Rescoring past competitions w/ new SOV+rules | Page 6 | Golden Skate

Rescoring past competitions w/ new SOV+rules

yume

🍉
Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 11, 2016
Pops versus falls is an interesting debate, because in a sense it's a microcosm of the athletics vs. aesthetics angle of figure skating. Rotating in full is more athletically difficult, while popping is almost always less disruptive to the performance, and in particular for casual viewers who may not even sense that something went wrong.
I've always found weird that pop can get a positive GOE. A pop is a mistake, but a pop with +GOE is like a rewarded mistake.
I don't know. Pops less punished than falls, why not, as they are less disruptive. But fallen triple still 3 rotations while a popped triple into double is two rotations (who intended to be three, so a mistake). Difficult.
 

Colonel Green

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Country
Canada
I've always found weird that pop can get a positive GOE. A pop is a mistake, but a pop with +GOE is like a rewarded mistake.
I don't know. Pops less punished than falls, why not, as they are less disruptive. But fallen triple still 3 rotations while a popped triple into double is two rotations (who intended to be three, so a mistake). Difficult.
Eh, if it's a nice double/triple, then you should get positive GOE on it. Particularly if you pop to a double, the punishment is already built into all the points you lose on the base value.
 

yume

🍉
Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 11, 2016
Eh, if it's a nice double/triple, then you should get positive GOE on it. Particularly if you pop to a double, the punishment is already built into all the points you lose on the base value.

I've basically never seen a pretty popped jump. I mean, it's clear that it's not the intended jump and skater stop abruptly the rotation. I don't see how it can be nice.
A neutral 0 GOE would be appropriate i think.
 

ladyjane

Medalist
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Country
Netherlands
Unfortunately this already took a massive amount of time, and pairs would take even longer because unlike for singles I don't have most of the new BVs memorized and I'm not as familiar with how the pairs competition works. :( Sorry. I imagine the results would change in predictable ways based on the observed effects on singles. In general, the importance of execution goes up significantly, and the ability to compete based on bv goes down (though not as much compared to mens--I'd imagine the level of effect to be more on par with ladies). Since pairs is losing an element, scores will go down a bit, but since it's a spin it won't be by as much.

Thanks for taking it into consideration anyway. I think it's as I thought: throw quads, throw triple axel, quad twists and difficult SBS jumps (like triple lutzes) presumably get scored less in BV (and the difference in BV between throw triple lutz and throw triple axel was already too small), but more in execution terms if they're done well. More pairs who will do what they can do, and then do it well. I really am not sure this will put the development to a stand still or that pairs will continue to develop further as has been happening the last few years. Less falls on the jumps I hope, but like many I have my doubts about all of this.

The placements in the Olympics might even stay the same, even if the points totals would change. Sui/Han would have gotten even more of a boost in their short programme, while S/M would have scored even higher on their free than they already did I suppose, while Sui/Han would have scored slightly less. It might just make the results do a turn around, but I don't think so. The totals would again be very close together with S/M winning the gold. The same applies to placements 3 and 4 (D/R and T/M): a bigger boost on the short for T/M, similar outcome for the Free for D/R (dicey landing on the SBS lutzes makes the GOE go further down, but perfectly executed quad throw makes that element go up in eventual value) and an even lower outcome for the free for T/M. All with proper judging of course (no, don't make jokes about that, I realise I'm entering the sphere of wishful thinking perhaps here, but I haven't had that many complaints about the judging in pairs).
 

xeyra

Constant state
Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 10, 2017
I've basically never seen a pretty popped jump. I mean, it's clear that it's not the intended jump and skater stop abruptly the rotation. I don't see how it can be nice.
A neutral 0 GOE would be appropriate i think.

4T into 3T pops can look really nice, actually.
 

Spirals for Miles

Anna Shcherbakova is my World Champion
Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
do you really want to see panenkova backloading mess? but lets not get into that was already discussed so many times

Well, yes, because I love Dasha. And I love other skaters who backload: Alina, Alenka, Sofia Akatieva, etc.
 

halulupu

Final Flight
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Well, yes, because I love Dasha. And I love other skaters who backload: Alina, Alenka, Sofia Akatieva, etc.

my opinion: zagitovas don is the only good backloaded programm because it fits perfectly. alenka is obviously always gorgouse and she will be even more gorgeouse with more balanced programm. However backloading is not forbidden, so they can go on doing it if eteri thinks it enhances their artistry
 

Old Cat Lady

On the Ice
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
Eh, if it's a nice double/triple, then you should get positive GOE on it. Particularly if you pop to a double, the punishment is already built into all the points you lose on the base value.

I agree. Pops usually only affect the air position, which is only 1 bullet out of 6.
 

gotoschool

Medalist
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Yes Kostner will enjoy this new system.

This system is similar to the old system of 2006-2010 quad i think. Yuna Kim could afford to have two pops and still get high TES, sometimes even the highest. Her GOEs were unmatchables (deservly, unlike Kostner high GOEs). Mao was the Nathan Chen of that system. Or Shoma Uno would be more accurate (but she got dinged much much more).

