Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 99 of 99

Thread: New Season, New Rules, & Judging: Ice Dance

  1. #81
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    11,864
    Country: Canada

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrea82 View Post
    I interpreted that rule as with 1 fall (fall singular in the first line of the table), they can award 9s and it is the 10s that are not allowed
    With 2+ falls (fall plural in the second line of the table), 9s can't be awarded
    Ah okay... that makes more sense!

    I still think a fall (as in a fall-fall not the stumble that H/D had) should make 9.00 the max because otherwise a dance team with a fall could get 9.75s across the board for PCS theoretically.

  2. #82
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,703
    Country: Saint Pierre and Miquelon

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy View Post
    Ah okay... that makes more sense!

    I still think a fall (as in a fall-fall not the stumble that H/D had) should make 9.00 the max because otherwise a dance team with a fall could get 9.75s across the board for PCS theoretically.
    Which is generally the case. I cant remember someone got 9+ on a performance with a fall except D/W and V/M.

  3. #83
    You Know I'm a FS Fan... BillNeal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    2,413
    Country: Canada

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Vladimir View Post
    Which is generally the case. I cant remember someone got 9+ on a performance with a fall except D/W and V/M.
    P/C at Finlandia 2017, got mostly 9.75’s with fall from Cizeron on DiSt: http://www.figureskatingresults.fi/r..._FD_Scores.pdf

  4. #84
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,703
    Country: Saint Pierre and Miquelon

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by BillNeal View Post
    P/C at Finlandia 2017, got mostly 9.75’s with fall from Cizeron on DiSt: http://www.figureskatingresults.fi/r..._FD_Scores.pdf
    I didnt watch it. I was talking about bigger competitions like Euro/4CC,Worlds, Olympics. But i can see P/C getting high Components even with a fall And H/D got big component scores at Olympics with a fall too, those three i remember....

  5. #85
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    11,864
    Country: Canada

    4 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Vladimir View Post
    I didnt watch it. I was talking about bigger competitions like Euro/4CC,Worlds, Olympics. But i can see P/C getting high Components even with a fall And H/D got big component scores at Olympics with a fall too, those three i remember....
    Even as incredible as P/C are... 9.75's with a fall is straight up ridiculous. They were going to win the event anyways - essentially pretending a fall didn't happen and awarding them crazy high PCS doesn't help anyone.

  6. #86
    You Know I'm a FS Fan... BillNeal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    2,413
    Country: Canada

    2 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Vladimir View Post
    I didnt watch it. I was talking about bigger competitions like Euro/4CC,Worlds, Olympics. But i can see P/C getting high Components even with a fall And H/D got big component scores at Olympics with a fall too, those three i remember....
    Ya P/C were being boasted starting from that event to OG. Judges gave them 10's in the SD for a lacklustre performance that included off-sync twizzles and a shaky lift. Kudos to Gabby for getting through that performance but that was so blatant overscoring, especially from the FRA and USA judges, placing them first despite V/M having a 1.5 point TES advantage from their PSt4.

  7. #87
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,703
    Country: Saint Pierre and Miquelon

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by markovai View Post
    Going back to some numbers
    From :
    ICE DANCE
    SCALES OF VALUES
    Season 2018/19

    8. All Choreographic Elements
    +5 +4 +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5
    4.15 3.32 2.49 1.66 0.83 1.10 -0.22 -0.44 -0.66 -0.88 -1.10

    The base value of 1.10 is multiplied by almost 4 (four) for a GOE of +5, so instead of 1.10 a team with +5 will get 5.25 on each one of the 3 choreographic elements. The technical panel has no say on this - everybody gets these 3 choreo elements with the base value. but some may get 0.0 (if all -5 received), a 3.30 (3 x 1.10) with 0 GOEs, while some other teams may get 15.75 (3 x 5.25). i.e. almost 500% increase of the base value.

