ISU Singles & Pairs Scale of Values, Levels, and GOE guidelines for 2019-20 season

Messages
23,560
Not a fan of reducing UR calls from 30% to 20%. Sigh.

I feel like a surface reading of this is that the ISU is encouraging the technical advancements in mens and womens the past season. This is a sport--and I loved the tech advancement we saw in senior ladies this past season (3As everywhere from Kihira and Tuk, 4S from Tursy). But quality does have it's place in the sport, and I really don't want to see small, pre-rotated quads that come down short on rotation still get a grip of points.

Honestly if judges judged PCS correctly, this wouldn't bother me much at all...but again, the jump content is driving the PCS scores.
 
Last edited:

Sylvia

Wishing I could go back to the Lake Placid JGP
Messages
61,694
Also related to ISU Communication No. 2253 (linked in the first post above) is ISU Communication No. 2254 (both published 21 May 2019) SINGLE & PAIR SKATING Levels of Difficulty and Guidelines for marking Grade of Execution, season 2019/20 The following Communication replaces Communication No. 2186

I. Updated Levels of Difficulty of Single/Pair Skating Elements (season 2019/20)
II. Updated Guidelines for marking +GOE of Single/Pair Skating Elements (positive aspects)
III. Updated Guidelines in establishing GOE for errors in Short Program and Free Skating
IV. Updated Additional Remarks for Program Components and GOE

Link to read (10 pages): https://www.isu.org/inside-isu/isu-...y-and-guidelines-for-marking-goe-2019-20/file
 

ninjapirate

Active Member
Messages
197
Not a fan of reducing UR calls from 30% to 20%. Sigh.

I feel like a surface reading of this is that the ISU is encouraging the technical advancements in mens and womens the past season. This is a sport--and I loved the tech advancement we saw in senior ladies this past season (3As everywhere from Kihira and Tuk, 4S from Tursy). But quality does have it's place in the sport, and I really don't want to see small, pre-rotated quads that come down short on rotation still get a grip of points.

Honestly if judges judged PCS correctly, this wouldn't bother me much at all...but again, the jump content is driving the PCS scores.
Last season was more about improving quality of elements... that's was the entire point of the GOE change. They also created a stricter standard for judging underrotations... which is probably causing issues with callers not wanting to call borderline jumps underrotated if they subconsciously think that means they will get dinged down
 

Aussie Willy

Hates both vegemite and peanut butter
Messages
23,416
Thanks for posting these. I had been checking regularly to see when they were coming out.

I was doing data on a novice panel last week. The callers were being very tough on the underrotations and downgrades even though the jumps had really good basic technique. We are talking about young skaters who are still growing and developing physically and just may not have the strength to do bigger jumps at this point in their skating development.
 
Last edited:

Marco

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,658
I think it makes sense to go with lesser penalty for jump calls because +/-5 GOE is supposedly already going to penalize flawed jumps more than previously with +/-3.

I am just a little bummed that they are not revisiting the BV for jump combinations (i.e. 2axel3toe, 3lutz = 3lutz3toe, 2axel in BV), or revisiting some of the spin features. Spins have become quite boring.
 

misskarne

Handy Emergency Backup Mode
Messages
19,869
Ugh, so they gave into the bitching about URs actually being punished. If anything, they should have increased the punishment. We want good technique, and the best way to do that is punish bad.
 

Aussie Willy

Hates both vegemite and peanut butter
Messages
23,416
A skater can still have good technique but are just not getting fully around on the jump. Fair enough on downgrades, particularly on take offs. But the event I was seeing last week had some great skating from the young skaters. And they way the URs are called now, they can be just slightly under the full rotation. Just short in some instances.
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,753
I'll be an outlier and say I'm glad for the reduction in penalties on URs. The sport's overfocus on URs, combined with an underfocus or complete lack of focus on so many other important areas of skating, for example edge quality, posture, carriage, and quality of jump landings, not to mention creativity and musicality, has never made any sense to me. Problems I see with the focus on URs: 1) not all jumps are reviewed, 2) UR calls are often controversial, both when applied and not applied, 3) there appears to be a political and reputational aspect to UR calling. I don't find it okay that such a controversial area of calling/judging has such a large effect on outcomes. Maybe the answer is to improve the fair calling or judging of URs rather than to reduce penalties. But until that happens, I would rather see lower than higher penalties.
:COP::soapbox::violin:
 

Aussie Willy

Hates both vegemite and peanut butter
Messages
23,416
I'll be an outlier and say I'm glad for the reduction in penalties on URs. The sport's overfocus on URs, combined with an underfocus or complete lack of focus on so many other important areas of skating, for example edge quality, posture, carriage, and quality of jump landings, not to mention creativity and musicality, has never made any sense to me. Problems I see with the focus on URs: 1) not all jumps are reviewed, 2) UR calls are often controversial, both when applied and not applied, 3) there appears to be a political and reputational aspect to UR calling. I don't find it okay that such a controversial area of calling/judging has such a large effect on outcomes. Maybe the answer is to improve the fair calling or judging of URs rather than to reduce penalties. But until that happens, I would rather see lower than higher penalties.
:COP::soapbox::violin:
Excellent post and makes total sense. I totally agree.
 

