Ways IJS Could Improve

[GF2445]

Some random throughts

1. Dissection vs. The Big Picture in the Free Program (Bad)
One of my biggest criticisms of IJS is the premise that the worth and value of a program is determined through the dissection of a performance FOR THE FREE PROGRAM (the short program is a technically minded program so it's merited). In doing so, you may miss the ability to see the forest through the trees. I wish there was a way the scoring for the free program can acknowledge that, because figure skating at its best is all about the creation of a moment, as opposed to "oh look at how he and she could jump. (Maybe some sort of bonus system to award clean programs).

2. The proposed changes to the way GOE is factored (Good)
As a merit, I am actually really happy that the ISU will be changing GOE. Replacing that weird factoring of different amounts and percentages, with a blanket +1= 10% BV, +2= 20% BV up to +5= 50% BV and down to -5=-50% BV etc. Makes it easier to explain. I found explanations of GOE unhelpful because they only acknowledge judges input a GOE between -3 to +3 because the lay person or a lay person who wants to be more informed may think

"Oh they did a 3Lz (6.00) and the judges gave them +1 GOE. That means the GOE was 1.00 points. Therefore they got 7.00 points for that jump"
when in fact, for the 3Lz, +1 GOE is factored as 0.70 points, meaning that a 3Lz with +1 GOE is 6.70 points
Now you can say, +1 GOE means add a 10% bonus 6.00 + (10%X6.00)= 6.60 points


3. Is it necessary for the PCS to be broken into 5 different scores?? Also, please increase the factoring of the presentation score (men's and women's, and in time, pairs as well), or increase the range from 0.25- something larger than 10.00, or reduce the increments of the GOE from 0.25. Just do something to make it easier to assess. Maybe consider making the second score more of an impression based mark instead. Make the judges job easier

4. Deductions for fall> Should be harsher. Honestly, the system does not take advantage of deductions as much as it should. Skaters, competing at the senior level, who cannot stand on two feet really should be severely (if not brutally) penalised with deductions!
I think an appropriate deduction system is to square the number of falls in a program. (Number of falls) ^2
Program with 1 fall: 1^2 = 1.00 point in deductions
2 falls: 2^2= 4.00 points in deductions
3 falls 3^2= 9.00 points in deductions
4 falls 4^2 = 16.00 points in deductions
5 falls 5^2= 25.00 points in deductions
6 falls 6^2= 36.00 points in deductions
...
10 falls 10^2= 100.00 points in deductions <<< Could you ever imagine a skater having earning what is essentially a negative total????


5. Increase the base value of 2Lo and 3Lo jumps, if its the second or third jump of a jump combination (not sequence).
I have heard from time to time during SP commentaries, when they see a skater who does a combo like a 3Lz+2Lo combo (skaters such as Nicole Rajicova), say that it is actually a lot more challenging to do that than the points acknowledge.

6. Underrotated, Downgraded, and jumps with edge calls and warnings- make it easier than do the who reduce BV 30% , 70% etc

-Under rotations are currently given a 30% deduction in BV>> instead change to reduce base value of the jump but one revolution less. E.g. An underrotated 3Lz should be awarded the BV of a 2Lz. Also, in a senior SP, if they underrotated their solo jump, the should not be awarded any points as the requirement is "Solo TRIPLE or QUADRUPLE jump" in men and "Solo TRIPLE jump" in womens.
-Downgrades are given the base value of the same jump but one revolution less>> Change that to 2 revolutions less. E.g. A downgraded 3Lz should be awarded the BV of a 1Lz. Also, if it's in the SP, I'm all for No base value awarded for any points for not meeting the requirements of "Solo TRIPLE or QUADRUPLE jump" AND "4+3, 4+2, 3+3, 3+2" jump combos in men and "Solo TRIPLE jump" AND "3+3, 3+2" jump combos in womens.

In the case of edge calls and warnings, if they rotate the jump, it should still be a valid element in the SP.
-Edge Warnings (!) reduce base value of the jump but one revolution less.
-Edge Calls (e) reduce base value of the jump but two revolutions less.

If a skater makes both an edge (warning and call) and rotation (< or <<) error on a jump, the jump should be invalid full stop


7. Jump Bonus limits- I would be happy if the second half bonus counted for at most 2 of the 3 SP passes, and 5 of the 7 or 8 jump passes in the long program.

