Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 130

Thread: New Season, New Rules, & Judging: Singles and Pairs

  1. #81
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    459

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Vladimir View Post
    I agree harsher UR rule is bad! I mean, those kind of UR's are not even perceptable for a panel of judges (according to their scores they are giving in real time), even less for the casual viewers! I can find agreements with that kind of strictness only if GOE of pannel of judges stay intacted after the calls tech pannel can make after the review. Cause I dont think its right to be able to rework the GOE scores after tech pannel reviews, panel of judges should judge according to their own eyes, not with the eyes of tech panel/their equipment!
    Quote Originally Posted by VegMom View Post
    One of my problems with the scoring is that under-rotation, wrong edge, and popped jumps are SO heavily penalized that a fall could be better on a score than any of these. A fall on a jump that's fully rotated still gets base value before GOE is applied. A one-point deduction after that might still come up with a higher total point value than a low GOE applied to a 75% base value jump due to UR or wrong edge.

    There was a lot of talk about wanting to apply points in a way that didn't allow 'splat fests' to win. But the math does not support that theory.
    Yes, I would all agree with all of this. It's a double whammy to start knocking off GOE points after you've already knocked a percentage off for the base value. By all means increase the percentage off so it's what you want the jump to be in the order of, but at that point then apply the other deductions e.g. for poor landing and so on (and at the original GOE value - the skater didn't intend to UR or get an edge call), but not for URs and edge calls, these have already been accounted for by the percentage reduction.

    That way 'clean' URs would score better than now, but poor landings and so on would result in the jump being penalised just as much as now.

  2. #82
    Believe in Yourself! Elucidus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    773

    2 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Vladimir View Post
    I agree harsher UR rule is bad! I mean, those kind of UR's are not even perceptable for a panel of judges (according to their scores they are giving in real time), even less for the casual viewers! I can find agreements with that kind of strictness only if GOE of pannel of judges stay intacted after the calls tech pannel can make after the review. Cause I dont think its right to be able to rework the GOE scores after tech pannel reviews, panel of judges should judge according to their own eyes, not with the eyes of tech panel/their equipment!
    THIS! I think UR negative GOE bullet should be abolished from rules. It's superfluous artificial double punishment. Why punish the jump if it was good and beautiful - whether it was UR or not? Tech panel lowered base value accordingly already - it's not fair to punish it further. If that trend of unlimited tech panel power continues - all we can expect is that ladiues will start to jump doubles instead of triples again

  3. #83
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,106
    Country: Saint Pierre and Miquelon

    4 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Elucidus View Post
    THIS! I think UR negative GOE bullet should be abolished from rules. It's superfluous artificial double punishment. Why punish the jump if it was good and beautiful - whether it was UR or not? Tech panel lowered base value accordingly already - it's not fair to punish it further. If that trend of unlimited tech panel power continues - all we can expect is that ladiues will start to jump doubles instead of triples again
    Im ok with giving some negative features for URs (depending on how obvious UR was for the naked eye of pannel of judges)... but... those negatives should be deducted from positive features jumps already deserved to have. For example - Tsurskaya combo in SP at SA shouldnt be judge with final negative GOE in my opinion, cause that combo had so much positives in it, so when you add positives and negatives you must came with 0 GOE at worst as a final result. If some of the judges think that combo deserves negative GOE as a final result its also fine, but then i dont think its right to give +3 for Satoko's same type of combo. Difference between those two combos should not be 5 GOE points for sure

  4. #84
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    336
    Country: Canada

    1 Not allowed!
    I'd say a ur is a negative feature, but does not necessarily need to have such a huge GOE impact. A lot of urs occur with a two footed/ hand down/ step/ hang on etc. landing which would already cause negative GOE on their own. But some urs aren't that visible without replay. I'd be in favour of something where if there ends up being a ur call, there'll be a -1 or -2 applied to the initial GOE inputted, with a cap of +2 or +3 for final GOE

  5. #85
    End Turandot! friedbanana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    493

    1 Not allowed!
    Agree with you guys. Imo like how a rotated jump doesn't always mean a positive GOE, an UR jump shouldn't always mean a negative GOE

  6. #86
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,106
    Country: Saint Pierre and Miquelon

    0 Not allowed!
    Rules (or recommendations) are saying you should deduct -2 to -3 for UR's from the general GOE, not to give -2 or -3 as a final result. It seems judges like to give final negative GOE for UR's sometimes without looking at the whole picture It should be different final GOE when for example Maria Sotskova, Karen Chen or Polina Tsurtskaya (with an obvious height and distance positive GOE) underrotate comparing to Satoko or Sofia Samodurova (or skaters who generally dont fullfill the same positive features).

