U.S. Ladies [#25]: Method in the Madness

[lurkz2]

Figure skating is not tennis. I don't know if there is a large enough fan base to support the revenue that goes into maintaining the sport and its competitions. With more and more technology being invested, the sport is just getting more and more expensive to participate and even more expensive to organize a competition for. Did you see 4cc arena being filled? I didn't. Who foots the bill?

ALso, the skater's prize money hasn't gone up in 20 years, but the cost of running the comps is rising. Remember how Tanja Szewczenko making like 30000 in 1997-8 per win, and being able to do something with that money? THe prize money is way less now, and the cost of skating has really gone up. Without endorsement, prize money hardly even covers anything now. ANd it's not like there is a good skating tour or made for tv shows that pays well that covers expense for the year.

I so hope one day skating will be more like basketball or soccer where there is little cost-related barrier to enter. I believe the most popular sports do not require high upfront cost. ALso, I think having judges/callers sit around the rink, instead of being together, may already mitigate some of this. And while we are at it, instead of having a caller we can just have judges around the rink calling the elements. The judges can end up with different calls, but the more obvious URs will get the majority of the judges calling for it. Just a thought.

I don't think it's necessary to immediately use the technology for all of the competitions. Even if it's just used for Worlds, it would still have an enormous effect because the federation spots are on the line and they would be conscious of this during the team selection process.

 

[WillyElliot]

I feel like Tonia Kwiatkowski skated to this for the entire '95-'98 quad

And her Firebird SP, too!

 

[layman]

I'm not saying there's no technical issues, but the famine or feast nature of most of her performances is indicative of the issue being somewhat mental.

I agree that Ting has no technical issues per se but under the stress of competition she rushes her timing and the result is not just one fall but multiple falls.

Ashley Wagner used to have this tendency (not so much to fall but to rush) until she went to John Nicks who helped calm her down. Her timing and thus her consistency noticeably improved afterwards.

 

[Maximillian]

And her Firebird SP, too!

This is why I associate both Firebird and Slaughter on Tenth Ave with crossed foot lutz entrances.

 

[RoseRed]

I don’t know that it would. They are already identifying bullets for steps and spins, it would be easy enough to have those bullets available for review. For jumps, it would take a bit more time, but I think te credibility it would add would be worth it. Basically to be able to go online and also have available to announcers a diagram showing each jump landing would stop a lot of second guessing. I see how fast in other sports they are able to draw out where the foot comes down when catching a pass or where the puck goes during hockey. The tech for that is there.

You know that video reviews in hockey can take forever, right? And fans complain all the time because they still feel that the refs get it wrong pretty often and are inconsistent. Of course, the NHL is stupid and does most of their review on the ref's iPad, rather than the massive screens in the War Room in Toronto.

In tennis, the Hawkeye is very fast, but it is in set location which wouldn't be true in skating, so it seems simpler.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't be in favour, but the time is a legit concern that would be considered by the ISU.

 

[ZilphaK]

Figure skating is not tennis. I don't know if there is a large enough fan base to support the revenue that goes into maintaining the sport and its competitions. With more and more technology being invested, the sport is just getting more and more expensive to participate and even more expensive to organize a competition for. Did you see 4cc arena being filled? I didn't. Who foots the bill?

ALso, the skater's prize money hasn't gone up in 20 years, but the cost of running the comps is rising. Remember how Tanja Szewczenko making like 30000 in 1997-8 per win, and being able to do something with that money? THe prize money is way less now, and the cost of skating has really gone up. Without endorsement, prize money hardly even covers anything now. ANd it's not like there is a good skating tour or made for tv shows that pays well that covers expense for the year.

I so hope one day skating will be more like basketball or soccer where there is little cost-related barrier to enter. I believe the most popular sports do not require high upfront cost. ALso, I think having judges/callers sit around the rink, instead of being together, may already mitigate some of this. And while we are at it, instead of having a caller we can just have judges around the rink calling the elements. The judges can end up with different calls, but the more obvious URs will get the majority of the judges calling for it. Just a thought.

I'm here, too. Looking at things from the other end of the sport. I understand that "fairness"' and making the sport as objective as possible goes a long way to keeping high-end skaters and fans in the sport, and improves general perception of figure skating as a sport and not an art-sport-cult.

But one of our rinks is closing; others are struggling to keep ice up. If I could have my share of the finite supply of cash, I'd put it toward building/maintaining rinks and offering free skating lessons to every kindergarten kid and first grader, get the most athletically talented kids hooked on ice sports before the lacrosse and soccer people get them. Hopefully, the more medals and more money and more fans would follow.

