judging system

Discussion in 'Great Skate Debate' started by vexlak, Dec 9, 2012.

  1. vexlak

    vexlak Member

    109
    15
    18
    Looking at the competitions from last month or so, I cannot help to question the system in use...
    Without naming the competitors, the judges are really all over the place. Today, foe example, clearly a 2A with bad landing gets -1 (correct in my view) to +3 (!)...
    I hate to call the judges incapable, but are we in need of another judging system overhaul? Or will we continue to accept by name or history points earning judging. This is not helping the sport.
    I am sure that I am not the only one noticing it.
     
  2. Vash01

    Vash01 Fan of Julia, Elena, Anna, Liza, and Vera

    26,863
    4,039
    113
    Shouldn't this be in the Trash can?

    I know we have had those discussions there in the past, and I wouldn't mind discussing it again. I never fully bought into the COP. It did not fix the real issues; the judges are still scoring their favorites high (case in point- pairs competition). We don't need another judging system; we just need more consistent judging across the board. If I had my choice, I would revamp the current system to bring back the musical interpretation which was so important in the 6.0 system, and it will not impact the current system adversely.
     
  3. Sugar

    Sugar Well-Known Member

    2,437
    269
    83
    Anonymous judging in CoP is just begging for scandals/conspiracies, at least 6.0 judging was not anonymous.

    I don't know why judging in Cop must be secret?

    And how that is an improvement?

    Transparency is good not bad in judging, or am I wrong?
     
  4. hanca

    hanca Well-Known Member

    3,326
    806
    113
    I think a lot would be fixed if the judging was not anonymous. Also, if the judges who are too far off had to explain why. Like you said, if one element is somewhere between GOE -1 to +3, then either the judge having +3 or -1 is wrong. If they were accountable for the judging mistakes, making they would judge more accurately. There are concrete criteria which cause an element to increase or decrease in value of GOE, so it shouldn't leave such a big space for interpretation. Difference of 4 levels GOE (from -1 to +3) shouldn't be happening. I could understand difference of 2 levels, but 4 is too far off.

    Also, I wouldn't blame the judging system. It's the judges that are not using it correctly, and lack of consequences if the judges make mistakes. It is not fault of the system.
     
  5. briancoogaert

    briancoogaert Well-Known Member

    12,540
    1,318
    113
    And there is also another problem, IMO. I have the feeling that a great double axel by a top class skater has +2 and a great double axel by a less famous skater has +0.5 !
     
  6. Iceman

    Iceman Well-Known Member

    2,587
    227
    63
    I have reached the point I think it best not to look at the protocols. In her short in Germany, for her 2a, Yu-na received the following goe's: -1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, a range that hardly makes sense. How could that jump have been seen so differently by the judges?
     
  7. Really

    Really No longer just a "well-known member" Yay!

    29,678
    6,102
    113
    Because they are human, not machines, with all the differences in perceptions and inherent biases about which parts of an element carries more impact on the GOE.

    Oh, and I thought musical interpretation was accounted for in the component score?
     
  8. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,800
    2,388
    113
    Anonymity is a completely separate issue from which judging system is in use, as I mentioned in a similar thread a few days ago. The confusing part is that the anonymity was introduced (under 6.0) just a year or two before the new judging system started being used, so it's easy to believe they're inextricably related. Not so.

    Let's assume that there is no anonymity and judges' names were always attached to scores. If so,

    *Is it easier for judges to reflect their honest evaluations of the performances if they give a couple of holistic marks about the program as a whole or if they give separate marks for each element and for several different aspects of the program as a whole?

    *Is it more informative to skaters and to interested fans to see scores for a couple of holistic marks about the program as a whole or separate marks for each element and for several different aspects of the program as a whole?

    *If the skating community as a whole believes that the system is currently rewarding some unimportant qualities too highly and some important ones not enough, would it be easier or more effective to change the direction of the reward system by giving general instructions about how to use the couple of marks available, or by revising the Scale of Values, the factors for various scores, the program requirements, and/or the judges' or technical panels' instructions to enforce more value for whatever had been considered undervalued or vice versa.

