Judges & Referees Webinar for GOE +5 to -5

[qwerty]

I wonder if it was ever a thought to go gymnastics style, where you start with a "0 GOE", and then deduct from the base value. No bonuses.

 

[gkelly]

I wonder if it was ever a thought to go gymnastics style, where you start with a "0 GOE", and then deduct from the base value. No bonuses.

Well, 6.0-era short program elements were scored with deductions only.

There is no maximum perfect standard for individual skating elements. Even if you imagine the best possible execution of an element and find examples of skaters who can achieve what you imagine, it would always be possible for someone to take it a step further and do it even better -- in multiple different ways.

With 6.0, the ways that skaters might do an element better than simply flawless would be rewarded in the base value and/or the second mark.

With IJS element scoring, the idea was to build the rewards for excellence in individual elements into the scores for each element.

What would be the value of scoring a perfectly good but unremarkable element with a negative score just because someone else might come along and do it remarkably?

And if you set the standard for the non-negative score low enough that all top skaters can achieve it, how do you distinguish among them?

 

[Andrea82]

Single webinar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN4RFeiuGn8

Pair webinar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLxv9NeuLXM

yes, they are using current skaters as examples
I've started to watch Pair and the examples for Lifts positive bullets are Laura Barquero/Aritz Maestu, Duskova/Bidar, Della Monica/Guarise, Denney/Frazier, James/Cipres and Marchei/Hotarek.

In the Single webinar, a lion suddenly appears before the step sequences features!
Skaters used for examples: Hanyu, Fernandez, Medvedeva, Zagitova, Osmond, Myahara, Higuchi, Kostner, Kolyada, Ge, both Hendrickx siblings, Giada Russo, Rizzo, Brezina, Messing, Rippon and Chan.

No video examples for the negative features.

 

[Tavi...]

Thanks for posting those! I watched the singles one. All the examples were drawn from Worlds and the Olympics, and only examples of the +GOE bullets were shown. Not surprisingly, Yuzuru, Patrick, Evgenia, Satoko, and Carolina were used for some elements - but so were Hendrickx, Ge, Brezina, Adam Rippon, and Keegan Messing, among others.

It was not a particularly scintillating presentation , but the main points were pretty clear: these are guidelines, not rules (surprise!); the examples illustrate the best possible execution of each bullet point, but you can still award that bullet point for someone who doesn’t execute it quite that well; the system isn’t that different from the old one, it’s just intended to make it possible to distinguish different levels of performance better.

Listening to them, it was easy to see why some of us get frustrated: we want clear rules so that no skater ever gets the “wrong” score, but the ISU has built subjectivity into the scoring system.

 

[xeyra]

Basically, just keep doling out GOE the way you feel like, same old same old, only now with more range!

 

[Old Cat Lady]

Single webinar
Skaters used for examples: Hanyu, Fernandez, Medvedeva, Zagitova, Osmond, Myahara, Higuchi, Kostner, Kolyada, Ge, both Hendrickx siblings, Giada Russo, Rizzo, Brezina, Messing, Rippon and Chan.

That webinar was rather underwhelming. I stupidly thought that these would be really in depth and clear up the questions I had about the system. What it did show reaffirmed what I already suspected so at least I feel like I'm on the right track.

I wish they used a combo as an example. as far as the core bullets, I think it's the hardest element to judge due to having to apply the bullets to the second jump when the second jump is naturally going to be smaller. When I was judging, I almost never gave beyond +3 and I felt a lot of combos got underscored due to getting double penalized from the same small flaw not fulfilling a core bullet and getting deductions from negative GOE, which would bring an otherwise great combo down from +4 or 5 down to around +1.

I'm still confused about the "element matches the music" bullet. Medvedeva jumps to both an accent to the music and uses an arm flourish on the jump. I still don't know if people are supposed to get credit as long as the element is placed somewhere that makes sense for the music or if they need to do something special with the element itself to get credit. The former means almost everything from top skaters get credit and the latter means almost nothing gets credit. It would be helpful if they also discussed exactly why the examples they showed were chosen to represent that bullet.

ISU seemed to have limited to using the same skater for only 2 bullet examples. What I think is interesting are the top skaters that didn't get used for any examples.

but the main points were pretty clear: these are guidelines, not rules (surprise!); the examples illustrate the best possible execution of each bullet point, but you can still award that bullet point for someone who doesn’t execute it quite that well; the system isn’t that different from the old one, it’s just intended to make it possible to distinguish different levels of performance better.

Listening to them, it was easy to see why some of us get frustrated: we want clear rules so that no skater ever gets the “wrong” score, but the ISU has built subjectivity into the scoring system.