 

[RoseRed]

Well if you had reviewers who specialized in various elements you would need 8 for the long?and they would be really fast because they would KNOW that element.

Keep in mind that all of these people are volunteers, so would they actually be able to get that many people on the tech panel plus all the judges? There are practical considerations that would be important.

 

[MrMystery]

The problem with scattering judges around the rink to call elements is that they aren't callers. The criteria for a judge and for the tech panel roles are very different. There are plenty of judges that would be unable to tell if a jump is under rotated or not. This was part of the catalyst for bringing on a tech panel with the new judging system.

In terms of having judges judge specific elements isn't really going to be that helpful. And under rotated jump is an under rotated jump. It's not like the under rotation for an axel is different than a flip. Plus, it would substantially add to the budget by bringing in that many more judges.

 

[Vagabond]

There are plenty of judges that would be unable to tell if a jump is under rotated or not.

Judges are supposed to be able to tell whether a jump is underrotated. They are charged with giving out marks for Grade of Execution and reducing those marks when they are ninety degrees or more short of the final rotation.

 

[RoseRed]

Judges are supposed to be able to tell whether a jump is underrotated. They are charged with giving out marks for Grade of Execution and reducing those marks when they are ninety degrees or more short of the final rotation.

Don't they see in the system what the tech panel has called, and then can adjust their GOE scores accordingly?

 

[Vagabond]

Don't they see in the system what the tech panel has called, and then can adjust their GOE scores accordingly?

This is my understanding:

They see it when the Technical Panel notes that an element needs to be reviewed, but the Panel makes the determination that the jump is actually deemed < or << after reviewing replays. After giving skaters credit for any bullet points earning positive GOE, the judges must reduce the GOE by set amounts for specified error. The required deduction for an underrotated jump is -2 or -3, and for a downgraded jump is -3 or -4. This determination is to be made before the Panel reviews any jump marked for review.

https://www.isu.org/inside-single-p...-range-of-grade-of-execution?templateParam=15

If a judge gives a jump GOE that is higher than the amount allowed for an underrotated or downgraded jump (e.g., +4 for an underrotated jump), then he or she must lower the mark after the Technical Panel makes its determination.

Note that the judges are required to make other reductions in GOE for errors (such as low speed into the jump) that in no way come under the purview of the Technical Panel.

I trust that someone will correct me if I am mistaken.

 

[AxelAnnie]

Keep in mind that all of these people are volunteers, so would they actually be able to get that many people on the tech panel plus all the judges? There are practical considerations that would be important.

Well, I don't know. But I assume that in the long run the transparency and accuracy would pay for itself in viewer increases. If there was a system that people could understand, and it was quick and clear, it would have an impact.

You have to be a die hard to watch figure skating and take it seriously. IMO.

 

[AxelAnnie]

This is my understanding:

They see it when the Technical Panel notes that an element needs to be reviewed, but the Panel makes the determination that the jump is actually deemed < or << after reviewing replays. After giving skaters credit for any bullet points earning positive GOE, the judges must reduce the GOE by set amounts for specified error. The required deduction for an underrotated jump is -2 or -3, and for a downgraded jump is -3 or -4. This determination is to be made before the Panel reviews any jump marked for review.

https://www.isu.org/inside-single-p...-range-of-grade-of-execution?templateParam=15

If a judge gives a jump GOE that is higher than the amount allowed for an underrotated or downgraded jump (e.g., +4 for an underrotated jump), then he or she must lower the mark after the Technical Panel makes its determination.

Note that the judges are required to make other reductions in GOE for errors (such as low speed into the jump) that in no way come under the purview of the Technical Panel.

I trust that someone will correct me if I am mistaken.

Are they doing this?

 

[MIsty Blades/Skate Mom]

IMHO, we need a female skater with wide public appeal and a World/Olympic podium finisher to bring up viewership. Or we need someone slightly scandalous (not criminal) to generate interest. For example, an senior female skater (over 21) with big boobs who made a lesbian sex tape might fit the bill. Poor thing might probably underrotate all her jumps though. Or worse yet, fall on her chest a lot.

Well, I don't know. But I assume that in the long run the transparency and accuracy would pay for itself in viewer increases. If there was a system that people could understand, and it was quick and clear, it would have an impact.

You have to be a die hard to watch figure skating and take it seriously. IMO.

