Ways IJS Could Improve | Golden Skate

Ways IJS Could Improve

draqq

FigureSkatingPhenom
Record Breaker
Joined
May 10, 2010
For the most part, the IJS gets the job done and generally puts skaters in the right placement by the end of a competition. But of course there are many issues with the system as it currently stands. These are just five ways I think the system could improve. What are yours?

1. Restricting 10% Bonus in Back Half

The current system rewards backloading programs with the toughest elements just for the ten per cent bonus. While this isn't so much of a problem with the mens discipline since the top skaters need the stamina to complete the more difficult quads at the top of their program, this effects ladies and pairs too much. Some ladies backload their programs with all their jumps and most pairs now backload their programs with all of the lifts.

One of the points of the bonus is to reward skaters for completing elements that are exhausting or risky in the back half, but that only applies if the skaters actually use their stamina in the front half; that is, not load the beginning with a long footwork sequence and a few spins before launching into jump after jump once the timer for the back half is reached.

Instead, we need some restriction to encourage better balanced programs. I would propose making the first three jumps of the ladies and men, as well as the first two lifts in pairs, ineligible for the bonus. Another interesting solution would be to have a rule where no ladies or mens skater can have three jump elements back to back, forcing them to spread out their jump elements throughout the program.

2. "Hand over the head" syndrome

This impetus for placing the hand above the head during a jump's rotation is getting, well, out of hand. We have free programs where every darn jump has this feature for the sake of extra GOE points their repetition is exhausting and makes the feature in itself less impressive. At a certain point, the hand over the head is simply the skater's chosen rotational position.

I would propose restricting this feature much like the existing rule where the same difficult spin position doesn't count more than once. Perhaps the judges should count the left hand above the head, the right hand above the head, both hands above the head, one hand behind the body, both hands behidn the body – whatever the case, just make it so that the same hand position cannot be counted more than once for the purpose of GOE bonus.

3. Have more technical callers for rotation, difficulty, edge calls, etc.

Under-rotation and downgrading can now make the difference between winning a competition and finishing off the podium. Merely getting a quad under-rotated can be a matter of 5 points and for a triple jump, it can mean around 3 points knocked off given the negative GOEs and the reduction in base value.

In the current system having all of this be decided by one judge (or two judges if they overrule the technical controller) is dangerous. What one person can really determine if the blade lands within the quarter-turn degree leeway or not? Or if a footwork sequence is really a Level 3 and not a Level 4 Besides, one of the points behind the IJS system in the first place is to lessen the impact that any one judge can have in tilting the results.

So instead, I think we need more judges that determine difficulty, edge calls, and under-rotation and have their assessments counted by some measure. I would suggest five judges that assess elements, perhaps dropping the best and worst out and averaging the rest.

4. Introduce a Choreographic Spin/Layback Spin

Spins have become quite repetitive under the IJS. It seems that every layback is just a sidetwist, eight rotations in a basic position, and then a Bielmann spin. And every flying sit spin is just a butterfly into a a cannonball/pancake, and then another eight positions in a tucked position. And every camel spin is just eight rotations in a basic position and then maybe a twist upward with a change of edge. Unless you're Yulia Lipniskaya or someone, it's boring watching the same old spins just to achieve the Level 4.

Instead, the IJS should replace one of the required spins into a choreographic spin (ChSp1)/choreographic layback(ChLSp1) similar to the choreographic step sequence, where the point is just to be impressive. For a standard spin, make it blur, be incredibly centered, have original positions, surprise us. And for the layback spin, make it actually about, you know, the “layback” part with a beautiful back bend and a great leg line perhaps in that classical attitude position. Layback spins shouldn't be about how well you can do a Bielmann.

5. Boost Triple Loop Base Value in Jump Combo

We rarely see the triple loop performed as the second or third jump in a jump combo, and for good reason as it's extremely difficult to get the height and rotation for it. I would propose increasing the value of the 3Lo, if performed as the second or third jump in a jump combo (and preceded by a 2A or higher), by about 10-20 per cent. That's an extra .5 to 1 point in base value.
 