Close inspection of videos shows that rulings on jumps were not applied fairly between Mao and Yuna, and the rules and their application and the value of jumps and deductions were dramatically changed against Mao's favor in 2007 with Mao's outstanding spirals, spins, step sequences, transitions and erect posture counting practically nothing in the system. Just because they say it's so doesn't mean I will agree if I believe the system scores unfairly.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
I think all of Yuna's placements up to 2010 Worlds were deserved. Maybe not individual segment results, but overall placements. Especially the Worlds and Olympics ones.
 

Old Cat Lady

On the Ice
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
Here's something though : perhaps it is to consider that judges, like they do now, rewarded those who did land more quads not only in TES but in PCS.

Patrick suffered from that at 2017 Worlds for instance. Despite landing a flawless and gorgeous short program, he was scored BELOW Javier in PCS and barely above other skaters who had two quads... Hanyu and he had about the same PCS though Hanyu had a mistake.

So admit it or not, his mastery of the quad raised his profile. FYI : both in 2009 and 2010, when he won silver at worlds, he included 2 3Avels in his LP... no quad... you can look at the difference of scoring from 2011.

No matter the system, some judges have their ways with judging... and some will always be impressed with difficulty and reward it in PCS.

Oh. I thought you were arguing jumping greatness. If you're saying that having a quad garnered reputation points that might have boosted his score, then sure, I can agree with that. I only watched the major competitions from back then so can't comment too much on how judging was trending, but that does seem to be the general trend.

Though I think the examples you give are poor. Patrick's 2011 worlds performance was fantastic - far superior to his 2009 and 2010 performances.

And in 2017, the only area that Patrick is clearly superior to Fernandez is in Skating Skills, which he did get higher scores for. Hanyu's mistake, while serious points wise, wasn't at all disruptive to the performance - a casual viewer might not have even realized there was a mistake. TCC makes extremely IJS friendly programs and these days the judges often don't differentiate the PCS scoring a lot between top skaters even if there is a vast difference in quality.
 

karakaka

Rinkside
Joined
Mar 1, 2017
I agree. Pops usually only affect the air position, which is only 1 bullet out of 6.

Pretty sure that "poor air position" is -1 to -3 in GOE reduction though. But yeah, tripling a quad usually doesn't look too bad, it's mainly when a quad is popped to a double. And I do feel this should be punished in PCS, since most of the guys take a really long set-up into their quads, and then they do an ugly looking double instead, which really affects the performance. I definitely consider it a "serious error".

Actually, does anyone know if they ever defined what a "serious error" (i.e. one that makes it so that judges can't award a 10 for any of the components) is? I'm always confused about that.

Hanyu's mistake, while serious points wise, wasn't at all disruptive to the performance - a casual viewer might not have even realized there was a mistake.

Not so sure about that. I started watching about a month or two before Worlds 2017, and I audibly gasped while watching when he botched the combo. It was a pretty obvious mistake. I wonder it this would also be considered a "serious error"? He did get a couple of 10s, I remember.
 

Old Cat Lady

On the Ice
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
Pretty sure that "poor air position" is -1 to -3 in GOE reduction though. But yeah, tripling a quad usually doesn't look too bad, it's mainly when a quad is popped to a double. And I do feel this should be punished in PCS, since most of the guys take a really long set-up into their quads, and then they do an ugly looking double instead, which really affects the performance. I definitely consider it a "serious error".

Actually, does anyone know if they ever defined what a "serious error" (i.e. one that makes it so that judges can't award a 10 for any of the components) is? I'm always confused about that.

You can still hit 5 bullet points on a pop and the reduction is only 1-3.

Yeah, my biggest gripe with the new system is that they take huge chunks off the PCS but don't even explain what a "serious error" is supposed to be. a fall on an element isn't even necessarily a reflection of the categories they're deducting from. If anything, a mistake is more likely to indicate harder transitions and choreography. What does falling on a jump have to do with your level of skating skills? I feel like punishing PCS like this discourages great choreography even more - skaters who actually do intricate choreography are more likely to make mistakes elsewhere but only gain a very marginal increase in score while skaters get 9+ for waving their arms around doing crossovers on flats as long as they land their jumps. it is strategically poor when your reward for doing a difficult program will be "maybe" a couple points when it adds so much more risk.


Not so sure about that. I started watching about a month or two before Worlds 2017, and I audibly gasped while watching when he botched the combo. It was a pretty obvious mistake. I wonder it this would also be considered a "serious error"? He did get a couple of 10s, I remember.

You actually looked at the protocols at the time? When I say "casual viewer" I mean those people who watch skating because they turned on the TV and it happened to be on not people who actually try to learn about the sport. But yeah, it was a devastating mistake if you know what to look for (and the commentators explain it). But if there wasn't any commentary, I think most people who don't follow the sport would realize how big a mistake it was. But I don't think it affected the rest of the program and that program had crazy difficult choreography - to the point that it was almost reckless to do it when he could have done a much easier program and gotten the same points.


