Why can't judges just judge what they see?

Mathman said:

At the 2010 Olympics LP, Yuna Kim got a total of 17.40 extra points on GOE, with mostly 1s and 2s. At 2029 Worlds, Alina Zagitova earned 16.22 in GOE with 3s and 4s and a smattering of 5s. It seems like both systems are equally vulnerable to being manipulated by unscrupulous judges, should they set their minds to doing so.

Click to expand...

All these people saying Russian women have no longevity haven't realized that Alina will still be dominating another 10 years.

Mathman said:

The overall effect of this change is not so clear to me.

Click to expand...

Me either.

In the olden days you could only get a +3, but if you did you got 3 extra points. Now you can get a +5 on a judge's screen but in reality you only get a percentage of that.

Click to expand...

+3 GOE was worth 3 points for triple and quad jumps, and for some level 4 non-jump elements. Lower value elements had lower value GOEs, so that each + or - was worth less than 1.0 and therefore +3 (or -3) was worth less than 3.0. The exact details changed over the years with changes to the Scale of Values, with the negative values not always equal to the positive ones for the same element.

I think the intention was roughly to scale the bonuses and penalties to the base value of the element (or of the higher value jump in a jump combination), but scaling was very rough and it would be necessary to consult the SoV for each element to know exactly what the GOE values were for each element.

Now they are each scaled directly as a percentage of the base value of the element.

Are the values of +4 and +5 in the new scoring higher or lower than the values of +3 last year? I haven't checked closely for details, but the answer to that question as asked would be "It depends on the element."

For triple axels and quad jumps, the answer is "Yes" -- and since those elements have the highest base values, having higher +GOE values as well means that outstanding execution can result in a bigger boost to technical elements score.

For most triple jumps, the value of +5 is lower than the value of +3 last year, which means of course that the value of +4 is even lower.

I'd have to consult the old and new SoVs to know what the effect is on lower value elements for which +3 was always worth less to begin with.

I suppose I'm a different kind of fan. Yes, I do sometimes question the judging, but on the whole usually the one (or the couple) with the best skates does come on top. And we've also seen quite a few newbe's suddenly leapfrog to that same top. True, the later the group one skates in, the better certain scores get. That is a tad unfair. Still, I do think the IJS makes it possible to go past that. Not always, and not for everyone, admittedly. I also like the mathematics exercises some of the GS posters do to either make a point or just to show where there is bias. But I certainly don't think all the judges are always biased, politically moved or anything like that. And they're certainly better at judging than I would ever be! In the end if it's a wonderful programme that wins a competition, I'm okay and have no desire to question that result. I might feel someone or a couple may be over- or underscored but as long as they get a good placement, I'm okay. Naturally, I feel sorry for any skater who thinks the performance was perfect and the scores are low, just as I will feel happy when it's the other way round. I also think most judges do their best. I can understand national bias to the extent that slightly overscoring one's own skaters is rather natural, however deliberately underscoring a rival is less acceptable. A bit of a hometown bias is also understandable, but the last WC were the perfect example of that not happening. So why the negativity towards people who are trying to judge very different skaters, styles of skating, jump technique, and programmes to music they might not even like? Yes they make mistakes, yes they have personal issues, they tend to favour old-time favourites, all that. But, looking back at the last worlds, can you really say there was politics taking place? Yeah, S/K got overscored (they did), but I still think their second place was well-deserved. Nathan and Yuzu got scored rightly (give or take a few points of PCS) and what a fantastic final it was. I've rewatched it many times, just because it was spectacular and both skaters did so well. And I'm no fan of Z/E (they're bland in my view) but I do think that third place was the right one, and I'll never forget Zhenya's fierce facial expression at the end of her FP. She should have got the bronze just because of that. Bad judging? I don't think so. Was I sorry because the ones I rooted for failed? You bet I was. Did the judging have anything to do with that? Nope. Just the skating.

ladyjane said:

I suppose I'm a different kind of fan. Yes, I do sometimes question the judging, but on the whole usually the one (or the couple) with the best skates does come on top. And we've also seen quite a few newbe's suddenly leapfrog to that same top. True, the later group one skates in, the better certain scores get. That is a tad unfair. Still, i do think the IJS makes it possible to go past that. Not always, and not for everyone.

Click to expand...

This is how I feel also. I generally agree with the outcomes of the events, at least for the medalists. Even when I don't, I usually can appreciate the reasons for the placements as they turned out. Personally, I scrutinize results more when there are close events like 2019 Worlds where the women placing 2nd-5th were separated by less than 2 points. The GOE awarded is up to the judges, but the actual calling of <, <<, !, and "e" have got to be right.

drivingmissdaisy said:

The GOE awarded is up to the judges, but the actual calling of <, <<, !, and "e" have got to be right.