    To me this does not make any sense. I consider it rather as a typo somebody made when entering data in these value tables....... The element with least weight (1.10) is given the option to get a 500% increase by the GOEs. Especially having in mind that this is the only element where we see such increase. All other elements in dances and in all other disciplines get NEVER more than 70-80% increase of the base value for a +5 GOE. The points for a spin at level 4 can increase by 2.25 max. from the 6.00 base value. Achieving one more key point in the short dance (which is extremely hard and even World silver medalists can not do it yet perfectly, with all 8 Ys) will give a team only 0.5 more points in the base value, and if the GOEs are all +5 the pattern dance may get +4.01, or 10.96 instead of the base value of 6.85 for the perfectly executed patter dance.

    Again, to me all these values this year are simply "no sense".......
    But... There is a rule that Choreo elements can get +5 only with Originality/Creativity feature, which is not the case with other elements (who can get +5 without getting that double feature, but fullfiling all the other features)... So, it is harder to get +5 on Choreo elements (at least on paper)!

  8. #88
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,703
    Country: Saint Pierre and Miquelon

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by BillNeal View Post
    Ya P/C were being boasted starting from that event to OG. Judges gave them 10's in the SD for a lacklustre performance that included off-sync twizzles and a shaky lift. Kudos to Gabby for getting through that performance but that was so blatant overscoring, especially from the FRA and USA judges, placing them first despite V/M having a 1.5 point TES advantage from their PSt4.
    If you look like that (which is wrong i think, because those are not litteraly the scores panel of judges were giving) then you can say Canadian judge gave 7 points more for V/M which is to be fair, even more blatant. So, taking the average score of all the judges as a final result is planned fine!

  9. #89
    You Know I'm a FS Fan... BillNeal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    2,413
    Country: Canada

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Vladimir View Post
    But... There is a rule that Choreo elements can get +5 only with Originality/Creativity feature, which is not the case with other elements (who can get +5 without getting that double feature, but fullfiling all the other features)... So, it is harder to get +5 on Choreo elements (at least on paper)!
    1. Element is innovative and creative (Mandatory to award +5 for Choreographic Element)
    Source

    I think this is the bullet you are talking about. I think it's a bit ambiguous as I read it as the judges have to award +5 to a choreo element that is innovative and creative rather than that the choreo element needs to be innovative and creative to be awarded +5. So if judges interpreted like that, the choreo element can be awarded +5 with 8+ positives, no negatives, as well.

    With that said, I disagree with markovai and I think it's fine for the emphasis to be on the quality of the element. The FD should have less restrictions than RD and they want to give teams the opportunity to create a wide variety of choreo moments that aren't stifled by the requirements for levels. Personally, I have found some really great moments that really match the music, complimenting the dance and/or innovative and creative among other positives. Some of my favourite ChSt that are highlights in the dance, that are innovative and creative and/or have enough positives to warrant +5:

    Weaver/Poje: https://youtu.be/0SPt4B5RtcQ?t=233
    Turkkila/Versluis: https://youtu.be/BDfZbOX7gHI?t=98
    Shevchenko/Eremenko: https://youtu.be/UW-IGMD4AAo?t=136

  10. #90
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,599

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by BillNeal View Post
    Source

    I think this is the bullet you are talking about. I think it's a bit ambiguous as I read it as the judges have to award +5 to a choreo element that is innovative and creative rather than that the choreo element needs to be innovative and creative to be awarded +5. So if judges interpreted like that, the choreo element can be awarded +5 with 8+ positives, no negatives, as well.
    Yes, the way the first bullet point is worded is ambiguous.

    In context of the rest of the document, I read it the way Baron Vladimir does: That there must be at least 8 positive features in order to award +5, and for Choreographic Elements one of those positive features must be the "element is innovative and creative" feature.

    To read it the other way would allow for Choreographic Elements to be required to earn +5 even if they achieved no other positive features, which is surely not the intention.

