I agree with you, except that to me this is precisely why the “serious errors” shouldn’t be rigidly defined by a list of specific mistakes. (...). I would just prefer for “serious errors” to be defined by the idea of causing a noticeable disruption in the program, with what counts being up to the judges on a case-by-case basis. (...) I’m wary of listing the specific errors because, like I said above, I think there can be case-by-case variations, and I’m afraid that the judges would just use the examples as a checklist.
About the ‘case-by-case’ approach, I wonder if the tendency observed the most is to penalize
too hard or
too little. You’re afraid that judges will use it as a check list and miss the big picture, right? I think it's a valid point. I wonder if it's possible to do an analysis comparing the protocols before and after the implementation of the rule as a feedback to understand if it made a real impact or not in how the components are awarded in regards to flawed performances. The rule as it is tends to offer the judges the possibility to penalize more harshly flawed performances but since with the exception of the fall ridden ones where it should be obvious, the applicability of it for the rest is case-by-case, there isn't a guarantee that the end result will be the expected which is to reserve high 9's and 10's to completely clean performances. If the analysis shows that the overall tendency is to be more lenient or it didn't change anything, a more specific wording and a 'bullet point' approach surprisingly could be beneficial as it could encourage them to apply the rule, who knows? I’m just speculating.
(I do think that this includes literally all falls, though. You definitely aren’t skating your program while you’re splatted on the ice.)
Hey, some falls are just creative exits! Have you seen Keegan's?
jk
Maybe a word change to “fall(s) and “noticeably disruptive error(s)” would capture the idea that I think they’re going for more accurately, though.
Yes, it could make clearer the emphasis in 'disruption'.
I know English is not the first language of many ISU officials.) I think that often adding more language can just make things less clear, and add a level of confusion that wasn’t there before.
This is a good point. Do you work with judging? If so, what was the feeback about the definition as it is? Did you hear judges who aren't native english speakers misinterpret the rule as it is now?
I’m also afraid of adding more language to the books because of having been on the forums for a while. It makes great fodder for fan wars. We saw it hardcore with the Sochi scandal a few seasons ago, and with the exact wording you provided I can already envision the arguments: “I think those are just supposed to be read as possible examples, not strict rules?” “No, they’re clearly strict rules, so how dare two judges give them a 9.00! Everyone is corrupt and those two judges and also the other seven judges are all cheating and you’re a biased fan who refuses to see it!” In fact, we already saw some of this last season.)
I think the outrage is something inevitable, really.
We've seen it even in less judged sports. There's just degrees of it. With the current more vague definition it can happen also. For example fan nº 1 could look at a performance where most if not all jump elements had minor errors in the landinds, one forward landing, a few small step outs, the others hard but fought landings, and argue that it couldn't warrant high components since the sheer number of errors
do feel disruptive. "Why these judges gave it 9,75?? Please! How can a program with almost
no clean jumps receive almost 10?? You know, if it was
my favourite skater X it would be down to 8, the judges hate her/him. This is ridiculous!" Then fan nº 2 could reason that they were all 'small errors', the skater kept the quality of the components throughout the performance then
It wasn't disruptive. "The ISU says so, look, they didn't stop in the middle of the performance or fall, they never talk about step outs, hand down of whatever. Please, the judges ain't biased, those are
small errors, c'mon! It can have a 9.75! " Fan (1) says: "Well, ISU also says 'a number of small errors'
could be a disruptive. I say that they only use it for whoever they want!"
You can't avoid it. A more vague wording won't stop it. What one can do is to analyse protocols to see if the number high 9's/10's for flawed performances is less now, then it would be a more objective measure to see if we're going to the expected direction.
Well, it depends, like everything else. Personally, I think a well-timed pop on a crucial jumping pass can add a lot of excitement.
More seriously I think that to varying extents they can really take away from the impact of the program, so they could be "disruptive" in that sense.
I agree. I think
when the pop occurs also has an impact. I think pops, or any error actually, at the beginning of a performance don't have as much of an impact as the ones in the end, since by then you almost forgot they happened. Maybe they could discuss in future meetings about how the moment where an error occurs impact in the level of disruption.
