Quad Neg GOE value different from Pos GOE?

In the scale of values table regarding all quad jumps in singles, the GOE values for positive levels is 1, 2, and 3 while the GOE for negative levels is -1.2, -2.4, and -4.0. The quads are the only jump in which the positive levels and negative values are different. What is the thinking here? Why not have the negative values be -1.0, -2.0 and -3.0? In other words, why should you be punished more for a bad quad than you are rewarded for a good quad?

It's probably to discourage skaters who can't consistently land their quads to try them in competition. If you don't land it, you get a hit hard. But if you do, they don't want to make it all about the quad(s), so the added points from the positive GOE isn't as much as the ones deducted from a negative GOE. Basically limiting people from chucking quads all over the place (for safety too) and try to avoid the Jin Boyang's in the world of skating.

Dan said:

In the scale of values table regarding all quad jumps in singles, the GOE values for positive levels is 1, 2, and 3 while the GOE for negative levels is -1.2, -2.4, and -3.6. The quads are the only jump in which the positive levels and negative values are different. What is the thinking here? Why not have the negative values be -1.0, -2.0 and -3.0? In other words, why should you be punished more for a bad quad than you are rewarded for a good quad?

Click to expand...

I made a mistake. It's -4.0 for a negative level three, not -3.6 as I originally posted. I have since edited the original post to correct this.

This also makes quads the only jumps where the negative levels don't have the same difference between each level. 1.2, 1.2 and 1.6 in this instance for the negative levels. We're only talking of tenths of points...not enough to encourage and discourage anything in my opinion. I get what you are saying coucouo84 but to do what you suggest seems like it would require differences of whole points, not tenths I think. After all, we've got men scoring 300 or more points. Are a few tenths really significant enough to be discouraging?

In principle, I'd agree with you. The positive/negative spectrum should be equal for quads.

However, the judges application to GoE on quads seems to counter-act the unbalanced spectrum. Take Fernandez's opening 4T at Euros this year:

https://youtu.be/3Bne2gdszU0?t=36 (0:36 mark)

Fernandez was obviously off-balance on this jump, resulting in a sketchy landing with a hand down to the ice. Judges rewarded this with +GoE.

To me, this would clearly be negative GoE due to the obvious mistake -- probably a -1 at least (certainly no higher than 0, but even that would be questionable). However, the judges collectively graded this quad as executed positively and performed well. That tells me that in order to receive negative GoE, a skater might have to fall on the ice (or double-foot the landing?)

Either way, as long as a skater can land a quad on one foot without their entire body hitting the ice, they shouldn't need to worry about negative GOE's.

sabinfire said:

In principle, I'd agree with you. The positive/negative spectrum should be equal for quads.

However, the judges application to GoE on quads seems to counter-act the unbalanced spectrum. Take Fernandez's opening 4T at Euros this year:

https://youtu.be/3Bne2gdszU0?t=36 (0:36 mark)

Fernandez was obviously off-balance on this jump, resulting in a sketchy landing with a hand down to the ice. Judges rewarded this with +GoE.

To me, this would clearly be negative GoE due to the obvious mistake -- probably a -1 at least (certainly no higher than 0, but even that would be questionable). However, the judges collectively graded this quad as executed positively and performed well. That tells me that in order to receive negative GoE, a skater might have to fall on the ice (or double-foot the landing?)

Either way, as long as a skater can land a quad on one foot without their entire body hitting the ice, they shouldn't need to worry about negative GOE's.

Click to expand...

The ISU has very specific guidelines on what gets a positive or negative GOE on a jump. The guidelines do NOT mention anything about the number of revolutions (quads versus triples for example). These guidelines are spelled out in this very long document here. http://static.isu.org/media/207718/1944-sptc-sov-communication-2015-2016.pdf Page 12 has the positive GOE guidelines for jumps while page 14 has the negative GOE guidelines for jumps. Now you can look at Fernandez's video and see what you think.

In short, the judges look for these 8 things when considering positive GOE for a jump.
1) unexpected / creative / difficult entry
2) clear recognizable steps/free skating movements immediately preceding element
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
8) element matched to the musical structure

If the judges see 2 of these 8 factors, that jumps gets a GOE of 1. If they see 4 of these 8 factors, that jump gets a GOE of 2. If 6 or more of these factors are seen then the jump gets a GOE of 3.

