ISU rules changes proposals & reaction

[sleepingsleeping]

https://www.isu.org/inside-single-p...s-for-marking-goe-2018-19-replacing-2168/file

In case of multiple errors the corresponding reductions are added．

Fall　-5
Weak landing (bad pos./wrong edge/scratching etc) -1 to-3
Stepping out of landing in a jump -3 to-4
Landing on two feet in a jump -3 to-4
Touch down with both hands in a jump -2 to -3
Touch down with one hand or free foot -1 to -2
Lacking rotation (no sign)including Eulerin a combo -1 to -2 etc

In the case of Fall, it involves at least "Weak landing". I think that judges who give -3 or -4 in Fall do not follow the guidelines.

In the case of "Fall", I think that there are judges who do not count deductions more than once.
I think that interpretation of rules and guidelines is not unified by judges.

 

[sleepingsleeping]

Despite the problem of the Chinese judge last season, the national bias has begun.
I quote data from http://skatingscores.com.

http://skatingscores.com/2019/jgpcan/ladies/long/tss/
http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1819/jgpcan2018/SEG004OF.HTM
http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1819/jgpcan2018/jgpcan2018_JuniorLadies_FS_Scores.pdf

Judge No.3 Ms. Jungyoon CHOI KOR
Judge No.6 Ms. Hui LIU CHN

Siyang ZHANG CHN

74.18: Judge's average
89.17:Judge No.6 Ms. Hui LIU CHN　　　+14.99
69.54:Judge No.3 Ms. Jungyoon CHOI KOR -4.64

There are 20 points difference depending on judges.
For the same performance of the same competitor, the judges can be 15 to 20 points higher or 15 to 20 points lower than the average of the judges.
For example, Judge A can take 220 points on the performance Judge B judged as 180 points.
This is the difference of the points that greatly change the result and rank.
I think that the ISU has given too much discretion to the judge and it is no longer fair competition.
In important competitions, I think that problem becomes serious further..

 

[Rhino]

Despite the problem of the Chinese judge last season, the national bias has begun.
I quote data from http://skatingscores.com.

http://skatingscores.com/2019/jgpcan/ladies/long/tss/
http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1819/jgpcan2018/SEG004OF.HTM
http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1819/jgpcan2018/jgpcan2018_JuniorLadies_FS_Scores.pdf

Judge No.3 Ms. Jungyoon CHOI KOR
Judge No.6 Ms. Hui LIU CHN

Siyang ZHANG CHN

74.18: Judge's average
89.17:Judge No.6 Ms. Hui LIU CHN　　　+14.99
69.54:Judge No.3 Ms. Jungyoon CHOI KOR -4.64

There are 20 points difference depending on judges.
For the same performance of the same competitor, the judges can be 15 to 20 points higher or 15 to 20 points lower than the average of the judges.
For example, Judge A can take 220 points on the performance Judge B judged as 180 points.
This is the difference of the points that greatly change the result and rank.
I think that the ISU has given too much discretion to the judge and it is no longer fair competition.
In important competitions, I think that problem becomes serious further..

You are mistaken. The Korean judge scored it 66.23. The gap was 23 points not 20.

Also check out the Russian and Kazahkstani judges at Ondrej Nepera. They had Rika Kihira only 11.34/11.39 points ahead of Elizabet Tursynbaeva despite the latter having 3 URs and a fall in her 7 triples non-Triple Axel skate, and Rika having 2 triple axels in her clean, but for a mistake on the final 3S, 8 triples skate. Mind you the Japanese judge didn't help matters by giving Rika the highest score of the judges for that particular skater in both the SP and LP, and Elizabet the lowest score in both the SP and LP.

Also look at the Italian Ice Dance judge at Lombardia. Guignard/Fabbri every single element +4 or +5 in the Free Dance (129.39 vs 117.25 actual).

