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

[Aussie Willy]

Maybe there are two, but they've been doing it for years.......

If you are going to make comments like that, then you need to be accountable for them. Tarring every official with the same brush is not fair to those officials that are doing the right thing.

And do you think you could do a better job?

 

[MAXSwagg]

They are still being penalized, but less in the BV and more so in GOE (theoretically).

Except that they don’t do this.

 

[MAXSwagg]

If you are going to make comments like that, then you need to be accountable for them. Tarring every official with the same brush is not fair to those officials that are doing the right thing.

And do you think you could do a better job?

Cali is correct. There are many judges and officials who seemingly don’t know what they’re doing or don’t care. Or both.

 

[Aussie Willy]

Cali is correct. There are many judges and officials who seemingly don’t know what they’re doing or don’t care. Or both.

But there are a lot who do actually give a sh*t about what they do and want to do the right thing. Unless you personally know them or you can do a better job best not to make generalisations and assumptions.

 

[SamuraiK]

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.

Im late for this but I totally agree with Claire

 

[CaliSteve]

If you are going to make comments like that, then you need to be accountable for them. Tarring every official with the same brush is not fair to those officials that are doing the right thing.

And do you think you could do a better job?

In my two previous comments, all I said was there are one or two good callers. Im not "tarring" officials. Im pointing out that there are vast inconsistencies in Tech Calling. Its a fact. People and officials have been pointing it out for years. Tech Callers (and Judges) need consistent on-going training and better technology. If they are going to be penalizing elements.

Also, I am not qualified to be a Tech Caller, so no I cant do a better job. However, if I had the training and the same amount of experience, I would be a good caller. Whats your point with that comment? If you are going to make comments like that, you need to be accountable for them.....

 

[CaliSteve]

But there are a lot who do actually give a sh*t about what they do and want to do the right thing. Unless you personally know them or you can do a better job best not to make generalisations and assumptions.

I never said Tech Callers, Judges, or ISU officials do not give a sh*t in any of my comments. So I dont know where that came from. I just said there are only a few that are good. Good or bad doesnt equate to "not giving a sh*t".

I disagree with your comment "Unless you personally know them or you can do a better job best not to make generalisations and assumptions." The vast majority of FSU members are not qualified to be Tech Callers, but we can see bad calling and we have the right to express this, which we obviously do. Im not making any assumptions, Im basing this on what I see.

 

[Aussie Willy]

In my two previous comments, all I said was there are one or two good callers. Im not "tarring" officials. Im pointing out that there are vast inconsistencies in Tech Calling. Its a fact. People and officials have been pointing it out for years. Tech Callers (and Judges) need consistent on-going training and better technology. If they are going to be penalizing elements.

Also, I am not qualified to be a Tech Caller, so no I cant do a better job. However, if I had the training and the same amount of experience, I would be a good caller. Whats your point with that comment? If you are going to make comments like that, you need to be accountable for them.....

I am definitely accountable for my comments and I will call out rash generalisations and assumptions based only on what you or others perceive. You are only going by your perceptions, not facts. You did categorically state that there is only one TS in the world that gets it right. When there are quite a number of them, not just at International level but at National levels as well.

I have seen discussions on events here where the fans don't agree about the calls. So what makes one person right or wrong? And what makes you say that you would be a good caller? At the end of the day there are three people on a panel, not just one. So are you saying that they are all wrong? They have to come up with a majority decision. There can be differences on the panels as well. You have to contend with that. If you were on a panel and you didn't agree with the other two because you see it differently how would you handle that? That is the reality of any human based judging system.

When someone claims they would be good, there is a lot more too it than just what comes out on the protocol. That is from my personal experience. I get people telling me I am good judge. Not necessarily based on my scores on the protocols but how I give feedback to skaters, when I judge tests I am consistent and fair, they appreciate the way I talk to the skaters, that I will take time to talk to skaters, that I am encouraging, that I am passionate. There is so much more to roles in the sport than just what appears on a protocol. I would be the first to acknowledge that I make mistakes and sometimes I do. I am certainly not perfect but you have to practice and do lots of events.

