Rescoring past competitions w/ new SOV+rules

[xeyra]

I remember the programme with visible mistake (Papadakis/Cizeron) when after end of the programme i forgot the mistake happened, so i could possibly give 10 for that performance because my mind didn't registered the problem at all. Its a possible human mistake in cognition all judges (as a human) be prone to..

Except with the current guidelines you are suggested not to even give that a score over 9 on certain PCS categories.

This also makes me wonder about something. If skater/pair A does a 'serious mistake' but would otherwise be a skater with skills to get high 9s, would the new suggested PCS guidelines of not giving over certain scores impact them more than a high 8s type of skater who also did a 'serious mistake' but for which there's no suggested drop in PCS categories? One would be getting low 9s for that serious mistake but the other might not get as steep a drop in their usual scores since there's no specified guideline there.

Edit: We might see PCS stop being differentiating if there's an error from a top skater/pair, if judges take the guidelines to heart.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

He...didn't?
He got one 10 for Performance for that program. Results were 9.21 to 9.57 for PCS.

Anyway, sidetracked.

Two 10s actually.

SS: 9.50 9.50 9.25 9.50 9.50 9.25 9.50 9.75 9.75
TR: 9.25 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.25 9.00 9.50 9.50 9.50
PE: 9.50 9.50 9.50 10.00 9.00 9.50 9.75 9.75 9.50
CO:9.25 9.50 9.25 9.50 9.75 9.00 9.75 9.50 9.75
IN: 9.50 9.75 9.25 9.50 10.00 9.00 9.75 9.50 9.75

He still got a slew of 9.50/9.75s too, which, let's be honest is way too lenient judging for a performance with a major error. Every component other than TR (which are usually lower for every skater) averaged 9.50 and above.

If 2+ falls/serious errors out of 7 jumping passes having a serious error merits 9.5 max for SS/TR/CO and 9.0 max for PE/IN, then it stands to say that 1 out of 3 jumping passes with a major error should be treated similarly.

His PCS score was 47.35. Like, come on - it's like they didn't even acknowledge there was an error. I would have given 9.25/9.00/9.00/9.25/9.00 (45.5) for that SP.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

I know we're talking about the ISU changes and all, but why would a fall/pop impact IN and CO? Unless they leave parts of their choreography and interpretation, I don't see how a fall would impact it.

I think taking out choreography to fit in long jump set up is much more disruptive and should be reflected in the PCS, but we all see that's not what happens.

Interpretation is about being able to show nuances of the music, finesse, and the skater reflecting the character of the music. Unless you're skating to Alicia Keys' "Fallin" or Josh Groban's "Let Me Fall", a fall will always be contrary to that. It breaks any spell or aesthetic that the skater is trying to achieve because it is (obviously) an ugly movement and a mistake.

Choreography is sometimes literally affected when a fall prevents a skater from doing exit transitions or other intended choreography.... you time jumps to hit highlights of the music, and a fall - while it could be on the music - isn't doing the intended choreography to enhance the program. Choreography is not just about being there or being done - it's about executing the choreography well. A fall adversely affects the vision/purpose/mood of a program, and thus the CO mark should be docked in the case of a serious error like a fall.

A skater can have the best choreographed program and do all the movements - but if they execute it sloppily, should they be really awarded for having good choreography? If a dancer stumbles at the end of a fully rotated double pirouette, are we still going to give them a 10 for choreography because they "did" the movement, even if it wasn't done well? Jumps are part of skating choreography (everything in the program is choreography), and if they're not done well, that skater isn't doing the choreography (whole program considered) perfectly.

 

[gkelly]

Does anyone have a link to the actual new rules all in one place? The ISU website gives a summary of some important changes, but I don't think the full set of decisions have been published yet.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

You said something similar in your previous post. This is not about you or me. Sorry, if Kostner is your favorite, but no need to take things personally everytime that someone dare to write her dear name not in a good way.
People don't always say good things about my favorites but i don't attack them or say to them "you wouldn't like it if it was about your favorite".
You can deal with the fact that not everyone will say good things about your favorite. She is not a goddess with no flaws. She's a skater like everyone else and everyone should be free to talk about her skating in a positive way or negative way

Totally agree!! People should be able to talk about any skater's skating in a positive or negative way. And, yes, skaters are not gods/goddesses without flaws. All skaters.

Lol, I've had plenty of condemnatory comments about the scores Kostner has got - so I don't know why you think she's my favourite or I'm taking it personally. I don't hold allegiances or nationalities to skaters when it comes to shady judging. Bad judging is bad judging. I'm able to point out scoring flaws in my favourite skaters. And I would hope others are too, instead of being all "my fave(s) are invariably underscored while all their rivals are overscored" and would hope they could, to use your words, "deal with the fact that not everyone will say good things about [their] favorite".

