2018-19: New Season, New Rules, & Judging: Singles and Pairs

Mathman

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
At WTT SP Grassl was clearly robbed. 4Lo was obviously clean
https://youtu.be/up5BqFoqd5A?t=65 or another angle https://youtu.be/up5BqFoqd5A?t=287
but marked as UR http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1819/wtt2019/data0103.pdf
What a disgusting trend we have now with this so called "strict" UR rule when jumps URs in practice are judged just by snow from blades instead of actual landing curve. That, or we have biased panel there.

It is amazing to me that two people can look at the same videos, one sees something "obvious" but the other can't see it at all.

To me, Rizzo's landing looks wobbly and unclear on the first video and definitely under-rotated on the second.

Also, technically ideal Liza's 3A https://youtu.be/YqbxzoQU1KQ?t=56 getting less GOEs than halfturn prerotated Rika's 3A https://youtu.be/Osem0fAOXs8?t=55 is just :drama:
http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1819/wtt2019/data0203.pdf
And it's not the first time when Liza's perfect lutz or 3A are getting ridiculously low GOEs. What is it, conspiracy against her? :unsure:

On this one, Tuktamysheva's 3A is a beauty! :rock:

But, to me, so is Rika's. I don't see any pre-rotation at all. It looks perfectly forward to me.

I, for one, do not envy the judges their responsibility.
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
At WTT SP Grassl was clearly robbed. 4Lo was obviously clean
https://youtu.be/up5BqFoqd5A?t=65 or another angle https://youtu.be/up5BqFoqd5A?t=287
but marked as UR http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1819/wtt2019/data0103.pdf
What a disgusting trend we have now with this so called "strict" UR rule when jumps URs in practice are judged just by snow from blades instead of actual landing curve. That, or we have biased panel there.

Also, technically ideal Liza's 3A https://youtu.be/YqbxzoQU1KQ?t=56 getting less GOEs than halfturn prerotated Rika's 3A https://youtu.be/Osem0fAOXs8?t=55 is just :drama:
http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1819/wtt2019/data0203.pdf
And it's not the first time when Liza's perfect lutz or 3A are getting ridiculously low GOEs. What is it, conspiracy against her? :unsure:

Grassl I agree with that it should have been called as clean.

But Rika (+4 from me) vs. Liza (+2 from me) I have to disagree with. Rika's air position is on a bit of a lean, but otherwise that's perfect (I don't see the pre-rotation you're saying, not moreso than Liza has on hers). Liza's is more upright, but there is a lack of flow on the landing and it's definitely not what I would call "effortless". But the main differentiation for me is the almost entire circle of telegraphing Liza uses to set up for her 3A. Her 3A is so stalked, it needs to file a restraining order.
 

gizmo

On the Ice
Joined
Jun 13, 2018
Grassl I agree with that it should have been called as clean.

But Rika (+4 from me) vs. Liza (+2 from me) I have to disagree with. Rika's air position is on a bit of a lean, but otherwise that's perfect (I don't see the pre-rotation you're saying, not moreso than Liza has on hers). Liza's is more upright, but there is a lack of flow on the landing and it's definitely not what I would call "effortless". But the main differentiation for me is the almost entire circle of telegraphing Liza uses to set up for her 3A. Her 3A is so stalked, it needs to file a restraining order.

plus, other very obvious UR are not called for, look at Zhou's combination jump!

Agree with you re Rika vs Liza, I do think the prep time for Rika is much shorter hence looks much more effortless and Liza's took a lot of time to prepare for jump.
 

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be
Record Breaker
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
What has really bothered me about this +/-5 GOE system is that a skater with a slightly URd quad will get killed to the point that the jump is worth the same as a triple. I understand wanting to encourage quality but I would much rather see a slighly UR quad (Vincent) than an ok triple (Rizzo) as shown at SA.

