- Joined
- Jan 10, 2014
Underrotated jumps and jumps with edge calls being 'derivatives' of fully rotated jumps
But seriously though, it's just spreadsheet math.
2018-2019 Season - New rules
- Thread starter enzofv
- Start date
Underrotated jumps and jumps with edge calls being 'derivatives' of fully rotated jumps
But seriously though, it's just spreadsheet math.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
I find new GOE scale much better explained in ice dance. Some implications of new scale are:
1) You get mandatory -5 with fall by both with serious errors and -4 with fall by both or many other errors (like stambles and loss control in steps, turns, holds, glide, errors in spacing, unision, in beat, style and character of the rythm). Fall by one or stumbles by both must end in negative final goe too. However, loss of balance or stumble by one or less number of other not so visible errors could end in final positive GOE (up to +3) if many other positive features are met.
2) There are features which worth double. Quality (correct, clean, sure edge, step, turn), deep edges and smooth/eforthless execution in dance patterns as innovative/creative element and smooth/efortless execution in required elements. For +5 GOE you need to have all double features in pattern like at least 1 of 2 double features in element. So non creative/innovative element could get +5 only if it hits all the other positive features.
3) You cant get +4 with one negative feature, all must be positives (7-8 of them). To get max +5 in dance patterns most chalenging is (after getting all of double features) to be in perfect unision and max utilize space/ice rink during pattern. To get +5 in required elements most chalenging will be to have innovative element and/or entry and exit on elements and maintained or accelerated speed during execution.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
thanks a lot for a break-down
Still, it's only on paper now and theoretical explanation and usage in practice for me are two different things...Judges probably will find a way to make a candy galore out of this.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2015
Pretty much. We should just call these the Nathan Chen rules.
It's kind of pathetic this is what they do to get him to win but .... especially as the impact to the entire sport is so horrid. Like, give the guy the gold medal in advance in 2022 and get USA off our freaking backs that way, but for heaven's sake, fix these idiocies and don't ruin the whole thing.
I still think the Russian ladies will be fine though. It'll be more tight but they should be able to work this.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
thanks a lot for a break-down
Still, it's only on paper now and theoretical explanation and usage in practice ftor me are two different things...Judges probably will find a way to make a candy galore out of this.
They were already testing it on Olympic programs and they said top dance teams deserved mostly +4 and +5 there, so
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2017
Do they use Exel at ISU?Underrotated jumps and jumps with edge calls being 'derivatives' of fully rotated jumps
But seriously though, it's just spreadsheet math.
- Joined
- May 17, 2017
At my previous place of work there was a granny who used sheet of paper and calculator first, after that she slowly typed the numbers into Excel tables.
So the answer is yes, they do use Excel at ISU
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2015
At my previous place of work there was a granny who used sheet of paper and calculator first, after that she slowly typed the numbers into Excel tables.
So the answer is yes, they do use Excel at ISU
Want to bet that granny wouldn't have made the 4A < mistake even while doing it that way? Sigh
- Joined
- May 17, 2017
Want to bet that granny wouldn't have made the 4A < mistake even while doing it that way? Sigh
I bet the chances of that granny to actually do 4A< are higher than ISU chances to make a proper set of rules
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
I would like to thank the ISU for being such fools that the GS posters can throw some quality shade at them.
Don't be TOO proud of yourselves, though, ISU members who might be reading this. The rules are still foolish.
Don't be TOO proud of yourselves, though, ISU members who might be reading this. The rules are still foolish.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2014
My guess is with the amount of data, in which they have to calculate both the BVs vertically, for < and/or e jumps, and the GOEs horizontally, by referencing the BVs, that they would do it in Excel.
The 4A and 4A< are added as extra rows in their respective tables, relative to the four tables right above them, which begin with 1A/1A< ; 2A/2A< and end with 2Lz/2Lz< and e ; 3Lz/3Lz< and e. Therefore, I think after adding the 4A row and entering the BV for it, they dragged and filled the formula to the 4A< BV cell from the 4Lz< and e BV cell right above, to calculate the original incorrect value because the factors for < and e is 0.6 rather that 0.75 for just <.
Nevertheless, before making a PDF of a document and publishing it, they should have checked more thoroughly.
That may have been a fan proposal but was not in the actual ISU proposals.
but looking at it now with +5/-5, it's just confusing and if I were a judge, I would have so many things running through my head in that second the jump goes that I would just kind of wing it by feeling.
There have essentially been 3 systems of applying GOE over the history of IJS.
In all versions, the negative GOEs have been very similar to the old 6.0 short program reductions.
6.0 never had any official system for rewarding quality.
In the original version of IJS ca. 2003-04, the elements were broken down into 4 phases (more for combination elements) and there were descriptions of how many phases needed to be OK (I forget the official word used), good, very good, or excellent/outstanding to earn +1, +2, or +3. To try to do that strictly according to the written rules/guidelines would require thinking about each phase separately then adding them up and remembering the specific wording of the guidelines, or checking a printout of the guidelines.
