I understand your point, but it would be tricky to come up with a rule for scoring individual jumps in combinations/sequences that would apply appropriately in all cases. For example, often the first jump in a combination is landed with enough good qualities to deserve positive GOE if the skater had just stopped there and not done another jump, but the reason that second jump failed was because of some loss of speed or loss of balance on that first landing . . . or just getting too close to the boards. So how would you reflect that appropriately in those cases, differently from cases where the first jump was perfect and the second jump failed for some other reason, e.g., bad ice? Would the technical panel have to decide which jump the GOE reduction should be taken from based on their interpretation of why it went wrong?This is for tech elements, but I do want to bring up scoring as well in this thread. Seeing someone do a huge 3A and then falling on a 3S< in combo but getting -4.00 GOE (-5 factored on the 3A's BV) makes no sense to me. It needs to be deducted on the 3S<'s BV. The 3A was fantastic. That wasn't the problem.
Like they do in dance with footwork. I like that. We'd see 2SM3SW instead of 2S.And I would score the sbs jumps separately for each partner. And definitely keep them in pairs. They are the most exciting part including the throws IMO.
I read this a few times thinking "That's all the jumps why get a bonus for doing one of them" but I realized you mean for doing one each of them in the FS (vs. repeating some of them).4) bonus for landing the following jumps: Axel (quad, triple or double), Lutz (quad or triple), Flip (quad or triple), Loop (quad or triple), Salchow (quad or triple) and Toe-Loop (quad or triple)
I edited to say "one each of the following jumps."I read this a few times thinking "That's all the jumps why get a bonus for doing one of them" but I realized you mean for doing one each of them in the FS (vs. repeating some of them).
I would be in favor of this but only if they make the Lutz and Flip the same jump. Like they did with the toe loop and the toe wally ages ago.
I don't know that skating has that kind of money but it seems to me that it's something the ISU should at least have for major competitions like their sponsored series' - GP, JGP, Challengers - and the ISU Championships.Tennis has had electronic calling of some sort for quite a while, but since the pandemic they are moving towards no lines people, and all automatic calling. Quite simply the sport now is too fast for the human eye, and numerous errors cause delays in matches. The system they're using costs $100,000 dollars to install for each court to create a 3D computer generated image of the path of the ball. I don't think skating has the money to this for calls that, while important, are only one portion of the scoring system.
How Sony's Hawk-Eye electronic line-calling system transformed the U.S. Open
CNBC got a behind-the-scenes look at Sony's Hawk-Eye line-calling system to understand how the tech works in tennis and other major sports.www.cnbc.com
The toe loop and the toe wally aren't the same jumps either. And the ISU has already made those two jumps have the same values.I'm torn on making the Lutz and Flip the same jump. They aren't and I'd like to believe that the technology is there to make that determination - same with the technology to take the rotation assessments out of the hands of the tech panel. But if the sport isn't willing to make the investment in having that technology available at all competitions then perhaps it would be better to just consider them the same jump for judging purposes.
We don't need all that though. We just need a few more cameras from other angles. Having more cameras would benefit the calling of step sequences too.Tennis has had electronic calling of some sort for quite a while, but since the pandemic they are moving towards no lines people, and all automatic calling. Quite simply the sport now is too fast for the human eye, and numerous errors cause delays in matches. The system they're using costs $100,000 dollars to install for each court to create a 3D computer generated image of the path of the ball. I don't think skating has the money to this for calls that, while important, are only one portion of the scoring system.
How Sony's Hawk-Eye electronic line-calling system transformed the U.S. Open
CNBC got a behind-the-scenes look at Sony's Hawk-Eye line-calling system to understand how the tech works in tennis and other major sports.www.cnbc.com
If the calls for rotations, and edge calls were going to be taken out of the hands of the technical panel they would, but what you're mentioning would be a good first step.We don't need all that though. We just need a few more cameras from other angles. Having more cameras would benefit the calling of step sequences too.
Why would the calls taken out of the hands of the tech panel make a difference in how many angles the reviewers could look at?If the calls for rotations, and edge calls were going to be taken out of the hands of the technical panel they would, but what you're mentioning would be a good first step.
If money wasn't an issue than the ISU could implement an electronic system that would allow the automatic calling of edges, and rotation, and take it away from the technical panel as @Karen-W mentioned. That's why posted the link about the tennis system, and the cost because it would seem to be cost prohibitive for the ISU.Why would the calls taken out of the hands of the tech panel make a difference in how many angles the reviewers could look at?
