ISU Congress & elections 2022

[Deleted member 221]

The ISU has allocated an additional $500,000 to the organisers to support it.

Is this the best way to spend $500k? It's not like skating is swimming in money right now. I'm with misskarne on this one. Who benefits from this? I didn't see a rationale for it, but maybe I missed it.

 

[allezfred]

Is this the best way to spend $500k? It's not like skating is swimming in money right now. I'm with misskarne on this one. Who benefits from this? I didn't see a rationale for it, but maybe I missed it.

Smaller member federations who have been excluded from the World Championships since 2012 due to the higher TES required. The ISU is looking at growing markets for skating in Southeast Asia and South America and having skaters from those regions being able to compete at Worlds will help with marketing figure skating in those regions.

There will still be minimum TES, but they will be similar to what we have for Euros and 4CC now.

 

[marbri]

Smaller member federations who have been excluded from the World Championships since 2012 due to the higher TES required. The ISU is looking at growing markets for skating in Southeast Asia and South America and having skaters from those regions being able to compete at Worlds will help with marketing figure skating in those regions.

There will still be minimum TES, but they will be similar to what we have for Euros and 4CC now.

Crazy lady here with random thought that this might actually help grow skating in smaller nations more than being worried some man from a smaller nation has to lift a 17 year old. But what do I know

 

[Orm Irian]

The ISU is looking at growing markets for skating in Southeast Asia and South America and having skaters from those regions being able to compete at Worlds will help with marketing figure skating in those regions.

I suspect they may have overestimated the extent to which 'Skater X didn't even manage to make it out of the qualifying round at Worlds' will be a point of national pride in said regions, but we'll see how it goes.

 

[allezfred]

I suspect they may have overestimated the extent to which 'Skater X didn't even manage to make it out of the qualifying round at Worlds' will be a point of national pride in said regions, but we'll see how it goes.

Yes, we will. People can choose to ignore the qualifying rounds if they feel it is beneath them to watch it.

 

[Deleted member 221]

Ah ok, I see now. I wasn't sure why we needed qualifying rounds if we still had TES qualifications, but the qualifying rounds make (somewhat) more sense if the TES minimum will be much lower.

Not convinced it's the best use of money or best way to support smaller federations, but at least there's rationale.

 

[sk9tingfan]

TV Alert: NBC is covering the required age changes this morning on the Today Show. It's now 7:42 AM.

 

[allezfred]

Not convinced it's the best use of money or best way to support smaller federations, but at least there's rationale.

This is something that is overwhelmingly supported by smaller federations. It’s important for all sorts of reasons (financial and media attention to name just two) to have skaters compete at Worlds.

 

[victorskid]

The official summary of Day 3 actions: https://www.isu.org/isu-news/news/1...ngress-2022-phuket-tha-day-3?templateParam=15

 

[Ena Grins]

Smaller member federations who have been excluded from the World Championships since 2012 due to the higher TES required. The ISU is looking at growing markets for skating in Southeast Asia and South America and having skaters from those regions being able to compete at Worlds will help with marketing figure skating in those regions.

There will still be minimum TES, but they will be similar to what we have for Euros and 4CC now.

Yeah, I've seen a lot of comments about how this hurts smaller federations but it appeared to me that a number of smaller federations spoke up in support. It passed with a decent enough margin too, right?

 

[slicekw]

I'd like to thank everyone who's following the proceedings and summarizing to us.

 

[LeafOnTheWind]

I wish they had been able to test separate panels for judging before now so I understand why they are waiting before making a ruling. I just can't believe that the Russian delegate said she couldn't remember the programs the last time this was tested because she was so busy marking to the criteria. Does she understand that she basically stood up and said they are pulling numbers out of their ass based on reputation and country? If she couldn't handle marking two criteria and found it to be a lot of work, how can she mark all the current scoring elements based on the stated criteria? They basically took the 6.0 two random numbers and made the random number effect an exponential factor.

 

[Karen-W]

I wish they had been able to test separate panels for judging before now so I understand why they are waiting before making a ruling. I just can't believe that the Russian delegate said she couldn't remember the programs the last time this was tested because she was so busy marking to the criteria. Does she understand that she basically stood up and said they are pulling numbers out of their ass based on reputation and country? If she couldn't handle marking two criteria and found it to be a lot of work, how can she mark all the current scoring elements based on the stated criteria? They basically took the 6.0 two random numbers and made the random number effect an exponential factor.

Oh, she was skewered in the live chat by people watching the stream. It was pretty amusing.

I suspect that the PCS categories reduction proposal is also going to be voted down or withdrawn because it hasn't been tested much since those questions were already raised earlier in the week.

 

[gkelly]

I wish they had been able to test separate panels for judging before now so I understand why they are waiting before making a ruling. I just can't believe that the Russian delegate said she couldn't remember the programs the last time this was tested because she was so busy marking to the criteria. Does she understand that she basically stood up and said they are pulling numbers out of their ass based on reputation and country?

What exactly did she say?