 

[her grace]

Well, I don't know. But I assume that in the long run the transparency and accuracy would pay for itself in viewer increases. If there was a system that people could understand, and it was quick and clear, it would have an impact.

You have to be a die hard to watch figure skating and take it seriously. IMO.

I don't know. I think half of the appeal for normal people is watching for controversy and thinking they know better than the judges. At least based on the number of sanctimonious, ridiculously ill-informed opinions I read on Facebook during the last Olympics.

 

[gkelly]

This is my understanding:

They see it when the Technical Panel notes that an element needs to be reviewed, but the Panel makes the determination that the jump is actually deemed < or << after reviewing replays. After giving skaters credit for any bullet points earning positive GOE, the judges must reduce the GOE by set amounts for specified error. The required deduction for an underrotated jump is -2 or -3, and for a downgraded jump is -3 or -4. This determination is to be made before the Panel reviews any jump marked for review.

https://www.isu.org/inside-single-p...-range-of-grade-of-execution?templateParam=15

If a judge gives a jump GOE that is higher than the amount allowed for an underrotated or downgraded jump (e.g., +4 for an underrotated jump), then he or she must lower the mark after the Technical Panel makes its determination.

Note that the judges are required to make other reductions in GOE for errors (such as low speed into the jump) that in no way come under the purview of the Technical Panel.

I trust that someone will correct me if I am mistaken.

Yes, that's more or less how I understand it.

As far as I know, judges have the ability to input the GOE (based on all positive and negative aspects that they saw) as soon as the element is called, and they also have the ability to go back and change it later during the program or after the program ends or after the tech panel review for that element is completed and the rotation or edge call symbols are added to the element code in the computer.

And if they miss entering a score for one element before the next one is called, or decide they can't determine the correct GOE for a jump without a review, they can also go back and insert the score at any point afterward.

They won't know what the tech panel calls are until after the reviews, but if they had a good view of the element themselves they can take the reduction right away, and then later check to confirm that they saw the same thing as the tech panel, or close enough that the score they entered was appropriate.

Only if the initial GOE entered does not match the tech panel call, then the judge should change the score to one that takes account of call.

In addition to subtracting -3 to -4 for downgrade << or wrong edge e, or -2 to -3 for underrotation < or unclear edge !, judges also have the option of subtracting -1 to -2 for Lacking rotation (no sign) or -1 for Unclear edge (no sign). If there is ultimately no call on a jump that both the tech panel and the judge thought needed to be reviewed, then a judge might actually revise an initial GOE upward after the reviews.

So there isn't a specific time in the process that judges take their reductions -- it could happen immediately, or after the program before the tech panel reviews are complete, or after the review. However, if they input a score before the calls are authorized, they are responsible for checking the final calls and adjusting scores as necessary before finalizing their own marks.

 

[AxelAnnie]

I don't know. I think half of the appeal for normal people is watching for controversy and thinking they know better than the judges. At least based on the number of sanctimonious, ridiculously ill-informed opinions I read on Facebook during the last Olympics.

The Olympics is kind of a different beast. I always love a great uninformed opinion. Especially when stated as fact.

 

[MacMadame]

All of this talk about technology to measure rotations when there is already a tried and true product that shows exactly what happens - the ice itself. Every stroke on the ice leave a tracing and anyone who has skated knows that if you want to see if your edge was clean, your spin was centered or your jump was fully rotated, all you have to do is look at the tracing on the ice. Obviously they can't have callers running out on the ice to check tracings like judges used to do for figures, but it seems like there must be a way to efficiently capture critical tracings for scrutiny.

I like this idea except that you will have marks on the ice from all the skaters since the last ice cut. But definitely you can use the tracings to help.

You know that video reviews in hockey can take forever, right? And fans complain all the time because they still feel that the refs get it wrong pretty often and are inconsistent.

And this is why I think the goal shouldn't be to get it 100% right every time. It's not possible since you can't even get 100% of the people to agree on what the right call is.

But one of our rinks is closing; others are struggling to keep ice up. If I could have my share of the finite supply of cash, I'd put it toward building/maintaining rinks and offering free skating lessons to every kindergarten kid and first grader, get the most athletically talented kids hooked on ice sports before the lacrosse and soccer people get them. Hopefully, the more medals and more money and more fans would follow.

And this is why I think it's not worth putting a lot of money into some high tech solution that no one is even sure what it is yet when we could start by increasing the cameras from 1 to 4 tomorrow with a much smaller monetary investment.

