Post rule change predictions

[Old Cat Lady]

There were a lot of jumps where I thought “oh, +2!” or even “+3!” with my old-system mindset and was expecting to hand out +4’s and +5’s, but then when I checked it against the new GOE bullets, most of those jumps were lucky to scrape a +2 maybe a +3 under the new system.

It's absolutely brutal when it comes to combos since bullets 1&3 apply to both jumps and the minimum deduction for loss of flow/rhythm is -2.

When I was scoring Patrick's 4t/3t at 2017 worlds free, my immediate instinct was +4. Both jumps were big and beautiful and he had good speed on the take off and exit but there was a slight struggle between the jumps. That dropped his starting GOE to +3 because of bullet #3, then I was forced to take another 2-3 off for loss of flow - which caused him to only get +1 for that combo. He lost 30% BV on his 4t because of a little pause before the 3toe!!!

Then there's Jin. His single jumps are enormous but because of bullet #1, he's capped at +3 on his combos because his second jump is small.

I gave almost no combo more than +3 for the guys. Guys are going to have to think hard about whether it's worth stacking the combos at the end if they're trading BV in GOE to do it. I think Jin might be better off doing his lutz solo unless he plans to do 2 4lutzes, which I think he should do since his lutz is better than his toe anyway.

 

[chopinskate]

Then there's Jin. His single jumps are enormous but because of bullet #1, he's capped at +3 on his combos because his second jump is small.

In general, how do you expect a -3T to be as large as (or even comparably to) the preceding quad? I doubt this is how quad combos will be judged. His -3T is fine when it comes to -3Ts out of quads. Not only do the latter parts of quad combos deserve some leeway IMO, calling something "small" when the preceding jump is huge and fully rotated is a rather weird way of looking at things.

 

[oatmella]

This is assuming the judges really follow these bullet points precisely ...

I am thinking they are not going to be quite that strict when it comes to quad combos' GOE

 

[Old Cat Lady]

In general, how do you expect a -3T to be as large as (or even comparably to) the preceding quad? I doubt this is how quad combos will be judged. His -3T is fine when it comes to -3Ts out of quads. Not only do the latter parts of quad combos deserve some leeway IMO, calling something "small" when the preceding jump is huge and fully rotated is a rather weird way of looking at things.

I scored bullet #1 relative to other skaters/jumps rather than absolutely. I judged quads against quads, triples against other triples, 2nd jumps of combos against other 2nd jumps of combos, etc. "Small" was a poor choice of words - Jin's 2nd jump on his quad combos isn't small but it often doesn't look bigger than the other guys' 2nd jumps either. However, I didn't score a lot of his programs so my opinion might change as I watch more. Keep in mind, not sure of the exact number, but I looked at several competitions and I can count on one hand the number of combos given +4/5 for the guys.

btw, when I scored 2017 worlds applying new GOE principles rather than a straight conversion of given marks, I had Jin ahead of Fernandez by a comfortable margin. I know you weren't particularly thrilled when those placements flipped on conversion


oatmella

This is assuming the judges really follow these bullet points precisely ...

I am thinking they are not going to be quite that strict when it comes to quad combos' GOE

I agree that I don't think they are going to follow bullets strictly, especially in the first season. Frankly, it seems impossible to keep it all straight in real time.

But in the old system, considering how many tools I have to assist me that the judges don't, I was actually very impressed with how often the judges' GOE's were in alignment with mine. I gave more 3's than they did and I imagine it will be similar with the new system - at least in the first season, I predict a lot fewer 5's than me and probably more 4's than I gave as well. I also think that their scores will be lower for mistakes than I gave - I followed the GOE guidelines of adding the positives then subtracting whereas I think the judges will probably just give a straight -3 GOE for things like stepouts when I sometimes gave 0's and -1's.


Next year, I imagine the skaters will have to use the grand prix as a testing ground to see how the judges score and then adjust their programs according to trends.

