The point of a seminar, or webinar in this instance, is to learn something.
Streaming the Congress was a great move. Likewise, webinars are also a good move. But, they have to serve a real purpose, other than providing paid jobs for the production team.
Do the singles and pairs ISU Judges that were there have more information that they take to their respective countries? And what if they don’t have more information, or have not absorbed it properly, or are poor presenters? The end result becomes a fractured interpretation. That’s why a good webinar that truly explains what will be required for each of the eleven scores (-5 to +5) could really assist.
It’s fair to say that +5 and -5 are identifiable for any high level judge. The range that could be a killer for the skaters is the range +2 to +4 and -1 to -4. If the guidelines (with unclear bullet points) are open to interpretation country by country and judge by judge, the end result could become a lottery. Giving 0 and +1 doesn’t look to have been a problem in years gone by. It’s everything in between that has danger written all over it.
Maybe watching the singles webinar a second time will be more beneficial than the first go around. I didn’t get how the bullet points were said to be only guidelines. What’s that about? They needed proper explanation. Maybe the ISU should have practised a webinar of this sort with all the main players watching it back before leaping in. They looked unprepared and indecisive.
Oh, and using current competitive skaters doesn’t sit well.
I guess the incremental PC scoring going up by group has been put in the back of the sock drawer with all the other lost socks.
Streaming the Congress was a great move. Likewise, webinars are also a good move. But, they have to serve a real purpose, other than providing paid jobs for the production team.
Do the singles and pairs ISU Judges that were there have more information that they take to their respective countries? And what if they don’t have more information, or have not absorbed it properly, or are poor presenters? The end result becomes a fractured interpretation. That’s why a good webinar that truly explains what will be required for each of the eleven scores (-5 to +5) could really assist.
It’s fair to say that +5 and -5 are identifiable for any high level judge. The range that could be a killer for the skaters is the range +2 to +4 and -1 to -4. If the guidelines (with unclear bullet points) are open to interpretation country by country and judge by judge, the end result could become a lottery. Giving 0 and +1 doesn’t look to have been a problem in years gone by. It’s everything in between that has danger written all over it.
Maybe watching the singles webinar a second time will be more beneficial than the first go around. I didn’t get how the bullet points were said to be only guidelines. What’s that about? They needed proper explanation. Maybe the ISU should have practised a webinar of this sort with all the main players watching it back before leaping in. They looked unprepared and indecisive.
Oh, and using current competitive skaters doesn’t sit well.
I guess the incremental PC scoring going up by group has been put in the back of the sock drawer with all the other lost socks.