 

[gkelly]

And this is why I think it's not worth putting a lot of money into some high tech solution that no one is even sure what it is yet when we could start by increasing the cameras from 1 to 4 tomorrow with a much smaller monetary investment.

Or we could start with increasing from 1 to 2 with even less investment.

If it's first tried at a big event like Worlds, the cameras will probably already be there from the broadcast networks -- it would just be a matter of getting the feed into the tech panel's computer. So in that case you wouldn't need additional personnel to aim the cameras, but you would need someone (or one per camera) to mark the elements on each feed (the "video replay operator" position on the tech panel) and maybe someone to keep track of which camera has the best view of each element. So you'd be adding at least one additional person and possibly up to four more.

If the first test is at an event like Nebelhorn, there probably aren't multiple cameras already present in multiple locations. So the ISU would need to bring in its own second camera (and third and fourth?) and a camera operator for each in addition to the replay operators for each and maybe a replay supervisor.

But the advantage to an additional camera approach is that, while it increases the need for equipment and personnel, it doesn't change the fundamental nature of what the experts on the tech panel are asked to do. It just gives them more tools to help do so more accurately.

 

[Lizziebeth]

I like the idea of a second camera. It would probably not be needed all the time, but could help when another angle would make things easier to see. I am one of those people that believes that we will never see the day when all calls are correct. Officials are human after all. Mistakes happen in all sports when judging is involved.

 

[MacMadame]

I am one of those people that believes that we will never see the day when all calls are correct. Officials are human after all. Mistakes happen in all sports when judging is involved.

Just ask the New Orleans Saints!

 

[VGThuy]

Just ask the New Orleans Saints!

Oh my heart.

 

[Tinami Amori]

I don't think it's necessary to immediately use the technology for all of the competitions.

Maybe ceiling cameras.

There are already very sophisticated technologies out there for "positional tracking" which very precisely monitor, track and graphically present 2D, 3D movements/motions/positions of "elements, objects and living creatures' body parts" within a frame of "geometry in euclidian space". For something simple like "measuring degrees of rotation of a blade" it probably requires a electronic chip placed on a sole of the boot, and a sensor/tracker + equipment/reader. If some one in high tech gets into it, it can easily be done.

 

[MrMystery]

Judges are supposed to be able to tell whether a jump is underrotated. They are charged with giving out marks for Grade of Execution and reducing those marks when they are ninety degrees or more short of the final rotation.

I'm well aware that they are suppose to, and what the standards are for the judging and tech panels, I'm just saying that unfortunately not all judges are able to tell when jumps are underrotated.

 

[Debbie S]

Starr Andrews has been added (with Amber Glenn) to the roster of Senior Ladies at Challenge Cup next week. Laura Jacobson (N4) will compete in Advanced Novice: https://usfigureskating.org/story?id=84032&menu=TeamUSA

 

[natsulian]

Top 10 ISU Int. Scores (Junior Ladies):
1. Alexandra Trusova, 221.44
2. Alena Kostornaia, 217.98
3. Anna Shcherbakova, 205.39
4. Ting Cui, 199.79
5. Yuna Shiraiwa, 191.46
6. Yuhana Yokoi, 184.09
7. Young You, 183.98
8. Haein Lee, 180.48
9. Yi Christy Leung, 177.22
10. Anastasiia Arkhipova, 170.56

This only includes those competing at Junior Worlds in March, so no Ye-Lim or Kanysheva.

 

[Dobre]

For clarification, Cui & Shiraiwa's scores above are for their senior programs. I believe there is one fewer element in the junior LP programs. (Cui earned about 4.2 on that choreo step sequence at Tallinn so if you were to subtract @ 4.2 points from Cui & Shiraiwa's scores, you might have a better feel for where they might stand numbers-wise with junior content).

 

[Frau Muller]

I hope someone is skating to Slaughter on Tenth Avenue. They are up against the Russian girls who scored above 220 at their Junior Nationals.

Not that I don't wish them well.....I do.

They’re also going up against Young You, not to mention some good Japanese. I think that 8th-9th places are realistic for Ting & Hannah. Hannah’s performance factor (showmanship) is her trump card.

 

[Tinami Amori]

nm (found info)

 

[WillyElliot]

IMHO, we need a female skater with wide public appeal and a World/Olympic podium finisher to bring up viewership. Or we need someone slightly scandalous (not criminal) to generate interest. For example, an senior female skater (over 21) with big boobs who made a lesbian sex tape might fit the bill.

Something like a "2 skaters, 1 cup" video? That would get the media's attention, no?