- Joined
- Jan 27, 2014
Tuktamysheva 3T+3T: http://www.fisg.it/upload/result/4802/CSITA2018_Ladies_SP_Scores.pdf
Shoma Uno 3A+1Eu+3F: http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1819/gpcan2018/gpcan2018_Men_FS_Scores.pdf
2018-19: New Season, New Rules, & Judging: Singles and Pairs
- Thread starter gsk8
- Start date
Tuktamysheva 3T+3T: http://www.fisg.it/upload/result/4802/CSITA2018_Ladies_SP_Scores.pdf
Shoma Uno 3A+1Eu+3F: http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1819/gpcan2018/gpcan2018_Men_FS_Scores.pdf
Thank you for finding this.. I can see why those falls did not get -5 across the board since the jumps had some really good aspects to them, but -2 is definitely wrong and against the rules. I wonder if the ISU did anything about it.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2014
I do enjoy the new rules and judging system, but I REALLY am bummed that the one last vestige of fair, neutral, proper, unbiased calls -- the technical panel -- is even LESS empowered under the new system. I am REALLY frustrated with the dance judging. Stepanova/Bukin (who I love) go out and look completely stiff and uncomfortable in that Tango Romantica first section, to the point where they get a '<' call for an interruption of less than 4 beats. And it was a base level pattern at that. And what do the judges give it? Positive GOE. Only ONE of the nine judges (USA) gave them a negative GOE, and even she only went -1. They got a '<' call for the second section of the TR too, and still got all 2's and 3's.
The differences between the levels are JUST not that big a deal. Even the step sequences -- now there's just the one in the short and one in the free -- it used to be that that's where the rubber meets the road for the good teams and the GREAT teams. If you lost a level on a step sequence in the past, it was a lost of 1.5 points. If you lost a level on Twizzles, it was a full point. And it all came from the TECH PANEL. Now it's not a big deal -- only 0.5 difference every level for step sequences, and even less for twizzles, cause you get 2 separate calls now. Teams that are challenging for the world podium are out there doing MiSt2 or MiSt1, but when you only lose 0.5 points a level, and you get 3's and 4's from the (often blind) judges, then you still rack up 10 points or more.
Anyone remember the Olympics Short Dance? Papadakis and Cizeron skated a sloppy (for THEM!) short dance, with problems on Twizzles and Step Sequences. They got the call for Level 4 on the Twizzles, cause they technically did them, even if their spacing and their sync was way off. The judges were supposed to grade that. DID THEY? NO! under the old +3 system, they got 2-2-2-2-3-3-3-3-2. And not only that, but they beat a crisp and perfect Virtue and Moir in COMPONENTS (which is the LOL of the century for me). The reason that competition came down the way it did was SOLELY because the tech panel correctly called a level 3 Step Sequence on their pattern. They lost 1.5 points, and because of that were 1.7 points behind V/M after the SD.
But under this system? I guarantee you that Gabby and Guillaume would have won the Olympics under -5/+5. This system puts even more in the hands of the judges. The tech panel still calls the things that need to be called. But they have been effectively neutered. The scores can be wildly manipulated by the judges in the -5/+5 system, and the tech panel's calls don't mean what they used to.
I know some of you may have thought that they tech panel was not truly fair -- and I'll grant that no subjective system CAN be -- but I do think we can agree that the tech panels TRY to be fair, because they have to work together. At the very least, the tech panels are more fair and unbiased than the judges. I think that's evident.
The issue is the ISU, in it's wisdom, realized that by going with -5/+5, the scores could go up dramatically. So instead of leaving the spacing of the levels in dance where they were, and alter the factor for the PCS for ice dance; they decide to leave the factor the same, but reduce the numerical values associated with each level, and a consequence of that was each level got closer to each other. They did this so the TSS and the PCS are generally half and half.
What they SHOULD have done (and what I pray they do at the 2020 Congress) is realize their mistake, and set the levels back or closer to what they were, and just multiply by a different factor for PCS -- like it's NOT THAT HARD.
/rantOver
The differences between the levels are JUST not that big a deal. Even the step sequences -- now there's just the one in the short and one in the free -- it used to be that that's where the rubber meets the road for the good teams and the GREAT teams. If you lost a level on a step sequence in the past, it was a lost of 1.5 points. If you lost a level on Twizzles, it was a full point. And it all came from the TECH PANEL. Now it's not a big deal -- only 0.5 difference every level for step sequences, and even less for twizzles, cause you get 2 separate calls now. Teams that are challenging for the world podium are out there doing MiSt2 or MiSt1, but when you only lose 0.5 points a level, and you get 3's and 4's from the (often blind) judges, then you still rack up 10 points or more.
Anyone remember the Olympics Short Dance? Papadakis and Cizeron skated a sloppy (for THEM!) short dance, with problems on Twizzles and Step Sequences. They got the call for Level 4 on the Twizzles, cause they technically did them, even if their spacing and their sync was way off. The judges were supposed to grade that. DID THEY? NO! under the old +3 system, they got 2-2-2-2-3-3-3-3-2. And not only that, but they beat a crisp and perfect Virtue and Moir in COMPONENTS (which is the LOL of the century for me). The reason that competition came down the way it did was SOLELY because the tech panel correctly called a level 3 Step Sequence on their pattern. They lost 1.5 points, and because of that were 1.7 points behind V/M after the SD.
