Proposed CoP Changes for Singles

kate said:

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 judgel 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 tehait an international judge has to that of an average skater suggests that you know very little about the training process.

Click to expand...

Thank you so much, Kate for opening up my eyes to the amount of intense training an American judge must committ him/herself to become a judge. It is absolutely true, I am not at all well versed in the training of judges. I can easily believe it when I read all the descriptions in the PC scores. Some of the bullets, e.g., choreography, and those related to music must require more study than others. Much of these topics are taught and learned at the college level. I would like to read a serious paper on figure skating judging similar to how Pauline Kael described Citizen Kane which changed the way movie critics' thinking. She was able to give solid back-up of her opinions.
As the topic of this thread is concerned with CoP, and as an in-arena spectator,
I am concerned with how the numerics in the protocol listing are arrived at. I get the feeling that there is never a public critique on what exactly it was that lput some skater in 1st place and another in 2nd place, the results of which, the spectator is left without an answer. Just cold numbers with no explanation.

I am not against the CoP, the judges and tech panelists (except for the plus Goes). The base values do give a value to the elements. I even agree with the PC breakdown except for skating to music which should be more valued beyond interpretation, or dump it altogether. But that's just me.

It is the PC scores' numbering system which has never been explained. At least to my knowledge. Help. How much is a Transition/difficulty worth as an example? And like Pauline Kael, a little explanation to back-up opinions.

And thanks again, Kate for your post.

i don't care how many hours of training are put in to the process.

cheating has nothing to do with the process but has more to do with how the judges feel about a certain skater or maybe how the federations implies one should be held above another and how maybe they can put one ahead by slight cheating/ putting pcs scores above another skater even though they don't deserve it.

the tes score follow a certain quantitifiable measure the pces scores go on how the judges feel-sense how they should skate (nothing quantifiable about it)
then they give judges leeway in plus and minuses for each skater. yep which allows cheating or total different interpretation of socalled rules.

Mathman said:

Well, yes, Evan deserved to win that night, and he did. But Johnny deserved to win two nights before, in the short program, and he did. So it all came down to adding up the points.

Which segues neatly into my next suggestion for improving the IJS.

I think it would be better to carry only ordinals instead of point totals over from the short program to the long.

There are pluses and minuses to both methods. But since the two programs are not skated on the same day – and in fact, since many spectators will see only the long program – I like the “semi-finals and then the finals” sports model better than the “two halves of a football game” model.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree, but my point was that he should have won by more than he did.

What do you mean exactly by only carrying over the ordinals? Are you suggesting that an ordinal is used for the SP and the points total for the LP (not sure how this would work), or are you saying that the skaters should be scored in points for both programs, but receive ordinals based on thier points?

Blades of Passion said:

I don't want to get into "who should have won" in this thread, but you should watch the performances again.

Evan was very sloppy that night. The judges didn't give him as much -GOE as they should have for his mistakes (plus -GOE doesn't have as much effect as it should it in the first place), AND he didn't get downgraded on a jump that should have been downgraded - his 3Toe in the 3Flip/3Toe combination. Not to mention the first 3Axel he did was quite suspicious in terms of the rotation as well; I would check it again if I actually cared.

I'm not even going to get into the judges giving Evan a higher score for "interpretation".

Johnny was robbed.

Click to expand...

I've watched the performance several times and my original assessment still stands.

Yes Evan was a bit sloppy in the jumps, but skating is not all about the jumps.

I'm completly flabbergasted that you think Johnny deserved higher interpretation scores. :scratch: While I agree he deserves high points for skating skills:thumbsup: His interpretation almost always leaves something to be desired. This competition was no different.

Blades of Passion said:

That's not always what happens, though. Either way...judges should know exactly how many points in total their scores add up to. If they think Skater A deserved 66 in PCS and Skater B deserved 60 in PCS, the ability for them to calculate that should be available.

Without a way for the judges to calculate it, they sometimes just go incredibly overboard with the PCS marks in order to ensure that they are giving a skater enough to win. Or, other times, they just use the PCS as ordinals and only mark a skater slighter higher when that skater actually deserves more.

Click to expand...