Then a few years later they changed to the bullet point system. There are eight bullet points for each kind of element, and the guidelines suggest 2 bullet points per +. So the judges need to remember (or check a printout of) 8 bullets times the number of different kinds of elements used in that discipline. And then decide whether it's appropriate to round up for an odd number.
With the new guidelines, there are only 6 bullet points for each kind of element and the guidelines say 1 bullet for each +. So that will be easier math. Judges who had already memorized the old bullets will have to relearn the new wordings, what is no longer explicitly rewarded and what is folded into another existing criterion. So there will be an adjustment period, but ultimately 6 is easier to memorize than 8 and 1 bullet = 1 plus is easier to calculate than ~2 bullets = 1 plus.
The only place it gets more complicated is with +4s and +5s, which not only require 4 or 5 bullets, respectively, but require that those 4 or 5 include all 3 of the most important bullets.
So if a skater has 4 or 5 bullets by including 2 or 3 of the non-boldfaced criteria, then they can only max out at +3. If they have all 3 of the non-boldfaced criteria but none of the boldfaced ones, they still get +3.
In general, I'd say the thought process has gotten more straightforward with each of the changes, not less so.
However, some judges might tend to think very systematically, consciously counting bullet points for every single element they see, and others might tend to perceive the elements more holistically, especially after they spend a few years counting bullet points and get very comfortable with their standard of, say, "That's what a +2 (or +4) spin looks like."
And of course when there are both positive and negative qualities judges need to decide how to add and subtract to come up with a final number. Or in some cases they need to decide, e.g., "That [landing position/spin position/edge quality/etc.] was not good, so I can't award the associated positive bullet point for good quality. But was it bad enough that I need to reduce for it and thus cancel out any good qualities I can reward for?"
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2018
I've been thinking about this for a while, but wouldn't it be better if judges just tick off the bullet points applicable to that element, instead of forcing them to mentally calculate? I think some posters mentioned this will take more time from the judges, but would it really? Especially since there are only 6 bullets now, and about 8 possible errors eligible for deductions, judges can tick off appropriate ones, then the computer programme can produce a total GOE score. Ticking boxes doesn't take long, and it would reduce maths processing time for the judges. If anything, it forces judges to evaluate elements by the guildelines, instead of going "Oh man, Hanyu just landed 4Lz, time to +3" or "6th quad from Chen, +3 for effort".
That is, of course, assuming the ISU even wants transparent and fair judging
I've been thinking about this for a while, but wouldn't it be better if judges just tick off the bullet points applicable to that element, instead of forcing them to mentally calculate? I think some posters mentioned this will take more time from the judges, but would it really? Especially since there are only 6 bullets now, and about 8 possible errors eligible for deductions, judges can tick off appropriate ones, then the computer programme can produce a total GOE score. Ticking boxes doesn't take long, and it would reduce maths processing time for the judges. If anything, it forces judges to evaluate elements by the guildelines, instead of going "Oh man, Hanyu just landed 4Lz, time to +3" or "6th quad from Chen, +3 for effort".
That is, of course, assuming the ISU even wants transparent and fair judging
I think it wouldnt take more time. I mean, right now, it is just 6 bullet points. It takes literally a few second to check 6 checkboxes.
I proposed it a few times, but a few people here on GS bashed it because "what if the jump checks only enough for a +2, but it is really great so judge should be able to still give it a +3". My guess is that how ISU thinks (IF ISU thinks).
Do you care to design what the judges' computer screen would look like to allow this while the event is in process?
Keep in mind often as soon as one element is finished the next one has begun and been called by the tech panel and input into the system to show up on the judges' screens, so there may often be more than one element waiting for the judges' input.
And meanwhile the judge needs to keep watching the skater, not the screen.
Here's an example of what it looks like now, with video. Smaller competitions sometimes use smaller screens without video.
It looks like this would be at the end of the program, after all the elements have been called and scored. In the middle of the program only the elements that have already been executed and called would show up for judges to score.
If you can figure out a better layout that would allow for judges to look at and tick all the possible positive and negative criteria for the element that just finished while not taking their eyes off the skater executing the next element, go for it!
Then give it a try with a number of test users to see if it's quicker.
And maybe discuss afterward to see if judges/test scorers using the tick-off system were better able to explain their scores than judges who used the existing layout and notes on paper where needed.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2018
I doubt the quad repetition rule passes. The pool of beneficiaries is too narrow.
The irony is that before I went to sleep every single skater FF thread I checked (some of the single skaters) felt the skater would be fine with the new SOV. This included Yuzuru's FF. So why do you think it will help Nathan more that Yuzuru?