    *Assuming that different members of the skating community, including different judges, have different personal values about what should be rewarded, is it better to have them all give scores in the same system that weights the various aspects consistently or to allow each judge to determine their own rankings according to their own conscience and beliefs?

    *If some judges are less knowledgeable than average, or more easily unconsciously swayed by personal preferences, but want to judge as honestly and accurately as possible, which method of scoring makes it easier to identify areas of judging weakness for improvement?

    *If some judges are inclined to ignore their consciences or what they see on the ice to try to manipulate results by scoring favored skaters higher and rivals lower than the judge thinks they deserve, what method of scoring and reporting scores makes it easier for them to achieve their dishonest goals? What method makes it easier for officials to catch the cheaters?


    Which of these questions would be interesting to discuss here in depth with examples (real-life or hypothetical as appropriate)?
     
  9. aftershocks

    aftershocks Well-Known Member

    4,935
    813
    113
    Jeez, gkelly, they should hire you to fix IJS/ CoP scoring mess, I suppose. ;) Or, at the least serve as PR representative, or moderator of a IJS/ CoP panel discussion. :)

    The problem, in my humble opinion is that the above types of questions you are asking are simply too late, eh? These or similar types of questions should have been asked by TPTB before enforcing drastic changes so precipitously and then tweaking and modifying and re-changing rules and guidelines season after season.

    Ultimately, the new system has as many or more systemic problems as 6.0. Like many have said, I don't think it is a matter of 6.0 being better, but just that they rushed the new system in too quickly without adequate contemplation, planning, testing, and input from all parties, including federations, coaches, former skaters, etc. My feeling is that it might possibly have worked better had they not thrown the baby (6.0 brand) out with the bath water, but incorporated it into a better thought out IJS/ CoP. Maybe I'm just a CoP idiot or a math retard (like Chan was practically accused of being after his GPF fp problems with combinations ;)), but I simply don't understand where the ceiling is on the CoP numbers game. It's exhausting and sorely dissatisfying to watch comps like the one that took place in Sochi.

    The overly high scoring in general simply did not reflect much of what was witnessed on the ice, IMHO. I'm wondering if ISU judges at Worlds will bring things back down a bit re scoring. Again, that's part of the problem tho': the unevenness in scoring from event to event.

    Maybe at GPF the skaters were burnt out a bit from the GP season and many did not have their mojo working (aside from the few who performed really well in both short and free portions). Beyond the less than stellar performances of many skaters, I think there is something a bit more problematic going on under the surface that feels dissatisfying but difficult to articulate. For me, I think my dissatisfaction stems from issues with the scoring and the overemphasis on quads, but also extends way beyond those issues to some fundamental things about this sport and the way it is run and reported on/ not reported on.

    Guess I should take the rest of my whining and dissatisfaction to Trash Can, or not. :p
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2012
  10. vexlak

    vexlak Member

    109
    15
    18
    Well said. Fully agree.

    IMHO this should not be in the Trash Can.
    This is about skating debate and it is directly affecting all of us here and those on ice.
    I will respect the moderators decision however what ever that may be.
     
  11. aftershocks

    aftershocks Well-Known Member

    4,935
    813
    113
    ^ Debate away! Debating is a good thing. :)

    Would be nice if fan debates could end up providing enough great fodder for actual viable suggestions that figure skating PTB would actually consider implementing.
     
  12. Iceman

    Iceman Well-Known Member

    2,587
    227
    63
    If I am wrong I am sure someone will correct me (and I would welcome that), but the "which parts of an element carries more impact on the goe" are spelled out in the judging criteria and are not left up to the discretion of individual judges. IMO there is no way two qualified and well trained judges can come up with a +3 and and -1 for the same jump. This is not a matter of being human.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2012
  13. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,800
    2,388
    113
    http://www.isu.org/vsite/vnavsite/page/directory/0,10853,4844-185235-202457-nav-list,00.html

    The current rules for positive and negative GOEs are in ISU Communication 1724, pages 10-13.

