utlize with any semblence of accuracy.

The more they adapt, add, subtract or revise this system the more overbearing it becomes.

BAH HUMBUG! It needs simplification not increased mechanization!

It doesn't help when changes are made after every season. Judges would actually remember the rules if they stayed the same long enough for them to digest it.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Regardless, I continue to fathom how any judge can absorb, and retain all this and then apply said info to the judging of each skater during a program?

I think at the elite level what the judges do is something like this. They already know pretty much what to expect of each skater. They know that Brian Joubert is going to demonstrate 7.75 worth of Performance and Execution, but only 6.75 worth of Transitions. Then when they see the actual program they add or subtract a little depending on how he skates today.

BAH HUMBUG! It needs simplification not increased mechanization!

Actually, compared to last year's rules, I think these revisions are a tiny baby step in the direction of simplification. Or if not simplification, at least in the direction of empowering the judges to have greater leeway in making their judgements about the quality of the skating that they see.

Every little bit helps. :yes:
 

Particle Man

Match Penalty
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
it is all too technical and all too encompassing for any one human to utlize with any semblence of accuracy.

The more they adapt, add, subtract or revise this system the more overbearing it becomes.

It doesn't help when changes are made after every season. Judges would actually remember the rules if they stayed the same long enough for them to digest it.

It is overwhelming, and that is the nature of this system. DarkestMoon, CoP is flawed. Either throw the whole thing out, or allow them to put these bandaids on it. No way in the world can CoP just limp along as it is, burying its head in the sand to all the contradictions like the double penalty for underrotation, etc. This is the absolute minimum they can do to keep CoP from being completely laughable.

The best system would still be a FAIR 6.0. That would be a 6.0 where the judges and other officials are overseen by an independent authority that actually keeps them fair, and actually kicks out judges and officials FOR LIFE who are corrupt. 6.0 still had required elements, but didn't have everything chopped up into tiny pieces. Humans work much better on a relative scale. 6.0 and 5.9 etc also MEANT something to the audience and to the skater. 6.0 was a mark of excellence. A clear way to signify that skater on that night had achieved a pinnacle of performance. 71.23 -- what's that? Ask a computer.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
I think timing and musicality is quantifiable and precise during compulsory dances but not necessarily when a judge is determining whether or not the placement of a jump fits the music. It might be pretty obvious when a triple Lutz fits a crescendo but at other times it can be up to the judge's personal opinion.
If you mean landing a jump on the swell of the music as in Nessum Dorme, then one has to Time the Jump to the Rhythm of the music. Not easy. Anything can happen in figure skating and it usually does.

I think the judges by-pass the timing if it is done with the crescendo of the music, but the judges may raise eyebrows if the jump landings miss the crescendo.

Also remember, if a skater is portraying an Opera or Ballet character, that character does not do a triple salchow on stage.Best to just use the music without the story.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
If I wanted to take the time to read and digest everything listed and all the background information related to how each would,could,should be applied I might become more understanding and conversant in this detailed scoring system. Regardless, I continue to fathom how any judge can absorb, and retain all this and then apply said info to the judging of each skater during a program? I simply believe it is all too technical and all too encompassing for any one human to utlize with any semblence of accuracy.

The more they adapt, add, subtract or revise this system the more overbearing it becomes.

BAH HUMBUG! It needs simplification not increased mechanization!
I have to agree. While I can understand most of it, I also understand that the general public will never get it. It is truly an 'insider' sport. How many 'new fans' are willing to learn all these intracacies? and to 'old' fans who can easily tell who should be the winner without all this mechanization.
 

Particle Man

Match Penalty
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
And a super independent authority that keeps the independent authority fair. :)

And that, of course, is a code for ME. :rofl:

If you mean landing a jump on the swell of the music as in Nessum Dorme, then one has to Time the Jump to the Rhythm of the music. Not easy.

Triple jumps aren't easy either. Sounds like a good reason for both to be worth points.

if a skater is portraying an Opera or Ballet character, that character does not do a triple salchow on stage.Best to just use the music without the story.

I don't think perfect timing should count for an enormous amount, but it should definitely count. The judges see what the audience sees, if it matters to the audience it should matter to the judges. CoP gets in the way of that. The judges' job should be no more than ranking the performances in an objective way which is CONNECTED to the audience instead of disconnected. If a skater makes a big mistake and gets behind on the timing, then that might be a problem, but if the system itself weren't so fundamentally stifling, a skater might actually have time to CATCH UP.

Of course I can give allowances to some things mattering MORE than the audience cares about, such as complete rotation, but in those cases the underrotation really needs to be spelled out so the audience knows immediately the what and the why behind the deductions.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
After watching the entire skate, I think the audience and the judges know exactly who is the winner and in most cases who are second and third. One doesn't need a list of do's and dont's. However, when the contest is really hot, as is was for the Men in Gothenborg, then I appreciate the CoP.

The PC scores are well covered in the Tech's GoEs, imo, and only an overall score of showing talent and beauty should be considered

Audiences get confused when they see an obvious winner not win. CoP enthusiasts understand what happened. Then there are the blokes like me who wonder what makes these judges know so much more than ardent fans,

I contend that the winner of a CoP competition may not be a great skater, but one who obeys what has to be done.
 

Medusa

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
3) varied position in the air / delay in rotation
4) good height and distance
5) good extension on landing / creative exit
6) good flow from entry to exit including jump combinations / sequences
7) effortless throughout
Is it just me or should after this several skaters get +2 on nearly every jump (let's say - Johnny, e.g.).

I really don't think the judges can consider all these points at once. A Joubert and a Chan will always get more +2s for a rather average jump than Obscure Skater No.43 for an excellent jump.

1.2. [...] In throw jumps it includes turning of the Man on the ice before throwing the Lady in the air.
Hehh? What exactly do they mean?
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I really don't think the judges can consider all these points at once. A Joubert and a Chan will always get more +2s for a rather average jump than Obscure Skater No.43 for an excellent jump.

Do you have links for some excellent jumps boy Obscure Skater No.43?
 
Top