What will You Be Looking for from Your Favorite Skaters?

[Mathman]

I guess it would take a rule change or new description from ISU before we see a change though.

Just so.

To get a level four on your step sequence, these are the four things you have to exhibit:

1. Complex variations of steps and turns.

2. Rotations in both directions.

3. Full use of upper body.

4. Quick changes of direction.

To get bullet number three you have to bob up and down from the waist as you go by the judges' table. If you do something more subtle, like maintain good posture and line with espressive body movements from the core, then the technical panel and the judges might miss it.

The jerky stop and go is what gives you bullet number 4.

The worst thing you could do is to have expressive footwork interspersed throughout as an integral part of the program. Then you haven't done a "footwork sequence" at all and you get zero points.

 

[shine]

Rochette - start skating with the middle and back part of her blades to produce more glide. Skate with more freedom like when she was a junior and first came onto the senior scene.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Just so.

To get a level four on your step sequence, these are the four things you have to exhibit:

1. Complex variations of steps and turns.

2. Rotations in both directions.

3. Full use of upper body.

4. Quick changes of direction.

To get bullet number three you have to bob up and down from the waist as you go by the judges' table. If you do something more subtle, like maintain good posture and line with espressive body movements from the core, then the technical panel and the judges might miss it.

The jerky stop and go is what gives you bullet number 4.

The worst thing you could do is to have expressive footwork interspersed throughout as an integral part of the program. Then you haven't done a "footwork sequence" at all and you get zero points.

If only those bullets were broken down in the protocols. It's just a statement by the Tech Panel with no explanation. No?

 

[nylynnr]

I agree with you about the step sequence. I have expressed a similar pov several times and to my surprise nobody has attacked my less than enthusiastic appreciation for some of the stop and go convoluted movements we see in certain step sequences.
I guess it would take a rule change or new description from ISU before we see a change though.

ISU did issue a new description. It added points including good clarity and precision, deep clean edges, effortless, and element matched to musical structure, to the guidelines for assigning GOEs. What effect this has, if any, we will have to wait for international competitions to show.

Sometimes there seems to be confusion over what the technical specialist is responsible for, versus the judges. Steps interspersed throughout the program wouldn't be analyzed by the tech panel as an element; they would probably figure into the PCS. Good posture would be reflected in the GOE, the tech panel might not even notice it. My wish for the season would be to see more musical step sequences, well executed, that may get lower levels but higher GOEs.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

^^^
Isn't Tech Panel in charge of LEVELS? If so, it would be incombent upon that team to decide if the bullets are being adhered to. The Judges could give their opinions of the step sequences once the LEVEL has been announced.

 

[janetfan]

ISU did issue a new description. It added points including good clarity and precision, deep clean edges, effortless, and element matched to musical structure, to the guidelines for assigning GOEs. What effect this has, if any, we will have to wait for international competitions to show.

Sometimes there seems to be confusion over what the technical specialist is responsible for, versus the judges. Steps interspersed throughout the program wouldn't be analyzed by the tech panel as an element; they would probably figure into the PCS. Good posture would be reflected in the GOE, the tech panel might not even notice it. My wish for the season would be to see more musical step sequences, well executed, that may get lower levels but higher GOEs.

Thanks for your post nylynnr. I think I understand you - if you are hoping for steps with an emphasis on musicality, consideration of good upright posture,creative footwork, edging and speed - with less emphasis on "head bobbing" disappointing stops/breaks for a mundane spin, and other elemets that have no real relationship to a good step sequence - as I knew them under 6.0.
I still probably don't quite get it - and CoP standards for step sequences seem like an oxymoron to me.

 

[nylynnr]

^^^
Isn't Tech Panel in charge of LEVELS? If so, it would be incombent upon that team to decide if the bullets are being adhered to. The Judges could give their opinions of the step sequences once the LEVEL has been announced.

