2018-19 Singles & Pairs Scale of Values, Levels, and GOE guidelines

[Aussie Willy]

That's why these guidelines are weak, there will always be judges who ignore them. A fall is not a subjective matter like asking the judges to assign a numerical value to musicality or interpretation. If they want falls to result in specific PCS limits, then I don't get the value of strongly advising rather than implementing a hard rule.

I would wait until they are implemented and then see if they are followed or not. This will be the first season this particular guideline is in place.

 

[MAXSwagg]

That "wipe out" was him falling on a turn and then getting back up. One fall, and no marks of 10 received. So none of those judges would be in violation of the new rule according to the wording.

A performance with a fall should be getting something like 7.75 for that component, not 9.75.

 

[gkelly]

A performance with a fall should be getting something like 7.75 for that component, not 9.75.

Highly disagree.

First of all, not all falls are equal in their effect on each component, so we need to leave it to judges to use their discretion how much to punish each fall based on its own merits and not some fiction that all falls are massively disruptive.

Second, if you believe that each fall should take off 2 full points from a program that otherwise demonstrates quality worthy of 9s in that component, does the same apply for a program that would otherwise deserve 7s, so it should automatically be bumped down to scores in the 5s? And then what about a program that would otherwise deserve 5s? Should it automatically be bumped down to 3s? At that point, you are looking at the possibility of lower-level skaters earning negative PCS if they have a bad day. Also at an otherwise good senior-level performance with one fall being worth less than a so-so novice performance.

Third, what about multiple falls? Should each fall lose 2 points per component? Or does the first one move the scoring cap down significantly and subsequent falls only slightly from there?

What I do think is appropriate to say that when you, MAXSwagg, are judging a competition, or any other judge who is highly offended by falls and feels they ruin the whole experience of the program, you can use your personal judgment to penalize highly in whichever components you feel were ruined, giving the same skater 9s for fall-free performances and 7s for the same program by the same skater with one fall, even though the rest of the judges disagree with you. You would be within the rules. And you can also use your judgment about how to penalize falls by skaters who were never in consideration for scores in the 9s or maybe 7s even at their current best.

 

[MAXSwagg]

Highly disagree.

First of all, not all falls are equal in their effect on each component, so we need to leave it to judges to use their discretion how much to punish each fall based on its own merits and not some fiction that all falls are massively disruptive.

Second, if you believe that each fall should take off 2 full points from a program that otherwise demonstrates quality worthy of 9s in that component, does the same apply for a program that would otherwise deserve 7s, so it should automatically be bumped down to scores in the 5s? And then what about a program that would otherwise deserve 5s? Should it automatically be bumped down to 3s? At that point, you are looking at the possibility of lower-level skaters earning negative PCS if they have a bad day. Also at an otherwise good senior-level performance with one fall being worth less than a so-so novice performance.

Third, what about multiple falls? Should each fall lose 2 points per component? Or does the first one move the scoring cap down significantly and subsequent falls only slightly from there?

What I do think is appropriate to say that when you, MAXSwagg, are judging a competition, or any other judge who is highly offended by falls and feels they ruin the whole experience of the program, you can use your personal judgment to penalize highly in whichever components you feel were ruined, giving the same skater 9s for fall-free performances and 7s for the same program by the same skater with one fall, even though the rest of the judges disagree with you. You would be within the rules. And you can also use your judgment about how to penalize falls by skaters who were never in consideration for scores in the 9s or maybe 7s even at their current best.

Point 1: Falls are most generally disruptive and SIGNIFICANT errors, whether the skater falls and hops right back up or if they're Pogorilaya-level falls.