But where I did take issue was the insinuation that Kostner(or any skater)'s motivation for continuing is simply to reap the benefits of occasionally generous judging (which, let's be honest - every top skater gets)... which IMO is a gross mischaracterization and rather disrespectful - no matter who the skater is... I believe skaters are fundamentally driven by their love of the sport, and not by accolades. It's especially unfair to ascribe such a mischaracterization to someone like Kostner, who was unfairly banned, and then had to train her way back to form, at her age and after having won pretty much everything. She's challenged herself adding the lutz back in and posting an SP PB with a 3F+3T. So what would her motivation be if not for putting out great programs and the challenge of competing and improving on her past performances? Is another Grand Prix or world medal really going to augment how great her career has been as a whole?

If she had been rescored at Worlds under this system and placed ahead of Wakaba and Miyahara, that would have been a bad result IMO, but that would have also not been something that was Kostner's doing nor something she would have desired. Something tells me she would much rather win based on her merit and good performances (which she is still capable of) rather than be gifted her medals thanks to the judges. And this is in regards to both her past competitions, and any future ones.

 

[xeyra]

Does anyone have a link to the actual new rules all in one place? The ISU website gives a summary of some important changes, but I don't think the full set of decisions have been published yet.

I don't think they've been published yet. All we have is the Congress Agenda with the rules proposals and the SoVs documents (which I don't think suffered any changes outside of there maybe being an addition of the euler jump, since it all got approved in one swift package vote).

 

[Baron Vladimir]

Except with the current guidelines you are suggested not to even give that a score over 9 on certain PCS categories.

I think over 9 is not suggested only for programmes with multiple serious mistakes. With one serious mistake they were not that harsh, i think 10 and 9,5 is forbidden (actually not suggested) in that case But i wanted to say, when i forgot that mistake in the programme happened it must be it didnt influece the whole programme for me at all. Of course, now it will be hard to avoid to deduct when guideline is written, but i think most of the judges have already given lower PCS for programmes with visible mistakes. One or two given 10 by the judges cant influence the final score that much (well one cant at all cause it doesn't count)

 

[xeyra]

I think over 9 is not suggested only for programmes with multiple serious mistakes. With one serious mistake they were not that harsh, i think 10 and 9,5 is forbidden (actually not suggested) in that case But i wanted to say, when i forgot that mistake in the programme happened it must be it didnt influece the whole programme for me at all. Of course, now it will be hard to avoid to deduct when guideline is written, but i think most of the judges have already given lower PCS for programmes with visible mistakes. One or two given 10 by the judges cant influence the final score that much (well one cant at all cause it doesn't count)

Ohhh, you're right, they make a distinction between a Fall or a Serious error (singular) not getting a 10, and falls or serious errors (plural) for the other guideline on capped PCS. This actually makes more sense than my first reading of it.

I still wish they would define serious errors, because not all errors are equally disruptive.

 

[Shanshani]

Also, it seems to me that if we pile on major PCS deductions for errors, then that might be dis-incentivizing risk taking a little too much. The penalty for falls is already significantly higher under the new SOV. So if failing to skate a clean LP costs you, say, 10 points in PCS in addition to -50% off the elements you screw up and -1/-2 deduction, I think a lot of skaters will decide it isn't worth it to include riskier elements, which was exactly the problem the old SOV was supposed to fix. And, as someone else pointed out, what happens with skaters who typically get PCS in the 80s? Do their PCS go down less when they make major mistakes than someone whose PCS is typically in the 90s?

 

[Baron Vladimir]

^^^
Most of those new guidelines are based on rewarding 'clean programmes' more than it was the case before. We will see how it all plains out, but generally most of the judges were actually applaying a lot of things which are now litteraly written. So i wouldnt expext major differences between the future judging and the one existing before except for a programme with multiple mistakes (particulary with programmes with mistakes on quads) which wont score that much comparing to other ones as before.

 

[charlotte14]

Reality is that the new guidelines will make it easier for the judges to manipulate the placement for their favorites. This same thing happened after 2002 and 2010 when they made big change.

 

[4everchan]

My favorite gorgeous popped quad is Patrick's 4T into 3T. That thing is a beauty no matter the number of rotations.

as much as i wanted him to land the second quad at nationals in Journey in 2017, after he had done the 4t-3t and the 4s, that 3t was just beautiful.... who knew a 3t could give so much emotion....