The tech panel determines levels using a set of criteria different from the criteria used by judges to determine GOE's. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Mathman]

Here are the four "bullets" that the technical panel looks for to determine the level (scroll down to the top of page 10, with further explanation at the top of page 11.)

http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=934

Also, the judges' criteria for negative GOE are given in the same document, bottom of page 8.

Here are the 6 bullets that guide the judges for positive GOE (middle of page 1.)

http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=981

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

The tech panel determines levels using a set of criteria different from the criteria used by judges to determine GOE's. One has nothing to do with the other.

That's what Iwas trying to say. Levels: Tech Panel; Scoring: Judges

Thanks MM for the links of the distinct bullets.

 

[koreasktr]

Ladies
Yu-Na Kim: Olympic, World Champion
Rochette: 2 strong skates at Olympic

Men
Takahashi: Strong comeback, Olympic medal
Ten: Strong season on GP, more standing ovations sets himself up for 2014 Olympics
Rippon: Olympic Team with Abbott and Weir

Pairs
Shen/Zhao: Olympic gold
Savchenko/Szolkowy: Olympic silver
Zhang/Zhang: Olympic bronze, World Champions (if S/Z, S/S don't skate)

Dance
Shibutanis: Jr GPF Champ, Jr World Champ, set up for 2014 Olympics
Virtue/Moir: Another beautiful program like Umbrelas. And Olympic Gold
Davis/White: Olympic medal



http://maia-alex-shibutani.blogspot.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Ten

 

[mskater93]

That's what Iwas trying to say. Levels: Tech Panel; Scoring: Judges

Thanks MM for the links of the distinct bullets.

The level for the non-jumping element does not appear on the judges' screen - just the type of element (CCoSp, FCSp, etc). Judges are to judge quality of the element independent of the level of the element.

Tech panel typically has a small notebook they use to write down their features they see and whether they count them. They use shorthand notes the same way a judge does. I've judged basic skills comps and I have my own little shorthand for elements and I've sat with tech panel members for critiques and seen their shorthand notes. Typically when they review, they'll cross out whatever feature they decide wasn't met.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

The level for the non-jumping element does not appear on the judges' screen - just the type of element (CCoSp, FCSp, etc). Judges are to judge quality of the element independent of the level of the element.

Thank you for the info, and I respect keeping the quality and the level separate in scoring. So if a skater got a level 1 by the TP and a GoE of +2 by the judges, how would that work in points for the skater? Not complaining, just wondering.

Tech panel typically has a small notebook they use to write down their features they see and whether they count them. They use shorthand notes the same way a judge does. I've judged basic skills comps and I have my own little shorthand for elements and I've sat with tech panel members for critiques and seen their shorthand notes. Typically when they review, they'll cross out whatever feature they decide wasn't met.

This is fascinating. It would mean the bullets have been reviewed. No?

Still thinking. Not easy for me. Anyway, if a judge is keeping notes on the bullets and hypothetically, if 3 out of the 6 bullets have not been met, will that affect the judges score for that element? What if 2 or 5 are not met? and does this play on the PC scores?

 

[nylynnr]

Judges are given marking sheets on which they write their notes concerning elements. They are permitted to bring copies of the latest ISU communications concerning GOE guidelines with them to the judges' stand. I believe these sheets are used as back-up in the unlikely event there is a power outage or technical glitch of some kind. A (painfully) detailed explanation about judges' manual notes and the proper way to enter scores in the computer appears in ISU communication 1540.

 

[Mathman]

So if a skater got a level 1 by the TP and a GoE of +2 by the judges, how would that work in points for the skater? Not complaining, just wondering.

It depends on the element, but for the most part it is better to get the higher level than to do a lower level and rely on positive GOEs.

For instance, a level 4 step sequence with 0 GOE is worth 3.9 points. A level one step sequence with +2 GOE is worth 1.8 base value + 1.0 GOE for a total of 2.8 for that element.

For a "change foot layback spin," a level four with 0 GOE is worth 3.2, while a level one with +2 GOE is worth a total of 3.0 (2.0 base value + 1.0 GOE.)