8. The ISU proposed to take out a jump pass for the men's long program. I instead for men's and women's long programs propose there be a limit in the total amount of rotations, together with a limit to the amount of jump passes allowed, and still apply those Zayak rules. This, though will stuff skaters who do not go by their planned content and add surprise quads (NATHAN!), might mean that we could see some variety in long programs.

e.g. For ladies, the jump requirements could be-
-the total number of revolutions= 30 over a maximum of 7 jumping passes (Zayak and repetition rules apply, no limit for combinations)
e.g. For ladies, the jump requirements could be-
-the total number of revolutions= 36 over a maximum of 8 jumping passes (Zayak and repetition rules apply, no limit for combinations)

9. Jumps that are popped into single jumps should be completely blocked out, with no points. Jumps popped into double jumps should be given -3 GOE.

10. Like underrotations, there needs to be a penalty for excessive prerotation of more than half a revolution.

11. Even if your choreography and transitions are complex, if they look like crap or cluttered as, does it actually deserve to be showered with PCS marks???? Your movements have to mean something, right?

Someone mentioned a choreographic spin earlier in the post....i like that idea. Like in ice dance where you have the choice to do choreo spin mvt, twizzles or lift- maybe the option of a base value only choreo element- could be a choreo jump sequence, spin, spin mvt, spiral, in addition to the choreo step sequence we already have

 

[GF2445]

I Wish they would encourage more arm variations We survived years and years of chicken wing jumping every single jump of a program without people complaining or calling it excessive. The GOE is not required if it doesn't make the jump's quality better so it's not like the judges are forced to reward it if they don't like it. I'd like to see even more arm variations and let the skaters get creative by inventing their own variations and be rewarded for it.

Combos have their own BV and any 3-2 combo with a 2lo goes up in value!

Less restrictions and more rules that encourage points and freedom.

Maybe ask for more variety in arm variations?? I want to see some new ones.

 

[moriel]

Thought...

Deductions for obvious pops are a good idea imho. I think a pop is basically as disruptive as a fall for a performance - because you see all that setup and all, and then nothing happens. Also, this would encourage skaters to at least try and rotate their jumps.

Also, honestly, I like how doubles and singles are accounted in SP. I think the same should apply to FS as well.
Since doubles and singles, except for 2A, would give no points, they could be also done in any number, and considered as difficult entries and exits and blabla, whatever fits the choreo.
This would also reduce the number of jumps in FS ^^

 

[LKGwennire]

Seriously, what is the problem with backloading? Too easy you say?

The problem with backloading is actually the very same with frontloading:
It affects the general balance of a program, and should be penalized in Composition when necessary.

Because well, its really boring to see those chicken wing jumps over and over again.

It is indeed. And can be also quite ugly too, sometimes. But don't you think it can be as boring as seeing those same tano jumps all over again, sometimes without the adequate extension, making the skater look like a broken doll?
I love a nice tano or rippon at a emphasis time, but if it's done in all the jumps I see nothing special on it. It's just like a regular position.
All we need is some variety, like arms behind the body, for example. The bullet point says to give +GOE to varied position in the air. What do we do when arms over your head is the standard position for a skater?

 

[gkelly]

There is already a huge loss of points by popping a jump, as the base values for singles are much much lower than triples let alone quads.

Even a bad double with -GOE loses a lot of points for a skater who was planning a triple or quad.

And if a pop is indeed ugly and distracting, judges are free to reflect that in the Performance component as representing poor clarity of movement, and elsewhere as time (albeit usually only 1 second) spent not interpreting the music or executing purposeful choreography.

But there are plenty of average (not elite) senior ladies in the world who only have 2 or 3 triples in their repertoire. Two triples each repeated a second time plus two double axels would fill six jump passes. If they don't have a third triple, what do you expect them to fill the seventh jump pass with if not intentional doubles?

 

[skylark]

Someone cleaned up a post on p. 1 in which my opinion was referred to as a "pile of [disgusting matter]" ... replacing those words with the phrase "a bad idea."

