Ways IJS Could Improve

[Blades of Passion]

Well, if it's "slightly" underrotated (less than or equal to 90 degrees), they'll get full credit.

When I mean slightly underrotated, I mean more than the 1/4 turn allowance. Someone shouldn't be getting a base value reduction AND an automatic -GOE consideration just because they land a jump 91 degrees less than perfectly backwards rather than 90 degrees less.

Maybe the answer would be to stop showing the judges the < and << calls.

No I don't think so. The scores need to be more reflective of what happened on the ice. If a 91 degree short jump gets a < call and was well executed otherwise, the judge should not be giving -GOE penalty. If a 90 degree short jump doesn't get a < call, then the judge should should take a small GOE deduction into consideration for the lacking rotation, thus meaning there isn't much difference in score between these two jumps that are nearly identical.

 

[Miller]

Are you kidding? More technical callers would make it worse. Much, much slower. Technical panels aren't trying to be slow, you know. They're trying to get it right.

Sorry, I wasn't making it clear. I would have 2 on the technical panel doing jumps, and 2 doing spins and steps separately, that way the existing ones wouldn't be overloaded doing absolutely everything. Then I would have the head of the panel ruling in the case of disputes between the 2. Sorry if this isn't quite how it works at the moment, but that's how I would do it to hopefully speed things up.

 

[jenaj]

Either get rid of the second half bonus and penalize frontloading in PCS or keep it and penalize backloading in PCS.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

I actually don't mind UR all that much. PR to me is what the IJS should focus on and look at in slow motion. I think that cheating the take off is way more beneficial and no where near as difficult as skidding in on the landing. As dumb as I think mandatory -GOE is I'd much rather see it applied to jumps with cheated take offs and then more leeway given to jumps that are landed on a whipped toe pick or full edge.

Seriously though....how on earth is it a rule that the TP can't look at jumps takeoff in slow motion but they can scrutinize the landing which is much more difficult and almost kind of cool looking.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

I...don't know what kind of English class you've taken? But this was not how English class worked where I grew up.

Well we just grew up in different schools, probably with different standards.

Every high school English teacher I've had or any TA/prof in University English classes has always had a standard, and none of them would give 100% for any assignment that had an error. Perhaps your teachers were more lenient? But if I made a mistake I would accept not getting 100% (or even close to it if it was an egregious mistake)... because 100% is reserved for (surprisingly!) absolutely flawless work.

Occasionally I've also tutored ESL students of various backgrounds and am aware that depending on a student's English proficiency a course will be either more astringent or more lenient when marking them.

In skating however, countries aren't cut slack just because skating might not be their country's "first sport" (while some ESL students are cut slack if English is not their first language).

 

[TontoK]

I'm probably even more strict in my outlook on technical judging than Karne is.

It's a sport with technical requirements. If you're going to be so slack on technique, you might as well give the audience some sort of scoring mechanism so they can chime in with their marks.

That way, champions can be determined by coolest music choices, best hair and makeup, and designer costumes.

 

[skylark]

I'm probably even more strict in my outlook on technical judging than Karne is.

It's a sport with technical requirements. If you're going to be so slack on technique, you might as well give the audience some sort of scoring mechanism so they can chime in with their marks.

That way, champions can be determined by coolest music choices, best hair and makeup, and designer costumes.

I think technique is important, but it's not the be-all and end-all. It's the foundation of good skating. People who don't know the tech requirements and terminology can see, sense, be aware of, and appreciate excellent technique when they see it. And quality of performance, musical interpretation, and emotional connection make this sport something that transcends considerations like who rotated perfectly in the air. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it. If not, then the skaters may as well just skate down the rink, do their best jump, and that's it.

No one has proposed that the competition be decided by audience vote, costumes, hair etc. Until you did, with (I assume) tongue in cheek. You seem to imply that if people aren't as strict as you on technique, their views are uneducated or frivolous. But maybe not. Anyway, I stated my viewpoint. I'll bow out of the conversation.

