- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
2019 Judging and Tech calls discussion
- Thread starter GS Forum Staff
- Start date
That's not true.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2017
Yes, majority of them, but not all. Couple of Kostornaia's, Tuktamysheva's and Rika's 3As were rotated occasionally. Albeit being borderline or very close to be URed.
Definitely not. Only minority of quads were URed - mostly those with the falls. Because, contrary to 3A, majority of quads were being performed by young Russians - who is much better rotators. Due to their more optimal age, body build, weight and training conditions - it's not even surprising. Moreover, if we analyze Valieva's quads, for example - we can see there potential for 5T, or quad either.
They are this good.That said, throughout the whole season we could see that ladies 3A in general were judged much more lenient than ladies quads. Which in turn could give some people an illusion that 3As are more often fully rotated. I really doubt that such judges approach is mere coincidence, tbh..
I freeze it exactly when skate touches the ice.
Absolutely true my friend.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
I know certain people are going to be outraged over Hanyu's 4CC FS PCS (and Jason beating him on PCS in the FS, rightfully so IMO)....
But according to the PCS handbook (https://www.isu.org/figure-skating/...96-program-component-chart-id-sp-2019-20/file) some of the judges should have actually dinged Hanyu more for having 2 major/serious errors (on the landings of the lutz and the 2nd 4T).
The protocols showed 3 of them awarded higher PCS than the max allowance: (http://www.isuresults.com/results/s...------FNL-000100--_JudgesDetailsperSkater.pdf):
Judge 1: within the rules, gave the maximum scores allowed
Judge 2: 9.50 SS (max is 9.25) / 9.50 PE (max is 8.75) / 9.50 CO (max is 9.25)
Judge 3: 9.50 TR (max is 9.25) / 9.75 CO (max is 9.25) / 9.50 IN (max is 8.75)
Judge 4: within the rules, gave a 8.50 PE instead of the maximum 8.75 (other categories were maxed)
Judge 5: within the rules, gave 8.75 TR instead of the max of 9.25, and 9.00 for CO instead of the max of 9.25
Judge 6: within the rules, gave the maximum scores allowed
Judge 7: within the rules, gave the maximum scores allowed
Judge 8: 9.50 SS (max is 9.25), 9.25 for PE (max is 8.75), 9.50 for CO (max is 9.25), and rather ridiculously awarded 9.75 for IN (max for 2 major errors is 8.75 -- max IN for 1 major error is 9.50)
Judge 9: within the rules, gave 9.00 TR instead of the max of 9.25 (other categories were maxed)
According to the rules, allowable PCS with 2 falls/major errors is (9.25+9.25+8.75+9.25+8.75) x 2 = 90.5
And, mind you, 90.5 is the maximum allowed under the rules... which assumes all other aspects of the program were perfect and there's no room for improvement in its execution/composition/interpretation. To those who incessantly gripe that the ISU judges are always against him, suddenly 91.28 seems rather friendly.
While overscoring/underscoring claims are generally just subjective opinions, that is LITERALLY PCS overscoring, as it exceeds the maximum PCS for which the rules allow.
Solution: after every program, the tech panel needs to determine if 2+ major/serious errors have occurred at some point, and should shut out judges from giving anything higher than the max PCS that is allowed in each category. Like, 9.5/9.75/10.00 shouldn't have even been options on those judges' screens.
Some other PCS judging problems in the FS where judges failed to adhere to the PCS max score rules:
- judge 3 gave Messing - who had a fall, two hands down on the 2nd 4T, and two 3As popped - a 9.00 for IN (max allowed is 8.75)
- judge 4 gave Jin - who had 2 pops - a 9.50 SS (max 9.25), 9.00 PE (max 8.75), 9.25 IN (max 8.75)
- judge 4 gave Nguyen - who had a pop, and clearly isn't the best interpreter - a 9.50 IN (max allowed is 9.50)
- judges 4,6 gave Brown - who had a pop - a 9.75 IN (max allowed is 9.50)
But according to the PCS handbook (https://www.isu.org/figure-skating/...96-program-component-chart-id-sp-2019-20/file) some of the judges should have actually dinged Hanyu more for having 2 major/serious errors (on the landings of the lutz and the 2nd 4T).
The protocols showed 3 of them awarded higher PCS than the max allowance: (http://www.isuresults.com/results/s...------FNL-000100--_JudgesDetailsperSkater.pdf):
Judge 1: within the rules, gave the maximum scores allowed
Judge 2: 9.50 SS (max is 9.25) / 9.50 PE (max is 8.75) / 9.50 CO (max is 9.25)
Judge 3: 9.50 TR (max is 9.25) / 9.75 CO (max is 9.25) / 9.50 IN (max is 8.75)
Judge 4: within the rules, gave a 8.50 PE instead of the maximum 8.75 (other categories were maxed)
Judge 5: within the rules, gave 8.75 TR instead of the max of 9.25, and 9.00 for CO instead of the max of 9.25
Judge 6: within the rules, gave the maximum scores allowed
Judge 7: within the rules, gave the maximum scores allowed
Judge 8: 9.50 SS (max is 9.25), 9.25 for PE (max is 8.75), 9.50 for CO (max is 9.25), and rather ridiculously awarded 9.75 for IN (max for 2 major errors is 8.75 -- max IN for 1 major error is 9.50)
Judge 9: within the rules, gave 9.00 TR instead of the max of 9.25 (other categories were maxed)
According to the rules, allowable PCS with 2 falls/major errors is (9.25+9.25+8.75+9.25+8.75) x 2 = 90.5
And, mind you, 90.5 is the maximum allowed under the rules... which assumes all other aspects of the program were perfect and there's no room for improvement in its execution/composition/interpretation. To those who incessantly gripe that the ISU judges are always against him, suddenly 91.28 seems rather friendly.
While overscoring/underscoring claims are generally just subjective opinions, that is LITERALLY PCS overscoring, as it exceeds the maximum PCS for which the rules allow.
Solution: after every program, the tech panel needs to determine if 2+ major/serious errors have occurred at some point, and should shut out judges from giving anything higher than the max PCS that is allowed in each category. Like, 9.5/9.75/10.00 shouldn't have even been options on those judges' screens.
Some other PCS judging problems in the FS where judges failed to adhere to the PCS max score rules:
- judge 3 gave Messing - who had a fall, two hands down on the 2nd 4T, and two 3As popped - a 9.00 for IN (max allowed is 8.75)
- judge 4 gave Jin - who had 2 pops - a 9.50 SS (max 9.25), 9.00 PE (max 8.75), 9.25 IN (max 8.75)
- judge 4 gave Nguyen - who had a pop, and clearly isn't the best interpreter - a 9.50 IN (max allowed is 9.50)
- judges 4,6 gave Brown - who had a pop - a 9.75 IN (max allowed is 9.50)
You are correct about the PC cap but the rule also says:
"Serious errors are interruptions during the program and technical mistakes that impact the integrity/continuity/fluidity of the composition and/or its relation to the music."
So, other than falls, it is up to the judges to decide whether the error was serious enough for the deduction or not. The ISU left it in the hands of the trained judges who know better than fans how to score as you like to remind everyone all the time.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
LOL, riiiight. Because I'm sure the fans would be more critical than the judges. I'm sure none of the fans are complaining that Hanyu didn't get higher than 91.28, or salty that he had lower PCS than Brown in the FS -- they're all too busy complaining that the judges actually should have scored him a max of 90.5 as the rules dictate. :sarcasm:
I should hardly need to justify why that 4Z error constitutes a serious deduction. It is an unmistakable, glaring error, and it thus compromises the integrity/fluidity of the competition. Judge 1 might not seem to think it was serious, with that ridiculous -1
laugh: -- maybe they're buddies with judge 5 from COR2017?! http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1718/gprus2017/gprus2017_Men_FS_Scores.pdf). Oddly, Judge 2 gave it -5, and the fall a -5, so clearly they acknowledged that they were egregious errors, and yet Judge 2 exceeded the caps on three PCS categories for 2+ falls/serious errors.Regarding serious errors, some people don't think pops are serious errors either... but they are an obvious mistake in the composition from what is intended, and reduces the overall impression of a program. Saying something like "oh, well it's up to the judges to decide whether a serious error was truly serious enough" is an apologist approach for bad judging and is the same vein of "I guess that -3 or -4 is okay since that wasn't a disruptive fall!" rhetoric.
To each their own. But I'd rather people (whether fans or judges) called a spade a spade and didn't turn a blind eye at errors that legitimately compromise the quality of a performance. Some people might think Piper's hair getting caught in Paul's shirt at Canadian Nationals wasn't a serious error (I mean, gosh, it wasn't on an element! it wasn't a fall!) but I would have heavily criticized any judge who didn't take that into consideration in their assessment (which clearly many didn't). In this 4CC FS, Keegan had a fall, and a two hands down/lean forward/wild landing/turnout on his 4T, hence why I'm ticked at the 9.00 for IN (8.75 max).
