U.S. Ladies [#25]: Method in the Madness

[kwanatic]

Forgive me if someone already mentioned this and I missed it, but in the NBA they have multiple special cameras around the court that allow the refs to play back footage and rotate the view at any point to see the play from a different angle. Check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL2-_SoW1PY

If the ISU invested in some high resolution cameras like these above the rink and at ice level, you could capture nearly every angle and improve the ability of the callers to make a definite decision. I think it would be good to have this tech at major events (GPs, GPF, worlds).

If they aren't willing to go for this kind of tech I think higher frame rate cameras would work. They would likely need to buy a few extra to place around the rink to make sure they're getting every angle but that's a doable investment.

Then again, I don't really think the ISU cares that much...

 

[Coco]

Surely there's a technology company that wants some free advertising?

 

[Willin]

@Coco Probably plenty of Japanese or Korean tech companies would be happy to step up with Figure Skating's popularity there. And it might help their skaters in competition, as both countries seem to have fewer skaters prone to underrotation than the US/European ladies.

 

[Tinami Amori]

Surely there's a technology company that wants some free advertising?

surely if "they" can see rocks and micro-elements on the Moon, "they" can find a way to monitor a blade on an ice rink..

 

[MacMadame]

I don't think that there are sensors already existing that have been designed to do exactly what would need to be done to be able to call all jump rotation and takeoff/landing edges accurately.

I don't think there is either. Also, I don't think sensors are the answer. Right now the tech panel has one camera they look at. That's crazy.

Before people put time and energy and significant $$$ into designing some fancy high-tech system, why not just put a few more cameras around the rink and see how much accuracy improves? I think it would improve a lot and would be more than adequate to get the job done.

It could be screwed in, or bolted to the brace that connects the blade to the boot.

And do what?

 

[VGThuy]

Just theoretically speaking, without considering costs, why is the idea of motion sensor technology crazy? These skaters' jumps and scores and thus whole competition rankings are dependent on fully rotated (or within a quarter as long as it doesn't hit the 1/4 angle) jumps. If there could be a fairer system designed that isn't prone to human judgment and error, why not develop it? These are real people whose results hang in the balance.

 

[Vagabond]

Just theoretically speaking, without considering costs, why is the idea of motion sensor technology crazy? These skaters' jumps and scores and thus whole competition rankings are dependent on fully rotated (or within a quarter as long as it doesn't hit the 1/4 angle) jumps. If there could be a fairer system designed that isn't prone to human judgment and error, why not develop it? These are real people whose results hang in the balance.

Just theoretically speaking, is everyone prepared for the possibility that the contemplated technology will find far more underrotations than Technical Panels do now?

 

[gkelly]

Just theoretically speaking, without considering costs, why is the idea of motion sensor technology crazy? These skaters' jumps and scores and thus whole competition rankings are dependent on fully rotated (or within a quarter as long as it doesn't hit the 1/4 angle) jumps. If there could be a fairer system designed that isn't prone to human judgment and error, why not develop it? These are real people whose results hang in the balance.

Speaking for myself:

I'm all in favor of people who have both the skating knowledge and the technological knowledge investigating what can be done with technology to obtain objective data about the skating.

However, I don't think it's just a matter of saying "Wouldn't it be great to devise a machine that can do X?", tinker in the lab for a few months, and then come out with a usable product ready to replace the human eye assisted by video. I think it's going to take a lot of trial and error and test events with prototypes and beta versions on a variety of real skaters skating individual elements and then whole programs in a variety of different kinds of rinks/arenas, and going back to the drawing board several times, to come up with something better. And that process is going to take money.

And then when someone does invent a system that does everything we want (measuring jump rotation, and/or measuring speed and acceleration and edge depth and ice coverage, maybe identifying turns and correct edges) better than the human eye -- then there needs to be a way to manufacture as many of these machines as needed for all competitions where they would be used. If it's something that goes in or on the boots or the blades, then does it get attached at the competition in a way that doesn't interfere with the skater's usual way of skating? Or is it something built into all boots used by competitive skaters? If it's something that's part of the venue, does it need to be built into the rink or does it get set up and taken down the week of the competition?

Probably the logistics of manufacturing and setting up and how much cost they will add to the equipment for skaters or competition organizers can't be determined until after someone actually invents a machine that works well enough to adopt. Once we know what kind of machine we're talking about, then the logistical and financial questions might have easy good answers. Or maybe not.

But the research and development process has to come first. And that process itself will be costly and will take time.

So by all means, if someone has the interest and the knowledge and the funding, go for it!

If you have the knowledge but not the funding, or lots of cash but not the knowledge, and you want to see it happen, go hook up with someone else who has the pieces you're lacking.

But if all you have is a belief that it should be possible in theory, but no necessary tech knowledge or money to back up that belief, then realize that the reasons it hasn't happened already are not because no one else wants it as much as you do. Dreams don't become reality just by dreaming.

 

[VGThuy]

Just theoretically speaking, is everyone prepared for the possibility that the contemplated technology will find far more underrotations than Technical Panels do now?

Yeah, I think that's fine. I think a big issue is accuracy and inconsistency between panelists. Whatever gives skaters the most consistent and accurate feedback will be the fairest. We're dealing with competition here and as much as I love to keep subjective factors like performance and art in skating, I think when it comes to giving skaters credit for rotations or not and level assigning, it needs to be accurate and less dependent on the judgment of humans who have their own ideas of what's acceptable and what's not.

I understand logistics and costs and everything. But I don't think the idea itself should be dismissed just because it seems far-fetched. A lot of things we use every day now were conceived as crazy or impossible ideas. All it takes is creative people with the proper ingenuity and technical background to create something with lots of trial and error and experimentation and for it to be cost-effective.

But if all you have is a belief that it should be possible in theory, but no necessary tech knowledge or money to back up that belief, then realize that the reasons it hasn't happened already are not because no one else wants it as much as you do. Dreams don't become reality just by dreaming.

Obviously. You don't need to lecture me regarding that aspect. I was just thinking about the concept itself and some people seem to be allergic to the very idea of using technology or to be scoffing at it. I mean it's not as if I don't live in the real world and don't understand things need funding (which is what I wrote in the post you responded to) and need to be tested before it's used for real competition.

 

[natsulian]

Since Junior Worlds is less than three weeks away, here are our two ladies representing the US at the championship:

Ting Cui's 2018/2019 Season:

• Total Score - 199.79 (ISU CS Tallinn Trophy 2018)
• Short Program - 70.20 (ISU JGP Czech Skate 2018)
• Long Program - 132.23 (ISU CS Tallinn Trophy 2018)
• Four international assignments - 2 JGP's, one 4CC, and one CS
• Notes: changed coaches last year, trains Quads

Hanna Harrell's 2018/2019 Season:

• Total Score - 157.08 (ISU JGP Armenian Cup 2018)
• Short Program - 52.28 (ISU JGP Armenian Cup 2018)
• Long Program - 104.80 (ISU JGP Armenian Cup 2018)
• Two international assignments - 1 JGP and Egna Spring Trophy 2018 Egna
• Notes: injured during her only ISU JGP Armenian Cup 2018 assignment, trains a 3A and Quads

 

[LeafOnTheWind]

Just theoretically speaking, is everyone prepared for the possibility that the contemplated technology will find far more underrotations than Technical Panels do now?

I have no problem with that as long as every skater is held to the same standard. What makes me angry now is some get away with it repeatedly and some get hammered to the point where you have to wonder if they are ever given any benefit of doubt.

 

[AxelAnnie]

Just theoretically speaking, is everyone prepared for the possibility that the contemplated technology will find far more underrotations than Technical Panels do now?

Personally, I would be thrilled. Jumps will get cleaned up.

 

[AxelAnnie]

Since Junior Worlds is less than three weeks away, here are our two ladies representing the US at the championship:

Ting Cui's 2018/2019 Season:

• Total Score - 199.79 (ISU CS Tallinn Trophy 2018)
• Short Program - 70.20 (ISU JGP Czech Skate 2018)
• Long Program - 132.23 (ISU CS Tallinn Trophy 2018)
• Four international assignments - 2 JGP's, one 4CC, and one CS
• Notes: changed coaches last year, trains Quads

Hanna Harrell's 2018/2019 Season:

• Total Score - 157.08 (ISU JGP Armenian Cup 2018)
• Short Program - 52.28 (ISU JGP Armenian Cup 2018)
• Long Program - 104.80 (ISU JGP Armenian Cup 2018)
• Two international assignments - 1 JGP and Egna Spring Trophy 2018 Egna
• Notes: injured during her only ISU JGP Armenian Cup 2018 assignment, trains a 3A and Quads

I hope someone is skating to Slaughter on Tenth Avenue. They are up against the Russian girls who scored above 220 at their Junior Nationals.

Not that I don't wish them well.....I do.