Point 2-3: I don't get why people try to come up with these complex arithmetics for deductions. Program components should be about the overall execution of a program. "Was this performance, as a whole, good? Was this performance outstanding? Was this performance average or poor?" A program with even one fall is not what I would deem a "good" performance, for me. Per the ISU, a component of 7.00 is still considered "good." This is precisely one reason why skaters of lower tiers (who may have skating skills and transitions worthy of 4s, but interpret and perform the program worthy of 8s or 9s for those components) have no chance. The example of Hanyu and Chan that I used in another thread highlights this issue. They had literal bombs in the SP at WTT 2017 yet still got 45+ PCS for programs with excellent skating skills and transitions, yes, but no performance or expression, no interpretation, choreography that had little commitment...poor performances yet still got average 9+ or all components. That is outrageous to me. A program for which they have three falls or three other major errors I would give 5s for that performance component. This is also why PCS don'ts really matter anymore because skaters are so bunched up at the top, mostly receiving 7+ that there is no room to accurately and adequately distinguish between skill levels.

Obviously a novice-level skater isn't going to have the performance or interpretation (and certainly not skating skill or transition) skill level of Chan or Hanyu. They also will not be in the same competition, so of course their components are going to be capped at different levels. Chan and Hanyu can max out at 10 for each component. Three falls for Chan/Hanyu = 5s. Three falls for novice skater X = 2s. But again, that comparison is facetious and makes no sense because they are not being compared. I am sorry, but figure skating is partly (at least) directly comparative or relative.

 

[Aussie Willy]

Skaters already get negative GOE on their elements and a one point deduction for a fall. The components, while they can be impacted by a fall, should also be judged on their own merits. A fall or error that might only impact a second or two of a 4 minute program should not dragged down PCS. Basically if it impacts 1% of the program, then slamming them by two component points is actually quite unfair to the skater.

 

[MAXSwagg]

Skaters already get negative GOE on their elements and a one point deduction for a fall. The components, while they can be impacted by a fall, should also be judged on their own merits. A fall or error that might only impact a second or two of a 4 minute program should not dragged down PCS. Basically if it impacts 1% of the program, then slamming them by two component points is actually quite unfair to the skater.

But a major error - especially a fall - has much more of an impact than simply saying "It's only 2 seconds of a 4 minute program = 1%." It's not like "Oh, I missed a few notes in this Prokofiev piano concerto..." That is relatively minor. A fall or a big stumble in a program is a major disruption. And two points in the grand scheme of a segment score and certainly a total competition score is insignificant.

 

[Marco]

Skaters already get negative GOE on their elements and a one point deduction for a fall. The components, while they can be impacted by a fall, should also be judged on their own merits. A fall or error that might only impact a second or two of a 4 minute program should not dragged down PCS. Basically if it impacts 1% of the program, then slamming them by two component points is actually quite unfair to the skater.

I agree. Although I can accept some sort of guideline or multiplication factor to be applied to certain PCS category (e.g. PE) based on overall GOEs. i.e. if the overall TES is more/less than the BVs by a certain %, then the PE score should also be increased/reduced by a certain %.

 

[Aussie Willy]

I agree. Although I can accept some sort of guideline or multiplication factor to be applied to certain PCS category (e.g. PE) based on overall GOEs. i.e. if the overall TES is more/less than the BVs by a certain %, then the PE score should also be increased/reduced by a certain %.

Hmmm that is actually not a bad idea. You could program something into the system that would apply the percentage to the PCS for say if there are two or more falls.

 

[Aussie Willy]

But a major error - especially a fall - has much more of an impact than simply saying "It's only 2 seconds of a 4 minute program = 1%." It's not like "Oh, I missed a few notes in this Prokofiev piano concerto..." That is relatively minor. A fall or a big stumble in a program is a major disruption. And two points in the grand scheme of a segment score and certainly a total competition score is insignificant.

Yes but you are proposing to slam skaters for falls through the PCS. You can watch a program with a fall but it can have a minimal impact on a negative impression on it. Skating is a tough sport. And some of us would prefer to look for the positive in a program, even with an error, than look to be negative on a skater.

 

[Enchanted]

Could be in part. And by the twelve 9.75's handed out in those three categories to Papadakis & Cizeron at Finlandia after wiping out in the FD there. From 7 of the 8 judges.

It's a good change, IMO, regardless of the incentive.