Given that the ISU doesn't seem to want to go to the obvious solutions to the real problems (stronger penalties, split panels for components, independent judging panel), I would agree with most that the system should err on the side of caution and objectivity, however, I do understand the reasoning behind it. When I was judging old programs, there were so many incidents where there were significant differences in quality yet the elements got the same score if you strictly followed the bullets - and in some incidents, especially in spins, I thought the better spin actually got a lower score.

 

[chopinskate]

I know I am expecting far too much out of the ISU to have a semblance of logic, but why do jumps have "compuslory" bullets, if they are still just "guidelines"? Do they expect the judges to simultaneously use these just as "guidelines" and still go through the "compulsory" bullets when grading jumps? Why do these videos exist if they're just "guidelines"? Who cares? Can't the judges just give +5s to whatever they want if these are just "guidelines"? How do these videos help anyone? What information did the skaters gain? I didn't even think the "compuslory" bullet solution was good or even well-thought, but this is just about the most useless thing they have come out with. And this is the ISU. The uselessness was already at infinity. They adopted a new number system just to label themselves with a new level of uselessness.

 

[Eclair]

I know I am expecting far too much out of the ISU to have a semblance of logic, but why do jumps have "compuslory" bullets, if they are still just "guidelines"? Do they expect the judges to simultaneously use these just as "guidelines" and still go through the "compulsory" bullets when grading jumps? Why do these videos exist if they're just "guidelines"? Who cares? Can't the judges just give +5s to whatever they want if these are just "guidelines"? How do these videos help anyone? What information did the skaters gain? I didn't even think the "compuslory" bullet solution was good or even well-thought, but this is just about the most useless thing they have come out with. And this is the ISU. The uselessness was already at infinity. They adopted a new number system just to label themselves with a new level of uselessness.

well it's a major rule change and they have to notify the judges that and I quote Fabio biancetti here:

'So, basically, I want to recommend all judges, don't be afraid, it is absolutely like before (...)'.

otherwise they might make the mistake to assume they have to change the way they were judging ...

 

[Andrea82]

Ice Dance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AqiB3nakkQ

 

[chopinskate]

well it's a major rule change and they have to notify the judges that and I quote Fabio biancetti here:

otherwise they might make the mistake to assume they have to change the way they were judging ...

Cool. Can't wait.

Given that the ISU doesn't seem to want to go to the obvious solutions to the real problems (stronger penalties, split panels for components, independent judging panel), I would agree with most that the system should err on the side of caution and objectivity, however, I do understand the reasoning behind it. When I was judging old programs, there were so many incidents where there were significant differences in quality yet the elements got the same score if you strictly followed the bullets - and in some incidents, especially in spins, I thought the better spin actually got a lower score.

The compulsory bullets are bogus. The judges should have a better list of bullets to grade with, but the maximum GOE should be reserved only for the elements that are truly some of the best ever. The judges should be able to exercise their judgement, but it's utterly foolish that they proposed "compulsory" bullets and then go right ahead and say they don't even need to be followed. Why bother proposing anything like that at all?

 

[Eclair]

Ice Dance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AqiB3nakkQ

skaters are getting better and we need more marks to evaluate the better and better elements.

translation: we gave maximum GOE and PCS to mediocre performances and now need to be able to give out higher marks to really excellent performances.

apart from that I really enjoy the ice dance video way more than the single and pair's video. Gordon-Poltorak is funny and expresses herself clearly. And most important, she gives clear answers. No it's just a guideline nonsense.

Instead, clear instructions: if you don't have creativity in this element, you absolutely cannot get more than 0 in GOE. If you fall once, then it must be a -2. If both partners fall, it must be -4. And so on.

Have not finished watching it yet but hopefully it will stay as clear and entertaining as it is now.

 

[Andrea82]

In the Ice Dance webinar they adopted a different system for examples. They show the whole element and then they go through both positive and negative bullets and at the end they show the GOE they would give.
They start from a couple from, I think, the Open of Andorra to show a 0 GOE dance lift.

Virtue/Moir's twizzle from Olympics FD should be +3.
+4 for Green/Green's twizzles
Gilles/Poirier's choreographic lift in Olympic FD as an example of +5

Loboda/Drozd used to show a - 2 set of twizzles
Manta/Johnson's spin at Nebelhorn used for the -3 example
Muramoto/Reed's Step Sequence in Team Event used as example for a -4
"the worst of the worst. A -5"....example is a team I don't know from Lubjana Junior GP

apart from that I really enjoy the ice dance video way more than the single and pair's video. .