 

[Leonardo]

Reality is that the new guidelines will make it easier for the judges to manipulate the placement for their favorites. This same thing happened after 2002 and 2010 when they made big change.

Agreed, but I think that in the end it won't change much. There are +5s but there is also a -5 if something goes wrong. The thing is, they should have increased the deduction for falling. -1 point is such a small deduction when the programs are scoring 140, 150 or 200. If the fall had a more costly deduction, the sport could be more fair and unpredictable, nowadays the favorites almost always win regardless of the execution of the program.

 

[yume]

Reality is that the new guidelines will make it easier for the judges to manipulate the placement for their favorites. This same thing happened after 2002 and 2010 when they made big change.

And each time they say that it will make the game more fair.

 

[xeyra]

Agreed, but I think that in the end it won't change much. There are +5s but there is also a -5 if something goes wrong. The thing is, they should have increased the deduction for falling. -1 point is such a small deduction when the programs are scoring 140, 150 or 200. If the fall had a more costly deduction, the sport could be more fair and unpredictable, nowadays the favorites almost always win regardless of the execution of the program.

But now falls should take half of the jump's BV, plus the deduction, which in some cases means a triple with even just +1 GOE is worth more than a fall in its quad equivalent. Isn't that punishing already? You punish even more and skaters can get too risk avoidant.

 

[Shanshani]

But now falls should take half of the jump's BV, plus the deduction, which in some cases means a triple with even just +1 GOE is worth more than a fall in its quad equivalent. Isn't that punishing already? You punish even more and skaters can get too risk avoidant.

Actually, you don't even need +1 GOE.
3T -1GOE: 3.78
4T -5GOE w/ deduction: 3.75

3S -1GOE: 3.87
4S -5GOE w/ deduction: 3.85

3Lo -1GOE: 4.41
4Lo -5GOE w/ deduction: 4.25

3F -1GOE: 4.77
4F -5GOE w/ deduction: 4.5

3Lz -1GOE: 5.31
4Lz -5GOE w/ deduction: 4.75

3A -1GOE: 7.2
3A -3GOE: 5.6
4A -5GOE w/ deduction: 5.25

So as you can see, even negative GOE triples can outscore quad falls. In the case of the axel, even -3 GOE 3A outscores -5 4A fall!

 

[xeyra]

Actually, you don't even need +1 GOE.
3T -1GOE: 3.78
4T -5GOE w/ deduction: 3.75

3S -1GOE: 3.87
4S -5GOE w/ deduction: 3.85

3Lo -1GOE: 4.41
4Lo -5GOE w/ deduction: 4.25

3F -1GOE: 4.77
4F -5GOE w/ deduction: 4.5

3Lz -1GOE: 5.31
4Lz -5GOE w/ deduction: 4.75

3A -1GOE: 7.2
3A -3GOE: 5.6
4A -5GOE w/ deduction: 5.25

So as you can see, even negative GOE triples can outscore quad falls. In the case of the axel, even -3 GOE 3A outscores -5 4A fall!

Which is the stupidest thing I've ever seen and so obviously done to discourage attempts at it.

As for the rest, thank you for the math! How much more punishing do people want falls to be, if this isn't enough?

 

[4everchan]

Which is the stupidest thing I've ever seen and so obviously done to discourage attempts at it.

but why?

-5 4a means a fall...
what does -3 3a mean??? a small touch down from the free foot?

as a fan, i would prefer the latter.

 

[xeyra]

but why?

-5 4a means a fall...
what does -3 3a mean??? a small touch down from the free foot?

as a fan, i would prefer the latter.

It's the disproportionate punishment of the 4A versus other quad falls that says this quad is being discouraged above all others. Both by its BV (disproportionately low increase between triple version to quad version compared to other quads) and by the heavier punishment in a fall.

 

[yume]

actually, you don't even need +1 goe.
3t -1goe: 3.78
4t -5goe w/ deduction: 3.75

3s -1goe: 3.87
4s -5goe w/ deduction: 3.85

3lo -1goe: 4.41
4lo -5goe w/ deduction: 4.25

3f -1goe: 4.77
4f -5goe w/ deduction: 4.5

3lz -1goe: 5.31
4lz -5goe w/ deduction: 4.75

3a -1goe: 7.2
3a -3goe: 5.6
4a -5goe w/ deduction: 5.25

so as you can see, even negative goe triples can outscore quad falls. In the case of the axel, even -3 goe 3a outscores -5 4a fall!

Jesus Christ!!!:eekn:

And some posters want even more punishing?!