 

[mackiecat]

Yes a good number of FSU members are not qualified to be Technical Specialists but that don’t stop them from criticizing every call. If those members think they can do it better, start volunteering, start training and then spend the next 20 years, giving up weekends, travelling all over, trial judging, doing seminars, practice judging/ calling during the off season freezing in a rink, watching 500 single lutz jumps in one competition for no monetary compensation.

 

[Aussie Willy]

Yes a good number of FSU members are not qualified to be Technical Specialists but that don’t stop them from criticizing every call. If those members think they can do it better, start volunteering, start training and then spend the next 20 years, giving up weekends, travelling all over, trial judging, doing seminars, practice judging/ calling during the off season freezing in a rink, watching 500 single lutz jumps in one competition for no monetary compensation.

You took the words right out of my mouth. I could kiss you.

Thank you very very very much for saying this.

 

[minuet]

I don't want to speak for one group over another but I do want to point out that for Canada at least there are skating qualifications needed in order to judge and even stricter ones to be on the tech panel. There is an assumption that you have to be able to skate in order to judge and I think that's an unfair assumption to make as I don't believe one directly impacts the other.
I would love to be a tech caller and/or judge but did not skate as a child and therefore do not have a junior bronze free skate passed - the bare minimum to judge. Tech callers have to have competed at the challenge level at minimum. Things are slowly changing and I can train to do test days but the time to actually judge is still in the distance.

I am a data input operator for my section because that it all I'm permitted to do. I would love the opportunity to train for judging but the rules do not allow it. Perhaps there are other members on this board who would like the opportunity as well but the qualifications to even do the training prohibit them. I don't think it's fair to make assumptions or say, "well if you think you can do it, go do it". Sometimes we simply can't and it doesn't mean we don't know what we're talking about.

I am a certified gymnastics judge as there is no physical ability requirement to do the coursework, exams, and trial judging. I really enjoy it and only wish I could do it for skating as well.

 

[Aussie Willy]

I don't want to speak for one group over another but I do want to point out that for Canada at least there are skating qualifications needed in order to judge and even stricter ones to be on the tech panel. There is an assumption that you have to be able to skate in order to judge and I think that's an unfair assumption to make as I don't believe one directly impacts the other.
I would love to be a tech caller and/or judge but did not skate as a child and therefore do not have a junior bronze free skate passed - the bare minimum to judge. Tech callers have to have competed at the challenge level at minimum. Things are slowly changing and I can train to do test days but the time to actually judge is still in the distance.

I am a data input operator for my section because that it all I'm permitted to do. I would love the opportunity to train for judging but the rules do not allow it. Perhaps there are other members on this board who would like the opportunity as well but the qualifications to even do the training prohibit them. I don't think it's fair to make assumptions or say, "well if you think you can do it, go do it". Sometimes we simply can't and it doesn't mean we don't know what we're talking about.

I am a certified gymnastics judge as there is no physical ability requirement to do the coursework, exams, and trial judging. I really enjoy it and only wish I could do it for skating as well.

It is a shame that they won't allow you to move any further than data and video based on your skating level. I am an adult skater who didn't even get an axel but have worked to become a senior judge here in Australia (but I do have my Novice dance test). I also do TS and can do TC to a certain level at nationals. I know an international TS who is an adult skater. I think you need some skating knowledge, but the rest comes with experience and how much work you are prepared to put in to learn the craft. Unfortunately I cannot be an international judge because I am past the age limit but I can still do Data and Video internationally which is what my plan is. What levels you are able to judge here is based on your performance and moving up through the levels of judging rather than looking at one's skills. And at the end of the day it actually restricts the pool of volunteers available so the sport loses out.

What level you are as a skater does not necessarily mean that you can't judge, TS or even coach.

