Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Perhaps someone can clarify who does what on the technical panel. It was my understanding that the tech specialist makes the call (CAN in this case) and the tech controller (USA) makes the tie break if their is a disagreement between the tech specialist and the assistant tech specialist (POL). So every element really requires a confirmation of 2 callers. If we get into a discussion on country bias, then we would have to start from the premise that the USA teams were somewhat disadvantaged going in (given that their closest rivals were from CAN). So the controller does wield power but only in the case of a disagreement between the other 2 callers.And both of their events were with US controllers.
Perhaps someone can clarify who does what on the technical panel. It was my understanding that the tech specialist makes the call (CAN in this case) and the tech controller (USA) makes the tie break if their is a disagreement between the tech specialist and the assistant tech specialist (POL). So every element really requires a confirmation of 2 callers.
Perhaps someone can clarify who does what on the technical panel. It was my understanding that the tech specialist makes the call (CAN in this case) and the tech controller (USA) makes the tie break if their is a disagreement between the tech specialist and the assistant tech specialist (POL). So every element really requires a confirmation of 2 callers.
How should the calling of Key Points be
organized among Technical Specialist and
Assistant Technical Specialist?
▪Key Point for man or lady performed
separately: called by the Technical
Specialist.
▪Key Points for man or lady performed
simultaneously: Key Point for lady called by
the Technical Specialist. Key Point for man
called by the Assistant Technical Specialist.
▪Key Point for both man and lady: called by
the Technical Specialist. The Technical
Panel may be organized so the Assistant
Technical Specialist has the duty to double
check one of the partners and the Technical
Controller has the duty to double check the
other partner.
I don't understand how someone can be coach on some events and Technical specialist at other eventYes, it's the technical specialist who is the caller. Then--if I remember correctly from past discussions--the assistant technical specialist who has to agree or disagree. And the controller only comes into play if those two disagree.
The Canadian caller in Italy has been busy already this fall. She called the Autumn Classic, Finlandia, and this junior event. It makes one realize that the pool of callers must not be that large. I am curious about the process for people who become callers. As they represent the ISU rather than a specific country, do they apply through the ISU rather than through their own Federation to become a caller? Or do they need to apply through their Federation first? And how are assignments made for different events? I remember someone saying once last year that the specialist was invited by the host of the GP. Is that accurate? Are callers selected from a pool of people who are willing to travel to a certain event? (Often they are regionally local, though obviously not always).
I don't understand how someone can be coach on some events and Technical specialist at other event
Doesn't make any sense to me. TS in Brisbane is the coach of Russian team P/V
Shouldn't people who sit on panel be totally impartial? Or at least give us the impression they are
I quoted and replied to Moustaffask8r in this GSD thread: Questions about Technical Panels (ISU, national, local level)The TS in Brisbane was Margalio.
Sylvia mentioned this in another thread; but for the sake of clarity here, he doesn't coach P&V.
Michael Parsons seems to be enjoying touring around Moscow before his first GP with sister Rachel:Overall, this competition is one I will always remember. Even though we didn't take home a medal, we feel proud and satisfied with what we put on the ice. It feels so rewarding to have put everything we could into those programs after overcoming a bit of a hurdle in the middle of the season (that hurdle being an illness that took me off the ice for a month just after Australia) and making it to Italy. I will also remember Egna/Bolzano as one of the most charming, nostalgic, breathtaking places I have ever been to.
My mistake P/V were in Brisbane so obviously their coach wasn't the ts but she was assistant TS in Riga. What if Hagenauer, Shpilband or Zueva were TS or assistant TS on some events ! Im not sure people would be ok with it....The TS in Brisbane was Margalio.
Sylvia mentioned this in another thread; but for the sake of clarity here, he doesn't coach P&V.
My mistake P/V were in Brisbane so obviously their coach wasn't the ts but she was assistant TS in Riga. What if Hagenauer, Shpilband or Zueva were TS or assistant TS on some events ! Im not sure people would be ok with it....
Does anybody know if a former coach (may be someone who was a coach several years ago) be on a tech panel or a judge in the competition where his former student competes?
