Why do more skaters not file protests against the results?

[Mathematician]

People here tend to consider AI omniscient or something. Man commercial AI still cant even draw hands properly.

It already costs a fortune just to have VAR drawing straight hypothetical lines in soccer to determine offsides. Even thats phoney half the time.

AI judging skating technique would be a circus.

 

[Miller]

But an automated system can do it fine for cheap, and doesn't need travel expenses, and further spares time for the regular Tech Panel?

If AI can do it great, but in the meantime an extra set of eyes looking at different angles from 3 people all sat together, well it can't be a bad thing.

 

[Bluediamonds09]

I hate the judges so much. They can be bribed so easily. The way they score lines up almost perfectly with the next judge, and I think, well, Why do we need 9 judges, then, if they're all going to give the same marks? Why not have one judge?

 

[Magill]

People here tend to consider AI omniscient or something. Man commercial AI still cant even draw hands properly.

It already costs a fortune just to have VAR drawing straight hypothetical lines in soccer to determine offsides. Even thats phoney half the time.

AI judging skating technique would be a circus.

Research disagrees. But even if, this "circus" would be at least blind to nationalities, federations, reputations and names of the coaches (or PR agencies). It would not intentionally or unintentionally push anyone up or down, to make or break new or existing stars. It would also be resistant to pressure from peers, public, feds, superiors and own emotions of the judge. All in all, I sincerely doubt even in the worst scenario it would make more mistakes than it happens nowadays with human judges, while the mistakes made would be more randomly spread, I guess.

 

[icewhite]

Research disagrees. But even if, this "circus" would be at least blind to nationalities, federations, reputations and names of the coaches (or PR agencies). It would not intentionally or unintentionally push anyone up or down, to make or break new or existing stars. It would also be resistant to pressure from peers, public, feds, superiors and own emotions of the judge. All in all, I sincerely doubt even in the worst scenario it would make more mistakes than it happens nowadays with human judges, while the mistakes made would be more randomly spread, I guess.

I think the selection of performances it is fed with would be crucial and most likely that would be the part where the mistakes would come in - and I can imagine figure skating associations and feds wanting to avoid this discussion in the first place. Clearly you cannot just feed them all the performances as they have been judged in the past. So which ones do you take... Or you will have to rescore them - all of that is likely to become extremely messy and could lead to major fall-outs...

 

[Magill]

I think the selection of performances it is fed with would be crucial and most likely that would be the part where the mistakes would come in - and I can imagine figure skating associations and feds wanting to avoid this discussion in the first place. Clearly you cannot just feed them all the performances as they have been judged in the past. So which ones do you take... Or you will have to rescore them - all of that is likely to become extremely messy and could lead to major fall-outs...

I do like the idea that AI is not fed with the whole body of past performances and scores as this would just feed it with the past mistakes, but allowed to learn from the best, taught what a perfect element looks like by the retired greats and then going down from it to less perfect attempts.
We call it AI but in fact for assessment of TES we need mostly a good technological measurement system measuring numbers of rotations in the air (jumps) and on the ice (spins, turns for steps), blade-ice angles, body position during elements, distance, ice coverage, etc.
This is much less complicated in fact than it might seem (although not so simple, either).

 

[Mathematician]

Research disagrees.

Link the research bro

Billion dollar dynasty FIFA gives us VAR thats fraud at just drawing lines

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

Link the research bro

Billion dollar dynasty FIFA gives us VAR thats fraud at just drawing lines

Criteria MUST be transparent of course. There are so many billions dollars at stake with football that it's not a surprise that they could come with pretended rocket science that was fraud (I know nothing of the case).

I hate the judges so much. They can be bribed so easily. The way they score lines up almost perfectly with the next judge, and I think, well, Why do we need 9 judges, then, if they're all going to give the same marks? Why not have one judge?

I don't think that many judges are really bribed, except of course that their compliance to federation lines of conduct may secure them positions, but then, I don't think that many federations are so rich or powerful as to be able to secure them some golden sinecure. A few years ago, I think it was posted here, there was a podcast from a sports psychologist, who's also a lecturer at the University of Southern California and a Figure Skating judge. She explained (for USA, but I believe that it's rather general) that every competent person was welcome as a judge, because there's always a want for small local competitions, but then, the selection and progression to higher stake competitions seemed to be based on a ductility, that is, judges who can more readily enter into, and comply with a line given by officials, were promoted. (This is the end of what I heard from her, the rest is my interpretation.)
Of course, some of these compliant judges know very well that they're in fact asked to judge unfairly, and they do it, either because they have a personal agenda in line with those federation officials, or because they're aiming at official positions (paid or not, getting power and social standing are motivation enough), or because they want their own club to be favoured and have no scruple, or because they're outright bribed but I don't think that it's usual. (I wouldn't call Marie-France Dubreuil's dinners a bribe, rather an opportunity of delivering a narrative about her students?)
But I do think that many judges get such blinkers so as not to realise that they're not participating into a healthy progression of the sport, or being in the crowd therefore being right, but rather making it unfair and burying it. They're honest, but they're not reliable.
The so-called scoring corridor, which was hailed as a way of avoiding poor scoring, is in fact just killing any fair scoring as long as the majority is wrong. A corridor can't be fairly used if it refers to something as subjective as a few judges without independence credential. It can be fairly used only when compared with objective data from the skates that are to be judged. And the impossibility of contesting obviously, hugely unfair scoring even with the most compelling evidence is a big NO.

