FFKKR appealed to ISU over inconsistency in judging at the GP stages

[Mishaminion]

That is the question, though. Do we really have opinions and ideas about how to do it?

Or is it just the whining part?

70% seems to be the whining lol... I say that jokingly.

I want stricter judging for everyone, and hope we get it but can't stand the complaining when someone is called and there's an immediate backlash against it regardless of who else was or wasn't called.

"Omg [insert skater name] has never had a call on that before!!! How dare they!"

 

[Mathman]

By the way, I seem to be way behind the times. Who is this Kogan? What happened to our fearless leader, Valentine Piseev?

 

[[email protected]]

To me, all this is a big yawn. We want better judging. I want to be rich. People in Hell want ice water.

Where are the actual proposals for how to accomplish these goals, besides Mr. Kogan "really hoping"?

"real hoping" is just the first step, isn't it obvious? It was the statement that if so far tech people could do whatever they want and be accountable to no one they are not doing it in vacuum. So, it is just drawing the attention. If in Moscow we revert to "within the usual variance" thing this will die down at this step for now. Yes, it is the judged sport and it is accepted before some lines are crossed.

The second step, if the started trend continues, I think, will be coming out with the evidence of the blatant inconsistency. And it won't be KK's style idiotic comparisons of the worst lutz by Anna with the best lutz by Boyang. It will be something like the uncalled UR on 3T by Satoko vs. less eggregious but called UR by Sofia by the same tech team during the same competition. The camera work during CoC was at times just perfect. And after this there will be a question: how can we make TP accountable for their decisions?

The third step will be exactly those suggestions. The easiest one will be the requirement to share the data supporting all edge and UR calls that the TP made. A bit more difficult but still real second one will be the same requirement regarding reduced levels for StSq and spins. Much more difficult will be the accountability for the unmade calls. Like from the picture it was quite obvious to me that Amber Glenn's flip edge was flat. No edge call was made. The TP has the classical excuse that they had a different camera angle. Saying that I assume that this argument will be much weaker for URs than for edges. No matter what the camera angle is we can position the blade +-10 degrees vs. the boards. Satoko had at least 150 degrees of underotation on 3T. That is way more than 90 degrees and cannot be explained by any camera angle. So that it was a mistake. I (and the FFKR) would like to know why this mistake was made and who is accountable for it.

In fact there is a clear disparity between judges and TP. Judges represent countries. The highest and the lowest personal scores are dismissed. Those judges who are too off the median are penalized. The tech panel are "ISU gods" beyond any control. This has to change.

 

[el henry]

To me, all this is a big yawn. We want better judging. I want to be rich. People in Hell want ice water.

Where are the actual proposals for how to accomplish these goals, besides Mr. Kogan "really hoping"?

....

:agree:

If someone wants to kvetch and moan about they "wuzrobbed", they kvetch and moan.

If they want real change, they make real proposals.

This "resolution" does nothing. Folks who think certain skaters were incorrectly scored will continue to think so. Folks who think they were correctly scored, are they going to change their mind? Oh, wow, the Russian Fed is unhappy with the calls. Gosh darn, my opinion just changed. Well, no Uh, of course they're unhappy, and, opinion change, not so much.

Window dressing......

 

[Andrea82]

" Those judges who are too off the median are penalized. The tech panel are "ISU gods" beyond any control. This has to change.

Assessement procedure is in place for the technical panel too.

From ISU regulations

If:
- the OAC members appointed to the competition (on site or
off site) and/or,
- the ISU President and/or,
- the ISU Council and/or,
- the respective Sports Director(s), and/or,
- the respective Technical Committee and/or,
- for decisions of the Technical Panel only: the serving Referee as per the outcome of the Judges Round Table Discussion (Judges or the Referee noticed some discrepancies),
believe that a decision by the Referee or by the Technical Panel (Technical Controller, Technical Specialists and Data & Replay Operators) or the conduct of the competition by the Referee may warrant an Assessment, they shall file a report to the Vice- President Figure Skating outlining this identified potential wrong decision or wrong conduct of the competition in consistent and detailed remarks with applicable Rules.

Upon receipt, the Vice-President Figure Skating shall inform the respective Technical Committee and shall send the report together with the relevant video recordings, if applicable, independently to four (4) Officials, selected by the Vice-President Figure Skating, for review at their residence. Each selected Official shall not be informed of the identity of the other selected Officials. The selected Officials must all be from different ISU Members and shall be as follows:
(i) for T echnical Panels: one (1) or two (2) ISU T echnical Controller(s) and one (1) or two (2) ISU Technical Specialist(s), for Referees: three (3) ISU Referees),
from a different ISU Member than the Skater(s) and Official(s) concerned
....
In case an Assessment involving the Technical Panel is warranted, the Vice-President Figure Skating shall check the video recordings including the audio records of the Technical Panel discussions in order to establish if such decision has been made as a majority or split decision of the Technical Panel or if the decision was due to an erroneous operation by the Data Operator or the Replay Operator.