To me your paraphrase "couldn't remember the programs because she was so busy marking to the criteria" means that she was so focused on assigning numbers to the specific PCS criteria that she didn't get a holistic sense of each program that stuck in her head as memories.

Which has nothing to do with pulling numbers out of one's ass based on reputation and country. Probably less so than marking only GOEs and then coming up with PCS based on overall impression (or reputation).

It seems that what she was saying was that when she was focusing only on PCS and on addressing all of the written criteria for each, she was marking only trees and not seeing the forest.

 

[MacMadame]

I suspect they may have overestimated the extent to which 'Skater X didn't even manage to make it out of the qualifying round at Worlds' will be a point of national pride in said regions, but we'll see how it goes.

"Our skater made it to Worlds!" is how I've seen this presented in the past. Why would it be different now?

 

[LeafOnTheWind]

It seems that what she was saying was that when she was focusing only on PCS and on addressing all of the written criteria for each, she was marking only trees and not seeing the forest.

Wasn't that the entire selling point of the current system? We can judge by stated criteria? I know I'm exaggerating when I say they are pulling numbers out of their ass but I don't think I'm exaggerating as much as we hope I am. How can she judge based on stated criteria for everything if focusing on a smaller number of criteria and basing her scores on that was too hard for her? The split panel would allow someone else to focus on the whole while the rest focus on their parts.

 

[gkelly]

Wasn't that the entire selling point of the current system? We can judge by stated criteria? I know I'm exaggerating when I say they are pulling numbers out of their ass but I don't think I'm exaggerating as much as we hope I am. How can she judge based on stated criteria for everything if focusing on a smaller number of criteria and basing her scores on that was too hard for her? The split panel would allow someone else to focus on the whole while the rest focus on their parts.

I understand what she was saying to be, most likely:

"When I judge both GOEs and PCS, I focus on the individual criteria for GOEs and on overall impression of each component for PCS.

When I'm asked to judge only PCS and to apply all 3-6 criteria for each component, I'm so focused on the components that I don't get an overall impression of the program so it doesn't stick in my head."

Assuming that is what she meant, and assuming that it is true for most judges, then there would be a question as to whether it's preferable to have PCS judges who look at the programs more granularly in terms of a couple dozen criteria but don't remember the programs as programs, or would it be preferable to ask judges to focus each program and each component as a whole rather than thinking about each individual criterion while assigning marks?

Which would also raise the question of whether it would be beneficial to split judging panels between GOEs and PCS and also reduce the number of components to three, or would either one of those changes or the other better achieve the intended goal?

 

[Ena Grins]

What exactly did she say?

To me your paraphrase "couldn't remember the programs because she was so busy marking to the criteria" means that she was so focused on assigning numbers to the specific PCS criteria that she didn't get a holistic sense of each program that stuck in her head as memories.

Which has nothing to do with pulling numbers out of one's ass based on reputation and country. Probably less so than marking only GOEs and then coming up with PCS based on overall impression (or reputation).

It seems that what she was saying was that when she was focusing only on PCS and on addressing all of the written criteria for each, she was marking only trees and not seeing the forest.

I can't remember what exactly she said, but it was something to the effect of when she judged the test event for splitting the panel at Nebelhorn a number of years back, she was assigned to judge GOE and skating skills (I think) and the next day she found she couldn't remember any of the programs. And then didn't expand at all on why she couldn't remember them or why it would be a bad thing.

When she said that, my reaction was...GOOD. That means you were doing what you're supposed to be doing. I agree with @mpal2, the point of judging is explicitly NOT to assign scores based on the overall feel for the program. It's to evaluate each element independently and then the specific PCS categories based on the stated criteria.

One of the interesting concerns about the split panel proposal was that if you had fewer judges for each item, it might allow outlier judges to skew the results for an individual skater more. It's an interesting point. On one hand we need more judges to challenge the status quo of reputation-based scoring, and on the other hand it opens the door up for greater impact of biased judging.

 

[gkelly]

I can't remember what exactly she said, but it was something to the effect of when she judged the test event for splitting the panel at Nebelhorn a number of years back, she was assigned to judge GOE and skating skills (I think) and the next day she found she couldn't remember any of the programs. And then didn't expand at all on why she couldn't remember them or why it would be a bad thing.

When she said that, my reaction was...GOOD. That means you were doing what you're supposed to be doing.

Thanks.

Yes, if you're only judging GOEs and skating skills, then you're not supposed to be focused on the programs as programs.

Neither are tech panelists.

 

[VGThuy]

Not looking at the overall program is what has made figure skating so fugly and made the ice dance tech committee go absolutely bonkers in their new reforms to force actual dance and big picture thinking back into the discipline because without them telling coaches and teams to do that, it'll just be...itemized programs.

 

[On My Own]

I think it's foolish to let the split panel judges focus on one PCS category each, if that's an idea being floated around. Skating Skills and Transitions are pretty intermingled, and then Transitions and Composition could be related. And Performance and Interpretation are related. And Interpretation and Composition are related. And Composition and Skating Skills can be related.