If people thought as critically about their fave skater(s)' elements as they advocate the judges be more critical towards rival skaters, they might understand more why the judges give the marks they give instead of the knee jerk typical lamentations that the judges are out to get their skater.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2015
I think that if the ISU considers technical errors like step-outs and pops to be serious errors they should codify that. Otherwise, the criteria is not clear and , as fans, we should not expect judges to score PCS in harmony with our personal beliefs. I do see a difference between a fall which obviously interupts the flow of a program and a pop or stepout which has little effect on a skaters ability to demonstrate musicality and complete all transitions. If you don't, that is fine.
It is similar to arguments about pre-rotation. Most people would agree that quads like Hanyu's and Jin's with little pre-rotation are better Shoma's or Sherbakova's but the ISU's criteria does not clearly state that pre-rotation should be penalized. So, fans can't expect jump GOE to suffer due to obvious pre-rotation.
In regards to the crazy Twitter fans who are probably complaining about PCS right now, I think it is better just to ignore those with extreme bias. Including those on this forum who complain about every jump that a non- Russian skater completes and make fake GIFs ,and at the same time growl with angry when a Russian skater gets called on an UR. Just ignore them..... They aren't worth your time.
It is similar to arguments about pre-rotation. Most people would agree that quads like Hanyu's and Jin's with little pre-rotation are better Shoma's or Sherbakova's but the ISU's criteria does not clearly state that pre-rotation should be penalized. So, fans can't expect jump GOE to suffer due to obvious pre-rotation.
In regards to the crazy Twitter fans who are probably complaining about PCS right now, I think it is better just to ignore those with extreme bias. Including those on this forum who complain about every jump that a non- Russian skater completes and make fake GIFs ,and at the same time growl with angry when a Russian skater gets called on an UR. Just ignore them..... They aren't worth your time.
LOL, riiiight. Because I'm sure the fans would be more critical than the judges. I'm sure none of the fans are complaining that Hanyu didn't get higher than 91.28, or salty that he had lower PCS than Brown in the FS -- they're all too busy complaining that the judges actually should have scored him a max of 90.5 as the rules dictate. :sarcasm:
I should hardly need to justify why that 4Z error constitutes a serious deduction. It is an unmistakable, glaring error, and it thus compromises the integrity/fluidity of the competition. Judge 1 might not seem to think it was serious, with that ridiculous -1
Regarding serious errors, some people don't think pops are serious errors either... but they are an obvious mistake in the composition from what is intended, and reduces the overall impression of a program. Saying something like "oh, well it's up to the judges to decide whether a serious error was truly serious enough" is an apologist approach for bad judging and is the same vein of "I guess that -3 or -4 is okay since that wasn't a disruptive fall!" rhetoric.
To each their own. But I'd rather people (whether fans or judges) called a spade a spade and didn't turn a blind eye at errors that legitimately compromise the quality of a performance. Some people might think Piper's hair getting caught in Paul's shirt at Canadian Nationals wasn't a serious error (I mean, gosh, it wasn't on an element! it wasn't a fall!) but I would have heavily criticized any judge who didn't take that into consideration in their assessment (which clearly many didn't). In this 4CC FS, Keegan had a fall, and a two hands down/lean forward/wild landing/turnout on his 4T, hence why I'm ticked at the 9.00 for IN (8.75 max).
If people thought as critically about their fave skater(s)' elements as they advocate the judges be more critical towards rival skaters, they might understand more why the judges give the marks they give instead of the knee jerk typical lamentations that the judges are out to get their skater.
Glad to know we both agree that the judges also make mistakes and that we should point it out when we think they did. Their level of training does not make them immune to errors or corruption.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2017
Europeans 2020 SP Anna Shcherbakova and AlexandraTrusova performing 3Loops in Disguise (3Lutz 3Flip)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd8daPF7PmY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd8daPF7PmY
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
Pre-rotation is supposed to be penalized. Strangely, the ISU doesn't provide tech panels footage to review them. That will only change when the more powerful federations want to see it changed.
Are you the author ? Do you realize how dumb this is ? Forward take-off on 3Loop!
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2017
No, I am not. But I like the content.
Look at the backlash when Russian lutz edges were penalised. Look how easily ISU gave in. I'm not optimistic about it.
On the other hand, if somehow ISU decides that something has to be done about the Russian girls landing quads, the easiest thing they could do is to actually examine whether or not toe jumps are jumped with the toe and penalise toe jumps jumping from the blade. I doubt they'll go so far to checking excessive prerotation, but if they do, man we're going to see some messy protocols for a few years.
Then take a look at this, Hanyu 3Loop, check his take-off and pre-rotation. His pre-rotation is bigger than Anna's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWf0-IT0z5o
You are supposed to jump like that. The author has no idea what he is talking about
Similar threads