AxelAnnie

Graceful men lift lovely girls in white!
Messages
12,275
I think it makes sense to go with lesser penalty for jump calls because +/-5 GOE is supposedly already going to penalize flawed jumps more than previously with +/-3.

I am just a little bummed that they are not revisiting the BV for jump combinations (i.e. 2axel3toe, 3lutz = 3lutz3toe, 2axel in BV), or revisiting some of the spin features. Spins have become quite boring.
I am sorry. IMO if it is under rotated it is under rotated, and should be called and penalized. If the caller can not accurately assess actions correctly.....get one who can! It is not rocket-science. Think football - the ball is either in the end zone or not.

If they need more cameras, get them.

The problem for letting UR's slide through, is that skaters learn that they don't really have to get the jump around. Not good for skating. It is like the Lutz edge was..............if the wrong edge is not called and penalized, why would people learn to do it correctly?

I totally agree about the spins......boring. There has to be a good answer in there somewhere.
 

Marco

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,658
I am sorry. IMO if it is under rotated it is under rotated, and should be called and penalized. If the caller can not accurately assess actions correctly.....get one who can! It is not rocket-science. Think football - the ball is either in the end zone or not.

If they need more cameras, get them.

The problem for letting UR's slide through, is that skaters learn that they don't really have to get the jump around. Not good for skating. It is like the Lutz edge was..............if the wrong edge is not called and penalized, why would people learn to do it correctly?
They are still being penalized, but less in the BV and more so in GOE (theoretically).
 

CaliSteve

Well-Known Member
Messages
942
I am sorry. IMO if it is under rotated it is under rotated, and should be called and penalized. If the caller can not accurately assess actions correctly.....get one who can! It is not rocket-science. Think football - the ball is either in the end zone or not.

If they need more cameras, get them.

The problem for letting UR's slide through, is that skaters learn that they don't really have to get the jump around. Not good for skating. It is like the Lutz edge was..............if the wrong edge is not called and penalized, why would people learn to do it correctly?

I totally agree about the spins......boring. There has to be a good answer in there somewhere.
The problem is there is only one good caller IMHO...
 

AxelAnnie

Graceful men lift lovely girls in white!
Messages
12,275
They are still being penalized, but less in the BV and more so in GOE (theoretically).
That is just playing with numbers, and avoids the problem IMO. And, who decides the base value? The technical panel?

The jump is either rotated or not. If a 3loop is more than 1/4 under, it needs to be dinged by the tech panel.

IJS Evaluation of Cheated Jumps
A very real penalty for a cheated jump occurs if the technical specialist determines that the jump is cheated more than one quarter of a turn, causing the base value of the jump to be "downgraded." (In events using video replay, the technical specialist will be able to examine the landing with super slow motion instant replay.) For example, if the skater tries a triple Salchow and cheats it more than one quarter turn, the jump will be "called" a downgraded triple Salchow by the technical specialist and will receive base value points for a double Salchow rather than a triple.


This is only fair. A skater who is that short on the rotation is not really close to executing the triple. The base value for a triple Salchow is 4.5; the base value for a double Salchow is 1.3. So this big cheat will cost the skater 3.2 points! The judges mark how well the jump was executed, and of course, a cheated jump will not be scored as well by the judges as a clean jump. The skater loses more points there.
So they are lowering the penalty for the cheat. To what end? Who does it benefit? Young skaters who don't have to learn correctly? Beloved skaters, that don't get their jumps around, but who cares? By being more lenient, cheated jumps are being condoned.
 

Aussie Willy

Hates both vegemite and peanut butter
Messages
23,416
Base value is set by the ISU and is incorporated into the IJS software. I thought that was well known.

Skaters get the feedback on their jumps via the protocols. They will see the < sign beside the elements. They still get pinged on the GOE by the judges (who also see the < on their screens) and will have the base value reduced automatically.

The way some people react to this it is as if the skater is out there robbing drug stores.
 

gkelly

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,375
That is just playing with numbers, and avoids the problem IMO. And, who decides the base value? The technical panel?

The jump is either rotated or not. If a 3loop is more than 1/4 under, it needs to be dinged by the tech panel.