Sam-Skwantch

“I solemnly swear I’m up to no good”
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Country
United-States
I Wish they would encourage more arm variations :) We survived years and years of chicken wing jumping every single jump of a program without people complaining or calling it excessive. The GOE is not required if it doesn't make the jump's quality better so it's not like the judges are forced to reward it if they don't like it. I'd like to see even more arm variations and let the skaters get creative by inventing their own variations and be rewarded for it.

Combos have their own BV and any 3-2 combo with a 2lo goes up in value!

Less restrictions and more rules that encourage points and freedom.
 

Neenah16

On the Ice
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
I think that strict rules creates efficiency and kills creativity. It is much easier and more rewarding to build a program that satisfies a checklist of requirements (and things to avoid) than it is to make a program that is original, creative and different. Anyone who advocates creativity in FS should ask for less rules not more.
 

karne

in Emergency Backup Mode
Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Country
Australia
More arm variations please. If your skater can't do it, well tough luck.

Three technical panel members decide. One calls. If the other two disagree, they can. Getting a bit tired of the whole "one person has the power!" misconception.

The big one?

MORE PENALTIES FOR FAILED JUMPS.

-60% BV for a fall. And mandatory -3 GOE, none of this "take -3 from GOE" bull****.

-50% for <<.

-40% for e/<

-30% for !

Skaters must be forced to clean up their technique. At this time there's just not enough incentive to do so. And panels should be made stricter with harsher calls.

I would also support mandatory negative GOE for step outs, turn outs, hands down, URs, <<, edge calls, ! calls. Punish those whose technique is wrong. Reward those who have put the effort into fixing theirs.

And PCS must be adequately penalised. None of this getting a 10 for PCS when you fell on your backside bull****.

- No higher than 9 with one major error
- No higher than 8.5 with two major errors
- No higher than 8 with three major errors
- No higher than 7.5 with four major errors

etc, etc, etc.
 

Miller

Final Flight
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
More technical callers would speed up the Kiss and Cry and avoid those interminable waits for the results - 2 less judges if cost is a problem?

Something to encourage triple-triple-triples. If skaters can do something but they're not it's because there's not enough reward for the risk. Similarly 3 triple-triples in a program for the Ladies. If you do this you do your 7 triples, 2 double axels in 6 jumping passes, but the best you can do in the 7th is a 2Lz unless you're a 3A jumper. Also the GOE is worse so you actually end up worse off if you do this.
 

drivingmissdaisy

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
I Wish they would encourage more arm variations :)

I agree. I've noticed a few interesting ones in recent years, most notably Courtney Hicks sometimes doing her 3Lo with one arm behind her back. In the 1994 Olympics, I remember a few of the ladies like Bonaly and Kerrigan doing interesting arms positions for the required double jumps in the SP.
 

YesWay

&#22235;&#24180;&#12418;&#12363;&#12369;&#12390;&#
Record Breaker
Joined
Sep 28, 2013
And PCS must be adequately penalised. None of this getting a 10 for PCS when you fell on your backside bull****.
Can't agree with your suggestions on PCS deductions. Way too simplistic. A lower-difficulty simplistic program that's clean, should always score PCS more than a higher difficulty and more sophisticated program that has one or more mistakes? It might be appropriate in some cases, but may not be in others.

Most mistakes should be (and are) punished in TES.
I don't agree with automatically punishing them a second time in PCS.
And I also think that goes against the intent of PCS.

Regardless of mistakes, falls whatever... PCS rewards what skills and artistry they DID manage to demonstrate during the course of the whole program. And they may still have demonstrated many of the qualities described in the PCS criteria to a high level, regardless of mistakes. The current PCS rules do not include any kind of deductions for technical mistakes. And I think that is a good thing.

If mistakes are disruptive enough to the program, or leaves them out of time or otherwise unable to demonstrate the skills in the PCS criteria to a high level... then yes, judges should reduce the affected PCS components. I just don't agree with automatic fixed-value deductions.