Jumps that get a < call have never been scored correctly in this system. They shouldn't be automatically getting -GOE, they should just be treated like any other jump and scored on quality. The values for underrotated jumps should also be on more of a sliding scale (like 60% base value for doubles, 70% for triples, 80% for quads).

It's especially annoying when considering how close the margins can be. A 3.74 rotation quad and a 3.75 rotation quad are virtually impossible to tell apart when viewing in real-time, and the decision to give the < call or not ends up being a 5+ point differential, with the way things go now. That's way, way too much -- 0.01 degree of rotation in a program being worth the value of a whole other technical element or a sizable PCS difference.

If a jump is questionable on the rotation and decent quality overall, it should be getting +1 GOE with a < call, or 0 GOE with no call. It shouldn't be such a big swing of a jump going from +GOE and full credit, to -GOE and many points less base value, just on the whim of the tech panel.

"Proper" PCS scoring (a primarily subjective thing anyways) is never going to happen. We aren't going to see 6's across the board for any senior level skater at Worlds.

It can certainly happen, no need to be reductive. Look at the 2006 Olympics protocols. The majority of skaters were that low and many were down in the 5's. I'm not saying everything was judged great there, but there's nothing that should be stopping the judges from going very low or having a wide differential between "top" skaters, where applicable. The PCS have just kept increasing constantly, to the ridiculous point we're at now, where any high-ranked skater can get 9's.
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Problem is BOP that PCS scores were given the green light to increase into the 9's, maybe even in an effort to balance out TES.

The 2006 Olympics were better in that you barely saw any +3s. But I actually think the quality of elements as a whole have improved/gotten more difficult since then.

Dialing up PCS to 9's was a bit of a Pandora's box and I don't imagine a way to roll back the 9's given out for mediocre performances.

And some fans perpetuate that too. Some complain if their fave skater that's used to getting 9.5-10 makes a major error and is given 9's instead of 9.25s. :rolleye:
 

Mathman

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Jumps that get a < call have never been scored correctly in this system. They shouldn't be automatically getting -GOE, they should just be treated like any other jump and scored on quality. The values for underrotated jumps should also be on more of a sliding scale (like 60% base value for doubles, 70% for triples, 80% for quads).

It's especially annoying when considering how close the margins can be. A 3.74 rotation quad and a 3.75 rotation quad are virtually impossible to tell apart when viewing in real-time, and the decision to give the < call or not ends up being a 5+ point differential, with the way things go now.

I don't think this can be helped. In pole vaulting, if you jump 616 centimeters you win a prize. If you jump 615 centimeters and knock the bar off you get a get a zero, even though you have demonstrated a lot of skill and put forth a heroic effort.

To me, it is on the skaters. If you habitually under-rotate by 75 degrees, get to work and cut that down to 40 degrees. That puts the call in your own hands and not in the hands of the technical specialist.

As to scoring the GOE on quality, landing sideways and slithering about is a negative feature in terms of quality of the jump. It could get some positive bullets, too, though. It would make sense to eliminate the automatic -2 to -3 negative bullet and just go with the "poor landing position" bullet.
 
Last edited:

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
As to scoring the GOE on quality, landing sideways and slithering about is a negative feature in terms of quality of the jump. It could get some positive bullets, too, though. It would make sense to eliminate the automatic -2 to -3 negative bullet and just go with the poor landing position" bullet.

There is a difference between a poor landing position and a poor landing edge (I'm guessing that's what you mean by "slithering about"?).

A judge can penalize for either or both, but there's nothing automatic about it and the reductions can be balanced out by positive bullets, as you mentioned.
 

Mathman

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
^ I meant "automatic"in the sense that if you get a <, by that alone you start -2 to -3 points behind the eight ball that has to be made up by positive features just to get even.

To me, there is a little bit of a logic issue. If you look at the Scale of Values, it is clear that a triple Lutz is an entirely different jump from a 3Lz<. They are listed separately (in separate sections, even), they have different base values (and hence GOE points translate differently).

