Very rarely (if ever) it seems does a skater at a senior competition receive other than a +goe on their spins. Many of the spins imo do not meet the criteria for those kinds of scores. Checking the protocols at the gp event in Russia this week, for example, not one female skater, in both the long and short program, received other than a +goe for their spins. One might say they all deserved those scores, but, according to the judging criteria, imo some should have gotten a small negative or at least a 0. When I have time, I want to go back and look at all the protocols for the gp series to see how the spins were judged for both men and women. Personally, it does not seem to me they are being judged by the criteria in effect.
Are spins being judged correctly?
- Thread starter Icey
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
I think if the positions are beautiful, then the judges overlook centring and the like. I noticed that with some of Brown's and Lip's spins for example.
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
they are fast and deserve the highest GOE's
better than some say like Tuks , Osmonds, Carolinas, Yuna, Wagner etc.
British Eurosport commentators talked about that at one of the GP (COC or TEB) I'm with them.
Skaters should do two bullets for +1, four bullets for +2 and six or more bullets for +3
1) good speed or acceleration during spin
2) ability to center a spin quickly
3) balanced rotations in all positions
4) clearly more than required number of revolutions
5) good position(s) (including height and air position in flying spins)
6) creativity and originality
7) good control throughout all phases
8) element matched to the musical structure
They can take some GOE away:
Less than required revolutions -1 to -2
SP: Position in the air not attained (flying spin) -2 to -3
Poor/awkward position(s), slow, traveling -1 to -3
Touch down with both hands -2
Unaesthetic position(s) -1 to -3
FS: Pos. in the air not attained (flying spin/entry) -1 to -3
Change of foot poorly done (curve of entry, except when changing direction/exit, moving to non-basic position. etc.) -1 to -3
Incorrect take-off or landing in a flying spin -1 to -2
Touch down with free foot or one hand -1
Skaters should do two bullets for +1, four bullets for +2 and six or more bullets for +3
1) good speed or acceleration during spin
2) ability to center a spin quickly
3) balanced rotations in all positions
4) clearly more than required number of revolutions
5) good position(s) (including height and air position in flying spins)
6) creativity and originality
7) good control throughout all phases
8) element matched to the musical structure
They can take some GOE away:
Less than required revolutions -1 to -2
SP: Position in the air not attained (flying spin) -2 to -3
Poor/awkward position(s), slow, traveling -1 to -3
Touch down with both hands -2
Unaesthetic position(s) -1 to -3
FS: Pos. in the air not attained (flying spin/entry) -1 to -3
Change of foot poorly done (curve of entry, except when changing direction/exit, moving to non-basic position. etc.) -1 to -3
Incorrect take-off or landing in a flying spin -1 to -2
Touch down with free foot or one hand -1
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
They are also visibly uncentred which means they mustn't score higher than +2, regardless of how fast.
Of course but judges already giving +2 to other skaters, who spins are weaker than Julia so. :scratch:
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2010
True, scores are relative. Based on how they scores others in spins, Julia must get a lot of +3s in spins.
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
+3 indeed
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2013
This idea of relative scoring is infuriating! Everyone should be judged off their own merit, Julia should get +2s on her combination and flying camel spin and +3 for her layback. Other skaters should be receiving lower GOE too, particularly Kostner, and honestly Agnes seems really over scored in spins too.
They aren't. The judges are supposed to use the whole range of GOE to reward good and punish bad quality. They don't.
If a spin is slow, strained and the positions aren't well extended, you would expect GOE to be in the minuses. It almost never is. The same problem applies to the other technical elements as well but with spins it's particularly apparent as awkward ugly positions and slow rotation are really obvious. Since the advent of IJS, with all skaters going for Lv4, bad spins are rife with skaters going for difficult positions even though they can't extend them properly, losing speed in the process (especially if they are going for the number of revolutions level feature) and of course every single lady has to do a biellmann, in most cases strained and barely balanced. :disapp:
One thing that judges almost hardly ever notice is spins being off-centred. The deduction for that is supposed to be -1 to -3 depending on how severe it is.
An example of that is Lipnitskaya's combination spin. The final, hyper-extended Y position has always been off-centred so far this season. Yet she got 7 +3s in the SP at Rostelecom Cup.
As far as positive GOEs go, anchoring means that if a skater is generally considered 'good' and if they give an overall good performance, they will get high GOE for spins even if they aren't very well executed (again, same mechanism applies to judging of everything else as well).