  7. #87
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,668
    Country: Japan

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by yude View Post
    Found original report, it was actually TV program and Okabe and Kozuka talked about the rule change. The article has 6 pages but in Japanese though.

    https://www.jsports.co.jp/press/arti...0480406_6.html
    Kozuka: Are there any changes in the jump?

    Okabe: Until now, the under rotation was "less than" a quarter turn. In other words, it was ok when you came down on a quarter line. However, from this year, a quarter line is not approved.

    Kozuka: Oh, oops, I see. (Laugh).

    Okabe: For example, suppose that you should work exactly from 9 o'clock and you come to the office at 9 o'clock and say "good morning", then you are not approved any more (laugh).

    Kozuka: I see. (Laugh). You are saying we have to arrive at the office with some extra time. It is easy to understand.

    Okabe: In that sense, maybe this season will be a tough season for the skaters.

    (it's on page 5 https://www.jsports.co.jp/press/arti...0480406_5.html)

  8. #88
    GS Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    324

    1 Not allowed!
    What would you like to see differently in the future?
    If I had my druthers I would want:

    - All judges and tech specialists paid, not volunteers. This should be a viable career option for former skaters. We need more people who have better inside knowledge of the sport helping to make decisions about scores.

    - The best equipment possible to monitor the skating. For example, there should be multiple cameras at varied angles (including ceiling camera that shows marks in ice) that have high frame rate. I also like the idea of a chip or something in each skaters' boot that helps track and identify things like height, angle, speed.

    - Personally, I think I would get rid of GOE entirely and only have PCS. Or get rid of PCS and only have GOE. Or make GOE a flat number of points added or subtracted from each element rather than a percentage of the tech base value.

  9. #89
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    459

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by VegMom View Post
    What would you like to see differently in the future?

    - The best equipment possible to monitor the skating. For example, there should be multiple cameras at varied angles (including ceiling camera that shows marks in ice) that have high frame rate. I also like the idea of a chip or something in each skaters' boot that helps track and identify things like height, angle, speed.
    I would have 2 cameras. Presumably one is currently pointing diagonally across the rink and so sees some things clearly, but not others. However a camera pointing across the other diagonal should pretty much cover everything and not be too expensive etc. etc. Also ultra slow motion and freeze framing would be good provided it doesn't take too long for reviews plus the cost is OK. I guess you've also got to think about other events, having the technology is very desirable at GPs and Championships, but may be too much to ask for at lower level events. However if everyone's OK with this, fine.

  10. #90
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    419

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by VegMom View Post
    What would you like to see differently in the future?
    If I had my druthers I would want:

    - All judges and tech specialists paid, not volunteers. This should be a viable career option for former skaters. We need more people who have better inside knowledge of the sport helping to make decisions about scores.
    I think financially and logistically this isn’t practical, but if it were, then sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by VegMom View Post
    - The best equipment possible to monitor the skating. For example, there should be multiple cameras at varied angles (including ceiling camera that shows marks in ice) that have high frame rate. I also like the idea of a chip or something in each skaters' boot that helps track and identify things like height, angle, speed.
    One thing that’s immediately possible, and I don’t understand why they don’t do this, is to give the TP and judges both access to the broadcast camera angles. It won’t help at smaller events where there’s only the TP camera and no one else, but that’s hardly an excuse to cut themselves in the foot at larger events. I don’t think they would have so much trouble negotiating or setting this up if they went for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by VegMom View Post
    - Personally, I think I would get rid of GOE entirely and only have PCS. Or get rid of PCS and only have GOE. Or make GOE a flat number of points added or subtracted from each element rather than a percentage of the tech base value.
    I like GOE and the percentage-based approach as used in Ice Dance, and for jumps in single skating. With your suggestion, will the flat number be the same for each element, or will it be staggered by difficulty? Losing 3 points in GOE on a quad isn’t the same as losing three points on a 2A. And if it’s staggered by difficulty, why not just throw in the towel and do percentages so it’s less arbitrary?

    I’ve always wondered why Flying Spins are worth more, and Change-Foot Spins are worth more, but then Flying Change-Foot Spins are only worth the same as doing either feature separately. I would also add a fourth spin to the SP so that there’s a flying spin, change-foot, one-foot, and combo spin.

