Ways IJS Could Improve

There needs to be a way--in dance--for the athletes with the most technical difficulty and risk to receive credit for that difficulty. Right now, the field is maxing out on the levels. All level four elements are not the same except in the pattern. We know this because some elements are immediately embraced by every other team and others are only completed by athletes at the highest level.

In the other disciplines there are always ways for the athletes to up the ante. In dance the athletes who do so are left to the whim of the judges as to whether they should receive further credit for it or be dinged for less polish, and there are people who argue that difficulty should only be reflected within the levels. It can't be. It is logistically impossible to separate 24 dance teams with only four levels, especially when 90% of them are earning exactly the same level on some elements.

Now, there is no need to separate teams that are tackling mutually difficult elements. But no way under the sun are low-level teams currently earning level four lifts, spins, and twizzles doing the same difficulty as those teams taking the most risk. Something needs to be done--even if it is just spelling out in the handbook that extra GOE can be given for difficulty above and beyond the norm.

OS said:

Ha, i like your reply. So tell me, what should qualify as Phd. then if not the world's bests?

Click to expand...

There is no competition that includes all of the world's best and only the best.

The Grand Prix Final comes closest. Or invitationals like Japan Open. But still some of the best skaters won't qualify or won't be invited or will decline the invitation.

The most important events, Worlds and Olympics, where many of the world's best compete for the most prestigious titles, are also some of the largest events. In addition to some of the very best, they also include skaters who just meet the moderately-restrictive minimum technical scores. And they leave out skaters who may be top 20 in the world but only 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th best in their home countries depending how many slots are available. Or who aren't citizens of the countries they represent in the case of Olympics.

Are the world's bests suppose to represent just best of the year, or something beyond, something bigger?

Click to expand...

There is no competition to determine something bigger. Not even to determine best of the year. Only best at this event this week.

World standings at the end of the season give an approximation for best of the year, but with multiple caveats.

Assessments like "one of the all-time greats" are subjective, unofficial, and developed over the course of a career, sometimes drawing on hindsight. The reward for reaching this status is not a medal, but fame, sponsorships, invitations to perform in well-paying shows, election to a Hall of Fame, etc.

Who's responsibility is it then to push the sport?

Click to expand...

I once asked this question of a venerable skating historian: did innovation tend to come from officials, from top skaters, or from the grassroots. His response was "all of the above."

The rules can encourage or discourage innovation. So can judges' use of PCS. But they can only work with what the skaters can actually do and choose to put in their competitive programs. Sometimes innovations happen in exhibition programs, which judges have nothing to do with, and then get incorporated or adapted into competition.

Does COP have any room to reward things like innovation, originality and creativity?

Click to expand...

Some.

"Originality of the composition" is one of the bullet points under the Composition component, along with "Purpose (idea, concept, vision, mood)," and "Individuality/personality" under Performance. "Use of finesse to reflect the details and nuances of the music" under Interpretation is also going to reward skaters making a piece of music their own.

"Creativity and originality" is one of the positive GOE bullet points for all non-jump singles elements and many pair elements.
For jumps, "unexpected/creative/difficult entry" and "good extension on landing/creative exit."

The thing is, if you look at the COP reality, I'd argue PCS trends are already discriminatory against skaters who are not in the top 10 by their status/profile (power fed no1 for example).

Click to expand...

True, though no moreso than under 6.0.

Also, stronger basic skating tends to produce benefit of doubt or what we might consider inflation of the other components.

If splitting the judging panel for major events is a solution, would it help to have the PCS judges focus only on Performance, Composition, and Interpretation, and possibly Transitions, so they aren't influenced by assigning a score to the skating skills? Leave that to the same judges who score the GOEs.

PCS judges would still be influenced by the way the skater covers the ice and fills the space in general (in ways that are often not visible on video and therefore don't have the same effect on those following along at home), but if they're officially busy scoring only the other component criteria the influence would be lessened. Same for any influence of technical content. Or picky technical details like edge calls and underrotations, which PCS-only judges could ignore while focusing on the bigger picture.