If applicable, the Vice-President Figure Skating shall submit a detailed report to the ISU Council, which finally decides upon an Assessment.

Criteria for Assessments

Technical Controller

Assessment 1
i) report submitted late or incomplete (see paragraph 4);
ii) being part of the majority in a wrong decision of the Technical Panel involving a striking difference per Skater/Pair/Couple in a
Segment (see paragraph 3);
iii) not properly checking and confirming the data input performed
by the Data Operator (see paragraph 3);
iv) not attending the sufficient practice sessions (see paragraph 5).

Assessment 2
i) report submitted late or incomplete (see paragraph 4) after having received Assessment 1;
ii) being part of the majority in a wrong decision of the Technical Panel involving a striking difference per Skater/Pair/Couple in a Segment (see paragraph 3) after having received Assessment 1;
iii) not properly checking and confirming the data input performed by the Data Operators (see paragraph 3) after having received Assessment 1;
iv) not attending the sufficient practice sessions (see paragraph 5) after having received Assessment 1.
v) not or only partly attending the competition or official meetings (see paragraph 5).

etc until Assessment 4

Technical Specialists

Assessment 1
i) being part of the majority in a wrong decision of the Technical Panel involving a striking difference per Skater/Pair/Couple in a Segment (see paragraph 3);
ii) not attending the sufficient practice sessions or not or partly attending official meetings (see paragraph 5).

Assessment 2
i) being part of the majority in a wrong decision of the Technical Panel involving a striking difference per Skater/Pair/Couple in a Segment (see paragraph 3) after having received Assessment 1;
ii) not attending the sufficient practice sessions or official meetings (see paragraph 5) after having received Assessment 1.
iii) not or only partly attending the competition (see paragraph 5).


Assessment 2
i) being part of the majority in a wrong decision of the Technical Panel involving a striking difference per Skater/Pair/Couple in a Segment (see paragraph 3) after having received Assessment 1;
ii) not attending the sufficient practice sessions or official meetings (see paragraph 5) after having received Assessment 1.
iii) not or only partly attending the competition (see paragraph 5).

Assessment 3
i) being part of the majority in a wrong decision of the Technical Panel involving a striking difference per Skater/Pair/Couple in a Segment (see paragraph 3) after having received Assessment 2;
ii) being part of the majority in a wrong decision of the Technical Panel involving a difference of more than 4 points per Skater/Pair/Couple in a Segment (see paragraph 3);
iii) not attending the sufficient practice sessions or not or partly attending official meetings (see paragraph 5) after having received Assessment 2;

Assessment 4
i) being part of the majority in a wrong decision of the Technical Panel involving a striking difference per Skater/Pair/Couple in a Segment (see paragraph 3) after having received Assessment 3;
ii) being part of the majority in a wrong decision of the Technical Panel involving a difference of more than 4 points per Skater/Pair/Couple in a Segment (see paragraph 3) after having received Assessment 2 or 3;
iii) not attending the sufficient practice sessions or not or partly attending official meetings (see paragraph 5) after having received Assessment 3;
iv) not or only partly attending the competition (see paragraph 5) after having received Assessment 2 or 3.

When judges, referees, specialists, controllers and data operators hit Assessment 4 (each assessment is valid for 3 seasons), they are called for a meeting where they can try to refute one of the assessments or get demoted.

 

[Mishaminion]

"real hoping" is just the first step, isn't it obvious? It was the statement that if so far tech people could do whatever they want and be accountable to no one they are not doing it in vacuum. So, it is just drawing the attention. If in Moscow we revert to "within the usual variance" thing this will die down at this step for now. Yes, it is the judged sport and it is accepted before some lines are crossed.

The second step, if the started trend continues, I think, will be coming out with the evidence of the blatant inconsistency. And it won't be KK's style idiotic comparisons of the worst lutz by Anna with the best lutz by Boyang. It will be something like the uncalled UR on 3T by Satoko vs. less eggregious but called UR by Sofia by the same tech team during the same competition. The camera work during CoC was at times just perfect. And after this there will be a question: how can we make TP accountable for their decisions?