I'm not saying the the current PCS system is perfect - but the problems with it in my opinion, are more in how the judges choose to use it than anything else. (And lack of public explanation, accountability, review, etc of the PCS scoring at any given competition)

PS.
I also note that practically every FS fan seems to think they are qualified to comment on PCS and/or declare loudly that "skater X was lowballed" and "skater Y was overscored" etc... and yet I probably only need the fingers of one hand, to count the number of forum posters I have seen demonstrating anything even approaching a working knowledge of how to evaluate skating according to the PCS criteria, what things ISU judges look for and value, etc -_-
 

nolangoh

Steps and Spirals enthusiast
Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 15, 2015
Second half bonus

I agree with the OP. It is supposed to reward skaters for their effort in the second half where they are supposedly to be tired after doing what they do in the first half. I agree with the proposal of limiting the bonus to only the last four (or five for men) passes, with one more condition: The bonus will be awarded to the last four jumping passes or lifts completed in the second half. If one skater chooses to do five jumping passes in the second half, only the last four will be rewarded. This way we hope to encourage the skaters to construct a well-balanced program and also we can prevent skaters to take advantage of it by front-loading.

Arm variation

I am fine with Tano and Rippon, but i don't prefer to see it in every jump. It gets repetitive and boring, especially when it's not pretty. Just like other people say that they are bored or tired with Biellmann. To get rid of the tanomania I suggest doing the same with the spins variation; arms variation feature can only be rewarded once (or twice, the exact number can be discussed.). Each variation may be counted separately. After you do a tano, no more of it but you can do a Rippon, and some other yet-to-be-invented position. So that we can avoid abuse of the feature and encourage creativity.

technical callers

I remember reading one of the comment in this forum some time ago that whenever there is a questionable technical issue, say, a ! or e call, there should a vote among all the judges to determine the call. I think this is a good idea, it lets more people decide and hopefully it can make a fairer call so that Shin Amano the ripper won't slaughter the skaters' score. Besides, i think the IJS system should make an automatic call itself that a fall will be given a -3, +COMBO a -3, etc. Giving a -1 or 0 to a severe mistake is just absolute madness.

Choreographice spin
Sounds good, but should element this be added or replace another element? Because the men have 30 seconds less starting for next season, I am afraid that they won't have enough time for it.

Combo bonus
I used to think this is a good idea, yet recently I changed my mind, because we will only see loop combo once it is introduced. So i would stick to the status quo.


So much rules have been discussed, yet the most important rule is imo sanity, justice and fairness. Oh help us Themis.
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Can't agree with your suggestions on PCS deductions. Way too simplistic. A lower-difficulty simplistic program that's clean, should always score PCS more than a higher difficulty and more sophisticated program that has one or more mistakes? It might be appropriate in some cases, but may not be in others.

Most mistakes should be (and are) punished in TES.
I don't agree with automatically punishing them a second time in PCS.
And I also think that goes against the intent of PCS.

Regardless of mistakes, falls whatever... PCS rewards what skills and artistry they DID manage to demonstrate during the course of the whole program. And they may still have demonstrated many of the qualities described in the PCS criteria to a high level, regardless of mistakes. The current PCS rules do not include any kind of deductions for technical mistakes. And I think that is a good thing.

If mistakes are disruptive enough to the program, or leaves them out of time or otherwise unable to demonstrate the skills in the PCS criteria to a high level... then yes, judges should reduce the affected PCS components. I just don't agree with automatic fixed-value deductions.

I'm not saying the the current PCS system is perfect - but the problems with it in my opinion, are more in how the judges choose to use it than anything else. (And lack of public explanation, accountability, review, etc of the PCS scoring at any given competition)

PS.
I also note that practically every FS fan seems to think they are qualified to comment on PCS and/or declare loudly that "skater X was lowballed" and "skater Y was overscored" etc... and yet I probably only need the fingers of one hand, to count the number of forum posters I have seen demonstrating anything even approaching a working knowledge of how to evaluate skating according to the PCS criteria, what things ISU judges look for and value, etc -_-


The reality is, a fall or major error (like a pop) affects the overall aesthetics of a program. While the -3 is noted and there's a fall deduction, the onus is also on the judges to note how the fall affected the program from an aesthetics point of view. For skaters to get 9.5 or 9.75 even when botching elements is absolutely ridiculous.

It is laughable that the ISU even had to kindly request that judges not give out 10.00 with a fall. It's like kindly asking English teachers to not give out 100% on an essay if they encounter a major spelling error (because, hey, that's just 1 mistake in a 500 word essay!) -- obviously any good teacher will not give 100% if they encounter an error. 10.00 = 100% = perfection. 9.5-9/75 = 95%-97.5% = near perfection (maybe the student wrote its instead of it's.... or, maybe the skater had a two foot, or a triple became a double... some minor error.