 

[chopinskate]

I scored bullet #1 relative to other skaters/jumps rather than absolutely. I judged quads against quads, triples against other triples, 2nd jumps of combos against other 2nd jumps of combos, etc. "Small" was a poor choice of words - Jin's 2nd jump on his quad combos isn't small but it often doesn't look bigger than the other guys' 2nd jumps either. However, I didn't score a lot of his programs so my opinion might change as I watch more. Keep in mind, not sure of the exact number, but I looked at several competitions and I can count on one hand the number of combos given +4/5 for the guys.

btw, when I scored 2017 worlds applying new GOE principles rather than a straight conversion of given marks, I had Jin ahead of Fernandez by a comfortable margin. I know you weren't particularly thrilled when those placements flipped on conversion

It's not really about Jin, though. I'm just not sure if a jump in a quad combo shouldn't be given some leeway in terms of what height and distance can be achieved, especially when the preceding quad is massive. It seems unfair that a person can fully rotate a jump in the air, and might still get docked on GOE with a lack of nuance in the rules.

One of my major complaints is this lack of nuance. There's no nuance in how a flip can be performed. There's no nuance in how much PR can affect landings -- should 0 PR triple jumps still be called UR if their just a couple degrees under a quarter (almost 2.75 rotations)? LOL they don't even lay out the nuance of when a jump starts, and how PR should be measured! So it's a complaint that has nothing to do with a skater at all. The ISU refuses to fix these things, and refuses to look into it all properly.

As for you scoring Jin over Fernandez in the 2017 results, it's not for sure it would happen. Judges could still hand out wrong GOE to skaters, and in this system, that effect will be amplified.

The system is a mess, and nothing has been done to fix it. At all. It's all wrong.

 

[moriel]

1. All top ladies will skate to nearly same layout, with nearly same TES.
2. The winner will depend entirely on the panel mood - and how GOEs and PCs are awarded.
3. For the non top skaters, the top will be even harder to achieve, because of the GOE and PCs gap, and difficulty of pointgrabbing somewhere else (difficult combos got nerfed compared to the easier ones, backloading not an option either).
4. Difficult entries will become extinct, long setups will rule, because nobody will deduct long setups from PCs, and any weird stuff going into jump can easily jeopardize points 1-3;

 

[gkelly]

It's not really about Jin, though. I'm just not sure if a jump in a quad combo shouldn't be given some leeway in terms of what height and distance can be achieved, especially when the preceding quad is massive. It seems unfair that a person can fully rotate a jump in the air, and might still get docked on GOE with a lack of nuance in the rules.

Fully rotating (to within 90 degrees) is part of the basic definition of the jump.

They'll get docked on GOE if there are any negative qualities/errors to the jump.

They'll get rewarded in GOE if there are any positive qualities according to the guidelines. Fully rotating by itself isn't a positive quality.

If there are more positives than negatives, the final GOE will be positive, and vice versa.

It is true that there is more nuance to the negatives than to the positives in that many errors have a range of suggested GOE reduction, and some kinds of errors can also affect the base value. So now there is a lot of flexibility in how the system penalizes various errors and combinations of errors.F

For the positives, each judge needs to decide yes or no for each bullet point. The fact that some judges might be stricter or more lenient than others and draw the line between yes and no in somewhat different places introduces some flexibility/nuance into the positive GOE scoring. E.g., a fairly big jump might earn the "Very good height and distance" bullet from a couple of the more lenient judges, while a huge jump might earn it from the whole panel. So the first jump scores a little more than an average-sized jump, all else being equal, while the huge jump scores the most. To be fair, though, each individual judge needs to be consistent in how they define "very good height and distance" in their own minds, keeping in mind the built-in differences between different takeoffs (a toe loop will almost always get more distance than a loop) and between, e.g., jumps from a small woman or a largish man.

Separating out the positive criteria so that 1 bullet point = 1 plus gives the judges finer (more nuanced) control over the rewards than requiring 2 bullets for each plus.

One of my major complaints is this lack of nuance. There's no nuance in how a flip can be performed.