An example of that is Chan's change camel spin. It's a bit slow and the positions aren't extended particularly well. There's neither nothing especially terrible about it, nor anything outstanding. 0 GOE would be appropriate. He usually gets +1s and +2s because he's Chan.
That's not how IJS is supposed to work. Judges are supposed to mark elements based on bullet points and PCS based on their criteria. They aren't handing out ordinals any more (well they are, but they aren't supposed to
).
If there are any deductions that apply to a specific element, GOE cannot be higher than +2.
This is another good example. Kostner's spins aren't very fast and a lot of her positions aren't particularly well extended. But she gets quite high GOEs because of how good her skating in general is. Again, the '6.0 ordinals mindset' is prevailing even though the current judging system is designed differently.
If a spin is slow, strained and the positions aren't well extended, you would expect GOE to be in the minuses. It almost never is. The same problem applies to the other technical elements as well but with spins it's particularly apparent as awkward ugly positions and slow rotation are really obvious. Since the advent of IJS, with all skaters going for Lv4, bad spins are rife with skaters going for difficult positions even though they can't extend them properly, losing speed in the process (especially if they are going for the number of revolutions level feature) and of course every single lady has to do a biellmann, in most cases strained and barely balanced. :disapp:
One thing that judges almost hardly ever notice is spins being off-centred. The deduction for that is supposed to be -1 to -3 depending on how severe it is.
An example of that is Lipnitskaya's combination spin. The final, hyper-extended Y position has always been off-centred so far this season. Yet she got 7 +3s in the SP at Rostelecom Cup.
As far as positive GOEs go, anchoring means that if a skater is generally considered 'good' and if they give an overall good performance, they will get high GOE for spins even if they aren't very well executed (again, same mechanism applies to judging of everything else as well).
An example of that is Chan's change camel spin. It's a bit slow and the positions aren't extended particularly well. There's neither nothing especially terrible about it, nor anything outstanding. 0 GOE would be appropriate. He usually gets +1s and +2s because he's Chan.
That's not how IJS is supposed to work. Judges are supposed to mark elements based on bullet points and PCS based on their criteria. They aren't handing out ordinals any more (well they are, but they aren't supposed to
).If there are any deductions that apply to a specific element, GOE cannot be higher than +2.
This is another good example. Kostner's spins aren't very fast and a lot of her positions aren't particularly well extended. But she gets quite high GOEs because of how good her skating in general is. Again, the '6.0 ordinals mindset' is prevailing even though the current judging system is designed differently.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Country
-
This is an important topic, so I moved it to The Edge, in the hopes that everyone will get a chance to chime in.
I can guarantee that if spins start to be judged correctly, that fans of skaters whose travelling spins are being punished when they weren't before will be crying foul. It will be just like when underrotations finally started being judged strictly, or when it finally became clear to the ISU that doing a lip was as bad a flaw as doing a flutz.
In dance, some of the more picky rules on lifts started to be invoked at CoR this weekend. The fan uproar has been great. I think enforcing the rules you've got is generally a good thing, provided the enforcement is applied to all teams competing, and at all competitions. I don't like to see rules enforced selectively in some way. Even if the rules are equally applied, there will definitely be anger because the change to enforcing the rules was abrupt, and the ISU didn't send out notes that said, "This has always been the rule, but now we are going to enforce it for a change."
For one thing, fans will suspect that some teams/federations got some warning, while others didn't, even if the rules are applied even handedly.
I can guarantee that if spins start to be judged correctly, that fans of skaters whose travelling spins are being punished when they weren't before will be crying foul. It will be just like when underrotations finally started being judged strictly, or when it finally became clear to the ISU that doing a lip was as bad a flaw as doing a flutz.
In dance, some of the more picky rules on lifts started to be invoked at CoR this weekend. The fan uproar has been great. I think enforcing the rules you've got is generally a good thing, provided the enforcement is applied to all teams competing, and at all competitions. I don't like to see rules enforced selectively in some way. Even if the rules are equally applied, there will definitely be anger because the change to enforcing the rules was abrupt, and the ISU didn't send out notes that said, "This has always been the rule, but now we are going to enforce it for a change."
For one thing, fans will suspect that some teams/federations got some warning, while others didn't, even if the rules are applied even handedly.
