ISU Global Seminar (2019-20 Technical Updates/PCS/Development) | Golden Skate

ISU Global Seminar (2019-20 Technical Updates/PCS/Development)

Lambari

Final Flight
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Didn't watch everything, but some parts that stood out to me:

Are they performing something that they understand and they believe in or are they performing something that has been given to them?

Projection doesn't always mean outwardly movement which exudes joy and enthusiasm. It may mean to perform big, but it can also be something very quiet, very personal and intimate as if they are skating for you a private moment that you feel honored to witness and to be a part of it.

Sometimes the changes of force, size, level, shapes and angles, specially in singles, you only see in the step sequences. It may be something that's required for an element. We want to see if we can appreciate this criteria threaded throughout the entire program or is it just isolated when it's required.

Transitions is NOT about the number of movements per minute

Sometimes judges are bringing with them to a competition the acknowledge of the quality of the skaters from past performances. It's very important to remind them that even the best, the most incredible skaters as these are, can have a bad day. And when they have a bad day they cannot receive the same scores than when they have the best day of their lives. It confuses everyone, the other members of your pannel, the athletes, the coaches, the public, the ISU, everyone. So we do a disservice and we have to remind our pannel of this
:thumbsup:

We just hope that the athletes will do a great job in laying out a program where we either don’t have to look at the screen to see an element or have to stand up to look over when a videographer for the technical panel is obstructing the view. With patterns and ice coverage, all of the element in places where we can see them and not all in the same corner.
This is probably also a tongue in cheek comment about the layouts considering her voice tone, but I do wonder if view obstruction is as common as implied here.

The ‘serious error’ definition is still too much open for interpretation in my opinion so I feel it's counterproductive to have a rule on that if it isn't specified.

Also don’t understand why falls must be reviewed only in normal speed and not in slow motion since I assume it must be harder to assess UR that way, which are commonly the cause of the fall if it is on a jump. Is it because in a normal speed you can evaluate better the program disruption? But for me it wouldn't make sense for this to be the main point of reviewing a fall. They don't elaborate on that part.
 

cohen-esque

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
The tech panel might have to review a fall not because of identifying any other technical errors, but simply to decide whether it was actually a fall (there’s a specific definition), and whether the deduction should be applied. Probably they want to provide the same benefit of the doubt to the skater in that situation as they would for any of the other errors that can only be reviewed in normal speed.


For the serious errors, at least we now know for sure that it doesn’t mean edge calls. I thought that the example they provided, and the explanation of what was wrong with it, actually gave a pretty clear idea of what this rule applies to. I think they basically made the point that it’s anything that brings the program and choreo to a momentary halt- so a fall would always apply, and is specified for that reason, but it might also be something like landing at a near-standstill and then putting a hand down, where the skater has to restart to gain speed and get back into the program, etc, etc. There could still be disagreements amongst judges in some cases, I suppose, but they’ll still need to be able to justify their reasoning to the referee and/or even the OAC.

And I honestly don’t think that more precisely defining this would be a good thing; we’d end up in a never ending loop of “well it doesn’t SAY that almost but not quite putting a hand down while hopping around through four wobbly three turns after landing forward is a serious error, so I thought that he deserved a 10 in Composition and Interpretation because it was it was unusual and interesting.”
 

Lambari

Final Flight
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
The tech panel might have to review a fall not because of identifying any other technical errors, but simply to decide whether it was actually a fall (there’s a specific definition), and whether the deduction should be applied. Probably they want to provide the same benefit of the doubt to the skater in that situation as they would for any of the other errors that can only be reviewed in normal speed.

Thank you! They didn't go into detail but this could be an explanation. I suppose having all of the significant errors of the program available in slow motion would probably cut down most of the benefit of the doubt but maybe it isn't feasible yet.

(...) I think they basically made the point that it’s anything that brings the program and choreo to a momentary halt- so a fall would always apply, and is specified for that reason, but it might also be something like landing at a near-standstill and then putting a hand down, where the skater has to restart to gain speed and get back into the program, etc, etc. There could still be disagreements amongst judges in some cases, I suppose, but they’ll still need to be able to justify their reasoning to the referee and/or even the OAC.

