This is an updated version of "Sochi Ladies Figure Skating: a statistical analysis of the results" by Dr Tiziano Virgili.
You can download the original file (pdf format) in here.
Chapter I Why Statistics?
1.1 Statistical Errors
1.2 Systematic Errors
1.3 Statistic and Figure Skating
Chapter II Analysis of Sochi’s Results
2.1 Technical Score
2.2 Program Components
Chapter III An Exercise: Correcting the Scores
3.1 Global Bias
3.2. Single Skater Bias
Chapter IV The “Jury Resolution Power”
4.1 The Resolution Power
4.2 Intrinsic fluctuations
Since the end of the Sochi’s Olympic Games, a strong debate about the Ladies Figure Skating result has been developed. The main point was the huge score of the winner (Russian Sotnikova), very close to the present world record. Many commentators claimed this result a scandal, including outstanding skaters like Katarina Witt and Kurt Browning, whereas others defended at least the technical score. What was surprising to me was the fact that Italian TV commentators had rightly guessed almost all the scores, with three important exceptions: the two Russians and the Korean skaters. Was this just a coincidence? To increase the discussion, according to media reports, the “curriculum” of a couple of judges was not really appropriate to their important task. Also, the composition of the jury was a bit anomalous, since it contained a couple of Russian judges an no Koreans.
Most of the discussions on the web are focused on the “Technical Score” of the Free Program, with different arguments. Sotnikova’s supporters give the attention to the number and the difficulty of the elements, whereas Kim’s supporters point on the “quality” of the performance. All this discussions however are misleading, as the “Technical Score” of the Free Program constitutes about one third only of the total score.
Looking at the discussions on the web, it is also clear that an increasing number of people is considering Figure Skating a “subjective sport”, namely a sport where the final result is not determined by precise measurements. According to such people, it depends essentially on “personal taste”, or more precisely on the taste of the judges. This could be true more in general in any competition where a jury is involved. Do such competitions have any “objective” meaning? The question is not trivial, and involves a huge number of sportive events (such as Figure Skating, Gymnastic, Diving, Synchronized Swimming, Snowboard, Boxing, Judo,…), artistic competitions (piano, dance, singing contests,…) and also important events like public selections (access to university, public employment, etc.). So, it is very important to provide a “scientific” answer to this question also.
Obviously, I’m not qualified to comment the results of Sochi’s Olympics Games from a technical point of view. As a physicist however, I’m used to perform data analysis, so I have tried to look “blindly” at the numerical scores, as if they were “experimental data”. The basis of any scientific approach to experimental data is the statistical analysis, so I have performed very simple checks, based on standard statistical analysis methods. This methods allows in general to quantify the amount of “objectivity” of a Jury, and (more important) to discover the presence of bias in the results, so they should indeed be used in every competition with a Jury.
In the first chapter of this book I’ll present few simple concepts of statistic (formulas are not necessary!), such as the Mean and the RMS of a distribution. In the second chapter, after a short summary of the basic rules of Figure Skating scores, I will analyze the “Technical Elements” and the “Program Components” of Sochi’s Olympic Games. In chapter three I’ll show how the scores can be corrected for bias, with methods based on the previous statistical analysis. Finally, in the fourth chapter the question of “objectivity” of Figure Skating is discussed. Some technical remarks are reported in the appendixes, as well as a list of links to some discussions on the web. I hope that this work will be helpful not only in the Sochi results, but more in general as a guide to perform a scientific check of any competition with scores.
1.1. Statistical Errors
What is an “objective” result? Let’s start with a basic consideration. From a scientific point of view, an objective result is a result which can be reproduced at any time, everywhere and by everyone. A simple example is the gravity force: it can be experienced by everyone, everywhere and in any time. In general no results can be reproduced exactly (with infinite precision). Measurements can be reproduced within some range, so it is very important to determine this range, known as measurement error. Let’s make now an example from one of the most “objective” sports: Track and Field’s 100 meters.
It is largely assumed that the 100 meter race is among the most “objective” sport, as the times of the runners can be measured with large precision. Let’s now suppose that the runners will go one after another, and that the times will be measured by a manual stopwatch. So, the running time of each athlete will be measured by a human operator, and because of the human sensitivity it will have a non-negligible error. The measured time will be larger or smaller than the “true value”, in random way. This kind of fluctuation is known as statistical error (as we will see later, this is not the only source of error in the measurement). We can improve this measurement by adding several manual stopwatches. In this case, due to the “human indetermination”, any operator will give a slightly different result.
1.1.1. Mean and distributions
It is possible to have a better estimation of the “true value” by taking the average (Mean) of the different values. This is defined by the sum of all the values divided by the number of values itself.
In general, the larger the number of measurements (stopwatches), the lower the error that we have on the average. In other words, the statistical error can always be reduced by increasing the number N of measurements(*). So, in principle, you can reach the precision that you need just by increasing the number of operators.
In our example, as the “human” time resolution is of the order of 0.2 sec, a group of about 100 stopwatches will provide a global resolution of about 0.02 s (the measured time will correspond to the average of the 100 single independent measurement). Not very practical, but still effective!
It is possible to “visualize” all the measurements by constructing a plot known as “histogram”. Let’s suppose that we have ten values:
9.8, 10.2, 10.0, 10.0, 10.1, 10.3, 10.0, 9.9, 10.1, 9.9. We can easily evaluate the average as = 10.03. We can now put this numbers on a graphic in the following way. First, we define an horizontal axis with the appropriate scale (i.e. more or less in the range of our 10 numbers):
Next, for each of the values, we put a “box” over the corresponding number (to be more precise, we should define a “bin size”, and put together all the numbers that are in the same range defined by the bin size). So, in the vertical scale we just count the number of “box” which have that value. For instance, we have 3 values “10.0”, so the total box height at 10.0 will be equal to 3.
Here is the final figure: this is a very simple example of distribution.
The total number of “entries” (i.e. the number of box) is of course 10.
This figure tells something more than the simple average: it is possible to “see” how the values are arranged around the average. In other words, the “shape” of the distribution contains also important information. It is possible to demonstrate that if the measurements contain random errors only, the shape of the distribution will be similar the previous figure: with a maximum in (about) the middle, and two side tails. The exact shape is called “Normal distribution” (or “Gaussian”). In this case the mean value coincides with the maximum. The “width” of the distribution is also a very important. It can be quantified by another number, the “standard deviation”.
1.1.2. Standard Deviation - RMS
The Standard Deviation (σ) provides information on the width of the distribution, i.e. how far the numbers are from the average. It can be evaluated(†) by the “Root Mean Square Deviation” (in the following RMS). An example is shown in the following figure: the “RMS” is indicated by the horizontal bar. Approximately the RMS is the width of the distribution at half height. In summary, if we repeat a number of measurements affected by random errors (as the manual stopwatches) we got a distribution that looks like a “bell”. It should be clear now that a larger RMS means a wider distribution, i.e. larger fluctuations in the measurements.
This parameter is also related to the error on the average M: a small RMS correspond to a small error on ΔM (‡). Coming back to our numerical example, we have for this distribution: RMS = 0.14, and therefore the error on the average is ΔM = 0.045. As we have seen, this error can be further reduced by increasing the number N of measurements.
1.2. Systematic Errors
In addition to the “statistical errors” there is another type of error, known as “systematic error”. A global systematic error is a common bias to all the measurements. As an example, let’s suppose to measure the weight of different objects with a balance. Can we really be sure that the observed values correspond to the “true” weights? That it is hard to say, unless an independent measurement (another “good” balance) is available. Another example can be the measure of a temperature with a thermometer. If the balance or the thermometer are not well calibrated, all the measurements will be shifted of the same amount, and we will observe a global bias.
Generally speaking, systematic errors are rather difficult to treat. As far as you don’t have an “external reference”, it is not possible to apply the “right” correction to all the measurement. If we consider the differences however, we can be more confident that a possible “bias” (an overall shift in the temperatures or in the weights) can be highly reduced or eliminated.
A different type of systematic error is a bias applied to a single measurement. For instance, this can happen if we make a mistake in the measurement procedure. As a consequence, the resulting value will be significantly far from the other results.
It will be seen on the histogram as an isolated point, as in the following figure:
In this example we added to the previous 10 numbers the new value 10.5. This will produce a change of the average, from M=10.03 to M=10.07, and also an increase of the RMS from 0.14 to 0.19.
A simple way to handle this “wrong values” is to consider the trimmed average. This is an average obtained by eliminating the largest and the smallest measurements. Back to the previous example, we should remove the two entries as in the following figure:
In this case the new average will be M=10.06 and the RMS=0.13.
As you can see, the standard deviation σ (the RMS) is decreased a lot, not so much the average. In fact, this is a very rough method to eliminate bias. More sophisticated methods are able to eliminate in more effective way the “wrong values”. It is important to remark here that a single “wrong point” is already effective in producing a bias on the average. Of course, the situation gets worst if the number of “wrong points” is larger than one.
In general, the RMS itself is a good parameter to identify “wrong” data. Almost all the values are indeed contained between “3 RMS”, i.e. the distance of all the values from the Mean is usually shorter than three times the RMS. In the previous example, the average is 10.06, and 3 RMS=0.39.
So, almost all the values should be in the range 10.06±0.39 . It is easy to see that this condition accept the “good value” 9.8, and discharge the “bad value” 10.5 (see figure 1.6).
