Grade of Execution Scores | Page 2 | Golden Skate

Grade of Execution Scores

RoyThree

Rinkside
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Country
United-States
The new GOE system in dance is even more confusing for me, especially in the Rhythm Dance. I'm confused how a level 1 on a pattern can get GOEs of +4 or +5. From my layperson's view, this is just another method of giving obvious reputation scores.
 

Baron Vladimir

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
The new GOE system in dance is even more confusing for me, especially in the Rhythm Dance. I'm confused how a level 1 on a pattern can get GOEs of +4 or +5. From my layperson's view, this is just another method of giving obvious reputation scores.

Level 1 is not the lowest level in a pattern dance but Level B (or basic level). Base Value of Level B (without any achieved keypoints in it) is 4.00, BV of Level 1 (which means one key point achieved) is 5.35, BV of Level 2 (with any of 2 key points) is 5.85, BV of Level 3 (3 key points) is 6.35 and BV of Level 4 (4 key points) is 6.85. The highest GOEs for level B pattern was given to Gilles/Poirier at SC, +1 and +2. The highest GOE for level 1 pattern was given to Hubbell/Donohou at SC and Papadakis/Cizeron at IDF, mostly +3 (but even some +4)! Now, while maybe it is not recommended to give +4 for a Level 1 pattern, +3 is absolutely OK, cause acording to the recommendations you can give +3 GOE if 90% of steps/edges in a pattern are corectly held and there is no visible mistakes in it. So technically patterns are not just the four key points, but the sequences of steps which should be performed with the adequate ice coverage (on a strictly prescribed places in a ice rink). First pattern has almost 30 steps and second aditional 20 some. So if your other steps look correctly done (with prescribed 'traveling' of a steps) and cause they are theoretically more than 90% of a pattern dance, you can achieve high GOE (+3) even with a Level 1.
 

isk82

On the Ice
Joined
Sep 30, 2003
Thank you!!!! This is fantastic and very understandable!!!!!

Unless the technical panel makes a call, what you’re seeing in real time is probably what the final +/- GOE (after factoring) will be. To give an example: say a skater lands a triple Axel, which has a base value (BV) of 8 points, so the maximum +/- GOE is 4. Let’s say the skater has a serious fall, so the GOE displayed in real time is -4.0 (in red), next to the name of the element and its BV; we already established the 3A is worth 8.0 points, so with -5 GOE from the judges for the fall, half of the element’s BV has been deducted, so the element has only earned 4 points.

However, upon review, the TP determines that same 3A was under-rotated. The skater has already left for the K&C and the real-time TES box has disappeared. But an under-rotated 3A (3A<) has a BV of 6.0, not 8.0. The fall warranted a unanimous -5 from the judges in GOE, and half of 6.0 is 3.0. When you check protocols, you should then see 3A< listed as an element, with the scores of the panel being -3.0. You can see something similar here if you look at Nathan Chen’s SP (third on the list). He fell on his quad flip, and every judge gave him a -5 in GOE — this means we don’t have to worry about what the average is — and the technical panel marked the jump as under-rotated. The 4F’s BV is 11.0, but because it was under-rotated, the BV became 8.25, and half of 8.25 is 4.12 (more or less). If a skater’s final TES (shown when they get their total score in the K&C) is a few points less than their TES shown when leaving the ice, then that’s largely due to the technical panel making various calls that reduce an element’s base value.

What you’re seeing in real time is the average being calculated as the judges input their GOE for a given element. If two elements closely follow each other, the first one may be replaced before all marks were submitted and the final average calculated. (Keeping in mind that the highest and the lowest value are both removed before the average is taken.) So sometimes, a skater will have a visible error but the first judge will feel that the element had enough positive features that offset the negative and award it, say, 0 or +1. Then other judges will input -1, and the GOE will change from being green/positive to red/negative in real time.

With the exception of the Choreographic Sequence in the free skate, one level of GOE is 10% of the element’s base value. This is NOT affected by the 10% BV bonus for jumps performed in the second half. A 3A done as the final jumping pass and in the second half of the short programme is worth BV +10% of BV, or 8.0+0.80 or 8.80. The GOE range is still +4 to -4, not +/-4.4.

If you can do the percentages in your head and keep track of all the rules, GOE is relatively straightforward even in real time. You can find the values for every element here, which I don’t recommend consulting when watching. But if you can get a sense of what +3 on a common element is — for the 3A, it’s 2.4 points — you can make sense of the real time average, as you rarely see unanimous GOE grades except in cases of serious error. Using Jason Brown’s first element as an example: the +3 and one +5 are dropped before taking the average (the +3 is the lowest mark and one of the +5s has to be dropped as the highest). That leaves two +4s and five +5s. If you do the subsequent computations, you’ll realize that you aren’t going to arrive at a whole number such as +4 or +5, which is why the final GOE is +2.50, a value between 2.12 (+4) and 2.65 (+5). If you can get used to the idea that +4 is about 2.10 and +5 is 2.6, then you can see a real time GOE of 2.5 and immediately recognize that 2.5 is closer to 2.65 than 2.12 and that the average GOE includes some very favorable marks.