 

[mackiecat]

There are many judges in Canada that have passed the required tests as an adult. Actually to be a Star 1-4 judge, there is no skating test qualification

 

[VGThuy]

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.

Agreed.

Also, do we really want to use football as an example of getting calls right? Most football fans would disagree with that with all the complaining I see for every game for every season depending on which teams get questionable calls or non-calls. Also, in football, there's a clear line where the ball enters. In skating, you have white sheet of ice and camera angles and figuring out where the blade actually took off on the ice to determine where the "circle" starts plus bias towards or against skaters and their reputations that come into play as to whether they get calls. I think that's why every season on FSU, you have people debating about whether a skater was UR or not.

 

[clairecloutier]

Here is a cross-post to an interview with ISU VP of Figure Skating Alexander Lakernik--in which he has some comments on the new reduction to the reduction in base value for URs (i.e., going from 30% to 20% reduction in base value for URs):

Golden Skate Forums

Figure Skating Forums at Golden Skate

www.goldenskate.com

Although I'm glad about this change to the UR base value deduction (for reasons I outlined above), this whole scenario is today's ISU in a nutshell:

1. They make rule change #1 to stiffen penalties on URs (URs are any jump landed 1/4 turn or more short)

2. They decide there are now too many UR calls (as if no one could see that coming)

3. They make rule change #2 to soften the effects of rule change #1 (instead of just fixing rule change #1)

 

[VGThuy]

I'm actually more concerned with how they reduced penalties in Ice Dance, especially with how the expanded GOE scales have really helped some teams when they received some low level calls. It even decreased the effect of one partner messing up on an element.

 

[Aussie Willy]

I'm actually more concerned with how they reduced penalties in Ice Dance, especially with how the expanded GOE scales have really helped some teams when they received some low level calls. It even decreased the effect of one partner messing up on an element.

Are you saying they received favourable treatment because the level was low so the judges then increased the GOE to increase the value?

The judges do not see the levels on their screens during an event.

 

[overedge]

@clairecloutier Another strategy would be to leave the UR penalties alone, but reduce the point value of jumps and put more points on spins, connecting elements, performance of the choreography, etc. I'm not surprised at all at the number of UR calls, because skaters are trying to maximize points by trying jumps that get big points, even if their technique on them is not consistent. IMO they're balancing the risk of getting a UR call against the benefit of doing the jump well enough not to be penalized on it.

 

[VGThuy]

Are you saying they received favourable treatment because the level was low so the judges then increased the GOE to increase the value?

The judges do not see the levels on their screens during an event.

I'm honestly a walking contradiction when it comes to IJS because I personally want to see two contrasting things that don't make sense. I think maybe the tech committees are the same way as this sport is full of contradictions. I want both tangible objective judging but I also want less stringent and OCD-levels evaluations. However, if I get the latter, it will hurt the mission of achieving of the former.

I think ice dance is sort of broken when judges don't know if an element is really clean and they give it high scores anyway. I sort of think it's a discipline that wants to just reward dancing and art but KNOWS it needs tangible things to evaluate to justify its inclusion in the Olympics. I know technically callers and judges are supposed to be looking at different things and it does make sense when you have it explained (like how a level 4 could look like work and stiff while a level 1 can have tons of artistry and dance), but you'd think steps that aren't clean enough to get a base or level 1 call should in theory affect the grade of execution since they failed to execute all of their steps properly.

That said, I always wondered if calling in ice dance hadn't become too needlessly pedantic and a bit obsessive compulsive to the point of missing the point. But then, my contradiction comes in and I think if they're going to have levels, then there should be bigger a incremental of points between them. I don't like how pattern dance levels don't have big enough incrementals between them, especially with the expanded GOE scale. Someone with a level 1 FW could theoretically score the same as someone with a level 4. But I'm a walking contradiction again because I wish the same was true for spins in singles and pairs for spins that are planned as level 1/2 for aesthetic reasons.