The following factors will give a jump negative GOE. I don't know what happens if both positive and negative factors are seen in the same jump. That seems to be the case in Javier's jump in your video.
SP: Combo of one jump final GOE must be
-3
Downgraded (sign << )
-2 to -3
SP: No required preceding steps/movements
-3
Under-rotated (sign < )
-1 to -2
SP: Break between required steps/movements & jump/only 1 step/movement preceding jump
-1 to -2
Lacking rotation (no sign)
including half loop in a combo
-1
Fall
-3
Poor speed, height, distance, air position
-1 to -2
Landing on two feet in a jump
-3
Touch down with both hands in a jump
-2
Stepping out of landing in a jump
-2 to -3
Touch down with one hand or free foot
-1
2 three turns in between (jump combo)
-2
Loss of flow/direction/rhythm between jumps (combo/seq.)
-1 to -2
Severe wrong edge take off F/Lz (sign “e”)
-2 to -3
Weak landing (bad pos./wrong edge/scratching etc)
-1 to -2
Unclear wrong edge take off F/Lz (sign “!”)
-1 to -2
Poor take-off
-1 to -2
Unclear wrong edge take off F/Lz (no sign)
-1
Long preparation
-1 to -2

Dan said:

Page 12 has the positive GOE guidelines for jumps while page 14 has the negative GOE guidelines for jumps. Now you can look at Fernandez's video and see what you think.

Touch down with one hand or free foot
-1

Click to expand...

Hmm... I'd guess that Fernandez should get -1? He had a touch down with one hand. It's not common for skaters to receive positive GOE for hitting the ice (other than the blades) on a jump landing, as far as I can recall? :scratch3:

But as I stated above, I'd give that a -1 myself. Not sure how the judges interpreted it though.

sabinfire said:

In principle, I'd agree with you. The positive/negative spectrum should be equal for quads.

However, the judges application to GoE on quads seems to counter-act the unbalanced spectrum. Take Fernandez's opening 4T at Euros this year:

https://youtu.be/3Bne2gdszU0?t=36 (0:36 mark)

Fernandez was obviously off-balance on this jump, resulting in a sketchy landing with a hand down to the ice. Judges rewarded this with +GoE.

To me, this would clearly be negative GoE due to the obvious mistake -- probably a -1 at least (certainly no higher than 0, but even that would be questionable). However, the judges collectively graded this quad as executed positively and performed well. That tells me that in order to receive negative GoE, a skater might have to fall on the ice (or double-foot the landing?)

Either way, as long as a skater can land a quad on one foot without their entire body hitting the ice, they shouldn't need to worry about negative GOE's.

Click to expand...

Also, six judges gave Javier's opening 4T at Europeans a level 0, two gave a level 1 and one gave a -1 so it wasn't very clear I think. I see two of the positive bullets (unexpected entry and good height and distance) and a hand down so I would give that a +1 and -1 or level 0 GOE. The unexpected entry is questionable because it is really just the long curved entrance and jumping the width, not length of the ice.

Dan said:

I don't know what happens if both positive and negative factors are seen in the same jump.

Click to expand...

From ISU Communication No. 1944, at the top of the page with the Updated Guidelines for marking +GOE of Single/Pair Elements (positive aspects):

The final GOE of an element is calculated considering first the positive aspects of the element that result in a starting GOE for the evaluation. Following that a Judge reduces the GOE according to the guidelines of possible errors and the result is the final GOE of the element.

Click to expand...

I.e., first add, then subtract.

It looks to me like the judges are super generous to whoever is the best of the field in these later competitions.
Fernandez, Yuzu, Evgenia, Satoko, I guess, are the top of the singles disciplines and judges favor at the moment. It helps that they are also the most consistent of the field presently so their scores have built and built without interruption this season.