    I would like to see the overall scrutiny of UR and edge calls increased. But then I would completely toss the GOE penalties for them. If the judges looked at a 3F and gave it a +4, the quality of execution did not suddenly change just because the TP made the call 3F< four minutes after the fact. I’d treat these like levels and not allow the judges to see them, so their scores are based on how they evaluate the quality of all phases of the jump without outside information. I would keep the “lacking rotation” and “poor takeoff” GOE penalties, since those could theoretically cover things like excessive PR if a judge were so inclined, or give them room if they saw that the takeoff edge was really glaringly bad in real time, and so on.

    That would work best with the percentage-based GOE approach, as well.

    I’d set falls to mandatory -5 GOE, and make the deduction a 2.5% loss from the total score. I’d keep the PCS cap for not awarding 10.00, and make it mandatory, but otherwise let the judges decide for themselves how it affected the Components.

    I would bring back the mandatory steps in the SP solo jump and make it a tech panel call: no steps gets marked, either as “ * ” or “V” or something, resulting in No Value or mandatory -5 GOE. Whichever of those. I refuse to believe that the judges and tech panels alike have become so incompetent under IJS that they can’t tell whether a jump has simple connecting steps or movements when they’ve been managing it for 45 years.

    I would make mandatory caps and reductions for PCS/GOE an automatic computer thing, based on the tech panel call.

  11. #91
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,468

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by VegMom View Post
    What would you like to see differently in the future?
    If I had my druthers I would want:

    - All judges and tech specialists paid, not volunteers. This should be a viable career option for former skaters. We need more people who have better inside knowledge of the sport helping to make decisions about scores.
    Tech specialists already need to be former skaters.

    How would a professional judging career path work?
    How many international professional judges would be needed per season?
    Would they be able to work often enough (good for staying sharp and up to date) and earn enough per competition to make a living as judges and not need other day jobs?
    Would all competitions at all levels, domestically as well as internationally, need professional judges? Or would the professional judging corps consist only of, say, ISU judges and national-level judges for large federations, with a larger corps of volunteer and in-training judges available to judge lower level events?
    Would judges need to be recruited from all around the world, or all around large countries, in part to save on officials' travel costs for non-elite events. Paying judges' salaries might also make the costs of holding competitions prohibitive at non-elite levels. But it may be harder to find volunteers for those lower levels if many of the prospective volunteer judges know they will always be second class if they can't afford or don't have the right credentials to move into the professional ranks. Details would need to be worked out. It's probably possible to come up with a system that would meet most needs for qualified officials at all levels, but the answers would be a lot more complicated than just saying "Judges should be professionals."

    - The best equipment possible to monitor the skating. For example, there should be multiple cameras at varied angles (including ceiling camera that shows marks in ice) that have high frame rate. I also like the idea of a chip or something in each skaters' boot that helps track and identify things like height, angle, speed.
    I won't be surprised if things go in this direction eventually. First someone needs to invent the technology to achieve what's needed and to make it affordable for use at all relevant competition levels.

    [quote]- Personally, I think I would get rid of GOE entirely and only have PCS. Or get rid of PCS and only have GOE.

    Why?
    Perhaps there should be different kinds of competition phases with different purposes, in which case it might make sense to have a one phase where only the technical execution of the elements matters and another phase where only the big picture view of the program as a whole matters.

    But as long as skating competitions consist of programs skated to music in which the difficulty and quality of the technical elements, the difficulty and quality of the skating between the elements, and the performance quality and construction of the program are all part of what makes "good skating," there need to be mechanisms for evaluating both the individual moves and the program as a whole.

    Or make GOE a flat number of points added or subtracted from each element rather than a percentage of the tech base value.
    Do you mean, not based on the difficulty of the element at all, so that +3 on a triple axel is worth exactly the same as +3 on a single axel?

    Or more like what the Scale of Values looked like before this year?

    Quote Originally Posted by Miller View Post
    I would have 2 cameras. Presumably one is currently pointing diagonally across the rink and so sees some things clearly, but not others.
    Well, the camera operator moves the angle of the camera to follow the skater, pointing toward wherever the skater is on the ice at the time. But yes, it only has one location to point from.