So what is the alternative? The idea may sound impractical when applying to all 37 skaters, but it is entirely up to the judge's own discretion on how they want to deal with it.

Click to expand...

Deal with what?

I think we're talking about a couple of different things.

I understand "innovation, originality, and creativity" to refer to the sport as a whole. Skaters may develop new moves, new variations, new ways of getting into and out of moves or combining moves, new/unusual ways of laying out a program, choosing new genres of music to skate to or of off-ice dance styles and other movement disciplines to adapt to the ice, etc. Some of these innovations may become signatures for them that fans expect to see in every program, although others (and judges) may be less impressed by the originality after seeing the same skater do the same thing for years.

If other skaters start copying the originator, then fans and judges may tire of the innovation sooner. Once one top skater has made something new famous, then others who follow will not get credit much for originality.

But if a skater brings a new innovation to push the sport forward, it doesn't make much difference to their legacy how many times they do it in competition.
Should Denise Biellmann have gotten less credit for her Biellmann spin, or for her triple lutz, in 1981 than she got in 1978?

Knowing specific skaters' histories in terms of what music they've skated to in the past or what moves they have introduced earlier in their career and kept as signature moves is not really about innovation and pushing the sport forward, but more about versatility and pushing one's own boundaries.

It's certainly possible to skate to different types of music with different choreographic approaches, or to include different spin variations or transitions etc. specifically tailored for each piece of music, while only ever using music and styles and moves that are already old hat in skating. That would be versatility without innovation.

The greatest skaters may continue pushing both themselves and the sport as a whole for years. But whether they're outliers or actually having a lasting effect on the sport may only be evident in hindsight.

No different than any judges who are responsible for marking anything to do with the creative arts. Familiarity is not essential, but it helps especially judgings at worlds best level as an integral part of giving an informed opinion, not a subjective opinion.

Click to expand...

For assessing originality as I understand it, what's more important is that judges are familiar with the history of skating and the various ways it is practiced at all levels all around the world, so that they can recognize true innovation as opposed to something fairly unusual they just haven't run across before. But it's impossible for any one individual to possess all relevant knowledge.

Having separate PCS panels can compensate for human limitations like cognitive psychology and latency effects (that tends to delay impression by one competition later). With more knowledge and most importantly awareness hopefully, they can overcome any tendencies and reward PCS with greater clarity and accuracy, and less on reputation.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think it would be possible for PCS-only judges to do a better job of assessing each component on its own merits separate from the technical content. I don't know that it would make much difference in reputation judging. The only way to avoid that would be to use judges who are unaware of the skaters' reputations, and it would be hard to find judges who know a lot about how skating should be judged but who don't follow the current top skaters at all. You'd need to get new judges for every event.

In practice, I don't expect the ISU to adopt this approach.

In theory, I think it could be useful. But I do think
*The same criteria need to apply to all skaters in the same event. No different rules for medal contenders and those who are just happy to be there at all. Especially because you never know when an unexpected newcomer will end up having a breakthrough at that big event.
*If splitting the panel is to be used only at the big important events, then PCS judges at those events need to mark to the same criteria as the combined panels at lesser events. The hope is just that they would do a better job, not a different job.

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

To what degree is a skater allowed to underrotate a jump before you consider it a flawed landing that should be reflected in lowered GOE?

Or are you saying that a skater can even downgrade a jump, get a << call, and a judge should still theoretically be able to get away with giving them +3 GOE?

Click to expand...

Nobody would ever do a << jump worthy of +3 GOE because nobody tries to land forwards, there's going to be a clear visible problem on the landing when someone does that in competition. If someone actually put a lot of practice time into a forward-landing jump, then perhaps it would be possible to do a forward landing axel or double jump worthy of +3 GOE, but of course nobody will ever bother practicing such a thing because it's not worth any relevant amount of points.

