Americans want to get opportunity to protest

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

False. http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1718/wc2018/wc2018_Men_SP_Scores.pdf
http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1718/owg2018/OWG2018_MenSingleSkating_FS_Scores.pdf (Ok, second half quad lutz UR but the other ones were all clean)

Also, since a couple people have mentioned it - why can't TomZ still be fixing his students' tech issues AND be advocating for having the ability to protest? Are they somehow two mutually exclusive actions?!

Click to expand...

I find it funny that you are linking protocols as a proof in a thread about addressing wrong tech calls

One way to make figure skating more exciting: give every skater the ability to flag one element for review by the TP, either their own or someone else’s. Imagine how many more flutzes would have been called over the last few years! The potential for voting blocs to form — all the Japanese skaters flagging elements from the Russians and vice versa! The drama! And YOU get an edge call and YOU get an edge call and you... just get a UR, actually, and YOU get an edge call!

Joking aside, I think in the case of Tom Z., he’s seen way more egregious calls than what happened to Zhou and never made this kind of noise when they went his way, which is why there’s snark and skepticism being aimed in his direction. As a coach, what’s his track record at fixing UR issues? I agree, “working on the issue” and “advocating for more resources for the TP” aren’t mutually exclusive, but there’s also the fact that Zhou is not a hill worth dying on, he has a half-dozen coaches as is, and the odds of his fixing his UR issues is extremely low. The positive ideas/changes Tom mentioned are old hat to most of us around here, and his track record with actually fixing URs seems to be rather “put up or shut up”?

Xen said:

Hmm, there are some issues with the implementation of the review process. I'm all for more angles, slow-mo's etc to reduce human error when it comes to Tech calls. But there is definitely a fear I have regarding how it will be applied, and if it'll make TP calls more political.

Click to expand...

I would think the biggest problems are that more reviews would further slow down event judging, as well as add additional cost. Worlds and Olympics are so important for the athletes' legacies that I am all for doing whatever it takes to get the calls right, including looking at prerotation in slow motion. For the other events, it probably isn't necessary since even 90% accuracy is acceptable.

drivingmissdaisy said:

I would think the biggest problems are that more reviews would further slow down event judging, as well as add additional cost. Worlds and Olympics are so important for the athletes' legacies that I am all for doing whatever it takes to get the calls right, including looking at prerotation in slow motion. For the other events, it probably isn't necessary since even 90% accuracy is acceptable.

Click to expand...

Hypothetically, if TPs had better footage (clearer, relevant angles, etc.), you could do more reviews in less time. In theory, at least. But if you go from one angle to two and the resolution is better, maybe footage that needs lots of scrutiny because it’s legitimately unclear becomes a very easy decision as to edge or UR calls.

I think TPs have a GIGO problem, on top of the fact that viewers (and possibly skaters?) have no idea what they’re seeing. If the TP footage was released after each event, I bet we’d see a lot less kvetching over calls from everyone, but revealing inadequacies in the system just leads to better exploitation of the weaknesses in the system.

Based on what I’ve heard from people fluent in “machine learning,” it would actually be possible to build an AI to identify UR and edge calls, but it would require investment during the “learning” phase and non-garbage data to analyze to avoid spewing garbage out. Now, allowing skaters to call for reviews if technical calls were largely done by AI (with some human review to make sure the AI isn’t drunk) sounds reasonable, and the broader issue of contesting scores does need to be addressed. (Skaters have almost no window in which to file a complaint, which I find problematic — not because I think there should be more complaints, but because skaters have almost no way to bring attention to actual issues in judging or TP calls, which isn’t healthy... but the ISU has made it very clear that they want to be FIFA when they grow up.) But as long as technical calls are made by three humans examining one angle, I don’t see additional scrutiny adding much value.

Using broadcast equipment to supply the TP with additional angles sounds good in theory but it also leaves open the possibility of the quality of footage varying wildly from event to event, or a network even being savvy enough to offer less than ideal placement of a given part of the rink to help hide the errors of certain skaters. (It’s a remote possibility, but it exists.) It also means any technical issues a network has now become the ISU’s problem. I’m not a fan of the current arrangement, but I don’t think adding another variable into the mix — that is, relying on broadcast cameras — is necessarily a great idea.