Looking at exactly one category is silly, as is hyper-focus on the "criteria" of these categories. I think splitting TES vs PCS is enough. And I don't particularly think the criteria have any use with the vague language they use, and there's inherent ambiguity between scores like "9.25" and "9.50" (there's no real feedback there, and a judge will only ever use it as a way to rank by preference - no criteria can dictate this objectively).

Funnily, if I remember last time, one of the reasons for the split being rejected was "there was too little to do"? Which one is it? You're too busy marking by the criteria, or is there too little to do?

 

[Karen-W]

I think it's foolish to let the split panel judges focus on one PCS category each, if that's an idea being floated around. Skating Skills and Transitions are pretty intermingled, and then Transitions and Composition could be related. And Performance and Interpretation are related. And Interpretation and Composition are related. And Composition and Skating Skills can be related.

Looking at exactly one category is silly, as is hyper-focus on the "criteria" of these categories. I think splitting TES vs PCS is enough. And I don't particularly think the criteria have any use with the vague language they use, and there's inherent ambiguity between scores like "9.25" and "9.50" (there's no real feedback there, and a judge will only ever use it as a way to rank by preference - no criteria can dictate this objectively).

Funnily, if I remember last time, one of the reasons for the split being rejected was "there was too little to do"? Which one is it? You're too busy marking by the criteria, or is there too little to do?

I think splitting the panels is a good idea, however the test they did in Oberstdorf had, from what I understand, one panel judging GOE/Skating Skills and the other panel judging the remaining PCS categories. Perhaps reducing PCS to 3 categories would make the split better... because in that scenario, the PCS judges can still judge the program more holistically while the GOE judges take a closer look at the actual execution of the technical elements. Some might not like that, but that seems to be more of a mindset change, where they come to understand that there is a tangible difference in the purpose of TES and PCS and there needs to be a different approach when judging each, rather than a "program as a whole" mindset.

It will be interesting, if they actually get to it today, to see what happens with the PCS reduction proposal.

 

[Dobre]

I'd like to thank everyone who's following the proceedings and summarizing to us.

Me too. Thank you!

 

[MacMadame]

Not looking at the overall program

But that's what the PCS judges would be doing in a split panel.

 

[overedge]

Funnily, if I remember last time, one of the reasons for the split being rejected was "there was too little to do"? Which one is it? You're too busy marking by the criteria, or is there too little to do?

The idea of any judge using any judging system having "too little to do" is absurd. Even when all judges had to do was assign a single number up to 6.0 to two different broad categories, they had to do a lot of watching and assessing to come up with those two numbers.

(and yeah maybe a bit of and as well )

 

[VGThuy]

But that's what the PCS judges would be doing in a split panel.

I was confused, I thought the judge who was complaining about not remembering the whole program was judging PCS. I re-read the paragraphs and found out she was there to judge skating skills and GOE. In that case, I agree with @Ena Grins that if that was her assignment, then she shouldn't be judging the whole program. She needs to be judging the elements as they are performed and the skating skills. Nothing stops her from watching and enjoying the programs later on, so long as videos are available....

 

[Dobre]

Let's do keep in mind that the judges are volunteers. (If I am bored to tears while volunteering, I don't volunteer for the same thing again). I don't know if this is what that particular judge was saying, but I remember boredom being an issue for judges who were testing something along these lines.

As far as need goes, I don't know if a split panel is needed for PCS or not. I've never judged, and I would trust people with experience on this. I think it's pretty clear that marking all the GOE is overwhelming. Hence you wind up with multiple judges completely missing the fact that Katsalapov totally bombed the exit of an element--because they all looked down in order to mark points before the element was completed.

 

[overedge]

I think it's pretty clear that marking all the GOE is overwhelming. Hence you wind up with multiple judges completely missing the fact that Katsalapov totally bombed the exit of an element--because they all looked down in order to mark points before the element was completed.

But this happened under 6.0 as well. I think it was Morry Stilwell who told the story about when he was judging a competition, when the marks for one skater were revealed, he had given the skater a much higher mark than the rest of the panel. He had dropped his pencil or something, and bent down to pick it up just before the program ended. He looked at the marks and asked another judge what happened, and the other judge said, "He [the skater] ran into the wall"

 

[Dobre]

But this happened under 6.0 as well. I think it was Morry Stilwell who told the story about when he was judging a competition, when the marks for one skater were revealed, he had given the skater a much higher mark than the rest of the panel.

Yes, it happened with a judge on an element in that example. But multiple judges for the same element seems to imply a more systemic issue.
(Systemic isn't exactly the word I'm looking for, but it will have to do because I think my brain is a tad worn out today).

 

[overedge]

Yes, it happened with a judge on an element in that example. But multiple judges for the same element seems to imply a more systemic issue.
(Systemic isn't exactly the word I'm looking for, but it will have to do because I think my brain is a tad worn out today).

"Systemic" works just fine!