1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi all! No longer will threads be closed after 1000 (ish) messages. We may close if one gets so long to cause an issue and if you would like a thread closed to start a new one after a 1000 posts then just use the "Report Post" function. Enjoy!

New FSU Judging Game - 1994 Euro Ladies FS

Discussion in 'The Trash Can' started by Aussie Willy, Jan 9, 2011.

  1. Aussie Willy

    Aussie Willy Hates both vegemite and peanut butter

    We had a few people think it would be interesting to do a judging game on this event. Very interesting mix of skaters - Butryskaya, Markova, Bonaly, Baiul plus a few others.

    I am happy to do the ISUCalc part of it (have updated it on my laptop).

    We need a TS and ATS. I am happy to act as a TC but only if no-one else wants the role as I would like to judge this one.

    Is someone able to post the clips here?

    We can have as many judges as those who want to participate. If I fill a panel I can just start another one. You are allowed to pick a country - first in best dressed. Marks will be entered in the order I receive them from the judges so again first in best dressed.

    At the end of the event (we will have a deadline of a couple of weeks on this) the protocols will be posted for everyone to see. And then you can feel free to snark at your fellow judges (What the hell were you thinking :eek:!!!)

    To help with the judging, a couple of ISU Communications to assist with the rules. Use Communications 1619 and 1611 from this link.


    One this link there is a Program Component Overview and also Explanations which may assist with the component side of things.


    Couple of other things to be aware of:

    Mark elements in order as performed.

    If you haven't done one of these games before, PCS are marked in increments of .25. Eg if you are marking in the 7.00s, then you could use 7.00, 7.25, 7.50, 7.75. Other marks won't be able to be entered in the program.

    When it comes to steps and spins, judge quality, not quantity. If the steps are easy but very well done, reward the skater for it.

    Unless the element has to be in the minuses of GOE according to the communication, if it has a slight deduction, then the element can still be in the +GOE. You do need to take into account all the aspects of the element, not just the deduction when applying the GOE.

    Keep an open mind about choreography and music. You may not like the program or choice of music, but if the skater is using it and it is appropriate for the music, then reward the skater in their PCS.

    Once you have watched the clips when posted, then you can send the marks through to me at [email protected]. Last time someone had set up an Excel spreadsheet for this so if someone wanted to do that then that would be great.

    Looking forward to playing.


  2. Squibble

    Squibble New Member

    FS? Don't you mean SP?
  3. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    I'd rather judge, but if you can't find a TS I can try to do that instead.
  4. seaner00

    seaner00 Member

    delete this post
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2011
  5. Aussie Willy

    Aussie Willy Hates both vegemite and peanut butter

    The suggestion had been the FS.

    We could do parts 1 (SP) and 2 (FS). You don't need to have exactly the same panels on both so it would be possible to get a cumalative result.

    What do people think?
  6. Squibble

    Squibble New Member

    AW, I see what happened. The thread started out discussing the SP, but someone suggested the FS. Then I posted links to some SP's.

    It's your call, but I couldn't find a video for Ludmila Ivanova's FS.
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2011
  7. Aussie Willy

    Aussie Willy Hates both vegemite and peanut butter

    Maybe let's stick with the FS for the moment. We could revist the SP because I suppose with IJS you are judging what you see, not what placement you give. So whatever marks are given or calls are made, they should be judged independently.
  8. Squibble

    Squibble New Member

  9. essence_of_soy

    essence_of_soy Well-Known Member

    '94 Europeans is one of my favourite competitions. I'll be interested to see how people judge this.
  10. casken

    casken Well-Known Member

    Wouldn't it be simpler to just give the skaters the same base score for the spins and footwork and have everyone just give GOE for each element, like they currently do for spirals and the second men's footwork sequence?
  11. briancoogaert

    briancoogaert Well-Known Member

    Really weird to imagine that Oksana Baiul won the Olympics with a worse LP against Nancy Kerrigan who skated a better LP than Surya Bonaly at Euros ! But that's another debate : Politiks, politiks ! ;)
  12. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    The spins and steps will probably all be level 1. If someone does happen to have the right kinds of difficulty in the right combination to count as level 2 or 3, do we want to reward that?