In American football, when a team protests a call and demands a review, if the revised call still goes against the protesting team they receive a penalty (loss of a time out). if they did that in figure skating, it would go like this. If you protest your opponents Lutz call (asking for an e or !) and if you lose the protest, then they put the e on your Lutz instead. :yes:

drivingmissdaisy said:

I would think the biggest problems are that more reviews would further slow down event judging, as well as add additional cost.

Click to expand...

It would certainly add costs, but it wouldn't necessarily add time. In gymnastics, events proceed apace while protests are handled, though I'm not sure of the logistics - that's part of the reason for the issuing of 'preliminary' scores rather than final one, I think. It could be done the same way in figure skating by adding a 'review tech panel' that only gets called on to assess protested calls (a bit like the third (video) umpire in cricket, though that's used differently); they'd handle that while the competition progressed, working solely from video evidence, and release the results at the end. So there would be the expense of transporting, accommodating etc extra tech panel members and someone to oversee their deliberations, but no extra time added to the competition while in progress.

Mathman said:

In American football, when a team protests a call and demands a review, if the revised call still goes against the protesting team they receive a penalty (loss of a time out). if they did that in figure skating, Iit wou;ld go like this. If you protest your opponents Lutz call (asking for an e or !) and if you lose the protest, then they put the e on your Lutz instead. :yes:

Click to expand...

Oh man, the potential for SHADE. For GIFs of the skater calling for review being penalized and their target smirking. Yes. We should do this. [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

Speaking of costs, in American football a high school team can buy the equipment for these instant replays video for $3000.

http://highschoolsports.al.com/news...-cost-for-alabama-hs-football-instant-replay/

Mathman said:

In American football, when a team protests a call and demands a review, if the revised call still goes against the protesting team they receive a penalty (loss of a time out). if they did that in figure skating, it would go like this. If you protest your opponents Lutz call (asking for an e or !) and if you lose the protest, then they put the e on your Lutz instead. :yes:

Click to expand...

maybe not an e, but some sort of "random protest" -1.0 deduction on every protest that is deemed waste of time.

Also those reviews could be handled not imediately after, but during warm ups and resurfacing.
This would not much extra time, and would not add the costs of having an extra pannel.

Mathman said:

In American football, when a team protests a call and demands a review, if the revised call still goes against the protesting team they receive a penalty (loss of a time out). if they did that in figure skating, it would go like this. If you protest your opponents Lutz call (asking for an e or !) and if you lose the protest, then they put the e on your Lutz instead. :yes:

Click to expand...

I love this. We need to make this review system reality, so that we can confuse even more newcomers with how edge calls work.

Mathman said:

In American football, when a team protests a call and demands a review, if the revised call still goes against the protesting team they receive a penalty (loss of a time out). if they did that in figure skating, it would go like this. If you protest your opponents Lutz call (asking for an e or !) and if you lose the protest, then they put the e on your Lutz instead. :yes:

Click to expand...

moriel said:

maybe not an e, but some sort of "random protest" -1.0 deduction on every protest that is deemed waste of time.

Click to expand...

I imagine most skaters wouldn't bother to protest unless the scores were very close. In which case, I can see skaters taking the risk of getting a "random protest" deduction if it means they could move up a spot with the addition of an edge call to their opponent's score.... Interesting idea! :think:

Harriet said:

Yes, gymnastics allows individuals to submit protests, and for that reason only provisional scores are issued immediately following each gymnast's performance.

Click to expand...

Yes in gymnastics you are allowed to protest the D score (the difficulty score). You can not protest the execution score. So if applied to figure skating, you can only protest a element score regarding if it's fully executed, or you got the level of difficulty in spins and footwork. You can not protest a GOE score since that's part of execution score. So basically, only the technical reviewers would be tasked with this. It should be filed before the final medal ceremony, but should not take place in the middle of competition so it does not disrupt the other competitor's preparation. It could be a double edge sword. What if they are protesting one underrotated jump and in the review the judges find other underrotation or wrong edges.

Edit: in light of the last few discussions, I would like to point out, unlike football, gymnasts can only protest their own D score (the coaches do on behalf of their athlete). The whole paying to protest someone else's score doesn't seem to have precedence and frankly is a bad idea.

Neenah16 said:

I find it funny that you are linking protocols as a proof in a thread about addressing wrong tech calls

Click to expand...