#CleaningUpAfterSomePeopleIsaFullTimeJob#

 

[moriel]

There is already a huge loss of points by popping a jump, as the base values for singles are much much lower than triples let alone quads.

Even a bad double with -GOE loses a lot of points for a skater who was planning a triple or quad.

And if a pop is indeed ugly and distracting, judges are free to reflect that in the Performance component as representing poor clarity of movement, and elsewhere as time (albeit usually only 1 second) spent not interpreting the music or executing purposeful choreography.

But there are plenty of average (not elite) senior ladies in the world who only have 2 or 3 triples in their repertoire. Two triples each repeated a second time plus two double axels would fill six jump passes. If they don't have a third triple, what do you expect them to fill the seventh jump pass with if not intentional doubles?

Well, most top ladies at GP etc can do 7 triples FS and 3 triples SP.
So imho, a good rule for GP, GPF, Worlds and Olympic games.

As for pops, according to your logic, there should be no deduction for falls, because the skater already gets negative goe and if judges find the fall disruptive, they can deduct it from PE.

 

[gkelly]

Well, most top ladies at GP etc can do 7 triples FS and 3 triples SP.
So imho, a good rule for GP, GPF, Worlds and Olympic games.

So should there be one set of rules for GP, GPF, Worlds and Olympics and a different set of rules for Europeans/Four Continents (maybe those should be the same as above), Senior B events, and national events?

Would skaters need to change their planned programs when they compete in one vs. another of these groups of events?

They qualify for the elite events by competing in the regular senior events: by placing at their nationals, by earning minimum technical scores at B events to qualify for ISU championships, for GP invitations by world standings and seasons best listings often earned at senior B events. Is it appropriate to have them qualify under different rules than they will be judged in at the big events?

As for pops, according to your logic, there should be no deduction for falls, because the skater already gets negative goe and if judges find the fall disruptive, they can deduct it from PE.

But the skater still gets the base value if they complete the rotation on a jump (or complete enough of a spin or step sequence for it to count before falling). The loss of points is in negative GOE.

The fall deduction is to add an additional penalty on top of the -GOE or PCS penalty. And it doesn't apply only to jumps, but to falls anywhere in a program, including just on transitional moves or simple stroking or posing.

On non-jump elements, there is also a GOE penalty and often a loss of base value if the fall is related to not achieving all the intended features to earn higher levels.

With a popped jump, the big penalty is in the loss of base value.

And what if a skater pops a jump and then falls? Shouldn't the final score be lower than if they only popped or only fell?

 

[Ender]

Please clean up the judging first, the system later.

 

[OS]

One thing that sprung to my mind:

PCS in Men should get little bit elevated in the light of increasing Technical Points Value, maybe the factor should go to 1.1 or 1.2? What do you think?

I'd like to see a separate PCS panel too at least for the biggest events like World Championships, Olympics etc. I know it's a pipe dream though too. Those elements are grossly undervalued. Maybe it would cut down little bit so-called reputational scoring, or at very least make it more substantial. Also please stop using that tiny range of difference between components, I think there should be more leeway on that. I can easily think about performances that deserved 7,5 n Execution but let's say 9 in Interpretation.

I would go a step further. I think PCS should take in account of artistic difficulty and challenge between different programs and choreographic content of the field as well, which can vary from competition to competition. Too often we think PCS like some abstract subjective personal preference thing but really, to an PCS expert judge, they should able to tell if this program is within the comfort zone or limitation of the skater (ie Repeats, similar style as previous season, emotional and intellectual range, if breakthrough happens etc.), or they strive for personal breakthroughs, new realisation, new choreographic style, personal progressions. They should able to mark beyond personal subjectivity like all the great examiners do. These things matter at WORLD's best level, it is what separate the best from the bests.

They should able to tell for example, if this is a program where the music edit and style has been edited to suit the skater, or is the skater actually trying to reinvent their interpretation to a new type of music, to a new choreographic style. The efforts to achieve both extremes should be proportionately rewarded, not just the success factor. Then there's the level of sophistication, delicacy, intricacy, depth of realisation willingness to experiment need all to be taken into consideration. People may disagree with originality and creativity should be part of the marks, but these are the basics of all credible artistic values in the normal world, and it would be nice if they are being accounted for if figure skating wishes to attract recognition and credibility of world at large. These account for something in ice skating so they should apply equally to other figure skating disciplines as well.