It seems weird to say that if you do a 3Lz< then under-rotaion is a negative feature for GOE. You did not do an under-rotated 3Lz<, you did a perfect textbook 3Lz<.

Same with a 3Lz-e. For better or worse, this is how the ISU has resolved the flutz issue. If you do a 3Lz-e, to find the base value look at the Scale of Values under the jump 3Lz-e (4.43). Don't look under the jump 3Lz (5.90) -- that's wrong.

Now for the GOE on your 3Lz-e. You can't give a negative bullet point for "wrong edge" -- you have done the correct edge for the jump that you were credited with. :scratch2:

Edit: If you should happen to make an edge mistake on your Lz-e, you should get a Lz-e-e, (base value 3.32) :) I am going to send this suggestion to Mr. Lakernik. :yes:
 
Last edited:

Mathman

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Well, that's one way of looking at. Not sure it's helpful.

It is! It is! (Minus the Lz-e-e part. ;) )

It gives the rationale for why errors should not be penalized twice, once in the base value and then a double whammy in the GOE. A compounded penalty for a single error.
 

Miller

Final Flight
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
^ I meant "automatic"in the sense that if you get a <, by that alone you start -2 to -3 points behind the eight ball that has to be made up by positive features just to get even.

To me, there is a little bit of a logic issue. If you look at the Scale of Values, it is clear that a triple Lutz is an entirely different jump from a 3Lz<. They are listed separately (in separate sections, even), they have different base values (and hence GOE points translate differently).

It seems weird to say that if you do a 3Lz< then under-rotaion is a negative feature for GOE. You did not do an under-rotated 3Lz<, you did a perfect textbook 3Lz<.

Same with a 3Lz-e.


Jumps that get a < call have never been scored correctly in this system. They shouldn't be automatically getting -GOE, they should just be treated like any other jump and scored on quality. The values for underrotated jumps should also be on more of a sliding scale (like 60% base value for doubles, 70% for triples, 80% for quads).

It's especially annoying when considering how close the margins can be. A 3.74 rotation quad and a 3.75 rotation quad are virtually impossible to tell apart when viewing in real-time, and the decision to give the < call or not ends up being a 5+ point differential, with the way things go now. That's way, way too much -- 0.01 degree of rotation in a program being worth the value of a whole other technical element or a sizable PCS difference.

Logically the way to solve this would be to have a lower BV for the 3Lz< than you have now, but not as big a reduction for the further GOE deduction.

However you need some sort of deduction possible because at the moment you can knock off -2 or -3 for the under-rotation and presumably this is so the judge can punish an under-rotation that is not quite a downgrade with a further -1 on top of the -2 that comes as standard for the under-rotation.

However there’s no need for the -2 really, you could just adjust the BV to take account of it, and then add the further -1 on top.

For example a 3Lz< has BV 4.43, but with -2 or -3 it takes it down to 3.54 or 3.10 respectively at which point you add in further deductions or positive features.

But if you had it as 3.54 in the first place you would only need an extra -1 where it applied.

At this point you could argue what’s the point because you’ve reached entirely the same result, but just by a different means.

However I would thought the difference of 0.44 between a jump that is bang on the quarter and one that barely avoids being a downgrade is way too small e.g. you get 5.90 for a fully rotated 3Lz, 3.54 effectively for one that is bang on the quarter, and 3.10 for one that barely avoids a downgrade.

I would have said something that gives more marks for the one that is bang on the quarter, but is exactly the same for the one that barely avoids the downgrade is more appropriate, plus it also addresses the argument that barely under-rotated jumps shouldn’t be punished as much.

Also I would say that any further GOE deduction should be based on the original Base Value of the element attempted, because being realistic that’s what the skater attempted, they didn’t really attempt a 3Lz< for example.

