Y'all do realize there's a difference between the tech panel and the judges, right? The USFS has plenty of international-level trained tech controllers, tech specialists & referees. Surely for an event like Sectionals, the USFS could at least manage to get at least ONE Referee and TC or TS on each of the junior & senior panels to oversee what's happening.
The referee doesn't oversee the tech panel. That's the Controller's job.
Some individuals have both appointments, but they're two different roles and the same person can't do both at once.
The referee can remind judges about jump rotation (and other) rules/guidelines in a pre-event meeting, but that's about all they could do in this respect.
Starr’s under rotations got -4 goe but Sherry under got -3. Why? Is there a better > than the other?
The symbols are < (less than symbol) for underrotations 91 to 180 degrees short, and << for more than 180 degrees lacking (downgrade).
GOE guidelines are -3 to -4 for << and -2 to -3 for < calls. So << calls will generally get larger reductions than < calls.
Assuming the only thing that is wrong with a jump is underrotation, and there is nothing significant right with it either, then the difference between -3 and -4 for a downgraded jump might be in the severity of the underrotation and how obvious it was to the judge. If the judge saw a lesser underrotation, expecting a < call, for example, they would likely stick with -3 after they see the tech panel called it as <<. If the skater was obviously facing forward not backward when they touched the ice, or not even all the way forward, that would be more likely to earn -4.
In addition, there might be other aspects of the jump that would not be reflected on the protocol but would affect the judge's thought processes when assigning GOE.
If there were positive aspects of a jump (e.g., very good height and length; preceding steps or unexpected/creative entry; matches the music; jump combo in which one jump is underrotated but the other(s) had excellent takeoffs and landings or other good qualities), then the judge might start with several positive bullet points before subtracting the -3 or -4 for downgrade or -2 to -3 for underrotation, to end up with a lesser negative GOE or in rare cases 0 or even slightly positive despite a < call.
If there were other negative aspects (e.g., poor body position in the air/on landing, touchdown with free foot or hand, loss of flow, weak landing, long preparation, etc.), the judge might give the smaller reduction for the underrotation but then also make an additional reduction for the additional problem.
Just looking at protocols can't tell you why different jumps with the same < or << call might have deserved different GOEs.
www.usfigureskating.org
youtu.be
www.instagram.com
youtu.be
It is not included in the published criteria for 2024-25.