I mean, it's a bit annoying to me that the judges are lenient in GOEs with the best skaters, because they are each good enough to win on their own merits with out any kind of helping along by the judging panel.

sabinfire said:

Hmm... I'd guess that Fernandez should get -1? He had a touch down with one hand. It's not common for skaters to receive positive GOE for hitting the ice (other than the blades) on a jump landing, as far as I can recall? :scratch3:

But as I stated above, I'd give that a -1 myself. Not sure how the judges interpreted it though.

Click to expand...

I think it is an odd situation when you meet the guidelines for both positive and negative GOE. I think that is the case here. The hand is definitely down. Certainly he doesn't have good flow out of the jump and that is not good extension on the landing. I don't hear the music change at all since long before the jump so I don't think it is with the music. No special footsteps precede the jump so its not that. And he doesn't do a variation in the air so its not that. If you have to put your hand down then its not effortless, although before the hand down it looked pretty easy for him. That leaves just the two things that I mentioned height/distance and entry to give a +1 in my opinion. I can't see how two judges got to +1 with a hand down. That would mean they saw 4 of the 8 factors and its just not there that I can see. IOW, you have a very good point. Fortunately, that's why they have 7 other judges to balance out the two that overscored this one.

gkelly said:

From ISU Communication No. 1944, at the top of the page with the Updated Guidelines for marking +GOE of Single/Pair Elements (positive aspects):



I.e., first add, then subtract.

Click to expand...

That's what I thought but I couldn't find words to that effect. You are my IJS God. Thank you so much. Now can you answer my question that started this thread? Why would they give +1, +2, and +3 for positive GOE for quads but -1.2, -2.4 and -4.0 for negative GOE for quads.

Dan said:

Now can you answer my question that started this thread? Why would they give +1, +2, and +3 for positive GOE for quads but -1.2, -2.4 and -4.0 for negative GOE for quads.

Click to expand...

To my knowledge the reasoning has never been stated publicly in writing.

The GOE prorating for various elements has changed over the years, for quads more often than other elements.

My guess is that because the base values of these elements are so high, they don't want skaters to earn almost all those points with serious mistakes -- hence the larger -GOEs. For the +GOEs, the extra points don't need to be so large because the big reward is already in the base values.

I.e., we'll give you a lot of points for rotating 4 times in the air, but if the jump as a whole is bad we're going to take enough of those points away that it won't be worth more than a strong triple.

As to why the increment between the -2 and -3 values is larger than between -1 and -2 or between 0 and -1, I'd guess because -1 or -2 means a flawed jump, whereas -3 usually means a serious failure, which should get a serious penalty.

gkelly said:

To my knowledge the reasoning has never been stated publicly in writing.

The GOE prorating for various elements has changed over the years, for quads more often than other elements.

My guess is that because the base values of these elements are so high, they don't want skaters to earn almost all those points with serious mistakes -- hence the larger -GOEs. For the +GOEs, the extra points do need to be so large because the big reward is already in the base values.

I.e., we'll give you a lot of points for rotating 4 times in the air, but if the jump as a whole is bad we're going to take enough of those points away that it won't be worth more than a strong triple.

As to why the increment between the -2 and -3 values is larger than between -1 and -2 or between 0 and -1, I'd guess because -1 or -2 means a flawed jump, whereas -3 usually means a serious failure, which should get a serious penalty.

Click to expand...

What you say makes great sense to me. From a consistency point of view though it just "jumps" out at me when looking at the tables, pun intended. Do you know where one might get an explanation from either the USFSA or ISU? Or how about a judge? Do they give such explanations to mere humans?

Dan said:

What you say makes great sense to me. From a consistency point of view though it just "jumps" out at me when looking at the tables, pun intended. Do you know where one might get an explanation from either the USFSA or ISU? Or how about a judge? Do they give such explanations to mere humans?

Click to expand...

Judges wouldn't necessarily know. They just award the pluses and minuses -- they have no say in how much they're each worth.

I'm not sure who exactly determines the Scale of Values. Probably the ISU technical committee (singles & pairs in this case, or the ice dance technical committee for ice dance values). But I know a lot of coaches and quad-jumping skaters and their federations have been lobbying for higher base values on quads at least since 2010 if not 2008, and others probably lobbying in favor of larger penalties for failures on quads to offset those values.

gkelly said:

Judges wouldn't necessarily know. They just award the pluses and minuses -- they have no say in how much they're each worth.