The third step will be exactly those suggestions. The easiest one will be the requirement to share the data supporting all edge and UR calls that the TP made. A bit more difficult but still real second one will be the same requirement regarding reduced levels for StSq and spins. Much more difficult will be the accountability for the unmade calls. Like from the picture it was quite obvious to me that Amber Glenn's flip edge was flat. No edge call was made. The TP has the classical excuse that they had a different camera angle. Saying that I assume that this argument will be much weaker for URs than for edges. No matter what the camera angle is we can position the blade +-10 degrees vs. the boards. Satoko had at least 150 degrees of underotation on 3T. That is way more than 90 degrees and cannot be explained by any camera angle. So that it was a mistake. I (and the FFKR) would like to know why this mistake was made and who is accountable for it.

In fact there is a clear disparity between judges and TP. Judges represent countries. The highest and the lowest personal scores are dismissed. Those judges who are too off the median are penalized. The tech panel are "ISU gods" beyond any control. This has to change.

The answer is obvious to me

Nobody is perfect

The judges and tech panel use their eyes to judge just like we do, sometimes they miss things, other times they might even get things wrong.

There are different opinions even now amongst fans on if the calls made or the calls not made were correct or not.
Some accept the edge/UR calls that were made are correct, others do not. Some see the URs or edge issues and argue for them and others do not and argue against them.


So basically, that is the issue you will have with judges and tech panels. That they are when you get down to it, exactly like all of us.

What does need to be done is more technology to assist them with their job.

Also I believe that the most difficult jumps are routinely scrutinised more thoroughly than most.

The quads, 3A and 3Lz-3L combos are particularly difficult, and thus more prone to error.

Yes I know Anna had all her lutzes called, but 3 were from that category of toughest elements. Loop combos in particular seem to get reviewed automatically.

 

[Miller]

What does need to be done is more technology to assist them with their job.

Well one easy, low tech way that would solve a lot of the problems is to have a second camera angle.

I would suggest having one camera look longways across one diagonal, and one looking across the other. That way you would cover the ice plus it would be particularly good for Flip and Lutz edges as you would be directly looking at the vast majority of them as they are typically done in the corners of the rink.

Then when it comes to reviews have one technical specialist looking at one angle, one at the other i.e. you've got 2 different people looking at the same time at the same thing from a different perspective (you might even have split screen technology with the cameras synced in time). Then if the specialists agree onto the next item, if not up to the technical controller for the final decision while the specialists get on with the next item.

 

[Mishaminion]

Sounds like a good start.

Instead of berating people for making mistakes, the first step should always be to help them to do their jobs. If their equipment is not good enough how do we expect them to get better at it?
I've worked in companies that were badly equipped for the jobs themselves and my ability to perform the tasks asked of me suffered because of it.

 

[Lunalovesskating]

New interview with A. Zhulin
https://m.sports.ru/amp/news/1080190483/?__twitter_impression=true

Some translation snippets:
"They are phenoms that everyone's afraid of. That's why now they came up with edges and will conjure up something else so that they can protect themselves."

"It'd be nice if Russians could also take part in history being made. For example, Asians could be banned from single skating. Or something similar. Would be interesting."

"I wouldn't be surprised if quad jumps were banned in the free skate too. They're all very smart after all - Americans, Canadians.They did come up with a therapeutic reasons for Norwegians, here they'll come up with something too."
.
.
.
Zhulin go to bed, you are speaking nonsense

"Invent edges" Where???
https://twitter.com/Fran_klymydear/status/1195091688714375169?s=20
_____________
Source of translation
https://twitter.com/harubauer/status/1195087231645626376?s=20

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

The judges and tech panel use their eyes to judge just like we do, sometimes they miss things, other times they might even get things wrong.

I really wish people would stop excusing this as if it’s just part of the sport we “need to accept”. If the tech panel gets it wrong there should be consequences and it should be documented. We can do better and we should expect better IMO. That’s a far better path and standard to set than just accepting poor judging as being a “normal” thing.

 

[Mishaminion]

I really wish people would stop excusing this as if it’s just part of the sport we “need to accept”. If the tech panel gets it wrong there should be consequences and it should be documented. We can do better and we should expect better IMO. That’s a far better path and standard to set than just accepting poor judging as being a “normal” thing.

I did not say we need to accept it, but perhaps do need to understand why it happens and treat these people as humans instead of holding them to impossible standards.

Mistakes do happen, nobody is perfect. To a degree we have to acknowledge that and find ways to help these people do their jobs the best possible way.