 

[sleepingsleeping]

Thank you for correcting.
I tried calculating the national bias. SP+FS

18.38：ITA：Ms. Francesca MINEO：Jasmine TESSARI / Francesco FIORETTI：2018Lombardia Trophy
17.94：JPN：Ms. Akiko KOBAYASHI：Yuna SHIRAIWA：2018 U.S. International Figure Skating Classic
17.41：CHN：Ms. Hui LIU：Siyang ZHANG：ISU JGP Canada 2018
17.33：ITA：Ms. Francesca MINEO：Charlene GUIGNARD / Marco FABBRI：2018Lombardia Trophy
15.73：UKR：Mr. Yury BALKOV：Anastasiia ARKHIPOVA：ISU JGP Amber Cup 2018
14.72：GBR：Ms. Sarah HANRAHAN：Lilah FEAR / Lewis GIBSON：Ondrej Nepela Trophy 2018
14.61：GER：Mr. Jörn LUCAS：Katharina MÜLLER / Tim DIECK：Ondrej Nepela Trophy 2018
14.32：CAN：Mr. Jerome POULIN：Patricia ANDREW / Paxton FLETCHER：ISU JGP Bratislava 2018
13.53：RUS：Ms. Sofia KITASHEVA：Anastasia MISHINA / Aleksandr GALLIAMOV：ISU JGP Canada 2018
13.18：RUS：Ms. Maira ABASOVA：Natalia ZABIIAKO / Alexander ENBERT：2018Lombardia Trophy
13.00：ITA：Ms. Francesca MINEO：Carolina MOSCHENI / Andrea FABBRI：2018Lombardia Trophy
12.57：JPN：Ms. Akiko KOBAYASHI：Yuna SHIRAIWA：Asian Open Figure Skating Trophy 2018
12.39：RUS：Ms. Sofia KITASHEVA：Petr GUMENNIK：ISU JGP Canada 2018
12.36：AUT：Ms. Katja SCHAUER：Luc MAIERHOFER：ISU JGP Cup of Austria 2018
12.25：CAN：Mr. Jeff LUKASIK：Camille RUEST/Andrew WOLFE：2018 U.S. International Figure Skating Classic
12.20：CHN：Ms. Hui LIU：Yuchen WANG / Yihang HUANG：ISU JGP Canada 2018
11.98：FRA：Mr. Thierry MONMINOUX：Adam SIAO HIM FA：ISU JGP Canada 2018
11.61：UKR：Ms. Elena LISOVA：Darya POPOVA / Volodymyr BYELIKOV：ISU JGP Amber Cup 2018
11.43：KOR：Ms. Hea Kyung KIM：Geonhyeong AN：ISU JGP Amber Cup 2018
11.23：CZE：Ms. Zuzana PLESNIKOVA：Natalie TASCHLEROVA / Filip TASCHLER：ISU JGP Amber Cup 2018
11.10：JPN：Mr. Takeo KUNO：Yuma KAGIYAMA：ISU JGP Canada 2018
10.69：RUS：Ms. Maira ABASOVA：Dmitri ALIEV：2018Lombardia Trophy
10.63：RUS：Ms. Sofia KITASHEVA：Apollinariia PANFILOVA / Dmitry RYLOV：ISU JGP Canada 2018
10.45：BLR：Ms. Yulia LEVSHUNOVA：Emiliya KALEHANOVA / Uladzislau PALKHOUSKI：ISU JGP Bratislava 2018
10.44：USA：Mr. Samuel AUXIER：Sean RABBITT：Ondrej Nepela Trophy 2018
10.32：CAN：Ms. Leslie KEEN：Marjorie LAJOIE / Zachary LAGHA：ISU JGP Cup of Austria 2018
10.26：KAZ：Ms. Nadezhda PARETSKAIA：Nikita MANKO：ISU JGP Amber Cup 2018
10.21：RUS：Ms. Elena KHMYZENKO：Ekaterina ANDREEVA / Ivan DESYATOV：ISU JGP Amber Cup 2018
10.06：SUI：Ms. Prisca BINZ-MOSER：Victoria MANNI / Carlo ROETHLISBERGER：2018Lombardia Trophy
9.96：AUT：Ms. Edith SCHILLER：Luc MAIERHOFER：ISU JGP Bratislava 2018