I saw that program live and actually his fall didn't disturb the performance or program at all. It was just a small and quick fall. He just went to his knees and got up very quickly. IMO one mistake shouldn't necessarily affect the PCS scores too much if it doesn't affect the overall performance. If it is a situation like P/C's mistake in that FD, when skaters don't let one mistake to get into their head, it would be unfair to punish them harshly.

 

[gkelly]

You might have

*One fall where the skater gets right back up and right back into the program with good quality and commitment, and anyone who started watching 5 seconds after the fall would never know there had been one

*A fall where the skater is rattled or had the breath knocked out of them or is in pain and has to decide whether there is an injury or whether they should continue, and takes some time getting to their feet and back up to speed, but by the time the next element is over they're fully committed again

*A fall where skater is rattled or in pain and continues the program more slowly, cautiously, stiffly, looking confused, focused on not falling again rather than on presenting the program, etc.

*A fall where the skater is ready to continue right away but they missed the beginning of the next element (or fell on the beginning of the element) so they need to stand or stroke and wait until a point where they can pick up the flow of the movement from where they are

*A fall in a pair or dance program where the partner who didn't fall continues skating and is far away from the fallen partner by the time s/he gets up, so there need to be several seconds of catchup before the choreography can continue

*A fall that is the cause or the result of an equipment problem that needs to be fixed before the skating can continue so there is an interruption of up to 3 minutes to fix the problem, with the attendant deduction for the interruption

*Multiple falls that may include any mix of the above

If you start with a high penalty for the down-and-up blink-and-you-miss-it kind of fall, where do you have to go for worse or more falls? Especially when you're subtracting from a number less than 10 (in some cases much lower than 10) and subtracting 2 whole points for the most benign falls. How much do you subtract for more severe/disruptive falls or for many falls before you end up less than 0?

I do think it's appropriate to ding the Performance component more than others for programs with falls, but I would do it by 0.25 to 1.00 per fall depending on severity and let judges use their judgment about the severity, about how good or bad the other aspects of the component were, and which components were affected

If there should be a severe deduction of 2 or more points for falls, I'd make it a deduction from the total score, not from a single component that is capped at 10. As is already the case, except the standard fall deduction is 1 although now the deductions are higher for third and later falls. But especially if it's going to be more severe, make the value of the deduction a percentage of the total score rather than a flat 1 or 2 or 3 points, so that skaters doing quads and starting with PCS in the 9s lose more per fall that skaters doing only easy triples and with PCS in the 5s.

 

[Dobre]

I saw that program live and actually his fall didn't disturb the performance or program at all.

It disturbed it for me.

 

[Enchanted]

It disturbed it for me.

The people at the arena gave them a standing ovation for that program. So, it didn’t bother the most of the live viewers.

 

[gkelly]

This is a subjective assessment. Some spectators, and some judges, may be more disturbed by a fall than others.

Aside from the fact that not all falls are equal.

Which is why it's better to leave the larger penalties as a matter of judgment and keep the mandatory penalties small or proportional to a level of severity that can be objectively defined.

 

[mag]

This is a subjective assessment. Some spectators, and some judges, may be more disturbed by a fall than others.

Unfortunately I suspect it is based greatly on whether or not the viewer likes the team/skater. So much of this sport is subjective. As I have said before, I find jumps landed forward and bad cross overs extremely annoying and they totally ruin a program for me. Bad cross over should obviously be reflected in the SS Mark (although sometimes I wonder) but should multiple jumps landed forward also be reflected? What about bad spin positions? The thing is, what disrupts a program for one person may not be an issue for others.

I do think common ground could be found with more than two major errors (falls and << because it is also a major error) could perhaps have an automatic percentage reduction in PCS. I like the idea of the system just making it rather than leaving it up to judges who have proven to be a bit unreliable in that regard.

 

[Dobre]

The people at the arena gave them a standing ovation for that program. So, it didn’t bother the most of the live viewers.

I see where you are coming from, but if Papadakis & Cizeron had been skating elsewhere and against stiffer competition--Korea, for example--they would not have received a standing ovation. Better the rules be clear, regardless of the audience reaction.

