Dark figure skating gods, give me the protocols.
I don't think any of the skates today was anything worth standing up and waving in the k&c for, but I'm probably just bitter and cranky from all the skating today.
... what happened :shocked:
I think I just saw NoNameFace!!!
I don't understand all these elements with GOE ranges of -2 to +2. Why is there this confusion. If an element is average looking to begin with and not done error free, there really should be more negative GOE and not +2s.
Not really. If an element has more positives than negatives it will end up with positive GOE. And in the +5/-5 system one bullet point worth one GOE so its easier to stay in plus comparing to the +3/-3 system (where for +1 you needed to hit 2 bullets). It is not easy to get +4/+5 tho and for big mistakes you can go in minus even more. The problem for the judges is that is hard to see everything/count in real time, so 2 judge's scores per element/component don't count (the system is expecting these mistakes) but average of 7 marks (from 9 judges).
The curse of the French GP.
Many skaters were sacrificed so that Jason Brown's short program could live.
I understand that it's easier to get positive GOE in the +5 system. And I don't really expect judges to be adding up bullet points in their heads for every element in real-time. I'm assuming the GOE awarded are more comparative and not just strictly following the bullets.
Regardless, it doesn't explain why ranges like -2 to +2 for an element happen so often. In some cases, yes, there is a grey area where an element is so-so and you aren't quite sure what it should score. But in some cases it's obvious that an element is flawed and/or weak and there shouldn't be a huge range in GOE.
I don't understand all these elements with GOE ranges of -2 to +2. Why is there this confusion. If an element is average looking to begin with and not done error free, there really should be more negative GOE and not +2s.
There is even a -1 to +4, which just seems silly because James/Cipres certainly didn't do a -1 twist.
1. If a judge attempts to input a GOE value that is 2 full points off the next closest GOE value, have Clippy appear and cheerfully ask, “Is that your final answer?” Maybe force a replay of the element in question. If the judge wants to submit a GOE well outside established values regardless, they can, but because it’s been automatically flagged and they were forced to tell the system “Yes, I Really Mean To Do This,” no one can claim happy/slippery fingers later on. Accountability!
But I admit it would be very hard to implement real-time safeguards that don’t have the unintended effect of forcing more “corridor judging,” especially on PCS — but if you want scores to remain within a certain amount of acceptable deviation, you can’t just have a judges’ meeting after the event, as literal typos are just as valid to the average as any other input.