 

[gkelly]

I think technique is important, but it's not the be-all and end-all. It's the foundation of good skating. People who don't know the tech requirements and terminology can see, sense, be aware of, and appreciate excellent technique when they see it.

Some kinds. Other kinds they need to be alerted to. Of course some of it is easy to see once you're aware what to look for.

There are so many different parts of a skating program that even if we were looking only at technique, some skaters would be best at some parts and other skaters at other parts (e.g., jump takeoffs vs. landings, some takeoffs vs. others, jumps vs. spins vs. basic stroking vs. turns and steps). So should all parts be given equal weight or should some count more than others or should parts that casual viewers can't see (or hear) at all, even if told it's important, not count at all?

And then if we're going figure in the difficulty of the content executed and also the presentation qualities, those need to be balanced out with the technique as well.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

When I mean slightly underrotated, I mean more than the 1/4 turn allowance. Someone shouldn't be getting a base value reduction AND an automatic -GOE consideration just because they land a jump 91 degrees less than perfectly backwards rather than 90 degrees less.



No I don't think so. The scores need to be more reflective of what happened on the ice. If a 91 degree short jump gets a < call and was well executed otherwise, the judge should not be giving -GOE penalty. If a 90 degree short jump doesn't get a < call, then the judge should should take a small GOE deduction into consideration for the lacking rotation, thus meaning there isn't much difference in score between these two jumps that are nearly identical.

To what degree is a skater allowed to underrotate a jump before you consider it a flawed landing that should be reflected in lowered GOE?

Or are you saying that a skater can even downgrade a jump, get a << call, and a judge should still theoretically be able to get away with giving them +3 GOE?

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

To what degree is a skater allowed to underrotate a jump before you consider it a flawed landing that should be reflected in lowered GOE?

I think the point is that a judge should make that call on the spot. The TP should be the ones looking at degrees short while the judge should just grade the overall execution. If they see it in real time then they can subtract GOE as they see fit and it should resolve itself.

 

[gkelly]

I think the point is that a judge should make that call on the spot. The TP should be the ones looking at degrees short while the judge should just grade the overall execution. If they see it in real time then they can subtract GOE as they see fit and it should resolve itself.

Which is pretty much the way it is now, except that judges do get to see the rotation calls and are supposed to reduce their GOE -1 to -2, but not necessarily to a negative final value.

If they no longer saw the calls, they could give GOEs based on whatever they saw in real time, as many pluses as they could support and no reductions if they didn't see any underrotation.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

they could give GOEs based on whatever they saw in real time, as many pluses as they could support and no reductions if they didn't see any underrotation.

LOL, as if they don't already do that!

I think the point is that a judge should make that call on the spot. The TP should be the ones looking at degrees short while the judge should just grade the overall execution. If they see it in real time then they can subtract GOE as they see fit and it should resolve itself.

Correct. But my question to BoP was what degree of underrotation on a jump should be considered grounds for GOE being reduced by a judge (irrespective of what the Tech Spec's call is)?

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Correct. But my question to BoP was what degree of underrotation on a jump should be considered grounds for GOE being reduced by a judge (irrespective of what the Tech Spec's call is)?

I can only speak for myself but I would say only to the degree when it's noticeable to the naked eye is where judges should concern themselves. I think it should be a judgement call and not a defined limit. Instead...the judge should only address if it shows and is visibly affecting the mechanics of a jump. If it's bad the the judge can hammer it but if it's slight then maybe not.

I think it's reasonable to subtract (-1) from the overall GOE if the TP makes the call as a standard rule which means a UR jump at most could get +2 but will most likely end up much lower in the obvious cases.

 

[moriel]

I see many suggestions here are basically based on: "my fav skater does not win, lets take away all the advantages of the ones who win"

Backloading
Seriously, what is the problem with backloading? Too easy you say? then everybody would be doing it, but it is not the case, it is basically an Eteri trick Very few skaters can backload, and it should be rewarded accordingly. 2nd half bonus for SP? Again, if it was easy, all the skaters would do 4 jumps at second half, but it does not happen. Your fav cannot backload? oh well, IJS should not change to make your fav win, IJS should change to make the sport better.