There is a long history of falls not costing teams placements in ice dance. It was one of the major complaints against the discipline pre-IJS. The possibility of movement within the sport has been generally viewed as a step forward. With movement has come a more competitive field, less predictability for the audience, and an incentive for more teams to stay in the sport. Teams can move up & down in the standings and feel that their performance can impact the result.

With the expansion of the execution scores from +5 to -5, that progress is at risk of being undermined.

Giving the judges clear criteria on which to deduct an impactful amount after a major error is a plausible means of balancing that change.

Most dance teams do not mind taking the hit in their scores when they make a legitimate error. In fact, you rarely see a team that is happy with a notably flawed program even when they win. If "perfection is the standard" in dance, then a serious flaw is seriously disruptive. Even a trip in a footwork sequence or a wobble on a twizzle is enough to make careful viewers catch their breath and disrupt the overall feel of the program.

A 9.5 is still an incredible PCS mark for a program with a miss.

 

[kwanfan1818]

There is a long history of falls not costing teams placements in ice dance

Case in point: at 2003 Euros, Rene Lohse went down before the corner in the FD, and he and Winkler lost the program until the end of the diagonal, where they picked it up:
https://youtu.be/wb8tSvVgSgM

I loved W/L and that program, and I did not live Chair/Sakhnovsky -- okay, I loved Sakhnovsky and found him sorely underrated, but not the team -- and did that drop W/L a place even in the FD? No, not even if it was very close:
https://youtu.be/wb8tSvVgSgM

However, that wasn't an up/down situation: it was a major blank in their high-energy program.

 

[Enchanted]

I see where you are coming from, but if Papadakis & Cizeron had been skating elsewhere and against stiffer competition--Korea, for example--they would not have received a standing ovation. Better the rules be clear, regardless of the audience reaction.

There is a long history of falls not costing teams placements in ice dance. It was one of the major complaints against the discipline pre-IJS. The possibility of movement within the sport has been generally viewed as a step forward. With movement has come a more competitive field, less predictability for the audience, and an incentive for more teams to stay in the sport. Teams can move up & down in the standings and feel that their performance can impact the result.

With the expansion of the execution scores from +5 to -5, that progress is at risk of being undermined.

Giving the judges clear criteria on which to deduct an impactful amount after a major error is a plausible means of balancing that change.

Most dance teams do not mind taking the hit in their scores when they make a legitimate error. In fact, you rarely see a team that is happy with a notably flawed program even when they win. If "perfection is the standard" in dance, then a serious flaw is seriously disruptive. Even a trip in a footwork sequence or a wobble on a twizzle is enough to make careful viewers catch their breath and disrupt the overall feel of the program.

A 9.5 is still an incredible PCS mark for a program with a miss.

I think we just have to agree to disagree. I think TES and PCS should be scored somewhat separately. I agree with what @gkelly wrote in posts 41 and 44. Not all the falls (or other mistakes) are the same. It's also far more important how you react to the mistake than whether there was a one mistake or not. In that FD by P/C, you used as an example, they had freedom in their expression and interpretation and wonderful flow before and after that one mistake. I would totally accept it, had they got 10s in PCS.

In comparison, I would also accept 10s for PCS for these programs by Asada and Abbott. IMO, the program doesn't have to be technically perfect, in order to be a masterpiece of interpretation. Interpretation is not about being flawless, it is about how you interpret and express the music, make it your own and brought it to the so called next level. How you make the program to raise above the element to element level of skating, is what matters. Just like the skating skills can still be very strong even if you had one fall in the program. It's all about the entirety when it comes to PCS, IMO.

Asada's FS in Finlandia Trophy with one visible mistake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qZ9aX5Xbxg (Yes, it is not a fall but to me doubled, singled or popped jumps are actually sometimes more disruptive than falls. They can break the flow just as much as the falls). The atmosphere she created at the arena was wonderful and she didn't let the mistake affect her performance.

Abbot's FS at COR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgHWc_GAh8U There were two falls and some other mistakes but the falls didn't take away from the wonderful interpretation. He just keeps going. 10s for interpretation and transitions would have been perfectly justified.

