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

[Tavi]

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.

There are falls and there are falls. At Worlds 2017 Jason fell on his opening 4T, was up in a flash, performed the rest of the program brilliantly, and got a huge standing ovation. That is a very different situation than, say, Daniel Samohin’s fall at SA this past year, or Jeremy Abbott’s fall in the SP at the 2014 Olympics, both of which really disrupted the programs and totally shook the spectators. I don’t see how you can equate the two.

 

[gkelly]

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.

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.

Here's a performance with two falls that would probably receive fall deductions under the current rules but that are not really errors of technique or technical quality.

In a climate where top-quality performances are receiving scores in the 9s all the way up to 10, I could imagine some judges scoring this performance at 9.5 or even 9.75 even with the falls. And I wouldn't fault them for it.

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.

Exactly. Program components are judgments, based on knowledge and expertise about skating and whatever rules happen to be in effect at the time. But they are inevitably subjective. They are opinions. They are going to differ from one expert to another.

There can be guidelines to to try to establish a shared u nderstanding of what should be rewarded and what should be penalized, but ultimately it's up to each judge to decide what is disruptive and how disruptive it was.

A rule that requires the same strict mandatory PCS reductions for the same error regardless of severity is not about judgment but about prejudgment/prejudice based on the name of an error rather than how it actually affects the criteria for that component. It does not leave room for all judges to exercise their judgment, but rather imposes one person's or one camp's prejudices.

It's fine for fans -- or official rulemakers -- to have opinions and to stick by them when evaluating programs. But where the rules involve qualitative judgments of how good or bad a performance was in several related areas for the same score, and the effect of errors of varying severity on each set of criteria.

There are plenty of other places in the scoring to reflect black-and-white yes-or-know decisions about penalizing errors. PCS are more flexible.

To me, it makes sense to have guidelines that recommend reducing the Performance score and other relevant program components by 0.25 to 1.0 or more for each fall depending on how severe or disruptive it was, in the judgment of each individual judge. That means that even an otherwise outstanding performance could not be scored with a 10. Beyond that, some judges could be very harsh in always lowering some or all component scores for performances with falls. Other judges might have different pet peeves that ruin whole performances for them and penalize more harshly for those. As long as they are individually consistent and within the established rules and guidelines.

 

[MAXSwagg]

Well, unfortunately that is something the system does not focus on: overall execution of the program, and failed elements at this point in time don't get zero points (again, unfortunately). Gymnastics, you miss the element, you lose the the value of that element from Jury A, in addition to a hefty deduction from Jury B for execution. Falls mean squat in figure skating which is one reason why the general public are so fxcking confused most of the time.

 

[MAXSwagg]

There are falls and there are falls. At Worlds 2017 Jason fell on his opening 4T, was up in a flash, performed the rest of the program brilliantly, and got a huge standing ovation. That is a very different situation than, say, Daniel Samohin’s fall at SA this past year, or Jeremy Abbott’s fall in the SP at the 2014 Olympics, both of which really disrupted the programs and totally shook the spectators. I don’t see how you can equate the two.

Easy. I might give 7.75 for Jason-type fall, and Samohin 4.75. Both he and Abbott falls should have resulted in MAJOR reductions in performance, composition, and interpretation components, giving them final marks of really in the 3s or 4s for those.

 

[gkelly]

So what do you give a skater who earns scores in the 4s on a good day, when he has a bad day and falls multiple times?

 

[Aussie Willy]

Easy. I might give 7.75 for Jason-type fall, and Samohin 4.75. Both he and Abbott falls should have resulted in MAJOR reductions in performance, composition, and interpretation components, giving them final marks of really in the 3s or 4s for those.

Really? So if it is just about jumps which is what you appear to think it is, then what is the motivation for a skater to work on components?

I think you are just demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge about the sport if you think skaters who have superb components should be in the 4s if they make mistakes.

 

[Tavi]

Easy. I might give 7.75 for Jason-type fall, and Samohin 4.75. Both he and Abbott falls should have resulted in MAJOR reductions in performance, composition, and interpretation components, giving them final marks of really in the 3s or 4s for those.

So how did you come up with those numbers - just pick them out of the air? Component scores in the 4s are typically earned by skaters with a much lower overall skill level relative to GP level skaters - perhaps an intermediate skater in the US. So reducing Jeremy’s scores to that level to reflect a fall would simply not be accurate.