 

[Ares]

I think that non-jump tech elements are grossly undervalued too, it's a thing that often gets overlooked but that's my view. The fact that well executed high level step sequence that takes much more effort has a worth in this system similar to solo Triple Salchow is just wrong.

 

[gkelly]

I would go a step further. I think PCS should take in account of artistic difficulty and challenge between different programs and choreographic content of the field as well, which can vary from competition to competition. Too often we think PCS like some abstract subjective personal preference thing but really, to an PCS expert judge, they should able to tell if this program is within the comfort zone or limitation of the skater (ie Repeats, similar style as previous season, emotional and intellectual range, if breakthrough happens etc.), or they strive for personal breakthroughs, new realisation, new choreographic style, personal progressions. They should able to mark beyond personal subjectivity like all the great examiners do.

This comes back to the same argument as in the repeating-programs thread. How can judges be expected to keep track of everything that every skater has done in the past, what they've been working on in practice or who they have worked with, what challenges they may have been struggling with in terms of health, finances, available ice time, personal lives, etc.? Inevitably different judges will have different knowledge levels about different skaters. Should any of that knowledge be built into the scoring?

Yes, judges should be able to evaluate objectively things like quality of movement, expression of musical nuances, variety and contrast, ability to demonstrate these qualities while executing difficult skating skills and not just during posing sections, etc. But scoring "improvement" in one skater from past events to the present is a recipe for adding more subjectivity.

The only way to keep things as objective as possible and to keep all skaters at the same competition on an as even a playing field as possible is to score only what happens on the ice during the program.

If versatility is to be rewarded, maybe there could be some way to build in a part of the scoring for the long program that reflects its difference from the short program at the same competition. Even when the panels switch between phases, long program judges could be required to watch the SPs. Taking into account previous events in the same or previous seasons is not workable for dozens of skaters at every championship event and hundreds of skaters in each discipline each judge may be called on to judge each season.

They should able to tell for example, if this is a program where the music edit and style has been edited to suit the skater, or is the skater actually trying to reinvent their interpretation to a new type of music, to a new choreographic style.

How can they tell?

Can you?

And how is "suiting the skater" not a subjective evaluation?

 

[TontoK]

I always chuckle when I see people getting upset over differences of a couple of points in PCS.

Some fans believe that clearly defining the difference between 87 and 90 in PCS scoring will fix everything.

The truth is that sketchy tech calls can have a far greater impact on final score and placement.

For example, the difference in base value between a 4Z and a 4Z< is 4.1 points.

If a "lax" tech caller consistently gives skaters the "benefit of the doubt", it is more impactful than the difference between 8.0 and 8.5 in scoring transitions. Yet some fans will write dissertations on the latter while praying that a strict caller isn't on the tech panel.

 

[OS]

This comes back to the same argument as in the repeating-programs thread. How can judges be expected to keep track of everything that every skater has done in the past, what they've been working on in practice or who they have worked with, what challenges they may have been struggling with in terms of health, finances, available ice time, personal lives, etc.? Inevitably different judges will have different knowledge levels about different skaters. Should any of that knowledge be built into the scoring?

I think it goes to the heart of the matter, and why separate pcs panels at elite events such as world champion, Olympics and GPF competitions makes sense, but are not really needed at general events. Otherwise, it is a bit like asking high school examiner judging PhD examines. High school level examiners may care more about the grammatic errors, while PhD level examiners may care more about the substance and quality of the content, and if they are original thinking or plagiarism. Different complexity, different levels, warrant different judges. I never care for dumbing down progress in favour of the majority anyway.

Yes, judges should be able to evaluate objectively things like quality of movement, expression of musical nuances, variety and contrast, ability to demonstrate these qualities while executing difficult skating skills and not just during posing sections, etc. But scoring "improvement" in one skater from past events to the present is a recipe for adding more subjectivity.

I don't think improvements is that subjective personally. Most figure skating fans should be familiar with the top 10 skaters in the world, why can't we expect most elite judges develop the same familiarity to world's top 20 say? Of course, people should be free to disagree, but it will be refreshing to hear judge's opinion on this, even from the same panel. Another reason to have diversifying panel from all cultural, professional and regional backgrounds.