9.96：RUS：Ms. Elena FOMINA：Betina POPOVA / Sergey MOZGOV：Ondrej Nepela Trophy 2018
9.75：JPN：Ms. Sakae YAMAMOTO：Rika KIHIRA：Ondrej Nepela Trophy 2018
9.62：TUR：Ms. Rengin GUNAYDIN：Basar OKTAR：ISU JGP Canada 2018
9.59：AZE：Mr. Yury KLIUSHNIKOV：Yana BUGA / Georgy POKHILYUK：ISU JGP Amber Cup 2018
9.54：BLR：Ms. Zhanna SHEMET：Karina SIDARENKA / Maksim YALENICH：ISU JGP Amber Cup 2018
9.30：BUL：Ms. Zoia YORDANOVA：Alexandra FEIGIN：ISU JGP Bratislava 2018
9.30：RUS：Ms. Sofia KITASHEVA：Daria KVARTALOVA / Alexei SVIATCHENKO：ISU JGP Canada 2018
9.03：USA：Ms. Linda LEAVER：Karina MANTA/Joseph JOHNSON：2018 U.S. International Figure Skating Classic
8.94：JPN：Ms. Ritsuko HORIUCHI：Yuto KISHINA：ISU JGP Amber Cup 2018
8.83：USA：Mr. Todd BROMLEY：Starr ANDREWS：Asian Open Figure Skating Trophy 2018
8.75：HKG：Ms. Dan CHEN：Leslie Man Cheuk IP：Asian Open Figure Skating Trophy 2018
8.71：SWE：Ms. Karolina MATESA：Cassandra JOHANSSON：ISU JGP Cup of Austria 2018
8.66：HKG：Ms. Dan CHEN：Yi Christy LEUNG：Asian Open Figure Skating Trophy 2018
8.54：CAN：Ms. Susan BLATZ：Nadiia BASHYNSKA / Peter BEAUMONT：ISU JGP Bratislava 2018
8.40：GER：Ms. Kerstin KIMMINUS：Talisa THOMALLA / Robert KUNKEL：ISU JGP Cup of Austria 2018
8.36：USA：Mr. Brett DRURY：Joseph KANG：ISU JGP Amber Cup 2018
8.36：CZE：Ms. Marketa HORKLOVA：Jiri BELOHRADSKY：2018Lombardia Trophy
8.06：JPN：Mr. Takeo KUNO：Riku MIURA / Shoya ICHIHASHI：ISU JGP Canada 2018
7.67：USA：Mr. John MILLIER：Lorraine MCNAMARA / Quinn CARPENTER：Ondrej Nepela Trophy 2018
7.58：USA：Ms. Laurie JOHNSON：Winter DEARDORFF/Max SETTLAGE：2018 U.S. International Figure Skating Classic
7.57：RUS：Ms. Natalia KITAEVA：Egor MURASHOV：ISU JGP Amber Cup 2018
7.56：JPN：Ms. Tomie FUKUDOME：Kaori SAKAMOTO：2018Lombardia Trophy
7.53：ISR：Mr. Albert ZAYDMAN：Alice ROGATNIK / Yehor BARSHAK：ISU JGP Cup of Austria 2018
7.51：JPN：Ms. Miwako ANDO：Yuzuru HANYU：2018 Autumn Classic International
7.35：AUT：Mr. Georg GANNER：Heidrun PIPAL / Erik PIPAL：ISU JGP Cup of Austria 2018
7.33：CAN：Ms. Erica TOPOLSKI：Irina GALIYANOVA / Grayson LOCHHEAD：ISU JGP Amber Cup 2018
7.31：JPN：Ms. Akiko KOBAYASHI：Misato KOMATSUBARA/Tim KOLETO：2018 U.S. International Figure Skating Classic
7.21：CAN：Mr. Jerome POULIN：Alicia PINEAULT：2018 Autumn Classic International
7.19：ISR：Mr. Alexei BELETSKI：Alina SOUPIAN：ISU JGP Amber Cup 2018
7.06：CZE：Ms. Marketa HORKLOVA：Petr KOTLARIK：2018Lombardia Trophy
7.04：KAZ：Mr. Yuriy GUSKOV：Elizabet TURSYNBAEVA：Ondrej Nepela Trophy 2018

