Should the Technical Caller role be abolished?

[Bluediamonds09]

The technical caller should be no more. Let's use a computer to determine if a lutz is the right or wrong edge, if a spin traveled so many inches from the starting point, if a jump was underrotated. A computer already captures the images in the replay. If the angle of the camera doesn't show enough, that's ok, it's in the skater's favor. No more biased technical callers with selective blindness.
Let's discuss.

 

[gkelly]

The technical caller should be no more. Let's use a computer to determine if a lutz is the right or wrong edge, if a spin traveled so many inches from the starting point, if a jump was underrotated. A computer already captures the images in the replay. If the angle of the camera doesn't show enough, that's ok, it's in the skater's favor. No more biased technical callers with selective blindness.
Let's discuss.

You would still need someone to be the final authority on what each element was.

For most jump elements naming the element for the data input would be sufficient if there is a technological process for determining takeoff edges and rotation.

But occasionally skaters execute jump elements in ways that require some interpretation of exactly what the skater did and how that fits into the definition of allowable jump elements. E.g., a skater does a jump, turns on the ice, followed by double toe. Someone has to determine whether it was just a double three without the free foot touching the ice (just call the combination, let the judges reduce the GOE according to their guidelines) or whether there was weight on the other foot during those turns, e.g., a step out, and which program this is (+COMBO for short program, +SEQ for free skate).

Even weirder things can happen that don't have exact precedents or exact rules. A computer wouldn't know what to do with those and a human would need to intervene to interpret how to match up what just happened with what the rules allow and what they say about how to handle various categories of errors.

Most non-jump elements have levels. There are numerous details that the tech panel looks at to determine the level of a spin or step sequence or lift. It would be much more difficult for a computer to perceive those details and apply the appropriate rules.

The technical panel doesn't determine whether/how much a spin traveled. That is left up to the judges in awarding grades of execution for quality.

In case you're not familiar with everything that the technical panel does, here is the handbook with the detailed guidelines.

If and when technology is ready to take over some of those decisions, that could lessen the load on the panel so they could focus their attention on the non-jump elements.

But you'd need to come up with other ways to determine the levels/base values for all the non-jump elements.

Do you anticipate that technology will be able to evaluate the difficulty of these elements as set out in these guidelines?

Or do you want to get rid of the concept of levels altogether and make everything "choreographic" elements and let the judges each reflect difficulty as well as quality in their grades of execution? That would lead to more subjectivity than the current system.

If you're aiming for less subjectivity, then it might make sense, when the technology is ready, to take the determination of jump takeoff edges and rotation out of the hands of the technical panel.
But not to abolish the technical panel entirely.

 

[Jumping_Bean]

I also want to point out that AI programs (which this would to some degree require) are only as good as the data they are trained on - There's a reason why some companies are actually going back to human-based hiring processes instead of AI-based ones:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/...panies-are-rethinking-the-use-of-ai-in-hiring

 

[DancingCactus]

I don't think the VAR introdcution in football has made controversies less controversial and as Jumping_Bean mentioned, computer programs are only as good as the data they are based.

Tbh I don't think the technical callers are the most problematic part of the judging system. It's arbitrary PCS judging and GOE handouts to skaters with big jumps/reputation.

 

[Mathman]

... Do you anticipate that technology will be able to evaluate the difficulty of these elements as set out in these guidelines? ...

To me that's the whole thing in a nutshell. We are years away (if ever) from having computers that can measure and evaluate what needs to be measured and evaluated. IMHO this has to be done first before we can talk about the desirability of replacing humans. (Of course. the robots might do it for us if they decide that we are incompetent and prone to error and bias.)

 

[Diana Delafield]

To me that's the whole thing in a nutshell. We are years away (if ever) from having computers that can measure and evaluate what needs to be measured and evaluated. IMHO this has to be done first before we can talk about the desirability of replacing humans. (Of course. the robots might do it for us if they decide that we are incompetent and prone to error and bias.)

Now I'm having creepy images of someone programming the computer(s) before a Worlds or Olympics to be biased in favour of skaters from a particular country. I think I've been reading too many thrillers.

 

[Skating91]

Let's add more than one camera angle to start. With a youtube feed I can pick up mistakes the technical controller makes. One skater didn't rotate 5 of her jump elements and they only dinged her on one of them. But with a youtube feed I identified all of these errors.

And let's not forget this is a sport where at the end of the performance you have several minutes to review this. It's not like you have to make the decisions in real time. This is easy stuff, not that complicated.

In professional wrestling you can hit someone with a chair when the ref isn't looking. If the ref doesn't see it, you don't get disqualified. You would think after all these decades pro wrestling would bring in camera referee to stop wrestlers cheating when the referee isn't looking, but they don't. I guess because it gives them more flexibility with results.