The only way to keep things as objective as possible and to keep all skaters at the same competition on an as even a playing field as possible is to score only what happens on the ice during the program.

If versatility is to be rewarded, maybe there could be some way to build in a part of the scoring for the long program that reflects its difference from the short program at the same competition. Even when the panels switch between phases, long program judges could be required to watch the SPs. Taking into account previous events in the same or previous seasons is not workable for dozens of skaters at every championship event and hundreds of skaters in each discipline each judge may be called on to judge each season.

Again, this can be solved have an advanced level of judging (or separate panel proposed) for the elite event only. Otherwise what is stopping Hanyu doing his gorgeous CHOPIN forever and ever for ever...

 

[gkelly]

Here's a list of the 37 ladies who skated their short programs at the 2017 World Figure Skating Championships.

Some of them were already well known to judges and fans. Others were making their Worlds debut.

What kind of homework do you think PCS judges assigned to the ladies' SP panel at Worlds should have done to make sure they could give all 37 of them a fair assessment of the kinds of factors you want them to take into account?

If you think they should have focused their homework only on 20 of those skaters, how and when should they determine which ones to study? As of the close of entries, should judges brush up on the careers of the 20 Worlds entrants with the highest world rankings, or only those who were ranked 20th or better? All those who draw for the "starting later" group?

Should long program judges then also quickly research every additional skater who makes the cut to the free program but who hadn't been top 20 coming in?

Should they simply use this research to support their evaluations of the 5 program components as they exist now? Should more bullet points written in to these components encourage judges to factor in additional artistic qualities and to place this week's performances in the context of the skaters' careers? Or should there be some objectively measurable points figured into your proposed rules (e.g., exactly how many competitions the skater had used the same music before)?

Should the PCS guidelines be written differently for Worlds and Olympics than, e.g., for Nebelhorn? Should they be written differently for the selected group of top ~20 skaters at Worlds vs. skaters who show up at Worlds with lower prior rankings?

 

[Hevari]

Please clean up the judging first, the system later.

100% right. And first of all ISU should radically lower the age limits of judges and tech panels and encourage the involvement of the young judges on major competitions.

Because it seems that nowadays panels of both types are very old in terms of average age of judges. I don't have anything personal against old people but... The older person is getting the harder is for him/her to analyze that large amount of various information that the judge/tech spec needs to analyze during performance. The older people are getting tired faster than younger ones, while working on a cold rink for several hours with only some little breaks. And the old judges are kinda from another epoch than young skaters in terms of music and costume preferences, and so on.

By the way seems that there would be good if there will be equal number of male and female judges on the panels...

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

With the current rules, there is a 30% loss of points on the base value side for underrotating a jump. If the element is otherwise strong in 6 different ways (enough to merit +3 GOE before reduction) and the underrotation is unclear to a trained naked eye, is that 30% reduction not sufficient penalty?

In theory. In practice, there will be very few jumps or jump elements with underrotations that would also have 6 positive bullet points.

I think the most likely scenario would be in something like a triple-half loop-triple combination. If both triples are strong and the half-loop is called as 1Lo<, should the whole element lose even more than 30% base value?



The rules used to say that elements with certain errors must have negative final GOE, but then the rules changed no longer to require it. It's still very rare for elements with underrotation calls to get positive GOE, but 0 is pretty common lately for one < on an otherwise good combination. Would you like if there were a column for errors that required non-positive GOE (but allowed 0) ?



And it will be seen only in the case of a jump -- or more likely jump combination -- that is well above average in all other ways.



Very rare, but possible for a performance strong enough to get judges thinking about daring a 10.0 before the error.

6.0s for performances with errors were not unknown in the old system either, though certainly very rare.

Base value deduction (a deduction for the jump not having sufficient qualities) is distinct from grade of execution deduction.

It's like if a skater has an issue with a spin that drops it to a level B - the requirements of the spin are unfulfilled for a higher level, and then a deduction should be applied for the less than ideal execution.

I'm glad the 30% reduction exists in the first place because there are many judges who I wouldn't trust sufficiently deduct for an error.

Just wait for when GOE is -5 to +5. Already with a -3 to +3 they abuse it and don't score accurately and now we want to give them an even greater range? Top skaters will be getting 0 or even positive GOE for falls because the judges will be like "well I reduced GOE of my fave skater by a whole 3!"

Errors need to be penalized. There's little incentive to skate cleanly or try primarily elements you can execute cleanly if a popular/top skater gets the same or higher execution mark for an error.

And yes if the half loop is < then the whole element is treated as not ideally performed. The same way if a skater does a 4T+3T and the 3T has a fall, even if the 4T was beautiful, it's all one element. If a skater did a combo spin and fell on the 2nd half of it, should we separately positively grade the successful positions independent of the position with the error?

 

[Neenah16]

I think it goes to the heart of the matter, and why separate pcs panels at elite events such as world champion, Olympics and GPF competitions makes sense, but are not really needed at general events. Otherwise, it is a bit like asking high school examiner judging PhD examines. High school level examiners may care more about the grammatic errors, while PhD level examiners may care more about the substance and quality of the content, and if they are original thinking or plagiarism. Different complexity, different levels, warrant different judges. I never care for dumbing down progress in favour of the majority anyway.

I would say that skaters are more like undergraduates. They cannot be examined properly by high school teachers but asking specialized professionals who examine PhD students to judge them is not fair either.

I don't think improvements is that subjective personally. Most figure skating fans should be familiar with the top 10 skaters in the world, why can't we expect most elite judges develop the same familiarity to world's top 20 say? Of course, people should be free to disagree, but it will be refreshing to hear judge's opinion on this, even from the same panel. Another reason to have diversifying panel from all cultural, professional and regional backgrounds.
Again, this can be solved have an advanced level of judging (or separate panel proposed) for the elite event only. Otherwise what is stopping Hanyu doing his gorgeous CHOPIN forever and ever for ever...

I think it would be very useful to remember that any rule that targets particular skaters and not others is neither fair nor acceptable in any way as it is a form of discrimination.

 

[Shayuki]

This idea I've been playing with would be a bit more progressive UR penalization. Currently, you're going to lose several points as well as GOE on something that can be described as a "judgement call". Especially because the difference between a barely rotated jump and a barely underrotated jump is so minimal to the viewer they generally can't even tell the difference without slow-mo, it really shouldn't just be an immediate, binary decision. I think that the UR should be factored into small pieces. So maybe the technical panelist gets it wrong and calls it a 2/10 grade UR when it in fact was a 3/10 grade UR, but here the point swing caused by a "judgement call" would only be maybe 0.3 points instead of 3. Sure, it'd be more complicated, but it'd make far more sense IMO. And it would also more heavily penalize URs that are close to being downgrade but not quite, as opposed to the ones that barely even are UR.

 

[OS]

I would say that skaters are more like undergraduates. They cannot be examined properly by high school teachers but asking specialized professionals who examine PhD students to judge them is not fair either.

Ha, i like your reply. So tell me, what should qualify as Phd. then if not the world's bests? Are the world's bests suppose to represent just best of the year, or something beyond, something bigger? Who's responsibility is it then to push the sport? Does COP have any room to reward things like innovation, originality and creativity?

I think it would be very useful to remember that any rule that targets particular skaters and not others is neither fair nor acceptable in any way as it is a form of discrimination.

The thing is, if you look at the COP reality, I'd argue PCS trends are already discriminatory against skaters who are not in the top 10 by their status/profile (power fed no1 for example). Often it feels like there are those who do not get any benefit of the doubt no matter what they do, and there are those who are protected by a huge margin despite the poor showings. It is only when things do not go according to plan, we see these inherent tendencies get exposed.

So what is the alternative? The idea may sound impractical when applying to all 37 skaters, but it is entirely up to the judge's own discretion on how they want to deal with it. No different than any judges who are responsible for marking anything to do with the creative arts. Familiarity is not essential, but it helps especially judgings at worlds best level as an integral part of giving an informed opinion, not a subjective opinion.

Having separate PCS panels can compensate for human limitations like cognitive psychology and latency effects (that tends to delay impression by one competition later). With more knowledge and most importantly awareness hopefully, they can overcome any tendencies and reward PCS with greater clarity and accuracy, and less on reputation.