I think it's time for ISU to use technology in their favour. If a technical caller identifies a fall and issues a 1.00 deduction, computer should also cap PCS numbers that judges can assign. The program used to score should return an error and tell the judge to score again. Same thing with a fall on a jump; the program should return an error message for a judge who is giving anything more than -3.
2017 Scale of Value and Guidelines for GOE
- Thread starter gsk8
- Start date
I think it's time for ISU to use technology in their favour. If a technical caller identifies a fall and issues a 1.00 deduction, computer should also cap PCS numbers that judges can assign. The program used to score should return an error and tell the judge to score again. Same thing with a fall on a jump; the program should return an error message for a judge who is giving anything more than -3.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
And does a serious error reflect equally in all PCS components? Should a hand down reflect the same in interpretation of the music as it does in performance? Or a pop? Do you deserve a major lowering of your skating skills score if you have a stepout on a jump?
A serious error should be reflected in all components. The issue is with judges "saving" top skaters by giving them 9.75 and 10.00 even with errors. By definition, 10.00s can only be given to only flawless performances, and 9.75 for near flawless ones.
If a performance with one fall or pop gets a 10.00 in a PCS component it's almost as if the fall wasn't acknowledged as affecting the program quality. So theoretically, justifying a 10.00 with one fall means the judge could also be allowed to give a 10.00 for a particular component even with 8 falls/pops.
If a top skater pops every jump, but still does every jump entry/exit/in-between transition of their program as planned, should they be allowed to get awarded a 10.00 in transitions? IMO, no way.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2017
GOE should not be affected by a pop from quad to triple. Judges don't see planned program content, only the technical specialists and controller. If the 3T is nice, it should still be awarded GOE. The fact it's a pop does not matter because the judges have to judge what they see. Not what is planned.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Agreed. This "suggestion" of no 10.00 is weeeeeak. ISU needs to take a firm stance. And I agree that the judges need to be capped on their GOE/PCS based on errors. It's a simple thing to incorporate, and judges will be forced to score less than they otherwise would for their faves.
P.S. anyone know how's that scoring coming along where they track how many times a judge is deviating from PCS/GOE? More than an error message, there should be a giant neon sign lighting up above a judge who scores anything other than a -3 for a fall, calling them out, along with their nationality. Maybe then the judges will be compelled to score fairly.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
I agree with you, but I do see the other side of the argument. If you are assessing TR, maybe you should assess it completely separately from the other technical elements. You wouldn't penalize a clean jump's GOE because the skater fell on a different jump, so why penalize TR or SS for execution of things outside what those marks assess? Now, for the performance marks there is absolutely no excuse for high scores when programs have major errors because those are more geared to judging the overall impression of a program.
What's this. Nothing the ISU is working on, as far as I know. They track how much a judge deviates from the rest of the panel but I think you have something else in mind here.
The rules have never required that the final GOE must be -3 for an element with a fall. The way the rules are currently written, they don't even require that the final GOE must be negative.
The rules do require a -3 reduction from whatever the GOE would have been based on positive bullet points before the fall. So the highest possible legal GOE for an element with a fall would be 0, and even that is highly unlikely.
But the ISU wants judges to have the discretion to award -2 or occasionally -1 to elements with falls, if there are enough other positive qualities of the element. They want judges to reward good qualities and not to focus only on negatives.
They believe it is more fair to reward good qualities as well as penalizing for errors.
To cap the GOEs in the computer, first they would need to change their philosophy yet again and change the rules in a direction that they have been actively moving away from for years.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Yeah, I agree that the most egregious judging is when skaters get 10.00 for PE or IN when they've had a fall. You can't get a 10 for performance if the performance is flawed, or for interpretation if there is an obvious error that mars the program quality.
However, there are some folks who think that PCS should be marked independently of technical errors, to which I say, if a skater pops every jump and then is held up over another skater by getting 10's because the rest of their program choreography was so good or they have better skating skills is that fair?
My point is, that GENERALLY, the cleanest skaters should be placed on par, if not higher, than the best skaters -- or at least not be held down on PCS, while error-filled programs by top skaters are saved by high PCS. If a skater is going to automatically get 9.5's the moment they step on the ice, regardless of how they skate, then why even have judges there to give them PCS? Indeed, most judges are pre-disposed to giving certain skaters a 10.00, no matter how they skate, and if there's like 3-4 errors, they'll get 9.5. Meanwhile, a "lesser" skater who judges are pre-disposed to giving 7.5's could legitimately give their best performance ever, exceeding their previous performances - heck, even exceeding the skate of a top skater who falters - and still be only given 7.5 so that their strong technical performance is diluted, lest they actually beat one of the faves.