Though personally, I generally don't think mistakes should affect the majority of the PCS scores unless a skater has to change his choreography because of it. see above :biggrin:
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I've always found weird that pop can get a positive GOE. A pop is a mistake, but a pop with +GOE is like a rewarded mistake.
I don't know. Pops less punished than falls, why not, as they are less disruptive. But fallen triple still 3 rotations while a popped triple into double is two rotations (who intended to be three, so a mistake). Difficult.

To me, a "popped" jump is one where the skater does not get into the tight rotational position on the way up, or often at all. The air position looks awkward, so even if there are other positive bullet points (height/distance, preceding steps, with the music), it's hard to imagine more than 0 GOE. -1 is more likely than +1. Occasionally the air position might be controlled enough that it doesn't look like a negative, and there would be a delay in rotation that could warrant that positive bullet point under the old guidelines.

However, often skaters who are planning triples end up doing perfectly good doubles instead. And sometimes skaters who are planning quads end up doing good triples. In a short program, under the current rules fewer than required revolutions, even a beautiful double jump where at least triple is required, means the jump gets no points at all, so that's a pretty hefty penalty compared to the plan.

In the free skate, there are no requirements about how many revolutions are allowed. Skaters are free to fill up their programs with double and even single jumps if they so choose. Of course the base value would be very low by senior standards, so no serious senior competitor would plan in advance to do mostly doubles. (The low-ranked senior ladies at senior B or domestic events may not have many triples, so they may be planning several doubles, but they're not what we'd call serious competitors.)

However, even elite competitors might plan in advance to do some doubles if they're fighting injury or illness, or they may keep that option in mind and make the decision during the program but before the jump takeoff if their physical condition (through existing health problem or injury incurred during the program or exhaustion or the condition of the equipment or the ice becomes such that they do want to finish the program but they don't think it will be possible to land the upcoming planned triple (or quad) successfully.

In those cases, doubling a planned triple is not a mistake, it's a strategic decision. So why shouldn't judges just judge the legal double jumps on their own merits?

Other times skaters go into a jump intending it to be triple, but something goes wrong in such a way that what comes out is a nice clean double.

And there's often no way for anyone not inside the skater's head to tell just by looking whether the skater decided to play it safe with a double jump or whether the body's reactions overrode the skater's intentions in the moment. If it looks the same, and if it's legal as executed, we can't expect judges to play mindreader in deciding whether to mark it as a mistake or a valid choice. They can only judge what they see. And if what they see is a good double, they should mark it as such.
 

Old Cat Lady

On the Ice
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
In your opinion...
and I don't agree with it. so let's leave it at that....

:rolleye: Never understand why people feel a need to say this except some need to have the last say even though they have nothing to add. OBVIOUSLY it's "in my opinion". Just like everything you say is in your opinion. Just like 99% of everything written on these forums is "in someone's opinion".
 

karakaka

Rinkside
Joined
Mar 1, 2017
You actually looked at the protocols at the time? When I say "casual viewer" I mean those people who watch skating because they turned on the TV and it happened to be on not people who actually try to learn about the sport. But yeah, it was a devastating mistake if you know what to look for (and the commentators explain it). But if there wasn't any commentary, I think most people who don't follow the sport would realize how big a mistake it was. But I don't think it affected the rest of the program and that program had crazy difficult choreography - to the point that it was almost reckless to do it when he could have done a much easier program and gotten the same points.


Though personally, I generally don't think mistakes should affect the majority of the PCS scores unless a skater has to change his choreography because of it. see above :biggrin:

Looked at it way after, when I was starting to get more invested and wanted to learn the scoring system. But yeah, it could be baffling to an extremely casual viewer.

Generally I don't think a fall or pop should be negatively reflect in SS or TR, but for me, it does negatively affect the overall performance. So I don't think a program with those errors should be considered a "10" in performance. But idek if a pop is considered a serious error. :confused2:
 

Old Cat Lady

On the Ice
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
Generally I don't think a fall or pop should be negatively reflect in SS or TR, but for me, it does negatively affect the overall performance. So I don't think an program with those errors should be considered a "10" in performance. But idek if a pop is considered a serious error. :confused2:

I would agree with that. I think major mistakes can affect performance and even interpretation since a well choreographed program uses the elements to highlight the music.

I'm guessing by "serious error" they are referring to majorly disruptive mistakes? For example, those times when people put both hands and feet on the ice but it's not technically a fall since the butt didn't actually hit the ice or if it takes a long time to recover from the mistake.

I wish they'd give some guidance as to what a "serious error" is but at the same time, how do you do it? You can't go purely by points lost since things like doing an invalid element loses a ton but don't effect performance at all. You can't go purely by types of mistakes - some pops are major eyesores and others are so smooth that you wouldn't even know that wasn't what was intended. Maybe by giving examples?
 
Top