 

[MacMadame]

Just theoretically speaking, without considering costs, why is the idea of motion sensor technology crazy?

It's not that it's "crazy." It's that it's a very complex problem. It's not remotely like line calling in tennis where you are dealing with a fixed area to monitor. It's more like self-driving cars. Because the skaters move around so whether or not a jump is under rotated depends on where they take-off. It's not a fixed place in the rink that the blade has to hit.

The thing is, we haven't even tried a lower-tech solution like increasing the number of cameras. People are talking about motion detectors on the blades but a lot of the technology in use today to decide where one object is in relation to space (i.e., were a car is on the road) uses .... cameras. (And sometimes radar or lidar) Cameras are very powerful and way cheaper than coming up with some magic device that somehow works using unknown technologies.

[As an aside, Telsa doesn't use radar or lidar for its self-driving technology. They think cameras are both enough and also better because using neural nets to make decisions is now possible due to advances in AI.]

In the cost-benefit analysis, if buying 3 more cameras to send out with the IJS system to certain competitions costs $1000 and improves accuracy to 99%, why isn't that good enough? It's never going to be 100%. So why spend $100,000 (or more) to get from 99% to 99.5%?

I say: start with increasing the number of cameras from 1 to 4 and see how good it is. Then decide if it's worth it to add more cameras or even to come up with some other technology.

I guess as someone in High Tech, I should be flattered that people have such faith in technology that they are sure it will solve this problem and that the solution already exists. But it seems to me that a lot of posters are treating technology like magic.

 

[barbk]

I hope someone is skating to Slaughter on Fifth Avenue. They are up against the Russian girls who scored above 220 at their Junior Nationals.

Not that I don't wish them well.....I do.

<Thread jack> I think you mean Tenth Avenue. I kind of miss it. One of my favorite dance routines by Gene Kelly and Vera-Ann (wearing a skirt cut up to modern ice dance standards!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaAiKkmjp3c 4:13 starts the best part.

The Ventures did a way cool version, too.

 

[LeafOnTheWind]

But it seems to me that a lot of posters are treating technology like magic.

I know it's not magic but I would like to see some hint or sign that the powers that be give a damn about something more consistent than politics and reputation.

 

[VGThuy]

I know it's not magic but I would like to see some hint or sign that the powers that be give a damn about something more consistent than politics and reputation.

Agreed. I think tech may be there and can be exploited. It requires someone with foresight and ability to raise funds to look into it, if plausible. I don't want people to just dismiss it because it seems impossible or far-fetched or they assume it's not logistically possible ever or too expensive when it may not actually be. I mean why not use more cameras AND still develop technology in the background? I don't really know the reality, but I don't think many in this thread really know either and are just going by what we are assuming from what we know from our personal experiences. Even if someone has experience in technology, it doesn't mean you did your own research to look at the costs of everything and what is available or being developed right now. Someone said Craig Buntin already has been working on tech.

To be honest, a lot of the "issues" that come up that have been posted in this thread seem solvable or not close to being impossible to come up with a solution for. I mean before IJS was adopted all the technology required to implement it and everything sounded costly as hell as well. But here we are. There's no reason this can't be a natural evolution even if a "cheap" and "effective" version won't come out for another decade or two.

 

[LeafOnTheWind]

I think where I'm getting the most frustrated is that I'm not the most skating technical person here and I can see some URs that don't get called. If I can see them, why aren't callers calling them and why aren't judges and callers getting some sort of sanction for failing to acknowledge it? I know that lack of camera angles is part of it but it sure isn't all of it.

 

[AxelAnnie]

<Thread jack> I think you mean Tenth Avenue. I kind of miss it. One of my favorite dance routines by Gene Kelly and Vera-Ann (wearing a skirt cut up to modern ice dance standards!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaAiKkmjp3c 4:13 starts the best part.

The Ventures did a way cool version, too.

You are so correct. I must have been thinking about a slaughter of my credit cards on Fifth Avenue.

 

[snoopy]

I guess as someone in High Tech, I should be flattered that people have such faith in technology that they are sure it will solve this problem and that the solution already exists. But it seems to me that a lot of posters are treating technology like magic.

A self driving car is magic really.

 

[MIsty Blades/Skate Mom]

Get ready, there are a few of those companies right here in the San Francisco Bay Area....

A self driving car is magic really.

 

[jlai]

Figure skating is not tennis. I don't know if there is a large enough fan base to support the revenue that goes into maintaining the sport and its competitions. With more and more technology being invested, the sport is just getting more and more expensive to participate and even more expensive to organize a competition for. Did you see 4cc arena being filled? I didn't. Who foots the bill?

ALso, the skater's prize money hasn't gone up in 20 years, but the cost of running the comps is rising. Remember how Tanja Szewczenko making like 30000 in 1997-8 per win, and being able to do something with that money? THe prize money is way less now, and the cost of skating has really gone up. Without endorsement, prize money hardly even covers anything now. ANd it's not like there is a good skating tour or made for tv shows that pays well that covers expense for the year.

I so hope one day skating will be more like basketball or soccer where there is little cost-related barrier to enter. I believe the most popular sports do not require high upfront cost. ALso, I think having judges/callers sit around the rink, instead of being together, may already mitigate some of this. And while we are at it, instead of having a caller we can just have judges around the rink calling the elements. The judges can end up with different calls, but the more obvious URs will get the majority of the judges calling for it. Just a thought.

 

[mag]

I think starting with some lower tech additions would be helpful. Four cameras to start with and then the use of whatever tool is used in football where the tech panel can draw the angle from where the toe pick hits the ice to where it should be for complete rotation. Those could be shown in real time on the Jumbotron just like in football and then available on line for skaters and fans to see. I wonder too if a five person tech panel might be helpful. Two to check spins and footwork, two to check every jump, and one person in charge who randomly reviews a percentage of the calls and breaks any ties. That way everything is being checked and we are still not waiting hours for the marks.

The other option that might help is an overhead camera that show the tracing of jump landings. Again, feed and stills from all cameras should be available on line for anyone to see.

 

[mag]

I would just like to add that I think the problem is more of one where tech panels are not reviewing enough. I think the system needs to be that everything gets checked and that calls need to have evidence which is available for Skaters and fans to review. Even step sequences and spins, the protocols should show which bullets were hit to get the level. It can be very frustrating to look at a spin, see enough for level 4, and have it called at level 2. They are clearly counting the bullets to make the call, they should be selecting the bullets on a computer screen and those selections should be available to all to see.

Shining light on the workings will create accountability.

 

[RoseRed]

The obvious problem with reviewing every call for every skater would be that it would take significantly longer to get the scores, which is already a long process. So the events would be longer, which could have consequences in terms of scheduling, TV, etc.

 

[mag]

The obvious problem with reviewing every call for every skater would be that it would take significantly longer to get the scores, which is already a long process. So the events would be longer, which could have consequences in terms of scheduling, TV, etc.

I don’t know that it would. They are already identifying bullets for steps and spins, it would be easy enough to have those bullets available for review. For jumps, it would take a bit more time, but I think te credibility it would add would be worth it. Basically to be able to go online and also have available to announcers a diagram showing each jump landing would stop a lot of second guessing. I see how fast in other sports they are able to draw out where the foot comes down when catching a pass or where the puck goes during hockey. The tech for that is there.

 

[BittyBug]

All of this talk about technology to measure rotations when there is already a tried and true product that shows exactly what happens - the ice itself. Every stroke on the ice leave a tracing and anyone who has skated knows that if you want to see if your edge was clean, your spin was centered or your jump was fully rotated, all you have to do is look at the tracing on the ice. Obviously they can't have callers running out on the ice to check tracings like judges used to do for figures, but it seems like there must be a way to efficiently capture critical tracings for scrutiny.

 

[AxelAnnie]

The obvious problem with reviewing every call for every skater would be that it would take significantly longer to get the scores, which is already a long process. So the events would be longer, which could have consequences in terms of scheduling, TV, etc.

Well if you had reviewers who specialized in various elements you would need 8 for the long?and they would be really fast because they would KNOW that element.

 

[feraina]

All of this talk about technology to measure rotations when there is already a tried and true product that shows exactly what happens - the ice itself. Every stroke on the ice leave a tracing and anyone who has skated knows that if you want to see if your edge was clean, your spin was centered or your jump was fully rotated, all you have to do is look at the tracing on the ice. Obviously they can't have callers running out on the ice to check tracings like judges used to do for figures, but it seems like there must be a way to efficiently capture critical tracings for scrutiny.

Maybe ceiling cameras.

 

[Maximillian]

<Thread jack> I think you mean Tenth Avenue. I kind of miss it. One of my favorite dance routines by Gene Kelly and Vera-Ann (wearing a skirt cut up to modern ice dance standards!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaAiKkmjp3c 4:13 starts the best part.

The Ventures did a way cool version, too.

I feel like Tonia Kwiatkowski skated to this for the entire '95-'98 quad