Last edited:
Julia has impressive spins, but several of them often travel half a mile on the ice - that severely detracts from their impact, she should be penalized for that. To me centered but moderate spin rate is far more pleasing that excessive travelling with a high spin rate. The greatest spinners in the history of ice skating could spin both rapidly and centered.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
Preferences between speed/positions/centering will always vary, some people mainly look for one attribute, others don't care so much about it... the system should include all of them, and it actually does. If the judges would only judge accordingly... the annoying part with the overall spin overscoring is that those spins that are really great (good centering, good speed + good position) can't be valued more than the mediocre ones, if the judges already hand out +2's & +3's for those.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2012
Exactly. I would actually put Gracie over Julia for her fast and very very centered spin. Plus Gracie's spin positions are prettier than Julia's.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
With regards to Lipnitskaya's combo spin, the one she did in the Skate Canada LP definitely deserved +3. When it travels more than just a little +2 is appropriate.
Lipnitskaya actually has 6 features in her combo spin (difficult camel, difficult sit x2, difficult upright, clear increase of speed, held for 8+ revolutions) but the scoring system only counts up to 4. They are all truly difficult variations as well, not just catch-foot camels with no extension or sit-spins with what I call "barely-broken leg" positions. Tech panels need to get more strict about calling those as difficult variations, because they really aren't.
Yes, exactly. It's mostly with the "anointed" skaters where the problems are. Judges need to stop handing out +GOE so freely just because a skater got through an element decently. Doing an element decently means 0 GOE and doing an element well doesn't mean you need to give more than +1. Carolina Kostner should pretty much never receive more than +1 GOE on her spins, for example.
Lipnitskaya actually has 6 features in her combo spin (difficult camel, difficult sit x2, difficult upright, clear increase of speed, held for 8+ revolutions) but the scoring system only counts up to 4. They are all truly difficult variations as well, not just catch-foot camels with no extension or sit-spins with what I call "barely-broken leg" positions. Tech panels need to get more strict about calling those as difficult variations, because they really aren't.
Yes, exactly. It's mostly with the "anointed" skaters where the problems are. Judges need to stop handing out +GOE so freely just because a skater got through an element decently. Doing an element decently means 0 GOE and doing an element well doesn't mean you need to give more than +1. Carolina Kostner should pretty much never receive more than +1 GOE on her spins, for example.
It would be interesting to look at some spins by skaters who are not at Grand Prix/Worlds final round skill level and see what the range of spin quality is below the top tier.
What are some of the worst spins you've seen, that clearly deserve negative GOE?
What are some just average spins that meet the criteria and don't deserve reductions, but don't deserve any positive bullet points either?
What about spins that start strong but then lose control, grind to a halt, attain awkward positions, etc.? Or that bobble or travel on the entry but then settle onto a solid center? Or flying spins that don't achieve a correct air position but the spin itself is nice?
After you add pluses for positive bullet points and subtract for errors or weaknesses, do you end up at +1? 0? -1?
How does a typical spin from, e.g., Chan or Kostner compare?
What are some of the worst spins you've seen, that clearly deserve negative GOE?
What are some just average spins that meet the criteria and don't deserve reductions, but don't deserve any positive bullet points either?
What about spins that start strong but then lose control, grind to a halt, attain awkward positions, etc.? Or that bobble or travel on the entry but then settle onto a solid center? Or flying spins that don't achieve a correct air position but the spin itself is nice?
After you add pluses for positive bullet points and subtract for errors or weaknesses, do you end up at +1? 0? -1?
How does a typical spin from, e.g., Chan or Kostner compare?
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2013
This is very true, and another thing that drives me up the wall is the boost in GOE for "Good positions" in the layback when they just about inch their leg up enough for it to count as a biellmann for instance this spin, did it really deserve 0.5 in GOE, which it go? Definitely not, there was nothing at all about it that stood out, but if she can manage a biellmann position then clearly it must be a good position. Achieving the position itself is being rewarded in both level and GOE with the quality of the position mattering very little now.
Do you know that Leonova was awarded the "good position" feature for this spin?
I don't think the positions in this spin are bad or worthy of reduction -- they're well controlled, within the degree of flexibility that she has, which is not exceptional.
What GOE did she earn?
I can see enough bullet points for +2 easily and possibly even +3 without awarding a point for the position:
1) good speed or acceleration during spin
2) ability to center a spin quickly
3) balanced rotations in all positions
4) clearly more than required number of revolutions
7) good control throughout all phases
8) element matched to the musical structure (she changes to the haircutter and to the Biellmann with the new phrase of music, and then exits the spin on the new phrase after that)
It's not all about positions.
