- Joined
- Jan 27, 2014
All of these criteria are already elaborated upon in more detail during the ISU's actual seminars for judges and officials. The chart is an overview that lists definitions and broad criteria; it's not supposed to be a detailed rundown of every single aspect of PCS. "Carriage and clarity," for instance, basically means to make the effort to execute your movements well and completely, instead of poorly or sloppily, so that they impart their fullest effect on the performance.But my point is, having looked at the same categories, that the Performance and Interpretation categories don't specify anything. They are referencing "movement" and "energy." They are talking about, among other things, carriage and clarity, variety and contrast, and physical/intellectual/emotional involvement of the movement. On my read, that could include crossovers and simple stroking, spins, turns, etc. because they are movement and those qualities can manifest through them. If I'm told to judge after having looked at this, why wouldn't I also be thinking about what the jumps are doing? This might be hypertechnical but if PCS isn't supposed to acknowledge jumps, the criteria isn't doing its job to tell me not to. Especially since the judges were judging as you describe during the 6.0 era too.
I really want PCS to be more accurate too. But maybe the criteria itself needs to get more specific about what it's asking for.