I know that its not always the case, and that is becuase the scoring system doesn't balance itself out correctly so that the scores are 50/50 between TES and PCS. I don't know what a good solution to this is but I don't think this is it.

First of all, it doesn't allow for the judge to change the score if the skater who had better technical abililty is the one that should win. After all you can' just add 2 points on to a spin to make up the difference like you can for PCS. This system would possibly work to help skaters who clearly won but were better presentation wise, but would not do the same for those who clearly won but did better technically.

Secondly, this would make it much easier for judges to hold up skaters. If they are just allowed to assign a PCS score based on who they think should win then all critera are essentially thrown out the window. The marks would just be justified by saying that they thought that Skater B deserved to win so the pcs was raised to accomodate that.

As I said, I think the real problem is that the tech and pcs scores really aren't in a 50/50 balace as they should be.

BravesSkateFan said:

What do you mean exactly by only carrying over the ordinals? Are you suggesting that an ordinal is used for the SP and the points total for the LP (not sure how this would work), or are you saying that the skaters should be scored in points for both programs, but receive ordinals based on their points?

Click to expand...

Something like that. I am not exactly sure what I mean. The problem I would like to address is the anticlimax of the long program in the case where one skater is so far ahead after the short program that the long becomes irrelevant.

That is a big problem from the spectators' point of view. You come out to see the big championship contest, the long program, then you see one skater perform badly and win and another give an outstanding skate and lose. Like 2009 U.S. Nationals where Alissa came in only third in the LP and was roundly beaten by Rachael Flatt, Ashley Wagner, and maybe Caroline Zhang -- yet Alissa was declared the winner. What the hey?

You could do it this way instead. Treat the short program as a separate contest. Whoever gets the most points wins, second most points is second, etc.

Then you start over in the long program. Whoever gets the most point in the long program wins. YAY!!!!!!

Then to determine the overall medals for the entire event, do factored placements on the ordinals, as in the 6.0 system.

As I said, I think the real problem is that the tech and pcs scores really aren't in a 50/50 balace as they should be.

Click to expand...

Actually, I am quite surprised that they actually are pretty close to 50/50, if you look up and down all the scores. For the very top men, maybe the tech is a little higher if they do a lot of huge jumps.

But for instance, according to this post from Phoenix307, for the 6 Grand Prix finalists plus three alternates (ladies) in the fall season, the average over all events was less than two points difference between TES and PCS.

http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=434194&postcount=18

Mathman said:

Something like that. I am not exactly sure what I mean. The problem I would like to address is the anticlimax of the long program in the case where one skater is so far ahead after the short program that the long becomes irrelevant.

That is a big problem from the spectators' point of view. You come out to see the big championship contest, the long program, then you see one skater perform badly and win and another give an outstanding skate and lose. Like 2009 U.S. Nationals where Alissa came in only third in the LP and was roundly beaten by Rachael Flatt, Ashley Wagner, and maybe Caroline Zhang -- yet Alissa was declared the winner. What the hey?

You could do it this way instead. Treat the short program as a separate contest. Whoever gets the most points wins, second most points is second, etc.

Then you start over in the long program. Whoever gets the most point in the long program wins. YAY!!!!!!

Then to determine the overall medals for the entire event, do factored placements on the ordinals, as in the 6.0 system.

Click to expand...

So basically the short is a different event? If that's the case why even have a short program to begin with? Just do a long and be done with it.

BravesSkateFan said:

So basically the short is a different event? If that's the case why even have a short program to begin with? Just do a long and be done with it.

Click to expand...

Actually, IMHO that would not be so bad. Or the other way around -- just a short program, since short programs are usually better choreographed and better presented than long programs.

However, I thought of an even better idea -- the short program as trophy dash.

In stock car racing there are various heats and then the long race. By winning these you get points toward the season total and cash prizes. When I used to go as a child, this was all pretty boring. Cars just going around and around for some nebulous point total ranking (sort of like a long program in skating.)

But what was cool was the trophy dash. This was a short race, maybe four laps, just for the appreciation of the audience. The winner got a big trophy -- plus a big kiss from that week's Trophy Dash Queen. (The honor of being trophy dash queen circulated among the wives and relatives of the drivers.)

I think skating could be like that, especially the Grand Prix. You have a short program and give the winner a big trophy. The present format would be fine. Some big jumps and spins highlighting themed choreography. That part of the competition would stand alone. Your reward is the trophy, and maybe some money (like one-third of the purse for that discipline, winner take all.)

Then there would be the long program, where the athletes labor through their 8 jumping passes, etc. They would earn points toward making the Grand Prix final, win cash prizes for placement, and win the title of Rostlecom Cup gold medalist, etc.

I think a lot of fans would come out for the trophy dash competition. I would. :yes:

Mathman said:

I think a lot of fans would come out for the trophy dash competition. I would. :yes:

Click to expand...

One reason there may be fewer fans present for the short program is that it's a preliminary phase that doesn't determine the final results.

But I think another reason is that short programs are usually held earlier in the week, often during the day with the final round of another discipline that evening. So fans who live locally are more likely to be at work during the short programs. Fans who travel from out of town just for the competition may not yet have arrived.

At large events, even finals for the disciplines that conclude earlier in the week are less likely to get as much attendance.

No matter how much more exciting you think the "trophy dash" would be than a mere first phase to a two-part competition, how much more likely would you be to take off from work to watch it than you would for a traditional short program?

Suppose short programs were always scheduled starting on Friday evening, with long programs on the following Monday and Tuesday at large events.
What kind of relative scoring between the phases would be more exciting in that case?

gkelly said:

No matter how much more exciting you think the "trophy dash" would be than a mere first phase to a two-part competition, how much more likely would you be to take off from work to watch it than you would for a traditional short program?

Click to expand...

Well, if I can push the amateur stock car race analogy a luttle farther... Even if no one came it would be fun for the skaters. Like a big game of add-on, only you win some money.

Suppose short programs were always scheduled starting on Friday evening, with long programs on the following Monday and Tuesday at large events.

What kind of relative scoring between the phases would be more exciting in that case?

Click to expand...

In that case, maybe just do the short program on Friday night, the gala on Saturday night, and forget the long.

But actually, most of the Grand Prix events this year did compress the event somewhat, I believe. You could have the short Friday night and the longs on Saturday night and Sunday afternoon. (Hard to fit in all four disciplines in prime time, though.)

I wanted to bump this thread up.

I was ready to start a thread...then remembered that there was a perfectly lovely thread in existence.

Anyway in wake of all the discussions, I wanted to see if anyone had anything to add here.

As for me, I'm going to read the whole thing before I got into it. I like the idea of UR's being strictly a GOE of thing rather than a base points issue.

Mrs. P said:

As for me, I'm going to read the whole thing before I got into it. I like the idea of UR's being strictly a GOE of thing rather than a base points issue.

Click to expand...

I really think that would be a good idea. What I would like is a mandatory -2 GOE for mistakes like step-out, double-foot, under-rotation, hand-down... And I would also like zero points for a fall. If you fall, the jump simply doesn't count. In my opinion a fall is the ultimate failure if you do a jump, it should be much more punished than e.g. under-rotation.

This is the second year in a row that there was a big uproar about the severity of the penalties for underrotation. Last year they did change the rules slightly to allow the judges a little more leeway in awarding GOEs.

The position that I do not think is really defensible is the one that goes like this. If you don't complete the revolutions, then by all that's holy, you did not do a triple jump.

I could buy that argument if those same stallwarts would also say, you went off the wrong edge, so by all that's holy you did not do a Lutz jump. You fell on the landing, so by all that's holy you did not complete the element. Etc. It just seems that the underrotation crusaders weaken their own case by their selective holiness (I will obey the first three commandments; the last seven are not so convenient. )

Mrs. P said:

As for me, I'm going to read the whole thing before I got into it. I like the idea of UR's being strictly a GOE of thing rather than a base points issue.

Click to expand...

Ok time to play devils advocat.: Let's discuss and example as a starting point::

A Skater (let's call him/her X) plans a 3T in their program.

During the program X actually executes one of the following and stands the attempt up:

1. 3T rotated fully
2. 3T underrotated 1/4 turn
3. 3T underrotated 1/2 turn
4. 3T underrotated 3/4 turn
5. 3T underrotated 1 turn

Please explain how you would grade each of these cases based on the idea of UR's being strictly a GOE of thing rather than a base points issue.

Mathman said:

This is the second year in a row that there was a big uproar about the severity of the penalties for underrotation. Last year they did change the rules slightly to allow the judges a little more leeway in awarding GOEs.

The position that I do not think is really defensible is the one that goes like this. If you don't complete the revolutions, then by all that's holy, you did not do a triple jump.

I could buy that argument if those same stallwarts would also say, you went off the wrong edge, so by all that's holy you did not do a Lutz jump. You fell on the landing, so by all that's holy you did not complete the element. Etc. It just seems that the underrotation crusaders weaken their own case by their selective holiness (I will obey the first three commandments; the last seven are not so convenient. )

Click to expand...

Then what about this:

- If you don't complete the revolutions, you did not do a triple jump. = Take it one base lower, but may award positive GOE if the jump itself is done with good precision, regardless of the revolutions.
- If you went off the wrong edge, then you did not do the intended jump. Your jump is not accurate. It's basically, the wrong jump. = Keep the base value, but only award negative or 0 GOE.
- If you fall on the landing, then you did not complete a jump. Period. = 0 points

sk8rdad said:

Ok time to play devils advocat.: Let's discuss and example as a starting point::

A Skater (let's call him/her X) plans a 3T in their program.

During the program X actually executes one of the following and stands the attempt up:

1. 3T rotated fully
2. 3T underrotated 1/4 turn
3. 3T underrotated 1/2 turn
4. 3T underrotated 3/4 turn
5. 3T underrotated 1 turn

Please explain how you would grade each of these cases based on the idea of UR's being strictly a GOE of thing rather than a base points issue.

Click to expand...

Me personally if I could design the judging system?

1) 3T + any GOEs based upon flip out, step out, 2 ft, or positive - this would go for anything up to 1/4 turn short
2) 3T between 1/4 and 1/2 turn short - 3T called and mandatory negative GOE ranging from -1 from just over 1/4 turn to -3 for 1/2 turn
3) 1/2 turn - 3/4 turn - current downgrade rules apply
4) popped to a double - double plus any GOEs for issues/awesomeness

mskater93 said:

Me personally if I could design the judging system?

1) 3T + any GOEs based upon flip out, step out, 2 ft, or positive - this would go for anything up to 1/4 turn short
2) 3T between 1/4 and 1/2 turn short - 3T called and mandatory negative GOE ranging from -1 from just over 1/4 turn to -3 for 1/2 turn

Click to expand...

Yes, I mostly agree. But what if the skater is just barely 1/2 turn short (no downgrade, -3 GOE) and ALSO lands on two feet (highly likely if this is a jump the skater is still learning and doesn't quite "have" yet, or steps out and/or puts a hand down, or had a wrong edge on the takeoff, etc.? The current maximum negative GOE is -3.

But in that case a jump that's almost short enough on rotation to be downgraded even with the more lenient 1/2 cutoff and also has multiple other errors will get the same score as a jump that is fully rotated but has those errors, or as one that is equally cheated with no other errors.

If 1/2 is the cutoff for downgrading, which makes sense to me, I think there also needs to be a way to allow the GOE reductions to accumulate beyond -3.

One way to do that would be to allow GOEs down to -4 or -5 for jumps.

Another way would be to leave the judges' GOE reductions as is and also have a penalty applied by the tech panel for jumps that are short between 90 and 180 degrees.

The value of that penalty should be either equal to -1 GOE (i.e., 1.0 for triple jumps, more for triple axels and quads, less for doubles) or a percentage of the base value of the fully rotated jump (25% would work for me and would work out to 1.0 for triple toe). That plus -3 GOE from the judges if warranted (and fall deduction if warranted) would still be a milder penalty than downgrading a triple to a double and also applying -2 or -3 GOE.

And jumps cheated by just over 90 degrees that are penalized that way by the tech panel could still get positive GOE from judges who didn't notice the cheat and were impressed by other aspects of the element.

That's the reason why underrotated jumps should be penalized by a deduction in base value rather than -GOE.

shallwedansu said:

Then what about this:

- If you don't complete the revolutions, you did not do a triple jump. = Take it one base lower, but may award positive GOE if the jump itself is done with good precision, regardless of the revolutions.

- If you went off the wrong edge, then you did not do the intended jump. Your jump is not accurate. It's basically, the wrong jump. = Keep the base value, but only award negative or 0 GOE.

- If you fall on the landing, then you did not complete a jump. Period. = 0 points

Click to expand...

I think something like this is the only refuge for skating purists.

1. Falling is absolutely the worst possible thing you can do on skates. The ground zero of skating is gliding on your blades, not sprawling on your belly. A fall on an element should be 0 credit, and a -1 fall deduction to boot. Get off the ice -- my dog can do better than that, and he died three years ago.

2. If you do not take off from an outside edge, then you have done a flip not a Lutz. It should be scored as a flip. If you do too many flips in your program, then you suffer the consequences of the Zayak rule.

This would force flutzers to think twice about putting more than two flutzy-lipsies in their program. It would reward those skaters who have a true Lutz and a true flip.

3. Give skaters a break on underrotations? Here's your break. You get to cheat by 90 degrees. Probably should be cut down to 45 degrees.

Now we've got a real sport. :yes:

mskater93 said:

Me personally if I could design the judging system?

1) 3T + any GOEs based upon flip out, step out, 2 ft, or positive - this would go for anything up to 1/4 turn short
2) 3T between 1/4 and 1/2 turn short - 3T called and mandatory negative GOE ranging from -1 from just over 1/4 turn to -3 for 1/2 turn
3) 1/2 turn - 3/4 turn - current downgrade rules apply
4) popped to a double - double plus any GOEs for issues/awesomeness

Click to expand...

So basically you simply want to move the downgrade point to 1/2 rotation. Sorry I simply cannot agree on allowing that much latitude on poor execution. This would only serve to reinforce continued bad jumping habits from an early age. I see many young kids forward landing their jumps and do not know a single coach that would accept this underrotation as a successful jump.

If your not able to at least 3/4 of the required rotation you simply cannot do the jump. If you are going to jump with 1/4 cheat and hope that the tech panel gives you the jump the you would deserve the call that you got either way.

I also feel that flutz's (at least the severe ones) should be counted as flips. Scoring zero for a fall on an element plus the-1 fall deduction has merit. I have always been a bit annoyed by skaters that attempt a pile of jumps they cannot land and still place well up the standings.

I am with those who think that URs should be called, but should not result in as much penalty as they do now relative to other faulty techniques. I think it okay to call a slight UR, but I do not think it okay that slight URs that are barely visible even to professional commentators and core FS fans affect the overall outcome as seriously as they do now.

A change I would propose would be somehow incorporating variety and showcasing a complete set of skills within a program. I don't think skaters should have to milk the CoP's by throwing in multiple 3Lz's or 3F's and neglecting to do Loops and Salchows (jumps that even top skaters can't perform solo). I think a skater should be rewarded for demonstrating mastery of all jumps in a program, not penalized because certain jumps are worth less. The same thing goes for spins... skaters should be able to show atleast every variation of spin in their peformances and be rewarded for it, not penalized for lower base values... and considering multiple changes of position are involved in many spins, it wouldn't be difficult for a skater to show a solid sit, layback, camel, standing spin etc.

I also think the aesthetic quality of elements and the overall performance should be counted into the PCS scores. Sure, there are some skaters who can do level 4 spins and spirals by following the CoP rule book, but it looks sloppy and unattractive. I rather see a penalty for the lack of aesthetic quality so the skater is forced to go back a level, do an attractive level 3 spin or spiral (or step sequence) and try to earn +GOE's rather than wobbling all over, pausing between positions, and just lacking grace by trying to do the higher level.

I also agree that slightly underrotated jumps shouldn't be docked down to the score of a double jump, and then have -GOE's on top of it. If you are going to mark it as a double jump, score the GOE's as if it were a double jump. Although to me it makes more sense to just take a percentage off for underrotation, score it somewhere between a double and a triple. Since the base scores are "based" on difficulty, obviously it is more difficult to do a triple jump, though slightly underrotated, than just a simple double jump. They shouldn't wind up with the same base value.