Ice Dance Requirements for Technical Rules season 2018/19

[VGThuy]

I remember Chris/Simon saying how any other olympics D/Shabalin's FD would have been good enough to win olympics but not this one as V/M and D/W were just too good

I'm thinking about Olympic champions and medalists from the Olympics previous to 2010 and I have to laugh at that statement.

 

[Anyasnake]

I remember Chris/Simon saying how any other olympics D/Shabalin's FD would have been good enough to win olympics but not this one as V/M and D/W were just too good

2002, no way. That OD won it for A/P.
2006, no way, Navka was the best on this competition.
Not going to go 1998 and before, no point. Pasha is Pasha.

 

[Deleted member 19433]

The 2018/19 scale of values has just been posted.
https://www.isu.org/communications/17140-isu-communication-2167/file

 

[VGThuy]

Maia Shibutani may not be competing next season, but she's already working on the "Choreo sliding movement":

https://www.instagram.com/p/BjyQdz5AS8r/?taken-by=maiashibutani

 

[Sylvia]

Additional Questions & Answers #2 for Officials 2018/19 Ice Dance have been published (19 June 2018): https://www.isu.org/docman-document...oks-for-officials-2018-additional-q-as-2/file

Deductions: Who is responsible? – Short Dance and Free Dance (31 May 2018): https://www.isu.org/inside-single-p...-deduction-chart-who-is-responsible-2018/file

 

[nimi]

Additional Questions & Answers #2 for Officials 2018/19 Ice Dance have been published (19 June 2018): https://www.isu.org/docman-document...oks-for-officials-2018-additional-q-as-2/file

Dance lift level features are so much harder for me to "get" than pairs lift levels so I have never really properly memorized them, but this is a new one, right? That a team can earn 2 levels if both partners are doing "intricate steps and/or movements” into/out of the lift?

The continuous combination of intricate steps and/or movements” may be done by the Lifting Partner or by the Lifted Partner only, or as a combination of both to be counted as difficult entry/exit.

If both partners perform intricate steps and/or movements together this will count as two features (one for lifting partner and one for lifted partner) since both partners fulfill the requirements for this feature and can be considered for level.

 

[nimi]

ISU Development Program video on YT explaining the new GOE system (1 hr 15 min)

Grades of Execution +5 to -5 Ice Dance: https://youtu.be/6AqiB3nakkQ

 

[kwanfan1818]

Oh, I need a stiff drink after watching those. It's a good thing I'm going to a stadium where there will be beer.

Bianchetti and Lynch on Singles/Pairs: These are guidelines. But to give +4/+5 GOE, the skater *must* meet the requirements of the first 3 bullets. But (after 45+ minutes), it's the same as you're [the judges] are doing now, except it's on a -5 to +5 scale instead of a -3 to +3 scale.

While I get the concept of having to excel at the core parts of each element before add-ons can be tallied, it is mind-boggling to find that basics, like entry and exits -- and not difficult and "unexpected" and "creative" ones -- are bullet points 4-6 for some elements (aside from the choreographic elements, where I agree that creativity and musicality should be more important). For example, in the Pairs Split Twist, the woman's height is the first bullet point (followed by catch, and then effortlessness throughout, bullet point #3 for all of the elements), where the basics, like entry and exit, are extras. So does that mean that Sui/Han can only max out at +3, because she doesn't fly higher than the camera, but can be the poster child for an attribute for which she can't get extra credit?

All of the videos meant to demonstrate the positive aspects of the bullet points, although I think there were several big fails on the Pairs front. But should I clutch my pearls with the strength of 1000 elephants that nearly every video was of a current competitor (most) or one who might return, with only a few retired skaters (Chan, Ge, Duhamel/Radford, and maybe Marchei/Hotarek) used as examples?

But props to both Hendrickx's for being included, and who was the Ladies skater who was the second footwork example? I'm drawing a blank. And whenever they talked about clarity, they could just as well have skipped the clip and just shown a headshot of Miyahara.

On the Dance front, it was Gordon-Poltarek and Selby. What this video made clear is a fundamental difference between the way Singles/Pairs and Ice Dance will be judged: Ice Dance is reverting back to gymnastics when if you had a bobble on the beam, you could do a quadruple flip and still not get a 10: unless there are *no* errors in the element, the max that can be rewarded is a +3. (The example for this was a twizzle sequence by V/M, where both Gordon-Poltarek and Selby agreed they were too far apart, hence no number of positives could salvage anything higher than +3.)

The video examples they used on the Dance video were more negative than positive: the only two +4/+5 examples they showed were two choreo spins, Gilles/Poirier's and Capellini/Lanotte's. And since it's been a while since Tango Romantica was the required pattern, they used old videos.

I know it has always been the case that Dance judges can take off GOE when the dancers' edges are wrong at the same time the tech panel will hit them for levels on key points, but the "mock judging" examples they used were really harsh. (Maybe because they were not current competitors.) I had to laugh when, while comparing a couple's first part of the pattern to a second, Gordon-Poltarek thought the second part was better, but couldn't really justify by the criteria why she would give them a higher score.

This should be an interesting year if the judges try to conform and don't just take Bianchetti at his word and just do what they're doing now, but on a different scale. Then it will continue to look like that news story after SLC where each judge justified in a sentence why they placed B&S and S&P the way they did.