And I honestly don’t think that more precisely defining this would be a good thing; we’d end up in a never ending loop of “well it doesn’t SAY that almost but not quite putting a hand down while hopping around through four wobbly three turns after landing forward is a serious error, so I thought that he deserved a 10 in Composition and Interpretation because it was it was unusual and interesting.”

But anyone can also say that they feel that a step out 'wasn't disruptive enough' since for example the skater went right back to the program. And if it isn't 'a significant disruption' it isn't a 'serious error', right? Maybe mentioning terms like 'hand down', 'step out' just like they did with 'fall' could make the wording clearer. They probably didn't include it because not all 'step outs' and 'hand downs' are created equal, but not all 'falls' are created equal either yet it's mentioned clearly. I feel like all other errors that aren't falls that can be considered a 'serious error' end up mixing together into a blur and how they impacted the performance ends up depending on personal interpretation.

Maybe they could try a definition like 'a significant disruption in the integrity of the program (including step outs AND/OR hand downs AND/OR falls AND/OR any other loss of balance within the program)". Then your example of "not quite putting a hand down while hopping around through four wobbly three turns after landing forward" would be included in the "any other loss of balance within the program". It's still a broad definition but I guess with more laid down wording. I agree that they did try to make things more comprehensible and I'm probably being too caught in the wording than needed but I think it's interesting to discuss it. It's just a sugggestion, do you think that this definition would help? Or it would just be useless because programs with small step outs could be unecessarily too penalized?

And how do popped jumps fit into this?
 

cohen-esque

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
But anyone can also say that they feel that a step out 'wasn't disruptive enough' since for example the skater went right back to the program. And if it isn't 'a significant disruption' it isn't a 'serious error', right? Maybe mentioning terms like 'hand down', 'step out' just like they did with 'fall' could make the wording clearer. They probably didn't include it because not all 'step outs' and 'hand downs' are created equal, but not all 'falls' are created equal either yet it's mentioned clearly. I feel like all other errors that aren't falls that can be considered a 'serious error' end up mixing together into a blur and how they impacted the performance ends up depending on personal interpretation.

I agree with you, except that to me this is precisely why the “serious errors” shouldn’t be rigidly defined by a list of specific mistakes. It’s true that all stepouts aren’t created equal, and I personally do think that some are minor enough to not really warrant their own deduction across all PCS categories, while others can be horribly disruptive. I would just prefer for “serious errors” to be defined by the idea of causing a noticeable disruption in the program, with what counts being up to the judges on a case-by-case basis. (I do think that this includes literally all falls, though. You definitely aren’t skating your program while you’re splatted on the ice.)

Maybe a word change to “fall(s) and “noticeably disruptive error(s)” would capture the idea that I think they’re going for more accurately, though.

Maybe they could try a definition like 'a significant disruption in the integrity of the program (including step outs AND/OR hand downs AND/OR falls AND/OR any other loss of balance within the program)". Then your example of "not quite putting a hand down while hopping around through four wobbly three turns after landing forward" would be included in the "any other loss of balance within the program". It's still a broad definition but I guess with more laid down wording. I agree that they did try to make things more comprehensible and I'm probably being too caught in the wording than needed but I think it's interesting to discuss it. It's just a sugggestion, do you think that this definition would help? Or it would just be useless because programs with small step outs could be unecessarily too penalized? ?
I think that this is reasonable and captures the idea. But I’m wary of listing the specific errors because, like I said above, I think there can be case-by-case variations, and I’m afraid that the judges would just use the examples as a checklist. We saw in the tech panel videos that they made tons of minor changes to the wording that changed nothing about the rules, but were made because the tech panelists had difficulty interpreting what was meant. (I know English is not the first language of many ISU officials.) I think that often adding more language can just make things less clear, and add a level of confusion that wasn’t there before.

(On a meta level I’m also afraid of adding more language to the books because of having been on the forums for a while. It makes great fodder for fan wars. We saw it hardcore with the Sochi scandal a few seasons ago, and with the exact wording you provided I can already envision the arguments: “I think those are just supposed to be read as possible examples, not strict rules?” “No, they’re clearly strict rules, so how dare two judges give them a 9.00! Everyone is corrupt and those two judges and also the other seven judges are all cheating and you’re a biased fan who refuses to see it!” In fact, we already saw some of this last season.)


And how do popped jumps fit into this?
Well, it depends, like everything else. Personally, I think a well-timed pop on a crucial jumping pass can add a lot of excitement. :biggrin:

More seriously I think that to varying extents they can really take away from the impact of the program, so they could be "disruptive" in that sense.
 