    There are some rules for certain errors that must result in negative final GOE. But beyond I don't see any rules establishing which errors or positive bullet points should have more weight than others.

    -1 to +3 does seem like an exceptionally wide range -- perhaps someone made an actual error in scoring that element. But in a lot of elements there is definitely room for disagreement, if two people don't see exactly the same thing or if they weight the different aspects differently in their minds.
     
  14. Iceman

    Iceman Well-Known Member

    2,587
    227
    63
    Others much more knowledgeable than I (and with whom I agree) have suggested that there is no way a judge can judge all the things he is required to judge, especially in the short time he or she is given. They would , at least, need to watch the taped performance a number of times. A possible improvement, although probably not a complete solution, would be to have two judging panels, one to judge tes, the other pcs. In addition, when there is a goe spread such as has been discussed in this thread, the referee would step in for immediate rectification. This would be akin to replays in tennis and football. FS is often its own worst enemy.

    What the judges are asked to do is imo a severe form of multitasking and we know what recent research has shown about that.
    Psychiatrist Edward M. Hallowell has gone so far as to describe multitasking as a “mythical activity in which people believe they can perform two or more tasks simultaneously as effectively as one.”
     
    dinakt and (deleted member) like this.
  15. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,800
    2,388
    113
    The parts that are most complicated to judge tend to be the PCS more than the GOEs. So separating the judging panels that way might help the PCS but would not have much effect on the GOE judging.

    My understanding was when they tried a split panel that way at Nebelhorn a number of years ago, the judges who were doing only GOEs were really bored.

    So maybe a better way to split it -- at important competitions that can afford to bring in larger panels -- would be to have a panel of "technical judges" doing the GOEs and the Skating Skills and Transitions, and a panel of "artistic judges" with extra training in aesthetic theory doing Performance/Execution, Choreography, and Interpretation.

    How can the referee step in immediately? The skater is still skating the program and the judges are still watching the next things that the skater is doing. (Also the referee doesn't see the judges' marks until after the end of the program.)

    What could happen would be that as soon as the judges send their marks, the computer could flag any wide ranges or outliers for the referee and the referee could ask the judges to check those scores before finalizing the scores. This will delay the announcement for the skaters and audience, but it would be a good time to catch data input errors.
     
  16. Belinda

    Belinda Member

    66
    9
    8
    I have a question regarding the protocol.
    Where it says "The Judges Panel (in random order)", does one column of marks represent marks from ONE and the same judge from the first GOE to the last PCS? Or are the marks randomised for each row so that each column of marks is a mixture of marks given by different judges?
     
  17. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,800
    2,388
    113
    At senior international competitions, I believe what they now do is keep all the marks for each judge in the same column for each skater, but the judges' columns are in random order and the order changes with each skater.

    For junior and domestic competitions that don't use anonymous judging, the columns are in the same order as the list of judges on the cover sheet and stays the same for all skaters.
     
  18. dinakt

    dinakt Well-Known Member

    3,902
    816
    113
    Something like that, yes. Because SS and TR belong to technique. But P/E, IN and CH is really another field.

    For myself: I prefer the current system for TES. I think in a sport counting technical points makes great sense, and it makes many things clearer to both athletes and fans. GOE is a bit of a mess currently and either needs to be revised ot implemented more strictly.
    SS and TR are in the grey zone between Technique and Artistry, as SS and TR enable artistry, but also are judged in their own right as technical elements.
    The rest of PCS is where I have the most problems, simply because I am professionally most qualified to judge them. Even with a panel of "art" professionals you'll get wide difference of opinion not only because of different tastes, but because different artistic professions put different emphasis on various aspects of skating. I ( a musician) was watching skating with my SIL ( a modern dancer) and it was rather striking that we put value and attention on different things, all having to do with those remaining PCS.