Sure there is. No two jumps are going to be 100% identical.
Do you mean the scoring system allows no nuance in reflecting the subtle differences in execution? It's true the scoring can't capture every tiny difference in the scores. If you gave the judges a slider on a visual analog scale to reflect their composite evaluation of the overall quality of each element, you could get an infinite number of gradations between +5 and -5 or however you anchor the top and bottom ends of the scale. With scores that are discrete integers from each judge (then factored according to the Scale of Values and averaged across the panel) you have a digitized input with a limited number of possible values from each judge, but the averaging does produce finer gradations of the whole panel's collective assessment.

There's no nuance in how much PR can affect landings -- should 0 PR triple jumps still be called UR if their just a couple degrees under a quarter (almost 2.75 rotations)?

What do you mean by PR? Prerotation?

This is a tech panel issue. Judges still have the discretion to reward skaters for squeaky clean takeoffs and landings with the "Good takeoff and landing" bullet point and to penalize for poor take off and/or weak landing, regardless of whether the tech panel calls < or << or ! or e, some of which affect the base value. So two different flips with no calls and no outright errors or enhancements can still end up with very different GOEs, and very different total scores if there are also underrotation or edge calls.

 

[4everchan]

This is assuming the judges really follow these bullet points precisely ...

I am thinking they are not going to be quite that strict when it comes to quad combos' GOE

I agree...
we will never know.. but i doubt Patrick's trademark 4t-3t would have been low GOE... even his worse attempts, the judges recognized the spring and distance covered in those jumps... and i think it will remain the same with combos... skaters with big quad combos will get the benefit of doubt from the judges...

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

This is assuming the judges really follow these bullet points precisely ...

I am thinking they are not going to be quite that strict when it comes to quad combos' GOE

I agree. We see a lot of quads that get +3 that would never garner that score if done as a triple of similar quality.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

Kaetlyn will get a lot of +4, her air position is too wild sometimes, without entry and exit. Zhenya will get a lot of +3, with L and S getting +5. Gabby will get +5 even i dont think her jumps have a very good height, just the distance. Current top Japanese ladies wont qualify for very good height and distance GOE.. (and Zagitova will still win based on 3Lo combo, clear Lz edge and jump sequences, not because she is backloading).. i think, the results will be somehow simillar, if not exactly the same... We could see some changes in mens placement though, depending on how clean they will jump their quads

 

[Shayuki]

This is assuming the judges really follow these bullet points precisely ...

I am thinking they are not going to be quite that strict when it comes to quad combos' GOE

Precisely. I guess others here are more optimistic about the judges diligently noting "very good" as something spectacular but really, I'm not so optimistic - Especially if it turns out that in the official rules, there's the "... but judges are in reality free to score elements whatever they feel like"-clause which means that guidelines might as well not exist.

Still, if it works out, it indeed would be interesting when there's such a significant difference between +2 and +5 GOE.

 

[cohen-esque]

Precisely. I guess others here are more optimistic about the judges diligently noting "very good" as something spectacular but really, I'm not so optimistic - Especially if it turns out that in the official rules, there's the "... but judges are in reality free to score elements whatever they feel like"-clause which means that guidelines might as well not exist.

Still, if it works out, it indeed would be interesting when there's such a significant difference between +2 and +5 GOE.

Once upon a time the criterion was “excellent height and distance” and yes, the judges were way stingier with GOEs back then, so there’s precedent. And honestly the scores we see make me suspect that they *already* distinguish between “good” “very good” and “excellent” height even under the current GOE guidelines, regardless.

I expect someone like Evgenia to get a lot of +3s even if I think she probably deserves lower, but I’d be really surprised to see +4s, for instance... even the judges should be hard-pressed to call her jumps “effortless” especially in combination and I think they’re smaller than they used to be. Her 3+3 scores last season (with injury) were already a little bit lower than they had been the season before, and the post-Olympic season usually sees a dip in scores before the inflation picks up again.

 

[chopinskate]

Fully rotating (to within 90 degrees) is part of the basic definition of the jump.

They'll get docked on GOE if there are any negative qualities/errors to the jump.

They'll get rewarded in GOE if there are any positive qualities according to the guidelines. Fully rotating by itself isn't a positive quality.

If there are more positives than negatives, the final GOE will be positive, and vice versa.