...if a judge is keeping notes on the bullets and hypothetically, if 3 out of the 6 bullets have not been met, will that affect the judges score for that element?

If the skater meets 3 of the six bullets, and does not meet the other three, then the skater gets +2 GOE (assuming there are no negative factors to subtract points.)

What if 2 or 5 are not met?

If 2 are not met the skater gets +2 GOE. If 5 are not met the skater gets +1 GOE.

The rule is: 1 or 2 bullets met = +1 GOE. 3 or 4 bullets met = +2 GOE. 5 or 6 bullets met = +3 GOE.

By the way, the great majority of GOEs are 0. Most often the skater does not meet the criterion for any of the bullets, and so just gets the base value and nothing extra. The bullets are what you have to do for "extra credit.".

...and does this play on the PC scores?

That's kind of tricky. In principle, the answer is "no." The GOEs apply to specific elements, (like the step sequence, the layback spin, etc.), while the Program Component Scores are supposed to reward various aspects of the program as a whole.

In practice, I would think it would be hard for judges to keep them strictly separate. What. after all, is the "whole program," except the sum of its parts?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Judges are given marking sheets on which they write their notes concerning elements. They are permitted to bring copies of the latest ISU communications concerning GOE guidelines with them to the judges' stand. I believe these sheets are used as back-up in the unlikely event there is a power outage or technical glitch of some kind. A (painfully) detailed explanation about judges' manual notes and the proper way to enter scores in the computer appears in ISU communication 1540.

While the fans are aware of communication 1540, that doesn't tell the fans how the score was arrived at. Fans are not permitted to know which skater only got 2 bullets to his credit while his competitor got 5.

It's not so much conspiracy I'm looking at. It's ineptness and or favoritism.

 

[janetfan]

It depends on the element, but for the most part it is better to get the higher level than to do a lower level and rely on positive GOEs.
For instance, a level 4 step sequence with 0 GOE is worth 3.9 points. A level one step sequence with +2 GOE is worth 1.8 base value + 1.0 GOE for a total of 2.8 for that element.
For a "change foot layback spin," a level four with 0 GOE is worth 3.2, while a level one with +2 GOE is worth a total of 3.0 (2.0 base value + 1.0 GOE.)

Thanks mm - I begin to get a clearer pic of CoP (which I have resisted learning more about) from this post and many others by Joe and MS, nylynrr.
Here is a pretty simple question:
Let's say Mao and Caro K are competing at an event.

Mao does a big beautiful 3 Lutz, lands cleanly and flows well out of the landing. But her take off edge is wrong - she flutzes. But everything else was good even some nice steps on her approach to the jump.

Let's say Caro telegraphs her entrance but uses the correct edge for her take off, complets her 3 rotations, but has an awkward landing, and loses a little balance and has no flow out of the jump.

In the old 6.0 era I know which jump would have been considered better.
How about under Cop. Who would get more points as I described - Mao or Caro?
Thanks for any answers.

 

[Sylvia]

Just wondering... would a mod. be willing to split off all the posts relating to IJS judging/scoring/technical panels/ISU Communication links into a new and appropriately titled thread for discussion? (I think it also would be useful to have one thread on these related topics as a handy reference.)

 

[Mathman]

While the fans are aware of communication 1540, that doesn't tell the fans how the score was arrived at. Fans are not permitted to know which skater only got 2 bullets to his credit while his competitor got 5.

I don't think that is a big problem. The protocols are already so detailed that most fans are discouraged from looking at all the numbers closely anyway.

About the two bullets versus five, here is how you can tell. If the protocol for that judge says +1 in the GOE column for that line, this means that the judge gave the skater either 2 or 3 bullets. If the score is +3, this means the judge gave the skater either 5 or 6 bullets.

What we don't know is which judge gave which scores (anonymous judging.) To me, that is the problem, rather than lack of detail reported in the scoring protocols.