As for exactly how < a jump needs to be before I would give it a GOE deduction, that really depends on the quality of the landing and the jump itself. All of the qualities of the jump should be assessed as normal. I think of Lu Chen's 3Toe+3Toe<< at the 1998 Olympics, which absolutely did not deserve a -GOE grade to me and would have been just fine with a +1 GOE grade actually. The first jump was very good and the second was landed one foot and with great emotional projection, despite being extremely underrotated. That jump combo shouldn't be getting less points than a 3Toe+2Toe, it was in fact more difficult than a 3Toe+2Toe, and the 3Toe<< is already only getting the credit of a 2Toe.

karne said:

If it's underrotated, the jump isn't clean, by very definition.

Click to expand...

Cleanliness of a landing has to do with flow and steadiness and landing on one foot with the upper body controlled. An underrotated jump is simply an easier version of a higher rotation jump; sometimes people can not even tell the difference when looking at the jump in real time. Yes obviously when we refer to a Triple jump and say cleanly landed, that implies not overly underrotated, but when looking at an underrotated Triple jump as its own thing, then you can indeed label it as clean or not. There is a difference in quality between underrotated jumps and if they are cleanly landed and well executed in every other regard, then they deserve 0 GOE or even +GOE, particularly in jump combinations where just one part of the combo has the issue.

I will always use this Triple Axel attempt from Mao Asada as an example of a jump that was underrotated and deserved +GOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5Ia1Zc1TJI&t=31s / It's also possible to do an underrotated Triple Axel that deserves -3 GOE. There is a big gap in quality between those things and that's exactly what the GOE is supposed to reflect.

One more idea... Maybe it would be worth to eliminate an assistant technical specialist and to introduce something kinda video technical specialist.... In present the tech panel has not much time to re-watch videos of the elements and slo-mo replays are prohibited or something like this. So there are many mistakes in calling edges, underrotations and other errors that can be seen on slo-mo replays. So maybe it would be better to have one more tech specialist to sit in front of monitor and when the caller-tech spec is not sure on what he/she sees - he/she calls for example "triple salchow underrotated video" or "triple lutz wrong edge video" or like this and so it will be a signal for the video-tech spec to watch the replay of that element and help a caller-tech spec to make a right call. The video-tech spec should be responsible for watching videos only so he/she would have a time to watch a slo-mo replay and so on...

The similar system now works, for example, in rugby union, where the referee if not sure can ask the video-referee for help...

OS said:

Ha, i like your reply. So tell me, what should qualify as Phd. then if not the world's bests? Are the world's bests suppose to represent just best of the year, or something beyond, something bigger?

Click to expand...

There is a common misconception about PhD's that the people doing them are the best in the field. No, a PhD student is a student interested in continuing their education and have the means to do it (yes, they are not always top students). A PhD implies specialization, you will not find someone who does a PhD on Figure Skating for example as it is a very broad subject, but you can find someone studying how to make spins faster or why Russian ladies are winning everything (all hypothetical examples of course). Skaters competing currently are like undergraduate in that they are starting with same basic knowledge (from school) and progressing by learning new skills and gaining knowledge all within the same field but with varying degrees of success based on their own individual interests, learning strategies, and talent. Top skaters would be top students in their discipline, they can be the smartest, the hard workers, and even cheaters who got away with it

Who's responsibility is it then to push the sport?

Click to expand...

I would say that it is the collective responsibility of skaters, coaches, choreographer, judges, and ISU. I don't see why few skaters are supposed to shoulder the weight of the sport while everyone else gets a free pass. IMO, the top skaters are pushing the sport even if they are not doing something new this season. Their mere presence is pushing all other skaters to greater heights and encouraging them to try new things to be competitive.


I will leave the answer to your questions about COP to gkelly who knows the system way better than I do.

Sorry about all the education references, it is the topic I am most knowledgeable about and can claim expertise in

Hevari said:

One more idea... Maybe it would be worth to eliminate an assistant technical specialist and to introduce something kinda video technical specialist....

Click to expand...