What's this. Nothing the ISU is working on, as far as I know. They track how much a judge deviates from the rest of the panel but I think you have something else in mind here.
The rules have never required that the final GOE must be -3 for an element with a fall. The way the rules are currently written, they don't even require that the final GOE must be negative.
The rules do require a -3 reduction from whatever the GOE would have been based on positive bullet points before the fall. So the highest possible legal GOE for an element with a fall would be 0, and even that is highly unlikely.
But the ISU wants judges to have the discretion to award -2 or occasionally -1 to elements with falls, if there are enough other positive qualities of the element. They want judges to reward good qualities and not to focus only on negatives.
They believe it is more fair to reward good qualities as well as penalizing for errors.
To cap the GOEs in the computer, first they would need to change their philosophy yet again and change the rules in a direction that they have been actively moving away from for years.
Question:
Difficulty is one of the criteria for the
Does the difficulty of the elements affect the difficulty of the transitions?
E.g., if you have the exact same short program with the exact same transitions including a difficulty entry (e.g., back counter) into the solo axel, assuming that the quality of execution is the same in both cases, should the skater earn a higher TR score for a solo 3A from that entry as for a comparable-quality 2A?
If a rejuvenated Janet Lynn, or someone with her skills, showed up at an IJS competition skating one of her best freeskates with double jumps only, could that performance be worthy of 10.0 or close to it despite the lower jump content? Would it make a difference if the skater listed only double jumps on the planned program content sheet, letting everyone know that they were aiming to maximize PCS and not push the technical content?
What if a senior lady who has done 3-3 combinations in the past, or a man who has sometimes done quads, chooses to leave out those elements and intentionally skate a program with less jump content but more in-between content as they get older/recover from injury?
Should the TR component, and maybe other components as well, be capped, officially or unofficially in judges' minds, at a level commensurate with the difficulty level of the elements?
Or should it be possible to reward a skater for putting most of their difficult technical content in unlisted moves and maximizing the complexity, technical quality, and artistic quality of the performance with the tradeoff of easier elements?
There isn't an official answer to this question to my knowledge, but it might be worth pondering.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
You could phrase this a different way. Should Nathan be earning higher PCS scores than Javier or Patrick? Nathan objectively attempts much harder content. If we were comparing a woman who does a 3T and 3S against one who does a 3T, 3S, 3F, and 3Lz, there would be no complaints about the latter earning higher PCS scores solely on difficulty.
I'd prefer to phrase the question as a general principle, not in terms of specific skaters.
Also, my question is whether the same Transitions content should be worth more if transitioning between harder elements. Better to answer that simple question first before introducing the extra layer of easier/lower quality transitions with harder jumps vs. better transitions with easier jumps.
And of course for pairs there would be a lot more elements besides jumps that might vary significantly in difficulty.
Also, my question is whether the same Transitions content should be worth more if transitioning between harder elements. Better to answer that simple question first before introducing the extra layer of easier/lower quality transitions with harder jumps vs. better transitions with easier jumps.
And of course for pairs there would be a lot more elements besides jumps that might vary significantly in difficulty.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
While I'm cool with awarding GOE to superior quality elements, to me a fall negates all other positive qualities of a jump/spin/footwork. Sometimes people just assume that if you're a top skater, every jump you do will have superior height/distance, match musical structure, has difficult preceding footwork, and a difficult entry (and in some cases a variation in air position). So that's already a +2 to start with and with a -3 reduction a -1. Can you imagine if a skater got -1's across the board for a fall and every judge saying, well, they met 4 GOE bullets and I applied the -3 reduction!
For many top skaters, it seems as though the judges start them out at a +3 and then the judges will reduce GOE for errors (mind you, they don't tend to reduce as harshly as they would for other skaters making the same error), but for lesser skaters the start at a 0 and only if they have superior qualities do the judges give them a +1 (maybe a +2 if they're being generous). And you know that judges won't give lesser skaters GOE carrots for musical structure/extension on the landing/effortless throughout/good flow. It's frustrating when a lesser skater can cleanly land a jump and get 0 GOE, whereas, a top skater can two-foot/step-out and get a +1 or fall, and get a -1. Or a lesser skater scores a +1 at best in their footwork and a top skater can fall but still score +1 "because the rest of the element was executed well". It's basically saying, you falling is just slightly worse than (or on par with) me skating cleanly. Unfortunately, it's always a popularity contest, but by capping the GOE in the system, at least judges might be forced to judge less generously for errors.
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
I also want to note that they have taken out this rather long-winded requirement for step sequences:
"either in it’s length from short barrier to short barrier or twice in its width from long barrier to long barrier"
Now, it's just "It must be visible and identifiable and should be performed by using almost the full ice surface (e.g. straight line, serpentine, circle, oval or similar shape)", so we hopefully won't have any strange instances where step sequences aren't counted (i.e. Satoko Miyahara).