By the way, here is ISU Communications 1540. It is actually kind of interesting. The main purpose of these regulations is to discourage "reputation judging" and pre-determined outcpmes by disallowing judges from bringing in extra notes and figures, and also by requiring the judges to record their scores as it happens.

http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=1268

 

[mskater93]

This is fascinating. It would mean the bullets have been reviewed. No?

Still thinking. Not easy for me. Anyway, if a judge is keeping notes on the bullets and hypothetically, if 3 out of the 6 bullets have not been met, will that affect the judges score for that element? What if 2 or 5 are not met? and does this play on the PC scores?

The tech panel keeps their short hand notes, they review whether criteria for levels are met and use them for calls during the performance and during the review (may change their shorthand notes during the review, especially if there's a post event critique). Each tech panel member has their own method of tracking the criteria met or attempted for increased levels. At some local competitions, there are critiques offered after the event and the tech panel will use those notes to review with the coach and/or skater.

Judges have their own shorthand methods they use for their sheets. My experience with judging at the basic skills level is 6.0 only. I had my notes in the columns and then used to create a score...

 

[Mathman]

Here is a pretty simple question:
Let's say Mao and Caro K are competing at an event.

Mao does a big beautiful 3 Lutz, lands cleanly and flows well out of the landing. But her take off edge is wrong - she flutzes. But everything else was good even some nice steps on her approach to the jump.

Let's say Caro telegraphs her entrance but uses the correct edge for her take off, complets her 3 rotations, but has an awkward landing, and loses a little balance and has no flow out of the jump.

In the old 6.0 era I know which jump would have been considered better.
How about under Cop. Who would get more points as I described - Mao or Caro?
Thanks for any answers.

Mao. Assuming the edge was bad enough to get an “e” call from the technical panel, the deduction in is –1 to –3, depending on the judges’ evaluation of the severity of the wrong edge. Also, the overall GOE on the element must be negative no matter what extra good features the jump had.

She would probably get –2 for the edge, mitigated by +1 for the positive features, for a total of –1 total GOE. (Let's give her the bullets for "clear recognizable steps immediately preceding the jump" and "superior flow in and out.") This gives her 5.0 for the element. 6.0 base value – 1.0 GOE.

Without the positive features she would probably get 4.0 for the element.

If the technical panel gives her a “!” (questionable edge) instead of “e” (definitely wrong edge), then the judges are on their own. They can disagree with the tech specialist and say, “I didn’t see any wrong edge,” and/or they can factor positive features in with the negative to end up with a 0 or even positive GOE overall. Most likely: -1 GOE for the edge, +1 GOE for the good stuff = 0 GOE overall. 6.0 for the element.

By the way, last season Mao worked hard on her Lutz and improved from an automatic “e” to a “!” or maybe no edge call at all – but at the cost of entering the jump overcautiously and making other errors based on mistiming.

Carolina Kostner. Penalty for telegraphing is –1 GOE (but this is a judgement – sometimes the judges let it go). Penalty for “awkward landing and no flow” is trickier. The no flow part is not a specific error and does not by itself carry a penalty. For awkward landing, there are specific penalties for “stepping out of the landing,” (-2 GOE, negative GOE overall), for touching down with one of both hands, for landing on the wrong foot, etc. But just your run-of-the-mill shaky landing would not warrant a penalty in GOE.

She might get –1 GOE overall for a total of 5.0 for the element.

(You professional judges out there, how did I do? )

Here is the main document for all of these numbers.

http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=934

Edited to add: It is not so obvious to me what would happen under 6.0 judging, because everything is lumped together into just two overall marks. Sometimes it seemed like skaters could flutz merrily away and nobody cared. Other times, they got dinged for it. Tara Lipinski took some serious hits for flutzing in the 1997-98 season, even though she was the reigning world champion.

Generally speaking under CoP the skaters do not get marlked down in GOE just because the judges thought the element wasn't very pretty. There has to be a specific error.