Imagine getting a fly in your restaurant dish and then the staff are like "Well, we've noted the issue... but we're still going to charge you 95-97% of the cost of the meal, since that percentage of the dish looks beautiful and still tastes great." :laugh:

I would also love to see mandatory 0 GOE or less for ANY error. If it's a two-foot or a turn out or an e flutz or a stepout or out-of-unison SBS spins, the computer should lock that judge out of being able to give it anything higher than a 0. The tech specialist should note any error in execution (not just URs but also signify where a skater's foot or hand has grazed the ice, when a twist lift had a bad catch, were out of unison on an element). At the very least, there should be some acknowledgement of this error in the protocol (as there is with e and ! and </<<), so that the judges feel less inclined to still give out a +2 for a throw with a two foot, or +1 for a quad with a turnout.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
More technical callers would speed up the Kiss and Cry and avoid those interminable waits for the results - 2 less judges if cost is a problem?

More technical callers would probably increase the length of time for the reviews, if they each are allowed verbal input into each element that is reviewed. I don't see how larger tech panels could save time unless the whole tech panel calling process were completely different from what it is now.

I think there are three general kinds of changes we could discuss in this thread:

*Changes to the general structure of the system and division of labor between different officials
This has remained pretty much the same for the decade and a half since the IJS was first introduced. Does it need significant restructuring, or is the framework working pretty well and the devil is in the details?

*Specific changes to the Scale of Values, the short program requirements and well-balanced program rules, and level features
There are usually major changes to these approximately every 4 years, as officials recognize unanticipated problems including those caused by previous rule changes and by the development of new skills by the field at large or by the top medal contenders, and as skaters/coaches, officials, federations, influential outside stakeholders such as broadcasters, with different visions of the sport push and pull to shift the emphasis of what the sport rewards more. There are also smaller changes to these rules every year.

I'm sure we can each come up with changes we would like to see at this level. For both fans and actual influential rulemakers, I'd like to see a clear vision of the goal behind new changes, whether major overhauls are needed to address major problems or whether smaller tweaks can suffice, and awareness of how a change intended to solve one issue might affect other aspects of the sport, to avoid significant negative unanticipated consequences.

It's possible to make different rules, or different variations of a rule, for different disciplines (e.g., men vs. ladies) or different competition levels (senior vs. junior).

But any specific rule that applies to the scoring of senior ladies, for example, will apply to all senior ladies, whether they are capable of triple-triple combinations and multiple triples late in a program with multiple (or the same) variations, or no fully rotated consistently landed triples at all, and anywhere in between.

*Small rule tweaks, judge training emphases, or official guidelines and clarifications to improve how officials apply existing rules
This could include things like encouragement for judges to use wider ranges of PCS marks for the same performance where appropriate (with examples of where it would be appropriate), and clearer guidelines on how and when to apply positive GOE bullet points -- whether rewarding the mere existence of a quality or variation should automatically be rewarded or whether added difficulty must accompanied by at least average or above-average quality, or for the qualitative bullet points how to decide when "pretty good" is good enough to count, or whether/when significantly better than just "good" should count for more.
I expect the upcoming change -5 to +5 GOE scoring will address some of these issues, but I have no knowledge of exactly what changes are planned.

The technical calling process is intended to be objective but there will inevitably be differences of perception between different individuals on borderline elements/features.

There's always going to be some subjectivity in the judging process, regardless of what the specific rules are. We each have our own preferences and pet peeves, as do individual judges. Especially for PCS, when should we say "This is how I would score this sort of situation, according to my understanding of the PCS guidelines and my understanding of what makes good skating" vs. "My preferences are objectively correct and I'd like to see the rules changed to require all judges to score the same way I would"?
 

VIETgrlTerifa

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I don't have anything eloquent to say, but I think ice dance needs a complete revamp on how it's judged and how itemized it is and what the requirements are. The discipline generally speaking is looking more and more like pairs skating without the exciting throws, splits, and jumps and thus may run the risk of some arguing that it's redundant.
 

karne

in Emergency Backup Mode
Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Country
Australia
More technical callers would speed up the Kiss and Cry and avoid those interminable waits for the results - 2 less judges if cost is a problem?

Are you kidding? More technical callers would make it worse. Much, much slower. Technical panels aren't trying to be slow, you know. They're trying to get it right.

Second half bonus

I agree with the OP. It is supposed to reward skaters for their effort in the second half where they are supposedly to be tired after doing what they do in the first half. I agree with the proposal of limiting the bonus to only the last four (or five for men) passes, with one more condition: The bonus will be awarded to the last four jumping passes or lifts completed in the second half. If one skater chooses to do five jumping passes in the second half, only the last four will be rewarded. This way we hope to encourage the skaters to construct a well-balanced program and also we can prevent skaters to take advantage of it by front-loading.

Doesn't this take away the whole damn point of the second half bonus? The second half bonus is there to reward the challenge of doing jumps in the second half. It shouldn't be taken away just because a few skaters have got good at it and other skaters can't do it.

technical callers

I remember reading one of the comment in this forum some time ago that whenever there is a questionable technical issue, say, a ! or e call, there should a vote among all the judges to determine the call. I think this is a good idea, it lets more people decide and hopefully it can make a fairer call so that Shin Amano the ripper won't slaughter the skaters' score. Besides, i think the IJS system should make an automatic call itself that a fall will be given a -3, +COMBO a -3, etc. Giving a -1 or 0 to a severe mistake is just absolute madness.

Oh for the love of...a vote among the regular judges, not all of whom have taken their technical specialist/controller training, would take forever. And is completely unnecessary because there are three members of the technical panel already. Shin Amano the Excellent doesn't get to make those calls on his own - the other two can override him. If we're going to start making overhauls of tech panels can the suggestions at least come from people who know how they work please?
 

skylark

Gazing at a Glorious Great Lakes sunset
Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Country
United-States
Since figure skating is a performance sport, it makes no sense for a beautiful jump with a relatively smooth, sustained landing to be penalized as much as a fall, which disrupts every program, although the best skaters can often make you forget or disregard a fall in fairly short order. The skaters who infuse their programs with emotional power can do that.

Underrotations are presently penalized too much. An underrotation often can only be determined by scrutinizing a close-up of a foot via slow motion video, for heaven's sake. And it can cost as many points as a fall, which generally makes audiences groan involuntarily.

I couldn't care less about fractions of rotations. I do care about a fair outcome. When a skater creates one of those special moments that we call "the performance of a lifetime" ... everybody can see it. The experience of everyone in the audience is elevated. For that performance to then have a mandatory deduction for a quarter of a turn, and for that mistake to result in missing the podium, or having a much lower placement, or even in itself to prevent a skater from winning the event, creates a major disconnect.

I think this major disconnect can be addressed with minor tweaks, but I happily leave the numbers etc. to others to work out.
 

karne

in Emergency Backup Mode
Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Country
Australia
Underrotations are presently penalized too much. An underrotation often can only be determined by scrutinizing a close-up of a foot via slow motion video, for heaven's sake. And it can cost as many points as a fall, which generally makes audiences groan involuntarily..

No, no, no. Underrotations aren't penalised enough.

What, you'd rather some sloppy skate full of URs and junk technique win an even over a clean skate by a skater with proper technique just because the first skater "had a moment"? That's a bad idea right there. Say goodbye to anything resembling good technique if you're just going to let skaters slop all over the ice and get away with it. May as well go back to 6.0 in that case.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

narcissa

Record Breaker
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
It is laughable that the ISU even had to kindly request that judges not give out 10.00 with a fall. It's like kindly asking English teachers to not give out 100% on an essay if they encounter a major spelling error (because, hey, that's just 1 mistake in a 500 word essay!) -- obviously any good teacher will not give 100% if they encounter an error. 10.00 = 100% = perfection.

I...don't know what kind of English class you've taken? But this was not how English class worked where I grew up.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Figure skating is both a performance sport and a highly technical sport.

It doesn't take any knowledge of skating technique to appreciate a strong performance in an artistic sense. Of course different viewers may have different preferences as to what makes for better artistic performance. E.g., sometimes it's a choice between charisma/audience connection or beautiful body line or musicality.

It generally does take knowledge to appreciate a strong performance in a technical sense -- both in terms of difficulty and in terms of technical quality.

Some of that technical knowledge is easy for casual viewers to understand if commentators point it out. Other aspects require more familiarity with the sport to understand even when commentators mention it, much less to see for oneself. Diehard fans, or fans who skate(d) themselves, including many here at Golden Skate, may have that knowledge.

Skaters themselves have that knowledge. So their opinion of what a fair result would be will take into account aspects of difficulty and quality that casual viewers may be blind to.

Skaters and officials and knowledgeable fans can be thrilled by a skate of a lifetime by a lower ranked skater and still recognize why that great performance didn't deserve to win, maybe not even to place in the top half of the field.

There are so many different aspects of difficulty and technical quality and performance quality that go into each performance that it rarely comes down to only technical content or only technical quality or lack of errors or only artistry.

The trick is finding ways to balance all those different aspects into a unified result. Should it be left to individual judges to decide whether to put the most weight on difficulty or technique or artistry, as was the case under 6.0? Or should the weightings be built into the system? On a broad scale? Or so finely that there's not much room for judges to exercise their own judgments?

Should the rules anticipate an ideal program and build in ways to reward conformity to that ideal? Or should there be room for different skaters to play to their own strengths?

What makes for the most level playing field?

Should "fair results" or "a great performance" be defined in terms that are meaningful to skaters and other experts who have devoted their lives to perfecting and understanding the techniques? Or only in terms that are meaningful to a once-every-4-years viewer?

Should rules be different for the skaters fighting for world and Olympic medals vs. the skaters fighting to qualify for an Olympic team or to make the cut after a short program or earn the minimum technical scores to compete at Europeans vs. who would be thrilled to get to a national or lesser B international competition at all?
 

Ares

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Country
Poland
One thing that sprung to my mind:

PCS in Men should get little bit elevated in the light of increasing Technical Points Value, maybe the factor should go to 1.1 or 1.2? What do you think?

I'd like to see a seperate PCS panel too at least for the biggest events like World Championships, Olympics etc. I know it's a pipe dream though too. Maybe it would cut down little bit so-called reputational scoring, or at very least make it more substantial. Also please stop using that tiny range of difference between components, I think there should be more leeway on that. I can easily think about performances that deserved 7,5 n Execution but let's say 9 in Interpretation. Non-jump elements are grossly undervalued.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
PCS in Men should get little bit elevated in the light of increasing Technical Points Value, maybe the factor should go to 1.1 or 1.2?

Yes, I think it's time. There has been some official discussion of this option but I don't know how close they are or aren't to adopting it.

I'd like to see a seperate PCS panel too at least for the biggest events like World Championships, Olympics etc. I know it's a pipe dream though too. Maybe it would cut down little bit so-called reputational scoring, or at very least make it more substantial.

Well, in order to cut down on reputational judging, you'd kind of have to have judges who aren't familiar with the specific skaters and their reputations. Hard to find judges who know the sport very well but don't know much if anything about the top players.

At lesser events, it's more possible for judges not to know the skaters.

What might be possible would be to give more detailed judging guidelines or rules for each component and more time for each judge to apply much more specific criteria to the components they're judging, but having them each judge only some of them and maybe none of the GOEs.

They would still recognize the world medalists, and they would still have their own personal definitions of the borderline between good, very good, or outstanding. But if they have time and incentive to count all the multidirectional and one-foot skating, or all the musical nuances in the movement, they could be more reflective of the performance in front of them.

Also please stop using that tiny range of difference between components, I think there should be more leeway on that.

Officially, given the way that the "corridor" is calculated for program components, there is plenty of leeway. But there may need to be more active efforts to change the judging culture to encourage judges to reflect significant differences in different areas of performance through significant differences in the scores for each component.

I can easily think about performances that deserved 7,5 n Execution but let's say 9 in Interpretation.

There is no "Execution" component. There used to be one called "Performance and Execution," but they changed the name last year to just "Performance."

Current Program Component chart

With these criteria in mind, can you give examples of performances you think were halfway between "good" and "very good" on Performance and "outstanding" on Interpretation?

I think it would be more likely to see large gaps between Skating Skills vs. Composition or Interpretation, or between Transitions and Interpretation, for example.

Fun(?) game: What are some examples of performances in which we think the highest and lowest component scores should be at least 2 points different?
 

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be
Record Breaker
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Country
France
No, no, no. Underrotations aren't penalised enough.

NO, they are still penalized too much. There should be no GOE reduction for underotation, unless no call was made and the judge thinks the jump was lacking in this regard. There is very little difference between many jumps that get a < call and ones that don't. The scoring shouldn't be revolving around this, skylark is correct.

The bigger problem with the scoring of jumps is that -GOE still isn't penalized enough. A skater who totally fails a Triple Lutz landing and all but falls on it still receives 3.9 points for the jump, which is more than someone who does a cleanly landed Triple Lutz but slightly underrotated it (since they get base value 4.2 and then are usually hit with -GOE when they shouldn't be). A 3Lutz jump with -3 GOE should only be getting something like 2 points, at most. If someone underrotates a jump and has other problems with it too, then proper -GOE penalties will be plenty sufficient for lowering the score of the element.

I'd like to see a seperate PCS panel too

For sure. The ideal is 6 technical judges who do both GOE grades and level/rotation calls for elements, 6 PCS judges, and then 1 technical specialist who serves as a tiebreaker vote for technical calls among the technical panel.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
The bigger problem with the scoring of jumps is that -GOE still isn't penalized enough. A skater who totally fails a Triple Lutz landing and all but falls on it still receives 3.9 points for the jump, which is more than someone who does a cleanly landed Triple Lutz but slightly underrotated it (since they get base value 4.2 and then are usually hit with -GOE when they shouldn't be).

Well, if it's "slightly" underrotated (less than or equal to 90 degrees), they'll get full credit.

If it's 90 to 180 degrees under, which I would call "moderately" underrotated, then they get the base value reduction and also GOE reduction.
The rules are much more lenient about both the base values and the GOEs for these kinds of jumps than they were 8 years ago when they were fully downgraded and were required to have negative GOE. If there are a several positive bullet points to balance out the -1 to -2 GOE reduction, such a jump could easily end up with 0 GOE now. +1 would be legal, but there would have to be lots of positive qualities and a generous judge for that to happen.

Maybe the answer would be to stop showing the judges the < and << calls. If they can see the underrotation for themselves, they can penalize. If they don't see it, they can give 0 or positive GOE for otherwise clean jumps, and the tech panel can take care of the base value penalty.

If someone underrotates a jump and has other problems with it too, then proper -GOE penalties will be plenty sufficient for lowering the score of the element.

I'm curious what the -5 GOE rules will look like with the coming changes. Will this mean that elements with multiple reductions can lose more points than they do now? Will the base value reductions for underrotations be removed and

I do think that a jump that is telegraphed, taken off from an unclear or badly scraped edge, and landed on two feet followed by a fall (or step out plus hand down) should lose significant points if rotated and even more points if not. One way or another there should be away to accumulate penalties for multiple errors or to give lesser penalties for fewer errors. -1 to -3 alone doesn't allow for fine enough distinctions. But whether the additional penalties should come from reduced base value, fall deductions where applicable, and/or allowing judges to add together multiple GOE reductions to subtract than the largest single reduction from the base value is up for discussion.

The ideal is 6 technical judges who do both GOE grades and level/rotation calls for elements, 6 PCS judges, and then 1 technical specialist who serves as a tiebreaker vote for technical calls among the technical panel.

If each judge is responsible for simultaneously assigning both GOE grades and difficulty calls for spins and steps and pair/dance elements, I think the difficulty scoring would have to be done differently than the current leveling rules. No single tech specialist could accurately call the level of a pairs step sequence in real time now, two skaters sometimes doing different steps sometimes several meters away from each other, without help from an ATS and TC (and video replay). It would be even harder to do so while also evaluating how well the steps go with the music and other GOE bullet points.

If there were a move to have judges score both difficulty and quality at the same time, they'd probably need looser guidelines as to what constitutes added difficulty and they could work those into the positive grades along with the quality evaluations. In which case the difficulty scoring would become more subjective.
 
Top