Random Figure Skating Questions
- Thread starter tulosai
- Start date
There's no such thing as "-4."
The judges have the same seven GOE choices for all elements: -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
The value of those choices changes depending on the base value of the element.
For a quad, or (to answer your question) a jump combination that includes a quad, the value of the negative GOEs are the same as the names of them.
I.e., -3 on those elements subtracts 3.0 from the base value. -2 would subtract 2.0.
For triple jumps other than the triple axel, according to the current scale of values, -3 would subtract 2.1 and -2 would subtract 1.4.
A fall is an error that requires judges to subtract grades from whatever grade of execution they would have given the element without the fall. So usually jumps with falls end up getting -3 GOE from all the judges. However, it is permissible for a judge to decide that the element was really good before the fall and to start out with a positive GOE and then subtract the -3 from that. This is more likely for a fall on the end of a jump combination where the first jump was really good. So they might end up with a final GOE for the element of -2 or even -1.
The GOEs for all the judges are averaged, after dropping the high and low GOE. So if the judges don't all give the exact same GOE to an element, the actual amount that's subtracted from the base value for that element might not exactly match the amounts listed in the scale of values.
For instance, if a skater does a very good quad toe followed by a triple toe that starts out good but goes wrong on the landing and ends in a fall, it's possible some judges will give -3 and others will give -2. In that case, the averaged amount that's subtracted will be somewhere between 3.0 and 2.0.
However, if they all give -3 GOE, then for an element with a quad in it the amount subtracted will be exactly 3.0.
In addition, all falls receive a 1.00 deduction that's taken off the score for the whole program -- it's not part of the GOE. The technical panel takes this deduction, not the judges.
So the net result is that the skater will likely lose 4 points as a result of the fall. But 3 of those points are from the GOE and 1 is from the fall deduction.
The judges have the same seven GOE choices for all elements: -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
The value of those choices changes depending on the base value of the element.
For a quad, or (to answer your question) a jump combination that includes a quad, the value of the negative GOEs are the same as the names of them.
I.e., -3 on those elements subtracts 3.0 from the base value. -2 would subtract 2.0.
For triple jumps other than the triple axel, according to the current scale of values, -3 would subtract 2.1 and -2 would subtract 1.4.
A fall is an error that requires judges to subtract grades from whatever grade of execution they would have given the element without the fall. So usually jumps with falls end up getting -3 GOE from all the judges. However, it is permissible for a judge to decide that the element was really good before the fall and to start out with a positive GOE and then subtract the -3 from that. This is more likely for a fall on the end of a jump combination where the first jump was really good. So they might end up with a final GOE for the element of -2 or even -1.
The GOEs for all the judges are averaged, after dropping the high and low GOE. So if the judges don't all give the exact same GOE to an element, the actual amount that's subtracted from the base value for that element might not exactly match the amounts listed in the scale of values.
For instance, if a skater does a very good quad toe followed by a triple toe that starts out good but goes wrong on the landing and ends in a fall, it's possible some judges will give -3 and others will give -2. In that case, the averaged amount that's subtracted will be somewhere between 3.0 and 2.0.
However, if they all give -3 GOE, then for an element with a quad in it the amount subtracted will be exactly 3.0.
In addition, all falls receive a 1.00 deduction that's taken off the score for the whole program -- it's not part of the GOE. The technical panel takes this deduction, not the judges.
So the net result is that the skater will likely lose 4 points as a result of the fall. But 3 of those points are from the GOE and 1 is from the fall deduction.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
gkelly
pretty sure they changed it this year to -3 GOE on quad being worth -4 points. See page 2 of the following document.
http://www.usfsa.org/content/ISU%20Communication%201944%20Singles%20Pairs%20SOV%20and%20GOE%20info.pdf
I think what Moria Polonius might have been asking was more if the GOE for a quad combo is scored on the quad scale or the triple scale.
pretty sure they changed it this year to -3 GOE on quad being worth -4 points. See page 2 of the following document.
http://www.usfsa.org/content/ISU%20Communication%201944%20Singles%20Pairs%20SOV%20and%20GOE%20info.pdf
I think what Moria Polonius might have been asking was more if the GOE for a quad combo is scored on the quad scale or the triple scale.
Oh, thanks. I was looking at the positive rather than the negative column -- oops.
The judges still can only give -1, -2, or -3. But if they all give -3, then the averaged value of those -3s would be 4.0.
Yes, on a jump combination the value of the GOE is what it would be for the higher value jump in the combination.
The judges still can only give -1, -2, or -3. But if they all give -3, then the averaged value of those -3s would be 4.0.
Yes, on a jump combination the value of the GOE is what it would be for the higher value jump in the combination.
Okay, so what about that new rule for quad falls? According to protocols, in the case of a quad the all mandatory -3 GOE for a fall equal -4 points (plus extra -1 deduction). So if there was no fall but the quad was so bad that all judges decided to give it -3GOE anyways, it would be -3 points like the old rules?