I agree, it is clearer and more useful.

 

[cohen-esque]

In the Ice Dance webinar they adopted a different system for examples. They show the whole element and then they go through both positive and negative bullets and at the end they show the GOE they would give

They start from a couple from, I think, the Open of Andorra to show a 0 GOE dance lift.

Virtue/Moir's twizzle from Olympics FD should be +3.
+4 for Green/Green's twizzles
Gilles/Poirier's choreographic lift in Olympic FD as an example of +5

Loboda/Drozd used to show a - 2 set of twizzles
Manta/Johnson's spin at Nebelhorn used for the -3 example
Muramoto/Reed's Step Sequence in Team Event used as example for a -4
"the worst of the worst. A -5"....example is a team I don't know from Lubjana Junior GP

I quite liked the ice dance seminar. It’s the discipline I know the least about and they made the effort to be clear and informative. Their examples actually make some sense.

Although I feel like I remember V/Ms twizzles earlier being used as an example of an easy +5...

And while scoring inflation is a big issue I also genuinely feel like the ice dancing field has gotten better.

 

[Andrea82]

I quite liked the ice dance seminar. It’s the discipline I know the least about and they made the effort to be clear and informative. Their examples actually make some sense.

Although I feel like I remember V/Ms twizzles earlier being used as an example of an easy +5...

And while scoring inflation is a big issue I also genuinely feel like the ice dancing field has gotten better.

yes, I also recall V/M being used for +5 at the Technical Committee Meeting with coaches held in Milan.
Now after they showed the video, they said something like "at first you say wow, it is a +5. There are all positive features, but there was a negative feature (being more than 2 arms apart). So it can't go over +3".

 

[cohen-esque]

yes, I also recall V/M being used for +5 at the Technical Committee Meeting with coaches held in Milan.
Now after they showed the video, they said something like "at first you say wow, it is a +5. There are all positive features, but there was a negative feature (being more than 2 arms apart). So it can't go over +3".

I actually also wonder if might be from the team event? There’s a photographer missing from the boards and they seem further apart than in the Individual video.

I didn’t really agree that Piper and Paul’s Choreo Lift was “effortless” and they counted that as a double feature...

 

[mau]

Single webinar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN4RFeiuGn8

Pair webinar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLxv9NeuLXM

yes, they are using current skaters as examples
I've started to watch Pair and the examples for Lifts positive bullets are Laura Barquero/Aritz Maestu, Duskova/Bidar, Della Monica/Guarise, Denney/Frazier, James/Cipres and Marchei/Hotarek.

In the Single webinar, a lion suddenly appears before the step sequences features!
Skaters used for examples: Hanyu, Fernandez, Medvedeva, Zagitova, Osmond, Myahara, Higuchi, Kostner, Kolyada, Ge, both Hendrickx siblings, Giada Russo, Rizzo, Brezina, Messing, Rippon and Chan.

No video examples for the negative features.

What’s funny about they using Zagi’s ChSq as an example is that the video lasts until her Ina Bauer, but in the competition the tech panel marks her ChSq before she does the Ina Bauer. It makes me wonder how long a ChSq should last.

 

[Spirals for Miles]

In the Ice Dance webinar they adopted a different system for examples. They show the whole element and then they go through both positive and negative bullets and at the end they show the GOE they would give. I agree, it is clearer and more useful.

They start from a couple from, I think, the Open of Andorra to show a 0 GOE dance lift.

Virtue/Moir's twizzle from Olympics FD should be +3.
+4 for Green/Green's twizzles
Gilles/Poirier's choreographic lift in Olympic FD as an example of +5

Loboda/Drozd used to show a - 2 set of twizzles
Manta/Johnson's spin at Nebelhorn used for the -3 example
Muramoto/Reed's Step Sequence in Team Event used as example for a -4
"the worst of the worst. A -5"....example is a team I don't know from Lubjana Junior GP

Did they mention the Shibs' twizzles?
Also... I would hate to be the team that got shown as an example for -5...

 

[VIETgrlTerifa]

yes, I also recall V/M being used for +5 at the Technical Committee Meeting with coaches held in Milan.
Now after they showed the video, they said something like "at first you say wow, it is a +5. There are all positive features, but there was a negative feature (being more than 2 arms apart). So it can't go over +3".

Yeah, it was them and the Shibs' twizzles that were used as examples as a +5. It's nice to know that if any element has at least one negative feature, then it doesn't matter how many positive features a team collects, it cannot be above a +3.

 

[Mista Ekko]

 

[4everchan]

i found those videos informative. thanks for sharing