But under this system? I guarantee you that Gabby and Guillaume would have won the Olympics under -5/+5. This system puts even more in the hands of the judges. The tech panel still calls the things that need to be called. But they have been effectively neutered. The scores can be wildly manipulated by the judges in the -5/+5 system, and the tech panel's calls don't mean what they used to.
I know some of you may have thought that they tech panel was not truly fair -- and I'll grant that no subjective system CAN be -- but I do think we can agree that the tech panels TRY to be fair, because they have to work together. At the very least, the tech panels are more fair and unbiased than the judges. I think that's evident.
The issue is the ISU, in it's wisdom, realized that by going with -5/+5, the scores could go up dramatically. So instead of leaving the spacing of the levels in dance where they were, and alter the factor for the PCS for ice dance; they decide to leave the factor the same, but reduce the numerical values associated with each level, and a consequence of that was each level got closer to each other. They did this so the TSS and the PCS are generally half and half.
What they SHOULD have done (and what I pray they do at the 2020 Congress) is realize their mistake, and set the levels back or closer to what they were, and just multiply by a different factor for PCS -- like it's NOT THAT HARD.
/rantOver
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
lol
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
This might be because the first element in the combo was done well. Still not okay though, IMO. I've yet to see a -2 on a solo jump fall.
The ISU won't do anything for outliers. And these get cancelled anyways.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2N7AXQBDrk#t=3m55s
http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1819/gprus2018/gprus2018_Men_FS_Scores.pdf
(the first judge gave a +2 for that
; they also gave a -2 for the 3-jump series that clearly was a -3/-4 at the very best if you add up all the deductions in the combo).... edit: and before certain people react, I'm condemning the judge, not the skater.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Real talk. I love S/B, but that was outrageous judging, especially on their TR section 1. I know that it's a whole section, not just that part, but to me a well-done section with a major mistake should still score lower grade of execution that the same section performed only average or slightly above average. It's like when some skaters have to fight for +1 or +2 GOE with a clean jump because they're not popular, while under -5/+5 a popular skater can make a major error and be dropped down to a +2 with the judge citing "Oh, well, I was going to give them a +5 otherwise."
Especially in ice dance, this +5/-5 system can really affect the standings and "save" skaters with mistakes, which isn't right.
The spacing during one of P/C's Twizzles was the only noticeably "off" thing in that program. Beating a supposedly "clean" V/M on Components may be LOL of the century for you, or it may be that your basic literacy in reading movement is just that, basic.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
I think for the sake of the skater's health and over all physical safety with the way these skaters push themselves to do out do one another we can miss 30 seconds. It's not that much time really. Why not just enjoy watching the program and finesse of each skater?
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
This is an interesting post. I remember when figures were removed from competition. Sure it changed the way skating was judged forever and the out come of a competition to some degree. Perhaps over time we will see if there is any benefit to cutting the programs to 30 sec. less.
We are well though the season, now, and I miss the extra seconds of skating, so much! I've mourned the lost time at every competition, every skate (well, almost every skate). If skaters are stressed and many spectators are unhappy, then shame on the governing body for continuing to cater to TV networks.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2017
Inconsistent calls?
Before the +5 system, the ISU handbook states that a quarter or less under-rotation is considered okay. Taking a look at some of the ladies at the 2016 world, many were called when their pick clearly lands on and after the quarter mark. Curiously, some of their jumps in the SAME routine also land on the quarter mark but receive full credit. Am I missing something?
Additionally, TP give wiggle room. When a skater lands slightly under, ISU says to give the skater the advantage. Is that something the TP can ignore?
Before the +5 system, the ISU handbook states that a quarter or less under-rotation is considered okay. Taking a look at some of the ladies at the 2016 world, many were called when their pick clearly lands on and after the quarter mark. Curiously, some of their jumps in the SAME routine also land on the quarter mark but receive full credit. Am I missing something?
Additionally, TP give wiggle room. When a skater lands slightly under, ISU says to give the skater the advantage. Is that something the TP can ignore?
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2018
Welcome to figure skating. Many people feel TPs are inconsistent to the point of playing favourites. Whether or not that’s true is another issue entirely, but TPs being less than even-handed with calls has been a long-discussed topic.
Benefit of the doubt/“wiggle room” only applied prior to the start of this season, when a landing on the quarter-mark exactly was not required to be called as an under-rotation. The TP was supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the skater. As of this season, a landing on the quarter-mark is an under-rotation call, no debate.
The TP can only assess landings from one angle. We do not have any idea what their footage shows. Broadcast slo-mos may be of higher quality and more revealing than the footage the TP assesses, but the TP is limited to only one angle. This makes certain spots in the rink more of a blind spot than others (the corners on the judges’ side); it is more difficult for the TP to clearly capture the skater’s takeoff, which is why many skaters with known edge issues will place their problematic jump there. (There are other reasons, of course, related to the mechanics of jumping and how ice is divided during training sessions, but a corner of the rink on the judges’ side is more disguised than a corner opposite the judges.)