    PCS also does not cover well a few important things which would do better if they were spelled out. Though musicality is hiding somewhere behind Interpretation, it is really NOT the same thing; and musicality historically was very important in skating. Same for such things as unison, point, esthetic beauty and such elusive things as chemistry for Pairs and Dance. As long as they are acknowledged somewhat covertly in descriptions of PCS rather than spelled out as inportant things, they are going to be lacking.

    It is incredibly tricky to find a balance between sport and art, and art, rightly ( as much as I hate to admit it) comes second to sport. But the PCS as they stand now are muddy and encourage reputation judging. Splitting panels would help.
     
  19. Belinda

    Belinda Member

    66
    9
    8
    Thank you for your response. Much appreciated.
     
  20. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,800
    2,388
    113
    So what would be good revisions of the PCS criteria to help judges do a better job of judging things that the sport has historically valued (and encourage skaters to do a better job of incorporating them in their programs)?

    Beyond a page in a rulebook, what would be good training for judges who do not have an arts background to learn how to judge these things?

    Would there be any value in training visual and performing artists, or art critics, to judge skating, assuming any would be willing to volunteer their time to learn the sport and then travel around judging?
     
  21. Aussie Willy

    Aussie Willy Well-Known Member

    18,134
    2,164
    113
    I think there have been some very good responses in this thread.

    I feel the system is very good in terms of what it strives to do in making a fair and equitable system for skaters.

    Most of the complaints come with the human application of it and how judges use it. But I think people seem to forget humans are not machines. So judges can be open to subjective values, have a range of experiences that they bring to a judging panel and the potential to make mistakes.

    The only thing that myself as a judge can do is learn from my experiences and mistakes and improve for the future.

    For example, I tend to mark harder on PCS with regards to the music side of thing such as CH and IN than other judges. As someone suggested to me yesterday maybe I am going to be harder on that side of judging than what other judges are because I have a different set of values and knowledge I apply to my expectations. Does that make me a better judge? Or am I then being too hard on skaters because I have higher expectations of what I want to see. On the other side of that, I might have a different feeling for when a skater is using the music and give the skater credit for it because I see what they are trying to do.

    For example a skater may have lovely interpretation and beautiful choreography. But if it is not on the music am I being reasonable to give a lower mark?

    I don't think anyone who judges doesn't take it seriously and they really have a strong passion and commitment to the sport. But a good judge is constantly questioning if they have done the right or wrong thing, is willing to take feedback and learn all the time. I fyou stop learning you should probably stop judging.
     
  22. Susan M

    Susan M Well-Known Member

    1,542
    212
    63
    I agree that kind of spread is indefensible, but this isn't the only time we've seen it, and I think the rulemakers are as much to blame as the judges. Still, if the jump had a negative problem of any kind, then +3 should be mathematically impossible.

    I have always had real heartburn with the idea that an element can be flawed and still come out with a positive GOE. IMO a bad landing should not be negated by entry footwork or arms overhead or such. I think if an element has any real problem, then the rules should require judges to give no higher than -1 GOE. When you take the risk of making the element harder by adding some extra feature, then you should be rewarded when you succeed, but you should be penalized when you fail. This is the essence of sporting risk. Under the current system, skaters are rewarded for the risk even when they fail.
     
  23. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,800
    2,388
    113
    What do you consider "flawed" or "failed" in this context?

    Some of the "flaws" in the "Errors for which final GOE is not restricted" column are par for the course at lower levels, only without any compensating factors that would be typical at senior level such as good speed on the approach or good height and distance in the air. Should the senior not be rewarded for the good aspects as well as being penalized for the bad ones?

    Sometimes, under 6.0, commentators even claimed that a skater "nailed" a jump that had one of these weaknesses, just because they landed it on one foot and therefore it would count as a landed jump in the jump count. (Judges might not have been so generous.)

    What about combination jumps, where the first jump might be excellent and the second (or third) one slightly flawed?

