Why do more skaters not file protests against the results?

[el henry]

Tech panel. Judges correct their marks based on tech panel evaluation.

You are right, my bad.

My thesis then would be, the tech panel calls a jump as they see it in real time. And all the Monday morning quarterbacking in all the world, from me or anyone else, won't change what the tech panel saw.

The judges proceed from there.

 

[lariko]

My thesis then would be, the tech panel calls a jump as they see it in real time.

They don't. They review in recording. Judges input the GoE for each element live, but if the error was found, they will change it to negative after the review. The tech panel seems to include a referee too, so they are probably tie breakers if tech panel disagrees.

 

[lariko]

Every competition have tech camera specifically so that the panel can evaluate the edges, takes off and URs properly. Once, during the junior test skates, the Russians actually just uploaded that camera footage on YouTube because they didn't want the TV crew in Novogorsk and public asked to see the test skates.

Also, at least in junior competitions, Ted said (this year, answering a question in JGP) they specifically watch the competition on the feed rather than live on the ice to be able to have the same perspective as the viewer at home, for whom they commentate.

 

[el henry]

They don't. They review in recording. Judges input the GoE for each element live, but if the error was found, they will change it to negative after the review.

I think we may be talking about the same thing at different stages?

The tech panel calls them as they see them. They review, much like any other sport, to make sure the calls are correct, but they are not depending *in the first instance* on the cameras. They depend on their judgment. The judges depend on that judgment(from the tech panel) and cannot second guess the tech panel, even with a million bazillion screenshots.

As far as I can tell, the tech panel isn't spending hours pouring over slo-mo videos and stills from various programs. Nor should they.

 

[gkelly]

They don't. They review in recording. Judges input the GoE for each element live, but if the error was found, they will change it to negative after the review. The tech panel seems to include a referee too, so they are probably tie breakers if tech panel disagrees.

Well, if it looks good to all of them in real time, they won't flag the element for review and therefore it will not get any call.

So it's more likely that tech panels will not call elements that fans (watching and rewatching from different camera angles) thought should have been called than that the opposite will occurr.

If there is a call, that means they did review it and at least two of the panel thought it deserved the call.

 

[gkelly]

I think we may be talking about the same thing at different stages?

The tech panel calls them as they see them. They review, much like any other sport, to make sure the calls are correct, but they are not depending *in the first instance* on the cameras. They depend on their judgment. The judges depend on that judgment and cannot second guess the refs, even with a million bazillion screenshots.

As far as I can tell, the referees aren't spending hours pouring over slo-mo videos and stills from various programs. Nor should they.

You mean tech panel, not referees. The referees just keep the competition moving along -- they don't make decisions about the elements.

Judges are free to take GOE reductions for errors that they saw even if the tech panel does not call an underrotation or wrong edge.

They are also free to give positive GOEs to elements with ! and q and even < calls, if they saw enough other positive bullet points to offset a -2 after seeing the tech calls. But they shouldn't award the "good takeoff and landing" bullet point to jumps with those calls.

 

[el henry]

You mean tech panel, not referees. The referees just keep the competition moving along -- they don't make decisions about the elements.

Judges are free to take GOE reductions for errors that they saw even if the tech panel does not call an underrotation or wrong edge.

They are also free to give positive GOEs to elements with ! and q and even < calls, if they saw enough other positive bullet points to offset a -2 after seeing the tech calls. But they shouldn't award the "good takeoff and landing" bullet point to jumps with those calls.

You are right, I went back and changed after I saw what I had posted.

I only follow two sports intently and I can't even keep the terminology straight from two of them Thank you for elaborating further, I always like learning more.

 

[lariko]

Well, if it looks good to all of them in real time, they won't flag the element for review and therefore it will not get any call.

I don't think it's true, because the elements that passed with flying colors during the real time and weren't flagged, were reviewed after the skate this season to get a reduction (Shaidorov).

 

[Skating91]

What I find is incredible is how the technical panel suddenly develops competency with particular skaters. I could name the skaters they suddenly become competent/strict with, but it could be controversial so I would rather not.

Suddenly they lose their competency, the camera angle suddenly becomes bad, etc when particular skaters come on the ice (I won't name anyone again it could be controversial).

The JGP tech panel was quite strict, maybe they need to be promoted and the one's that officiated in the singles senior GP finals demoted. Controversial?

Although I remember junior world's last year the technical panel played bad cop up until the final 6 then they suddenly became good cop. Just my opinion. I don't want to be controversial.

 

[Skating91]

I don't think it's true, because the elements that passed with flying colors during the real time and weren't flagged, were reviewed after the skate this season to get a reduction (Shaidorov).

I have a quite controversial theory about that one. I will keep it to myself.

 

[Katyaever]

In the short program and free skate Kaori received mostly 3's and even one judge gave a +4 for the following 3Lz jumps.