It is my understanding that it’s up to the TP to determine whether a jump’s landing is at the moment the toe-pick hits the ice or the moment the blade does. A smooth landing is supposed to begin on the pick with the rest of the blade following. (If a skater lands on the whole blade, it’s not an invalid landing, but it’s not optimal.) Some skaters have become adept at rotating on the toepick at landing to disguise a UR. I may be wrong. As far as I’m aware, there’s no language from ISU stating whether a landing begins on the pick or on the blade, which is one factour that can create inconsistency in UR calls.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2017
Wow. Fascinating. I always UR my doubles although it so completely obvious they are short. I wish ISU would state upfront that the TP should consider the pick or blade as the landing point. It completely confuses me why ISU refuses to make these things clear. It would make things so much more consistent. Such a simple action, yet they refuse to do it. Frustrating. Also, do you know why TP only get one angle for evaluating the landings? I cannot wrap my head around why the viewers get better angles yet the TP who has the crucial task of determining minute details of the jump only get one angle that may not be as good as what viewers get. Baffling...:scratch3:
Expense, probably. And logistics. It might be possible to add another camera for the important events, or to use the broadcast cameras as well at the events that are being broadcast. But then the feeds would need to be securely hooked into the tech panel's computer in a way that could be easily/quickly rewound to the necessary point in the feed, which might require an separate video replay operator for each feed.
None of this would be possible at events held in local rinks, or financially feasible for events that aren't more than breaking even for the organizers. But for the big championships the problems could probably be solved if the will were there.
It's more that the TP get a different angle. Sometimes it's better, sometimes it's worse.
At big events where networks work with multiple camera angles, they can show more than one angle in real time and in replays. But they don't do it for every jump, and the producers may not always choose to replay the same jumps that the tech panel is reviewing.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2018
I agree. But there’s a lot of terms that aren’t defined, such as what constitutes a “serious error” in a programme. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
First, ISU would have to negotiate with any broadcast networks present for access to their footage. Depending on the number of networks, you might have multiple angles of a jump, plus any close-ups for the highlight reel shown after the skate. It would take the TP a decent amount of time to locate all footage of an element in need of review, play the footage in regular speed and slo-mo, and then make a decision. You’d need several more members just to process the footage, and a decision on whether to allow the broadcast footage for jumps only or also for evaluating step sequences and spins (a turn that’s unclear in the TP’s footage might be shown in close-up in broadcast, after all).
Doing so would mean the ability of the TP to scrutinize elements isn’t standardized across events and that TPs become dependent on broadcast cameras. Grand Prix events and major competitions such as Worlds would have much more footage than many challenger series events — some challengers have cameras that don’t even capture the skater performing all elements. So higher-profile events would automatically have much stricter TPs than challenger events (let alone regional ones) simply due to access to broadcast footage, which would make scoring even more inconsistent across events and have real implications for records (PBs, SBs, world records).
I’m not sure broadcast footage is the answer. I’d rather see the TP place a second team on the other side of the rink to capture footage in order to eliminate the relative blind spots present on the judges’ side. And the change to the UR rule is a step is a good change in terms of consistency — how to handle URs from a scoring perspective is a separate debate, but the WC18 men’s short programme featured one of the most dubious UR calls I’ve ever seen and is a case study in how giving TPs more discretion in what to call creates situations in which the results aren’t transparent and possibly even unfair. (Short version: Boyang was given a UR call when he landed, at worst, exactly on the quarter-mark but it wasn’t a case of a universally strict panel, as identical and even more flagrantly UR landings went uncalled.)
This video is one of the better explainers I’ve seen on how TPs look at landings and shows how whether or not a landing is considered to begin at the toepick or the blade can be the difference between a UR call and a lack thereof (which I think is part of why Satoko Miyahara has the issues she does):
https://youtu.be/5OS5NlzWkLo
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2016
Just a side note to the new season and new rules: currently, Samarin (CS 3rd, GP 3rd+4th, Europeans 2nd) leads the men's ranking while Uno is 6th (CS 1st, GP 1st+1st, GPF 2nd), Chen is 10th (GP 1st+1st, GPF 1st), Hanyu is 14th (GP 1st+1st). Oh yeah, sounds about right. #smh
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
Thats because Europeans and Four continents worth more points than Challenger and Grand prix events, logically. When Chen, Hanyu and Uno get points from Four Continents they will be placed higher!
- Joined
- May 25, 2014
Hanyu is not listed for 4CCs.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
So, he may be placed lower in the ISU ranks than. He won Worlds the year before, so i'm not sure... But it is not good when you are not getting those points from ISU competitions... For example, I think both Yuna and Pluschenko lost Olympics because they were not competing in all those ISU events prior to Olympics. As a concequence they skated very early their short programs and they were awarded less than skaters who were ranked higher and scheduled to skate in the final groups....
- Joined
- May 25, 2014
Ah OK I see where you're coming from. Makes sense! :agree:
