Using the new +5/-5 GOEs

Aussie Willy

Aussie Willy

Living in the land under the land down under
Messages
29,926
I thought I would post something about this because on the weekend I judged my first events using the new GOEs.

Will start off by saying that this thread is not intended to strike up debate about judging systems but rather to give my impressions about how I found the new guidelines and how I found using it. And if anyone had questions happy to answer them.

I was judging from Novice events through to Senior and did a little bit of pairs and ice dance. Over the weekend I found myself referring to the guidelines quite a lot to try and get the correct GOEs for skaters and also looking to see where they may have gone above the first three bulletpoints for various elements.

Overall I found it much better than the previous +3/-3. I think the definitions that you now use are much simpler and make more sense than what there was previously. There was more scope to move and I actually found I was giving less base values for elements because you had much better positive bullet points to work with. So for a young skater that did a big jump you could still give them a positive GOE and reward them for that whereas before you were limited.

With the negative bullet points, it was a case that if you had multiple errors you built up the deduction. Then again there were better references but it was easier to quantify.
 
This is a really dumb question, but I am baffled by the new bonus system GOE. Or at least, how it was implemented at the Asian Open Trophy in Bangkok and the recent Crystal Challenge in Melbourne.

For example, when a skater is awarded a total average bonus from the judging panel of say -4 or +4, that it isn't reflected in the grade of execution as -4 or +4. But instead, it is something random like 1.9 or something like that.
 
essence_of_soy said:
This is a really dumb question, but I am baffled by the new bonus system GOE. Or at least, how it was implemented at the Asian Open Trophy in Bangkok and the recent Crystal Challenge in Melbourne.

For example, when a skater is awarded a total average bonus from the judging panel of say -4 or +4, that it isn't reflected in the grade of execution as -4 or +4. But instead, it is something random like 1.9 or something like that.
Click to expand...

Is it that +4 or -4 GOE is 40% of the base value, so the 1.9 points (presumably) is 40% of the base value of the element, in this case 4.75 i.e. 4.75 * 0.4 = 1.9.
 
I'm not sure what you're asking.

What happens is that each judge awards a GOE to the element of +5 to -5. Those should show up in the columns for each judge on the detailed protocol.

The GOEs are factored according to the scale of values. In most cases the values of the pluses and minuses are not strict integers where +1 = 1.0, etc. For triple jumps, the positive GOEs were integers, and some years for 3A and quads the negative ones were integers, longer ago they were for triples. For most elements, the GOE steps in the SoV include decimal places.

That has always been the case, but the specific values have changed this year.

The judges' different GOEs across the panel get averaged.

I'm not sure if the calculations factor first and then average or average and then factor, but the end result should be the same, aside from rounding effects.

That's what shows up in the "GOE" column in the protocol.

This is nothing new. The only difference is that the specific factored values of the individual GOEs have changed such that the values in the averaged GOE column are more likely to end up with non-zero values in the hundredths place as well as the tenths place.

As an example, at random I opened the protocol for 2015 Worlds ladies' FS. Tuktamysheva's entries in the GOE column were -0.50, 1.30, 0.40, 0.93, 0.50, -1.10, 1.00, 0.90, 1.00, 1.00, 1.20, and 0.86.

Nicole Schott's, for example, were -0.04, 0.20, 0.36, 0.14, 0.00, 0.17, 0.70, 0.00, 0.00, -0.29, -2.10, and -0.10. That shouldn't be too different from the kinds of numbers you see in this year's protocols.
 
Last edited:
http://skateontario.org/results/18S1/18S1SeniorMenSPDRO.pdf
Nam Nguyen

3A GOE

J3 GOE +3
J5　GOE -2

It is a situation where you can no longer understand what the figure skating rules are like.
I think the rules are too obscure. Definitely, the problem of national bias will get worse.

At the same time, I think that it only benefits cowards who do not challenge difficult skills.
In Japan, kazuki tomono, fifth in the world championship challenge to three quads, it was 190.56. It is lower than the score of 191.90 of mitsuki sumoto of no quad junior. Mako yamashita of the ladies' single was 190.02. I can only feel like a crazy system that mass produces cowards.

https://www.jsfresults.com/non_responsive_toppage.htm?figure_top.htm,local/2018-2019/fs/25/01/index.htm
https://www.jsfresults.com/non_responsive_toppage.htm?figure_top.htm,local/2018-2019/fs/25/01/index.htm
https://www.jsfresults.com/local/2018-2019/fs/25/01/data0403.pdf
https://www.jsfresults.com/local/2018-2019/fs/25/01/data0405.pdf

https://www.jsfresults.com/non_responsive_toppage.htm?figure_top.htm,local/2018-2019/fs/25/01/index.htm
https://www.jsfresults.com/local/2018-2019/fs/25/01/data0303.pdf
https://www.jsfresults.com/local/2018-2019/fs/25/01/data0305.pdf

https://www.jsfresults.com/non_responsive_toppage.htm?figure_top.htm,local/2018-2019/fs/25/01/index.htm
https://www.jsfresults.com/local/2018-2019/fs/25/01/data0503.pdf
https://www.jsfresults.com/local/2018-2019/fs/25/01/data0505.pdf
 
Last edited:
gkelly said:
I'm not sure what you're asking.

What happens is that each judge awards a GOE to the element of +5 to -5. Those should show up in the columns for each judge on the detailed protocol.

The GOEs are factored according to the scale of values. In most cases the values of the pluses and minuses are not strict integers where +1 = 1.0, etc. For triple jumps, the positive GOEs were integers, and some years for 3A and quads the negative ones were integers, longer ago they were for triples. For most elements, the GOE steps in the SoV include decimal places.

That has always been the case, but the specific values have changed this year.

The judges' different GOEs across the panel get averaged.

I'm not sure if the calculations factor first and then average or average and then factor, but the end result should be the same, aside from rounding effects.

That's what shows up in the "GOE" column in the protocol.

This is nothing new. The only difference is that the specific factored values of the individual GOEs have changed such that the values in the averaged GOE column are more likely to end up with non-zero values in the hundredths place as well as the tenths place.

As an example, at random I opened the protocol for 2015 Worlds ladies' FS. Tuktamysheva's entries in the GOE column were -0.50, 1.30, 0.40, 0.93, 0.50, -1.10, 1.00, 0.90, 1.00, 1.00, 1.20, and 0.86.

Nicole Schott's, for example, were -0.04, 0.20, 0.36, 0.14, 0.00, 0.17, 0.70, 0.00, 0.00, -0.29, -2.10, and -0.10. That shouldn't be too different from the kinds of numbers you see in this year's protocols.
Click to expand...



To use Tuktamysheva's second element from her free skate at the 2015 WC, the triple lutz was awarded a 1.3 GOE (which was taken as an average from the judging panel who awarded between +1 and +2). Added to the 6.0 base value, that gave her a total score of 7.3 points.

http://www.isuresults.com/results/wc2015/wc2015_Ladies_FS_Scores.pdf

This season, by referencing Yuna Shirawaia's first element from her free skate at the 2018 CS Asian Open Trophy, the triple lutz / triple toe loop, she received Grade Of Execution scores between -4 and -5. However, she received an average GOE of -2.95 for the element.

http://www.fsatresults.com/ISUchallenger/Scores/CSTHA2018_Ladies_FS_Scores.pdf

I think I get what you mean.

Although, if we are only seeing an overall grade from each judge for each element and not a detailed one, this is more fiddly and confusing now, more than ever.
 
Last edited:
sleepingsleeping said:
http://skateontario.org/results/18S1/18S1SeniorMenSPDRO.pdf
Nam Nguyen

3A GOE

J3 GOE +3
J5　GOE -2
Click to expand...

And this was before the ISU published the clarification in Communication 2186, which now states that the starting GOE before reductions cannot be any higher than +2 for an element that has a major error in it (under rotation, downgrade, fall, step out, two foot landing).

Before this clarification came out, as evidenced by some of the marks from Skate Milwakee and the North American Challenger event (as at Skate Detroit) some judges were applying the new positive GOE criteria as described to give big jumps that cover a lot of ice and look effortless a starting GOE of +5 and then applying the specified reduction for the error (for a fall it would be -5 and the resulting GOE would be 0). So you could fall on a jump and still give a 0 GOE if you felt that the jump met 5 of the 6 or all 6 positive GOE criteria before the fall, including the mandatory first three bullets in order to award a +4 or +5. I found it very bizarre that judges were giving positive GOEs to elements with major errors, and the reason why the scale was expanded was to make sure you could balance the positive and negative features better to give proper credit to certain features while also penalizing for a minor to major error.

Now according to the clarification, you cannot start higher than +2 before applying a reduction, so we won't see much of the above anymore with a +3 to -2 GOE differential for an element.

At least I hope we won't see that anymore LOL....one never knows.
 
Look at the newest Scale of Values.

-5 for a triple lutz (the higher value jump in the combo) is -2.95, which, not coincidentally, is 50% of the current 3Lz base value of 5.90.

If you wanted to figure out the GOE values without directly consulting the minus or plus columns of the SoV chart, for most elements you could just look the grades from each judge, drop high and low and average the rest, then multiply by 10% of the base value listed in the protocol. That should give you the same result, aside from rounding errors.

EXCEPT for jump combinations, because there the base value is the sum of all the jumps, but the GOE is based on a percentage of the highest value jump only.

Yes, the math was easier for elements where +1 = 1.0, +2 = 2.0, etc. But that only applied to some (common at elite levels) jumps and level 4 elements. If you looked at double jumps or negative GOEs on triples, or level 3 spins or steps, even last year, you'd have the same questions. The principle remains the same -- it's just there are now more different values of each grade for each element.

They are now straight percentages of the base values, so it becomes more straightforward in that sense.
 
Last edited:
doritos said:
Before this clarification came out, as evidenced by some of the marks from Skate Milwakee and the North American Challenger event (as at Skate Detroit) some judges were applying the new positive GOE criteria as described to give big jumps that cover a lot of ice and look effortless a starting GOE of +5 and then applying the specified reduction for the error (for a fall it would be -5 and the resulting GOE would be 0). So you could fall on a jump and still give a 0 GOE if you felt that the jump met 5 of the 6 or all 6 positive GOE criteria before the fall, including the mandatory first three bullets in order to award a +4 or +5.
Click to expand...

According to the rules as written, that would not be possible because one of the mandatory bullet points for +5 on a jump element is "good take-off and landing"; by definition, if there is a fall on the landing it didn't have a good landing. It's also hard to argue that an element with a fall was "Effortless throughout." So in that sense, even without the clarification, even if the element met all 4 or 5 of the other bullet points it would be missing 1 or 2 of the of the mandatory ones and therefore couldn't start with any higher than +3 anyway.

But yeah, the rules/guidelines are new and it takes some trial and error for judges to figure out exactly what they mean and all get on the same page. That's what summer competitions are for.
 
Last edited:
doritos said:
And this was before the ISU published the clarification in Communication 2186, which now states that the starting GOE before reductions cannot be any higher than +2 for an element that has a major error in it (under rotation, downgrade, fall, step out, two foot landing).

Now according to the clarification, you cannot start higher than +2 before applying a reduction, so we won't see much of the above anymore with a +3 to -2 GOE differential for an element.

At least I hope we won't see that anymore LOL....one never knows.
Click to expand...

I posted in another thread.. but the (not so?) obvious, simple fix on this is to have the technical panel vote in real time and simply have a majority rules (just like on other calls) towards calling a major error. Then, the input operator can check a box somewhere and voila, the GOEs on the screen above a +2 are voided out.
 
Tony Wheeler said:
I posted in another thread.. but the (not so?) obvious, simple fix on this is to have the technical panel vote in real time and simply have a majority rules (just like on other calls) towards calling a major error. Then, the input operator can check a box somewhere and voila, the GOEs on the screen above a +2 are voided out.
Click to expand...

Tony, that makes far too much sense for the ISU to implement it. :rolleyes:

(Disclaimer - I have done application programming in my day, and the rule to do this would not be an overly burdensome thing to program from what I know of this system - it's just a "business rule" that one assumes would be recorded by a data marker indicating the majority decision, and that data marker for the applicable element would be referenced by any other necessary "business rule" logic in the application.)
 
essence_of_soy said:
This is a really dumb question, but I am baffled by the new bonus system GOE. Or at least, how it was implemented at the Asian Open Trophy in Bangkok and the recent Crystal Challenge in Melbourne.

For example, when a skater is awarded a total average bonus from the judging panel of say -4 or +4, that it isn't reflected in the grade of execution as -4 or +4. But instead, it is something random like 1.9 or something like that.
Click to expand...
As gkelly has said you need to look at the Scale of Values in the communication to see what the reduction or increase in GOE will be for particular values.

I had a skater asking me about this over the weekend who have been in the sport for quite a few years. They should know this stuff by now.
 
Tony Wheeler said:
I posted in another thread.. but the (not so?) obvious, simple fix on this is to have the technical panel vote in real time and simply have a majority rules (just like on other calls) towards calling a major error. Then, the input operator can check a box somewhere and voila, the GOEs on the screen above a +2 are voided out.
Click to expand...
The tech panels job is deal with whether they element fulfills the requirements. The judges job is to judge quality. Tech panels and judges do look at different things. Skaters already get pinged on under rotated or downgraded jumps. And a combination spin that misses a position gets a V. So they already lose value on tech panel errors because they have less value which has been set up in the system.

The most interesting one on the weekend was the Euler (pronounced Oiler - one of our German judges made sure we said it properly). When doing data entry it was quite a mouthful to read out when calling or reading back the list. We even had a couple of downgraded Eulers.

It is going to take a while for judges to get their head around the new application of the GOEs but I think people have to be understanding of that and give time for judges to get trained and familiar with it.
 
That one is easy to explain. She obviously fell. Did she fall in the choreo step, obviously 3 judges felt so. The other two must have felt the fall was not in the element
 
Aussie Willy said:
I thought I would post something about this because on the weekend I judged my first events using the new GOEs.

Will start off by saying that this thread is not intended to strike up debate about judging systems but rather to give my impressions about how I found the new guidelines and how I found using it. And if anyone had questions happy to answer them.

I was judging from Novice events through to Senior and did a little bit of pairs and ice dance. Over the weekend I found myself referring to the guidelines quite a lot to try and get the correct GOEs for skaters and also looking to see where they may have gone above the first three bulletpoints for various elements.

Overall I found it much better than the previous +3/-3. I think the definitions that you now use are much simpler and make more sense than what there was previously. There was more scope to move and I actually found I was giving less base values for elements because you had much better positive bullet points to work with. So for a young skater that did a big jump you could still give them a positive GOE and reward them for that whereas before you were limited.

With the negative bullet points, it was a case that if you had multiple errors you built up the deduction. Then again there were better references but it was easier to quantify.
Click to expand...

ok - I was wondering about a large diff in GOE from Minto junior dance.
I had thought that a -3 might be a typo but if you can spare the time perhaps there is a valid reason. It did not make a diff. in the placings.

For A.Fabbri/P.ayer fd at minto
ChSp1
J1 2
J2 2
J3 -3
J4 2
J5 3
J6 2
J7 3

This link is the entire FD- but start at about 221.40 of 259.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6qmbbw

This link is all the fd protocols
http://skateontario.org/results/18S1/18S1JuniorDanceFDDRO.pdf

thanks
 
barbarafan said:
ok - I was wondering about a large diff in GOE from Minto junior dance.
I had thought that a -3 might be a typo but if you can spare the time perhaps there is a valid reason. It did not make a diff. in the placings.

For A.Fabbri/P.ayer fd at minto
ChSp1
J1 2
J2 2
J3 -3
J4 2
J5 3
J6 2
J7 3

This link is the entire FD- but start at about 221.40 of 259.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6qmbbw

This link is all the fd protocols
http://skateontario.org/results/18S1/18S1JuniorDanceFDDRO.pdf

thanks
Click to expand...
Had problems watching the video. But I daresay the judge probably just made a mistake with entering and pressed the wrong GOE. Not ideal but it is easy to do and it does happens.
 
SC took the feedback from Minto about the Judge's screen GOE organization and adjusted it for Wild Rose. Thankfully all GOEs were on a single line. Much like described by AussieWilly's experience, the first few events were slower as people were repeatedly referring to their ISU charts. By day 2, things were pretty much back on the usual pace.

I really like the expansion of GOE range. Finally a 0 doesn't occupy such a wide berth in my judging eyes--I feel I have more precision in my scoring.

(However, if anyone in a place to do something is listening, the muddy green colour for GOE of 0 is really offputting.)
 