    The mistakes that require negative GOE are downgrade (<<), fall, landing on two feet, stepping of landing, touch down with both hands, two three turns between jumps of a jump combo, and severe wrong edge takeoff. That's already in the rules. Also some errors that apply to short program requirements only.

    The way the rules work, to get +2 a jump element would need to have four positive things about it, but to get a -1 reduction it would only have to have one, mild, weakness. So to start with +2 and have the error reduce it only to +1, there would need to be at least four strong aspects of the element. Should those all be canceled out by one flaw? Should a fast, high, jump with an unexpected entry that's well timed to the music with a scratchy landing be worth the same as a smaller slower jump from a slightly telegraphed jump completely unrelated to the music with a scratchy landing?

    If both landings had reasonable flow, the first could get +2 and the second 0, so why not subtract the same -1 for weak landing? Why should the better jump get a reduction of -3 for the same minor error?
     
  24. dinakt

    dinakt Well-Known Member

    3,902
    816
    113
    Absolutely. But while the technical side has strict guidelines how to apply it and training to go with it- does the artistic side? What kind of artistic training do judges get, to be able to judge PE, IN and CH? Because often-encountered argument that art is subjective does not convince me. I heard an NPR report about intuition recently- and the consensus was that it is a multitude of high- precision skills which help a person form an instant opinion without having to analyze it. I immediately thought of FSU. Musicians here tend to have if not a universal, then at least a similar "ball park" opinion about many skaters. A few times I encountered a request to precision- analyze a performance to justify my opinion. I've started writing a post. It can be done. I got verbose and bored and never finished. One can either analyze every jesture using professional lingo or apply intuition based on accumulated, trained knowledge. Now, if one does not have it and have to make an instant decision, what does one do? Answer in current system, usually, is equalize to SS, jump content and a skater's pecking order.

    Certainly you are reasonable to give a lower mark. If music is to be a criteria, timing must be taken into consideration. Timing is the heartbeat of music, its most essential part that can be applied regardless of personal genre preference and thus most objective. Otherwise, turn off the sound, as there is little point. If applied correctly, it could be a wonderful thing.



    Oy. I'll try.
    Aspects of performance are: Musicality/timing ( music), Performance/ Interpretation ( theater; includes relationship to audience, connection to a character if there is one, projection- NOT musicality), Body Language/Aesthetics ( related to Dance. Extention, point, fluidity, finishing the movement, beautiful positions... apply whatever necessary, depending on style presented)
    Choreo is its own can of worms, as in that PCS a choreographer is judged more than a skater. Perhaps, as long as we already have Transitions and SS judged separately, as well as the performance aspects, choreo should be substututed with Overall Impression/Execution. And here skaters can be punished for disruptive falls and stumbles- and anything that mars the performance but is not included in other PCS.

    Yes, I think there is a point in having performing artists, directors/choreographers or art critics judge. Ideally. If it can be done without crazy complications. Of course, they would have to know about the sport and be able to distinguish a choctaw from a triple axel. It will not eliminate controversy ( ha!), but will give certain criteria more legitimacy.
    Sorry to make you read all that.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  25. aftershocks

    aftershocks Well-Known Member

    4,935
    813
    113
    All quite interesting, revealing and enlightening. And very worthy of an in-depth panel discussion, and even a week's conference on the subject. In particular, thanks for your input as someone who is a fs judge, Aussie Willy. Your comments shed a great deal of light on the hard-working, barely rewarded, never appreciated honest judges out there, who likely do make up the majority. But what if any do you think are the differences between being a fs judge on the regional/ national level in Australia vs big-time ISU events?

    IMO, politics are always a factor in judging and even moreso on the international level. I'm sure the majority of judges are eager to do their best and always try to do their best fairly and above board. Maybe the influence of politics on judging has changed slightly from the good old bad old days, or it's been a slow process of change in how politics now affects the judging under the IJS system. But in fs, I doubt politics will ever not be a factor, particularly in the judging process. By it's very make-up of judges from different countries coming together to judge whose best in art and sport among skaters from different countries, fs is political. Art is subjective, and sport is quantifiable, but still not easily judged in figure skating.

    From these interesting debate comments, I unfortunately glean the fact that the new system has a long way to go before it's ready for prime time. I get more of a sense of the judges being a bit confused about the rules and overwhelmed by all the minute details and aspects of a skater's performance that they have to judge quickly in real time. Even replays are not a great help to what they need to keep track of while a skater is performing. Is there any time for a judge to actually enjoy a skater's performance? Nah, but then many of the point-grabbing performances are more about following the rules and eking out spin and jump revolutions than they are about executing a cohesive, well-rounded beautifully choreographed and seamless program with great music, precise technique and unique interpretation that elevates both the art and the sport.

    Some say the sport is more important, and that the art should be and actually is an afterthought these days. I say figure skating is not really figure skating as it was meant to be without a balanced complement of both art and sport that reaches out and takes hold of the audience's imagination and never lets go. In figure skating, that's what memories are made of, and in fact that is what pushes the sport forward. A quad full of height and brilliance can be awe-inspiring, but when landed in a program like the one Jeremy Abbott skated at 2012 Nationals, it becomes even more grand and meaningful, and at the same time meaningless in the face of Abbott's mastery of blade and movement over the ice. Some of the greatest programs in figure skating history do not contain many or any jumps, but the artists who executed those performances are still athletes of the highest order!

    This sport/ art is misunderstood, inadequately judged, historically inadequately covered by the media, and currently led by inept (if well meaning) bureaucrats and power mongers who lack vision and imagination.
     
  26. Aussie Willy

    Aussie Willy Well-Known Member

    18,134
    2,164
    113
    I think one of the biggest problems is that as with many skaters, they take up skating because they love skating. For many they don't start skating because they love music and think that it is all about skating to music. So whilst you get some who are naturally musically gifted, you also get a lot that are not so. And that in my opinion flows down to judges and coaches. There are many who don't have a musical education as part of their development in skating.

    As for education, the ISU Seminars are a first step and they always have some information on components, including the PE, CH and IN. Then there are the Component DVDs which I have found very helpful. But then I think also judges have to be self-motivated to want to learn and understand. I seriously find shows like SYTYCD are fantastic learning aids in these components.
     
    dinakt and (deleted member) like this.
  27. Aussie Willy

    Aussie Willy Well-Known Member

    18,134
    2,164
    113
    I really have no idea as I haven't judged internationally. But call me naive, to be perfectly honest I actually don't have much of an opinion on the topic. I am more concerned firstly with the day to day running of our sport in my state (being secretary of our state association), politics in the Australian skating scene (which are not judging related) and then judging on top of that.

    Maybe if I ever became an international judge I could have a different perspective but at this point of time I don't.
     
  28. kwanfan1818

    kwanfan1818 I <3 Kozuka

    20,831
    3,715
    113
    The judges already had power wrested from them by the technical panels when they tried that experiment, and it was before the tech panels called edges and possible under-rotations the way they do now, so they started with more power than the judges have now. Asking existing judges to be on split panels, instead of ISU-trained specialists who used it as an opportunity to identify the ambiguities in the code, was like letting the wolf into the hen house. Does anyone really expect that the judges would have liked having even less power?

    Any judge who was bored doing PCS only should have their credentials stripped. There's no excuse for not being engaged with how a program fits together and how a skater performs a program from end to end. Since when are the judges the driving factor? There are a lot of judges in training or those not assigned to international or top international assignments who, I would expect, would jump at the chance to judge TES or PCS. The judges aren't the factor: the Federations are, because the more the panels are split, the harder it is to politik.