    However a camera pointing across the other diagonal should pretty much cover everything and not be too expensive etc. etc. Also ultra slow motion and freeze framing would be good provided it doesn't take too long for reviews plus the cost is OK. I guess you've also got to think about other events, having the technology is very desirable at GPs and Championships, but may be too much to ask for at lower level events. However if everyone's OK with this, fine.
    The biggest problem I can foresee with adding another camera on the other side of the rink is how to hook it up to the tech panel's (and judges') computers. It would take a lot of cable to go over (way up, so as not to interfere with the skating or sightlines) or the long way around the ice surface. If the connection were wireless, wouldn't that make it more subject to hacking?

    In some local rinks there isn't any space at all for a camera on the opposite side, but at events like championships and senior Grand Prix held in sports arenas, finding space shouldn't be the problem.

    As cohen-esque suggested, giving the tech panel access to the broadcast feed would have several benefits.

    However, if that challenge could be solved, an extra camera feed for the elite events would be a plus.

  12. #92
    GS Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    324

    0 Not allowed!
    I thought it was implied in my question but apparently not.
    I was asking, if money were no object and other impeding factors did not exist, what would YOU want?

    ---

    There are cameras now that can track an athlete without needing a camera person behind them. There are two types: both track a device, one is worn by the athlete and the other tracks a chip in a ball (like soccer). These cameras can be small, like go-pro size. So space is not an issue. https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/30/veo/

    But I think that yes, if the tech panel could see the broadcast video in the mean time or in addition, that would be excellent.
    And lower level competitions? I would change those in a lot of different ways but I don't want to get into that.

  13. #93
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    2,561

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller View Post
    I would have 2 cameras. Presumably one is currently pointing diagonally across the rink and so sees some things clearly, but not others. However a camera pointing across the other diagonal should pretty much cover everything and not be too expensive etc. etc. Also ultra slow motion and freeze framing would be good provided it doesn't take too long for reviews plus the cost is OK. I guess you've also got to think about other events, having the technology is very desirable at GPs and Championships, but may be too much to ask for at lower level events. However if everyone's OK with this, fine.
    Uhm, this is pretty much what I have seen in place, even at the juvenile and novice level in Canada.

    At least two camera at different angles, slow motion play back. And the tech panel does mark for review when it's not clear cut.

    I really wonder why people are assuming that kind of verification isn't going on.

    What we see on TV video is not always that helpful, especially when the feet are cut off.

    To me the change in the 'benefit of the doubts' for cases close to the line is probably the biggest change.

    I think that in the long run it will be for the better, but it will be hard on skaters and coaches that have focused on other priorities in training assuming that the benefit of the doubt would allow murky technique indefinitely.

  14. #94
    Believe in Yourself! Elucidus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    773

    2 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by VegMom View Post
    Would love to see this.
    Ok, here we go:
    https://www.facebook.com/CoachTomZ/v...3866178417034/ - Vincent Zhou 4F fake UR call (also there is brilliant Zakrajsek speech with which I am wholly agree.. hm, maybe it is worth to make its own topic?)

    https://youtu.be/mdydVa9c2R8?t=331 Tsurskaya's 3Lz fake UR call
    https://youtu.be/sknjTK-UEeM?t=264 Tsurskaya's 3T fake UR call

    And at the same "strict" tech panel:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoVY...youtu.be&t=104 Satoko's 3F missed UR call

    There were more - but I don't have much time to make complete list of tech panel abuse of their power, unfortunately. I hope it would be enough to illustrate that with current trend in judging fs will turn in competition of judges - and not in competition of athletes. There are lot of cases when there is less than a point of difference in scores between let's say 4th and 3rd place etc. - and sloppy judging such as this will make fates of athletes when they begin to realize that their efforts will not cost anything. Why bother to learn complex elements then or progressing sport? It just kills all motivation. Missing the mistake is one thing. It can be pretty unpleasant but I can tolerate it. But making fake mistakes is much much worse. This is red line for me - it shouldn't be tolerated.
    I just don't want to speak about judging and panels and all that math/political crap after each gp event. I want to speak about programs and skaters. But they just doesn't allow it to us. It's frustrating and making me want to just abandon watching fs for good.

  15. #95
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    459

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by TGee View Post
    Uhm, this is pretty much what I have seen in place, even at the juvenile and novice level in Canada.

    At least two camera at different angles, slow motion play back. And the tech panel does mark for review when it's not clear cut.

    I really wonder why people are assuming that kind of verification isn't going on.
    If Canada can have 2 cameras and slow motion/freeze frame etc., why can't the ISU? Was just trying to be reasonable/thoughtful re cost implications (I'm not in Canada so can't say what's going on there). Is there anything else going on that's progressive in Canada that could help with judging etc? It's always the biggest issue on here, and if something is being done better then the more publicity and chance of it being adopted more widely, the better.

