Judges & Referees Webinar for GOE +5 to -5

[OS]

In reply to OS:

So you think it would be preferable for the ISU to make no effort to give Judges and Referees any explanation as to how +5 to -5 should be applied?

And preferable for every Judge and Referee to just randomly invent her/his own individual standards for +5 to -5?

Not preferable to me.

The webinar also is intended to be useful to Coaches and Skaters.

Would it be preferable for Coaches and Skaters to have no idea as to how to expect +5 to -5 will be applied?

Also not preferable to me.​

Oh I absolutely agree with you judges should get training and get qualified to ensure there's consistent accurate judging across the board. The more training - the higher quality of judging - the better!

But isn't it funny how ISU changed the rule first then start training judges later instead of the other way round? Surely such big change should involve training the judges, as well as choreographpers, coaches, skaters or the public to ensure everyone understand what is + and - 5 to a consistent standard before making such drastic score value changes?

For example, they can create a sample video of comparing all the +3s in the past, and then state which deserve +3 still vs +5 now with the new scale values.

 

[gkelly]

But isn't it a funny how ISU sort of changed the rule first then start training judges later instead of the other way round?

The proposal to change the scoring has been in the works for a while. The top-level officials have known about for years while working out the details. They can't train the rest of the judges until the details are finalized and made official at the ISU Congress. The almost-final version was published in an ISU communication a month or so earlier, but the actual training can't start until it's official.

All international judges have already been highly trained in how to judge skating including how to apply +3 to -3 GOEs. Now all judges have to be retrained on how to apply the new GOE rules, which is not starting from scratch but just making a few adjustments to their existing knowledge.

Surely such big change should involve training the judges, as well as choreographpers, coaches, skaters to ensure everyone understand what is + and - 5 to a consistent standard before making such drastic score value changes?

It's not that big a change compared to the switch from 6.0 to IJS, or even compared to the switch from the original version of the GOE guidelines that focused on "phases" of the element to the switch to bullet points about a decade ago. And there have already been tweaks to the bullet points during that decade. This is just a somewhat larger tweak to an existing procedure.

Changes to the scale of values and well-balanced program rules and to the tech panel calling guidelines happen every year and often have much bigger effects on how the skaters need to plan their programs to earn more points.

If layman can judge as well as the judges, then what is the point of judges?

Watching one webinar is much less training than international judges have gone through before reaching that status. It's less training than a local judge who is not even authorized to judge seniors and juniors at local competitions has already undergone. A layman who knows only what they know from reading the rules and watching one webinar will not be able to judge as well as those who have been skating and watching skating up close and judging skating and adapting to rule changes for years.

 

[chopinskate]

But, it does make me think of something I often wonder - why do some people feel the need to invent new words that few people understand when there are other ways of saying it that most people would understand? Is it just to make them feel superior?

Because people like short-cuts.

 

[largeman]

A webinar is for when you are in a profession where you get credit for attending seminars to keep your skills up to date. You log in to the webinar and then come back to your computer an hour later to turn it off. Voila!

Hey hey hey! What did we say about cynicism? :dev2:

 

[chopinskate]

Hey hey hey! What did we say about cynicism? :dev2:

Do it, and do it with pizzazz?

 

[Izabela]

A webinar is for when you are in a profession where you get credit for attending seminars to keep your skills up to date. You log in to the webinar and then come back to your computer an hour later to turn it off. Voila!

The most realistic description of webinar. (or am I the only lazy one here who does exactly that )

Anyways, I see no reason to criticize this move to be honest. It would be beneficial for all interested parties (read: fans) who sincerely want to know how the judges will apply the new GOE scale using the new guidelines.

(But ISU is really working hard to look transparent in their decision-making process this year )

 

[OS]

It's not that big a change compared to the switch from 6.0 to IJS, or even compared to the switch from the original version of the GOE guidelines that focused on "phases" of the element to the switch to bullet points about a decade ago. And there have already been tweaks to the bullet points during that decade. This is just a somewhat larger tweak to an existing procedure.

Changes to the scale of values and well-balanced program rules and to the tech panel calling guidelines to happen every year and often have much bigger effects on how the skaters need to plan their programs to earn more points.

Watching one webinar is much less training than international judges have gone through before reaching that status. It's less training than a local judge who is not even authorized to judge seniors and juniors at local competitions has already undergone. A layman who knows only what they know from reading the rules and watching one webinar will not be able to judge as well as those who have been skating and watching skating up close and judging skating and adapting to rule changes for years.

Well consider +5 vs + 3 works out 60% increase in general in GOEs overall, I'd say that is a pretty BIG change, especially in the SP. When you account for risks such as human error, or abuse, it can make a massive difference. Adding to federation games, probably for a mess is high. It is like watching a street car race where every driver has license and got experience, but without clear rules, plenty of bad driving, dangerous, even illegal driving can certainly be expected.

With great power comes great responsibilities... without establishing a general standard, there lacks public trust... it is like playing ping-pong without a net. Judges goes 'He Won!' Everyone shrugs and goes 'alright then'...

Of course, I was exaggerating when I mean 'layman', but you know what I mean Too many times I think some of the hardcore fans make better judges than actual judges. Sadly....

 

[ladyjane]

Delete remark.

 

[NymphyNymphy]

ISU setting themselves up for disaster. They release this video and the skating community will be shaking in their boots when the judges start handing out +5's like its candy to the top ladies.

 

[karne]

Well, I hope that they just don't use current skaters or skaters who've retired in the last year or two as examples.

 

[Spirals for Miles]

Well consider +5 vs + 3 works out 60% increase in general in GOEs overall, I'd say that is a pretty BIG change, especially in the SP. When you account for risks such as human error, or abuse, it can make a massive difference. Adding to federation games, probably for a mess is high. It is like watching a street car race where every driver has license and got experience, but without clear rules, plenty of bad driving, dangerous, even illegal driving can certainly be expected.

With great power comes great responsibilities... without establishing a general standard, there lacks public trust... it is like playing ping-pong without a net. Judges goes 'He Won!' Everyone shrugs and goes 'alright then'...

Of course, I was exaggerating when I mean 'layman', but you know what I mean Too many times I think some of the hardcore fans make better judges than actual judges. Sadly....

... how does the same "federations are biased! Russia rules figure skating!" affect the webinar?

 

[OS]

... how does the same "federations are biased! Russia rules figure skating!" affect the webinar?

? That was random. What are you on about? What has one thing got to do with another?

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

I think more of the controversy will arise on the negative side, such as the difference between -2 and -4, which can affect results just as much. The adjustment on the positive side was needed to differentiate the many good jumps that can earn one of three marks (+1, +2, +3). Five different negative marks might be too many for poorly executed jumps.

 

[gkelly]

Five different negative marks might be too many for poorly executed jumps.

Well, it allows elements with multiple errors to be penalized for all/more of them than when the lowest score available was -3. Even leaving out errors that also affect the base value, is it appropriate to distinguish between, say, a tiny telegraphed jump combination with a wobbly landing on the first jump and step out and hand down on the second, vs. a first jump that's just fine (but nothing special) but a step out and hand down on the second?

Or a flying spin with a weak fly and weak spin position that travels significantly and grinds to a halt after 4 revolutions vs. a poorly positioned spin with weak fly and loss of speed that manages to maintain a decent center and is held for 9 revolutions?

 

[andromache]

I think more of the controversy will arise on the negative side, such as the difference between -2 and -4, which can affect results just as much. The adjustment on the positive side was needed to differentiate the many good jumps that can earn one of three marks (+1, +2, +3). Five different negative marks might be too many for poorly executed jumps.

While I agree with your sentiment, I do think the system would've worked better from the beginning with more negative GOE than positive. Negative jump qualities (such as hand own, step out, or fall) are much more quantifiable and less qualitative than "big jump" versus "small jump," etc.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

While I agree with your sentiment, I do think the system would've worked better from the beginning with more negative GOE than positive. Negative jump qualities (such as hand own, step out, or fall) are much more quantifiable and less qualitative than "big jump" versus "small jump," etc.

I see what you're saying. I've always thought the baseline for a clean jump was +1, based on how judges have scored the element. Less than ideal jumps can score 0, -1, -2, -3, while exemplary jumps will get +2 or +3. While mistakes are quantifiable, I still think it's a lot of marks and I'm curious to see how they're used this season. However, for spins and footwork, as gkelly mentioned, that range of marks is probably better for capturing the wide range of quality we see.

 

[cohen-esque]

I see what you're saying. I've always thought the baseline for a clean jump was +1, based on how judges have scored the element. Less than ideal jumps can score 0, -1, -2, -3, while exemplary jumps will get +2 or +3. While mistakes are quantifiable, I still think it's a lot of marks and I'm curious to see how they're used this season.

I think people are overestimating what a clean jump looks like. There are top skaters getting +1 for incredibly meh jumps, true, but for the rest of the field, not so much. A “clean” jump without much height, and without much flow, and without any preceding steps or movements is rare at the top, but that’s what you see get 0 for lower-ranked skaters consistently. Clean, but completely unnoteworthy.

Meanwhile, I like the expanded range for errors. In fact... as much as I wish any and all falls were just a mandatory -5, I’m more okay with the possibility of them not being so under the +/- 5 than the +/-3 system. I mean, say an otherwise average jump has a scratchy landing— eh, oh well. Hand down? UR? ...Eehhh. Stepout? Flutz? Downgrade? :disagree:. Fall? Nopity-nope-nope-no. :dev2:

Attempt to save a scratchy landing on an under-rotated “!” flutz by wildly turning out before then stepping out and putting a hand down, then tripping over yourself and falling anyway? :hopelessness:

However, for spins and footwork, as gkelly mentioned, that range of marks is probably better for capturing the wide range of quality we see.

Well, if they ignore the actual bullets, yeah. But as they’re written... well, then just get 5 bullets, and I don’t think they’re really any more demanding. Less so, even, in some cases. I mean, you can basically do a “good” spin and get your five bullets for a +5. (You don’t even need to keep it well-centered! As long as it doesn’t travel too much.) How does that differentiate from an “excellent” spin?

Of course, in reality I suspect the judges will tend to magically find that the “good” spin somehow only hits 3 bullets and the “excellent” spin hits all five or six.

 

[Andrea82]

Well, I hope that they just don't use current skaters or skaters who've retired in the last year or two as examples.

At the Ice Dance Technical Committee meeting for coaches held in Milan during Worlds, they used recent teams (Virtue/Moir, Shibutani/Shibutani, Bobrova/Soloviev) to do new GOE examples. They showed some videos from PyeongChang and Alla Shekhovtsova was asking those present how many positive or negative features they saw, Halina Gordon-Poltorak was counting with her fingers.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Well, I hope that they just don't use current skaters or skaters who've retired in the last year or two as examples.

I agree. Especially current skaters - that would be grossly unfair and biased.

So I suppose we can expect the ISU to do just that. :sarcasm:

 

[Andrea82]

The first video about Synchronzied skating is up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovph8xFKiMg