I feel the same way about figure skating with this sole camera to judge the jumps. Leaves a lot of flexibility and discretion over results.

And complete needless. Technology has never been cheaper. If the ISU is worried about cost, I'm here to tell them that the second camera will last many, many years.

It's bizarre they won't give the tech controller additional angles. At some point you have to ask is this deliberate. No sports body could overlook this for so long.

I'm sure it will be the first order of business at the upcoming ISU congress. It's so easy and inexpensive to fix as well. And makes the tech controller's life so, so much easier.

 

[4everchan]

The right move would not be to replace the tech caller by AI but to use some AI features to support judges and tech callers with measurable data

 

[Skating91]

The right move would not be to replace the tech caller by AI but to use some AI features to support judges and tech callers with measurable data

Let them use their eyes like refs have done in every other sport. If they can't identify a jump not rotated in slow motion they cannot be helped and either need remedial training or be replaced.

I think everyone is overthinking this.

 

[4everchan]

Let them use their eyes like refs have done in every other sport. If they can't identify a jump not rotated in slow motion they cannot be helped and either need remedial training or be replaced.

I think everyone is overthinking this.

I am surprised by this comment considering the number of posts by some fans with screen shots and youtube slow-mos calling out the TP for not identifying an unclear edge or a lack of rotation

I personally usually trust the TP to make the right calls... very rarely will I complain about a bad rotation call... and I think i never bothered complaining about an unclear edge call...

But more to the point : i am not even talking about this I am talking about speed, height, distance traveled, ice coverage.. this is all measurable data that could be precisely calculated by AI that is not available fully objectively to the human eye. This information could indeed help support scoring skaters objectively.

 

[Anna K.]

I think everyone is overthinking this.

Everyone isn't.
You are expressing your personal subjective opinion.

Just saying.

 

[gkelly]

I feel the same way about figure skating with this sole camera to judge the jumps. Leaves a lot of flexibility and discretion over results.

And complete needless. Technology has never been cheaper. If the ISU is worried about cost, I'm here to tell them that the second camera will last many, many years.

It's bizarre they won't give the tech controller additional angles. At some point you have to ask is this deliberate. No sports body could overlook this for so long.

I'm sure it will be the first order of business at the upcoming ISU congress. It's so easy and inexpensive to fix as well. And makes the tech controller's life so, so much easier.

I think it would be possible to add an additional camera for most major events, but the following issues would need to be kept in mind (and might reveal which kinds of events it would be easy to add a camera to and which it would be more of a burden or not really possible):

*One more camera and camera operator, separate from any broadcast cameras that may be used in the arena. A relatively minor additional expense for major events, but it would be more a matter of hiring the equipment and operator at the venue -- it's not like the ISU maintains a stockpile of its own cameras in a central location that it sends to every competition.

*Where would it be located? Preferably, somewhere that will give as different a camera angle from the first replay camera.
In large arenas, it should be easy enough to find a location on the other side of the ice, opposite to the judges and technical panel and first camera.
In smaller arenas and local rinks, there may not space for another camera and camera operator on the opposite side of the rink without blocking many of the very few seating locations available for spectators. At some local rinks, there might be no seating area to begin with, and also not enough space to add a camera and operator.

*How would the feed from this camera be delivered to the tech panels' and judges' monitors?
The first camera is placed near to the technical panel stand and is connected to the computer system by cables.
A camera on the opposite side of the ice might require many hundreds of feet of additional cable, to go a minimum of halfway around the perimeter of the ice.
Or would the feed be sent by some kind of wireless connection? If so, can the connection be made reliable, private, and hackproof?

*The replay software would need to be updated to accommodate a second feed for those competitions that use it, or only one for smaller competitions that do not.

For large important events held in large arenas, most of those issues should be negligible, except perhaps the process of connecting the faraway camera to the computer system.

For lesser internationals and local events, it might not be affordable or even possible to add a camera in the local venue.

Of course, it's most important to have the extra vantage point for the most important events. And there wouldn't be any change to the way scores actually get input and calculated, just an extra step for the tech panel reviews, as needed.

So I don't think it would be a problem for major important events to use two cameras and minor events to use only one. (Or none, at very small/local events that may not even use a computer system and do all the scoring on paper, with technical panels calling only what they saw with their own eyes in real time.)

 

[Mathman]

Let's add more than one camera angle to start.

I agree with that. Relatively inexpensive, does not require any marvels of AI technology, and two eyes are better than one.

In professional wrestling you can hit someone with a chair when the ref isn't looking. If the ref doesn't see it, you don't get disqualified.