    I know there's an argument for greater numbers=greater accuracy, but I would rather see the judging panel split into a few jump specialists, a few spin and FW specialists, and a few PCS specialists -- sports like snowboarding have specialized split panels -- with the equivalent of a technical panel for PCS to determine the "levels" (difficulty, complexity, variety) of the choreography, transitions, and overall skating skills, and for Pairs and Dance, the elusive "Shared responsibility of purpose" (buried in CH), with the PCS judges giving a GOE for quality of how the skater interpreted the choreography, their form -- right now the only two references to form are knee action in SS and carriage in PE -- including leg line, toe point, extension, hands, shoulders, posture -- their unison (Pairs and Dance, currently also buried in PE), and musicality.

    We're upset when there's a wide range of scores for an element, and it could be because of politiking, reputation, incompetence, or directly ignoring the criteria to impose the judges' own standards. However, everyone being in the corridor might be more precise, but that doesn't mean the end-product is accurate or has much to do with the written criteria and GOE charts.

    Sometimes those discrepancies have to do with the judges' sightlines, especially with elements done in the Lutz corner, meant to obscure the vision of at least some of the judging panel and flaws like flutzes and crashy twist catches.

    My question is where the judges set the starting value and then take deductions. How far North can they go before taking the deductions? There's a post that I can't find in which an FSUer argued, looked at jump criteria, that a high-scoring jump was badly flawed on two bullet points. Let's say for argument's sake that there was a skid/dodgy entrance, lots of power in the jump, quick rotation, loose legs, tilt in the air, terrific height, and a fine landing. Do they start adding +1 and +2 for rotation, power, height, great landing, let's say, starting with +6, and then deduct the -1 to -3 for the tilt, the skid entrance, the form, so that they could end up with +2 or +3, because the negatives were -3 or -4? Or do they max out at +3, no matter how many good qualities the jump has, and then start deducting from that?

    I once took a take-home exam in which we were told that once we started writing, we had 1.5 or 1 hour, depending on the essay question on the hourglass model (once turned, you could write until it ran out). 1/3 of my classmates used the chess clock method instead: if they wrote for 10 minutes, they'd stop the clock, think some more, start the clock again, etc. They had a serious advantage, as would a skater who was being judged with a start value of +6 before deductions vs. a start value of +3 before deductions.

    Plus juries come to consensus in music competitions, even though some members are more technique-oriented and others give more weight to interpretation or originality. I was ??? about the Met Council Auditions process, until I understood that the team was looking for potential, not the person who did the deepest interpretation of a given piece of music, or would be perfect for a smaller European house and different rep. They knew what they were looking for and could fine tune it, even if they didn't always agree on each singer.

    A ballet, modern, or contemporary dance can look at a spin and see when there are sloppy transitions between positions, traveling, sloppy and poorly done positions, and slowing, for example, because it's exactly what they're looking for and what they're critiqued/they critique in their own genres, and they can spot a telegraph, weak transitions from the "tricks", and an awkward preparation from a mile.

    You can get a panel of people who understand physical movement, whether they come from ballet, modern, contemporary, or tap, for example, but I don't see a universe of professionals who would rate Takahashi and Hanyu in the same stratosphere when considering quality of body movement, for example. There are too many commonalities in their training and expectation of coherence and control.

    If there was a panel that determined difficulty, they wouldn't have to know the technical details. They'd be judging the movement quality, form, musicality, and overall performance quality.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  29. Aussie Willy

    Aussie Willy Well-Known Member

    18,134
    2,164
    113
    We just judge PCS for artistic events and it works quite well. Some competitions will use skating judges to just judge SS and TR and then dancers, theatre, music, etc to judge the other components. You get a very interesting disparity between the scores that are given by skating judges (usually around the normal competition range) and the others who will not hesitate to go into the 8s and 9s because they are just marking out of 10. It can some times give skaters who may not have the technical arsenal in terms of jumps a chance to really be recognised for what else they can bring to skating.
     
  30. Iceman

    Iceman Well-Known Member

    2,587
    227
    63
    gkelly


    How can the referee step in immediately? The skater is still skating the program and the judges are still watching the next things that the skater is doing. (Also the referee doesn't see the judges' marks until after the end of the program.)


    Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant after the program ended and the referee saw the scores, not while the skating was going on. That really would create a mess:lol: