Thank you for those 2 links, I'll definitely save them for the future!!
Correct me if I'm wrong: no matter how many awesome "+ features" you have for an element, it can never go beyond +3 before you start deducting for "- features", right?
Yes, that's correct.
Except that the word "features" has a specific meaning referring to the extra difficulty that the technical panel awards to call levels on non-jump elements. So to avoid confusion it would be more accurate to refer to "[positive GOE] bullet points" when referring to the qualitiy assessments and other enhancements that the judges use to award positive GOE.
I mean: If you do an awesome element with so many great features that it could, in theory, get you a +4, but then you also have a mistake on it with a mandatory "-2" GOE, then according to the rules, you're not allowed to get a +2 or +3, right?
Right.
So, just as an example: Stolbova/Klimov, in tonight's Euros FS, did a 3T3T for her, and 3T2T for him. According to the "GOE Guidelines",
"PAIR SKATING: REDUCTIONS FOR ERRORS: Unequal number of revolutions by partners: -2"
So, how come 3 judges gave them a GOE of +2 for this element? (
Judges Scores pdf)
I was really pumped to see Ksenia do an amazing 3T3T, and I'd have loved to give her a big bonus for that, but... there still are rules, aren't there?
That would be a mistake by those judges. However, it's easy to understand how it would happen.
During the program, from the angle they were watching, a judge didn't see the difference in number of revolutions in real time -- they just saw a good element with 4-5 positive bullet points. So they award the +2 and don't make any note to rewatch video after the performance.
(If one partner is directly between the judge and the other partner, that could block their view of some details of what the further partner does. Or if the two skaters are far apart, especially if one is to the left of the judge's line of sight and the other to the right, it can be difficult to keep both partners in view at the same time. That's why the technical panel has one person watch the man and one person watch the lady. But each judge only has one set of eyes to use in real time. Being far apart would be a negative in terms of GOE, so it wouldn't apply in this case, but it could explain why a judge doesn't see both partners clearly in real time.)
After the program the technical panel will review all elements for which there is the slightest question, sometimes more than once if the first rewatch doesn't answer their question satisfactorily.
Meanwhile the judges confirm their scores for the elements and enter their program component scores. I understand that they can rewatch elements they had questions about, but I'm not sure of the mechanics of how they do so and they're not required to.
They should check the technical panel calls on their screen and adjust their GOEs if the calls reflect a need to do so, e.g., if there's a < or or << or e call on a jump.
There's no symbol on the screen for "unequal number of revolutions" -- the tech panel just calls the lower number of revolutions.
In this case the call from the tech panel was 3T+2T in real time, so there was no need for the tech panel to review the element.
The judge might have
*believed in real time that both skaters did 3T+2T
*believed in real time that both skaters did 3T+3T and not noticed that the tech panel called something different
*thought in real time that both did 3T+3T, then noticed the 3T+2T on the screen and thought "Oh, that was only a double? It looked triple to me. Anyway, the unison and xx, xx, and xx all looked great to me. Great triple-double."
The only way to make sure that judges are aware that the two skaters did different numbers of revolutions would be for the tech panel to add a code symbol of some sort (e.g., ≠) to the call. The base value would be the same whether both skaters do double or one does triple and the other double, so the code wouldn't affect the base value. It would just be an alert to the judges that they're supposed to subtract -2 from whatever GOE they would give otherwise.
)