 

[surimi]

I really wish people would stop excusing this as if it’s just part of the sport we “need to accept”. If the tech panel gets it wrong there should be consequences and it should be documented. We can do better and we should expect better IMO. That’s a far better path and standard to set than just accepting poor judging as being a “normal” thing.

PMFJ, but who gets to decide that the tech panel got it wrong? Is there footage from the panel's cameras? Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I've heard that what they see is different from what audience see in slow mo. And I am not 100% sure but I believe I have heard a tech specialist who also does commenting, say that their shots are actually worse than some of the shots the TV viewers get, plus they have very little time to review them.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

I did not say we need to accept it, but perhaps do need to understand why it happens and treat these people as humans instead of holding them to impossible standards.

Mistakes do happen, nobody is perfect. To a degree we have to acknowledge that and find ways to help these people do their jobs the best possible way.

When a skater makes an error they open the door to be judged by the judges. I think if a judge or tech panel makes an error they in turn open the exact same door. I don’t nor have I ever expected perfect judges or perfect skaters but if an error is made then the door is open and people are free to draw their own conclusions. A pattern of errors is a cause of concern on both sides of the aisle IMO. Whether it’s a skater with chronic UR’s or ISU panels marking things inconsistently. YMMV

 

[icetug]

New interview with A. Zhulin


"It'd be nice if Russians could also take part in history being made. For example, Asians could be banned from single skating. Or something similar. Would be interesting."

Wait... Mr Zhulin hasn't noticed Russian ladies supremacy and the history they already made or simply considers only men as proper Russians/Russian skaters?:scratch:

 

[el henry]

Wait... Mr Zhulin hasn't noticed Russian ladies supremacy and the history they already made or simply considers only men as proper Russians/Russian skaters?:scratch:

If I were to guess, it appears as though Mr. Zhulin thinks he is being funny and sarcastic. Thinks being the operative word, as he is not succeeding.

I cannot read the original so I could be completely wrong about his intent. Perhaps it sounds less sour and whiny in Russian?

In any event, making a point through sarcasm is very difficult and in this case, sure to influence absolutely no one. It could be that he just wants to “preach to the choir”. Which is fine, but it’s an echo chamber and no points are made to the wider community

 

[Roast Toast]

Zhulin has truly lost his touch between this and the not-so-thinly-veiled homophobic comments about P/C. Does he think this will sway international judges? More to the point, how do you manage to sound so much like a sore loser while still winning every GP event? Losing that team event gold in PYC really stung, huh? This is what letting Medvedeva get away with a massive flutz for three years has led to.

 

[[email protected]]

the whole post

this procedure won't work because it requires some "serious ISU people" file an official complaint to vice-president figure skating. Have we ever had a precedent?

With judges the general public can make ISU do disciplinary things regarding judges. Anyone can perform a regression analysis - all the judges scores are open to the public and we know which judge is behind what scores. So that if a Russian judge has a very abnormal bias with regards to certain skaters any "concerned citizen" can both file a complaint and make their analysis public so that ISU will be forced to act (unless they don't do it on their own). With tech panels the procedure is quite behind the curtains.

 

[el henry]

I really wish people would stop excusing this as if it’s just part of the sport we “need to accept”. If the tech panel gets it wrong there should be consequences and it should be documented. We can do better and we should expect better IMO. That’s a far better path and standard to set than just accepting poor judging as being a “normal” thing.

But those are big “ifs” and an assumption that there was “poor” judging? I certainly don’t believe that there has been “poor judging” in the past GPs, so I am accepting nothing. So truly, with no consensus, how do we decide?

Outraged fans?
Aggrieved feds?
Coaches?
Goldenskate?

 

[MarkinBerkeley]

Well one easy, low tech way that would solve a lot of the problems is to have a second camera angle.

I would suggest having one camera look longways across one diagonal, and one looking across the other. That way you would cover the ice plus it would be particularly good for Flip and Lutz edges as you would be directly looking at the vast majority of them as they are typically done in the corners of the rink.

Then when it comes to reviews have one technical specialist looking at one angle, one at the other i.e. you've got 2 different people looking at the same time at the same thing from a different perspective (you might even have split screen technology with the cameras synced in time). Then if the specialists agree onto the next item, if not up to the technical controller for the final decision while the specialists get on with the next item.

Yes, 2 cameras would be a good idea.

 

[Mishaminion]

I was pleasantly surprised at the strictness but acknowledge it is not always consistent.

Russian ladies recieved calls but at the same time even they had some not even called. Alyona's first 3A in her IDF FS was just as underrotated as the one in her SP, and Alina's Loop combo was so short in rotation I'd have downgraded it, her blade was fully forward on landing