 

[Rhino]

Francesca Mineo is the definite winner so far, 3 out of the top 11, plus there's also Calderone and Pepetti who weren't on your list. However wonder if she hasn't got the hang of the new system, the scores are so obviously out compared with everybody else it makes you wonder if she's not quite up to speed yet. (Edit she must be, her scores are a bit high across the board compared with the other judges, but nothing like the Italian skaters).

Also the lack of the Russian judge and Yuriy Guskov only appearing at the bottom shows the effect of marking down. From the above you'd think the Japanese judge Sakae Yamamoto was worse, but when you look at the scores across the board the Russian and Kazakhstani were far worse.

 

[Seerek]

https://www.isu.org/inside-single-p...s-for-marking-goe-2018-19-replacing-2168/file

Weak landing (bad pos./wrong edge/scratching etc) -1 to-3

I think that interpretation of rules and guidelines is not unified by judges.

This does bring up the question as to how the judges interpreted Artur Dmitriev Jr's combination from Nebelhorn earlier today. By proper theory, it's a wrong edge landing, but it's also the correct edge entry into the second jump of the combination?

 

[Deleted member 19433]

This does bring up the question as to how the judges interpreted Artur Dmitriev Jr's combination from Nebelhorn earlier today. By proper theory, it's a wrong edge landing, but it's also the correct edge entry into the second jump of the combination?

Jumps of more than one revolution in combination or sequence, except the last jump, may be landed on either foot per the Technical Panel Handbook (here, page 20 https://www.isu.org/inside-single-p...ting-2/17594-tp-handbook-singles-2018-19/file ). I had seen such things as one foot axel-double/triple salchow before but the only other time I'd seen or heard of it being attempted with a triple landed on the other foot was this https://youtu.be/HqqcCAAoEp0?t=27 ). Does anyone have any other video examples?

 

[sleepingsleeping]

This does bring up the question as to how the judges interpreted Artur Dmitriev Jr's combination from Nebelhorn earlier today. By proper theory, it's a wrong edge landing, but it's also the correct edge entry into the second jump of the combination?

https://www.isu.org/inside-single-p...ting-2/17594-tp-handbook-singles-2018-19/file

Landing on another foot
In combinations/sequence all jumps with more than one revolution, except the last one may be landed on either foot.

Landing on the incorrect edge
The call will not change if a jump is landed on the incorrect edge. However Judges will reflect this in their GOE.

https://www.isu.org/inside-single-p...s-for-marking-goe-2018-19-replacing-2168/file

Weak landing (bad pos./wrong edge/scratching etc) -1 to-3

It seems to be -1 to -3 on GOE.

http://www.deu-event.de/results/Nebelhorn_2018/CSGER2018_Men_SP_Scores.pdf
3Lz+3F　1　-1　2　-1　-2　1　2　 1　1

It seems that interpretation of rules is not unified.
In figure skating, there are many cases where it seems that interpretation of rules is not unified.It is strange that GOE will be evaluated differently from -2 to +2.I think that the judges do not know how to interpret the rules.

 

[Deleted member 19433]

https://www.isu.org/inside-single-p...ting-2/17594-tp-handbook-singles-2018-19/file

Landing on another foot
In combinations/sequence all jumps with more than one revolution, except the last one may be landed on either foot.

Landing on the incorrect edge
The call will not change if a jump is landed on the incorrect edge. However Judges will reflect this in their GOE.

https://www.isu.org/inside-single-p...s-for-marking-goe-2018-19-replacing-2168/file

Weak landing (bad pos./wrong edge/scratching etc) -1 to-3

It seems to be -1 to -3 on GOE.

When landed on the opposite foot, the inside edge is the correct edge. However, the first landing did scratch and had a bent forward position, so the other GOE reductions for weak landing could arguably still apply in this particular example (ETA here: https://youtu.be/0VSdHeQQmCY?t=68)

 

[DreamSkates]

Thank you for correcting.
I tried calculating the national bias. SP+FS

18.38：ITA...2018

Deleted the list but does this mean that things are worse with the new changes or does this reflect normal bias (what has already existed in years past)?

 

[sleepingsleeping]

Deleted the list but does this mean that things are worse with the new changes or does this reflect normal bias (what has already existed in years past)?

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johntemplon/the-edge

China 4.60 → 4.30
Italy 4.10 → 6.30
RUSSIA 4.00 → 4.85
USA 3.50 → 2.97
Canada 3.50 → 1.91
France 2.70 → 4.13
Japan 2.40 → 3.17

total 24.80 → 27.63
average 3.54 → 3.95

From the data so far, nationalbias is getting more serious. By expanding the range of GOEs, the discretion of judges has expanded. I think it will become more serious in more important competition.

 

[Rhino]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johntemplon/the-edge

China 4.60 → 4.30
Italy 4.10 → 6.30
RUSSIA 4.00 → 4.85
USA 3.50 → 2.97
Canada 3.50 → 1.91
France 2.70 → 4.13
Japan 2.40 → 3.17

total 24.80 → 27.63
average 3.54 → 3.95

From the data so far, nationalbias is getting more serious. By expanding the range of GOEs, the discretion of judges has expanded. I think it will become more serious in more important competition.

The Buzzfeed article shows why it is so necessary for the ISU to introduce a system whereby judges don't mark their own countries skaters. Imagine what would happen if it had been in a much more prestigious publication rather than an online site that most people have never heard of.

