- Joined
- Aug 26, 2017
Can someone please explain this system for singles? I finished the video and still have no clue how it works.
PS: glad we got to see Hanyu and Chan in the demo.
PS: glad we got to see Hanyu and Chan in the demo.
Well in this case it certainly seems like the ice dance committee has a much, much clearer idea of what path they wanted to take.Because there are/have been different people on the ice dance vs. singles and pairs technical committees and so the approaches to refining the rules over the past 15 years have taken different paths?
That webinar was rather underwhelming. I stupidly thought that these would be really in depth and clear up the questions I had about the system. What it did show reaffirmed what I already suspected so at least I feel like I'm on the right track.
.....I'm still confused about the "element matches the music" bullet. Medvedeva jumps to both an accent to the music and uses an arm flourish on the jump. I still don't know if people are supposed to get credit as long as the element is placed somewhere that makes sense for the music or if they need to do something special with the element itself to get credit. The former means almost everything from top skaters get credit and the latter means almost nothing gets credit. It would be helpful if they also discussed exactly why the examples they showed were chosen to represent that bullet.
Oh great!! ... the judges will have as much training and qualification as anybody here who bothers to take up these webinars!
Will there an examination at the end, where the judges are subject to +5-5 Grade on Examination?
Because there are/have been different people on the ice dance vs. singles and pairs technical committees and so the approaches to refining the rules over the past 15 years have taken different paths?
Agree, I am deeply confused about all the "element matches the music" examples that they show in the single's Webinar, seems like they want the skaters to just make a move when the musical note drop :scratch3:
They only read the bullet out and play example, they didn't even try to explain why they think that's an example that represents that particular bullet... Knowing ISU, I know I am asking for too much, but this is not clear enough.
I am moving to the ice dance one, hopefully, that's a better one as others mentioned.
A better example would be Jason Brown's "Hamilton" ending spin here: https://youtu.be/Nq_otujYUdY?t=2m39s
...and Osmond's choreo sequence in her "La Boheme": https://youtu.be/8Sc7N5syUzw?t=48m57s
They could have selected any number of Jason's spins for that bullet (or any of them), lol. It was kinda weird that they didn't include him in any of the spin segments. And I'm not just saying that cause I am a fan. He consistently scores higher than pretty much anyone in GOE.
It looks to me like they took all of the examples from the Olympics and 2018 Worlds.
There's this sense of imprecise precision throughout the explanation of this system which is inherent to IJS since the beginning and only exaggerated here.
It's essential of course to give judges leeway to give marks as they feel like but there's room for clarity.
It makes me wish that the ISU would incorporate and invest in technology that will help ascertain some of the more quantitative bullet points. The technology would not replace judges but aid them in their overall assessment. For instance, set a standard for what "good height" on a jump actually means by actually assessing how much air a skater gets. The same goes for "good ice coverage" - just calculate how far the skater goes across the ice on a jump or footwork sequence. Measure the speed of rotation in a spin, measure the speed of a jump landing's flow-out, measure how centered a spin actually is.
Yes.Clarity in the form of spelling out ranges of positives, or giving video examples of poor, fair, average, good, excellent? Stating explicitly where judges have room to exercise judgment or to balance out strong positives, mild positives, strong weaknesses/errors, and mild weaknesses, vs. where there is only one correct final GOE?
With IJS, it's just the good qualities and errors or weaknesses of one element at a time -- with tech panel/scale of values taking care of the difficulty determination. So that's a lot more precise than 6.0 judging. But there are still caveats that the range of quality from very poor to outstanding is continuous but the scores available for GOEs are discrete integers, errors can occur with varying degrees of severity (which is reflected in the rules where a range of deductions/reductions is suggested), and positive qualities can also occur with a range of quality from above average to good, very good, excellent, and outstanding. (The +GOE bullet point rules either +3 or +5 do not explicitly allow for rewarding one point for "good" and more for "excellent" execution of the same quality, as the earliest GOE guidelines ca. 2003-05 did -- perhaps calling the bullet points "guidelines" is a way to allow for that flexibility.)
Can anyone tell them what the hell is wrong with their grammar fuction?so in the guidelines mandatory bullets are included and they can be added up as a bicycle or something else :reye::noshake::agree::confused2:
Yes.
All that said, I commend the ISU for making these webinars publicly available, to the fans and not holding the private seminars for only coaches and judges.
Beautifully cynical outlook, except that they’re still holding the private, ISU only seminars and meetings. Hopefully in more detail.They didn't do this for the fans. They did it for the judges, coaches and skaters to save money on holding meetings.