Okay, so you are advocating for that extremely expensive system (that doesn't exist yet at least for skating) vs only having one camera. That makes more sense. I thought you were saying adding cameras would work only if they let the judges call those things and not the technical panel. Which makes no sense so I don't know why I read it that way.If money wasn't an issue than the ISU could implement an electronic system that would allow the automatic calling of edges, and rotation, and take it away from the technical panel as @Karen-W mentioned. That's why posted the link about the tennis system, and the cost because it would seem to be cost prohibitive for the ISU.
Craig Buntin was already working on this soon after he left skating and got an MBA. (Or maybe it was his MBA project.)Okay, so you are advocating for that extremely expensive system (that doesn't exist yet at least for skating)
Or combining the element with a split jump, stag jump, Ina Bauer or spread eagle.The only way I want to see a jump repeated a 3rd time is if there is a significant and visible variation on one of the 3. For example, put the flip and lutz in the same box, but give a skater credit for a 3rd version if one of the versions has a long BOE glide with a lutz takeoff.
It is not being used to call figure skating edges and rotations right now. Note that I didn't say it wasn't possible. I said it doesn't exist yet. Which it doesn't.Craig Buntin was already working on this soon after he left skating and got an MBA. (Or maybe it was his MBA project.)
https://www.sportlogiq.com/
According to the site, sportlogiq's tools are video based and used for a handful or sports, including youth sports. I believe his original plan was for putting sensors on skates, but it doesn't look like they're doing it for hockey.
So you'd have someone who knows skating and who is working on AI-based analytics from video.
It might not be used right now, but not only is the video technology available, Buntin had the sensor-based technology that, IIRC, could detect edges and revolutions, developed to at least a prototype. It doesn't have to be developed from scratch, and the video-based use makes it more than a one-off.It is not being used to call figure skating edges and rotations right now. Note that I didn't say it wasn't possible. I said it doesn't exist yet. Which it doesn't.
I would say the judges should be able to use their discretion better in the cases you've mentioned. Just give them the option to mark the GOE based off the jump they feel has been done best and make deductions based off the jump that was done the worst.I understand your point, but it would be tricky to come up with a rule for scoring individual jumps in combinations/sequences that would apply appropriately in all cases.
Once again, combos are graded as an entire element, based off the total value of the element. Period.I can 100% have it both ways
If a combo is well done overall, then it makes perfect sense to score it based off the highest BV element in the combo.
If you fall on part of the combo or make some other error, deduct GOE from that part of the combo.
I'm very curious about the quality of the points you wish to make on this forum. Surely, someone who has a PhD would be able to tell that I mean that I hope to see elements graded differently in the future?Once again, combos are graded as an entire element, based off the total value of the element. Period.
The point is that you clearly do not understand the judging system, and that it is already hard enough to judge elements consistently without getting all willy nilly with the rules. GOE is assigned to elements based on the total value of the element. It is very simple, and coaches and skaters understand this very well.I'm very curious about the quality of the points you wish to make on this forum. Surely, someone who has a PhD would be able to tell that I mean that I hope to see elements graded differently in the future?
Sweetheart, I understand the judging system, and I imagine much else of the world, better than you ever will.The point is that you clearly do not understand the judging system,
I did not say "separately". I said if someone falls on 3A+1Eu+3S<, then deduction should be on 3S< since they fell on the 3S being too underrotated. That is one raw GOE for one combo, scaled according to 3S BV.What exactly would be the point of a combo or sequence if you're going to grade the elements separately?
I did not say "separately". I said if someone falls on 3A+1Eu+3S<, then deduction should be on 3S< since they fell on the 3S being too underrotated. That is one raw GOE for one combo, scaled according to 3S BV.
If someone feels a 3Lz was landed too close to the boards which then messed up the rest of the combo as gkelly said, they can deduct raw GOE on the 3Lz. That is also one raw GOE for one combo, scaled according to 3Lz BV. This is letting it go to the judges own discretion.
It might need more adjustment, but it also will help when we need to deal out positive GOE. As an example, Yulia Lipnitskaya's 3Lz+3T and 2A+3T combos. The preceding jump was always small, but on the other hand she could do a fantastic +3T. Instead of going +1 and scaling by 3Lz in that first case, it would make more sense to scale by 3T's base value.I understand your goal, but that could lead to people who have tacked on a single toe and falling, to getting away with having less deductions because the fell on the single toe.
No pairs would mark the end of my skating fandom.With the new removal of the SBS jump in pairs, we are well on our way to the merger of dance and pairs into one discipline!
- Dance lifts have been relaxed to allow lifts above the shoulders.
- Spins in dance & pairs are now indistinguishable.
- Jumps are being introduced into dance with the assisted jump.
- Compulsory dances are all but history.
- Deep edges, pointed toes, and neat feet are no longer rewarded in dance.
The edges are really starting to blur between the 2 disciplines!