Also the ISU got bloomin' lucky at the Olympics. If Sui and Han had scored 0.44 marks more all hell would have broke loose. It would have been Salt Lake City all over again as the antics of the Chinese judge (and some of the others for that matter) came to light.

I just hope the ISU is aware of the data on sites like skatingscores and the damage it can cause. Plus it would be so easy to go to a non-marking of own skaters system. For GOEs you just multiply by 7 and divide by 6 to get back to a 7 counting judge system. For PCS you don't have to even do anything, just take the average of the middle 6 judges and factor that up rather the average of the middle 7.

 

[gkelly]

Plus it would be so easy to go to a non-marking of own skaters system. For GOEs you just multiply by 7 and divide by 6 to get back to a 7 counting judge system. For PCS you don't have to even do anything, just take the average of the middle 6 judges and factor that up rather the average of the middle 7.

About 20 years ago someone I knew from a fan discussion list once suggested not having judges scores for their home country skaters count -- to drop the compatriot judge's score and sub in the scores from the substitute judge.

With 6.0 scoring in the ordinal system that suggestion made no sense. The scores didn't mean anything in isolation but only as placeholders for each judge to keep track of their rankings.

But with IJS, with the add-and-average procedure for scoring, it would make perfect sense either to just drop the home country judge's score and take the average of one fewer judges (6 instead of 7 or 8 instead of 9) for each GOE and component for each skater with a compatriot judge on the panel. Or include a substitute judge from a different country whose marks don't count except to sub in for the judges who have compatriot skaters in the event.

 

[Erin]

About 20 years ago someone I knew from a fan discussion list once suggested not having judges scores for their home country skaters count -- to drop the compatriot judge's score and sub in the scores from the substitute judge.

With 6.0 scoring in the ordinal system that suggestion made no sense. The scores didn't mean anything in isolation but only as placeholders for each judge to keep track of their rankings.

But with IJS, with the add-and-average procedure for scoring, it would make perfect sense either to just drop the home country judge's score and take the average of one fewer judges (6 instead of 7 or 8 instead of 9) for each GOE and component for each skater with a compatriot judge on the panel. Or include a substitute judge from a different country whose marks don't count except to sub in for the judges who have compatriot skaters in the event.

I like that idea, but I wonder if it doesn’t go far enough - we have also seen judges not just overmarking their own skaters, but also undermarking their nearest competitor to get the desired result. Eg the Chinese men’s judge who was suspended was giving the lowest marks to Fernandez, the Canadian dance judge was lowballing Papadakis and Cizeron, etc. That aspect is much harder to police with a formula.

 

[Orm Irian]

But with IJS, with the add-and-average procedure for scoring, it would make perfect sense either to just drop the home country judge's score and take the average of one fewer judges (6 instead of 7 or 8 instead of 9) for each GOE and component for each skater with a compatriot judge on the panel. Or include a substitute judge from a different country whose marks don't count except to sub in for the judges who have compatriot skaters in the event.

Though the option of taking the average of one fewer judges does raise the question of what happens to all the skaters in the event who don't have a judge from their own country on the judging panel. Are they given an average out of 7 (or whatever), making their GOE scores inherently more fine-grained than those with an average of 6 (or whatever)? Is one extra judge's score omitted along with the highest and lowest in order to create parity with the skaters who have a judge from their country on the panel, and if so, how is that score selected?

A substitute judge would avoid those issues. So would selecting all members of the technical and judging panels solely from federations without any skaters competing in the event, but that would require huge changes to the way getting judges for events is handled at a logistical level, so it's highly unlikely ever to happen.

 

[gkelly]

So would selecting all members of the technical and judging panels solely from federations without any skaters competing in the event, but that would require huge changes to the way getting judges for events is handled at a logistical level, so it's highly unlikely ever to happen.

This could easily work at competitions with small fields such as Grand Prix events. (Not so much for the JGP, aside from the final.)

And it could work at Europeans/Four Continents simply by using judges from the opposite continental group.

That's not possible at Worlds or even moreso at Junior Worlds, where every ISU member federation is entitled to enter at least one entry per discipline, as long as they have met the minimum technical scores. For ladies and men you'd have to use judges only from tiny or startup federations who have no age-eligible skaters capable of earning the minimums that year. And for pairs and dance you'd have to use judges from federations with few or no international teams (or any teams at all).

In other words, the very least experienced international judges possible. Probably not even ISU-level judges in the current system.