Hence if you did this you could ‘reward’ the barely under-rotated jump a bit more, plus positive features would also be rewarded more – negative ones would be punished more, but this probably wouldn’t be a bad thing, plus it wouldn’t make a huge amount of difference to the final figure e.g. each GOE deduction would now be worth 0.59 marks rather than 0.44.

To give some figures -

Currently 3Lz = 5.90, 3Lz< = 3.54 effectively with the -2, 3Lz< barely avoiding the downgrade = 3.10.

However if you had something like 3Lz< = 4.28 and then up to -2 at the original GOE of 0.59 per GOE you could have something like 4.28 = 3Lz< bang on the quarter, no further deductions, 3.69 = 3Lz< with a further -1 for an under-rotation somewhere in the middle between being bang on the quarter and just avoiding a downgrade, and the same 3.10 for a jump that barely avoids a downgrade.

Overall the skater would lose 1.62 marks for the UR bang on the quarter rather than the current 2.36, 2.21 for the one somewhere in the middle, and the same 2.80 for the one barely avoiding the downgrade. This would be a much more fairer ‘linear progression’ for various amounts of under-rotation, rather than the current deduction of 2.36 for the standard 3Lz<, and the 2.80 for the one that just avoids the downgrade.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
One approach would be simply not to show the rotation and edge calls to the judges.

If the technical panel calls <<, <, or e, the base value gets lowered, but judges don't know about it. (Maybe there should be a smaller base value reduction for the ! call, or maybe not.)

If a judge sees moderate or severe underrotation, or an incorrect or questionable edge, they should reduce the GOE accordingly.

For really blatant errors of these sorts, or with strict or eagle-eyed judges, the skater will be doubly penalized.

For subtler errors that require a review to confirm, judges might have seen nothing wrong and give no penalties for these errors. We just hope they don't award the "good takeoff and landing" positive bullet point.

So if an underrotated jump looks great to a judge in real time and they find several positive qualities to reward, it can get positive GOE to go along with lower base value.

If the tech panel determines that the underrotation was less than 90 degrees so they don't call it, the jump can get full base value but judges who saw some underrotation can lower their GOEs.

If judges have the ability to review elements on their own initiative, they make their own determinations. They might be aware of which elements the tech panel has reviewed, just not what they determined (same as with the leveled elements), so that might clue them in to which jumps they might want to review themselves.

Maybe the computer could lock out GOEs above +3 for ! and < calls and above +1 for jumps with both those calls or either << or e, or above -1 for two calls including << and/or e.

Judges wouldn't be informed exactly what the calls are, by they might figure it out if they are prevented from giving a high GOE to a jump that looked clean to their naked eyes, and might be prompted to review if time and video availability allow.
 

Mathman

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
^ This suggestion puts more responsibly on the judges and gives them more independence.

But I am also intrigued by Miller's approach. Suppose it were possible, perhaps by better use of technology, for the tech panel to be more precise and confident about the amount of under-roration. If the rules say that the GOE should be dinged by -2 to -3 for a < (90 degrees to 180 degrees short), presumably -2 means "closer to 90" and -3 means "closer to 180."

By this interpretation the present rules call for

0 to 45 degrees short, GOE = 0.
46 to 90 degrees, GOE = -1 (no call, but deficient in rotation at judges' discretion).
91 to 135 degrees short, GOE = -2 (<, but on the good side of the < range).
136 to 180 short, GOE = -3 (<, on the bad end of the range).
181 to 225 short, GOE = -3 (<<, on the good end).
226+, GOE = -4 (on the bad end of the << range.

Other negative and positive GOE bullets can also be applied, independent of these.

Taking into account also the reduction in base values, this works out to the following scores (BV+GOE) for a triple Lutz attempt, in increments of 45 degrees.

5.90 (100%)
5.31 (90%)
3.54 (60%)
2.48 (42%)
1.47 (25%)
1.26 (22%)

This could be smoothed out a little (especially the gap between 90% and 60% of full value) by making each successive value, say, 75% of the previous.

