Categories of Program Components

Rock2 said:
Anything that the judge can justify to downgrade the component score to the number of their choosing.
Works in reverse, too.

#sixpointoh
Click to expand...

9.25 SS
9.25 TR
8.75 PE
9.25 CO
8.75 IN

45.25×2＝90.50

This rule will have a significant impact on results in the 2018-2019 season. Especially for high athlete of PCS. For example, Yuzuru's PCS of Olympic Games may fall below 90 from 96.62. I think that the definition of "Serious Error" becomes very important.
 
Last edited:
I know everyone is going to complain about it, especially the somewhat vague wording of "serious error" but I welcome this big time. I think this is important just for the perception of the sport for its legitimacy.
 
sleepingsleeping said:
9.25 SS
9.25 TR
8.75 PE
9.25 CO
8.75 IN

45.25×2＝90.50

This rule will have a significant impact on results in the 2017-2018 season. Especially for high athlete of PCS. For example, Yuzuru's PCS of Olympic Games may fall below 90 from 96.62. I think that the definition of "Serious Error" becomes very important.
Click to expand...

Nah....it is all rigged.
 
VIETgrlTerifa said:
I know everyone is going to complain about it, especially the somewhat vague wording of "serious error" but I welcome this big time. I think this is important just for the perception of the sport for its legitimacy.
Click to expand...

Since rules are unclear, problems of national bias also arise. It is a serious flaw as a sport. It is like a judge freely decides the service area in tennis.
 
As opposed to it not already arising. Top skaters get the benefit of the doubt and will have PCS and GOE cushions to save them no matter what. I'm for anything to lessen the impact of the PCS cushion somewhat and having a scoring system that more accurately reflects how falls and errors can mar a program. Give them some guidelines and accept that in a judged sport with subjective aspects, some times things are going to left to the judge's discretion.
 
VIETgrlTerifa said:
As opposed to it not already arising. Top skaters get the benefit of the doubt and will have PCS and GOE cushions to save them no matter what. I'm for anything to lessen the impact of the PCS cushion somewhat and having a scoring system that more accurately reflects how falls and errors can mar a program. Give them some guidelines and accept that in a judged sport with subjective aspects, some times things are going to left to the judge's discretion.
Click to expand...

The problem due to the ambiguity of PCS has been a problem many times before. The issue of Chinese judges in Olympic Games is also relevant to it.

Regarding the fact that Sotnikova's PCS suddenly got up in Olympic Games, Kurt said, "I can not understand."

They are also the cause of the hate between the citizens.

With 2013 Japanese GPF, Yuzuru 's PCS suddenly rose 20 points in total. Yuzuru said, "The score is too high." He said, "PCS is low when I do good performance, PCS is high when I perform poorly, I can not understand myself well."

Even athlete do not understand PCS. Under these conditions, it is impossible for the audience to understand the competition. I think that difficulty in understanding as competition will lead to a drop in the popularity of that sport.
 
I would think Papadakis' costume issue at the last Olympics was a serious issue. I could see someone calling in a serious error but that's not really an error, right? I would think an error would have to be some kind of fall or pop or omission or stopping and ignoring your music for 15 solid seconds or something. But what if something had fallen off of her costume? That's a deduction and anything that's a deduction is probably a serious, right?
 
Coco said:
I would think Papadakis' costume issue at the last Olympics was a serious issue. I could see someone calling in a serious error but that's not really an error, right?
Click to expand...

It's a costuming error, not an error on the ice - like a boot problem or a failure to properly lace up the skates.

I would think an error would have to be some kind of fall or pop or omission or stopping and ignoring your music for 15 solid seconds or something.
Click to expand...

Yes. An illegal element might be considered an error as well.

But what if something had fallen off of her costume? That's a deduction and anything that's a deduction is probably a serious, right?
Click to expand...

How serious a deduction is depends on various factors.
 