If you fall, your TES is going to take a hit. The idea that there should be a big mandatory reduction on PCS because of one fall just seems like an oversimplification of a complex issue. Something that can lead even bigger problems in judging when the artistic side of skating is being neglected.

 

[gkelly]

Remember Kurt Browning's Summertime program (the one where he fights with a snake through a step sequence)?

I once saw a performance (I think it was at the World Team Championships in Milwaukee, 1997?) where he fell at the end of the step sequence but never broke character. The snake won the fight that day. But if anything I'd say the performance and choreography and interpretation were enhanced.

 

[mag]

Abbot's FS at COR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgHWc_GAh8U There were two falls and some other mistakes but the falls didn't take away from the wonderful interpretation. He just keeps going. 10s for interpretation and transitions would have been perfectly justified.

I am not and have never been an Abbot fan, however, that program was very well done and deserved top marks for interpretation. He just doesn’t move me the way Chan does. That is the thing. The judges, I believe, do a much better job of separating out the “moving” bit than we fans. This program, along with many of Chan’s programs where he falls, still deserve top PCS. Same with Tessa and Scott, and probably some others. What happens, I think, is liking the skater gets mixed up in it. That happens with judges too, but it happens frequently with us fans.

 

[MAXSwagg]

Yes but you are proposing to slam skaters for falls through the PCS. You can watch a program with a fall but it can have a minimal impact on a negative impression on it. Skating is a tough sport. And some of us would prefer to look for the positive in a program, even with an error, than look to be negative on a skater.

It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else likes or doesn't like. A fall is a major error and a mistake. You can't just ignore it. PCS is supposed to evaluate the program as a whole...one cohesive unit. A program with a fall is not cohesive, or rather is certainly less cohesive than it would be without a fall. Dropping one component out of the five from 9.75 to 6.75 for men in the FS equals a PCS drop of 6 points. When top men are getting on average 200 points, and scoring 300, 6 points is pennies and does not adequately reflect the scale of the error.

 

[mag]

A fall is a major error and a mistake.

Yep, it is. There are also other major errors and mistakes. What is this obsession with falls? Assuming we are still considering figure skating a sport, completely rotating jump should be just as important as standing up, yet falls seem to get the most wrath. Why is that? Lots of skaters can stay upright, pretty much everyone I talk to says that last 1/3 rotation is the most difficult thing.

 

[Aussie Willy]

It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else likes or doesn't like. A fall is a major error and a mistake. You can't just ignore it. PCS is supposed to evaluate the program as a whole...one cohesive unit. A program with a fall is not cohesive, or rather is certainly less cohesive than it would be without a fall. Dropping one component out of the five from 9.75 to 6.75 for men in the FS equals a PCS drop of 6 points. When top men are getting on average 200 points, and scoring 300, 6 points is pennies and does not adequately reflect the scale of the error.

I totally disagree. The components are meant to be judged separately from the elements. And I think that is unfair to skaters who are really superb at components but might have an error or two in their program. Skating is not just a jumping competition, there are many other facets to a program.

Also that is your perception. Others have a different perception.

 

[Marco]

Agree with AW. And on the flip side, just because someone is error free doesn't mean s/he deserves top PCS scores.

 

[Rhino]

It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else likes or doesn't like. A fall is a major error and a mistake. You can't just ignore it. PCS is supposed to evaluate the program as a whole...one cohesive unit. A program with a fall is not cohesive, or rather is certainly less cohesive than it would be without a fall. Dropping one component out of the five from 9.75 to 6.75 for men in the FS equals a PCS drop of 6 points. When top men are getting on average 200 points, and scoring 300, 6 points is pennies and does not adequately reflect the scale of the error.

The last page of this document is quite interesting:

Additional Remarks

Program Components

In a program containing a Fall or a Serious error the score ten (10) shall not be awarded for any of the Components.