 

[Mathman]

Why not have one judge?

And make that one judge a robot. then everyone will be happy.

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

I know that you're joking, yet... For all the poor judging we have now, I wouldn't have a robot to judge everything! But as the rules are, I believe that about 90% of the score can be accurately measured in automated ways, or maybe a bit less if there's a disagreement as to a margin for some skaters; for an extreme example, we can have Alina Zagitova's Skating Skills, with her extraordinary mastery of her blades, balance and all, except the very material basic stroke. While some judges will assess this only big fault as worth 0.25 or even 1, I've seen argued that a skater who doesn't have a basic stroke shouldn't be scored above 7 in Skating Skills, whatever the rest, and it gave me matter for reflection.
Yet the eye of a fair judge is really important for the rest, and I would say, this rest may be essential to Figure Skating.
This number of 90% would be what's feasible, not what's easy. What's easy and has been demonstrated is counting rotations in jumps and spins, and honestly, this has been in the past Olympic cycle the most wrongly scored, more so than Components, because in Components one can overscore a skater deserving a 6 by giving them a 9, and it has been done, but that's "only" a 50% overscoring; honestly, no skater with perspectives of podium in great championships deserves much less than 6 in any Component. COmparatively, a downgradable jump given a high GOE and no call, an invalid spin given Level 4 and high GOE, that's super-efficient over-scoring; and it would be easy and cheap to do it. Tests could be done in a few months.

 

[Bluediamonds09]

I do wish a computer could replace the tech caller to determine tech things like URs, edge calls, etc. Of course artistry can't be measured by a computer, but the technical scores would be more accurate, and there would be less reason for filing complains or inquiries.

 

[Skating91]

I do wish a computer could replace the tech caller to determine tech things like URs, edge calls, etc. Of course artistry can't be measured by a computer, but the technical scores would be more accurate, and there would be less reason for filing complains or inquiries.

You don't need to go to such extremes. I pick these things up on a Youtube feed sitting at my computer. It's not hard. It's not like they have to make the final decision in real time they can watch slow motion replays. Getting an edge call correct with the aid of a slow motion replay must be one of the easiest decisions to make in all of sports.

 

[Mathman]

You don't need to go to such extremes. I pick these things up on a Youtube feed sitting at my computer. It's not hard. It's not like they have to make the final decision in real time they can watch slow motion replays. Getting an edge call correct with the aid of a slow motion replay must be one of the easiest decisions to make in all of sports.

I think that the hard part of edge calls and underrotations is identifying the exact instant when the blade is no loger in contact with the ice, or no longer supporting a substantial part of the skater's weight. Even in slo-motion or stop-frame, is the skater airborne at frame number 2954 or does he achieve full lift-off in frame number 2955 instead? The skaters are turning, whether on the ice or in the at the rate of a couple thousand degrees per second, while perhaps slipping over to the dreaded inside edge at at a comparable rate. Even the split second between when the skater's blade hits the ice and when the tell-tale "snow" signals "the eagle has landed" is not zero. And determining the exact direction of "landing straight backwards" is also not 100% clear-cut.

Weight/pressure sensors attached to the skaters' boots have been suggested as a measurement aid, but this idea has not attracted much support.

In NFL football the "ruling on the field" stands unless tthere is "conclusive" visual evidence from slo-motion replay that an error was made. This, in fact, rarely happens and in the great majprity of cases the evidence from slo-motion at different camera angles is ruled as, not right or wrong, but "insufficiently conclusive" to overturn the referee's real-time call.

Armchair refereees scoring along at home, of course, have no such problems in declaring, "He was clearly out of bounds before he established full controll of the ball, anyione can see that!" The problem is not where the out-of-bounds marker is, but rather, at what instant has he established full control.

 

[Skating91]

I think that the hard part of edge calls and underrotations is identifying the exact instant when the blade is no loger in contact with the ice, or no longer supporting a substantial part of the skater's weight. Even in slo-motion or stop-frame, is the skater airborne at frame number 2954 or does he achieve full lift-off in frame number 2955 instead? The skaters are turning, whether on the ice or in the at the rate of a couple thousand degrees per second, while perhaps slipping over to the dreaded inside edge at at a comparable rate. Even the split second between when the skater's blade hits the ice and when the tell-tale "snow" signals "the eagle has landed" is not zero. And determining the exact direction of "landing straight backwards" is also not 100% clear-cut.