But I know a lot of coaches and quad-jumping skaters and their federations have been lobbying for higher base values on quads at least since 2010 if not 2008, and others probably lobbying in favor of larger penalties for failures on quads to offset those values.

Click to expand...

They did adjust the base value of the 4T after the 2010 Olympic controversy of Evan Lysacek defeating Plushenko without a quad. (Please let's not open that can of worms here in this thread). The 4T went from 9.8 in 2010 to 10.3 now. The negative level one GOE was also changed from -1.6 in 2010 to -1.2 now. They must have some reasons for the way these Scale of Values are. Its a shame we can't know what those reasons are. You can verify these changes by looking at Stephane Lambiel's opening 4T in his detailed score sheets from Vancouver. Are people still lobbying for even more changes than this?

I mean that people lobbied for a change after 2008, so they made changes.

Then more people lobbied for change after 2010, so they made more changes.

Then some people weren't happy with those changes, so they dialed back the larger penalties on quad -GOE.

Then they raised them again.

There have been multiple changes to these values over the years, and I'm pretty sure that the technical committee or whoever it is that makes the official changes takes into account feedback they get from the elite skaters and coaches, those who choose to make their opinions known to the committee.

But I don't know what the exact process is. Not just for quads, but for all the different tweaks that come out every year or two.

gkelly said:

I mean that people lobbied for a change after 2008, so they made changes.

Then more people lobbied for change after 2010, so they made more changes.

Then some people weren't happy with those changes, so they dialed back the larger penalties on quad -GOE.

Then they raised them again.

There have been multiple changes to these values over the years, and I'm pretty sure that the technical committee or whoever it is that makes the official changes takes into account feedback they get from the elite skaters and coaches, those who choose to make their opinions known to the committee.

But I don't know what the exact process is. Not just for quads, but for all the different tweaks that come out every year or two.

Click to expand...

I would also like to see more transparency in ISU decisions, thorough explanation & reasoning for at least the more controversial ones would definitely help. It's like with rules of law, sometimes there is given extensive interpretation from institution.

Yes. I think it can be confusing because a jump can actually have a positive GOE before the skater has even jumped, based on the entry. There are 4 parts of a jump to look at when evaluating:

A jump that approaches the ideal technical position in all four phases of the jump receives the highest marks from judges.

1. Entry
2. Take-off
3. Air position
4. Landing or exit

So, as a very basic example, if a skater does a long drawn out spread eagle or bauer and then steps directly into a jump, well they may be starting with a +1. Let's say take off and air position are fine, but nothing superior, they simply get a zero GOE, and then let's say the landing had a slight wobble for a -1 GOE and so over all the skater gets a zero on the jump and maintains the entire base value. It appears on the surface that the jump should have received a negative GOE for the wobbly landing. It can certainly be confusing but does make sense to at least me. Remembering always that the assignment of GOEs, even with guidelines, is still somewhat subjective.

sabinfire said:

In principle, I'd agree with you. The positive/negative spectrum should be equal for quads.

However, the judges application to GoE on quads seems to counter-act the unbalanced spectrum. Take Fernandez's opening 4T at Euros this year:

https://youtu.be/3Bne2gdszU0?t=36 (0:36 mark)

Fernandez was obviously off-balance on this jump, resulting in a sketchy landing with a hand down to the ice. Judges rewarded this with +GoE.

To me, this would clearly be negative GoE due to the obvious mistake -- probably a -1 at least (certainly no higher than 0, but even that would be questionable). However, the judges collectively graded this quad as executed positively and performed well. That tells me that in order to receive negative GoE, a skater might have to fall on the ice (or double-foot the landing?)

Either way, as long as a skater can land a quad on one foot without their entire body hitting the ice, they shouldn't need to worry about negative GOE's.

Click to expand...

This quad should have been at least -1. But european judges there were on a mission to cook this score to go over 200 before Worlds. Bringing it real. And that's what's worst in judging.

HanDomi said:

This quad should have been at least -1. But european judges there were on a mission to cook this score to go over 200 before Worlds. Bringing it real. And that's what's worst in judging.

Click to expand...