Wednesday, December 1

My Own Ideas for the Judging System


Oh, what do we have here? I played around with some numbers and came up with my own concept for the judging system.. well, at least the jumps.

Some concepts I have come up with are to remove the +3 and -3 from the options when marking the elements, and rather just have everything scored -2 up to +2. The column to the far right is the fall, or completely failed column, which essentially takes the place of the -3. However, I would remove the 1.00 deduction for falls on jumps (but keep the deduction for other falls in the program), and just use these set values for whenever a skater falls on a jump. Harsh? Yes. But a failed jump is exactly that.

The single Axel and doubles through the Lutz earn 33% of what the double Axel/triples through the Lutz are worth (I rounded on a few, but it didn't change the numbers that much), and the double Axel/triples through the Lutz are worth 40% of what the triple Axel/quads are worth. Most of this lines up with the current ISU base values for the jumps, anyways. I underlined the ones that have slightly changed in base value.

What would these changes mean? For starters, you'll notice that a 'excellent' double Axel, triple toe, and triple Salchow earn the same amount of points as a 'very poor' triple Axel, quad toe, and quad Salchow. This still would encourage some skaters to go for the difficult elements, yes? However, a fall on any of the most difficult jumps, and the skater would end up with less points for the element than the base value of the same jump with one less rotation (example: fall on quad toe earns 3.42 points, a base value triple toe is 4.10 points).

I haven't figured out if I want to also add an under-rotated column into this chart.. I have to play around with the numbers some more and see how everything turns out in a mock-competition.

One more aspect to think about is that many of these numbers are really random (6.63, 5.83, etc.). If a judge is going to try to cheat or figure out which components scores they must give Skater B to beat Skater A, their job might end up that much more difficult in trying to add up all of the numbers in their head. Not saying it happens all the time, but I'm also suggesting that it might happen every once in a while ;-)

In the case of jump combinations (example 3F+3T), a +1 for the element would result in the skater earning the +1 GOE for both jumps (5.83+4.51). That gives the skater more credit for the combination than just applying one single GOE to add to both jumps.

More later..

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

"If a judge is going to try to cheat or figure out which components scores they must give Skater B to beat Skater A, their job might end up that much more difficult in trying to add up all of the numbers in their head."

Hahaha, I can't wait to see someone getting 9s and 10s to make up the difference "for sure." ;-)

I like the general theory of your system (the corresponding fall values of jumps, and comparisons of a well done easier jump layout as opposed to a *barely there* more difficult one), but now I'm doing math in my head. Oh no.

Tony said...

I'm doing the math from Skate Canada right now. Don't you worry!

Anonymous said...

I'm the same Anonymous who commented on your last post that the GOE should be calculated as percentages on the jumps base values. I love that you have made this chart and am very curious to see what you come up with when you plug in the numbers from an actual competition. I'm looking forward to seeing the (simulated) results from Skate Canada. Thank you so much for all your interesting posts and analysis Tony!

Anonymous said...

I love this! Can't wait to see the numbers from Skate Canada. :) Obviously I haven't seen it in practice, but just looking at it... it makes a whole lot more sense to me than the current judging system does.

Anonymous said...

good idea!!

Anonymous said...

The problem is the GOE goes from -3 to +3 when it really should go from 0-9. 9 being excellent not perfect. Assuming all skaters start out with a 9 and take off for bad execution, it gicesd the judges a bigger range for deductions. Skaters should not be rewarded for doing something right they should be deducted for doing it wrong.

Tony said...

Do you really want to go from seven different possible levels for jumps (-3 to +3) to TEN, though? Maybe instead of having the -2 to +2 that I suggested, there could be five levels of the jump: excellent, good, average, poor, very poor, and then still the failed attempt column to cover falls. Ten just seems like too many options for the judges, and I have a feeling we'd see stuff like 8 6 5 8 4 as the scores.

In a system like this, though, "perfect" technical elements scores could be achieved, at least for whatever content the skater is trying. That might give them a fun little bonus incentive.

Corina said...

I did not really get the idea of a failed jump which is under-rotated.
I mean e.g. 4T fallen before rotation is completed counts as failed 3T which is in your table and gets less points then a well done 1A. Are you serious?

One might say a failed element should not be rewarded at all and in this way it is even fair to give 0. But then again the element is taken as performed and you can't repeat it.

Anonymous said...

This is very interesting......perhaps you could do this for spins and other elements.