(For more fun with averages, look at Samarin’s 3A. One of the 3s and one of the 1s are tossed, leaving five +2s and one +1 and one +3... and when calculating the average, the +1 and +3 effectively cancel each other out and become another +2, which is why his GOE is precisely +1.60 points, or exactly 20% of 8.0. +2 was also the modal value given by the judges. In the case of Jason’s flip, his actual average GOE is 4.71, but the modal value was 5, which is the more common scenario — a judging split.)
 

draqq

FigureSkatingPhenom
Record Breaker
Joined
May 10, 2010
The new GOE system in dance is even more confusing for me, especially in the Rhythm Dance. I'm confused how a level 1 on a pattern can get GOEs of +4 or +5. From my layperson's view, this is just another method of giving obvious reputation scores.

Indeed, it would be extremely helpful if the ISU (or anyone really) provided a video every year of what the key points in the rhythm dance actually are and how the technical panel comes to the decision of whether the key point gets a Yes or a No. I imagine that the common person, and even longtime figure skating fans, have no idea how key points are assessed. I, for one, just sort of accept things like a +3 on a Lvl 1 +NNYN step without being able to comment specifically on why that happened.

I can delve into the ISU handbook all day with bullet points of what the lady and the man should be doing during the keypoints (RFO to RBI, etc.), but I won't completely understand it until there is an actual judge or technical expert describing why an edge did or did not count, why a hold did or did not count, and why a turn did or did not count. From what I comprehend, it can come down to an edge being too flat (how flat is too flat?), a turn not being clean (what does that mean?), or a hold not being exact (what does the correct hold look like?).

In fact, I feel that the levels for footwork sequences in general are sometimes difficult to figure out. Jumps and spins are much more concrete for me to figure out levels, but when it comes to footwork, sometimes I feel like the levels just depends on how harsh the technical panel wants to be, especially this year where I've seen a lot more Lvl 2 assessments.
 

Metis

Shepherdess of the Teal Deer
Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 14, 2018
Thank you!!!! This is fantastic and very understandable!!!!!

I’m glad that my tl;dr was of use! Maybe I really should make that “keeping track of GOE” cheat sheet....

Indeed, it would be extremely helpful if the ISU (or anyone really) provided a video every year of what the key points in the rhythm dance actually are and how the technical panel comes to the decision of whether the key point gets a Yes or a No. I imagine that the common person, and even longtime figure skating fans, have no idea how key points are assessed. I, for one, just sort of accept things like a +3 on a Lvl 1 +NNYN step without being able to comment specifically on why that happened.
Dave Lease of TSL is working on a guide to the pattern. And if you have Twitter, you could always ask him for the tips he sent to Jonathan. I take TSL with a Dead Sea’s scoop worth of salt on a number of things, but they’ve been really on top of discussing the pattern and ID in general.

For better or for worse, ID is crazy subjective. The technical levels are less relevant than the GOEs, and it’s such a subjective sport. I know the old CD/OD/FD split wasn’t sustainable for large comps (look how long the 2010 OWG CD ran), but I preferred that split. For the pattern dance, just give everyone the same music (I know, I know: it would be UNBEARABLE), but at least then we could actually make a reasonable judgment about interpretation and make the pattern a true technical programme. And curtail the Basic and L1 patterns getting insane +GOE. I mean, I can make a good faith argument for why that’s happening, but that only takes you so far.

I’m not sure what ID is even trying to reward at this point: technical acumen? Expression? Performance? Because of the way GOE works in ID, it’s true that the technical levels can be the difference between a podium finish and fourth in a close competition, but ID itself is sending mixed signals — is it better to perform a L2 pattern exceptionally well or a L4 pattern without as much flair? Teams have different strengths and weaknesses, and with the pattern changing each year, shouldn’t levels be more determinative or at least worth a little more than they are now, since not everyone will be able to perform a tango with the same artistry, no matter how much time is spent in practise, but everyone can master the steps with effort?

From what I comprehend, it can come down to an edge being too flat (how flat is too flat?), a turn not being clean (what does that mean?), or a hold not being exact (what does the correct hold look like?).
Indeed. I’ve read the technical manual for ID but it doesn’t help much when much of the TR is shown on camera from the waist-up. You can tell whose pattern has the most ice coverage, “pizzazz,” etc., but you can have a huge pattern with a great performance and still miss every KP due to timing.

You’re right about footwork sequences in general being inscrutable in terms of level. There’s no reason that protocols can’t be more clear on the error — if a spin gets a V, just tell us why. “V:Rev(number)” (insufficient revs in a position, the number indicating which position based on the order in which they’re done), “V:pos(number)” (position doesn’t meet criteria to be counted as a variation — would be really useful for knowing when a sit spin position is being invalidates for insufficient difficulty, for example), etc. And I’m sure there’s a more elegant way to make those notations for protocols. For StSqs, yes, tell us: use the already-existing “!” for a flat or unclear edge on a turn, add a notation after the level number for issues that cause level evaluation to change — “StSq3: LF!” would mean that a cluster of one-foot turns on the left foot had an unclear or flat edge and was invalidated. Suddenly, we all know what happened to a step sequence with the content for a level four that was called as a level two! (You don’t have to put those ending notations for spins and steps in The Onscreen Box, but there’s no reason protocols can’t contain more information.)

ETA: I forgot about this breakdown of the TR KPs (h/t F&W): https://youtu.be/jGC0fBbjxU4

As for what the TP sees... forever a mystery.
 
Top