Sorry, I didn't see this earlier. Thank you, I think I have my answer now!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
1) Remove lowest and highest GOE (-1 and +1)
2) Average
3) Factor by 1.2
The closest I get is by: (-1+0+0+0-1+0-1)/7*1.2 = -0.51(42857)
Maybe -4 points is only used when it's -3 GOE across the board?
Yea, I figured it out, tugboat provided the factors and it all checks out. -3 GOE has a different factor than -1 GOE and -2 GOE, and wow, it's hell of a math. They could take figure skating scoring as math problems at school.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2014
Okay so this probably sounds dumb, but can anyone explain what this "move" is called?
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
There's like a "fast version" and a "slow version"...or that's how I think of it. Not sure if they are the same move in actuality. Not even sure if it's a move, maybe more like a transition? I know it's a simple motion but I just find it very beautiful to watch...just wondering if there's a name.
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
There's like a "fast version" and a "slow version"...or that's how I think of it. Not sure if they are the same move in actuality. Not even sure if it's a move, maybe more like a transition? I know it's a simple motion but I just find it very beautiful to watch...just wondering if there's a name.
It looks like just a basic cross forward step, and I'm not aware of a special name for it. The examples you showed here are highly stylized versions of that simple step.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
- Country
-
Can someone explain exactly what this is and if it could be worked into a 3-1-3 combo?
https://instagram.com/p/8tK3XNOflM/
I don't think the single jump (is it a walleye?) would count for BV but maybe it could count for GOE. I'm curious though if it's even possible to do this with a jump preceding it...let alone if it were legal. Then again it's 5am...my brain is operating on extremely low levels.
Has anyone seen my coffe?
It's a walley, and as it is not a listed jump, the only possible way it could be called would be 3+3+SEQ. Not a combination.
It sort of varies between simply being a held/extended backwards crossover and being a backwards cross-roll.
Well it's not really sexism because biologically, women and men are just different, I say this as a woman. If PCS is factored the same then women's PCS scores would be way higher than their TES scores, factoring it makes them about even, if you have men who's PCS is about even with TES and women who have way more PCS than TES then it kind of implies oh men are the athletic ones and women are the artistic ones. To balance it out by factoring helps to reflect how this sport should be a blend of artistry and athleticism for both genders because men are also artistic and women are also athletic. That's kind of the same reason why Pairs and Ice Dance is also factored, want to balance (approximately) the "artistry" and the technical mark. This is my interpretation.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
The purpose of the factors is that the ISU wants to keep the TES and the PCS more or less in balance. Since men's TES is about 25% higher than ladies, they factor the PCS to come out that way, too.
Example: A lady's LP bets 60 in TES and 37.5 in unfactored PCS. Multiple that 37.5 by 1.6 and she has 60 in PCS to match her 60 in TES.
A man does a quad and a triple Axel and ends up with 75 in PCS. He gets the same 37.5 in unfactored PCS as the lady. After multiplying by 2.0, the man ends up with PCS = 75 to match his TES score.
Edited to add What Krunchii said.
The purpose of the factors is that the ISU wants to keep the TES and the PCS more or less in balance. Since men's TES is about 25% higher than ladies, they factor the PCS to come out that way, too.
Example: A lady's LP bets 60 in TES and 37.5 in unfactored PCS. Multiple that 37.5 by 1.6 and she has 60 in PCS to match her 60 in TES.
A man does a quad and a triple Axel and ends up with 75 in PCS. He gets the same 37.5 in unfactored PCS as the lady. After multiplying by 2.0, the man ends up with PCS = 75 to match his TES score.
Edited to add What Krunchii said.
Thank you very much, now it makes sense to me.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
- Country
-
Dependent on the people putting on the gala. Pretty sure that at the international events you would be expected to put out a certain minimum length. As to types of music, I have a feeling the "suitable for all audiences" clause might come in there.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
The purpose of the factors is that the ISU wants to keep the TES and the PCS more or less in balance. Since men's TES is about 25% higher than ladies, they factor the PCS to come out that way, too.
Example: A lady's LP bets 60 in TES and 37.5 in unfactored PCS. Multiple that 37.5 by 1.6 and she has 60 in PCS to match her 60 in TES.
A man does a quad and a triple Axel and ends up with 75 in PCS. He gets the same 37.5 in unfactored PCS as the lady. After multiplying by 2.0, the man ends up with PCS = 75 to match his TES score.
Edited to add What Krunchii said.
I'm curious...how much would the sport have to progress technically before they change these factors?
I realize there's probably no correct answer. But I'm curious as to speculation
I'm curious...how much would the sport have to progress technically before they change these factors?
I realize there's probably no correct answer. But I'm curious as to speculation
Well, thats not about sport progress, but more like how male / female bodies work. The sport will prgress, both ladies and men will progress, keeping the balance around that.
Similar threads