If you're mainly concerned about fairness to the medal contenders, you could choose only judges from federations that didn't have anyone in the top 10 either at the previous year's championships or in the current world standings. Or only judges from outside the top 10 federations in that discipline.

But then you would still run into the problem of less-experienced judges at the biggest events.

 

[Rhino]

I like the idea of substitute judges, plus at championships they would get a lot of work. It's not as if it'll be just the odd skater or two what with multiple entries allowed from different countries. I was wondering what happens if there's a skater from the substitute country i.e. who substitutes the substitute, but of course that's a load of baloney, so long as they're from a different country than the rest of the panel then you're fine and they only come into play when a skater from one of the judges already on the panel performs.

 

[sleepingsleeping]

The first problem is that the rules are not clearly defined. For example, things like Judge A gives -2, Judge B gives +2 against 3Lz-3F. It seems that interpretation of rules differs for each judge. In sports, it is an absolute requirement that rules be clear for athletes. We can not compete fairly if the measure of competition is not clear.

The second problem is that figure skating judges are not professional. They are usually doctors or coaches and they are engaged in other work. I have doubts as to whether they study the rules and are familiar with it.

The third problem is that the judges are not independent from the federations of their respective countries. For example, Ms. Yoshiko KOBAYASHI JPN is responsible for the team to strengthen Japan. If you put a bad point on your athlete, there is a structure that will be condemned by your federation.

I believe Chinese judges are doing nationalbias convincingly. Though they were warned over and over, they did such a judgment at the Olympics. It seems that the Chinese judge of this season is not afraid to be pointed out as nationalbias.
China is a country with strong influence. It may not be hesitant to fight with ISU.

It is obvious that the circumstances will be worse if you expand the discretion of the judge under these circumstances.
I think that the ISU has expanded only the discretion of the judge without solving the three problems.

 

[gkelly]

The first problem is that the rules are not clearly defined. For example, things like Judge A gives -2, Judge B gives +2 against 3Lz-3F. It seems that interpretation of rules differs for each judge.

This is entirely within the rules for awarding GOEs. I think what you're seeing in an example like this is less a case of judges having different interpretations of the rules and more of judges having different interpretations of that element as performed.

In sports, it is an absolute requirement that rules be clear for athletes. We can not compete fairly if the measure of competition is not clear.

Skating is not a sport with discrete outcomes, such as did the ball go into the goal or not or go out of bounds or not, or even was the jump landed or not. The question isn't "Did it or didn't it?" but rather "How well?" Those kinds of decisions call for judgment of each case on its own merits, according to guidelines/rules, but not simply mechanical application of pre-written rules.

In qualitative sports, there are always going to be value judgments made by individuals, with more room for individual variation in than in sports that rely solely on yes/no determinations. Skaters know this. Long-time skating fans know this.

Many successful elements have some positive qualities and some negative qualities. It's up to each judge to balance out the good points and bad points to come up with an overall evaluation of the element, including whether in their judgment the final score should be higher or lower (or equal to) the base value.

There are guidelines as to what judges are supposed to reward and what they're supposed to penalize, but there's no way to quantify exactly when every possible example of the element in question would qualify for a positive bullet point or when every weakness would merit a reduction, nor where to draw the line between -1 or -2 or -3 for weaknesses/errors that the rules. Every element is slightly different from the next, and different individuals will have different perceptions of how close that example from that skater on that day came to qualifying for each separate positive or negative bullet point.

And the rules explicitly instruct judges to award positive features before subtracting for errors. Now there are more explicit caps on how high they can start on the positive side for elements that don't meet all of three specified mandatory criteria or that have major errors.

With elements that have no significant errors and few positive qualities specified by the rules, we would expect GOE scores close to 0. As of last year, such an element would often have a GOE range of -1 to +1 within the -3/+3 gamut. With the new -5/+5 scoring that allows more distinctions between fine points, a range of -2 to +2 is pretty much equivalent to -1 to +1 last year. You could think of it as including -0.5 and +0.5 as additional options in last year's range and then just renaming the options.

With the additional scoring options, with 11 possible scores instead of only 7 to choose from, you are going to see more variety of GOEs from the different judges. Where before a range of 1 GOE step on either side of the median was the norm, now we're going to see more examples of 2 steps on one side or the other or both. This isn't a bug in the way the rules are written or applied -- it's an intentional feature, inherent in the nature of qualitative evaluation and in the finer increments of the revised scoring.