Arm variations
Again, the more the merrier. Since nobody complains when a skater does not a single tano/rippon in their problem, I do not see why all tano/rippon jumps should be a problem. If one wants to restrict the number of tanos and rippons, also the number of regular jumps should be restricted, so a skater gets a mandatory deduction for not doing 2 tanos and 2 rippons in their program, for example. Because well, its really boring to see those chicken wing jumps over and over again.

 

[moriel]

Since we are on it, I suggest dropping PC score altogether, leaving just TES.
Its a sport, and its not secret that PCs are either proportional to TES or used to prop judges favourites. Lets drop it =D

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

I can only speak for myself but I would say only to the degree when it's noticeable to the naked eye is where judges should concern themselves. I think it should be a judgement call and not a defined limit. Instead...the judge should only address if it shows and is visibly affecting the mechanics of a jump. If it's bad the the judge can hammer it but if it's slight then maybe not.

I think it's reasonable to subtract (-1) from the overall GOE if the TP makes the call as a standard rule which means a UR jump at most could get +2 but will most likely end up much lower in the obvious cases.

There is something very wrong with a judge giving a +2 for an under-rotated jump. I understand GOE reductions, but I also think final GOE should reflect that an error was made (hence 0 at best for a minor error but otherwise very well executed, -1/-2 for medium errors, and -3 for a fall or multiple errors e.g. hand-down and/or 2 foot and/or flutz).

A jump with a +2 is not viewed as an error... in fact, it would be misconstrued as well-above average execution for anyone who looked at a protocol.

The same way a 9.5 or 9.75 for performance or other components doesn't acknowledge if a skater had a major error(s) like a pop or fall.

 

[gkelly]

There is something very wrong with a judge giving a +2 for an under-rotated jump.

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?

I understand GOE reductions, but I also think final GOE should reflect that an error was made (hence 0 at best for a minor error but otherwise very well executed, -1/-2 for medium errors, and -3 for a fall or multiple errors e.g. hand-down and/or 2 foot and/or flutz).

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) ?

A jump with a +2 is not viewed as an error... in fact, it would be misconstrued as well-above average execution for anyone who looked at a protocol.

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.

The same way a 9.5 or 9.75 for performance or other components doesn't acknowledge if a skater had a major error(s) like a pop or fall.

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.

 

[karne]

who does a cleanly landed Triple Lutz but slightly underrotated it

That's an oxymoron. If it's underrotated, the jump isn't clean, by very definition.

Sorry, I wasn't making it clear. I would have 2 on the technical panel doing jumps, and 2 doing spins and steps separately, that way the existing ones wouldn't be overloaded doing absolutely everything. Then I would have the head of the panel ruling in the case of disputes between the 2. Sorry if this isn't quite how it works at the moment, but that's how I would do it to hopefully speed things up.

No, terrible idea. It would only make things slower. The tech panel has no issues dealing with jumps/spins/steps right now. None whatsoever. The "interminable wait" is not really that long but also, nine times out of ten it's because we're waiting for the judges to submit their marks.

I actually don't mind UR all that much. PR to me is what the IJS should focus on and look at in slow motion.

What? This makes no sense. It's the same damn thing, it's just that one is at the start of the jump and one is at the end. Both should be scrutinised.

I see many suggestions here are basically based on: "my fav skater does not win, lets take away all the advantages of the ones who win"

Pretty much the first thing I thought when I read the OP was, "oh look, another butthurt fan upset that Medvedeva is really just that good and their skater doesn't stand a chance".

 

[Shayuki]

I agree with some of the points, though I disagree with especially #1(Love heavy backloading for ladies) and partially #2(Some variety is much better than everyone doing the jumps the exact same way). #5 I can definitely get strongly on board with.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

I'd let Karne be on my technical panel but I'd rather BoP and gkelly do the judging