1.3. Statistic and Figure Skating
Let’s now go back to the example on 100 m run with manual stopwatches. It is clear now that in order to have an objective classification of the runners the indetermination on the time measurements must be smaller than the time differences between the athletes. For instance, if such differences are of the order of 0.02 s, we need an error on the average of the order of (at most) 0.01 s. This would require about 400 manual stopwatches!
We can now substitute the runners with the skaters, and the manual stopwatches with the judges of the jury. We have an “objective result” if the errors on the scores are small compared to the score differences between the skaters.
In other words, it is possible to consider a Jury equivalent to a group of manual stopwatches. There is of course the possibility that some judges - stopwatches are biased: their measurement are very different from the other. The simple trimmed average is the corrections applied to the Figure Skating scores (and in many other sports also). However, as we have seen, this method is ineffective in removing all the biased scores. Biased scores should be removed according to the score distribution, as I have shown in the previous example.
In the next chapter I will apply the previous considerations to the Sochi Ladies scores, with the aim to find possible bias in the results.
* In most of the cases the formula: can be used, where ΔM is the error on the mean, N is the number of measurements and R is the error on the single measure.
† The σ can be evaluated by the following formula: , where N is the number of measurements, are the single measurement and is their average.
‡ They are related by the following formula: , where again N is the number of measurements, σ is the RMS.
Analysis of Sochi's Results
In Figure Skating the athletes are called to show their ability in two performances of different length: the “Short Program” (SP, lasting 2 minutes and 30 seconds) and the “Free Program” (FP, 4 minutes for senior ladies). There are 7 technical elements (jumps, spins, step sequences,…) in the SP, and 12 in the FP. In both cases the Jury assign a technical score (Technical Elements, TE) and an artistic score (Program Components, PC). They are “calibrated” in such a way that both scores will have approximately the same weight in the total score.
Moreover, the FP score is about twice the SP. In summary, the total score can be roughly divided in the following way: 1/6 SP (TE), 1/6 SP (PC), 1/3 FP (TE), 1/3 FP (PC).
Most of the discussions on the Sochi Ladies Figure Skating were focused on the TE of the Free Program, which in fact constitutes about 1/3 only of the total score! In the following I’ll present an analysis of the scores performed with simple, standard statistical methods.
2.1. Technical Score
Let’s shortly recall how the scores are determined, starting from the technical score . Each skater has to present a fixed number of “elements” (jumps, spins,…). A “technical panel” evaluates the rightness of the elements (i.e. checks for errors like under-rotation, wrong edge,…), and fix the “start value” for each of them, according to well defined rules. At the end, each skater gets a “base value” for each element. Additional points come from the “GOE” (Grade Of Execution). They are evaluated in this way: a team of 9 judges gives a score to each element, from .3 to +3, according to the “cleanness”, the “beauty”, etc. of the execution. Then a trimmed mean is applied (discharging the highest and lowest value). The result is further converted into a value by using the “SOV” (Scale Of Value) and then added to the base score.
As an example, in figure 2.1 is reported the judge panel for the Japanese skater Mao Asada : as expected, there are some fluctuations from one judge to another in the evaluation of the elements.
In the following table the Base Values (BV) are reported for the first 12 Skaters, for both Short and Free Programs. The “Base Value” ranks and the total TE Scores are also reported.
It can be seen that the final ranking of the competition is very different from the ranking that we got from the Base Values.This is not a big surprise, as the Base Values correspond just to a starting point, which doesn’t include the “quality” of the execution. For example, according to Base Values the first skater should be Grace Gold, however she was only fourth in the final ranking. Instead, what looks more surprising is the almost perfect correspondence between the total Technical Element Score and the final ranking. Let me recall that the TES amounts to about one half of the total. However, from the previous table it looks as the “Artistic Score” is completely irrelevant. The “Artistic Score” (Program Components) will be discussed in par. 2.2. The previous table shows the relevance of the “GOE”, as they are responsible from the differences between the Base Values and the final TES. Most of the score however comes from the “Base Values”, so a bias in the BV can be very dangerous for the final result.
REMARK: In the following, the official base values will be considered, so the analysis will be performed on the GOE only.
According to several commentators, some elements performed by Sotnikova were over.evaluated by the Technical Panel, and some elements performed by Kim were under.evaluated. I will not enter in this discussion, I just assume that the Technical Panel did a good job. In Appendix 1 several links to analysis by technicians and experts are reported, as they were found on the web. I want to remark here again that most of discussions were focused on the Technical Panel choice.
2.1.1 The Free Program
Let’s now come back to the analysis of the GOE, starting with the Free Program. In order to check for the possibility of a bias (i.e. a systematic over/under.evaluation), it is possible to sum the scores (GOE) for each judges.
For example, here are reported the sums of the GOE for the Free Program of the skater Grace Gold (USA, 4th place) : 16, 20, 14, 15, 15, 13, 17, 14, 14. There are of course 9 numbers, one for each Judge. We can now put this 9 numbers in an histogram, as in figure 2.2. In the same figure are also reported the Mean (15.33) and the RMS (2.0).
Let’s have a look now to the same distributions for the first six skater (we are again considering the Free Program. The results are reported in figure 2.3, in the next page. As usual, the RMS indicate the uniformity of the scores, i.e. the uniformity of the judges evaluation: a larger RMS corresponds to a less uniform jury. It can be seen that all the RMS are more or less comparable, with a clear exception: Sotnikova and (maybe) Lipnitskaya. The two RMS indicated by circles are indeed the largest over the full sample of 24 skaters. Can this be just a statistical fluctuation?
In order to quantify the observed RMS enhancement, let’s extend the same analysis to the main international competitions(*), and look at the “RMS” of the “GOE” distributions. All the values of the RMS extracted from this distributions can then be put into another histogram.
The distribution of the “RMS” for the first 6 skaters in the main international competitions is reported in figure 2.4. In the same figure the Mean and the RMS of the distribution are also reported. (This is a distribution of “RMS”, so it has its own RMS!).
Remark: the “RMS” of this distribution will be quoted as RMS, to distinguish it from the “RMS” of the single skaters.
Figure 2.4 shows clearly that the distance of the last value (Sotnikova) from the Mean is about 3 RMS. This is indicated in graphic way here:
Numerically we have: Mean + 3RMS = 3.058 + 3 x 0.748 = 5.302, very close to Sotnikova’s value 5.287. From statistical point of view, we can conclude that the probability that this is a “normal” value is very low (†).
It is important to stress that this large value doesn’t depend on the skater’s skill! It depends essentially on the uniformity of the judge’s scores. As a limiting case, if all the judges gave the same score (no matter how large), the RMS will be exactly zero. So, this anomalous value indicates a large disagreement of the judges. Unfortunately this large RMS prevent us from using the method described in the first chapter to eliminate the biased values. However, we can use another method, which will be described in the next section.
2.1.2 A new statistical test
Let’s see the things in another way. Let’s consider for each technical element of a skater the average score (including all the 9 judges), and let갽s count for each judge the number N of times that he gives a score larger than the average. Again, let’s make an example by using Asada’s Technical Panel on Figure 2.1. Firstly, we evaluate the average of the first element (the first raw of GOE): this number is = 0.44. In this case there are 4 judges above the average, and 5 below the average. (This is more or less what one can expect in a normal case). Next, we consider the second element: the average now is = 0. In this case there are 3 judges above the average, 3 judges below the average, and 3 judges on the average. Again, this is what one expect in a normal situation. Let’s repeat the exercise for all the elements. Now let’s consider the first judge, and let’s check how many times he is above or under the average. In our example the first judge is 3 times above the average, 1 time on the average and 8 times under the average. The last judge, on the other hand, is 5 times above the average, 1 time on the average and 6 times under the average. So we have N = 3 for the first judge, and N = 5 for the last judge. If we conclude the exercise for all the judges, we have 9 numbers, and we can put them in a histogram. This is the distributions for this single skater. However, we can also put in the same histogram all the numbers N from all the other skaters. In this way we can build a big histogram with 9 x 24 = 216 entries.
In the Free Programs there are 12 elements, so the numbers N are limited from 0 to 12. As we have seen, in case of unbiased scores each judge will give a score sometime larger than the average, sometime lower and sometime (less probable) on the average. So we expect that usually the distribution of N will have a peak more or less in the middle of the range 0 ― 12. (Actually it should be slightly lower than 6, due to the condition “larger than the average”, and not “larger or equal”). Now, let’s consider ALL the skaters and ALL the judges, and let’s have a look at the distribution of N.
The total distribution has the Mean at (about) 5.2, and a RMS of 2.4. A drastic drop of the entries is shown for N>6 and N<3. However, a not negligible number of entries at large value of N is also present. Is this number compatible with statistical fluctuations? Let me remark again that a “large” N indicate that some Judges have given scores above the average most of the times. Can we say something more precise about it? In fact, it is theoretically possible to determine this distribution from statistics and probability laws. In other words, it is possible to evaluate a priori the probability that a judge will give scores above the average a specific number N of times. However, it is not necessary to be expert of probability laws to understand that if a judge is always above the average, he is by definition biased!
Let’s now select the entries corresponding to the contested first skater (Adelina Sotnikova). The distribution is reported in red, on figure 2.7. As it can be seen, a couple of judges were 8 times over 12 above the average, and a couple of judges 11 times over 12 above the average! This is clearly out from any statistical fluctuation, this is a bias by definition. We are not claiming here that Sotnikova was the only skater to receive bias., but she had clearly the largest bias.