In professional wrestling chair-hitting is chpreographed into the show. The referee's part of the script is ostentatiously to turn his back to the action, The most entertaining part is when the guy who is chaired pretends that the rubber chair is now jammed so tightly on his head that he can't get it off.

Figure skating should try that. When the skater goes up for her triple Flutz the coach engages im comic antics along the boards hoping to distract the judges.

 

[Diana Delafield]

In professional wrestling chair-hitting is chpreographed into the show. The referee's part of the script is ostentatiously to turn his back to the action, The most entertaining part is when the guy who is chaired pretends that the rubber chair is now jammed so tightly on his head that he can't get it off.

Figure skating should try that. When the skater goes up for her triple Flutz the coach engages im comic antics along the boards hoping to distract the judges.

I was at a dinner party in Toronto in the 1980s where Norris Bowden, world champion and Olympics pairs medallist in the 1950s and a friend of the host (my husband's uncle), was one of the other guests. When he found out I was also a pairs skater, he started relating anecdotes of his own career. At one of the big competitions, he and partner Frances Dafoe were skating outdoors and the music was coming from a record player set on a small folding table by the side of the ice surface. He and Frances messed up their first big element. Their veteran coach Sheldon Galbraith "moved sideways anxiously" to see the next big move, and accidentally bumped into the table, causing the needle to skip on the record. The referee signalled the skaters to stop, and they were allowed to begin again, since the record had to be played from the start, not picked up a minute in. Galbraith was most apologetic. His skaters this time performed with no mistakes, and won.

Norris said that they knew the table-bumping had been no accident. "Mr Galbraith not only knew every trick in the book," he laughed, "he'd invented most of them!"

 

[Ic3Rabbit]

No.

 

[jorge2912]

The technical caller should be no more. Let's use a computer to determine if a lutz is the right or wrong edge, if a spin traveled so many inches from the starting point, if a jump was underrotated. A computer already captures the images in the replay. If the angle of the camera doesn't show enough, that's ok, it's in the skater's favor. No more biased technical callers with selective blindness.
Let's discuss.

i think would be an error abolish it , judges work is stressful and if Technical Caller is abolished will add more stress and overload work to judges and that means error on their decisions and affects directly to sportspersons .

i think computer analysis isn't fail safe and always a human is needed to check and take a decision.

if a technical caller is biased ,the affected must report to ethic committee on their respective federation and decide a sanction to whose biased people.

 

[Warwick360]

Yes. Remove the person and give the judges a choice of a slow-motion viewing.

Then if there is a UR call or otherwise, let the call be based on the majority of the judges. Never been a fan of the tech calling inconsistencies to date.

 

[gkelly]

Yes. Remove the person and give the judges a choice of a slow-motion viewing.

Then if there is a UR call or otherwise, let the call be based on the majority of the judges. Never been a fan of the tech calling inconsistencies to date.

It's not just one person. It's a panel of three people who work together to determine a lot more than jump rotations and edges. Learn more about what they actually do if you want to make meaningful suggestions for change.

 

[Mathman]

The whole idea of the tech panel came about in response to the pairs judging controversy at the 2002 Olympics. The point was not that the technical specialists would necessarily be better qualified than the judges at spotting under-rotatons, etc., but rather that the judges' primary loyalties and obligations were to their own individual national feserations. The tech specialists would be recruited and appointed directly by the ISU and answerable only to the international organization. Therefore, in pronciple, they would be less susceptible to national bias and deal-,making.

Possibly a naive expectation, but a good-faith attempt to come to grips with the terrible public relations reputaion that figure skating judging had acquired through the years. And I do think that judging scandals have become less frequent and less blatant.

I suppose that a computer would be even more objective. But we can't put the cart before the horse. First develop the technology and then we can talk about whether or not we want to diminish the role of human input.

 

[4everchan]

Possibly a naive expectation, but a good-faith attempt to come to grips with the terrible public relations reputaion that figure skating judging had acquired through the years. And I do think that judging scandals have become less frequent and less blatant.

There are still judging scandals. I can name you a few Some people have still not digested some of the Olympics results
2010 men
2014 women, dance
2018 dance, etc

I suppose that a computer would be even more objective. But we can't put the cart before the horse. First develop the technology and then we can talk about whether or not we want to diminish the role of human input.

Some of us have mentioned technology that already exists not to replace the human but to give some measurable data to the human.
For instance, when watching events held in Japan, they sometimes give the height of jumps, distance traveled, speed, ice coverage etc.

To make this clear : AI here doesn't have to be something completely creative that would be able to decide whether and element is +3 GOE or skating skills of a 8.75 value.

What is already possible and available could be added into the judging equation. For instance, in moguls skiing, judges evaluate turns and jumps but speed is calculated by a stop watch right? In ski jumping, judges give time points but distance jumped is calculated. ETC