  16. #96
    Medalist
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,053
    Country: Italy

    0 Not allowed!
    Lakernik replied to Zakrajsek Re replays for the Technical Panel


    https://tass.ru/sport/5712777

    If google translate works well, he said "Zakraysek is a good coach, a professional, and his emotions are understandable in this case. But video replayers in figure skating exist, and in full, everyone can see them - the judges and the audience, the system is completely transparent. The only thing what I would agree with in this case is a remark on the quality of these video replays, which needs to be improved. "

  17. #97
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,106
    Country: Saint Pierre and Miquelon

    2 Not allowed!
    The problem i see is that reviews on jumps are used selectively! If they review every single jump/combos in the competiton, according to the changed rules (where rule for UR's is stricter) almost all of the skaters will have UR somewhere in the programme. But they are using reviews only for someone and only for some of their jumps (only what they see it is needed for a review). I think the main disagreements on the subject between us/mortals and tech pannel lying 1)in the changed rule about UR's and 2)even tech panel's reviews can catch a UR jump, panel of judges should judge GOE (quality of the jump) with their own 'eyes' (which is much closer to the perception of the audience/us/mortals)

  18. #98
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    11,477
    Country: Canada

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Elucidus View Post
    Ok, here we go:
    https://www.facebook.com/CoachTomZ/v...3866178417034/ - Vincent Zhou 4F fake UR call (also there is brilliant Zakrajsek speech with which I am wholly agree.. hm, maybe it is worth to make its own topic?)

    https://youtu.be/mdydVa9c2R8?t=331 Tsurskaya's 3Lz fake UR call
    https://youtu.be/sknjTK-UEeM?t=264 Tsurskaya's 3T fake UR call

    And at the same "strict" tech panel:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoVY...youtu.be&t=104 Satoko's 3F missed UR call

    There were more - but I don't have much time to make complete list of tech panel abuse of their power, unfortunately. I hope it would be enough to illustrate that with current trend in judging fs will turn in competition of judges - and not in competition of athletes. There are lot of cases when there is less than a point of difference in scores between let's say 4th and 3rd place etc. - and sloppy judging such as this will make fates of athletes when they begin to realize that their efforts will not cost anything. Why bother to learn complex elements then or progressing sport? It just kills all motivation. Missing the mistake is one thing. It can be pretty unpleasant but I can tolerate it. But making fake mistakes is much much worse. This is red line for me - it shouldn't be tolerated.
    I just don't want to speak about judging and panels and all that math/political crap after each gp event. I want to speak about programs and skaters. But they just doesn't allow it to us. It's frustrating and making me want to just abandon watching fs for good.
    Okay so after seeing that slow motion video, I have to agree that the 4F should have been called as clean. Maybe the tip of his toepick touching the ice was 90 degrees, but the actual landing with the actual blade coming down was beyond it. And of course Polina's 3T should have been called clean too.

  19. #99
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    459

    0 Not allowed!
    And of course Polina now essentially has 1 skate to save her career. Without a seasons best in the high 190s/low 200s it could be very long way back indeed.

    Of course she could still qualify for Worlds/Europeans, that 3rd spot is still very much up for grabs. But if not she's not going to be on the Senior GP team, and is going to have to rely on CS events and the Russian cup events to even qualify for Nationals. That one call on the -3T ended up crushing her confidence, and I'm sure caused all the pops and doubles in her FS. It's amazing that 1 call can do this, but with the strength in depth of Russian ladies you cannot afford a single mishap, or as I say it's a very long way back indeed.

  20. #100
    Believe in Yourself! Elucidus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    773

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrea82 View Post
    Lakernik replied to Zakrajsek Re replays for the Technical Panel


    https://tass.ru/sport/5712777

    If google translate works well, he said "Zakraysek is a good coach, a professional, and his emotions are understandable in this case. But video replayers in figure skating exist, and in full, everyone can see them - the judges and the audience, the system is completely transparent. The only thing what I would agree with in this case is a remark on the quality of these video replays, which needs to be improved. "
    Typical politician's answer. In other words - nothing will be done about it - but don't worry, be happy ) Well, at least there is little hope that considering this situation reached until Lakernik himself - that maybe there were some measures applied to tech controllers after all.. We will see at Skate Canada soon - whether there will be some changes in tech calls or not.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •