Judges Score Sheets are up...

[Doggygirl]

http://www.isufs.org/results/gpusa05/index.htm

Let the anlaysis begin!

DG

 

[Doggygirl]

Already have question for COP experts

I have not seen Joubert's SP. From the score sheets, he has a -1 deduction for a fall. I'm assuming he fell on a jump? He has negative GOE on 3 jumps (rough night I guess). But assuming the fall is on one of the jumps, isn't that supposed to be an automatic -3 GOE? None of the -GOE for jumps is -3.

Just curious..

DG

 

[Mathman]

On TV, it looked like Alissa did a clean 3Lz/3T, but it was downgraded to a 3/2 with a -1.40 GOE on top of that. I guess the second jump must have been under-rotated. Was anything else wrong with it?

One cool thing about the New Judging System is the idea of a "personal best." Skaters who do not have a realistic chance for the podium can still take something positive from the competition, as well as having an objective yardstick against which to measure their progress.

MM

 

[Mathman]

But on the other hand...

I thought Elena Sokolova's skate was the poster child for everything that's wrong with the New Judging System. She got 5 points for this, 4 points for that, 3 points for something else, and in the end it added up to enough to hold on to first place overall.

But still the performance amounted to nothing but a big bathroom break. If someone wins the Olympics with a skate like that (instead of a performance like Slutskaya's 2005 or Kwan's 2003 Worlds performance), I think the sport is in big trouble.

MM

 

[Rgirl]

On TV, it looked like Alissa did a clean 3Lz/3T, but it was downgraded to a 3/2 with a -1.40 GOE on top of that. I guess the second jump must have been under-rotated. Was anything else wrong with it?

One cool thing about the New Judging System is the idea of a "personal best." Skaters who do not have a realistic chance for the podium can still take something positive from the competition, as well as having an objective yardstick against which to measure their progress.

Watching it in slow motion, the second jump did look more than 1/4 turn underrotated, so I can understand the downgrade to a 3/2. But what I don't get is the -1.40 on the GOE. She's got a true Lutz--very deep outside edge on the Lutz takeoff, she had great height, and good run-out. Unless there's an automatic GOE deduction if there's a downgrade, with the reasoning being that if the skater underrotated the second triple and it was downgraded to a double, then she overrated the double, so she gets a deduction on the GOE--if that makes any sense. In other words, your inevitable catch-22. I don't know the COP well enough to even attempt a serious answer to that. HockeyFan, anybody know?

I agree that the COP gives skaters a yardstick by which to measure their progress and supposedly see where they need to improve. But if Elena got all those 4s and 3s for THAT performance, then IMO they are either giving her false confidence or else trying to make sure a Russian former World silver medalist wins Skate AMERICA (usually won by Michelle) over yet another American skater most people have never seen before. It's called the PGOE--the Political Grade of Execution.

I'm HOPING that another "cool" thing about the COP is that a coach can approach the ISU or whomever one does in case of questions and ask, "Why the -1.40 GOE on Czisny's 3Lutz/2toe?"

If a skate like Cupcakes sleepwalk wins the Olympics, they can put figure skating in a casket and have Speedy read the eulogy. I like the COP. But if the judges are going to apply it like this, it doesn't matter what judging system is used. They will just be reviving the spirit of Trixie Shuba. (Poor Trixie. She was probably just working hard to do what she did best--school figures.)

Rgirl

 

[Mathman]

It's called the PGOE--the Political Grade of Execution.

I like it! Pronounced Pee-go, right? As opposed to Go-pee, our reaction to snoozers like Julia Sebestyen's LP.

 

[Doggygirl]

On TV, it looked like Alissa did a clean 3Lz/3T, but it was downgraded to a 3/2 with a -1.40 GOE on top of that. I guess the second jump must have been under-rotated. Was anything else wrong with it?

MM

But wouldn't a "tripple" than was more than 1/4 under rotated, and hence called a double be an over-rotated, hence poorly executed double? I can see logic to that, but I have no idea if that was what actually caused the -GOE, or if the same has been consistently applied in other situations. We'll have to keep our eyes open on downgraded jumps to see.

I too wish Alissa's significantly more insiring FS relative to Sokolova would have been enough to win the gold medal. Unfortunately Alissa was 3rd in the short, and had the fall in the long, even though she still won the free skate.

I would venture to say though, that even back in the 6.0 days the outcome would probably not have been any different. A "newcomer" (unproven in international competition) with a fall against a former World Medalist? Who knows - that's all just speculation which means nothing. I will take COP over 6.0 even with flaws.

Good for Alissa on an inspiring performance and a silver GP medal. I hope she can skate at least this well next weekend!!

DG

 

[antmanb]

I'm HOPING that another "cool" thing about the COP is that a coach can approach the ISU or whomever one does in case of questions and ask, "Why the -1.40 GOE on Czisny's 3Lutz/2toe?"


Rgirl

I may be misremembering but i recall quite a lot of protesting from various boards and newsgroups about a rule that appeared in one of the communications the ISU issued that changed the rules for this year clearly saying that no skater or coach or federation can raise a query with regards to any of the details that appear in the protocols - queries can only be raised by the officials who actually attend the judges metings/review after the competitions...$peedy certainly is looking like he wants to avoid being made to justify the marks that are given not only by keeping the judging anonymous but also by using this rule to stop people from querying things. I think the rule was brought about as a result of a chinese skater (or perhaps it was achinese judge) who clearly showed there was a mistake made in entering the marks and someone protested about it after the evnt ad was told tough luck - you can't question it...ok so i'm paraphrasing but i'm hoping it jogs someone's memory cos mine (evidently!) is a bit sketchy!

Whether there are rules saying what can and can't be queried i'd like to see how $peedy reacts if there is a clear mistake in the marking of one of the podium and/or 4th,5th or 6th place finishers that could alter the results...he can say what he wants but if the media have astute people working for them someone will be able to cry foul! Perhaps his another new rule will be rushed in to say that the protocols for the Olympic events won't be published until three weeks after the Olympics are over!!!!!

Ant

 

[antmanb]

But wouldn't a "tripple" than was more than 1/4 under rotated, and hence called a double be an over-rotated, hence poorly executed double? I can see logic to that, but I have no idea if that was what actually caused the -GOE, or if the same has been consistently applied in other situations. We'll have to keep our eyes open on downgraded jumps to see.

DG

But do the Judges have time to even see what an element has been called? I don't know the logistics of it but if the judge has to wait for the caller to punch in the element before they punch in their mark surely it would be seconds before everything is done and the judge needs to be looking at the performance?

Either way i don't think deducting for an overrotated double is the cause for negative GOEs i think its the fact that an underotated jump that you don't fall on by definition has a scrapey landing because you have to either complete the rotation on the toe pick (which makes for a very scrapey landing) or at least on the edge itself which, like landing with too much toe, will (a) look awkward and give the jump a look of "error" and (b) will slow the skater down and impede the flow, check and posture out of the jump thus creating an error on the landing phases of the jump which could negate any other positive elements in the other phases.

(that's just a guess by the way!)

Ant

 

[Doggygirl]

But do the Judges have time to even see what an element has been called? I don't know the logistics of it but if the judge has to wait for the caller to punch in the element before they punch in their mark surely it would be seconds before everything is done and the judge needs to be looking at the performance?

Either way i don't think deducting for an overrotated double is the cause for negative GOEs i think its the fact that an underotated jump that you don't fall on by definition has a scrapey landing because you have to either complete the rotation on the toe pick (which makes for a very scrapey landing) or at least on the edge itself which, like landing with too much toe, will (a) look awkward and give the jump a look of "error" and (b) will slow the skater down and impede the flow, check and posture out of the jump thus creating an error on the landing phases of the jump which could negate any other positive elements in the other phases.

(that's just a guess by the way!)

Ant

That makes sense too. I seem to recall someone posting a long time ago that the "levels" called by the technical caller don't show up on the judges screens. That poster indicated at the time this was done to prevent any bias on the judges part when assigning GOE. I don't know if 1) this is (or ever was) true, and/or if it 2) applies to jumps - IIRC the context of the information was about levels in non-jump elements.

But you are right, the landing of an under-rotated jump is not going to be a stellar landing whether you view it as an under-rotated 3, or an over-rotated 2.

I'm going to try to pay more attention in the future GP comps to jumps that are questionable in this regard, and make a point of looking at the GOE whatever way the technical call goes. I think the most important thing under COP is that similar events are treated consistently in the scoring, regardless of the competitor.

And to the other point about Speedy, I too wonder how long the judges score sheets will be made public. If he goes under cover with the score sheets, then for me that will say he's not interested in seeing this sport treated like a sport at all, and I might have to boycot.

DG

 

[Mathman]

Actually, it is quite interesting to compare Alissa's scores line by line with Elena's. Alissa was fully rewarded for all of her non-jump elements. She had 2 level three spins and 1 level four, and her spiral step sequence was also level 4. She got straight +2 GOEs across the board for all of these elements (some were lowered in the final total because of factoring).

Elena got zip in GOE (but at least she didn't get negative scores for her weak spirals). Her jumps were excellent and she mostly got full credit for them. So on the tech side, the CoP seems to be working just as it should.

I go back and forth on the PCS. The judges do have to be allowed to judge. This is still a judged sport, and at the end of the day the judges must be allowed to give their opinions about intangibles such as the Wow factor, musical interpretation, etc.

Mathman

 

[Linny]

Not the first ho hum

CoP can not be as the total reason why a ho-hum performance could win over a wow performance with a flaw... under 6.0, plenty of ho-hum performances won.

Case in point: anyone remember Victor Petrenko's Oly Gold winning performance? It was basically the least sucky. Sorry Victor supporters - he's proven himself as a professional since then but at the Olys it wasn't anything to write home about.

Besides, while Cupcake wasn't as wow as Alyssa, it wasn't totally awful, either. She stood up on the jumps, she looked pretty fabulous, and her hair flew up and came down in perfect form - nice haircut. Bebe needs to see the same stylist.

Linny

 

[JOHIO2]

mm and linny

 

[Mathman]

My task for this season is to try to understand the GOE criteria better.

For instance, looking at the ladies short program...

For Sokolova's 3 Loop, judge #4 gave her a -2. All of the other judges gave a 0, with one +1. Did judge #4 see a terrible flaw that none of the others picked up on, or is this a keyboarding error. (It would have been thrown out in the trimmed mean in any case.)

On Onda's 3 Flip, she got one -2, one -1, three 0s and five +1s. What's up there?

On Czisny's 3 Flip, where she spun out badly and put a hand down, she got almost straight -3s. But she did not get a fall deduction and she got full base mark credit for the revolutions. I assume that decision is up to the tech specialist and his crew.

MM

 

[Doggygirl]

My task for this season is to try to understand the GOE criteria better.

For instance, looking at the ladies short program...

For Sokolova's 3 Loop, judge #4 gave her a -2. All of the other judges gave a 0, with one +1. Did judge #4 see a terrible flaw that none of the others picked up on, or is this a keyboarding error. (It would have been thrown out in the trimmed mean in any case.)

On Onda's 3 Flip, she got one -2, one -1, three 0s and five +1s. What's up there?

On Czisny's 3 Flip, where she spun out badly and put a hand down, she got almost straight -3s. But she did not get a fall deduction and she got full base mark credit for the revolutions. I assume that decision is up to the tech specialist and his crew.

MM

I'm sure it's always possible that one judge sees something a little differently than another judge does. But I agree that wider swings seem odd, and I sure hope that's being addressed in those follow up meetings (in secret of course) that I believe are supposed to occur after each comp.

On your last point, I do believe the technical caller "calls the fall" in addition to the revolutions. (I know the tech caller calls the revolution) I think there is an updated definition of a "fall" in the rules for either this season or last season. I do not believe a hand down ala Czisney is considered a fall under the rules IIRC.

DG

 

[gkelly]

On Czisny's 3 Flip, where she spun out badly and put a hand down, she got almost straight -3s. But she did not get a fall deduction
MM

She did get a fall deduction. It's listed at the bottom of her protocol, and at the top under Total Deductions.

 

[Doggygirl]

She did get a fall deduction. It's listed at the bottom of her protocol, and at the top under Total Deductions.

The hand down on the 3F was in the SP - I think that's what was being discussed. There was no deduction for a fall in Czisny's SP. The fall on the 3F was in the LP - no question that was a fall.

I also want to go back to an earlier question I asked about Joubert. He was deducted for a fall, but I thought a fall was automatically -3 GOE. None of his jumps had -3 GOE across the board. I haven't watched the program yet - maybe is was one of those things where it was a close call with the technical caller??

DG

 

[antmanb]

My task for this season is to try to understand the GOE criteria better.

MM

I think that is also a task a lot of the judgs could do with wokring out!!!

Ant