The next step would be to go full Miller. Just build these ratios into the base values and forget the GOE for URs altogether. (This depends on how much we trust the eyes of the tech panel and their new and improved rotation-measuring devices, of course.)
 
Last edited:

Mathman

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 21, 2003

Very interesting. To me, all of these Lutzes are OK-ish. Rika has the best take-off edge, but none of them match Yagudin (shown at the beginning).

It is not just the top six who got away with a questionable edge, though. There was not a single edge call on any Lutz or flip in the whole ladies LP. I am really quite firmly convinced that figure skating, in common with all sports, lightens up on penalty calls when the big end-of-the-season championships come along. The powers-that-be just don't want the championship to be decided by a controversial referee's call. If it is decided by a non-call, so be it -- at least it is won or lost by the athletes on the field of play, not by an official or judge butting in to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I remember back in the 1997-98 season. Tara Lipinski, the 1997 world champion, was criticized and marked down the whole next season for her flutz (although the breakdown of the scores was no so transparent under 6.0 scoring). Lipinski lost to Michelle Kwan (whose Lutz edge was not great, either) at Skate America and she lost to Laetitia Hubert at Trophee Lalique (who had an excellent Lutz as I recall). Tara did win the Grand Prix Final when Kwan did not compete due to a stress fracture in her foot, and Hubert withdrew, also with a foot injury IIRC.

By the time of the Olympics, though, all was forgiven.
 
Last edited:

Miller

Final Flight
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
One approach would be simply not to show the rotation and edge calls to the judges.

If the technical panel calls <<, <, or e, the base value gets lowered, but judges don't know about it. (Maybe there should be a smaller base value reduction for the ! call, or maybe not.)

If a judge sees moderate or severe underrotation, or an incorrect or questionable edge, they should reduce the GOE accordingly.

Funnily enough this approach should result in exactly the same result as what I'm proposing, the only difference is whether you do a review or not.

For example we're both reducing the BV to what we think is appropriate, then we're adding in a -1 or -2 deduction for jumps that are more obviously under-rotated.

In your case I think you're proposing adding in the -1 or -2 deduction you can get for a visible rotation that doesn't result in a sign, whereas in my case I'm adding in a -1 for a medium UR and -2 for one that just avoids a downgrade, the only difference is that mine is via review and yours is via clear visibility to the judges. However in both cases if it is not clearly under-rotated we just go with the reduced BV. In your case it's as called by the technical panel, in my case the judge looks at it and says it's bang on the quarter or only just under-rotated so no further deduction applies. Hence you end up with the same result.

The only real question is how much is a review or rather re-marking necessary. I would have thought URs are OK, but with edge calls it may be easier for skaters to hide these i.e. 'The Lutz Corner' so these may always need to be re-marked rather than just the tech panel saying it's an e and then adding in what the judge sees as visible. Also you've got the question of what happens with those jumps where you can get an e as well as a UR. It would be mighty odd to say to the judges we want you to re-mark the e side of it, but not the UR side, especially as you might get a UR as well, though of course I doubt anyone would have any objections if a judge said 'oh I missed that UR in real time, but can now see it in review so I'll add in an extra -1 or -2 on top of what I'm doing for the e call'.

Overall I would have thought it better to do the re-marking plus it might avoid some sort of controversy where a judge has clearly missed the UR in real-time - there was an example in a recent thread of a Vincent Zhou 4Lz that was virtually forwards if not exactly so, but the judges had given it 4.60 in GOE i.e. effectively +4's across the board. I could imagine a bit of controversy if the Tech Panel calls it < or even << in this case, but you've got judges giving it +4 or +5 which must have been the case. Better to use the technology if you've got it.
 

npavel

On the Ice
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
If the judges had done his job properly in edge calls, at last yeas worlds in the sp first and in the fs, the result and medals would have been different!
And with all the possibilities we have nowadays it should be possible to do the calls digitally and not on one (three judges opinion)
 
Top