Relating back to singles/pairs. This is sort of like how judges in singles and pairs give jumps high GOE then see that it was called UR then change their original on-the-field call of positive to negative after being told. I don't think it's the judges' fault per se, but it's just a very strange judging system when an element can have totally different scores depending on how a person sees it (at the moment vs. relying on camera angles and making sure you're actually seeing the launching and actual landing on the ice to determine the "circle" subject to three individual's or one's perception). It's sort of amazing how a jump (especially a quad) can look really good to the naked eye and most of the audience and then having them be told by those who evaluate under a microscope that the jump wasn't good, so then people's perceptions change and then think the skater did a bad job (happens in PBP here all of the time except for skaters who are just expected to UR based on reputation and thus don't get the positive presumption other skaters do) and the judges who gave positive GOEs were all wrong beforehand. Maybe there's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't pass the smell test to me.

 

[Japanfan]

Relating back to singles/pairs. This is sort of like how judges in singles and pairs give jumps high GOE then see that it was called UR then change their original on-the-field call of positive to negative after being told. I don't think it's the judges' fault per se, but it's just a very strange judging system when an element can have totally different scores depending on how a person sees it (at the moment vs. relying on camera angles and making sure you're actually seeing the launching and actual landing on the ice to determine the "circle" subject to three individual's or one's perception). It's sort of amazing how a jump (especially a quad) can look really good to the naked eye and most of the audience and then having them be told by those who evaluate under a microscope that the jump wasn't good, so then people's perceptions change and then think the skater did a bad job (happens in PBP here all of the time except for skaters who are just expected to UR based on reputation and thus don't get the positive presumption other skaters do) and the judges who gave positive GOEs were all wrong beforehand. Maybe there's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't pass the smell test to me.

Video replay in slow motion can identify flaws/errors in a jump that looks fine to the naked eye in the moment.

 

[VGThuy]

Yeah, like I said in my original post, I don't know if that's too pedantic or compulsive. Some times even replay has people disagreeing and arguing, which is why there are three members of the tech panel. I mean it's probably the best system we have, but I wish technology was there (without interfering with the skaters) to gauge things like URs with using replay just to confirm. Don't know if that's even possible. Things like edge entrances should be easier to identify on the spot.

 

[Aussie Willy]

Well when you fans on here who complain all the time about consistent judging, the judges are kind of damned if they do and damned if they don't. They can never win in the fans eyes.

 

[VGThuy]

Well when you fans on here who complain all the time about consistent judging, the judges are kind of damned if they do and damned if they don't. They can never win in the fans eyes.

I understand why you take things personally, but I don't damn any judges. I think it's more on the system itself that makes these contradictions happen. I never criticized actual judges in my post. And aren't judges also fans? Don't they also disagree with each other?

 

[Aussie Willy]

I understand why you take things personally, but I don't damn any judges. I think it's more on the system itself that makes these contradictions happen. I never criticized actual judges in my post.

Sorry I wasn't having a go at you. I was making a general comment. I think your questions are reasonable and it can be hard to understand. But the culture of ice dance is whether you are a skater, coach or judge, it naturally leads to a kind of anal evaluation that can sometimes do your head in. And I say that as a judge.

 

[VGThuy]

Sorry I wasn't having a go at you. I was making a general comment. I think your questions are reasonable and it can be hard to understand. But the culture of ice dance is whether you are a skater, coach or judge, it naturally leads to a kind of anal evaluation that can sometimes do your head in. And I say that as a judge.

I'm sorry for the defensive post too. I've been in a mood for some months now. I can imagine that as a judge, it can be maddening for you to read so many generally damning posts about judges as a whole. I might get my head bitten off here, but I am SURE that if a random pool of FSUers were to judge on a panel, there would be so many complaints about the results as well.