In the 3Lz+3F example, you're talking about an element type -- a true jump combination with a triple jump landing on the opposite foot followed by a triple flip -- that has never been performed before. There is no established standard as to what constitutes average quality on a triple something-triple flip combination. So it's small wonder that different judges had different opinions in this case.

The second problem is that figure skating judges are not professional. They are usually doctors or coaches and they are engaged in other work. I have doubts as to whether they study the rules and are familiar with it.

Coaches are skating professionals and it is their job to know the rules that their students compete under. However, skating coaches are not allowed to be judges. They may be technical specialists.

Yes, judges generally have other full-time jobs or other sources of income because judging is not a paid activity. Some have volunteered their time to judging most weeks of the year for many years and know the rules backward and forward. Others only judge a couple of competitions per year -- which may have some different specific rules between domestic vs. international, junior vs. senior, men vs. ladies, etc. -- and don't spend much time in their daily life studying skating rules when they don't have a competition that week.

Would it be possible to professionalize judges in some way so that some or all international judges are able to make it their full-time job? I don't know.

Take a look at the seasonal skating calendar, how many competitions are held each week at each time of year. Can you suggest a structure by which all of the competitions in the busy season could be covered by professional judges and what kind of commitments would be expected of those judges in the other times of year? What might be the career path to becoming a professional judge? What levels of competition would still be covered by volunteer judges, and would any types of competitions be able to use a mix of professionals and volunteers?

 

[sleepingsleeping]

Therefore, the winner is determined by politics. There are no rules. You can give 220 points under the same performance of the same athlete, the same rule, you can give 180 points. It is not a fair sport.

The national bias is also greatly influenced by one domestic politics. Even athletes in the same country, politically weak coach athletes are given scores much lower than the judges' average score from their judges.

 

[gkelly]

Politics is "noise" that can skew the signal.

But the signal in this case is a consensus of different individuals' expert judgments.

Imagine a skating competition in which every judge is very well trained, very experienced, and has no national affiliation nor any vested interest in the success of any particular skater in the event.

There would be no effect of politics. But there would still be differences between the judges' scores for other reasons.

They have different pet peeves. They have different areas of extra expertise (maybe judge A was a school figures expert in her youth and judge B is a highly accomplished classical dancer or musician, and judge C is a highly accomplished performing artists in a more popular discipline, and judge D has a masters degree in kinesiology and judge E worked as a skating coach focused on mid-level competitors for many years before retiring to take up judging). Some judges are optimists who focus on looking for strong points to reward; others are pessimists who focus on nitpicking and penalizing every minor flaw. Based on where they're seated on the panel judge 9 might have a perfect view of skater Q's lutz but an obscured view of the counters and loops in the step sequence, while judge 1 might have perfect view of the turns but an obscured view of the lutz.

Their scores will not be identical. There may very well be ranges of -2 to +2 for the same element, or differences of 2.0 or more for the same component.

And politics would have nothing to do with the reason for those discrepancies. It would all be down to the fact that judges are individual human beings.

 

[Orm Irian]

That's not possible at Worlds or even moreso at Junior Worlds, where every ISU member federation is entitled to enter at least one entry per discipline, as long as they have met the minimum technical scores. For ladies and men you'd have to use judges only from tiny or startup federations who have no age-eligible skaters capable of earning the minimums that year. And for pairs and dance you'd have to use judges from federations with few or no international teams (or any teams at all).

In other words, the very least experienced international judges possible. Probably not even ISU-level judges in the current system.

I agree that this would be a problem under the current system of training, promoting and using judges. If, say, a four-year program was put in place to select, train and provide as much experience as possible for judges from the smallest, newest and least powerful federations in time for the next Olympics - along with putting in place significant penalties for any individual or federation who tries to influence said judges or their home federations - it might be a different matter.

IIRC, gymnastics did something similar when they couldn't ignore the influence of the old Cold War voting blocs on scoring any more, excluding them from judging panels and drawing on the 'outsiders' or the sport more, and it did have a positive effect; of course, gymnastics is still a bigger sport than figure skating and has a bigger pool of options to draw on, but it does offer a model to consider.

 

[Marco]

Do Federations subsidize judges other than to pay for their travel and accommodation at domestic / national competitions?

Perhaps the ISU could isolate a pool of subsidy to pay for judges at international events (again, on top of travel and accommodation). Judges with records of poor judging will be invited to judge less often and as a result not be entitled to the pay.

 

[sleepingsleeping]

Judges may score 220 points or 180 points. For the general public, it is impossible to understand why this athlete won. Rules are also ambiguous and people will not understand why there is a -2 judge and a +3 judge in the same element even if you read the rule book. In modern times, every sports such as challenge system in tennis appeals fairness and transparency. I do not think that sports that people can not understand become popular.

 

[sleepingsleeping]

http://www.isuresults.com/events/jgp2018/jgpsmen.htm
ISU Junior Grand Prix of Figure Skating 2018 / 2019

Junior Men

1 Petr GUMENNIK RUS no quad
2 Camden PULKINEN USA 　　　　no quad　　　　
3 Tomoki HIWATASHI USA
4 Andrew TORGASHEV USA
5 Koshiro SHIMADA JPN no quad

Are athletes without quad really worthy for the top of Junior Men ?

150.35 Petr GUMENNIK ISU JGP Canada 2018
147.80 Camden PULKINEN ISU JGP Cup of Austria 2018
145.67 Koshiro SHIMADA ISU JGP Cup of Austria 2018

144.96 Nathan Chen 2018Japan open

I do not think that junior athletes are bad athletes. But are they better than Nathan who challenged 5 quad or 6 quad?
In national competition of each country, junior of no quad is expected to win top senior.
I think the New Judging System is not a system that reflects the athlete's ability and I think that this sport will be boring.

 

[Willin]

@sleepingsleeping I think it's a good thing and shows the adjustment on the quads is working. Those junior men skated clean and had good skates. From what I've heard, Nathan "only" attempted 4 quads and fell on 3/4 of them. I haven't watched the skate so I can't say much else about it. But no way should a program with three falls outscore clean programs no matter the difference in quads attempted.

 

[sleepingsleeping]

Senior athletes are athletes who can perform without mistake up to 3A. They have already experienced becoming a junior champion etc. already in junior and up to 3A layout. The probability of a jump up to 3A is also higher than that of a junior athlete. They have high PCS and skating skills. Besides, they can also quad. Everything is one step higher than Junior's athlete. The New Judging System does not reflect the athlete's ability.

 

[sleepingsleeping]

http://www.isuresults.com/events/jgp2018/jgpsmen.htm

1 Petr GUMENNIK 　　no quad try
2 Camden PULKINEN 　　　　　　　　　no quad　try　　　　　　
3 Adam SIAO HIM FA 　　　　　　Success of quad once
4 Tomoki HIWATASHI 　 No success of quad　
5 Andrew TORGASHEV 　　No success of quad　　
6 Koshiro SHIMADA 　　　　　no quad　try

Is this Junior Men?
Athlete trying to quad is certainly decreasing．
Do we have to do the same discussions as at the time of Vancouver Olympic Games?

 

[Willin]

@sleepingsleeping I don't think so. There's still an advantage to doing quads even if it's not as great. I would assume that because the advantage isn't as great the men are waiting to put them into the program until they're consistent. If anything, this result shows that the rule is working: clean skating is being rewarded more than quad-filled programs with falls, pops, bad step sequences/spins, or messy landings. Junior men also aren't allowed to do quads in their SP so that certainly cuts back on attempts.

Also, for the record, Tomoki did land a 4T+3T at his most recent JGP. Torgashev landed a 4T at JGP Bratislava and fell on a clean 4T at JGP Amber Cup this season. Adam landed a 4T+3T at JGP Canada and JGP Armenia.

Of those men that didn't make the JGP final, Stephen Gogolev has landed 4Lz, 4T, and 4S+3T in JGP competition, but fell on 2/3 of them in the next competition, putting him below cleaner quadless skates. Conrad Orzel has landed a 4S and a 4T at both his JGPs. Joseph Phan landed a 4T and a 4T+2T this season. Andrei Mozalev landed a 4T. That's not counting the attempts from other men that got a <.

So a lot of Junior men are trying and landing them. They're just not being rewarded and winning solely because they can do quads. The men that made the JGP final made it because they skated cleaner and/or were a more complete package regardless of their ability to do a quad, which ishow it should be.

 

[mag]

@sleepingsleeping I think it's a good thing and shows the adjustment on the quads is working. Those junior men skated clean and had good skates. From what I've heard, Nathan "only" attempted 4 quads and fell on 3/4 of them. I haven't watched the skate so I can't say much else about it. But no way should a program with three falls outscore clean programs no matter the difference in quads attempted.

If Nathan fell on three jumps, that is a 4 point deduction on his total mark. The cumulative fall deduction (that many here on FSU advocated for) has a huge effect on scores.