 

[muffinplus]

V/M twizzles were "too far apart"? Ummmm no, maybe not the absolute closest, but not what I would call far apart.

 

[Willin]

@muffinplus I think the point is that you need to be 100% perfect to get that counted - being what they consider far apart won't get it counted. So it's not that they weren't excellent, just that they weren't flawless. Even the best have minor errors, and I think that's what they're trying to do with the -5 to +5 in the ice dance discipline: help give more room for the judges to split hairs between "perfection" and "near perfection."

 

[muffinplus]

@Willin I just don't think this was a very good example of "far apart" to the point where it would be counted as a negative. So I am finding it weird they would automatically get a +3 for that alone?... OK I wasn't there in the arena, but that's not what far apart looks like to me. I would say the distance is not the absolute closest it could be, but then it's not negative, it's neutral if you want to judge, but they judged it as a negative feature.

 

[Willin]

@muffinplus In the arena things look a heck of a lot farther apart than they do on TV - even if the TV angle is overhead. Being too far apart is a negative - it either is a good distance (+GOE) or it's not (-GOE). There's no "neutral" or middle ground for something like that. Personally I agree that there should be levels of how far (maybe auto -1 from the otherwise designated GOE if a >3m apart, and -2 from that if >5m apart), but that's simply not how it's currently judged.

I don't know why this would be a +3 instead of +4, but maybe they changed the bullets so more than one addresses distance?

 

[VGThuy]

@muffinplus In the arena things look a heck of a lot farther apart than they do on TV - even if the TV angle is overhead. Being too far apart is a negative - it either is a good distance (+GOE) or it's not (-GOE). There's no "neutral" or middle ground for something like that. Personally I agree that there should be levels of how far (maybe auto -1 from the otherwise designated GOE if a >3m apart, and -2 from that if >5m apart), but that's simply not how it's currently judged.

I don't know why this would be a +3 instead of +4, but maybe they changed the bullets so more than one addresses distance?

Because even having ONE negative feature means you cannot get a GOE above a +3.

 

[Willin]

@VIETgrlTerifa Thanks for the info. I wasn't paying too close attention when watching it.

Interestingly, during the synchronized skating webinar they included this graphic https://youtu.be/ovph8xFKiMg?t=229 that compared the GOE +5 to -5 with the 0.25-10.00 on PCS. I wonder if they mean to correlate the two (ie. makes the judges think more about the more objective GOE when awarding PCS?) It would be interesting to see if GOEs reflect PCS that is ultimately awarded (ie. if a skater has an average GOE of +3.5 they get a PCS of 7s-8s).

 

[kwanfan1818]

In Ice Dance, they made it clear that you don't start with zero and go up or down from there, or that the score was net for everyone: they add up the positives and add up the negatives. Your negatives determine the max GOE you can get, and no number of positives can get you any higher, unless you have no negatives, if you have the number of negatives dictated by a level.

In Singles and Pairs, they've created a hierarchy of bullet points, and the max is capped at +3 if you don't do them all well. You can get +4 by offsetting a mistake on one of 4-6 and meeting the other two criteria. In Ice Dance, they've created their hierarchy by making an attribute a double, so if you meet it, you get credit for two positives. The Dance people spoke about negatives, even though they kept claiming they were positive people and didn't want to point out the negatives. Bianchetti and Lynch just flashed the list of deductions on the screen, but didn't criticize or discuss much between them, nor did they do any mock judging.

 

[MAXSwagg]

As is usual with the ISU, they haven’t really resolved any issues; just have made a mess.

 

[clairecloutier]

In Ice Dance, they made it clear that you don't start with zero and go up or down from there, or that the score was net for everyone: they add up the positives and add up the negatives. Your negatives determine the max GOE you can get, and no number of positives can get you any higher, unless you have no negatives, if you have the number of negatives dictated by a level.

In Singles and Pairs, they've created a hierarchy of bullet points, and the max is capped at +3 if you don't do them all well. You can get +4 by offsetting a mistake on one of 4-6 and meeting the other two criteria. In Ice Dance, they've created their hierarchy by making an attribute a double, so if you meet it, you get credit for two positives. The Dance people spoke about negatives, even though they kept claiming they were positive people and didn't want to point out the negatives. Bianchetti and Lynch just flashed the list of deductions on the screen, but didn't criticize or discuss much between them, nor did they do any mock judging.

Just think about how complex this all sounds. And picture an actual judge in competition: "Okay, let me add up the positives on those twizzles, then I'll add the negatives, then okay, what is the max GOE for those negatives--oops, wait, I'm missing the next element--and what will I give for PCS--"

 

[muffinplus]

This new GOE system sounds ridiculous... how much time will it take the judges to figure out and count the positive features?

 

[Sylvia]

Re-posting in this relevant thread:

"Maximum scores for Senior Ice Dance this season, based on my personal calculation : RD 91.52 / FD 137.84 / Total 229.36 points"

https://twitter.com/_David_Molina/status/1019514822256414722

Molina did the calculations for the max scores for this season. Scores will be going up a lot just from the BV increases alone.

 

[Sylvia]

ISU Technical Panel Handbook for Ice Dance was published on July 23, 2018 (62 pages): https://www.isu.org/inside-single-p...id-handbook-for-technical-panels-2018-19/file