Remember that for non-jump elements the tech panel generally divides responsibilities while the element is in progress so that, e.g., the tech specialist may be looking at the variety of turns and the clusters in the step sequence, the assistant TS looking at the upper body movement, and the controller looking for the turns in both directions. In disciplines with more than one skater, one member may be looking specifically at the man and one specifically at the lady.

Removing a member of the tech panel would make it harder for the remaining two to see all the relevant details in real time and would therefore probably result in more reviews taking more time after the program (or else in less accurate calls).

In present the tech panel has not much time to re-watch videos of the elements and slo-mo replays are prohibited or something like this. So there are many mistakes in calling edges, underrotations and other errors that can be seen on slo-mo replays. So maybe it would be better to have one more tech specialist to sit in front of monitor and when the caller-tech spec is not sure on what he/she sees - he/she calls for example "triple salchow underrotated video" or "triple lutz wrong edge video" or like this and so it will be a signal for the video-tech spec to watch the replay of that element and help a caller-tech spec to make a right call. The video-tech spec should be responsible for watching videos only so he/she would have a time to watch a slo-mo replay and so on...

Click to expand...

Watching replays can only be done at the end of the program. There is only one video feed, which the video replay operator is marking as it goes so that they can find the individual elements for review at the end of the program. There is no way for someone to watch a replay while the program is in progress -- you can't rewind the video while it is still being recorded.

Same way that if you're watching online you can't rewind a live streaming video the same way you could rewind an on-demand video.

Therefore, this suggestion would not save any time but would rather make the review process after the event even longer without making it more accurate.

To achieve greater accuracy, you would need to have more than one video feed, preferably with more than one camera angle. Which would mean adding an additional camera operator and an additional replay operator. But reviews would still need to happen after the end of the program.

AFAIK, the only reviews that are not allowed to be done in slow motion are for prerotation of jump takeoffs. That's a choice based on principle to give skaters the benefit of the doubt. (All jumps start rotating on the way up before the blade completely leaves the ice. The principle is to penalize only egregious cases that are visible in real time.)

There's no established limit on the amount of time tech panels can take for reviews after the program. If they need to look at every single element and look at some of them more than once, the reviews will just take more time for that program. If all elements looked clear and clean in real time, the elements can be authorized while the skater is still taking their bows.

The similar system now works, for example, in rugby union, where the referee if not sure can ask the video-referee for help...

Click to expand...

The programs are only ~2 1/2 to 4 1/2 minutes long. Even if there were a rewindable feed separate from the feed that will be reviewed at the end, if multiple elements needed to be reviewed there would be no way for a hypothetical video technical specialist to watch them all before the program was over. Elements that need review might occur one after each other with only a few seconds in between. Unlike rugby where there might be many minutes of play continuing before reviewable calls so it makes less sense to wait for the end, and probably several minutes of play, rather than mere seconds, between those calls.

gkelly said:

Remember that for non-jump elements the tech panel generally divides responsibilities while the element is in progress so that, e.g., the tech specialist may be looking at the variety of turns and the clusters in the step sequence, the assistant TS looking at the upper body movement, and the controller looking for the turns in both directions. In disciplines with more than one skater, one member may be looking specifically at the man and one specifically at the lady.

Removing a member of the tech panel would make it harder for the remaining two to see all the relevant details in real time and would therefore probably result in more reviews taking more time after the program (or else in less accurate calls).



Watching replays can only be done at the end of the program. There is only one video feed, which the video replay operator is marking as it goes so that they can find the individual elements for review at the end of the program. There is no way for someone to watch a replay while the program is in progress -- you can't rewind the video while it is still being recorded.

Same way that if you're watching online you can't rewind a live streaming video the same way you could rewind an on-demand video.

Therefore, this suggestion would not save any time but would rather make the review process after the event even longer without making it more accurate.

To achieve greater accuracy, you would need to have more than one video feed, preferably with more than one camera angle. Which would mean adding an additional camera operator and an additional replay operator. But reviews would still need to happen after the end of the program.