Not at Sectionals/Nationals. Last year Judy was in Pacific but L/B went East. At Nationals she judged all levels but Juniors. Was it intentional?I don't think there is any rule against a coach tech specialist judging their former students. For example, I am almost certain Judy Blumberg was on the tech panel for competitions including Lewis/Bye.
She was however, ATS at JGP Brisbane where they competedNot at Sectionals/Nationals. Last year Judy was in Pacific but L/B went East. At Nationals she judged all levels but Juniors. Was it intentional?
I guess ISU does not know about their ties. I would have had an issue with it.She was however, ATS at JGP Brisbane where they competed
It’s the officials resposability to declare their conflict of interest!I guess ISU does not know about their ties. I would have had an issue with it.
This is interesting.Rumors have it that Lewis/Bye were seen training Friday in Canton, MI - which means Zoueva’s rink. Don’t know if it what a one time thing but a coaching change is something they definetly need I think. The old situation just won’t work for them.
AgreeIt’s the officials resposability to declare their conflict of interest!
She’s way too close to that team to be technical specialist on any event where their competing.
Does anybody know if a former coach (may be someone who was a coach several years ago) be on a tech panel or a judge in the competition where his former student competes?
I agree on some part. But from the news articles in Sun Valley and Oregon newspaper she was more than a coach to those kids so I don’t see how she can sit on a tech panel while they’re competing... maybe the fact that she was in Brisbane didn’t help Them at all. But this is just an example. Other team on international junior level are the same. P/V, Russian team that won Brisbane, the coach is also a TS or ATS at some of the JGP. I don’t see how this can be accepted in the community.... we all know how figure skating is always struggling with politics ...have we forgotten the scandal that lead to the new system to try and improve. If we accept that active coaches stand on tech panel aren’t we going a step back ? I’m not sure people would accept Shpilband, Zueva or Hagenauer on a panel... maybe there’s a rule where if you have more than one team you cannot be on a tech panel? I’m curious to know what the rules are? How can you be paid as a coach , choreographer and be a TS.I thought perhaps the reason she didn't run the panel among the juniors at Nationals was because of Lewis & Bye also. And I was surprised to see her in Brisbane. As in Riga, though, I don't see any sign of biased scoring. The tech panel in Brisbane was tough on L&B.
If we lose Judy as a TECH specialist for Nationals at the senior level when L&B move up, it would be a shame. I think she is both tough and well-respected.
1.To be eligible for first appointment as an International Technical Specialist, the Official must fulfill the following requirements:
a) Age: have reached the age of twenty-four (24) but not the age of
seventy (70) in the calendar year of the nomination.
b) Background:
i) be recruited from the group of Coaches, former competitive Skaters, or ISU/International Judges or Referees;
ii) be involved on at least a weekly basis for the discipline concerned on site;
iii) have been a former high level Skater (as a minimum at national level);
iv) have the highest knowledge of the discipline concerned with regards to the technical aspects;
v) possess good communication skills;
vi) be able to take directions and work within a team environment.
c) Service: have served, during the twenty-four (24) months preceding July 31st of the calendar year of the nomination, as a Technical Specialist in two (2) National Competitions (as per Rule 411, paragraph 9.a).
d) Seminar attendance: completes an ISU Seminar for first appointment of International Technical Specialists (see Rule 417).
e) Examination: passes successfully the ISU Examination to become an International Technical Specialist.
f) A minimum of two (2) season waiting period must be given between the end of the competitive skating career and the first nomination
We would lose much more if competitions perceived to be rigged due to unfair judging.I thought perhaps the reason she didn't run the panel among the juniors at Nationals was because of Lewis & Bye also. And I was surprised to see her in Brisbane. As in Riga, though, I don't see any sign of biased scoring. The tech panel in Brisbane was tough on L&B.
If we lose Judy as a TECH specialist for Nationals at the senior level when L&B move up, it would be a shame. I think she is both tough and well-respected.
We would lose much more if competitions perceived to be rigged due to unfair judging.