In actuality:

2017 SA: Samohin withdrew from the SP after his terrible fall, and wasn’t scored at all.

2014 Olympics: Jeremy’s Olympic SP got a 1 point deduction for the fall and an additional 1 point deduction for “interruption in excess”; his components ranged from 7.18 to 7.86 (37.37, or 74.14 doubled). By comparison, his FS components for an excellent performance ranged from 7.79 to 8.61 (82.02). So as compared to his FS, Jeremy lost 5.64 points (-2, -3.64 PCS) versus his FS, for one severe fall. To that, add -2.1 in GOE. Total: -7.74. Is that not enough for you?

Incidentally, at the same Olympics, with 2 falls (-2.00) in the FS, Hanyu’s components ranged from 8.89 to 9.36 (90.98). By comparison, for his flawless SP they ranged from 9.0 to 9.5 (46.61, or 93.22 doubled). So Hanyu lost a total of 4.24 points (-2, -2.24 PCS) in the FS versus the SP. To that, add -4.9 in GOE minimum (usually he gets + GOE). Total: -9.14. Was that enough? With 2 falls, you can hardly argue there was no interruption. Should his components been reduced to the 4s, resulting in a possible second place finish?

Or how about this:

At 2014 Cup of China, Hanyu fell 5 times (-5.00) in the FS. His components ranged from 8.04 to 8.68 (84.02). By comparison, with no falls in the SP they ranged from 8.86 to 8.96 (44.42, or 88.84 doubled). So altogether, he lost 9.82 points (-5, -4.82 PCS) versus the SP. GOE: - 13.06. Total: -22.88. Was that enough? Should his FS components have been reduced to the 4s?

ETA: to include negative GOE received for falls and to add that under the current scoring system, Hanyu’s deduction at COC for 5 falls would be -9, not -5.

 

[Coco]

Thanks for breaking out all that data.

 

[clairecloutier]

I agree with @MAXSwagg that falls are arguably penalized too lightly in the current scoring system. But I'll admit I don't know what the answer is, in terms of how they should be scored. And I don't think one fall should necessarily lead to huge scoring deductions.

I question the current proposal from the Netherlands to eliminate fall deductions entirely. Especially when they have not provided, as far as I can tell, a metric for exactly how much falls would affect PCS. If this proposal is implemented, my fear is that if top skaters fall in programs, like, say, P/C at Finlandia?, they will now just escape penalization entirely, which does not seem right.

In the absence of having a better solution, I'd be inclined to stick with the current -1 (and the increased penalties for multiple falls). At least now, it's clear that you lose something for a fall, but it also doesn't completely destroy your ability to score well overall.

 

[Tavi]

Currently, every time a skater falls, up to 2 falls, he loses -3.1 to -4 points (if -GOE is included) per jump. For the third fall that would rise to -4.1 to -5 points. On a fully rotated 4Z (or where judges ignore an <), the skater still earns 9.6 to 10.5 points. That does seem high. On the other hand, for a 3Z, the skater earns 2.6 to 3.5 points.

In my mind, it’s the much heavier penalty for triples that’s unfair. A skater attempting a quad is basically being given a huge and probably unwarranted “A” for effort. But it don’t think the answer is to reduce PCS. I would prefer that harder jumps are more heavily penalized in GOE or fall deductions.

 

[Eislauffan]

Coach Alexei Mishin warns of arbitrariness in judging after rule changes:

https://goldenskate.com/2018/06/mishin-warns-of-arbitrariness-in-judging-after-rule-changes/

 

[MAXSwagg]

Really? So if it is just about jumps which is what you appear to think it is, then what is the motivation for a skater to work on components?

I think you are just demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge about the sport if you think skaters who have superb components should be in the 4s if they make mistakes.

Huh? You’re confused!

So how did you come up with those numbers - just pick them out of the air? Component scores in the 4s are typically earned by skaters with a much lower overall skill level relative to GP level skaters - perhaps an intermediate skater in the US. So reducing Jeremy’s scores to that level to reflect a fall would simply not be accurate.

In actuality:

2017 SA: Samohin withdrew from the SP after his terrible fall, and wasn’t scored at all.

2014 Olympics: Jeremy’s Olympic SP got a 1 point deduction for the fall and an additional 1 point deduction for “interruption in excess”; his components ranged from 7.18 to 7.86 (37.37, or 74.14 doubled). By comparison, his FS components for an excellent performance ranged from 7.79 to 8.61 (82.02). So as compared to his FS, Jeremy lost 5.64 points (-2, -3.64 PCS) versus his FS, for one severe fall. To that, add -2.1 in GOE. Total: -7.74. Is that not enough for you?

Incidentally, at the same Olympics, with 2 falls (-2.00) in the FS, Hanyu’s components ranged from 8.89 to 9.36 (90.98). By comparison, for his flawless SP they ranged from 9.0 to 9.5 (46.61, or 93.22 doubled). So Hanyu lost a total of 4.24 points (-2, -2.24 PCS) in the FS versus the SP. To that, add -4.9 in GOE minimum (usually he gets + GOE). Total: -9.14. Was that enough? With 2 falls, you can hardly argue there was no interruption. Should his components been reduced to the 4s, resulting in a possible second place finish?

Or how about this:

At 2014 Cup of China, Hanyu fell 5 times (-5.00) in the FS. His components ranged from 8.04 to 8.68 (84.02). By comparison, with no falls in the SP they ranged from 8.86 to 8.96 (44.42, or 88.84 doubled). So altogether, he lost 9.82 points (-5, -4.82 PCS) versus the SP. GOE: - 13.06. Total: -22.88. Was that enough? Should his FS components have been reduced to the 4s?

ETA: to include negative GOE received for falls and to add that under the current scoring system, Hanyu’s deduction at COC for 5 falls would be -9, not -5.

The ISU is where I get my information.

 

[gkelly]

How much non-elite skating do you watch? Not only novices and below, but also seniors who may never earn the minimum technical scores for ISU championships? (And those who earn the minimums but are unlikely to make it past the short program)

 

[Tavi]

Huh? You’re confused!



The ISU is where I get my information.

That’s a completely non responsive response.

 

[Aussie Willy]

Huh? You’re confused!

Keep digging that hole. I don't think you have got to China yet.

However I suppose that because I have been a skater, administrator, judge, TC and TS for many years means I know nothing then.

 

[MAXSwagg]

Keep digging that hole. I don't think you have got to China yet.

However I suppose that because I have been a skater, administrator, judge, TC and TS for many years means I know nothing then.

You said that, I didn’t. You being confused about what I said has nothing to do with your expertise. I simply said you didn’t understand my comment.

 

[Aussie Willy]

You said that, I didn’t. You being confused about what I said has nothing to do with your expertise. I simply said you didn’t understand my comment.

I totally understand your comments. I think your understanding and approach in how to deal with a guideline is not helpful and shortsighted.

 

[MAXSwagg]

I totally understand your comments. I think your understanding and approach in how to deal with a guideline is not helpful and shortsighted.

Well, you didn't understand. What do you think about the guideline?

 

[alchemy void]

I do feel like falls need to be penalized more severely, especially in the short program, but some half-baked math doesn’t seem to back that up.

Consider:

In 6.0, a fall carried a mandatory 0.4 deduction. 0.4 / 6.0 = -6.7% deduction in total score for each fall.

At 18 Worlds, Wakaba Higuchi fell on her 3z3t in the short program. She received - 2.1 GOE for the fall and then the -1 fall deduction and let’s say if she landed it fine it would have been another 1.5 in positive GOE. So essentially she loses 4.6 points for the fall.

4.6 / 74.26 (her personal best SP score, which is most comparable to a perfect 6) = -6.2% which is fairly close to the standard 6.0 deduction. Now maybe I shouldn’t give her the extra 1.5 GOE, then it’s only -4.2% which is definitely more problematic.

The math and logic here are probably all kinds of fcked up, but it’s Saturday night and I’m doing figure skating math problems, so I don’t really care.

 

[Aussie Willy]

Well, you didn't understand. What do you think about the guideline?

I do understand what you are on about and I disagree with you. Is that actually so difficult for you to understand?

And I have no problem with the guideline. Can you just accept that?

 

[Japanfan]

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.

I'm uncomfortable with this because falls differ and also impact skaters differently (i.e. some take longer than others to get up and back into the program. One of two seconds can make a difference in such situations).

 

[Japanfan]

double post

 

[Rock2]

This whole SOV sheet is a joke.

The values of the elements have been all squished together so it hardly matters what jumps, twists, throws you do. There is practically no incentive to work on harder elements. In fact the system practically discourages it.
6.5pts for a 4STh. Really? A 3Tw2 with +3 is about the same as a rotated and reasonably clean 4Tw2

The weight of the scoring is shifting firmly to GOE. While one can argue that it's better for the sport to have quality, I call BS. Gives officials much much more ability to subjectively mess with the results. As it is right now so many average elements get +3 and no one seems to care, so the +4/+5 will be handed out as desired.

Not a fan. Regressive for a sport that considers itself Olympic-worthy.

 

[clairecloutier]

This whole SOV sheet is a joke.

The values of the elements have been all squished together so it hardly matters what jumps, twists, throws you do. There is practically no incentive to work on harder elements. In fact the system practically discourages it.
6.5pts for a 4STh. Really? A 3Tw2 with +3 is about the same as a rotated and reasonably clean 4Tw2

I was noticing the same thing this week. In pairs, particularly, there is now almost no incentive to add difficulty with quads. For the teams who have invested time in developing quad twists or throws, like Tarasova/Morozov and James/Cipres, I wonder if they will even continue to use these elements. (Why bother, when T/M will no doubt be getting +5s anyway on their triple twist. )

 

[Rock2]

Agree. Or if you do 3STh and 3LTh with a nice gliding edge coming out (like most teams from XXXXXXX), you now don't have to bother spending 2 years learning 3ZTh.

Of you do a 3Tw2, you're better off just working on a feature or two than adding a full rotation and still be able to do the catch...because...they're just so comparable in difficulty. ::::: eyeroll :::::

Caro can also forget about trying to get that lutz back. She can win worlds with her Novice Canadian lady tech plan.

I expect judges to lay off the +5 and some +4 for the next two years. Just like how 10 years ago an 8 was really high in PCS and a +3 was near impossible. Then as Olympics approach the taps will be turned on fully as the panels show us who they are advocating for Beijing. Wait for it...

 

[Coco]

It's too bad that we can't have some type of electronic device that measures height, distance and speed in and out because then those results could be a component of the GOE. Then the judges would just be left with the ability to grade the air position, landing position and the difficulty of the takeoff/landing.

 

[Rock2]

It's too bad that we can't have some type of electronic device that measures height, distance and speed in and out because then those results could be a component of the GOE. Then the judges would just be left with the ability to grade the air position, landing position and the difficulty of the takeoff/landing.

There was a relatively famous judge (Czech I think) who talked about this after he retired like ten years ago. He discussed precisely these and other recommendations the sport could incorporate to modernize and truly measure performance, He talked like the technology was already out there, but the old guard wasn't having any of it.

Craig Buntin, former Canadian pairs Olympian started a company that could take tons of in-game measurements of all types of metrics with only a single camera focussing on the 'game'. This is tough to do given you need multiple camera angles to reconcile measurements, so his solution is highly cost-effective. He started with skating to try to find an audience/buyer for his system but not surprisingly got nowhere. No money for or interest in this.

He's now doing really well running his company (SPORTLOGiQ) out of Montreal and has lucrative contracts with the NBA and other high-profile sports organizations.

As much as we love skating in its current form, it's fairly mind-blowing how backward the sport is, which justifies why it's not growing. Think it's IJS? Yes, a little...but to me the root cause is the sport being decades behind in development...and with new SOV, trending backwards.

 

[Aussie Willy]

With CGI these days, there is probably no reason that you couldn't do the technical aspects of skating such as jumps and spins through a computer. However it is cost factors that limit it's development.

 

[Aussie Willy]

This whole SOV sheet is a joke.

The values of the elements have been all squished together so it hardly matters what jumps, twists, throws you do. There is practically no incentive to work on harder elements. In fact the system practically discourages it.
6.5pts for a 4STh. Really? A 3Tw2 with +3 is about the same as a rotated and reasonably clean 4Tw2

The weight of the scoring is shifting firmly to GOE. While one can argue that it's better for the sport to have quality, I call BS. Gives officials much much more ability to subjectively mess with the results. As it is right now so many average elements get +3 and no one seems to care, so the +4/+5 will be handed out as desired.

Not a fan. Regressive for a sport that considers itself Olympic-worthy.

Since the system has been in there has always been this discussion about risk vs reward. If you are giving skaters feedback, particularly with spins, you are suggesting to not try levels but do something clean because if they try to get feature, they will get a negative GOE because it isn't good quality but they could get a positive if they just went for a basic. I am talking about lower level and adult skaters. And this has been discussed at seminars. It is what it is.

 

[MAXSwagg]

I do understand what you are on about and I disagree with you. Is that actually so difficult for you to understand?

And I have no problem with the guideline. Can you just accept that?

Heu, you’re the one that got all jumped up, not me.