AFAIK, the only reviews that are not allowed to be done in slow motion are for prerotation of jump takeoffs. That's a choice based on principle to give skaters the benefit of the doubt. (All jumps start rotating on the way up before the blade completely leaves the ice. The principle is to penalize only egregious cases that are visible in real time.)

There's no established limit on the amount of time tech panels can take for reviews after the program. If they need to look at every single element and look at some of them more than once, the reviews will just take more time for that program. If all elements looked clear and clean in real time, the elements can be authorized while the skater is still taking their bows.



The programs are only ~2 1/2 to 4 1/2 minutes long. Even if there were a rewindable feed separate from the feed that will be reviewed at the end, if multiple elements needed to be reviewed there would be no way for a hypothetical video technical specialist to watch them all before the program was over. Elements that need review might occur one after each other with only a few seconds in between. Unlike rugby where there might be many minutes of play continuing before reviewable calls so it makes less sense to wait for the end, and probably several minutes of play, rather than mere seconds, between those calls.

Click to expand...

So... what can you suggest to do for tech panels to make calls more accurately and to eliminate situations when to call or not to call depends from competition and panel line-up. I mean that we have seen before that on one competition the tech panel calls some skater's existing flutz (lip, UR and so on) and on the other competition - doesn't call. (For example remember season 2013-2014 and Adelina's flutz, that was called on Europeans and was not called on Olympics)...Maybe the long-term bans for those tech-panels who don't call the existing errors or even call errors on clear elements can help with that...

Hevari said:

So... what can you suggest to do for tech panels to make calls more accurately and to eliminate situations when to call or not to call depends from competition and panel line-up.

Click to expand...

Require every lutz and flip to be reviewed even if it looks perfect in real time to all three members of the tech panel?

Or even every jump, to review for underrotations?

Add a second camera angle at least for the major events?

All this would add time and expense, but it could be more accurate.

At some point I expect there will be a way to measure rotations and edges directly rather than relying on human perception, but I don't think the technology will be available to do this accurately for all jumps by all skaters in an event any time soon, let alone affordable for all events.

Maybe the long-term bans for those tech-panels who don't call the existing errors or even call errors on clear elements can help with that...

Click to expand...

How do you determine that they made errors? Other humans reviewing (other?) video after the fact?

Should every single call be second guessed and reviewed from other angles by other experts after the fact, to get statistics on which tech panel members have a pattern of being overly lenient or overly strict in general (equal for all skaters in the event) or showing a pattern of favoring some skaters over others?

Or should there just be reviews of medalists and those who just lose out on medals because of tech panel calls?

gkelly said:

Require every lutz and flip to be reviewed even if it looks perfect in real time to all three members of the tech panel?

Or even every jump, to review for underrotations?

Add a second camera angle at least for the major events?

All this would add time and expense, but it could be more accurate.

At some point I expect there will be a way to measure rotations and edges directly rather than relying on human perception, but I don't think the technology will be available to do this accurately for all jumps by all skaters in an event any time soon, let alone affordable for all events.

Click to expand...

Maybe to place tech panel a little bit higher, like how they are placed in synchro skating, could help lower the number of errors when calling UR's and StSq levels... And to require every lutz and flip to be reviewed sounds like good idea...

gkelly said:

How do you determine that they made errors? Other humans reviewing (other?) video after the fact?

Should every single call be second guessed and reviewed from other angles by other experts after the fact, to get statistics on which tech panel members have a pattern of being overly lenient or overly strict in general (equal for all skaters in the event) or showing a pattern of favoring some skaters over others?

Or should there just be reviews of medalists and those who just lose out on medals because of tech panel calls?

Click to expand...

Sounds quite interesting... Maybe ISU should conduct some meetings during the season and at the end of season make and publish a conclusion. And all tech panel members who have a pattern of favoring some skaters over others then should be banned for season (and for the second time - lifely). Maybe...