In a program containing Falls or Serious errors the score nine-fifty (9.5) or higher should not be awarded for Skating Skills, Transitions and Composition and the score nine (9.0) or higher should not be awarded for Performance and Interpretation

The effect of these component changes is that the maximum PCS if the guidelines are followed is 93 for men (46.5 in the SP) and 74.4/37.2 for Ladies. Whether they are correct is another matter though. For example would a skater whose PCS in the 80s be affected at all? They should really be done as deductions rather than saying they shouldn't be above these figures. Many skaters will get nowhere near PCS's of 9.5 and 9.0 after all.

 

[MAXSwagg]

I totally disagree. The components are meant to be judged separately from the elements. And I think that is unfair to skaters who are really superb at components but might have an error or two in their program. Skating is not just a jumping competition, there are many other facets to a program.

Also that is your perception. Others have a different perception.

So you would give a skater a ten or even multiple tens for a performance with a fall or two? Or in the old system, you would give a 6.0 for a program with major errors? Just incredible. A CLEAN program should be rewarded and incentivized more than it currently is.

Yep, it is. There are also other major errors and mistakes. What is this obsession with falls? Assuming we are still considering figure skating a sport, completely rotating jump should be just as important as standing up, yet falls seem to get the most wrath. Why is that? Lots of skaters can stay upright, pretty much everyone I talk to says that last 1/3 rotation is the most difficult thing.

Under-rotations, pre-rotations, and incorrect edges should be punished as well. The difference is a fall disrupts the program. A flip on the outside edge or an under-rotated jump landed with still good flow and aplomb does not. Those are technical errors, not quality errors. A fall is a technical error AND a quality error.

 

[mag]

Under-rotations, pre-rotations, and incorrect edges should be punished as well. The difference is a fall disrupts the program. A flip on the outside edge or an under-rotated jump landed with still good flow and aplomb does not. Those are technical errors, not quality errors. A fall is a technical error AND a quality error.

In your opinion, of course. Just because you don’t notice cheated jumps and they don’t disrupt the program for you, doesn’t mean they don’t disrupt the program for other people. Just because you think a fall is a worse error than a landed downgraded jump doesn’t mean it is. I would much rather see all the jumps cleanly rotated with perhaps a fall or two, than all or most of the jumps cheated. That is my opinion which is just as valid as yours.

 

[skateboy]

But a major error - especially a fall - has much more of an impact than simply saying "It's only 2 seconds of a 4 minute program = 1%." It's not like "Oh, I missed a few notes in this Prokofiev piano concerto..." That is relatively minor.

Interesting comparison to a music performance.

I'm one who does think that a fall is a major error and greatly disrupts the flow of a program. As a professional musician myself, I would compare a fall to having a memory slip (or slips) in a performance, where the music comes to a sudden halt before recovering and continuing on. It definitely stops the musical experience for the listener and everyone notices it. Doesn't mean it ruins any other good parts of the performance, but it dramatically interferes with artistic cohesiveness.

I would compare missing some notes to a prerotated or underrotated jump... some of the technique was sloppy but the sense of musical flow is still there. (Within reason, of course!)

 

[Aussie Willy]

So you would give a skater a ten or even multiple tens for a performance with a fall or two? Or in the old system, you would give a 6.0 for a program with major errors? Just incredible. A CLEAN program should be rewarded and incentivized more than it currently is.

Sorry but where did I say I would give 10s? I would appreciate you do not make assumptions about how I would judge based on the fact that I disagree on how do you judge a program with errors.

I said that I would not slam a skater and mark them harshly in the PCS if they had a fall. There is a difference.

 

[antmanb]

It's also a pretty moot point given that there are barely a handful of skaters in each of the disciplines who would be capable of components in the 9.5+ marks anyway.

It's also fairly amusing to see knee jerk reactions and suggestions of changes to the system based on the very top echelon of senior elite championship skaters.

Most of the penalties suggested, be it in a discussion about falls or PCS marking, would often leave adult skaters with negative marks.

Remember the system is used at all levels of the competitive spectrum not just senior elite.

I'm still sad that the levels still get tweaked based on the way the seniors easily accomplish some of them. It might be nice for some of the old spin levels to still apply to adult skaters, for example, since they are still difficult for mere mortals rather than elite skaters.