If a skater was given an edge call for a lutz, why wouldn't they simply protest the result and provide clear photographic proof as I have done that a precedent has been established where a lutz doesn't require an outside edge.

To me this is very straightforward.

It's not a criticism of Kaori. She does not require such favours in order to win.

Not an expert on protests and edge calls aside, but I have myself wondered the same thing about protests. What I have heard (not sure whether it's true, so take it with a grain of salt) is you can only file a protest for your own results, You can't protest someone else's results.

 

[gkelly]

I don't think it's true, because the elements that passed with flying colors during the real time and weren't flagged, were reviewed after the skate this season to get a reduction (Shaidorov).

What that means is:

During the program the technical specialist called the name of the element and one of the tech panel members said "Review." So it was flagged for review, but they didn't review it yet while the rest of the program was going on.

Therefore the judges didn't yet know what the results of the review would be, so they just input their GOE based on what they had seen at the time.

AFTER the program the tech panel reviews the elements that they had questions about during the program, and they add calls to any jumps that they found errors on. At that time, judges are supposed to reduce their GOEs to reflect any calls, if they hadn't already reflected those errors based on what they saw in real time.

Therefore it is very common for elements to have full base value and positive GOE on the scoring box that shows to the home viewers (but not to the judges) during the program, and then after the reviews to get calls that result in lower GOEs from the judges and lower base values for <, <<, and e calls.

Just because you see an element with full base value and positive GOE on the scoring box during the program does not mean that it "passed with flying colors." It just means that the review hadn't taken place yet. None of the reviews take place until the whole program is finished.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

I don't think it's true, because the elements that passed with flying colors during the real time and weren't flagged, were reviewed after the skate this season to get a reduction (Shaidorov).

But you can't tell based on the green/red color (judges overall positive or negative GOE on the element), if that element is called for a review or not. Tech panel is calling for the review in a real time, and all judges are watching the review after the programme is finished. In this particular occasion, no one in the tech panel called Kaori lutz edge in real time for the review, only we who saw the review on our tv screens (as the commentators) could see it was not a right edge - but judges didn't see (or didn't want to call to see) what we are seeing on a TV review. And for that matter, i know coaches are putting skaters lutz in a specific spot on the ice rink to be harder for the judges to clearly see a change of edge (or unclear edge) in real time.

 

[Katyaever]

Although I remember junior world's last year the technical panel played bad cop up until the final 6 then they suddenly became good cop. Just my opinion. I don't want to be controversial.

That! This is what I take most issue with... In my opinion, this is purposefully done to create the gap between the "top" skaters and the rest of the field. I don't agree with artificially inflating the gap; it should be what it is.

 

[CaroLiza_fan]

As somebody whose first love is motorsports, I find it frankly scandalous that protests against the results of other competitors are not allowed. Protests are a whole part of the game in motorsports.

And it can have important implications. In the British Superstock Championship, an English rider won the championship from an Irish rider. But, the Irish rider's team noticed illegal parts on the English rider's bike in parc fermé after the race, and put in a protest. And a month later the English rider got disqualified from that meeting's races, and the Irish rider was declared Champion.

Yes, it can take time to investigate. But, for me it is more important to get the right result than it is to get a quick result.

Normally, a protest can be investigated and a decision reached on the same day or the next day. In the example I gave, the reason that it took so long to investigate is that proper post-race procedures were not followed in parc fermé on that occasion. And that in itself was a major problem. Because it was the last race of the championship, when the riders rolled into parc fermé, they were greeted by lots of people celebrating. Frankly, these people should not have been allowed into parc fermé in the first place. It's not called "parc fermé" for nothing! Nobody is supposed to get near the bike (or the rider, for that matter) in case they tamper with it. Also, the bike was mistakingly released to the team without the scrutineers first checking over it.

Figure skating is different, as the only equipment that they use are the skates. And I would imagine that checking them over to make sure they are legal is something that only takes a minute or two. But in a sport where so much is subjective, it is vital to have the ability to protest.

Reading through the rules being quoted in this thread, I was gobsmacked by how antiquated they are.

I can't remember whether they were talking about the Technical Panel or the Judges or both, but the British Eurosport guys frequently told us while we were watching the highlights after a programme that the officials don't get slow-motion replays like we do, and have to make decisions based on full-speed replays. And I could never understand that, because surely they could assess things better and more accurately if they could see them in slow motion. It always seemed really odd to me that people just watching at home are able to see things better and in more detail than the people actually assessing them.

It also seems really odd that the Judges are not allowed to question what the Technical Panel are calling. At the end of the day, everybody is human. And it is only human to make a mistake. So, the officials should be able to help each other out and point out mistakes so that they can be corrected. It should not have to be done in a round-about way by the Judges adjusting their marks to balance out an incorrect call by the Technical Panel.

For the sport to be taken seriously, the Protocols need to accurately show what happened. They should not be full of fudges to compensate for mistakes. (Maybe "full of" is a bit too strong, but you know what I mean).

Even in snooker, the marker (the person recording the scores, who is another trained referee) is able to help the referee if they are unsure about something. Showing them replays, or directing where the balls were positioned if they have to be replaced after a foul. And for quite a few years now, there has also been technology to help with the replacing of the balls (the technology used at the Chinese tournaments was the most advanced when I was last watching snooker regularly a few years ago).

That said, some of the older referees were set in their ways and refused to use any of the help that was available to them. But, that may no longer be the case. They may have retired, or may have seen the light (whether by themselves, or being forced to by the powers that be).

The ISU needs to get into the 20th Century (yes, that was deliberate). Even before this current wave of Artificial Intelligence came around, other sports have been using technology for years to help the officials and make the results more accurate.

Although there was a lot of resistence that delayed it's usage for many years, football now uses technology to detect when a ball has gone sufficiently over the line for it to be out of play or (if it is between the posts) for it to be a goal. In motorsports, GPS is used to track where the cars / bikes / trucks are on the track in real time (as opposed to only recording gaps between them at the timing posts). In snooker, Hawkeye (a technology system, not Dr. Pierce from "MASH") is used in the TV coverage to show whether a shot is on.

And on the subject of technology being used in the TV coverage, we have seen what the Ice Scope technology is capable of in the coverage of Japanese figure skating competitions. If it is not already capable of making calls (and I would not be surprised if it can already do this), I'm sure it could be developed to do so with the help of Artificial Intelligence.

In summary, protests should be allowed. And so should slow motion replays for the officials. And so should technology to assist in making calls.

And if all this was implemented, I bet there wouldn't be many (if any) protests, because the results and the contents of Protocols would be more accurate as they would be determined by a combination of technological and human input.

Finally, I have been working on this post since yesterday, so apologies if anything I have written has been covered already.

CaroLiza_fan

 

[gkelly]

I can't remember whether they were talking about the Technical Panel or the Judges or both, but the British Eurosport guys frequently told us while we were watching the highlights after a programme that the officials don't get slow-motion replays like we do, and have to make decisions based on full-speed replays.

That is true only for determining jump prerotation. (And determining whether a fall occurred, in borderline cases.)

For other replays, they can watch in slow motion.

And I could never understand that, because surely they could assess things better and more accurately if they could see them in slow motion. It always seemed really odd to me that people just watching at home are able to see things better and in more detail than the people actually assessing them.

Viewers at home can see some things better than the officials can see live . . . or "differently" rather than "better" if they also have one camera angle that is different from the panel's. Which may give a better view of some elements and a worse view of others.

There are other aspects of the performance that are much easier to perceive live. But because they're hard to see on video and in many cases hard for non-skaters to understand, commentators are less likely to point out those details, which makes it even harder for home viewers who would like to learn more to learn about them.

 

[lariko]

During the program the technical specialist called the name of the element and one of the tech panel members said "Review." So it was flagged for review, but they didn't review it yet while the rest of the program was going on.

But the square was green, not gray. The moment they call for a review, the square turns gray.

 

[gkelly]

But the square was green, not gray. The moment they call for a review, the square turns gray.

I don't think that's true. I think the gray square means that the average GOE of the judges who have input scores so far is 0. If another judge then inputs a positive score, it would turn green; if someone input a negative score while it was gray, it would then turn red.

(I don't follow the score boxes closely. They might work differently for different broadcasters/streamers.)

Similarly, just because a box is red, that doesn't necessarily mean the tech panel flagged it for review. It just means that most or all of the judges so far entered negative GOEs.

 

[icewhite]

The gray square is a puzzle to me too. It's meant to say it's underreview, but many elements are reviewed despite being green. Maybe that's what happens when the tech panel is a bit late with the calls? Or when the element is under review but the judges have entered positive GOE?

I hate those coloured squares with a passion btw, they are so misleading. How is it supposed to help the viewer understand what happens when a quad popped into a double receives the green light?

 

[lariko]

I don't think that's true. I think the gray square means that the average GOE of the judges who have input scores so far is 0. If another judge then inputs a positive score, it would turn green; if someone input a negative score while it was gray, it would then turn red.

(I don't follow the score boxes closely. They might work differently for different broadcasters/streamers.)

Similarly, just because a box is red, that doesn't necessarily mean the tech panel flagged it for review. It just means that most or all of the judges so far entered negative GOEs.

Hmm, I always thought gray=review later, replacing yellow. I looked it up back when I started watching FS in 2018, and never looked if there were any changes:

"yellow "Review" indicates that the judges aren't quite sure and will need to review it, which is why you'll notice the yellow quickly turns green or red."