Neenah16 said:

There is a common misconception about PhD's that the people doing them are the best in the field. No, a PhD student is a student interested in continuing their education and have the means to do it (yes, they are not always top students). A PhD implies specialization, you will not find someone who does a PhD on Figure Skating for example as it is a very broad subject, but you can find someone studying how to make spins faster or why Russian ladies are winning everything (all hypothetical examples of course). Skaters competing currently are like undergraduate in that they are starting with same basic knowledge (from school) and progressing by learning new skills and gaining knowledge all within the same field but with varying degrees of success based on their own individual interests, learning strategies, and talent. Top skaters would be top students in their discipline, they can be the smartest, the hard workers, and even cheaters who got away with it


I would say that it is the collective responsibility of skaters, coaches, choreographer, judges, and ISU. I don't see why few skaters are supposed to shoulder the weight of the sport while everyone else gets a free pass. IMO, the top skaters are pushing the sport even if they are not doing something new this season. Their mere presence is pushing all other skaters to greater heights and encouraging them to try new things to be competitive.


I will leave the answer to your questions about COP to gkelly who knows the system way better than I do.

Sorry about all the education references, it is the topic I am most knowledgeable about and can claim expertise in

Click to expand...

OT. I think this depends on which country you are doing your PhD. In my own country PhD is a full time job paid by public funds; you have to be selected by a public procedure (a written and an oral exam plus previous publications) and the aim is to find the best possible candidate. And all the PhD students that I know, myself included, do it for the income as much as for the obvious interest in the research topic. Of course, we all know that the world of academics is far from pristine as far as ethics are concerned, so not always the ones who get the PhD are the best.

Hevari said:

Maybe to place tech panel a little bit higher, like how they are placed in synchro skating, could help lower the number of errors when calling UR's and StSq levels... And to require every lutz and flip to be reviewed sounds like good idea...

Click to expand...

*sigh*

Tech panels are placed higher than the judges at most competitions in which they are able to do so. At ISU level they are always placed higher. At club comps they may be on the same level as the judges due to space constrictions.

lappo said:

OT. I think this depends on which country you are doing your PhD. In my own country PhD is a full time job paid by public funds; you have to be selected by a public procedure (a written and an oral exam plus previous publications) and the aim is to find the best possible candidate. And all the PhD students that I know, myself included, do it for the income as much as for the obvious interest in the research topic. Of course, we all know that the world of academics is far from pristine as far as ethics are concerned, so not always the ones who get the PhD are the best.

Click to expand...

I realize that there are differences between countries of course but what I was trying to say is that PhD's are people who specialise in a topic, so skaters do not fit into that description much. You don't find a skater who does only jumps or another who does only spins, so it is more accurate to compare them to undergraduates who basically try and do the same things and aspire for the same degree. Of course the whole comparison is funny and not really accurate but I thought I could use it to explain my idea

Seriously though, something that is clearly wrong is the way GOE is scored. It is not a matter of personal preference, there are guide lines to be followed. Yet you can see at some competitions the same element being rated from -2 to +2, and this doesn't make sense at all. Would it be better if judges ticked off boxes with the GOE criteria assessed at the element or would it be far too impractical?

Blades of Passion said:

Nobody would ever do a << jump worthy of +3 GOE because nobody tries to land forwards, there's going to be a clear visible problem on the landing when someone does that in competition. If someone actually put a lot of practice time into a forward-landing jump, then perhaps it would be possible to do a forward landing axel or double jump worthy of +3 GOE, but of course nobody will ever bother practicing such a thing because it's not worth any relevant amount of points.

As for exactly how < a jump needs to be before I would give it a GOE deduction, that really depends on the quality of the landing and the jump itself. All of the qualities of the jump should be assessed as normal. I think of Lu Chen's 3Toe+3Toe<< at the 1998 Olympics, which absolutely did not deserve a -GOE grade to me and would have been just fine with a +1 GOE grade actually. The first jump was very good and the second was landed one foot and with great emotional projection, despite being extremely underrotated. That jump combo shouldn't be getting less points than a 3Toe+2Toe, it was in fact more difficult than a 3Toe+2Toe, and the 3Toe<< is already only getting the credit of a 2Toe.