Note that the remaining judges are (by construction) shifted towards left, at low values of N. In principle it is also possible to interpret this result in the opposite way: a group of judges are under-evaluating the skater, and so the remaining judges are “pushed” by construction towards right, at large values of N.
For comparison, we report in figure 2.8 (in green) the distribution of N for the second skater (Yuna Kim). In this case the RMS is also much lower (2.6 against 4), and close to the RMS of the total distribution (2.4). Further details on this method can be found in Appendix 2.
2.1.3 The Short Program
We can now repeat the previous exercise for the Short Program, starting from the distributions of the GOE for the first 6 skaters:
In this case the distributions look more homogeneous, as well as the RMS. The average values are smaller compared to the FP, as now there are 7 elements only (instead of 12). The same for the RMS(‡).
In figure 2.10 is reported the distribution of N (same definition of par.2.1.2). In this case the number of elements is 7, so the numbers N are in the range 0 ― 7.
In this case however, the smaller number of elements makes more difficult to point out systematic bias in the scores. There are 3 judges who are 7 times over 7 above the average, however they are not associated to the same skaters. From here we can conclude that a small amount of bias is also present in the SP, however it is not possible to clarify better the situation.
2.2. Program Components
The “Program Components” (PC) refer to the “artistic impression” of the performance, and are evaluated by considering several aspects, including choreography, interpretation and so on. Each judge gives a score from 0 to 10 to each element (10 corresponds to a sort of “perfection”), then the usual trimmed average is performed and the results are summed for all the elements (5 in total). The final score is obtained by applying a further scale factor, 0.8 for the Short Program and 1.6 for the Free Program. This scale factors are needed in order to “balance” the technical and artistic scores.
At first it might seem that this score is the most subjective. In fact, the evaluation of the elements is not more subjective than the “GOE”, discussed before. I will come back on this matter on the next chapter. Here, I want to point out an important difference. Whereas the technical performances can vary a lot from one event to another (due to casual errors, faults,…), the “components” are in principle much more stable.
For example, an outstanding pianist can do a mistake by chance, but with no doubt the interpretation will remain outstanding. Moreover, some elements (like the choreography) don’t depends strongly on the mistakes that can be done by the skater.
Let’s proceed in the same way as for the Technical Elements, by summing the scores for each judge. Starting with the Free Program, with reference to the Panel on page 16 (Asada FP scores), and looking at the PC, we get the following numbers (no factor applied):
42.75, 44.25, 43.0, 44.25, 47.0, 41.0, 41.25, 44.25, 44.75.
The average is = 43.6, and the RMS = 1.75. To get the final result a further scale factor of 1.6 should be applied, producing = 69.8, and RMS = 2.8. Again, this 9 numbers can be inserted into an histogram, and this exercise can be repeated for all the skaters.
In figure 2.11 are presented the distributions for the first 6 skaters (FP). Here the situation looks still more strange than the TE scores. The RMS look more compatible, however there are large differences from the judges, and (perhaps) “anomalous peaks”, indicated by the red arrows. The shape of those distributions indeed looks really strange. However the number of entries (9) is too low to perform a more quantitative analysis. Also, the procedure described in 2.1.2 will not help because of the low number of elements (5). So, we have to found another strategy for the analysis.
In order to have a better understanding, we can use this important aspect of Components: they have to be almost “stable” from event to event (as I said, a good pianist can make a technical error by chance, but still he will be recognized as a good pianist).
So, let’s try to compare for each skater the Olympic Program Components scores with an average over the most recent international events. For this purpose I considered all the events within 1 year, including 2013 World Championship, Grand Prix, etc.(§). For example, I evaluate for Asada a PC average of 33.66 (Short Program). The PC in Sochi was 33.88, so the difference is 0.22. This differences (one for each skater) can be used to make an histogram: this is what is shown in figure 2.12, for the Short Program.
The Mean of this distribution is 1.6, indicating that there is an average shift of +1.6 points between Sochi and the average on the other competitions, i.e. each skater got 1.6 points more than “usual”.
The same plot is reported again in figure 2.13, with the RMS of the distribution (1.65) shown as a red horizontal bar. As usual, this number gives an indication of the global width of the distributions. In the same figure are also reported the values of some skaters (they are indicated by the red arrows). The differences are usually small (1.6 points on the average). Few skaters however show a huge difference. For Sotnikova this difference is 5.8, very far from the Mean. In unit of RMS, this value is more than 2 RMS away from the Mean.
In other words, this value is not compatible with the distribution, and it cannot be considered a statistical fluctuation.
The situation is similar in the Free Program (the distribution is reported in figure 2.14). In this case the Mean is about 4 units, i.e. each skater gets on the average 4 points more than the previous competition. This corresponds to a “global bias”, as described in Chapter 1. I will come back on this global bias in the next Chapter.
If we compare the distances from the Mean by using the RMS unit, Sotnikova’s value (again the largest) is situated now at about 3 RMS from the Mean.
In summary, the analysis of Components shows an average shift of 1.6 unit (SP) and 4 unit (FP). Most of the skaters show a difference within 1 RMS (i.e. the distance from the Mean is lower than 1 RMS). So, for most of the skaters, the difference from the Olympic Score and the average over other competitions is compatible with “normal” statistical fluctuations plus an overall shift. This shift clearly depends on the particular set of judges, and can be considered “normal”.
Few skaters however show huge differences, in particular Sotnikova with differences larger than 2 RMS, in both Short and Free programs. From statistical point of view the probability that this is just a fluctuation is almost zero. So, unless one believe in “miracles” (¶), we have to conclude that there were strong bias in the components scores also.
* I have considered here the following competitions: WC 2013, WC 2014, Sochi Olympics and 5 ISU Grand Prix. The RMS used are in all cases by the first 6 skaters.
† For Normal distribution the probability is of the order of one per thousand.
‡ Within some range, there is a correlation between the RMS and the Mean.
§ This operation was not possible for some skaters due to their lack of international competitions. In the next plots their entries will not be shown.
¶ This can be equivalent to the case of a “normal” pianist that become suddenly a “genius”.
Universita di Salerno
An Exercise: Correcting the Scores
The statistical analysis has shown that the scores contain several bias, in both Technical and Components elements. Is it possible to “correct” the scores? In general it is not easy to rectify a result with systematic bias. The correction will depend on some assumptions that one has to do on the systematic effect itself, so there is no a unique, simple way to proceed.
In the following I’ll present an attempt to make such corrections, based on some “reasonable” assumptions. Let me stress here that this should be considered just an exercise, without any claim of “truth”.
3.1. Global Bias
The effect of global bias was discussed in Chapter 1. It consists of a global, fixed shift of all the values. It is clear that this shift doesn’t affect the final ranking of a competition, so it is not necessary apply some correction, unless one wants to compare different competitions. This is the case when people are looking for “World Records”, the largest scores ever realized. It should be clear that world records don’t have any absolute value, as they depend on the particular Jury. In general scores from different competitions cannot be compared in simple way. Instead, what can be compared are differences, as explained in Chapter 1. In order to make some examples, I selected four different International Competions:
the Olympic World Games 2010 (OWG2010), the Olympic World Games 2014 (OWG2014), the World Championship 2013 (WC2013) and the World Champi-onship 2014 (WC2014).
Let’s start by comparing the total scores for OWG2014 and WC2014.
The distributions of the total scores are reported in figure 3.1.
Both Means and RMS looks comparable.
In the following figure are reported the same distributions for WC2013 and OWG2010:
Again, the two distributions look compatible. However, if we compare now with the previous distributions, we find a difference of about 5 points in the Mean. In other words, if you want to compare the results from this two competitions, you need a global shift of 5 points on the total.
So, what about the World Records? We have to correct first for this global bias. The simplest way to do that is to subtract the mean from each score (*), as for the tare weight in a balance. To be more specific, let’s compare the following competitions again:
OWG 2010 ― WC 2013 ― OWG 2014 ― WC 2014.
In the following table are reported the averages (Mean) for total, short and free programs. Averages are evaluated by excluding the first skater (†).
By using the previous table it is possible to evaluate again the scores of the top skaters in this specific four competitions. The results are presented in table 3.2.
It is clear that after correction, all the World Records were performed in the first competition, namely the 2010 Olympics World Games.
Another type of “World Records” which sometime are considered are the largest score differences, usually between the first and the second skaters. This differences are “safe” from the global bias, however they depends on the particular combination of skaters. In any case it is interesting to note that the largest differences ever observed are the following:
23.06 for Olympics World Games,
20.42 for World Championships,
36.04 for International Competitions (Grand Prix).
In all the cases the first skater was Kim Yuna from Korea.
3.2. Single Skater Bias
The more insidious bias come from “single skater bias”, i.e. a bias which is applied to a single skater. This doesn’t mean necessarily “cheating”. It is very likely that a Judge will favor a skater of his own nation, and this explain why the Jury is typically composed by Judges from the main nations involved in the competition. On the average, all the “bias” introduced by the Judges tend to cancel each other. In some case however the bias may favor one (or more) specific skater. More details on the amount of bias that can be produced by one or more judges are reported in Appendix 3.
Let’s now consider separately the Technical Elements and the Program Components.