It is true that there is more nuance to the negatives than to the positives in that many errors have a range of suggested GOE reduction, and some kinds of errors can also affect the base value. So now there is a lot of flexibility in how the system penalizes various errors and combinations of errors.F

For the positives, each judge needs to decide yes or no for each bullet point. The fact that some judges might be stricter or more lenient than others and draw the line between yes and no in somewhat different places introduces some flexibility/nuance into the positive GOE scoring. E.g., a fairly big jump might earn the "Very good height and distance" bullet from a couple of the more lenient judges, while a huge jump might earn it from the whole panel. So the first jump scores a little more than an average-sized jump, all else being equal, while the huge jump scores the most. To be fair, though, each individual judge needs to be consistent in how they define "very good height and distance" in their own minds, keeping in mind the built-in differences between different takeoffs (a toe loop will almost always get more distance than a loop) and between, e.g., jumps from a small woman or a largish man.

Separating out the positive criteria so that 1 bullet point = 1 plus gives the judges finer (more nuanced) control over the rewards than requiring 2 bullets for each plus.

Not really what I was trying to say. I would question you like this: Is it harder to do a jump combo when the first jump you do is very large, and fully-rotated (landed completely backwards, not acceptably around the quarter mark)? I'm not sure, I'm asking you. Seems to me it would be harder to do than when the preceding jump is not-so-large, and not landed completely backward. The GOE bullets, as interpreted by Old Cat Lady, don't seem to allow for this sort of judgement, although the judges might consider it differently.

Sure there is. No two jumps are going to be 100% identical.
Do you mean the scoring system allows no nuance in reflecting the subtle differences in execution? It's true the scoring can't capture every tiny difference in the scores. If you gave the judges a slider on a visual analog scale to reflect their composite evaluation of the overall quality of each element, you could get an infinite number of gradations between +5 and -5 or however you anchor the top and bottom ends of the scale. With scores that are discrete integers from each judge (then factored according to the Scale of Values and averaged across the panel) you have a digitized input with a limited number of possible values from each judge, but the averaging does produce finer gradations of the whole panel's collective assessment.

No. I have read that historically, the flip jump used to be done very close to a flat edge, and that a flip off a flat edge or even a very slight outside edge are still "fine". However, the current rules, as far as I know, just accept an inside edge. Discussion here: https://www.goldenskate.com/forum/s...erged-threads)&p=342491&viewfull=1#post342491

What do you mean by PR? Prerotation?

This is a tech panel issue. Judges still have the discretion to reward skaters for squeaky clean takeoffs and landings with the "Good takeoff and landing" bullet point and to penalize for poor take off and/or weak landing, regardless of whether the tech panel calls < or << or ! or e, some of which affect the base value. So two different flips with no calls and no outright errors or enhancements can still end up with very different GOEs, and very different total scores if there are also underrotation or edge calls.

Yes, PR is pre-rotation. As far I know, we don't know from the rulebook how to establish a starting point to the jump or how to measure pre-rotation. But my issue is simple: doing a 0 PR 3Lz and landing it a few degrees short of the quarter mark (almost 2.75 turns in the air) is harder than doing a 180 degree PR 3Lz, and landing it on the quarter mark (2.25 turns). Should some leeway be provided for the former? Or would you call it UR? I don't think the rulebook or guidelines take this into consideration. Maybe you can correct me.

 

[gkelly]

Not really what I was trying to say. I would question you like this: Is it harder to do a jump combo when the first jump you do is very large, and fully-rotated (landed completely backwards, not acceptably around the quarter mark)? I'm not sure, I'm asking you. Seems to me it would be harder to do than when the preceding jump is not-so-large, and not landed completely backward.

To my understanding:

It is easier to do the second jump in a combination (especially a 3T) if the first jump is landed on a strong BO edge with good speed and flow.

I have heard coaches recommend maximizing distance on the first jump and height on the second.

It’s harder to do a first jump that is very large and fully rotated, but doing a first jump that has good speed and running edge on the landing makes it easier to do the second jump.

The GOE bullets, as interpreted by Old Cat Lady, don't seem to allow for this sort of judgement, although the judges might consider it differently.