"either in it’s length from short barrier to short barrier or twice in its width from long barrier to long barrier"
Now, it's just "It must be visible and identifiable and should be performed by using almost the full ice surface (e.g. straight line, serpentine, circle, oval or similar shape)", so we hopefully won't have any strange instances where step sequences aren't counted (i.e. Satoko Miyahara).
but that doesnt make any sense-first off, i dont recall seeing anywhere that a pop automatically means you get negative GOE. secondly, why would you judge a transition based off of the actual jump itself (especially if it's just a pop)? i think you're getting PCS confused with performance. Just because you step out of a jump, or get an edge call, doesnt mean you didnt have 10s for skating skills, transitions, etc. that is why we have 2 categories of scoring-one for jumps and one for literally everything else. so if you mess up on a jump it shows in the tech score, but if you perform everything other than the jumps flawlessly than that allows skaters who aren't good jumpers to be able to theoretically compete
you say that "to me it is unfair" for this kind of system to be in place but have you considered that you do not have an unbiased perspective on this? i see your point that if a fall happens, it takes you out of the performance so in my opinion it would be fair to mark down "interpretation" in the PCS category, but does not make sense to mark down any of the other categories just because the criteria listed for 10s are objective and usually specific and pertain to everything other than the jumping portion of the program
can you give some specific moments in which this has happened? Usually to be a "top skater" this means that the quality of execution or the difficulty of their program is leaps and bounds ahead of the lower tier skaters. so sometimes when you watch a lower tier skater skate perfectly they can still get+1 GOE or less because they do not fulfill the difficulty required to get higher GOEs. again, it is very hard to have a conversation like this if you do not provide actual examples of if/when someone was truly cheated in their GOEs. I mean I can think of a few TOP skaters who get lowballed GOEs.
Flawlessness does not equal high GOEs or automatic 10s in PCS. Flawlessness & high difficulty of technique and jumps give skaters high GOE and 10s on components
You also say that "it's frustrating when a lesser skater can cleanly land a jump and get 0 GOE" do you forget that there are necessary bullets one must hit in order to get positive GOE? the landing is just one criteria of GOE
For pcs, greater difficulty of the skating skills and transitions would lead to higher ss and transit ions scores.
But quality also counts.
Goes are mainly about quality. And yes, the higher ranked skaters tend to have higher quality skating and higher quality jumps than average skaters. That's what makes them top skaters in the first place.
They can miss individual elements and still excel at everything else c in the program. Or they can have a really off day with lower quality than usual throughout.
Judges need to judge each element and component as they see it that dat.
And so should fans.
A program with one or more errors may also have other problems thruout. Or it may be great aside from the errors. Don't assume one way or the other.
But quality also counts.
Goes are mainly about quality. And yes, the higher ranked skaters tend to have higher quality skating and higher quality jumps than average skaters. That's what makes them top skaters in the first place.
They can miss individual elements and still excel at everything else c in the program. Or they can have a really off day with lower quality than usual throughout.
Judges need to judge each element and component as they see it that dat.
And so should fans.
A program with one or more errors may also have other problems thruout. Or it may be great aside from the errors. Don't assume one way or the other.
i agree with you; but I believe canadianskaterguy was saying that if a top tier skater makes the same mistakes or has a program that has the same easier difficulty as an average skater that they will get preferential treatment in most cases
The reason I speak up is just because I see this user making this argument in many other threads without (to my memory) giving concrete examples while outlining the bullets they think the skaters should have/should not have gotten for GOE or PCS and to me if you're going to make these claims you should have various sources that back your argument up
if I were to make this into a metaphor-if you were at a cooking competition and created a dish that had many different flavors, complexities, and was creative but forgot to put enough salt in it, would you think it was ok for me to win by putting lunch meat between two pieces of bread and serving that? I didn't make any mistakes and made a complete dish . . . even though it was 5x easier for me to make it than your dish
and i completely agree that judges (and us lol) should just judge each element as if they were the only element shown on ice that day
The reason I speak up is just because I see this user making this argument in many other threads without (to my memory) giving concrete examples while outlining the bullets they think the skaters should have/should not have gotten for GOE or PCS and to me if you're going to make these claims you should have various sources that back your argument up
if I were to make this into a metaphor-if you were at a cooking competition and created a dish that had many different flavors, complexities, and was creative but forgot to put enough salt in it, would you think it was ok for me to win by putting lunch meat between two pieces of bread and serving that? I didn't make any mistakes and made a complete dish . . . even though it was 5x easier for me to make it than your dish
and i completely agree that judges (and us lol) should just judge each element as if they were the only element shown on ice that day
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
- Country
-
And to a degree, he is absolutely correct. Take a look at Brendan Kerry's and Kevin Reynolds' short programs from Helsinki. Brendan was foot-perfect, flawless, presented with charm, technically competition (no shadow of doubt on his quad toe). Kevin was sloppy, stumbly, technically flawed (UR-central), in a way that took from his performance.
Kevin came out on top. Why? You could have many theories, including that Kevin attempted two quads (key word: attempt), but really, the net result: Kevin is Canadian (a big skating country with lots of power). Brendan is Australian (a little skating country with very little power). I've seen Brendan get robbed against other big-country skaters too - like Kovtun.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
- Country
-
oh please Karne... why always getting back to this topic of Canadian skaters getting an edge always...
Kevin rotated BOTH his quads in the SP... if you disagree with the tech panel, I cannot do anything for you. He still got a very big PCS deficit compared to many of the other guys.... if indeed a Canadian was going to be favoured, one that lands two quads in a SP, do you think his PCS would stay in the 7s???? like in his FP, where PCS clearly held him down.
I really feel sorry if Canada has done something to you... as we say in this country : eh... sorry!
But there is no point bashing a skater here and a whole country when we are talking about scale of value and GOE guidelines... look at Kevin's GOE... they are low.
i appreciate that you gave me an example (albeit one that has different perspectives on the truth of the reality
)- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
I'm a bit confused by your post. You're mentioning negative GOE? Do you mean you don't see anywhere that a pop automatically means you get lesser PCS? In that case, yes, a pop should get less PCS because it's an error which mars a performance. If we say that 1 pop shouldn't affect PCS, then 8 pops shouldn't affect PCS either by that notion, which is obviously absurd. It's ridiculous if a skater popped/fell on multiple jumps got 9.5's on their PCS (of which there are several examples).
And IMO, an edge call on a jump definitely means you shouldn't get a 10.00 for SS (which is partially defined by edge control and clarity of technique). And a step-out is an ability to control a landing edge, as well as can mean the skater doesn't do planned exit transitions - not to mention is an "ugly" moment which should affect PE and IN. Basically, if a skater has a clean performance and a performance filled with stepouts and pops or falls, don't you think the PCS should be different?
I'm also not sure what you mean by I do not have an unbiased perspective on it? Is it because I'm not a top skater that I'm automatically biased towards scoring of top skaters (in which case, we all are, lol)? I haven't mentioned any particular skaters in my previous posts on this. But if you want names, on the men's side, there are skaters from Chan to Hanyu to Fernandez to Uno who have gotten 9.5's or even 10.00's for programs with multiple errors/falls.
Some examples across all disciplines:
Uno getting up to 9.75 with a fall/edge call/step-out & Hanyu getting up to a 10.00 with 2 pops: http://www.jsfresults.com/intl/2016-2017/wtt/data0105.pdf
Chan and Hanyu getting 9.5's and 45+ PCS here both with 2 major errors: http://www.jsfresults.com/intl/2016-2017/wtt/data0103.pdf
Chan getting up to 9.5 here with several errors: http://www.isuresults.com/results/wc2013/wc2013_Men_FS_Scores.pdf
Fernandez getting up to 9.5 here with several errors: http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1617/gpf1617/gpf1617_Men_SP_Scores.pdf + http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1617/gpf1617/gpf1617_Men_FS_Scores.pdf
Kostner getting 9.5's/10's for several pops/fall: http://www.isuresults.com/results/wc2014/wc2014_Ladies_FS_Scores.pdf
Kostner getting up to 9.75 including for IN/PE - with a <<fall to close her program: http://www.isuresults.com/results/wc2013/wc2013_Ladies_FS_Scores.pdf
Medvedeva getting a 10.00 for IN with a fall: http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1516/ec2016/ec2016_Ladies_FS_Scores.pdf
Asada getting up to 9.25's for all 3 jumping passes with errors: http://www.isuresults.com/results/owg2014/owg14_Ladies_SP_Scores.pdf
S/K getting up to 9.25's here with 2 falls: http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1617/wc2017/wc2017_Pairs_SP_Scores.pdf
S/H getting several 9.75's - and even a 10.00 in Performance - with a fall: http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1617/wc2017/wc2017_Pairs_FS_Scores.pdf
V/M getting 10.00's here (and 58+ PCS) with a serious stumble, and H/D getting up to 9.5's: http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1617/wc2017/wc2017_IceDance_FD_Scores.pdf
There are loads of other examples, and I'm not going to go through every top skater, but if you feel like I've missed one, I'm sure there's a performance out there where they've received generous PCS in the mid-9's in spite of errors.
Similar threads
