Categories of Program Components

[aftershocks]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my earlier post @gkelly. Figure skating is really complicated, and thus the problems the sport faces are complicated. The biggest problem is that there doesn't seem to be a concerted effort to come together to address the problems thoughtfully, reasonably or productively. I think testing possible solutions beforehand is essential. I understand the volunteer aspect and lack of resources aspect. But I also think there are untapped resources, unique promotional avenues, people from other fields that could be brought in, and ways of thinking about and tackling problematic issues that TPTB are too hidebound and old-fashioned to pursue in a long term, five-year plan way.

Looking at the how the recent ISU conference was chaotically conducted (in the livestream) was such a WTF moment! Unsurprisingly so when we look at the current state of the sport.

 

[aftershocks]

I love this post way too much.

If I were an ISU judge (tech panel or main judge), I think my reaction would be: 'Run that by me again please. And, how much time do I have to input scores? Or, how much time as a tech panel judge do I have to review footage from one camera angle?? Okay, no thanks. I think maybe I'll simply fall back on my handy, status quo, pre-event judgments regarding overall placements.'

 

[sleepingsleeping]

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

I understand that. I cited "Communication 2089" to explain the situation applied to competition last season. As I explained, there are judges who ignore the guidelines.

Communication No. 2168
https://www.isu.org/inside-single-p...ications-fs/17142-isu-communication-2168/file
-5　　　　SP: Jump element not according to requirements
-3 to -4　 Landing on two feet in a jump
-3 to -4　 Stepping out of landing in a jump
-3 to -4　Wrong edge take off F/Lz (sign "e")
-3 to -4　Downgraded (sign << )

If "Serious error" means these things, it should be clearly defined.

When making rules and laws, we usually clarify the definition of each word. This will clarify the scope of application of rules and guidelines. I wonder that ISU intentionally obscures rules and guidelines. That creates variations among the judges making it impossible to understand this sport.

 

[Vagabond]

https://www.isu.org/inside-single-p...ications-fs/17142-isu-communication-2168/file
-5　　　　SP: Jump element not according to requirements
-3 to -4　 Landing on two feet in a jump
-3 to -4　 Stepping out of landing in a jump
-3 to -4　Wrong edge take off F/Lz (sign "e")
-3 to -4　Downgraded (sign << )

If "Serious error" means these things, it should be clearly defined.

It is clearly defined. See Post #22.

 

[sleepingsleeping]

It is clearly defined. See Post #22.

Only "e" is "serious errors"? Why are there no penalty points for PCS in other cases of GOE -3to-4?

As in the case of 4S becoming 2S, it is also necessary to make clear whether it is "Serious error" when there is a big deduction point in BV.

 

[David21]

It is clearly defined. See Post #22.

It's hard to tell if you are serious or not so I'm asking you: Are you serious or not?

 

[ananis]

Only "e" is "serious errors"? Why are there no penalty points for PCS in other cases of GOE -3to-4?

As in the case of 4S becoming 2S, it is also necessary to make clear whether it is "Serious error" when there is a big deduction point in BV.

New communication 2186 is out defining finally the Serious Errors!
(Last page of the file!)

 

[NinjaTurtles]

New communication 2186 is out defining finally the Serious Errors!
(Last page of the file!)

https://www.isu.org/communications/...s-for-marking-goe-2018-19-replacing-2168/file

Serious error is defined as an:

...error that impacts the integrity / continuity / fluidity of the composition and/or its relation to the music

It also adds to GOE evaluation:

In case of significant error (e.g. fall, landing on two feet, stepping out of landing, wrong edge (e), downgraded (<<), serious problems on the descent of the lift, serious problems on the catch of the Twist) the starting GOE for the evaluation cannot be higher than +2.

Significant is much more objectively defined compared to Serious.

 

[Coco]

That's great but... It's messed up that they consider a fall to be on the same level as downgraded jump or wrong edge. I would put a fall in the serious error category and not the significant error category.

 

[VGThuy]

It seems that "serious errors" can be looked at as a broader umbrella that also covers some "significant errors" but also includes other sorts of errors as I can see some "significant errors" impacting the integrity / continuity / fluidity of the composition and/or its relation to the music. Some times it may not as I don't see how an edge call impacts that.

 

[David21]

That's great but... It's messed up that they consider a fall to be on the same level as downgraded jump or wrong edge. I would put a fall in the serious error category and not the significant error category.

The significant error is a term that is not used in relation to the program components from what I've read so they are not necessarily messing that up. Obviously a wrong takeoff edge doesn't impact the continuity / fludity of the composition.

 

[gkelly]

Some errors should limit the maximum PCS that can be given, and some errors should limit the maximum GOE that can be given, and some limit both.

 

[NinjaTurtles]

The significant error is a term that is not used in relation to the program components from what I've read so they are not necessarily messing that up. Obviously a wrong takeoff edge doesn't impact the continuity / fludity of the composition.

I believe that’s correct. It’s used when discussing the rules for assigning GOE, which is factored into TES.

I’m OK with severe under rotation, wrong edge, and a fall being lumped together when assessing GOE. They all indicate that the technical element was not executed correctly.

 

[sleepingsleeping]

Start of this thread　 　　　27 July 2018

Communication No. 2186 　30 July 2018

https://www.isu.org/news/80-inside-...ing-scales-of-values-revised?templateParam=15


Did ISU see this thread?

 

[sleepingsleeping]

However, the definition "error that impacts the integrity / continuity / fluidity of the composition and / or its relation to the music" is too unclear. It can be a different judgment depending on the judge.

Why is not ISU more clearly defined? For example, these are called "serious error".

-3 to -4　 Landing on two feet in a jump
-3 to -4　 Stepping out of landing in a jump
-3 to -4　Downgraded (sign << )

 

[gkelly]

However, the definition "error that impacts the integrity / continuity / fluidity of the composition and / or its relation to the music" is too unclear. It can be a different judgment depending on the judge.

It can also be different depending on the occurrence.

Evaluating the quality of performance or music interpretation is qualitative/subjective to begin with. Not all stumbles/breaks in performance are equal, and sometimes skaters can cover them up or play them off better than others.

So less specific guidelines allows judges to do their job and use their judgment.

These guidelines are similar to what I expected in post 19 of this thread. I'm just glad they clarified what kind of errors should limit the PCS and what kinds of errors should cap the GOEs, with appropriate overlap between the two.

 

[tony]

Why are they even listing the +5 or +4 or +3 or any positive values of jumps with < or e (or both)?

Another easy way to solve this is that any jump called either of these things by the technical panel automatically voids out any positive GOE on the screen.

I get that sometimes skaters can have a million good things happening directly before the jump, in the speed/distance of the jump, and on the landing, but anything with one of these called errors should not get a positive GOE no matter what. I know that’s the goal they are somewhat going for, but just void out the positives so they are forced to mark more accurately and not ‘creatively’.

ETA- in terms of evaluating an entire combination or three-jump combination with, let’s say a nicely done (as nice as it can be with the underrotation) 3Lz<+2T+2Lo, I still think the GOE shouldn’t be higher than -1 for the entire thing FWIW.

For years, I haven’t understood why skaters can do jumps on a severe wrong edge and still get most of the points (even with positive GOEs) for repeating a jump they’ve technically already done— and sometimes done it twice. I know the callers have become either super lax or super strict about the edges and it makes all the difference in these situations, but I still believe that any jumps done on the wrong edge should receive very little credit. The ISU is now limiting the quad attempts, so why not take a step by really hammering incorrect technique so skaters go back to practicing the correct edges rather than handing out +2 (in the old system) for a very severe change of edge?

 

[sleepingsleeping]

It can also be different depending on the occurrence.

Evaluating the quality of performance or music interpretation is qualitative/subjective to begin with. Not all stumbles/breaks in performance are equal, and sometimes skaters can cover them up or play them off better than others.

So less specific guidelines allows judges to do their job and use their judgment.

These guidelines are similar to what I expected in post 19 of this thread. I'm just glad they clarified what kind of errors should limit the PCS and what kinds of errors should cap the GOEs, with appropriate overlap between the two.

For example, in these cases, "error that impacts the integrity / continuity / fluidity ofThe composition and / or its relation to the music "is obvious. There is not room for Judge's discretion to enter there.

-3 to -4　 Landing on two feet in a jump
-3 to -4　 Stepping out of landing in a jump

There is no reason to justify judge variability.

 

[gkelly]

Why are they even listing the +5 or +4 or +3 or any positive values of jumps with < or e (or both)?

Another easy way to solve this is that any jump called either of these things by the technical panel automatically voids out any positive GOE on the screen.

I get that sometimes skaters can have a million good things happening directly before the jump, in the speed/distance of the jump, and on the landing, but anything with one of these called errors should not get a positive GOE no matter what. I know that’s the goal they are somewhat going for, but just void out the positives so they are forced to mark more accurately and not ‘creatively’.

It's more accurate (as in comparing different examples of jumps with the same error) to allow for rewarding all the positive aspects of a jump as well as subtracting all the negative aspects.

Years ago some of those errors were listed as requiring negative GOE, but then the ISU explicitly changed those guidelines so that the pluses and minuses could balance out (usually to 0). Nevertheless, it's still very very rare for a jump with a rotation or edge call to earn positive GOE.

(And when that does happen, I suspect it's because the jump looked good to the judge in real time, they put in the positive GOE immediately, and they didn't notice after the reviews that the tech panel had added a call that required them to reduce the GOE. That would be an error on the judge's part. Yes, if the call could invalidate a high positive or flag a low positive/0 GOE so that the judge sees something flashing on the screen to let them know they should reconsider the mark they entered in real time, that would be a way to prevent this kind of judge error.)

What's new now is stating explicitly that certain kinds of technical errors, including the calls << and e, require that judges can only start with +2 on the positive side before they reduce for the errors. Since those errors carry penalties of -3 to -4, the final GOE is going to end up negative, although it could be as high as -1.

So yes, if it is not allowed to give positive GOE for an element with an e call, then there's no reason to include the positive GOEs in the scale of values.

Downgrades are not listed in the scale of values because their values are always equal to the same jump takeoff with one fewer rotations.

Yes, those calls could be linked to the judges' input such that scores higher than -1 would not be available to judges with << or e calls, with a visible alert to let judges know they have to revisit those scores.
The calls get added after the program, not in real time. So while the program is in process the judges would have access to the positive GOEs in real time.

There are other "significant errors" that are not called by the tech panel but that also now require GOE reduction after a maximum positive GOE of +2. So judges would still need to do the capping and plusing and minusing on their own for those errors.

Underrotations (90 to 180 degrees) are not listed as "significant errors" with a maximum positive GOE of +2. So it is still legal for judges to award high positive GOE and then subtract the -1 to -2 for the underrotation and still end up positive. Probably not higher than +2, though, because they wouldn't deserve the "Good takeoff and landing" bullet point mandatory for +4 or +5, so in practice the positive GOE would be capped at +3 before subtracting at least -1 for the underrotation. (And then they also earn lower base value, but that's not the judges' responsibility.)

ETA- in terms of evaluating an entire combination or three-jump combination with, let’s say a nicely done (as nice as it can be with the underrotation) 3Lz<+2T+2Lo, I still think the GOE shouldn’t be higher than -1 for the entire thing FWIW.

How about something like 3T+1Eu<+3S? That's pretty common -- how much do you want to penalize less than full rotation on a connecting hop between two otherwise beautiful triples?

 

[sleepingsleeping]

They are obvious time blanks and can not be covered by the skater. At the same time, the judgment on the blank can not differ depending on the judge.

 

[gkelly]

For example, in these cases, "error that impacts the integrity / continuity / fluidity ofThe composition and / or its relation to the music "is obvious.

No, it's not.

For example, it is possible to step out of a jump so fluidly that it does not register visually as an error; other step outs are very disruptive; most fall somewhere in between.

A heavy landing on two feet will be obvious to experts but won't bother casual viewers. A lighter touchdown will be easily missed by casual viewers and may not impact the integrity/continuity/fluidity at all let alone the relation to the music.

There's no way to decide in advance exactly where to draw the line and to write that line into the rules so that every observer will place the same mid-range examples on exactly the same side.

Relation to the music is a very subjective assessment even when there are no errors. There are all sorts of reasons why skaters might lose connection to the music (in some observers' estimation) for several seconds or more with no technical errors involved. A technical error that lasts for only a fraction of a second may have much less impact on the relation to the music than simply, e.g., ignoring the music to concentrate on setting up a jump with correct technique.

 

[sleepingsleeping]

For example, "Stepping out" is the time without expression of music. It is obvious to everyone's eyes.
It is strange that the judgment of each judge is different.

 

[sleepingsleeping]

For example, how about describing like this?

Serious errors (e.g. landing on two feet, stepping out of landing，errors that impacts the integrity / continuity / fluidity of　the composition and/or its relation to the music)

Also, I think that "Technical people should judge" Fall "and" Serious Error ". 9 judges will follow that judgment. And if the technical people judge that they have one "Fall" or "Serious Error", I think that the buttons of nine judges should mechanically control so that they can not push 10 points. Even if there are two or more "Fall" or "Serious Error", the PCS button of nine people is restricted. This will result in scores according to the rules. Otherwise, the score of the judge who does not follow the rule will be reflected in the result.That is unfair.

 

[giselle23]

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.

https://www.isu.org/inside-single-p...-program-component-chart-id-sp-2018-19-1/file

Fall or Serious Error
10 shall not be awarded for any component

Falls or Serious Errors
9.5 or higher should not be awarded for SS, TR, CO.
9.0 or higher should not be awarded for PE, IN.

What is "Serious Error"?
Does anyone know?

Why not just make it Falls? The serious error wording is too vague. Is one UR a serious error? What about 4 or more URs? It's another double penalty. I don't even think a Fall should preclude a 10 in any of the components. The rule should be that judges can take falls into consideration when awarding component scores, especially when the fall affects the quality of the performance, interpretation or composition. Falls, which occur mostly on jumps, seem irrelevant to SS and TR.

 

[sleepingsleeping]

Why not just make it Falls? The serious error wording is too vague. Is one UR a serious error? What about 4 or more URs? It's another double penalty. I don't even think a Fall should preclude a 10 in any of the components. The rule should be that judges can take falls into consideration when awarding component scores, especially when the fall affects the quality of the performance, interpretation or composition. Falls, which occur mostly on jumps, seem irrelevant to SS and TR.

The rule is "vague" is that it is a problem as a rule of sports. That means that the judge also does not know what the rule is requesting. Indeed, even in judges, opinions have not been unified as to whether technical errors such as "fall" will affect PCS. Until the 2016 - 2017 season, there was a judge who gave 10 points on "Fall". In the 2017-2018 season, it was revealed that it was a mistake. Competition is impossible if judges and athletes do not know what rules are. It's like playing tennis while not knowing the service line.

https://www.isu.org/communications/...s-for-marking-goe-2018-19-replacing-2168/file

If there are multiple "Fall", the maximum point of SS and TR is 9.25.It became clear that "Fall" has a big influence on PCS. After all, it is that fans like you do not understand the rules of this sport. It is natural that fans can not understand because judges and athletes do not understand either.

 

[giselle23]

The rule is "vague" is that it is a problem as a rule of sports. That means that the judge also does not know what the rule is requesting. Indeed, even in judges, opinions have not been unified as to whether technical errors such as "fall" will affect PCS. Until the 2016 - 2017 season, there was a judge who gave 10 points on "Fall". In the 2017-2018 season, it was revealed that it was a mistake. Competition is impossible if judges and athletes do not know what rules are. It's like playing tennis while not knowing the service line.

https://www.isu.org/communications/...s-for-marking-goe-2018-19-replacing-2168/file

If there are multiple "Fall", the maximum point of SS and TR is 9.25.It became clear that "Fall" has a big influence on PCS. After all, it is that fans like you do not understand the rules of this sport. It is natural that fans can not understand because judges and athletes do not understand either.

Thanks for the ad hominem attack.

 

[sleepingsleeping]

According to Communication 2186, "UR" does not seem to be "serious error". In any case, sports rules should be prescribed so that fans, judges and athletes can understand the rules line.