Lambari

Final Flight
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
I agree with you, except that to me this is precisely why the “serious errors” shouldn’t be rigidly defined by a list of specific mistakes. (...). I would just prefer for “serious errors” to be defined by the idea of causing a noticeable disruption in the program, with what counts being up to the judges on a case-by-case basis. (...) I’m wary of listing the specific errors because, like I said above, I think there can be case-by-case variations, and I’m afraid that the judges would just use the examples as a checklist.
About the ‘case-by-case’ approach, I wonder if the tendency observed the most is to penalize too hard or too little. You’re afraid that judges will use it as a check list and miss the big picture, right? I think it's a valid point. I wonder if it's possible to do an analysis comparing the protocols before and after the implementation of the rule as a feedback to understand if it made a real impact or not in how the components are awarded in regards to flawed performances. The rule as it is tends to offer the judges the possibility to penalize more harshly flawed performances but since with the exception of the fall ridden ones where it should be obvious, the applicability of it for the rest is case-by-case, there isn't a guarantee that the end result will be the expected which is to reserve high 9's and 10's to completely clean performances. If the analysis shows that the overall tendency is to be more lenient or it didn't change anything, a more specific wording and a 'bullet point' approach surprisingly could be beneficial as it could encourage them to apply the rule, who knows? I’m just speculating.
(I do think that this includes literally all falls, though. You definitely aren’t skating your program while you’re splatted on the ice.)
Hey, some falls are just creative exits! Have you seen Keegan's? :laugh: jk
Maybe a word change to “fall(s) and “noticeably disruptive error(s)” would capture the idea that I think they’re going for more accurately, though.
Yes, it could make clearer the emphasis in 'disruption'.
I know English is not the first language of many ISU officials.) I think that often adding more language can just make things less clear, and add a level of confusion that wasn’t there before.
This is a good point. Do you work with judging? If so, what was the feeback about the definition as it is? Did you hear judges who aren't native english speakers misinterpret the rule as it is now?
I’m also afraid of adding more language to the books because of having been on the forums for a while. It makes great fodder for fan wars. We saw it hardcore with the Sochi scandal a few seasons ago, and with the exact wording you provided I can already envision the arguments: “I think those are just supposed to be read as possible examples, not strict rules?” “No, they’re clearly strict rules, so how dare two judges give them a 9.00! Everyone is corrupt and those two judges and also the other seven judges are all cheating and you’re a biased fan who refuses to see it!” In fact, we already saw some of this last season.)
I think the outrage is something inevitable, really. :laugh: We've seen it even in less judged sports. There's just degrees of it. With the current more vague definition it can happen also. For example fan nº 1 could look at a performance where most if not all jump elements had minor errors in the landinds, one forward landing, a few small step outs, the others hard but fought landings, and argue that it couldn't warrant high components since the sheer number of errors do feel disruptive. "Why these judges gave it 9,75?? Please! How can a program with almost no clean jumps receive almost 10?? You know, if it was my favourite skater X it would be down to 8, the judges hate her/him. This is ridiculous!" Then fan nº 2 could reason that they were all 'small errors', the skater kept the quality of the components throughout the performance then It wasn't disruptive. "The ISU says so, look, they didn't stop in the middle of the performance or fall, they never talk about step outs, hand down of whatever. Please, the judges ain't biased, those are small errors, c'mon! It can have a 9.75! " Fan (1) says: "Well, ISU also says 'a number of small errors' could be a disruptive. I say that they only use it for whoever they want!" :laugh: You can't avoid it. A more vague wording won't stop it. What one can do is to analyse protocols to see if the number high 9's/10's for flawed performances is less now, then it would be a more objective measure to see if we're going to the expected direction.
Well, it depends, like everything else. Personally, I think a well-timed pop on a crucial jumping pass can add a lot of excitement. :biggrin: More seriously I think that to varying extents they can really take away from the impact of the program, so they could be "disruptive" in that sense.
I agree. I think when the pop occurs also has an impact. I think pops, or any error actually, at the beginning of a performance don't have as much of an impact as the ones in the end, since by then you almost forgot they happened. Maybe they could discuss in future meetings about how the moment where an error occurs impact in the level of disruption.
 
Top