Hah, well, I was addressing the remark that Vincent "always underrotates". I even used protocols from the past season - at Worlds and the Olympics, at that. Here's the programs themselves. Maybe under the current rules some of these would now be UR, but you could say that about a lot of skaters' jumps (indeed, we're seeing way more tech calls for everyone this season under the new rules).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px-6NRKG4lg#t=6m58s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL-HJkLETkY


I think it's fair to say Vincent (currently) has a tendency to UR, but depending on the day it's not an issue... Like many skaters, when he's fatigued later in a program the tendency for him to UR is greater. But it's incorrect (and unsubstantiated, by protocols and videos) to say he always underrotates (unless of course it was meant to be hyperbole, which could have been the case).

Metis said:

One way to make figure skating more exciting: give every skater the ability to flag one element for review by the TP, either their own or someone else’s. Imagine how many more flutzes would have been called over the last few years! The potential for voting blocs to form — all the Japanese skaters flagging elements from the Russians and vice versa! The drama! And YOU get an edge call and YOU get an edge call and you... just get a UR, actually, and YOU get an edge call!

Joking aside, I think in the case of Tom Z., he’s seen way more egregious calls than what happened to Zhou and never made this kind of noise when they went his way, which is why there’s snark and skepticism being aimed in his direction. As a coach, what’s his track record at fixing UR issues? I agree, “working on the issue” and “advocating for more resources for the TP” aren’t mutually exclusive, but there’s also the fact that Zhou is not a hill worth dying on, he has a half-dozen coaches as is, and the odds of his fixing his UR issues is extremely low. The positive ideas/changes Tom mentioned are old hat to most of us around here, and his track record with actually fixing URs seems to be rather “put up or shut up”?

Click to expand...

While that would be fun and super shady, I think it's fine for a skater to protest their OWN calls. Protesting the calls of an opposing skater is obviously not cool - unless it was something obvious like a scoring error e.g. your opponent getting points for a 4T when really, they did a 3T. That was my retort when the complaint was made that Tom Z didn't protest Adam Rippon's scores when he won Nationals.

It's one thing advocating for skaters/coaches advocating to get their own score increased (or less deductions, as it were).... but skaters/coaches advocating for rivals to have their score lowered would be pretty dirty of them -- that's what us fans are here for!

ice coverage said:

More questions:

If Skater X has an inconsistent and/or poor track record in competition with something, X's ardent supporters have no problem understanding that X and his/her team have been working long and hard on the "something," but succeeding with it in competition still does not come easily.

But if Skater Y has an inconsistent and/or poor track record in competition with something, why do some for whom Y is a non-favorite make assumptions that Y and her/his team have not been working on improving the something and/or do not care about improving the something?​

Click to expand...

Real. Talk.

*patiently awaits for responses from the usual suspects*

I don't speak in hypotheticals, so I will engage in some real talk.

I have never made an assumption or argument that Vincent is not working on his URs. He is an intelligent young man and I assume he is.

Tom Z. was tone deaf in writing this post immediately after Vincent's scores and using Vincent as an example. He *looks* like a sore loser. (notice I did not say he *was*, I said he *looks like*. Huge, huge difference).

IMO, he did Vincent no favors with the timing and content of this post.:noshake: But I am not a judge, and we will see what happens......

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

Hah, well, I was addressing the remark that Vincent "always underrotates". I even used protocols from the past season - at Worlds and the Olympics, at that. Here's the programs themselves. Maybe under the current rules some of these would now be UR, but you could say that about a lot of skaters' jumps (indeed, we're seeing way more tech calls for everyone this season under the new rules).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px-6NRKG4lg#t=6m58s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL-HJkLETkY


I think it's fair to say Vincent (currently) has a tendency to UR, but depending on the day it's not an issue... Like many skaters, when he's fatigued later in a program the tendency for him to UR is greater. But it's incorrect (and unsubstantiated, by protocols and videos) to say he always underrotates (unless of course it was meant to be hyperbole, which could have been the case).

Click to expand...

You completely missed my point..
You were arguing that Vincent does not always under rotates, which is fine, but you used the protocols as a proof. The protocols are, as everyone knows, a record of the tech panel's calls and the judges scores. This thread is discussing wrong tech calls so using the protocols here makes no sense. Videos or analysis are the way to go but not the thing that people are already suspicious of.

So, my remark was about your proof and not your argument. We all need to be more careful that when we choose something to prove a point, the proof is not itself suspect.