Weight/pressure sensors attached to the skaters' boots have been suggested as a measurement aid, but this idea has not attracted much support.

In NFL football the "ruling on the field" stands unless tthere is "conclusive" visual evidence from slo-motion replay that an error was made. This, in fact, rarely happens and in the great majprity of cases the evidence from slo-motion at different camera angles is ruled as, not right or wrong, but "insufficiently conclusive" to overturn the referee's real-time call.

Armchair refereees scoring along at home, of course, have no such problems in declaring, "He was clearly out of bounds before he established full controll of the ball, anyione can see that!" The problem is not where the out-of-bounds marker is, but rather, at what instant has he established full control.

When there is doubt, that exactly is what ! is for.

I brought up Sakatomo because it is a clear wrong edge on the lutz, and at the very least an edge that is not clear if they lack the courage to give her a wrong edge.

I just want the blatantly cheated jumps to dealt with appropriately to begin with. I'm not going after officials for 50/50 calls, but they have no problem going after some skaters for look like perfectly clean jumps (and there is a pattern I recognise where the same skaters are victimised for clean jumps and the same skaters rewarded for cheated jumps I don't want to name anyone it is a controversial subject). Maybe they just get the wrong replay angle every single time. It is possible. I don't know what the odds would be, probably in the billions, it is possible.

 

[NanaPat]

Maybe they just get the wrong replay angle every single time. It is possible. I don't know what the odds would be, probably in the billions, it is possible.

If the camera position is fixed, as I believe it is, and the skater's ice pattern is fixed (jump done in same position on ice each time), as I believe it is, then the camera angle should be nearly the same every time. Not nearly "in the billions"!

And you know, lightning usually does strike repeatedly in the same places. That's why mountain hikers avoid ridges during thunderstorms and they tell you not to take shelter from rain under a lone tree!

 

[Magill]

If the camera position is fixed, as I believe it is, and the skater's ice pattern is fixed (jump done in same position on ice each time), as I believe it is, then the camera angle should be nearly the same every time. Not nearly "in the billions"!

And you know, lightning usually does strike repeatedly in the same places. That's why mountain hikers avoid ridges during thunderstorms and they tell you not to take shelter from rain under a lone tree!

Unfortunately, if everyone knows where the fixed blind spot on the tech panel camera is on the ice, numerous skaters seem to choose to do the jumps they do not feel very confident about exactly in this spot, of course for the sake of choreographic and artistic reasons and nothing else.
This whole business of one camera showing always one and the same angle and no other reference sources for the tech panel and the judges seems just inexplicable and unjustifiable in 2023 with the current technology and its prices. I mean, forget AI and robots, anyone here really believes that a second camera for comps to cover blind spots and give different angles for a better view and comparison would make ISU go bankrupt?

 

[Skating91]

If the camera position is fixed, as I believe it is, and the skater's ice pattern is fixed (jump done in same position on ice each time), as I believe it is, then the camera angle should be nearly the same every time. Not nearly "in the billions"!

And you know, lightning usually does strike repeatedly in the same places. That's why mountain hikers avoid ridges during thunderstorms and they tell you not to take shelter from rain under a lone tree!

You would think they change the angle or add a second angle if it were so easy to bamboozle the officials.

 

[gkelly]

anyone here really believes that a second camera for comps to cover blind spots and give different angles for a better view and comparison would make ISU go bankrupt?

A second camera for big championship and GP events held in large arenas would not be a big cost increase for those events. Since those events have broadcasters' cameras as well, maybe it would be possible to hook the tech panel in to one of the broadcasters' cameras from a different angle, whoever is handing the ISU feed for those events. They would just need to make sure that the operator for that particular camera is always keeping the blades in the shot. Or else they just bring in another official camera (and camera operator) for these big events that can afford it.

I would have some concerns about how to connect a distant camera to the technical panel computers. Really long cables? Wireless, which might be subject to hacking? But I'm sure that could be solved.

For smaller events held in local rinks -- and I believe that includes some JPG and senior B events -- the architecture of the venues might make this much less feasible.

But since it's not changing the way the event is scored, just giving the tech panel another tool for reaching the same kinds of decisions they already make, it would be OK to use the additional resource only for the big important events.

 

[Mathman]

The trouble with incorporatimng TV broadcasting cameras (besides not showing the skaters fee tin every shot) is that they swivel around this way and that following the skater. Thus all angles and lines of sight are in conmstant flux. On TV every spin looks like it's "traveling." It's not the spin that's traveling, it's the camera, making it look like the skater's postion is changing against the background of the boards.

About hiding from the judges, back in the day The "Lutz corner" meant the farthest corner from the judges' box, so that the judges they couldn't see the take-off edge. I think this was wrong, however. In thise days skaters mostly used the long, staight Lutz approach that requred the full length of the rink, so you couldn'help ending up in a far corner.