VIETgrlTerifa said:
I know everyone is going to complain about it, especially the somewhat vague wording of "serious error" but I welcome this big time. I think this is important just for the perception of the sport for its legitimacy.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that's true. However, I do not trust ISU judges to apply the rule fairly or effectively. 'Serious error' is way too ambiguous. But I suppose at least having a fall in a program, it's clear that no matter how perfect the rest of the performance is, a 10 on PCS will be out of line...

And the rules governing 9.5 and 9.0 outlawed on specific components in a program with a fall or 'serious error' is definitely going to cause the judges pause I should think. That probably means even more waiting time in the kiss 'n cry, not less. So the time taken from programs is going to be used up by the complicated judging rules. They really need to test scoring changes and try to simplify, not complicate the judging. However, I do not disagree that 9.5 and 10 were quite often handed out too liberally to some top skaters who skated programs with errors.
 
Last edited:
Most of the time spent waiting for scores is for tech panel reviews. I would guess that it's much more common for all the judges to be finished inputting their scores before the tech panel finishes than the other way around.


It is possible that there will be some brilliant performances that judges want to reward with very high program components and that also have falls or other "serious errors" (however that may be officially defined or left to individual judges' judgment), and that some judges may have to stop and think about how high they're allowed to score those programs under these new guidelines.

But most programs would never be under consideration for scores above 9 to begin with. And most programs that will be under consideration for such high scores will not have serious errors. So even if these guidelines do slow down judges on occasion, it's not likely to be for more than 2 or 3 performances per competition.
 
gkelly said:
Most of the time spent waiting for scores is for tech panel reviews. I would guess that it's much more common for all the judges to be finished inputting their scores before the tech panel finishes than the other way around.
Click to expand...

Thanks. But no matter what, the real time-stealer is the endless kiss 'n cry wait times (and of course Zamboni ice cleaning which is necessary -- I see they appear to be using two slightly smaller Zambonis these days that seem to move faster).

Do you think it might work if they experimented with judges in-putting scores for each skater in a segment as they usually do. And when the performances are over allow a set time of two minutes or less tops in the kiss 'n cry for photos and quick program slo-mo, while tech panel confers briefly. But then don't announce the score at that point, simply move to next skaters in that segment. Once that segment has ended and the next group is warming up, have the tech panel address any concerns they had with any of the skaters' performances in the prior group before finalizing and posting all the scores for that group. This might be a way of just experimenting to see if they could save some time by limiting kiss 'n cry waiting.

Notice that I say experiment first. They should be trying to experiment with a variety of possible solutions to address specific problems, rather than instituting new rules that haven't been tested. And then down the road, having to make changes to the changes that didn't work. The whole ISU set-up and ways of doing things is complicated, conflict-oriented, confusing, and counterproductive.
 
Last edited:
aftershocks said:
Thanks. But no matter what, the real time-stealer is the endless kiss 'n cry wait times
Click to expand...

What they're waiting for is mostly the tech panel reviews.

Or for commercials to be over in some live-broadcast events.

Do you think it might work if they experimented with judges in-putting scores for each skater in a segment as they usually do. And when the performances are over allow a set time of two minutes or less tops in the kiss 'n cry for photos and quick program slo-mo, while tech panel confers briefly. But then don't announce the score at that point, simply move to next skaters in that segment. Once that segment has ended and the next group is warming up, have the tech panel address any concerns they had with any of the skaters' performances in the prior group before finalizing and posting all the scores for that group. This might be a way of just experimenting to see if they could save some time by limiting kiss 'n cry waiting.
Click to expand...

If you aren't going announce the scores then, audiences would be even less interested. They don't get to see the skaters reacting to their scores, which is the main human interest reason for having a K&C to begin with.

If you allow time for quick reviews immediately after the performance and more/longer reviews during the next warmup, if there are several messy performances with many gray areas and confusing calls, six minutes might not be enough time to clear up all the questions remaining for the previous six skaters. In large events, with resurfaces after every 2 warmup groups, there would be time to catch up on any reviews that had been missed earlier. Except for the last group, which in the freeskate is the one everyone is most interested in.

And it's not just the tech panels -- judges need an opportunity to adjust their scores based on what the tech panel calls. E.g., if they gave significantly positive GOE and the tech panel calls a << or e, the judges will now have to make sure they have subtracted 3 or 4 grades from all the positives and will probably end up negative.

Similarly if the tech panel changes a call from, e.g., CCoSp to CoSp because the error at the change of foot was of a nature that caused the second foot not to count, or the like.

However, if you give judges access to change their scores for earlier skaters after they have seen the later skaters, that gives them more opportunity to adjust their scoring based on what happened later with other skaters, i.e., consciously dishonest or unconsciously not their honest in-the-moment assessment.
That problem could be mitigated by not giving judges access to change any of their scores except the specific elements whose codes as shown to the judges have changed after the reviews (edge and rotation calls being considered part of the codes, but not levels because those don't get shown to judges).

In any case, judges should not have the opportunity to change PCS after the reviews.


I think the biggest drawback for audiences would be having to wait more than 6 minutes after the last skater finishes before being informed what the final placements for the whole final group were.

Should it be tried out someplace like Nebelhorn, where they usually try experiments? Or does it need to be tried at an event with a larger live audience and multiple live broadcast networks?
 
If they were really serious about defining things, the ‘serious error’ power could be called by the technical panel and then the option to give a particular PCS could be voided out on the judges’ screens. Same thing with defining the ‘cannot receive higher than -(whatever) GOE’. If the ISU wants to be serious and not see the random +2 that we sometimes see for a FALL on an element, they could disable any scores above a certain level (ie. -3) if there is some kind of major error.

But then we go back to the question of giving the technical panel too much power. But, if they are following the rules as written and not giving the judges an opportunity to be ‘creative’, I’m all for it.
 
The technical panel already calls falls. So any scores that are invalidated by the presence of a fall could be disabled as you suggest.

I think the ISU should define what they mean by "serious error" first. Then go a season and see how good a job judges do sticking to the guidelines of not giving high PCS for programs that include errors of that nature.

Since they're talking about PCS restrictions, I think what they really mean here is a "disruptive error" that affects the aesthetic impact of the performance, even if they are not serious technical mistakes.

My suggestions: fall, stumble/fall out of element; step out with break at waist (i.e., not simply failing to hold a jump landing or spin exit before stepping forward); hand down to keep from falling. Those are pretty straightforward.

Possibly also "break in performance" where the skater is just skating around or standing still doing nothing while the music plays for >5 or 10 seconds, if they forget the program or are assessing whether they're too injured to continue (but maybe they just have really simple stroking with no arm movements or facial expression planned while they set up a jump, which could make this subjective); and complete interruption and restart of the music for reasons that were the skater's fault (judges won't always know what was the skater's fault, e.g., technical difficulties with the music).

On the other hand, serious technical mistakes that do not affect the aesthetic impact do not need to limit the PCS -- they can be adequately penalized in base value and GOEs. E.g., downgrades, wrong edges, two-foot landings, traveling spins, edge changes or two-foot exits from turns in step sequences, etc. Skating technique purists might cringe at some of these things just as much as at the more obvious errors, but most viewers who are watching for the aesthetic experience will be more likely to forgive them and casual viewers won't notice them at all.
 
Tony Wheeler said:
If they were really serious about defining things, the ‘serious error’ power could be called by the technical panel and then the option to give a particular PCS could be voided out on the judges’ screens. Same thing with defining the ‘cannot receive higher than -(whatever) GOE’. If the ISU wants to be serious and not see the random +2 that we sometimes see for a FALL on an element, they could disable any scores above a certain level (ie. -3) if there is some kind of major error.

But then we go back to the question of giving the technical panel too much power. But, if they are following the rules as written and not giving the judges an opportunity to be ‘creative’, I’m all for it.
Click to expand...

I've thought similar things e.g. the caller stipulates the GoE range:
1. +2 to +5
2. +1 to -1
3. -2 to -5

The judges have too much to think about and do. The components alone are overwhelming to get right as there are like 10 things in each component to monitor.

My solution to judging has been a 2 person caller-assistant caller tandem for each thing:

1. Base Value
2. GoE
3-7: Each of 5 components

That's 7 pairs of judges/callers = 14 on the panel total. Doable. This allows for greater focus on each thing and gives no judge an undue amount of power.

The score sheets would kind of look the same however in behind it would be detailed score sheets for each thing you judge. For example, each GoE grade requires a score sheet where you itemize the plus and minus bullets to show how you got to +3 for example. That needs to be transparent AND detailed. This also allows for more detailed, post-event review of judging accuracy should the sport ever wish to regulate itself and ensure proper, high-quality judging.

Similar for each component. A sub grade for each part of the component has to be given and shown with a rubric that ladders up to the overall score for the component.

It's more detail for the athletes, too. Right now, no clue why Skater A gets 9.25 for SS but Skater B got 8.50 when they look so similar.

That's the fix I'd make. Better transparency and accountability for every little thing that's judged in a skating program. Also fixes the problem of unbanding the component scores so they all don't fall within a narrow margin.
 
They should define "serious error" along the lines of (1) an element receiving -3 GOE or worse, (2) stumbles in between elements, or (3) deductions e.g. time or costume violations.
 
https://www.isu.org/communications/17142-isu-communication-2168/file

Flip is taken-off from a backward inside edge, Lutz is taken-off from backward outside edge; Technical Panel decides on the takeoff edge and indicates errors with signs “e” and “!”. In cases of serious errors (sign “e”) the base value of the jump and the GOE are reduced, in cases of smaller errors (sign “!”) the original base value stays and the GOE is reduced.
Click to expand...

:COP:
 
Now we’re entering into “words as written” vs. “words as intended” territory. Let the circular arguments begin! :scream:
 
Communication No. 2168
https://www.isu.org/inside-single-p...ications-fs/17142-isu-communication-2168/file

Flip is taken-off from a backward inside edge, Lutz is taken-off from backward outside edge; Technical Panel decides on the takeoff edge and indicates errors with signs “e” and “!”. In cases of serious errors (sign “e”) the base value of the jump and the GOE are reduced, in cases of smaller errors (sign “!”) the original base value stays and the GOE is reduced.


Additional Remarks
Program Components

In a program containing a Fall or a Serious error the score ten (10) shall not be awarded for any of the Components.

In a program containing Falls or Serious errors the score nine-fifty (9.5) or higher should not be awarded for Skating Skills,Transitions and Composition and the score nine (9.0) or higher should not be awarded for Performance and Interpretation.

These are the same words, are they the same meaning?

Communication No. 2089
https://www.jsfresults.com/data/fs/pdfs/comm/comm2089.pdf

-3　 SP: Jump element not according to requirements　final GOE must be
-3　 SP: No required preceding steps/movements
-3　 Fall
-3　 Landing on two feet in a jump

-2 to -3　 Stepping out of landing in a jump
-2 to -3　Wrong edge take off F/Lz (sign "e")
-2 to -3　Downgraded (sign << )

If "Wrong edge take off F / Lz (sign" e ")" is "Serious error", thinking from the structure of the rule, "Stepping out of landing in a jump" is also "Serious error" There should be.

Communication No. 2089
https://www.jsfresults.com/data/fs/pdfs/comm/comm2089.pdf

As a guideline the score ten (10) should not be awarded for any of the components in a program containing a Fall or Serious error.

http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1718/owg2018/OWG2018_MenSingleSkating_FS_Scores.pdf

HANYU Yuzuru

4T+REP SO
3Lz SO,Landing on two feet
There were two stepping outs.

However, three judges of J1 (Kazakhstan), J4 (Japan), J8 (Czech) are giving 10 points in PCS.

Let me give you another example.

http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1718/gprus2017/gprus2017_Ladies_FS_Scores.pdf
Evgenia MEDVEDEVA

2A　fall

J7 judge has given three 10 points despite Fall.

Even if rules and guidelines are established, it is not applied to some athlete.
 
Last edited:
thvudragon said:
Now we’re entering into “words as written” vs. “words as intended” territory. Let the circular arguments begin! :scream:
Click to expand...

Yes. The problem is, if you are writing rules, regulations or laws your goal is to ensure the copy and intention are closely aligned and not ambigious.

If that's not apparent, try writing the rule again, is my reco.
 
The rules and guidelines of ISU are described too bluntly and it seems that even the judges do not understand the rules and guidelines. And it seems to me that ISU is intentionally doing it. To be able to judge politically at the Olympic Games etc.

It seems to be Match-fixing Wrestling.

At the same time, I think that it is crazy to ask judges for creativity. Because they are usually doctors or coaches, they are not knowledgeable about art, they are not trained to judge.

How many artistically crazy arrangements and third-class music are there? The judges praise them like the supreme art. It is only funny.
 
Last edited:
I see someone fell off the turnip truck yesterday. :)

I wonder what would have happened had similar guidelines been in place and enforced under 6.0. I'm sure someone on FSU can recall programs with a flutz or lip that drew at least one 6.0 on the second mark.
 
sleepingsleeping said:
Communication No. 2168
https://www.isu.org/inside-single-p...ications-fs/17142-isu-communication-2168/file

Flip is taken-off from a backward inside edge, Lutz is taken-off from backward outside edge; Technical Panel decides on the takeoff edge and indicates errors with signs “e” and “!”. In cases of serious errors (sign “e”) the base value of the jump and the GOE are reduced, in cases of smaller errors (sign “!”) the original base value stays and the GOE is reduced.


Additional Remarks
Program Components

In a program containing a Fall or a Serious error the score ten (10) shall not be awarded for any of the Components.

In a program containing Falls or Serious errors the score nine-fifty (9.5) or higher should not be awarded for Skating Skills,Transitions and Composition and the score nine (9.0) or higher should not be awarded for Performance and Interpretation.

These are the same words, are they the same meaning?

Communication No. 2089
https://www.jsfresults.com/data/fs/pdfs/comm/comm2089.pdf

-3　 SP: Jump element not according to requirements　final GOE must be
-3　 SP: No required preceding steps/movements
-3　 Fall
-3　 Landing on two feet in a jump

-2 to -3　 Stepping out of landing in a jump
-2 to -3　Wrong edge take off F/Lz (sign "e")
-2 to -3　Downgraded (sign << )

If "Wrong edge take off F / Lz (sign" e ")" is "Serious error", thinking from the structure of the rule, "Stepping out of landing in a jump" is also "Serious error" There should be.

Communication No. 2089
https://www.jsfresults.com/data/fs/pdfs/comm/comm2089.pdf
Click to expand...

Communication 2089 is for last season. Communication 2168 is for this season. Stepping out of the landing of a jump is still the same range of GOE reductions as a wrong edge, but it's now -3 to -4 on the -5 to +5 scale:
https://www.isu.org/communications/17142-isu-communication-2168/file
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Sylvia
  • Sticky
2024/25 ISU Technical Panel Handbooks, Scale of Values documents, PCS charts
Replies
0
Views
4K
Sylvia
Sylvia
Sylvia
ISU Communication 2558 - season 2023/24 Single & Pair Skating Levels of Difficulty & Guidelines for marking GOE & PCS
2
Replies
35
Views
9K
Husky
H
thvu
By the Elements: Rescore the NHK 2023 Free Dance
Replies
4
Views
2K
thvu
thvu
Karen-W
2025 ISU Championships - Minimum Combined Total Element Scores (CTES) and Multiple Entries
3 4 5
Replies
126
Views
29K
Karen-W
Karen-W
Karen-W
2024 Four Continents/Junior Worlds/Worlds US Team Speculation
11 12 13
Replies
362
Views
65K
kwanfan1818
kwanfan1818
Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information