    Or leave it up to judges to reflect difficulty in the GOEs, so that a difficult element that's not done especially well could earn +GOE in our version?

    The other functions of the technical panel would be to determine jump rotation, determine which elements don't count at all, and identify falls that require fall deductions.

    I guess the question is, are we trying to practice judging as accurately as possible under 2011 rules, knowing that the programs weren't designed to meet those rules, or are we trying to find as close as possible to a definitive answer of who "should" have won in 1994 rules if there had been a simple system of points for elements and five components at the time?
  13. haribobo

    haribobo Well-Known Member

    Maybe judging it in 6.0 would make more sense. If the programs weren't designed for CoP, seems funny to judge it that way. But I like the idea in general very much! :)
  14. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    If we judge by 6.0, we'll all go in with preconceptions. I find it's impossible to 6.0-judge past events with a completely open mind when I already know the official results. Others are free to try.

    Aussie Willy has offered to organize this, so we'll have to play by her rules.

    If someone else wants to organize a game, they can set the rules.

    If we want to adapt IJS rules to fit the rules the skaters were following at the time, I'd suggest the following modifications:

    No maximum number of jump elements
    Minimum one jump combo or jump sequence (no maximum at the time)
    Zayak rule limits at the time: maximum of two triples may be repeated, at least one time must be in combination or sequence; the same triple can't be performed more than twice

    No maximum number of spins
    Spins need at least three revolutions to count as elements (or three on each foot to get credit for the change of foot)
    No required kinds of spins
    Spins with the same code can count more than once -- it's up to the judges to identify variety or repetition and reflect that under the Choreography score

    Step sequences must be recognizably straight line, circular, or serpentine and fill the length or width of the rink or both, respectively
    A second step sequence can be called if it's a different shape than the first and meets the requirements
    Should they all be called as level 1 (unless they actually meet the requirements for level 2) or as ChSt?

    A spiral sequence that meets the 2011 Choreo Spiral Sequence requirements can be called as an element; otherwise spirals like other field moves should be considered transitions

    So what do you think, Aussie Willy? Can we adapt the IJS as we know it today to fit 1994 program construction rules? That will tell us more about how these programs compare with each other on their own terms. Trying to fit these programs into 2011 rules will distort the results by throwing out elements that were legal in 1994 but not in the much stricter 2011 well-balanced program requirements.

    The PCS scoring should still be valid and interesting in either case.

    In that sense it would be easier to use short programs because the rules were more similar. The only differences between 1994 and 2011 ladies SPs would be
    *double jump out of steps was required and should earn +/- GOE according to quality, not automatic -3 as now when a triple is required
    *spiral sequence is no longer a required element (and few of the sequences at the time would have counted even as level 1 by 2006-2010 rules), so just consider the spirals transitions
  15. Susan M

    Susan M Well-Known Member

    It's going to be hard to characterize these 6.0 era skates under COP. I just watched both Baiul and Bonaly and could not find a full, recognizable step sequence in either. For starters, it is difficult to follow the pattern because the camera is zoomed close on the skater, losing perspective on where the skater is on the ice. (Obviously, you won't be asking me to serve as tech specialist here.:lol:) I think Bonaly twice does most of a circular sequence. This Baiul program has a lot of footwork, but COP would treat them as transitions because they are more near half pattern sequences. This program does sometimes have SL footwork into the 3 toe, but in this particular version, she just did basic stroking there.
  16. alchemy void

    alchemy void blowing kisses with bitchface

    Yes, it's very difficult to judge 6.0 freeskates with COP because of the looser requirements with spins and footwork. Skaters are going to have different numbers of spin and footwork sequences. It will be difficult to make sure it's a level playing field (each skater has the same number of elements scored).

    If we can determine a same number of elements for each skater, then obviously all spins/footwork should be called as level 1 and GOE should be applied to more difficult spins. It might be a lot of work to go through all those LPs and figure it out so we are judging an equal number of elements for each skater. It can be done but I'm definitely not willing to do all that extra work. ;) :cheer2:

    SPs are so much easier because everyone has the same required 8 elements.
  17. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    Well, step sequences weren't required in 1994 long programs. The "well-balanced program" rules didn't start getting introduced until a couple years later, and they were more guidelines than requirements at first.