3.2.1. Technical Score
I have shown in the first Chapter that the “trimmed average” (discharging of the largest and lowest values) in general doesn’t work. It is the easiest way to make a correction, and this is the reason why it is used in almost every sport where a jury is involved. However, it is not very effective in eliminating the “wrong” values, which is the correct thing to do. Another criterion is therefore needed to correct the score.
In paragraph 2.1.2 I have shown a way to give a quantitative (probabilistic) indication of the “fairness” of a judge. A more effective correction consists in eliminating from the Mean all the “biased judges”, according to this indication. My assumption then is to exclude all the scores from judges which have a very large “N” (see figure 2.6). For this exercise (Free Program) the threshold was set at the arbitrary values of 7, 8 and 9 in three different trials (i.e. were excluded all the judges with N larger than 7, 8 or 9).
As the final result is not strongly sensitive to this threshold, the value of 8 is finally used. The new averages are then scaled according to the SOV, and summed for each skater. The whole exercise was finally repeated for the Short Program, now with a threshold of 6.
Note that by construction the new TE scores will be in general smaller than the official ones.
3.2.2. Components Score
As already observed, in this case the procedure described in 2.1.2 will not help because of the low number of elements (5).
A correction of the components score however can be performed on the basis of figures 2.12 and 2.12. A “safe” choice could be to take a weighted.average of all the results, i.e. the results of all the recent International Competitions. This corresponds basically to consider a much larger number of judges. Clearly, the actual event (the Olympic Event) should have the largest weight, since we want to determine a score for this specific competition. So, a “fair” choice could be to give a 50% weight to the Olympic result, and 50% to the average of the other events. However, in order to be as much conservative as possible, I set this weight to be 2/3 (0.66) for the Olympic scores and 1/3 (0.33) for the others. Let me stress that for most of the skaters the exact value of this weights doesn갽t change strongly the resulting score.
For example, the PC scores for skater Asada (Short Program) are the following:
= 33.88 (OWG2014), = 33.66 (average over other competitions)
So, if we take the weight factors as 50% and 50%, we obtain the corrected value
If the weight are set to 2/3 and 1/3, the corrected value will be:
For this skater, the difference between the numbers is really small, just few cents. However, for some skaters the difference is not negligible.
To evaluate the new PC scores we have to repeat this exercise for both SP and FP, and for all the skaters. Note that as for the TE, the new scores are expected to be on the average smaller than the official ones (because of the global shift).
3.2.3. Total Score
Finally, to get the new Total Scores we have still to sum all the partial scores, which are the TE and the PC for both SP and FP. Note that for some skaters some deductions have also to be applied (due to one or more faults).
The final results for the first 12 skaters in Sochi’s ranking are presented in the table 3.3.
It can be seen that most of the scores are almost unchanged (all are slightly reduced, as expected), as well as the final classification, with two important exceptions: the first ― second and the 5 ― 6 skaters. This results is clearly consequence of what previously discussed.
Finally, we need an estimation of the “errors” associated to this new scores, or in other words, an estimation of the range in which they should be found. The largest uncertainty in the final result comes from the relative weight of the Components Scores. As discussed before, a conservative value of 2/3 has been used. In order to get an approximate indication of the associated uncertainty, it is possible to change this weight in a “reasonable” range. I used as limits the values 0.5 and 0.7. The results are presented in table 3.4, where are reported the “official total scores”, the two “limits” (the values corresponding to the two weights above), and the average of the two (the reported “errors” correspond to the half.difference between the two limits, they are not statistical errors!).
The same result is shown here in graphic form. The vertical bars (“error bars”) indicate the indetermination from the minimum to the maximum value, as indicated in the previous table.
As expected, the error bars are larger for the points with larger distances from the official scores. Also, it is interesting to note that Kostner’s position goes up to the second place when we consider the average (see table 3.4).
As remarked before, the error bars presented in the table don’t have a true statistical meaning, they can be considered as a rough estimation of the range where the unbiased scores should be found. Note that the values reported on table 3.3 correspond to the “very conservative” conditions (weights = 2/3 and 1/3).
* In principle the Mean should be evaluated by excluding the specific score that we are considering, i.e. the largest one.
† This gives a difference on the Mean of the order of 1 ― 2 points.
The “Jury Resolution Power”
4.1. The Resolution Power
Let me now coming back to the general problem of the “objectivity” in Figure Skating (and more in general, in competitions with jury).
Figure Skating experts usually “trust” the judges evaluation, whereas other people are more skeptical about their objectivity. Can we approach the problem from a scientific point of view? Let’s consider a piano contest. Let’s suppose that the first performer gets scores between eight and nine. Then, a second performer gets scores from six to seven. It is reasonable to say that the first performer is much better than the second one. What however if the second performer gets scores from 7.5 to 8.5? Can we still say for sure that the first performer is better? What matter here is the “resolution power” of the jury, which is the minimal score difference that they are able to separate. Just like any other instrument, there is an “intrinsic resolution”, which gives the limit of your measurement. In other words, you cannot be able to distinguish amounts below this limit. The resolution power of the jury can be different from sport to sport, and from competition to competition. In the following I will try to evaluate the average resolution in case of Figure Skating (ladies events).
In order to evaluate this “resolution capability” of the Jury, let’s consider the distribution of the scores which come out from the Judges. Each Judge is equivalent to a stopwatch operator, so we take the Mean as the best measurement, and the RMS as an estimate of the distribution width. As an example, in figure 4.1 are reported the distributions of the scores for Carolina Kostner at the last Olympic Games, for both Technical Elements and Components (sum of SP and FP). As usual, each Judge provides an “entry” in the distributions.
(Note that respect to the plots on page 19 and 24 the Technical Elements include the base values, moreover they are summed on Short and Free Programs).
The average (Mean) and the RMS are reported on the same figures.
As expected, the RMS for the Components (the “artistic” score) is larger than the Technical score (3.6 compared to 1.6). In this case the error on the total score (sum of Technical + Components) is dominated by the error on the Components (*). However, if we select another skater the distributions will look different, with a different Mean and RMS. We can consider as more representative, the average of the RMS over the full sample of skaters. The distributions of the RMS for all the skaters (2014 Olympic Games, Ladies Single) are reported in the figure below, for Technical Elements (left) and Components (right). A “Gaussian fit” (red line) is also performed.
Again, the RMS for the Components are larger than those for Technical Elements (2.6 compared to 1.2) (†).
The sum of Technical Elements and Components produces the Total Score. The RMS on the Total Score can be obtained in the same way, so we get the final result:
This corresponds to an error on the Mean of about (‡).
In other words, in Figure Skating the resolution of the Jury is about 1.3 points. The standard “minimal” resolution is just this value, i.e. the Jury is not able to “resolve” skaters within 1.3 points. Therefore skaters with a difference in the total score lower than 1.3 should be considered equivalent. Note that a more safe resolution can be fixed at 2 times(2.6).
Note also that in principle the resolution depends on the score itself. For simplicity I’m considering here the average only.
We can now ask if this resolution is enough to have ranking that make sense. Let’s have a look at the distribution of the score differences between the nearest skaters in the final ranking (i.e. the differences first ― second; second ― third: third ― forth and so on). I have considered here the following international competitions:
WC2014 ― OWG2014 ― WC2013 ― WC2012 ― OWG2010.
The result is illustrated in figure 4.3. The distribution can be described approximately by a decreasing exponential function. This means that most of the differences are concentrated on the left side of the figure. As explained before, the Jury is not “able” to distinguish between scores lower than the minimal resolution value of 1.3. The values of 1.3 is indicated in the figure as a red line. (The blue line correspond to the value of 2.6, i.e. a “2-sigma” resolution).
The fraction of values larger than this two limits are 69% and 52% of the total respectively. So, in about 70% of the cases the final classification can be considered “objective”, whereas in about 30% of the cases this just comes out from “statistical fluctuations”. The situation improves however if we consider the top places in the final classification. If we restrict the score differences to the top four places, the distribution looks more extended to the right. Indeed, larger scores correspond on the average to larger differences, so with this selection we have more entries at larger values in the distribution. If we now consider again the previous limits, the fraction of entries larger than the minimal limit is 90% (80% for the 2.6 limit).
So, in about 90% of the cases the medals standing can be considered as “objective”. This is true in all the cases where the score differences are larger than the previous limit of 1.3 units. Note that all this considerations are true provided no single skater bias are present!
4.2. Intrinsic Fluctuations
In Figure Skating intrinsic fluctuations (i.e. fluctuations from performance to performance) have a strong influence on the final result, as a single mistake can produce a fault. What about fluctuations in other sports? Let’s have again a look at the men’s 100 m run. Fluctuations on the performances of the athletes are less evident, but they are not negligible.
In order to estimate this fluctuations, I have considered the best recent performances of the fastest runners. The “RMS” result correlated to the time av-erages. If we select the smaller times we get an average error of about
In other words, time differences lower than about 0.04 seconds can be considered just fluctuations in the performances (¶). Is this a rare situation in this sport? Let’s have a look again at the distribution of such differences. They are reported in the following figure:
In this figure the distribution of the time differences (in seconds) between nearest runners is shown (first ― second; second ― third; third ― fourth and so on). I have considered here all the main International Races (OWG and WC), from 2004 to 2013. As in the case of Figure Skating, the distribution can be described approximately by a decreasing exponential function (red line). The “1-sigma” and “2-sigma” resolutions are also reported as straight lines (red and blue).
The fractions of cases larger than this two limits are now 66% and 48% respectively. However, if we consider the top four places only, the fractions are about 55% and 39% (◇). In other words, intrinsic fluctuations for top places are relevant in about 45% of the cases!
It is clear that in Track and Field, no “single runner bias” are present, and in this sense the results are much more “objective” than Figure Skating. However, as everybody knows, bias are present in most of the competitions. Moreover, the possibility of cheating is unfortunately present in any sport!
* For independent measurements it is possible to sum the square of the RMS.
† Note that the distribution of RMS for Technical Elements is different from the same distribution on page 19: in that case only GOE of the Free Program were considered, now we have the full score summed on FP+SP.
‡ Assuming for the error the following formula : where N= Number of Judges =9. Actually the procedure is slightly more complicated, as the score is obtained by excluding the smallest and the largest values (trimmed average). This reduces the RMS, but then the effective number of Judges N becomes 7, so the final result is essentially the same.
¶ This is true if the performances of the runners are indeed uncorrelated. As runners go in parallel, they influence each other. A residual correlation therefore can be present. and in this case the above statement is not more completely true.
◇ The first places correspond to shorter times, which correspond to smaller differences. So, the first places are now concentrated in the left side of the distribution.
I have shown that statistic is a powerful tool for the analysis of competitions were there are scores given by a jury.
The statistical analysis of Sochi Ladies Figure Skating results has shown the presence of systematic bias in the scores, in both Technical Elements and Program Components. The largest bias was assigned in both cases to the first skater, and this probably explain the “uproar” which has followed the end of the competition.
The analysis has shown also the following results:
- The “trimmed average”, used in almost all sports with a jury, is a very rough method to correct for bias. A better method should eliminate only the scores which have a distance very far from the Mean. The reference distance is the RMS of the distribution.
- The resolution power of a typical Jury is about 1.3 points. This indicates that score differences smaller than (about) 1.3 points don’t have any “objective” meaning, they are just statistical fluctuations. This happens in about 30% of the cases, considering all the skaters. However medal standing can be considered “objective” in about 90% of the cases (every time the score differences are larger than );
- World Records in Figure Skating don’t have intrinsic meaning due to the “global bias” which are depending on the particular jury. More relevant are score differences. In all cases the actual World’s Record holder in Ladies Figure Skating is Korean Kim Yuna;
- Fluctuations in the performances can be very important in all sports. In men’s 100m race they are relevant on the average in about 33% of cases.
On the basis of this analysis, an exercise to “correct” the official scores has been also performed. The result (Table 3.4) shows clearly that the first place should be assigned to the second skater Kim Yuna. The next scores (second and third places) are more or less equivalent within the errors, with a small advantage of Carolina Kostner over Adelina Sotnikova. In any case, a true unbiased result can only come from a non-biased Jury.
As a final remark, I would like to stress once again that the simple methods shown here can be in principle used by anybody who wants to perform a scientific check of any competition with scores.
In the following a sample of some discussions on the web are presented. The list doesn’t claim to be complete or “fair”, it just reflects what I have mostly found.
Coming back to the statistical test proposed in Par. 2.1.2, the amount of bias can be better quantified by looking the distribution of N, reported again in the next figure. Let me recall again the meaning of N: it is the number of times that a judge has provided a score above the average, for each element.
In the Free Program there are 12 elements, so N should be in the range 0 ― 12. It is clear that if a judge is most of the time above the average, most likely he is biased. It is possible evaluate a priori the probability that this happens, as N is expected to follow a binomial distribution, just as the number of times that you have red / black at the roulette, given the number of trials (12 in this case).
In the previous figure the distribution is compared with the expected theoretical binomial distribution (black dots). In the shadowed area the number of entries is much larger than what can be expected on statistical base (*). This indicate clearly bias in the scores, which is not a surprise, considering that for many skaters there is a judge of their own nationality (†).
I will evaluate here the total amount of bias that can be introduced in the score, as a function of the number N of biased judges.
For this purpose, I have recalculated all the scores by modifying the points given by a number N of individual judges. The change has been performed by adding some extra.points, as explained later. The number N was varied from 1 to 4 (hopefully no more than 4 biased judges should be present in a competition!)
The results of the analysis are presented in the next figures, for both Tech-nical Elements (TE) and Program Components (PCS). The scores are summed on Short and Free programs.
Let me recall once again that in all cases a “trimmed average” is performed (exclusion of the highest and lowest scores). In figure A.2 the differences in scores (TES, sum of SP and FP) are reported as a function of the number N of “biased Judges” (up to 4). The black dots correspond to the case where the Judges give (for each GOE) one point more than the "true" score (moderate bias). The red dots correspond to the case of two points more in each GOE (strong bias). For instance, in case of two biased Judges you get a difference of about 2 points in case of “moderate” bias, and 3 points in case of “strong” bias. The error bars indicate the “range” where the difference can be found (this depends on the details of the scores). Note that a difference of about 1 point is found also in case of N=1. In this case however it doesn’t depend on the amount of bias, because of the trimmed average.
In the figure below (figure A.3) the differences in Program Components (PCS) are considered. The three colors correspond to three different bias, from 0.5 points (moderate bias) to 1.5 points (strong bias). This means that a number N of judges gives for each element 0.5 points more than the “real” score, etc.
Again, a difference of about 1 point can be seen for N=1, independently on the amount of bias (because of the trimmed average). The bias on the total score can be obtained just by summing the TES and PCS differences. Note that as Judges can give negative bias also, the overall score difference between two skaters can be twice this difference.
Note also that the largest part of the TES score comes from the “Base Values” and they are not considered here. So, in principle a further, large bias can be also introduced by the “Technical Panel”.
From the previous figures it is possible to evaluate the amount of bias that can be introduced on the total score by a specific number of “unfair” (biased) Judges. For instance, in case of N=2 and moderate bias (black points for TES and red points for PCS), you get an average bias of about 1.8+1.8=3.6 points. As Judges can also provide negative bias also (by lowering the scores), and due to the symmetry of the situation, the total score differences between two skaters in this example can be of about 7 points!
 The discussed results can be found here:
 The table of SOV used in the exercise can be found here:
 The best runners performances are available here:
See also references therein.
Please, send questions, comments, etc. to:
* According to the general statistical laws, the expected number of entries in the shadowed area should be about 2.5% of the total, (about 5 units). The observed number is 23.
† Indeed the first 13 skaters in the ranking of Sochi had a judge of their own nation, with the exception of Korea.
June 4, 2014
Written by FSU
Edited by SochiScandal.com
The above post lists general rules for Officials in ISU judging system. It may be summarized as follows:
위 포스트는 ISU 저징 시스템에서 심판들을 지정하는 것에 관한 일반적인 룰을 나열하고 있다. 요약하자면 다음과 같다:
1) Referee, Technical Panels (Technical Controller, Technical Specialist, Assistant Technical Specialist), Data Operator, Replay Operator : appointed by ISU (All ISU events including Olympic Qualifying event)
2) Panel of Judges
- Winter Olympic games, ISU Championships : by Judge Draw (only Member)
- ISU Grand Prix series (senior), international competition: invited by organizing member
3) Conflict of interest (Rule 121-2-b-j-ii "Personal, Commercial and Family Relationships" -5)
The term ”family” as used in this Rule shall be understood as including all persons who, due to their relationships, may reasonably appear to be in a conflict of interest position regarding a competing Skater, ineligible person or remunerated Coach.
Panel of Judges for Olympic Winter Games Sochi 2014 Ladies Short Program
Technical Controller - Alexander Lakernik
- The final arbiter for all technical elements (i.e. rotations of jumps, wrong edge for jumps, levels for spins and step sequence)
- Assistant Referee in Salt Lake Olympic Figure Skating (Pair) Scandal
테크니컬 컨트롤러 - 알렉산더 라커닉
- 기술 요소 판정 최종 결정권자 (예: 점프 회전수, 롱엣지, 스핀/스텝 레벨)
- 러시아 빙상연맹 이사회 부회장
- 싱글&페어스케이팅 기술위원회 의장 : 오피셜 임명, 지정, 교육
- 솔트레이크 피겨스케이팅 (페어) 스캔들 당시 어시스턴트 레프리
FS Judge No.2 Yury Balkov
kicked out of the sport — for all of a year — after he was caught red-handed, trying to fix the ice dance event at the Nagano Olympics in 1998 in a tape-recorded conversation with a wily Canadian judge.
프리 스케이팅 저지 2 유리 발코프
나가노 동계 올림픽 당시 아이스댄스에서 결과 조작을 시도한 것에 대해 경고를 받아 1년간 자격 정지를 받았던 심판
FS Judge No.6 Alla Shekhovtseva
- Judges at all events of Sotnikova in this season
- Wife of FSFR General Manager Valentin Piseev
프리스케이팅 저지 6 알라 셰코프체바
- 이번 시즌 소트니코바가 참가한 모든 대회에 심판으로 참가
- 러시아 빙상연맹 단장 발렌틴 피시브의 부인
The ISU Judging System 또는 International Judging System (IJS) 는 2004년 ISU 총회에서 통과되어 2004/2005 시즌 이래 모든 피겨 스케이팅 국제 대회에 적용되어 왔다.(그랑프리 시리즈에는 2003/2004 시즌부터 적용) 자세한 사항은 각 영문 문서를 참고할 것.
싱글 스케이팅에서의 주요한 변화
1. 프리 스케이팅에서 트리플/쿼드러플 점프는 두 종류만, 두 번까지 반복할 수 있다. 만약 세 번째 점프가 컴비네이션이나 시퀀스로 시행되는 경우, 그 컴비네이션이나 시퀀스 전체에 점수를 주지 않는다.
(* 참고 : 2004/2005 시즌에는 반복된 점프의 점수는 제외하고 컴비네이션/시퀀스의 나머지 점프에 대해서는 점수를 주었다.)
2. 레이백 스핀에서 비엘만 포지션은 레이백 자세로 8회전 한 후에만 레벨업 요소로 인정된다.
3. 스핀, 스텝, 스파이럴 기초점 및 GOE 팩터 변화
1) 모든 스핀, 스텝/스파이럴 레벨 1 or 2 : 가산점 0.5배, 감점 0.3배
2) 스텝, 스파이럴 레벨 3 : 가산점 0.5배, 감점 0.7배
3) 스텝, 스파이럴 레벨 4 : 가산점 1배, 감점 0.7배
1. 여자 주니어 쇼트 프로그램에서 트리플+트리플 점프 컴비네이션 허용
2. 프리 스케이팅에서 트리플/쿼드러플 점프가 두 번 다 솔로 점프로 시행된 경우, 두 번째 점프는 "시퀀스"로 판정한다. (기초점 80%)
(* 참고 : 이전 시즌까지는 컴비네이션으로 판정(+COMBO)하고 모든 기초점을 주었다.)
판정과 관계 없는 변화
3. 기초점도 소수점 셋째 자리에서 반올림하여 표시한다.
(* 참고 : 이전 시즌까지는 기초점은 소수점 둘째 자리에서 반올림)
4. 점프의 회전 부족("<")이 프로토콜에 표시된다.
1. 점프 시퀀스 정의 변화 : 시퀀스에서 연결은 비규정 점프 and/or 홉으로 가능하며, 턴/스텝은 불허한다.
- 턴: 쓰리턴, 트위즐, 브래킷, 룹, 카운터, 로커
- 스텝: 러닝 스텝, 토 스텝, 샤세, 모호크, 촉토, 엣지 체인지, 크로스-롤
2. 더블 악셀 기초점 상향 (3.3 → 3.5) & GOE 감점 팩터 변화 (0.7배 → 0.8배)
3. 프리 스케이팅에서 더블 악셀 3회 제한
4. 러츠/플립 점프의 잘못된 도약 에지를 테크니컬 패널이 지적하고 저지는 GOE를 감점한다. (프로토콜에 "e" 표시)
5. 쇼트 프로그램에서 스파이럴 시퀀스 패턴 삭제
6. 스핀 레벨업 규정에 "카멜, 싯, 레이백, 업라이트의 어려운 변형 8회전" 추가
1. 트리플 악셀(7.5 → 8.2)/쿼드러플 점프군 기초점 상향 & 감점 팩터 상향(트리플 악셀 1.4배, 쿼드러플 군 1.6배)
2. 스텝 시퀀스 레벨3/4 기초점 상향
3. 스핀 종류별로 있던 레벨업 요소를 일괄 통일
4. 남자 주니어 쇼트 프로그램에서 트리플 악셀 (솔로 점프) 허용
5. 프리 스케이팅에서 요소 삭제
1) 시니어 남자 싱글 & 여자 싱글 : 스핀 4개 → 3개
2) 주니어 남자 : 스텝 2개 → 1개
3) 주니어 여자 : 스파이럴 시퀀스 삭제
6. 스파이럴 시퀀스에서 한 자세를 6초 이상 유지하는 경우 레벨업 요소로 인정
7. 러츠/플립 점프의 잘못된 도약을 세분화
1) "e" (edge) : 잘못된 엣지를 길게 사용 (long wrong edge) - 반드시 감점
2) "!" (attention) : 잘못된 엣지가 짧거나 불명확 (short or not so obvious) - 감점 여부는 심판 재량에 따름
월드 챔피언십의 심판 숫자를 13명에서 9명으로 축소
1. 스핀의 레벨업 요소
1) 스핀의 레벨업 요소에서 "양쪽 에지 사용"을 "에지 변화"로 용어 변경
2) 스핀 컴비네이션 내에서 레이백 스핀의 백웨이 ↔ 사이드웨이 각 3회전을 레벨업 요소로 인정
3) 발을 바꾸는 스핀인 경우 한 발에서 얻을 수 있는 최대 레벨업 요소는 3개
2. 회전 부족 표시("<")를 심판에게 보여 주지 않음. 슬로우 모션 없이 판단.
2.1. GOE 가이드라인 변화
회전 부족에 대한 GOE 강제 감점 (최종 GOE도 감점이어야 함)
→ 회전 부족으로 판단한 경우 GOE -1 ~ -3 (비강제)
(* 회전이 부족한 점프에 대한 이중 감점 삭제)
3. 러츠/플립 점프의 잘못된 도약에 대한 용어 설명 변경
1) "e" : 잘못된 에지
2) "!" : 불명확한 에지
동계 올림픽의 심판 숫자를 13명에서 9명으로 축소
(피버스케이팅 번역본. 원문 포함)
I. 점프 관련
1. 점프의 회전 부족을 정도에 따라 세분화
1) 회전이 1/4 초과 1/2 미만 부족한 점프 : "언더로테이티드" 점프, "<" 표시, 원래 기초점의 70%
2) 회전이 1/2 이상 부족 : "다운그레이디드" 점프, "<<" 표시, 원래보다 한 회전 아래 점프의 기초점
2. 기초점과 GOE 팩터 전면 변화
1) 더블 악셀 팩터 : 0.5
2) 트리플 점프군 팩터 : 0.7
3) 트리플 악셀과 쿼드러플 점프군 : 1.0 (4A는 1.2)
3. 러츠/플립 점프의 잘못된 도약 다시 "e"로 통일 : 심각한 정도에 따른 GOE는 심판 재량
4. "하프 룹"을 규정 점프로 포함시킴
1) "점프+하프 룹+살코/플립 점프"는 더 이상 시퀀스가 아니라 "컴비네이션"으로 판정 (기초점 100%)
2) 위의 경우 이 때 하프 룹에는 "싱글 룹"의 기초점을 주며, 이 점프 컴비네이션은 "3 점프 컴비네이션"으로 본다.
5. 시니어 여자 쇼트 프로그램에서 트리플 악셀 허용 (더블 악셀 or 트리플 악셀, 솔로 점프)
6. 시니어 남자 쇼트 프로그램에서 두 개의 서로 다른 쿼드러플 점프 허용
7. 프리 스케이팅에서 더블 악셀은 최대 2회까지만 허용
II. 스텝과 스파이럴 관련
1. 스텝 시퀀스 레벨업 요소 추가
1) 원풋 스텝 추가 (패턴의 절반 이상)
2) 어려운 턴 조합을 양방향으로 빠르게 시행 (시퀀스 내에서 적어도 두 번)
2. 시니어 남자 프리 스케이팅에서 2개의 스텝 시퀀스 → 1개의 스텝 시퀀스, 1개의 코레오그래픽 스텝 시퀀스
2.1. 두 번째 스텝 시퀀스는 "코레오그래픽 스텝 시퀀스"로 콜하고 고정된 기초점을 가지며 GOE로만 평가한다.
3. 시니어 여자 쇼트 스케이팅에서는 스파이럴 시퀀스 없음 (트랜지션 취급) / 프리에서는 코레오그래픽 스파이럴 시퀀스
3.1. 프리 스케이팅에서 "코레오그래픽 스파이럴 시퀀스"로 콜하고 고정된 기초점을 가지며 GOE로만 평가한다. 두 개의 서로 다른 스파이럴 자세를 각 3초 이상 혹은 하나의 스파이럴 자세를 6초 이상 시행해야 한다.
III. 스핀 관련
1. 스핀의 어려운 변형을 카테고리로 분류
카멜 스핀 : 배꼽의 방향에 따라
- (CF) 카멜 포워드 : 배꼽이 앞을 향함
- (CS) 카멜 사이드웨이 : 배꼽이 옆을 향함
- (CU) 카멜 업워드 : 배꼽이 위를 향함
싯 자세 : 프리 렉의 위치에 따라
- (SF) 싯 포워드 : 프리 렉이 앞에 있음
- (SS) 싯 사이드웨이 : 프리 렉이 옆으로 있음
- (SB) 싯 비하인드 : 프리 렉이 뒤에 있음
업라이트 자세 : 상체의 방향에 따라
- (UF) 업라이트 포워드 : 상체가 앞으로 숙여짐Upright Forward: with torso leaning forward
- (US) 업라이트 사이드웨이 : 상체가 수직이거나 옆으로 있음
- (UB) 업라이트 비엘만 : 비엘만
- (UL) 업라이트 레이백
중간 자세 (IP, intermediate position)
속도 증가 (IS)
스핀 내에서 점프 (JS)
2. 스핀 레벨업 방식 전면 변화
1) 기본 자세 또는 (콤비네이션 스핀의 경우에만) 중간 자세에서의 난도 높은 변형
2) 기본 자세의 다른 난도 높은 변형은 첫 번째와 확연히 달라야 하며 아래를 충족해야 함
- 발을 바꾸는 단일자세 스핀 : 첫 변형과는 다른 발
- 체인지 풋이 없는 콤비네이션 스핀 : 첫 변형과는 다른 포지션
- 체인지 풋이 있는 콤비네이션 스핀 : 첫 변형과는 다른 발 및 다른 포지션
3) 점프를 이용한 체인지 풋
4) 백워드 도입/난도 높은 플라잉 도입/플라잉 싯 스핀에서 테이크 오프와 동일한 발 또는 발을 바꿔서 랜딩
5) 싯 스핀(백 인사이드에서 포워드 아웃사이드만 해당) 또는 카멜스핀에서의 확실한 에지 변화
6) 양 발 모두 세가지 기본 자세 수행
7) 싯 또는 카멜 스핀에서 바로 이어지는 양방향 스핀
8) 자세, 발 또는 에지의 변화가 없는 최소 8회전(카멜, 싯, 레이백, 난도 높은 업라이트) : 발을 바꾸는 경우 최대 2회
9) [레이백] 백워드에서 사이드웨이 또는 그 반대로의 한번의 포지션 변경, 각 포지션 별 최소 3회전 (레이백 스핀이 다른 스핀의 일부인 경우에도 카운트)
10) [레이백] 기본 레이백 스핀을 8회전 한 이후의 비엘만 자세
--- 백워드 도입, 에지 변화, 각 어려운 변형 카테고리는 프로그램 당 한 번씩만 인정
--- 쇼트 및 프리에서의 Level 2 ~ 4를 받으려면 아래 조건 충족
a) 체인지 풋이 있는 콤비네이션 스핀: 세 가지 기본 포지션 모두 수행
b) 체인지 풋이 있는 스핀: 각 발로 최소 하나의 기본 포지션 수행
--- 체인지 풋이 포함된 모든 스핀에서 최대한 인정 받을 수 있는 요소의 수는 각 발 당 2개까지
1. 2T/2S 기초점이 2010/2011 이전으로 복귀 1.4 → 1.3
2. 스텝 시퀀스 레벨2 기초점 상향 2.3 → 2.6
3. 스텝 시퀀스 레벨 업 요소
1) 어려운 턴 조합으로 레벨업을 하려면 적어도 3가지 턴의 서로 다른 조합 2가지 필요
2) 상체의 움직임은 전체 패턴의 1/2 이상일 때 적용
4. 스핀 레벨 업 요소
1) 스핀에서 에지 변화를 레이백과 비엘만 자세에서도 인정
2) 8회전은 스핀 당 1회만 인정 (기본 싯 자세에서의 8회전 불인정)
1. 스핀과 스텝에 베이직 레벨(레벨B) 추가
2. 스텝 시퀀스 패턴 삭제
3. 스텝 시퀀스 레벨업 요소에서 원풋 스텝 삭제
4. 코레오그래픽 시퀀스 신설 : 레벨은 없고 GOE만 평가
1) 시니어 남자 싱글 : 코레오그래픽 스텝 시퀀스 대치
2) 시니어/주니어 여자 싱글 : 코레오 스파이럴 대치
5. 스핀 레벨 업 요소
1) 어려운 변형을 제외한 나머지 모든 레벨업 요소는 프로그램당 1번만 인정
2) 카멜, 싯, 레이백, 비엘만에서의 명확한 속도 증가 추가
3) 스핀 카테고리
- 중간 자세 → 비기본 자세
- 속도 증가, 스핀 내 점프 : 어려운 변형이 아닌 단독 요소로 평가
판정과 관계 없는 변화
6. 싱글 스케이팅 쇼트 프로그램에서 후반부(1분 25초 이후)에 수행되는 점프에 1.1배의 기초점 부과
7. 코스튬의 일부나 장식이 얼음에 떨어지는 경우 레프리가 1점 디덕션
8. 2014/15 시즌부터 싱글/페어 스케이팅에 보컬 뮤직 허용
1. 스텝 레벨 1에 "최소한의 다양성" (minimum varitety) 문구 추가
2. "e" 표시가 없을 때에도 심판 재량에 따라 잘못된 도약 엣지에 대한 감점 가능
I. 점프 관련
1. 하위 기초점
1) 1/4회전 초과, 1/2회전 미만 부족 : 언더로테이티드 (Under-rotated), "<" 표시, 원래 점프의 70% 기초점 - 감점은 심판 재량
1/2회전 이상 부족 : 다운그레이디드 (Downgraded), "<<"표시, 원래 점프의 한 회전 아래 점프의 기초점 - 반드시 감점
2) "e" : 심각한 롱엣지 (severe wrong edge), 원래 점프의 70% 기초점 - 반드시 감점
"!" : 불분명한 롱엣지 (unclear wrong edge), 기초점 유지 - 감점은 심판 재량
3) "<"와 "e"를 동시에 받는 경우 : 원래 점프의 50% 기초점
2. 1.5회전 미만의 점프는 점수를 주지 않는다. Communication No.1884에서 삭제
3. 쇼트 프로그램에서 필수 요건을 충족하지 못한 점프(잘못된 회전수)는 점수를 주지 않는다; 두 개의 더블 점프 컴비네이션(시니어 여자, 시니어 남자, 주니어 남자)이 허용되지 않는 경우, 더 낮은 점수의 점프는 인정되지 않는다.
II. 스핀, 스텝 관련
1. 하위 기초점 신설 : 아래 다섯 가지 필요 요건을 판정하여 결정한다. (플라잉 스핀, 체인지풋 스핀, 컴비네이션 스핀만 해당)
1) 쇼트 프로그램과 프리 스케이팅에서 플라잉 스핀의 경우
a) 확실하게 보이는 점프
b) 랜딩 후 처음 2회전 이내에 기본 자세를 잡을 것
c) 랜딩 후 두 바퀴를 유지
2) 모든 체인지풋 스핀 : 한 발 당 적어도 하나의 기본 자세
3) 발을 바꾸는 컴비네이션 스핀 : 세 가지의 기본 자세를 모두 포함
--- "s" : 다섯 가지 필요 요건 중 하나가 충족되지 않은 경우, 원래 스핀 기초점의 70%
--- "ss" : 다섯 가지 필요 요건 중 두 가지 이상이 충족되지 않은 경우, 원래 스핀 기초점의 50%
2. 스핀 레벨업 요소
1) 백워드 도입은 더 이상 레벨업 요소가 아니다.
2) 스핀 레벨업 요소에서 양 발 모두 3가지 기본 자세 수행 → 두 번째 발에서 3가지 기본 자세 수행
3. 스텝 시퀀스 레벨 업 요소에서 "상체의 움직임" → "몸의 움직임" (프리렉의 스윙도 인정)
4. 스텝 시퀀스 감점 항목 중 "지나치게 작은 패턴" 삭제
III. 55회 ISU 총회 이후 확정되는 것들
1. 남자 싱글, 여자 싱글, 페어 프리 스케이팅 경기 시간 통일 기각 1) 시니어 남자 싱글/페어 : 4분 30초 → 4분 2) 주니어 남자 싱글/페어 : 4분 → 3분 30초 2. 시니어/주니어 남자 싱글 프리 스케이팅 점프 8개 → 7개 3. 남자 싱글, 여자 싱글, 페어 스케이팅 PCS 팩터 통일 1) 남자 싱글 : 쇼트 동일, 프리 2.0 → 1.8배 2) 여자 싱글, 페어 : 쇼트 0.8배 → 1배, 프리 1.6배 → 1.8배
4. 더블 점프(더블 악셀 포함)도 두 종류의 더블 점프만 두 번까지 허용 (솔로 or 컴비네이션)
5. 코레오 시퀀스에서 2회전까지의 규정 점프, 스핀, 작은 리프트 허용, 트위즐 불가
6. 코레오 시퀀스와 스텝 시퀀스의 순서 규정(코레오를 나중에) 폐지
7. 모든 ISU 대회에서 프리 스케이팅 스타팅 오더는 쇼트 순위의 역순 기각
1. V1, V2 사인은 저지에게 보여 주지 않는다.
2. "1.5회전 미만 점프에 점수를 주지 않는다."는 문구 삭제
The ISU Judging System or International Judging System (IJS) has been applied to all figure skating competitions since 2004/2005 season. (For Grand Prix, 2003/2004 season) For the details, refer to each communication.
Major changes in Single Skating
1. Of all the triple or quadruple jumps, only two (2) can be repeated and these repetitions must be in jump combination or jump sequence. If a third repeated jump executed in a combination or a sequence, the entire combination or sequence will be treated as an additional element and therefore not considered.
(cf. 2004/2005 season : Only the repeated jump was treated as an additional element and the points for the other jumps were guaranteed.)
2. The position of a “Biellmann Spin” can only be taken and considered as a feature to increase the Level after having successfully rotated these required 8 revolutions in the layback-position (backward or sideways).
3. Changes in the base values and GOE (grade of execution) factors
1) All spin, level 1&2 in Step/Spiral sequence : positive 0.5 / negative 0.3
2) Level 3 in Step/Spiral sequence : positive 0.5 / negative 0.7
3) Level 4 in Step/Spiral sequence : positive 1.0 / negative 0.7
1. Allow in Junior Ladies Short Programs a Jump Combination consisting of two double jumps or one double and one triple jump or two triple jumps.
2. In Singles Free Skating if a Triple or Quadruple Jump is performed twice as a Solo Jump, the second execution will be counted as a Jump Sequence with only one jump included. (80% of base value for the jump sequence)
(cf. Until 2005/2006 season : The second solo jump was counted as a Jump combination (Jump + COMBO) and got 100% of base value.)
Other changes irrelevant to the judgement
3. The base values are presented with two decimal places.
(cf. Until 2005/2006 : one decimal place)
4. The mark for loss of rotation in jumps ("<") are shown in the protocol.
1. The definition of a jump sequence should be modified as follows: "A jump sequence may consist of any number of jumps of any number of revolutions that may be linked by non-listed jumps and/or hops immediately following each other while maintaining the jump rhythm (knee); there can be no turns/steps*, crossovers or stroking during the sequence."
* Turns: three turns, twizzles, brackets, loops, counters, rockers.
Steps: running steps, toe steps, chasses, mohawks, choctaws, curves with change of edge, cross-rolls.
2. The base value and the GOE factor of double axel
1) Base value : 3.3 → 3.5
2) Negative GOE factor : 0.7 → 0.8
3. A Double Axel can not be included more than three times in total in a Single’s Free Program (as a Solo Jump or a part of Combination/Sequence).
4. In obvious cases of starting from the wrong edge the Technical Panel will indicate this error to the Judges who must reduce their GOE accordingly. (Mark "e" in the protocol)
5. In Short Program there are no requirements on the pattern of the Spiral Sequence.
6. Additional feature for Levels in Spins : At least 8 revolutions without any changes in position/variation, foot and edge (camel, sit, layback, difficult variation of upright)
1. Increasing in the base values and GOE factors for triple axel(3A) and quadruple jumps :
1) Base value of 3A : 7.5 → 8.2
2) Negative GOE factor : 3A (1.4) / quadruple jumps (1.6)
2. Increasing in the base values of Step sequence level 3/4
3. Integration of feature for Levels in Spins
4. Short Program Junior Men: allow a double or a triple Axel Paulsen as a solo jump.
5. Have one element less in a Well Balanced Free Program of all the categories with the following result:
1) Senior both Men and Ladies: maximum of three (3) spins, one of which must be a spin combination, one a flying spin and one a spin with only one position;
2) Junior Men: maximum of one (1) step sequence;
3) Junior Ladies: maximum of one (1) step sequence and no any Spiral Sequence;
6. Additional feature for levels in spiral sequence : Holding spiral position (without any interruption) for 6 or more seconds
7. Subdivision in evaluating the Flip and Lutz jumps
1) The Technical Panel will use the sign "e" (edge) for severe cases of wrong take-off edge (long wrong edge, no correct edge at all etc.); in these cases GOE of the Judges must be reduced by -1 to -3 and must be negative.
2) The Technical Panel will use the sign "!" (attention) in cases when a wrong take-off edge is short or not so obvious; in these cases the decision on the GOE is at the discretion of every Judge.
Reduced number of Judges in ISU Championships : 13 → 9
1. Features for Levels in Spins
1) Clear change of edge in the same basic position (for each spin counts only once)
(cf. In 2008/2009 season : Both edges in one basic position)
2.1. Change of Guidelines in establishing GOE for errors
"downgraded jumps" : -1 ~ -3 (Final GOE must be in the minuses)
→ "under rotated jumps" : -1 ~ -3 (Final GOE is not restricted)
(= Deletion of double penalties for under-rotated jumps)
3. Changes of the explanation for wrong edges
1) "e" : wrong edge
2) "!" : unclear edge
Reduced number of Judges in the Olympic Winter Games: 13 → 9
Technical Handbook for 2010/2011 season
(from Feverskating. including all original contents)
1. Subdivision of loss of rotation
1) A Jump/Throw will be considered as "Under-rotated" if it has "missing rotation of more than 1/4, but less than 1/2 revolutions".
: "<" mark. Reduced base value - 70% of the base value of the intended jump
2) A Jump/Throw will be considered as "Downgraded" if it has "missing rotation of 1/2 revolutions or more".
: "<<" mark. Base value for element of one rotation less (i.e. 2T for 3T<<)
3) triple axel and quadruple jumps : 1.0 (1.2 for 4A)
3. Unification of wrong edge in Lutz/Flip jumps : "e" (Each Judge will then decide himself/herself on the severity of the error (major or minor error) and the corresponding GOE reduction.)
4. In Jump Combinations/Sequences Half-loop (or “Euler”) (landing backwards) will be a listed jump. Consequently the units “half-loop + Salchow/Flip” and “any jump landed backwards outside + halfloop + Salchow/Flip” will become jump combinations of 2 or 3 jumps correspondingly. Half-loop will have the Base Value and the GOE values of the single loop jump and will be identified by the Technical Panel to the Judges and in the Protocols as “1Lo”.
(i.e. First Jump + 1Lo + S/F : counted as "3 jumps combination" not a sequence. 100% of base value.)
5. Ladies, Senior can have either a double or a triple Axel.
6. Men, Senior: it is possible to execute two different quadruple jumps - one in combination and one as solo jump.
7. A Double Axel cannot be included more than two (2) times in total in a Single’s Free Program (as a Solo Jump or a part of Combination/Sequence).
II. Step/Spiral sequence
1. Additional features for Levels in Step sequence
1) At least half a pattern on one foot only
2) Combination of difficult turns (rockers, counters, brackets, twizzles) quickly executed in both directions (at least twice within the sequence)
2. Men, Seniors and Juniors: only one step sequence (straight line, circular or serpentine) is included.
2.1. For Senior Men the second (in the order of execution) step sequence will always be awarded a fixed Base value, called a choreographic step sequence and evaluated by Judges in GOE only.
3. Ladies, Seniors and Juniors
1) Short program: no spiral sequence is included. Execution of Spirals will be rewarded in "Transitions".
2) Free skating: The spiral sequence will always be awarded a fixed Base Value, called a choreographic spiral sequence and evaluated by Judges in GOE only. In this sequence there must be at least two (2) spiral positions not less than three (3) seconds long each or only one (1) spiral position not less than six (6) seconds long.
1. There are 13 categories of difficult variations:
For CAMEL POSITION there are 3 categories based on direction of the belly button:
- (CF) Camel Forward: with belly button facing forward
- (CS) Camel Sideways: with belly button facing sideways
- (CU) Camel Upward: with belly button facing upward
For SIT POSITION there are 3 categories based on position of free leg:
- (SF) Sit Forward: with leg forward
- (SS) Sit Sideways: with leg sideways
- (SB) Sit Behind : with the leg behind
For UPRIGHT POSITION there are 3 categories based on position of torso:
- (UF) Upright Forward: with torso leaning forward
- (US) Upright Straight or Sideways: with torso straight up or sideways
- (UB) Upright Biellmann: in Biellmann position
For LAYBACK POSITION there is 1 category
- (UL) Upright Layback
For INTERMEDIATE POSITION there is 1 category (IP)
For INCREASE OF SPEED there is 1 category (IS)
For JUMP IN A SPIN there is 1 category (JS)
2. Overall changes in features for Levels
1) A difficult variation in a basic or (for spin combinations only) in an intermediate position
2) Another difficult variation in a basic position which must be significantly different from the first one and:
- spin in one position with change of foot . on different foot than the first one
- spin combination without change of foot . in different position than the first one
- spin combination with change of foot . on different foot and in different position than the first one
3) Change of foot executed by jump
4) Backward entrance/Difficult variation of flying entrance/Landing on the same foot as take-off or changing foot on landing in a Flying Sit Spin
5) Clear change of edge in sit (only from backward inside to forward outside) or camel
6) All 3 basic positions on both feet
7) Both directions immediately following each other in sit or camel spin
8) At least 8 rev. without changes in pos./variation, foot or edge (camel, sit, layback, difficult upright), counts twice if repeated on another foot
Additional features for the Layback spin:
9) One change of position backwards-sideways or reverse, at least 3 rev. in each position (counts also if the Layback spin is a part of any other spin)
10) Biellmann position after layback spin (SP . after 8 revolutions in layback spin)
Backward entry, change of edge and any type of difficult spin variation count as features that can increase the Level only once per program (in the first spin they are attempted);
The following requirements are mandatory for Levels 2 . 4 both in Short Program and Free Skating:
a) for Spin Combinations with change of foot all 3 basic positions;
b) for Spins with change of foot at least one basic position on each foot.
In any spin with change of foot the maximum number of features attained on one foot is two (2).
1. Base value of 2T/2S : 1.4 → 1.3
2. Base value of Step sequence level 2 :2.3 → 2.6
3. Features for Levels in Step sequence
1) Two different combinations of 3 difficult turns (rockers, counters, brackets, twizzles, loops) quickly executed within the sequence
2) Use of upper body movements for at least 1/2 of the pattern
4. Features for Levels in Spins
1) Clear change of edge in sit (only from backward inside to forward outside), camel, Layback and Biellmann position
2) At least 8 rev. without changes in pos./variation, foot or edge (camel, difficult sit, layback, difficult upright), counts once per spin
1. Lifts, twist lifts and death spirals (pairs), spins and steps (singles and pairs) are divided depending on their difficulty in five (5) Levels according to the number of features achieved: Basic Level (B) - in case of no features, Level 1 - in case of one feature, Level 2 - in case of two features, Level 3 - in case of three features and Level 4 - in case of four or more features.
2. Step sequences no longer have a required pattern.
3. Features for Levels in Step sequence
- At least half a pattern on one foot only : deleted
4. A Choreographic Sequence consist of any kind of movements like steps, turns, spirals, arabesques, spread eagles, