How Would You Explain And Apply GOE Rules?

Well, I've made questionnaire that might give us some insight into where Golden Skate fans might come from, focusing on when we became fans.

This won't be representative of all fans at all levels, but if enough people answer it will tell us more than just our own individual experience and those of people we know in real life.

gkelly said:

Well, I've made questionnaire that might give us some insight into where Golden Skate fans might come from, focusing on when we became fans.

This won't be representative of all fans at all levels, but if enough people answer it will tell us more than just our own individual experience and those of people we know in real life.

Click to expand...

It's an interesting idea and I participated.
I have thought several times to make up a series of questions and to actually go down to U of P campus and see how many people I could interview and to see what their answers might be.

My questions might be more like:
1. Are you a figure skating fan? Depending on their answer next question might be:

2. Do you have a favorite skater (this question is also geared at trying to get the person talking)

3. How often do you watch skating and is it on TV only or have you ever been to a Live event?

4. Have you ever skated.....how often...if not have you ever thought about learning to skate?

Eventually, depending on a person's level of interest/experience questions could lead to scoring...perception of fairness in big skating events....etc

I have never done it because I think I already know the answers.

I also believe as opposed to a college campus I would find more skating fans and people with skating experience if I went to a big mall and concentrated on trying to talk with people several decades older than college students.

Yes, I'm sure you'd get different results starting with the general population vs. starting at a message board frequented by more-than-casual fans, and different results with different age groups.

It would be interesting to know what the general public and casual fans think about figure skating, but hard to organize a survey.

gkelly said:

Yes, I'm sure you'd get different results starting with the general population vs. starting at a message board frequented by more-than-casual fans, and different results with different age groups.

It would be interesting to know what the general public and casual fans think about figure skating, but hard to organize a survey.

Click to expand...

If a few interested posters here would offer suggestions for a survey I might do it. I am in the Philly area, but wonder if someone in the Detroit and SoCal areas might also try it.......or any area for that matter.

The demographics could be interesting. I believe older people remember Dorothy and curious how often the names Brian, Nancy/Tonya, Michelle, Sasha, Evan and Johnny would come up.

Also, which disciplines are most popular? Or maybe I should say second most popular in USA after Ladies skating.

Might it be Ice Dancing?

Interesting to think about this stuff......

ETA - Here is a clip of the last episode from "That 70's Show."
I post it because of a comments from 13.20 - 13.30.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQO6-3q52Lg&feature=related


How much of this attitude about "male iceskaters" would come up in a survey of the public?

I don't think this is a prevalent attitude in Russia or Japan. Does it explain why skating is more popular there :think:


It is interesting that this show had a couple of episodes that were about roller skating - one which made fun of it and another that made it seem cool.

gkelly said:

To Bluebonnet, I would ask, is the point of this thread to ask "How would you explain GOE rules and how to apply them to someone who wants to put in time studying and analyzing to understand what the judges are supposed to be doing?" Or is it "How would you explain GOE rules and how to apply them to casual fans who want to sit back on their couches and feel that they are competent to understand figure skating judging after a five-minute explanation?"

Click to expand...

"How would you explain GOE rules and how to apply them to someone who wants to put in time studying and analyzing to understand what the judges are supposed to be doing?" - definitely.

"How would you explain GOE rules and how to apply them to casual fans who want to sit back on their couches and feel that they are competent to understand figure skating judging after a five-minute explanation?" - not sure anyone would succeed on that explanation if the listeners determined not to listen, and want just to enjoy a show. I think most casual fans see figure skating competitions as shows and they determine the winners based on who's the best in performance. But performance is not all in a competition.

I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to read through this thread after your this post. So I don't know where this thread is now. Forgive me if I interrupted the flow of your conversations. I personally am very glad that I opened this thread. I've learned a lot about CoP here!

Thanks, Bluebonnet. It's great for the sport to have fans who are interested in learning the rules and understanding how the results are arrived at.
Makes for interesting discussions.

As a summary to explain GOE rules, now that I went to the other thread and saw what your original confusion was about, I'd say:

Every element gets one GOE score in a range of -3 to +3. Every element starts at the base value ("0" GOE). Judges look at any positive aspects that might deserve pluses according to a list of bullet points, up to a maximum score of +3. Then they look at errors and weaknesses and subtract down to a maximum of -3. For certain kinds of moderate to serious errors, the final grade must be negative regardless of other positive aspects.

There are also other ways that errors on elements can lose points besides GOE: in the base value of the element, in lower component scores, and/or in fall deductions. And positive aspects can add to the component scores in addition to the positive GOEs -- or can partially counteract required negative GOEs (e.g., a jump that starts with a difficult entrance and ends in a fall will get -3 or at most -2 GOE and a fall deduction, but the difficult entrance can help the Transitions component).

gkelly said:

Thanks, Bluebonnet. It's great for the sport to have fans who are interested in learning the rules and understanding how the results are arrived at.
Makes for interesting discussions.

As a summary to explain GOE rules, now that I went to the other thread and saw what your original confusion was about, I'd say:

Every element gets one GOE score in a range of -3 to +3. Every element starts at the base value ("0" GOE). Judges look at any positive aspects that might deserve pluses according to a list of bullet points, up to a maximum score of +3. Then they look at errors and weaknesses and subtract down to a maximum of -3. For certain kinds of moderate to serious errors, the final grade must be negative regardless of other positive aspects.

There are also other ways that errors on elements can lose points besides GOE: in the base value of the element, in lower component scores, and/or in fall deductions. And positive aspects can add to the component scores in addition to the positive GOEs -- or can partially counteract required negative GOEs (e.g., a jump that starts with a difficult entrance and ends in a fall will get -3 or at most -2 GOE and a fall deduction, but the difficult entrance can help the Transitions component).

Click to expand...

I've never seen any GOEs more than +3 and/or less than -3 before. I knew it never had even in the beginning when I took on the argument with let`s talk about it in the other thread. But I just stubbornly think that with the rules listed in the first post of this thread, it can't be unless there is some good logic in mathematical reasoning (I thought it has when I planned to open this thread), or the fact that multiple -3 faults in one jump rarely happens so that it can be ignored. I thought that let`s talk's example in the other thread was merely an extreme case which has never happened in the real competition before.

So far our math professor didn't say that more than +3 or less than -3 is mathematically unreasonable. And you said that multiple big faults which would acquire multiple -3 deductions do happen in the real competitions. Then I think this +3 and -3 cap should go.

It was "just" a range that was determined kind of like 6.0 had origins that got lost over time (especially after the devaluation/removal of figures). There are MANY situations where there are more than adequate reasons to have a GOE of more than -3 (or to change the automatic deductions or make it possible to give them in different increments). Since I don't control the technical committee, I don't get heard...

Bluebonnet said:

I've never seen any GOEs more than +3 and/or less than -3 before.

Click to expand...

There haven't been any, and there won't be unless there are significant changes in the rules.

I knew it never had even in the beginning when I took on the argument with let`s talk about it in the other thread. But I just stubbornly think that with the rules listed in the first post of this thread, it can't be unless there is some good logic in mathematical reasoning (I thought it has when I planned to open this thread), or the fact that multiple -3 faults in one jump rarely happens so that it can be ignored.

Click to expand...

No, it's not that rare, especially at lower levels. But a lot of those errors can also be penalized other places than the GOE, and elements that have good aspects despite having a mandatory -GOE can be rewarded elsewhere.

So it's not true that an element with one serious error will have the exact same impact on the final score as the same kind of element with multiple errors, even if they both have the exact same GOE.

(edited to add
Working through the example from the other thread.

let`s talk said:

one guy landed a gorgeous rotated quad and get -3 GOE for the lack of preceeding steps. Another guy has no preceeding steps, underrotates his quad, two footed it and then fall. He gets the same -3 GOE as the first guy. They rule is clear designed for the benefit of a falling guy. Even Chan ubers cannot be so into unfair play.

Click to expand...

Bluebonnet said:

Correct me if I'm wrong. I think for the first guy, he gets -3 GOEs for lack of required preceding steps. But he gets full credit for his perfect quad jump as well as +3 GOEs for his quad. For the other guy, he gets -3 GOEs for lack of preceding steps. Also he gets UR call, and -3 GOEs for two footed and then fall. No positive GOEs for his quad. He also gets a mandatory -1 deduction for the fall. Sounds like there are big difference between them.

Click to expand...

This must be a short program, if the lack of preceding steps is an issue. The type of quad is not specified but I'll assume quad toe loop.

Gorgeous quad with no preceding steps:
A judge can start with +1, +2, or +3 for what the jump would deserve in a long program if it meets two, four, or all six of the following bullet points:
2) varied position in the air / delay in rotation
3) good height and distance
4) good extension on landing / creative exit
5) good flow from entry to exit
7) effortless throughout
8) element matched to the musical structure

[bullet point 1) unexpected/creative/difficult entry would not be true if there are no preceding moves, and bullet point 6) good unison and close to each other in all phases would only apply to pairs]

Then the judge must reduce the GOE by three grades, i.e., subtract 3 from whatever positive grade she started at, and the final GOE must be negative. So if the judge thought that gorgeous quad was worth +2 or +3 under long program rules, the final GOE would be -1; if she thought it was only worth +1 to start with, the final GOE would be -2. If it's gorgeous, presumably the judge would not start at 0, so the final GOE that the judge keys into the system would not be -3.

You'd only see a -1 or -2 in the protocol for that element in that judge's column. You would not see the +2 and -3 in the judge's thinking that balanced out to -1. Let's assume for easy math that all judges give -1, although in reality some might give -2.

So, under the Technical Elements score, that element gets the base value of a quad toe (10.3) with -1 GOE (subtract 1.0). He ends up with 9.3 points for that element.

Judges may not explicitly consider that element in determining their program component marks. But it's likely that, at least on a subconscious level, the lack of preceding steps would have a negative effect on the Transitions score and the gorgeousness would have a positive effect on the Performance/Execution score, and maybe a bit on Skating Skills (and Choreography and/or Interpretation if it deserved the matched to musical structure" bullet). So let's say it adds 0.25 to the PCS total after all the judges component scores are averaged.

Final contribution of that quad to this skater's short program score: 9.3 for the element + extra 0.25 in PCS = 9.55

Now, suppose that this jump needed to be a combination and wasn't (i.e., there were two non-axel jumps in the program and neither of them had a second jump as a combination, and there was reason to believe that the other one was supposed to count as the jump out of steps), so the final GOE is required to be -3 (because of the lack of combination, not because of the lack of steps) regardless of how gorgeous the jump was.

10.3 - 3.0 = 7.3, + ~0.25 in PCS = ~7.55 final score

No preceeding steps, underrotates his quad, two footed it and then fall

The quad is underrotated -- I'll take this to mean between 90 and 180 degrees since it doesn't say "downgraded" -- so the base mark for the element is only 7.2 to begin with.

Any one or two of the errors mentioned would require -3 GOE, and that will be subtracted from 0, not from a positive number, because it's not possible for an element with all those errors to meet at least two of the positive bullet points. So the final GOE for this badly flawed quad attempt will be -3 from all the judges, since that's the lowest possible GOE.

The total contribution of this element to the Total Elements Score is 7.2 - 3.0 = 4.2.

It also requires a fall deduction of 1.0.

And let's say the extreme messiness of the execution, along with the lack of preceding steps, leads to an average of 0.5 lower total PCS than that panel would have awarded had the jump been successful.

4.2 for the element - 1.0 for the fall - 0.5 for the loss in PCS = 2.8 net total contribution of this element to the overall program score

9.55 vs. 2.8 is a pretty significant difference in how much value the first skater got out of this jump compared to the second.

Even if the first guy's jump was in the combination slot and they both end up with the same -3 GOE, 7.55 vs. 2.8 is still significant.

And even if we ignore the PCS effect since that's subjective and often not conscious so all we can do is guess and estimate, we still end up with a difference of 7.3 for the gorgeous quad with -3 GOE vs. 3.2 for the underrotated fallen quad with -3 GOE and fall deduction.

The GOE is the same but the final effect on the total score is very different, because of points the second guy lost in base value and fall deduction (built in to the system), and probably in PCS as well.

Thank you so much, gkelly! They were very clear explanations!

Some afterwards thoughts:

1. For the first skater, the worst ever scenario is to get 10.3 - 3.0 = 7.3. In the real situation, I very much doubt that would ever happen. I think it very likely would be a -1 GOE and get 9.3.

2. For the second skater, the best scenario is to get 7.2 - 3.0 - 1.0(fall deduction) = 3.2.

3. PCSs are too intangible to pinpoint how the judges would use. But your explanations about possible scores given by judges on PCSs for both skaters were very reasonable and convincing. They might explain some of the PCS scores which fans normally don't understand.

4. I have been having this feeling as I was reading and studying through your explanations:

So far, the mentality of CoP has remarkable similarity of that of casual fans.

CoP is looking for between +3 and -3 GOEs. Once CoP got a -3 GOE fault in an element, it would ignore any other -3 GOEs in the same element, and also ignore other -2 and/or -1 GOE faults. Same as for the +GOEs. It won't consider how the faults pile up or how many well executed bullet points together contributed to the real final scores. From +3 to -3 is simply not enough to wiggle in with so many bullet points given.

Casual fans are looking for faults in a program. Once they saw a fall, that's it! That's enough! They'd kill the program entirely regardless how the points piled up from other elements for the final scores of this program with a fall.

5. In general, CoP works much better than 6.0 even now without further changes. But it definitely has a lot of room to improve for the better.




ETA:

6. If CoP adopts a method which could closely reflect the list of errors on GOEs and also closely reflect all the bullet points in the list, GOE could become nearly objective. I think the objectivity of scoring should be the goal of any scoring system.

I guess in answer to this thread I would say with great difficulty. There are certain qualities to look for to get additional or positive GOES (or negative) but it is also based upon the value/degree of difficulty of the element. Ie. a plus one GOE is worth more as a result of proportions on an element worth more points than an element with lesser points. But if you aren't a skating enthusiast and an extreme one it is like what is the meaning of life - not easy to answer

Skater Boy said:

...But if you aren't a skating enthusiast and an extreme one it is like what is the meaning of life...

Click to expand...

True. The majority people would say, "Why should I take the pain to study it?! I'm here to enjoy it! I don't want to study it!" I'd say, in this case, enjoy it the way you like to enjoy. Cheer for the skaters you love. But be aware that it's a competition, not a show. There are a lot of things you don't know. So respect the judges' decisions and accept the placements of your favorite skaters.

Bluebonnet said:

True. The majority people would say, "Why should I take the pain to study it?! I'm here to enjoy it! I don't want to study it!" I'd say, in this case, enjoy it the way you like to enjoy. Cheer for the skaters you love. But be aware that it's a competition, not a show. There are a lot of things you don't know. So respect the judges' decisions and accept the placements of your favorite skaters.

Click to expand...

And that leads to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et17q4D1FzU

I used to think this was a horror of an SP but thanks to the "enlightening posts" by a few CoP experts I can see how my ideas ofwhat constitutes good competitive figure skating are simply outdated.

Really....nothing should beat this ( ) because Cinquanta ......as a former speed skater values one thing only....fast skating.

My problem is that what works for SPEED SKATING should not be the same as what works for FIGURE SKATING.

But what do I know.....:think:

Now I say bring on the Bungee cords ...... to see the CoP in all it's fair and modern glory :disagree:

janetfan said:

And that leads to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et17q4D1FzU

I used to think this was a horror of an SP but thanks to the "enlightening posts" by a few CoP experts I can see how my ideas ofwhat constitutes good competitive figure skating are simply outdated.

Really....nothing should beat this ( ) because Cinquanta ......as a former speed skater values one thing only....fast skating.

My problem is that what works for SPEED SKATING should not be the same as what works for FIGURE SKATING.

But what do I know.....:think:

Click to expand...

For all the horrors that you are trying to paint, I want to point these out:

1. This SP which was happened two years ago was as scandalous as Takahashi's three-fall LP at last year's Japan Nationals. So it showed that the judges are human too.

2. I've never ever said this SP scoring was a correct example of anything. You should not use this as a correct example of CoP scoring in order to kill CoP.

3. Chan was in fourth place after this SP. He did not win it.

4. To accuse "Cinquanta ......as a former speed skater values one thing only....fast skating" is misleading. You have no proof for that.

5. Chan's skating is much much more than just a fast skating.

Bluebonnet said:

4. To accuse "Cinquanta ......as a former speed skater values one thing only....fast skating" is misleading. You have no proof for that.

5. Chan's skating is much much more than just a fast skating.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.
If anything, it's an example of judges rewarding fast, complex skating (e.g., difficult turns in both directions) on deep edges, which were always part of the 6.0 value system as well even if it was invisible to casual fans and of little interest to speedskaters.

And also the Scale of Values rewarding rotating 3.5 or 4 times in the air more than it values remaining upright for the sake of remaining upright, which is certainly debatable.

gkelly said:

Absolutely.
If anything, it's an example of judges rewarding fast, complex skating (e.g., difficult turns in both directions) on deep edges, which were always part of the 6.0 value system as well even if it was invisible to casual fans and of little interest to speedskaters.

And also the Scale of Values rewarding rotating 3.5 or 4 times in the air more than it values remaining upright for the sake of remaining upright, which is certainly debatable.

Click to expand...

To be fair it seems that there might have been a pre-arranged deal to make sure Chan would win SC that season.
That of course would be repaid later in the season and before skaters even took to the ice. :scowl:

Skating and the big CoP fans seem so desperate for skating to be considered more than a pageant.

So far the vast majority American sporting fans are NOT buying it.
Skating and it's new secretive scoring sytem seems more dishonest than ever before.

That is why TV ratings are at an all-time low.

CoP fans blame everything under the sun for skating's dismal ratings.

That of course is much easier than making a true evaluation..........

Sports fans do not value rotations that wind up with the skater kissing the ice anymore than NFL fans value a beautiful long pass just off the fingetips of a receiver who ran a great pattern.

In America...execution counts.....and only in horsehoes...and apparently now skating does "almost " count as a success.

janetfan said:

To be fair it seems certain that there was a pre-arranged deal to make sure Chan would win SC that season.
That of course would be repaid later in the season and before skaters took to the ice.

Click to expand...

Another round of Chan bashing using things happened two years ago?

janetfan said:

Skating and the big CoP fans seem so desperate for skating to be considered more than a pageant.

Click to expand...

It IS more than a pageant!

janetfan said:

So far the vast majority American sporting fans are NOT buying it.

Click to expand...

You should blame the American commentators for that, not CoP itself.

janetfan said:

Skating and it's new secretive scoring sytem seems more dishonest than ever before.

Click to expand...

Why are you so eager to know the countries and origins of the judges? Do you want to blame the country instead of the judge? "more dishonest than ever before" is totally not true!

janetfan said:

That of course is much easier than making a true evaluation..........

Click to expand...

It's so much easier to blame everything than to study on something.

Like I said,"excuses, excuses." :yes:

I am saddened that the US senior B event had NO TV coverage.. :scowl:

And this happened in an era when there is like a "gazillion" TV stations.

Why do you suppose this happened?

Is it because Americans love CoP skating?

Or realistically....just the opposite?

janetfan said:

Like I said,"excuses, excuses." :yes:

I am saddened that the US senior B event had NO TV coverage.. :scowl:

And this happened in an era when there is like a "gazillion" TV stations.

Why do you suppose this happened?

Is it because Americans love CoP skating?

Or realistically....just the opposite?

Click to expand...

We've had the same topic several times on the reasons why figure skating is less popular in America. Even earlier in this thread, gkelly has already re-pointed out that CoP was not the main reason for that.

Several posters on GS have agreed long time ago that the main reason is culture drifting. Time is different. Tastes are different. I think after 2014 Olympics, figure skating might win some new fans. But it might lose some old fans like me. Hahaha... oh, well, I might stay depends on the direction figure skating goes.

Bluebonnet said:

We've had the same topic several times on the reasons why figure skating is less popular in America. Even earlier in this thread, gkelly has already re-pointed out that CoP was not the main reason for that.

Click to expand...

You and gkelly would be wrong IMHO.

If I want to learn about the incredibly complex ever changing intricasies of the CoP gkelly is second to none at GS in making terrific explanations about it. I have learned alot from her informative posts and appreciate them...and hope to learn more....

But I sense marketing, pop culture and the way TV works is not necessarily gkelly or your area of expertise.

It's a simple matter of what is in demand........what sells. Actually it could not be a more simple concept.

I can watch high school football games on cable TV...... I can watch poker...I can watch wrestling....I can watch car racing .....etc.. etc. etc

What I could not watch was the NEW Senior B figure skating event because there is not enough interest in USA in CoP skating.

Again I ask, in theis era of a gazillion TV stations.....why is that?