Click to expand...

But what if the Tech won't click on "review," can the calling of <, <<, !, and e be right?

Case in point, is this 4Lz or 4Lz< or 4Lz<<?

https://twitter.com/yuzuspiration/status/1117630520719020032

Actual GOE 4.60 and score 16.10.
If 4Lz<, GOE -1 and score'd be 7.77.
If 4Lz<<, GOE -2 and score'd be 4.72.

Tahuu said:

Actual GOE 4.60 and score 16.10.
If 4Lz<, GOE -1 and score'd be 7.77.
If 4Lz<<, GOE -2 and score'd be 4.72.

Click to expand...

This is a great example that shows how meaningfully one call can affect the scores. None of the men at Worlds who placed between 5th and 22nd were separated from the next highest ranked skater by the score margin between a 4Lz and 4Lz< in your example. This impacts not only medals but spots for Worlds/Olympics, GP assignments, etc. When the strictness has varied as much as it has this season, it also makes it difficult for federations to score their national events and send the most competitive skaters to Worlds. Do they let close calls pass? If they watched the GP events, the answer would be no. If they watched Worlds, they'd probably think differently.

Try the horse show world. Judging is equally political and based on reputation.

I am equally frustrated that judges appear to be either uneducated or lacking the guts to give Alina Z low SS scores.

drivingmissdaisy said:

This is a great example that shows how meaningfully one call can affect the scores.

Click to expand...

It can't be helped. In every sport there are borderline calls that could go either way and that have a great effect on the outcome of the game. Was the soccer player tripped, or did he flop?

Every time I read this thread title I think of this song

Mathman said:

It can't be helped. In every sport there are borderline calls that could go either way and that have a great effect on the outcome of the game. Was the soccer player tripped, or did he flop?

Click to expand...

It should still be addressed. You have competitions where most skaters get calls, and others where almost no one does. The ISU made the decision before the season to be more strict on under rotation calls, and that sort of evaporated over the course of the season. Either that, or everyone solved their rotation problems.

tothepointe said:

In general judges do judge what they see. Which is not always the same as what your seeing on the telly. It's amazing how different a performance can look in person without the tight camera angles.

Also people forget that judges do have stylistic preferences and there is disagreement over what technique is the "best".

Click to expand...

Partially. There are also isu simulations which provide concrete guidelines as to how jumps should be executed. Its not fair the A skater to be called on executing a jump improperly but skater B is a mega fan favorite who rarely gets called. It's esp awkward when I tyry to explain what's wrong with skater B's jumps, and the person asks, Well, why don't the judges call it? They know how to judge!"


I think everyone should be called on their mistakes even if they're one of my favorite skaters.

sinnerspinner said:

Partially. There are also isu simulations which provide concrete guidelines as to how jumps should be executed. Its not fair the A skater to be called on executing a jump improperly but skater B is a mega fan favorite who rarely gets called. It's esp awkward when I tyry to explain what's wrong with skater B's jumps, and the person asks, Well, why don't the judges call it? They know how to judge!"

Click to expand...

Even the commentators rarely express disagreement with what the tech panel decides. The same commentator could look at the same jump and express reactions varying from "it was clearly underrotated" to "the jump was all the way around" depending on what the panel decides.

Are we insinuating that ISU judging is fair lol?

drivingmissdaisy said:

Even the commentators rarely express disagreement with what the tech panel decides. The same commentator could look at the same jump and express reactions varying from "it was clearly underrotated" to "the jump was all the way around" depending on what the panel decides.

Click to expand...

I would say that the commentators often say this independently of what the tech panel decides.

Johnny Weir is especially willing to offer an opinion before the review of a jump has been done. He will say either, "this was clearly under-rotated" or else, if it is not so clear, "this will be reviewed and we will have to wait and see whether the score holds up or whether there is a deduction."

drivingmissdaisy said:

The ISU made the decision before the season to be more strict on under rotation calls, and that sort of evaporated over the course of the season. Either that, or everyone solved their rotation problems.

Click to expand...

I think (but I can't read the ISU's mind) that they do start out the season being tough and then gradually lighten up as the big end-of-the-season championships get closer.

I also think that skaters do work hard on their rotation issues.

Mathman said:

I think (but I can't read the ISU's mind) that they do start out the season being tough and then gradually lighten up as the big end-of-the-season championships get closer.

Click to expand...

This seems to have been the trend, but it's just odd this particular year because the ISU made a decision to define full rotation in a stricter way. I get that the ISU would rather see record scores at Worlds/Olympics than at a Senior B, but there was effectively no discernible change in how rotation was judged at 2019 Worlds than at previous big events despite the rule change.