    So we could call a full step sequence as an element, or one that looks close enough to be intended as one and allow judges to give -GOE if it didn't look complete, and not call a step sequence if there wasn't a recognizable one.

    There was no official penalty for not including one in 1994, and no official penalty in 2011 other than losing an opportunity to gain points.
  18. Allen

    Allen Glad to be back!

    Wheee! I'm glad to see another judging game. I'd like to judge as in the past. What a great competition to work with. If we do further judging of long programs, there are a lot of videos on YouTube of the free skate at 94 worlds, with an interesting group of skaters.

    I'd like to be the New Zealand judge.
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2011
  19. CantALoop

    CantALoop Well-Known Member

    I agree that jumps should be unlimited, but will the current IJS software allow elements to be overridden and scored as normal so that any jumping passes past the 7th won't be asterisked and voided?
  20. Fallcolor

    Fallcolor Member

    I'd like to play! :D
  21. Aussie Willy

    Aussie Willy Hates both vegemite and peanut butter

    The whole point of doing these games is to see what result is under IJS. You can still judge the quality of elements and PCS and apply the IJS principles. We don't have to call levels on elements unless they miss the element and it becomes invalid. We have had to run competitions at my rink like that when we don't have a TS.

    Having just Choreographic Spirals will actually make the calling of spirals easier. I think go for quality in terms of how well it is performed rather than worrying about if they are held for however many seconds. Just recognise they have done a spiral sequence.

    I am with gkelly. I am now so far removed from judging 6.0 for these kinds of programs I don't want to go back. But also people have found these exercises really interesting and given them a great understanding of the judging system. And they learn how hard it is to be a judge.

    In answer to marking elements invalid, you can do it manually in the system as you do the datat entry. No problem there.

    If someone wants to organise a judging game under 6.0 be my guest. Just remember though if you want to get a result, you need to be able to do the calculations to get the result and that is easier said than done. I have no clue how you do it unless you have the relevant software.
  22. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    Actually the 6.0 calculations by the majority system are quite simple and I often used to do them by hand. I never got the hang of OBO.
  23. bartek

    bartek Active Member

    I love judging old competitions using IJS and those games are great opportunity to do it. I would like to be a judge from Poland.

    I think that we should give normal levels to spins rather than reward higher difficulty with GOE. Grade of execution is to reward quality or punish lack of it, not to reward difficulty. We should reward skaters who did more difficult spins just giving them correct higher level and then give GOE for its quality. After all quality is something completely different than difficulty.
  24. Allen

    Allen Glad to be back!

    I agree here. I've seen judging games where spins were given no level and really, I don't think that's fair considering the rules were so different. If all spins got level one, that might work the best.
  25. akkto

    akkto New Member

    Here you got a judge for Spain!;)
  26. Jenna

    Jenna Well-Known Member

    I would be interested in being on the technical panel! :D
  27. Squibble

    Squibble New Member

    I must say that I'm looking forward to seeing how a transition-filled program stacks up against one with a footwork sequence as an element (assuming the technical panel agrees with you). PCS vs. TES, anyone?

    :watch: :COP:
  28. Aussie Willy

    Aussie Willy Hates both vegemite and peanut butter

    That would be great. It is really to confirm the elements. If you like once you have watched the programs can you send them to me at my email address and I will get them entered in the program.

    Thanks to Squibble for the video clips.
  29. CantALoop

    CantALoop Well-Known Member

    Sent you my scores, although if some steps/spirals are called that I didn't grade I might need to revise them.

    The spins were hard to call as well. Some spins were linked close together but didn't have an immediate change of foot (e.g. an arabian into a barely held 2-3 rotation spin, step out, and double turn into a scratch spin). I didn't know whether to judge those as a combination spin or two separate spins.

    Put me as any country you wish :)
  30. beepbeep

    beepbeep Brazilian Eurotrash

    Brazilian judge, reporting for duty :)