The judges aren’t judging difficulty under IJS; they’re judging quality.

The bullet points as written allow them to reward a jump combination with good edges and flow on both takeoffs and both landings more highly than one that loses speed, curls around, etc.

No. I have read that historically, the flip jump used to be done very close to a flat edge, and that a flip off a flat edge or even a very slight outside edge are still "fine". However, the current rules, as far as I know, just accept an inside edge.

OK.

Yes, PR is pre-rotation. As far I know, we don't know from the rulebook how to establish a starting point to the jump or how to measure pre-rotation. But my issue is simple: doing a 0 PR 3Lz and landing it a few degrees short of the quarter mark (almost 2.75 turns in the air) is harder than doing a 180 degree PR 3Lz, and landing it on the quarter mark (2.25 turns). Should some leeway be provided for the former? Or would you call it UR? I don't think the rulebook or guidelines take this into consideration. Maybe you can correct me.

I think we would need to consult a trained technical specialist or controller in terms of calling underrotation based on prerotation. The only thing I’m aware of in writing in the technical panel handbook is “A clear forward (backward for Axel type jump) take-off will be considered as a downgeraded jump. The toe loop is the most commonly cheated on takeoff jump. The TP may only watch the replay in regular speed to determine the cheat and downgrade on the take off (more often in combinations or sequences).”

I don’t know of anything else in writing that addresses prerotation/cheated takeoffs.

What I have heard at some point long ago, maybe even pre-IJS, is that a jump would be considered already in the air when there is no more weight on the edge, even if the last toepick is still in contact with the ice as the skater rolls up through the foot. But for toe jumps, any rotation with weight on the toepick in the ice would be prerotation.

As far as I can tell that would be more oral tradition than written rule. The documents seem to be are more focused on how to call things than on how to recognize them in the first place.

For judges, if they see prerotation on the ice even if there is no < or << call, they can penalize it with the “Poor takeoff” GOE reduction. And they certainly shouldn’t be awarding the “Good takeoff and landing” positive bullet point. But that depends on them seeing it in real time.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

I think GOE will be (as in the past) given out like candy to the faves, and given meagerly to the less popular/established skaters (who already have lower PCS even if they skate clean and the top skaters have tons of errors), thus creating more of a divide. It will be difficult for skaters from less popular countries or coming out of the junior ranks (except ones like Kihira with a 3A) to make a splash on the GP.

I do think the quality of programs will be better though with the backloading rules kept at bay and jumping elements will be nicer to watch as skaters strive for better execution, without all the bells and whistles tacked on to try to boost GOE (like tanos and forced creative exits).

I also predict that there will still be judges who give 9.75s and 9.25+ (PE/IN) for programs with multiple serious errors/falls, simply because the ISU told them they "should not" instead of "shall not". And if a skater has 1 fall, I'm sure we'll still see 9.75s (heck, maybe even a 10.00 from a judge who has no chill).

 

[Rissa]

If only judges were as thorough at familiarizing themselves with the GOE bullet points as you guys.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

If only judges were as thorough at familiarizing themselves with the GOE bullet points as you guys.

Oh, they're familiar with them. Whether they follow through with them is another thing.

 

[chopinskate]

The judges aren’t judging difficulty under IJS; they’re judging quality.

They are, yes. What I was trying to question, especially with the zero pre-rotation example, was whether doing something a little more difficult than what others might be attempting on the same element, doesn't deserve a bit of leeway in terms of quality.

You don't have comments on the flip part?

 

[gkelly]

They are, yes. What I was trying to question, especially with the zero pre-rotation example, was whether doing something a little more difficult than what others might be attempting on the same element, doesn't deserve a bit of leeway in terms of quality.

Not officially, but who knows what individual judges might do.
And whether prerotation is their individual pet peeve or whether they focus on different details.

You don't have comments on the flip part?

Not really.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

To be fair, i never heard someone talking about prerotation in FS untill i came at this forum. I think its more a narative people came up with in order to bash skaters they dont like, it is not something being that important to consider while evaluating skaters.