This stems directly from the Hubbell/Donohue incident at Four Continents, but also brings up the bigger issue that we've been seeing this season, particularly in ice dance, where the GOE's don't always seem to be in line with the levels called.
Long story short (and it's been covered wonderfully in-depth in another thread here in the Trash Can by @thvudragon)- Hubbell and Donohue's opening stationary lift failed to stop traveling and per ISU Communication 2164 - 1.4.1.7 if it does not stop traveling by the completion of the first rotation / NO features will count until the couple rotates on the spot. This explains why the element was called base level.
However, the GOEs for this element were 3 +3's, 2 +4's, and 4 perfect +5's even though the lift was messy throughout.
Many people aren't aware or forget that judging panels are NOT seeing the levels that are being called for any elements. The ISU makes the judges aware that specific elements have been flagged for review (they will light up on the screen in a different color), but they have no further information as to what the decision is from the technical panel once said elements are actually reviewed. They don't have that little TES tracker in the corner of their judging screens.
When it comes to singles and pairs skating, things like the <, <<, !, and e calls ARE shown to the judges once the elements are reviewed. This obviously comes into play because judges that were giving high positive GOE's need to go back in and modify their scores with these calls.
However, with ice dance (and with the non-jump elements in singles and pairs) there is no note of the level drop, and it makes sense. Seeing all of the called levels would give the crafty judges an idea of where the base value stands for a particular performance, and it would also give them a quick way of comparing skaters to each other in terms of where the PCS likely needs to go. I'm quite sure the phenomenon of judges marking skaters with called level 1's and 2's with lower GOE would also take place, and skaters with level 4 would likely receive the highest GOE's by default as well (ie. 'They got the level, so it must've been great' mentality). Opening up all of that specific information to panels could influence many of them to mark a certain way, and I don't think that's the answer to the problem.
In the case of Hubbell and Donohue, I'm guessing that since they are a top team - 2nd in the World and GPF winners, the judges wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt on the element and assume that even with the traveling (if they even noticed), nothing would be called down. Or maybe they did notice something wrong but they didn't want to be the random -1 or 0 on the panel and stray outside that 'corridor' we hear of so often. We all know that it's much easier for the top skaters to get the highest GOE's while mid-to-low ranked skaters may be really proficient in one element or two but pulling off the highest GOEs typically doesn't happen.
So, coming out of my rambling- I'm actually curious to hear what you think needs to happen as far as getting the technical panels and judges more in line with each other and having the GOEs make more sense in these situations. Do the judges need more information, even if their jobs are solely to count the positive and negative features of the element they see to come up with a GOE number? Why do you think EVERY judge overlooked the loss of balance, not centered/on the spot, awkward position on H/D's lift? Were they really afraid of being the only to do so?
Also, I mentioned in a video earlier in the year that I think certain GOEs should just be voided out if the skater is not capable of pulling that number based on the way the element was performed. Same with PCS. The ISU is going with the (questionable) rule this season about the maximum PCS a skater/team can receive on each of the five components with a major error/fall in a program. If the skater falls once, wouldn't it make more sense to just void out the 9+ scores that are not allowed at that point rather than giving the judge the opportunity to bend the rules?
Long story short (and it's been covered wonderfully in-depth in another thread here in the Trash Can by @thvudragon)- Hubbell and Donohue's opening stationary lift failed to stop traveling and per ISU Communication 2164 - 1.4.1.7 if it does not stop traveling by the completion of the first rotation / NO features will count until the couple rotates on the spot. This explains why the element was called base level.
However, the GOEs for this element were 3 +3's, 2 +4's, and 4 perfect +5's even though the lift was messy throughout.
Many people aren't aware or forget that judging panels are NOT seeing the levels that are being called for any elements. The ISU makes the judges aware that specific elements have been flagged for review (they will light up on the screen in a different color), but they have no further information as to what the decision is from the technical panel once said elements are actually reviewed. They don't have that little TES tracker in the corner of their judging screens.
When it comes to singles and pairs skating, things like the <, <<, !, and e calls ARE shown to the judges once the elements are reviewed. This obviously comes into play because judges that were giving high positive GOE's need to go back in and modify their scores with these calls.
However, with ice dance (and with the non-jump elements in singles and pairs) there is no note of the level drop, and it makes sense. Seeing all of the called levels would give the crafty judges an idea of where the base value stands for a particular performance, and it would also give them a quick way of comparing skaters to each other in terms of where the PCS likely needs to go. I'm quite sure the phenomenon of judges marking skaters with called level 1's and 2's with lower GOE would also take place, and skaters with level 4 would likely receive the highest GOE's by default as well (ie. 'They got the level, so it must've been great' mentality). Opening up all of that specific information to panels could influence many of them to mark a certain way, and I don't think that's the answer to the problem.
In the case of Hubbell and Donohue, I'm guessing that since they are a top team - 2nd in the World and GPF winners, the judges wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt on the element and assume that even with the traveling (if they even noticed), nothing would be called down. Or maybe they did notice something wrong but they didn't want to be the random -1 or 0 on the panel and stray outside that 'corridor' we hear of so often. We all know that it's much easier for the top skaters to get the highest GOE's while mid-to-low ranked skaters may be really proficient in one element or two but pulling off the highest GOEs typically doesn't happen.
So, coming out of my rambling- I'm actually curious to hear what you think needs to happen as far as getting the technical panels and judges more in line with each other and having the GOEs make more sense in these situations. Do the judges need more information, even if their jobs are solely to count the positive and negative features of the element they see to come up with a GOE number? Why do you think EVERY judge overlooked the loss of balance, not centered/on the spot, awkward position on H/D's lift? Were they really afraid of being the only to do so?
Also, I mentioned in a video earlier in the year that I think certain GOEs should just be voided out if the skater is not capable of pulling that number based on the way the element was performed. Same with PCS. The ISU is going with the (questionable) rule this season about the maximum PCS a skater/team can receive on each of the five components with a major error/fall in a program. If the skater falls once, wouldn't it make more sense to just void out the 9+ scores that are not allowed at that point rather than giving the judge the opportunity to bend the rules?