 

[Aussie Willy]

I'm sorry for the defensive post too. I've been in a mood for some months now. I can imagine that as a judge, it can be maddening for you to read so many generally damning posts about judges as a whole. I might get my head bitten off here, but I am SURE that if a random pool of FSUers were to judge on a panel, there would be so many complaints about the results as well.

Haha no problem. We are all passionate about the sport and it leads to sometimes interesting discussions.

 

[gkelly]

it does make sense when you have it explained (like how a level 4 could look like work and stiff while a level 1 can have tons of artistry and dance), but you'd think steps that aren't clean enough to get a base or level 1 call should in theory affect the grade of execution since they failed to execute all of their steps properly.

Or they could have intentionally chosen to plan an easier step sequence that they can execute well.

Not likely among the top elite teams, but certainly possible at developmental levels, where teams might be making choices between difficulty and quality.

Also, I don't keep close track of the ice dance level calling rules.
Even the singles/pairs rules periodically have changes in exactly what qualifies for level 1 or 2 or 4.

Sometimes, missing just one necessary turn could make a difference of more than one level in the calling. In other cases, a skater might miss one or more turns that are also repeated elsewhere in the step sequence and therefore still earn the intended level.

So lower level doesn't necessarily = more mistakes or lower quality.

Sometimes it does, and then the skater or team will probably lose points in both levels and GOEs.

But there's no reason they should automatically be tied together in judges' or fans' minds.

 

[VGThuy]

I think I was having a bias towards top senior (and probably junior) competitions where every competitor on paper is going for the same BV and planning all level 4s, which means if they got lower level calls, it wasn't on purpose. That is true for pattern dances where everyone wants to hit a level 4 since it's designed to be level 4. Many teams get confused about their calls throughout the season, especially inconsistent calls when they felt they skated it the same way but had different calls. I remember reading an interview with Tchaikovskaya (I know...) who claimed the whole level judging didn't make sense in ice dance. I know she's pretty out-of-step and that attitude sort of explains why she isn't the giant in ice dance she once was, BUT I know her sentiments aren't rare among coaches.

 

[misskarne]

Although I'm glad about this change to the UR base value deduction (for reasons I outlined above), this whole scenario is today's ISU in a nutshell:

1. They make rule change #1 to stiffen penalties on URs (URs are any jump landed 1/4 turn or more short)

2. They decide there are now too many UR calls (as if no one could see that coming)

3. They make rule change #2 to soften the effects of rule change #1 (instead of just fixing rule change #1)

It's spineless. We finally have a movement in the right direction with stricter UR calling and then because a few people whinge and moan because they are now rightly getting punished they run scared. No. Stand firm. Keep it strict. Getting called for URs? Go fix your jump technique.

The ISU should be encouraging good jump technique, instead of encouraging poor technique. You could easily argue that seeing all of this, skaters might just go "well why bother putting all of this effort into rotating my jumps when I can just do sloppy UR jumps and be fine?"

 

[Dobre]

Are you saying they received favourable treatment because the level was low so the judges then increased the GOE to increase the value?

The judges do not see the levels on their screens during an event.

I think a great many of the dance fans on the board--and reportedly coaches/skaters/and people directly involved--felt that the system was out of balance this past season after the difficulty for the major elements was downgraded. Choreographic elements worth only a level one in difficulty were suddenly able to outbalance poorly performed, obviously difficult pattern sequences that even some of the best skaters in the world struggled with. It isn't only VIETgrl who saw this problem. Dance fans talked about it all season long in the competition play-by-plays and in The Dance Hall thread. (And quite a number of us were quite open to the the new system initially, but definitely concerned about how it played out in reality). Poorly performed major elements earning only a level 1 outweighed level 4s. The ability to move placements was stifled. Judges may have scored what they saw. But they did not see the missed edges that the tech panel saw. And who can blame them? Judges are expected to watch more than just the blades during a performance. But in the recent past, the difficulty levels have ensured that dropped levels paid a price. This was frequently not the case this past season with the difference between the levels minimized and GOE increased.