DynamicMutation said:
SC took the feedback from Minto about the Judge's screen GOE organization and adjusted it for Wild Rose. Thankfully all GOEs were on a single line. Much like described by AussieWilly's experience, the first few events were slower as people were repeatedly referring to their ISU charts. By day 2, things were pretty much back on the usual pace.

I really like the expansion of GOE range. Finally a 0 doesn't occupy such a wide berth in my judging eyes--I feel I have more precision in my scoring.

(However, if anyone in a place to do something is listening, the muddy green colour for GOE of 0 is really offputting.)
Click to expand...
I think the feedback overall from the judges at my event was positive and the judges found it much better to work with.
 
mackiecat said:
That one is easy to explain. She obviously fell. Did she fall in the choreo step, obviously 3 judges felt so. The other two must have felt the fall was not in the element
Click to expand...

Judge A thinks that Fall during ChSq will affect GOE.
Judge B thinks that Fall during ChSq does not affect GOE.

That means that understanding of GOE differs for each judge.
"What does GOE judge?" The judge does not understand it.

This was the same for PCS as well. "In the case of Fall, is the PCS affected?" The judge did not understand this. "What does GOE or PCS measure?" There is no common recognition of judges about that, but it extends that range. The rules are too ambiguous. Also, in this situation, figure skating will become increasingly political sports. Also, the problem of national bias will become even more serious.
 
This season's IJS seems a bit too overcomplicated for my liking.

It is certainly getting much harder to follow and enjoy the sport. I do hope the the likes of Ted Barton really hammers home these new updates at every international for fans to be kept in the loop.
 
Last edited:
http://www.fsatresults.com/ISUchallenger/Scores/CSTHA2018_Men_FS_Scores.pdf
ISU CS Asian Open Figure Skating Trophy 2018
MEN FREE SKATING

Chih-I TSAO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jjBKXOl4cw

3A

J1 -2
J2 -3
J3 -2
J4 -3
J5 -1
J6 0

1) very good height and very good length (of all jumps in a combo or sequence) ？
2) good take-off and landing　Not satisfied
3) effortless throughout (including rhythm in Jump combination)　 Not satisfied
4) steps before the jump, unexpected or creative entry Not satisfied
5) very good body position from take-off to landing Not satisfied
6) element matches the music Not satisfied

starting GOE
2?
1？
0？

https://www.isu.org/inside-single-p...s-for-marking-goe-2018-19-replacing-2168/file

GOE evaluation

In case of significant error (e.g. fall, landing on two feet, stepping out of landing, wrong edge (e), downgraded (<<),serious problems on the descent of the lift, serious problems on the catch of the Twist) the starting GOE for the evaluation cannot be higher than +2

Stepping out of landing in a jump　　-3 to-4

＋2-3＝-1
＋1-3＝-2
0-3＝-3
＋2-4＝-2
＋1-4＝-3
0-4＝-4

How do you calculate it as "0"?

3F+2T+2Lo<　　Fall

J1 -4
J2 -5
J3 -4
J4 -5
J5 -5
J6 -5

Fall -5
Under-rotated (sign < ) -2 to-3
Weak landing (bad pos./wrong edge/scratching etc) -1 to-3

https://www.isu.org/inside-single-p...s-for-marking-goe-2018-19-replacing-2168/file

In case of multiple errors the corresponding reductions are added

How do you calculate it as "-4"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

Sylvia
2026 Euros in Sheffield GBR planning thread
2 3
Replies
66
Views
10K
litenkyckling
litenkyckling
Sylvia
Lorraine Hanlon Comanor: "I Was Supposed to Be on the 1961 Flight That Crashed, Killing the U.S. Skating Team"
Replies
1
Views
2K
AngieNikodinovLove (ANL)
AngieNikodinovLove (ANL)
Sylvia
Ice Theatre of New York's 2024 Benefit Gala honoring Davis/White, Belbin/Agosto, Bezic, Blumberg (May 6) & Home Season shows (May 3-4)
Replies
6
Views
3K
Sylvia
Sylvia
Sylvia
The role of commentators in figure skating
2
Replies
41
Views
9K
SkateFanBerlin
SkateFanBerlin
Matryeshka
Part-Time Work From Home Ideas?
2
Replies
49
Views
7K
Aussie Willy
Aussie Willy
Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information