  11. #91
    You Know I'm a FS Fan... BillNeal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    2,413
    Country: Canada

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Vladimir View Post
    If you look like that (which is wrong i think, because those are not litteraly the scores panel of judges were giving) then you can say Canadian judge gave 7 points more for V/M which is to be fair, even more blatant. So, taking the average score of all the judges as a final result is planned fine!
    If we remove 1.5BV difference given by TP, the difference for V/M is 4.9 points more in PCS and GOE given by CAN judge, which is fair. Twizzles and Lift, CAN judge gave +2GOE to P/C, one can even argue for +1 due to the errors. P/C's performance and interpretation was negatively affected and therefore CAN judge gave 9.25. Gabby made a commendable effort given her dress problems but she was still distracted to warrant perfect marks like some judges gave. And P/C beating V/M on PCS with the average score of all judges .

  12. #92
    Rinkside
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    44

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by BillNeal View Post
    With that said, I disagree with markovai and I think it's fine for the emphasis to be on the quality of the element. The FD should have less restrictions than RD and they want to give teams the opportunity to create a wide variety of choreo moments that aren't stifled by the requirements for levels. Personally, I have found some really great moments that really match the music, complimenting the dance and/or innovative and creative among other positives. Some of my favourite ChSt that are highlights in the dance, that are innovative and creative and/or have enough positives to warrant +5:
    I think you misunderstood me. I am not against the choreographic elements, I am not against the emphasis on the quality of the elements, I am not for restricting the FD. I am simply saying that the values for the GOEs of the choreographic elements listed in this year's rules look abnormally high to me - in percentage of the base value they are MANY TIMES higher than any other element's GOE in dances or singles. I think I understand what is behind this dedision and agree with what you mention, but I simply think that the numerical values are way too big.

  13. #93
    You Know I'm a FS Fan... BillNeal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    2,413
    Country: Canada

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by markovai View Post
    I think you misunderstood me. I am not against the choreographic elements, I am not against the emphasis on the quality of the elements, I am not for restricting the FD. I am simply saying that the values for the GOEs of the choreographic elements listed in this year's rules look abnormally high to me - in percentage of the base value they are MANY TIMES higher than any other element's GOE in dances or singles. I think I understand what is behind this dedision and agree with what you mention, but I simply think that the numerical values are way too big.
    I think, due to the choreo elements having such minimal guidelines to be identified, they can't justify giving it a higher base value. For example, ChSp:

    A Choreographic Spinning Movement shall be identified at the entrance to the element and confirmed when two or more rotations are performed by both partners simultaneously.
    Since they don't want them to be structured by levels, the element scores of choreo elements can only be distinguished by the number of positive and negative features, to arrive at a GOE. Because the BV of choreo elements are so low, comparing GOE as a percentage of their BVs will get really high values versus comparing the GOE as a percentage of the BV of leveled elements. They also need to make it worthwhile for the teams to achieve quality choreo elements. Take for example, if they make each GOE increment 20% of the 1.1 point BV only (ie. +0.22 points for +1 GOE, +1.1 points for +5 GOE), it wouldn't adequately give credit to achieving additional positive features. Why take the effort to achieve eight additional features to achieve 1.1 points of GOE (in addition for it to have to meet the innovative and creative guideline)? Therefore, they have to make the GOE point increments a decent value to award for those features.

    Last season, choreo elements had a BV of 1.0 points with max. GOE of +2.1 points. Under the -3 to +3 system, the GOE potential already far outweighed their BVs. This season, they have extended to the -5 to +5 system, with BV of 1.1 points and max. GOE extending to 4.15 points. The expansion in the point range to reflect the new GOE system is generally consistent (although they may not have expanded to fit certain ratios) with the expansion of the point range for many of the other leveled elements, such as twizzles (Level 4 for both L and M: BV 6.34 + max. GOE of 3.64 vs. old Level 4: BV 6.6 + max. GOE of 1.80) and steps (XSt4 BV 7.95 + max. GOE of 4.84 vs. XSt4 8.6 + max. GOE of 3.3).