Click to expand...

I'm not referring to skaters deliberately landing forward, I'm talking about a skater intending to get full rotation, but ending up coming up well short of rotation. Which to me (and I'd imagine most would agree) is an error.

For Chen's 3T+3T<< at the Olympics it should absolutely be getting less than 0 GOE, IMO. It wasn't even close to 180 degrees. Otherwise we are saying that a clean 3T+2T with no error should be worth as much as a 3T+3T<<, which is unfair to skaters who are opting for skating cleanly with elements they can do, versus a skater doing a hail mary which - while an epic moment in Olympic history and I loved it - Chen did not land cleanly at all. The fact that it was "gutsy" of her or she showed great heart-melting emotion at staying on her feet doesn't negate the fact that it was very obviously significantly underrotated and definitely an error. Indeed, those were the days when skaters were given credit for 'comebacks' in their program, and being gutsy, and throwing in elements to get a bit more credit. But now elements are assessed individually, which is how it should be. And that 3-3 definitely would get assessed with -GOE... the only thing that would probably save it from a -3 is the fact that the 3T prior to it was well executed -- I loves me some LuLu but that's a -2 on my scoresheet, maybe a -1 if I was being a generous judge "in the moment" because of how gutsy it was (although I'd probably factor that more with a slightly bump higher in the PE PCS). There's absolutely no way I would give that 0 GOE, and certainly not +GOE.

As far as all the qualities of the jump should be assessed as normal, the rotation on the landing of the jump is part of the quality of the jump (even under 6.0 it was a mandatory deduction in the SP). A jump being at least within 1/4 turn on the landing is characteristic of the jump being clean. You're allowed to disagree of course, with your own individual opinion of how jumps should be assessed, but the vast majority of the skating world disagrees and certainly nowadays, under-rotated jumps are seen as errors, even if the skater's smiling as though they actually nailed it perfectly.

Hevari said:

100% right. And first of all ISU should radically lower the age limits of judges and tech panels and encourage the involvement of the young judges on major competitions.

Because it seems that nowadays panels of both types are very old in terms of average age of judges. I don't have anything personal against old people but... The older person is getting the harder is for him/her to analyze that large amount of various information that the judge/tech spec needs to analyze during performance. The older people are getting tired faster than younger ones, while working on a cold rink for several hours with only some little breaks. And the old judges are kinda from another epoch than young skaters in terms of music and costume preferences, and so on.

By the way seems that there would be good if there will be equal number of male and female judges on the panels...

Click to expand...

Can we leave the ageism out of the discussion? It's one thing to say that ideally a judging panel should encompass a range of ages (and be relatively equal in number of people of each gender, geographically diverse, etc.) And several posters have brought up those suggestions, particularly on the geographic side.

But it's another thing to say you "have nothing against old people." Just calling them "old people" isn't very kind, although I'm hoping you didn't mean it that way. And how old is old anyway?

As far as older judges go, yes some of them might be stuck in their ways, and I'm all for bringing in fresh air and a younger perspective. But just as I try not to dismiss someone who's younger just because of their age and try to appreciate what they have to offer, likewise someone who is younger shouldn't dismiss someone older just because of their age. Respect is a two-way street. The experience and the wisdom that comes with age can be very valuable.

As far as getting tired after working a long day goes, I'm a fair amount older than some of my co-workers (although not "old" by any means), and I can - and do - work circles around them. That has to do with determination and dedication to the job. And those aren't determined by age. Yes, I am talking about 10 or 11 hour days in a job that is often stressful and requires a great deal of accuracy and is fast paced. Then coming home and helping with homework and/or doing volunteer work. What I can't do is recover as fast from a long evening as my younger co-workers do, but that's a different story! LOL

Anyway I wanted to offer another perspective and again I hope that isn't quite how you meant that.