IJS Evaluation of Cheated Jumps
This explanation is at least 9-10 years old, not taking into account the "underrotated" distinction that was introduced 9 years ago.

There was a general consensus back then that scoring a well-controlled but 91-degrees-underrotated triple as if it were a bad double was too harsh. So there have been rule changes in the interim that parse out different degrees penalty for different degrees of underrotation. With some of the penalties automatic if the error is identified by a tech panel on review, and other penalties more at the discretion of each individual judge based on the characteristics of how each particular jump was executed.

All underrotated jumps are deficient compared to perfectly executed fully rotated jumps, but not all underrotated jumps are equal in their deficiencies. (Nor, of course, are all fully rotated jumps equal in their quality.)

So they are lowering the penalty for the cheat. To what end? Who does it benefit? Young skaters who don't have to learn correctly? Beloved skaters, that don't get their jumps around, but who cares? By being more lenient, cheated jumps are being condoned.
I think the idea is to benefit the sport as a whole, so that results are determined by more than just the number of degrees of rotation in the air. Other aspects of the quality of the jump should count just as much, as should other elements and other aspects of skating unrelated to jumps and their rotation. Penalizing underrotation/rewarding full rotation is one part of evaluating the quality of a performance, but at some points the way the the penalties were applied made it the predominant determinant of results, which was not sufficiently encouraging overall skating quality.
 

AxelAnnie

Graceful men lift lovely girls in white!
Messages
12,275
This explanation is at least 9-10 years old, not taking into account the "underrotated" distinction that was introduced 9 years ago.

There was a general consensus back then that scoring a well-controlled but 91-degrees-underrotated triple as if it were a bad double was too harsh. So there have been rule changes in the interim that parse out different degrees penalty for different degrees of underrotation. With some of the penalties automatic if the error is identified by a tech panel on review, and other penalties more at the discretion of each individual judge based on the characteristics of how each particular jump was executed.
Thanks for pointing out that the information I had was old. Did this change facilitate the execution of better jumps for pairs? Not so much. Pair jumps are just sort of a mess. How many teams actually get their jumps around and stay on their feet?

All underrotated jumps are deficient compared to perfectly executed fully rotated jumps, but not all underrotated jumps are equal in their deficiencies. (Nor, of course, are all fully rotated jumps equal in their quality.)
True. I think the quality has a place to be scored. I am more interested in the actual jump being scored correctly technically. Especially for pairs. I have often thought they should just take the dang jumps out.
The only way I see to get the pair skaters to jump is to give them zero....certainly for a fall.

And where does pre-rotation come in here?

I think the idea is to benefit the sport as a whole, so that results are determined by more than just the number of degrees of rotation in the air. Other aspects of the quality of the jump should count just as much, as should other elements and other aspects of skating unrelated to jumps and their rotation. Penalizing underrotation/rewarding full rotation is one part of evaluating the quality of a performance, but at some points the way the the penalties were applied made it the predominant determinant of results, which was not sufficiently encouraging overall skating quality.
It would be good if that were the outcome. Full rotation can certainly be rewarded in the Quality, and under rotation can be (and should be) deducted. We disagree about sufficiently encouraging overall skating quality.
It is encouraging risk taking, sloppy skating, and baffled fans. It is hard enough to explain figure skating, without making a technical element a quality call.
 

gkelly

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,375
It is hard enough to explain figure skating, without making a technical element a quality call.
Quality of technical elements has always been part of the scoring.

Quality of jumps has always been part of the scoring, alongside the difficulty thereof.

IJS allows more transparency about where skaters are gaining and losing points for each element. The <, <<, e, and ! calls allow more transparency and (if called) some automatic application of point reductions.

The other positive and negative criteria that judges reward and penalize are all combined together in a single GOE score from each judge, so there is still some ambiguity about exactly what the judges thought made one 3Lz better than another one, for example. (Or an excellent 3T being worth more than a flawed 3Lz, even if the lutz starts from a higher base value.)

But the fact that there is a concept of jumps of the same kind being better or worse (qualitative decisions) has always been part of the sport. Same as going back to what made one figure eight better or worse than another. Some of those reasons are measurable and quantifiable. Not all of them are.

Figure skating is a qualitative sport; always has been always will be. Fans who want purely measurable results will be happier being fans of different sports.
 

AxelAnnie

Graceful men lift lovely girls in white!
Messages
12,275
Figure skating is a qualitative sport; always has been always will be. Fans who want purely measurable results will be happier being fans of different sports.
Yep! That is what makes it fun :) In the hunter ring (riding) it is qualitative. And, you can have a perfect round, but maybe the judge doesn't prefer grey horses, or wants to reward a horse she sold someone......Such fun.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information