  14. #94
    Rinkside
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    44

    2 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by BillNeal View Post
    I think, due to the choreo elements having such minimal guidelines to be identified, they can't justify giving it a higher base value. For example, ChSp:



    Since they don't want them to be structured by levels, the element scores of choreo elements can only be distinguished by the number of positive and negative features, to arrive at a GOE. Because the BV of choreo elements are so low, comparing GOE as a percentage of their BVs will get really high values versus comparing the GOE as a percentage of the BV of leveled elements. They also need to make it worthwhile for the teams to achieve quality choreo elements. Take for example, if they make each GOE increment 20% of the 1.1 point BV only (ie. +0.22 points for +1 GOE, +1.1 points for +5 GOE), it wouldn't adequately give credit to achieving additional positive features. Why take the effort to achieve eight additional features to achieve 1.1 points of GOE (in addition for it to have to meet the innovative and creative guideline)? Therefore, they have to make the GOE point increments a decent value to award for those features.

    Last season, choreo elements had a BV of 1.0 points with max. GOE of +2.1 points. Under the -3 to +3 system, the GOE potential already far outweighed their BVs. This season, they have extended to the -5 to +5 system, with BV of 1.1 points and max. GOE extending to 4.15 points. The expansion in the point range to reflect the new GOE system is generally consistent (although they may not have expanded to fit certain ratios) with the expansion of the point range for many of the other leveled elements, such as twizzles (Level 4 for both L and M: BV 6.34 + max. GOE of 3.64 vs. old Level 4: BV 6.6 + max. GOE of 1.80) and steps (XSt4 BV 7.95 + max. GOE of 4.84 vs. XSt4 8.6 + max. GOE of 3.3).
    The reasons you indicate make sense to me, but again - I have to mention another concern I expressed before - this year (and especially with the introduction of the new +/-5 range of GOEs) they put more responsibilities and pressure on the judges versus the technical panel (not only in dances, in the other disciplines, too, but in dances it is more obvious). In the free dance we have now only 7 of the 10 elements evaluated by the Tech panel (the 3 choreo are excluded). As you say, these choreo have minimal guidelines to be identified, so the responsibility to evaluate them and give them the correct GOEs (which basically means "level" them as these huge values from the GOEs are exactly the equivalent of the levels missing from the rules for choreo elements) goes entirely to the judges. In addition they have to give the correct GOEs to the other 7 elements, too plus to give the correct marks for the 5 components. The technical panel has the option to review the elements after the end of the program, the judges don't. It is a lot for them, and I simply think that even the most competent and honest of them may not be able to do everything correctly. And we know that one of the reasons to introduce the IJS system was to improve the whole evaluation process by making it more objective. Giving so much power in the hands of the judges which may sometimes be above them, is a step back, in my humble opinion.

  15. #95
    You Know I'm a FS Fan... BillNeal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    2,413
    Country: Canada

    1 Not allowed!
    I stumbled upon Polish ice dancers Justyna Plutowska and Jérémie Flemin's video explaining the Tango Romantica key points. They analyze the key points by using their rhythm dance pattern as a demo to explain the correct edges and timing of the steps and turns of the lady/man, along with protocols, rules, and the step charts. Check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGC0fBbjxU4

  16. #96
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    177

    0 Not allowed!
    The scores are so all over the place with ice dance that I honestly dont know what a good score is anymore. Can someone try to explain so I can understand better while watching Euros? Previously I knew anything over a 110 in the free skate was good and something around 190-200 won competitions

  17. #97
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    2,456

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by 1904sk8 View Post
    The scores are so all over the place with ice dance that I honestly dont know what a good score is anymore. Can someone try to explain so I can understand better while watching Euros? Previously I knew anything over a 110 in the free skate was good and something around 190-200 won competitions
    Currently your 197+ SB scores are your medal contenders.

    Then there's a huge gap. 13 points of open space. And that brings you to the teams fighting for the bottom two spots in the top ten at Worlds if those teams can get out of Nationals. Those teams are in the 174-184 SB range currently.

    It appears that you're going to want @80 in the RD and at least 120 in the FD to make a run at the world podium. Per the GPF scores, maybe at least 124 in the FD.

  18. #98
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    177

    0 Not allowed!
    Thank you! Your response was very helpful. Hopefully the upcoming nationals and euros can help make things more clear.

  19. #99
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    2,456

    0 Not allowed!
    Nationals scores will go up, up, up.

    Europeans and 4CCs, though, will give us a pretty good idea of what it's going to take in Saitama.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions

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