Weathergal said:

Can we leave the ageism out of the discussion? It's one thing to say that ideally a judging panel should encompass a range of ages (and be relatively equal in number of people of each gender, geographically diverse, etc.) And several posters have brought up those suggestions, particularly on the geographic side.

But it's another thing to say you "have nothing against old people." Just calling them "old people" isn't very kind, although I'm hoping you didn't mean it that way. And how old is old anyway?

As far as older judges go, yes some of them might be stuck in their ways, and I'm all for bringing in fresh air and a younger perspective. But just as I try not to dismiss someone who's younger just because of their age and try to appreciate what they have to offer, likewise someone who is younger shouldn't dismiss someone older just because of their age. Respect is a two-way street. The experience and the wisdom that comes with age can be very valuable.

As far as getting tired after working a long day goes, I'm a fair amount older than some of my co-workers (although not "old" by any means), and I can - and do - work circles around them. That has to do with determination and dedication to the job. And those aren't determined by age. Yes, I am talking about 10 or 11 hour days in a job that is often stressful and requires a great deal of accuracy and is fast paced. Then coming home and helping with homework and/or doing volunteer work. What I can't do is recover as fast from a long evening as my younger co-workers do, but that's a different story! LOL

Anyway I wanted to offer another perspective and again I hope that isn't quite how you meant that.

Click to expand...

Sorry for misunderstandings.. I meant that... from season to season for a long time I see the same judges at the major competitions. For example - from my country Ukraine it will be Makarova or Mikhailovskaia or some other judge, who started to serve internationally 10-15-20-25 years ago or even more. Same way I can predict, who will serve from other country.... And that's from season to season... All I want is just bringing the fresh air and young blood to the judge and tech panels on major competitions.

I want the fall deductions to be the amount of falls squared.
at the moment if you fall 4 times, you get 6 marks in deductions. I honestly feel like that is not enough.

4^2= 16 marks of deductions seems reasonable because when you fall that many times, the program is lost, you lose the audience and judges.

Hevari said:

Sorry for misunderstandings.. I meant that... from season to season for a long time I see the same judges at the major competitions. For example - from my country Ukraine it will be Makarova or Mikhailovskaia or some other judge, who started to serve internationally 10-15-20-25 years ago or even more. Same way I can predict, who will serve from other country.... And that's from season to season... All I want is just bringing the fresh air and young blood to the judge and tech panels on major competitions.

Click to expand...

You know that those judges have experience, right? You can't just throw young, inexperienced judges into international competition.

karne said:

You know that those judges have experience, right? You can't just throw young, inexperienced judges into international competition.

Click to expand...

I don't mean all-youngsters or all-rookie-judge panels, but just bring one or two or maybe three young judges per panel. In other words - to make kinda mix of experience and youth.

By the way.. for me that kinda aint right to put the experience at the forefront. I agree - experience is important, very important... But none of us came to this world already having an experience in what we do. The only way to get experience is practice, practice and more practice. "Practice makes perfect" right? So where can young judge have a practice to work under the same or similar conditions (pressure and so on) as at the Worlds for example?

So just place two-three maximum young judges per panel so let youth get the experience - that's what I want to suggest. And maybe let this spots be kinda reward for young judges and tech panel members who demonstrated the best quality of work during the season at the minor internationals...

Hevari said:

Sorry for misunderstandings.. I meant that... from season to season for a long time I see the same judges at the major competitions. For example - from my country Ukraine it will be Makarova or Mikhailovskaia or some other judge, who started to serve internationally 10-15-20-25 years ago or even more. Same way I can predict, who will serve from other country.... And that's from season to season... All I want is just bringing the fresh air and young blood to the judge and tech panels on major competitions.

Click to expand...

Thanks - that is fair, and I certainly wouldn't disagree with that. I think many of us agree that a mixture of people with a wide variety of ages, genders, countries, etc. is ideal so that judging doesn't reflect one narrow range of tastes, bias, etc.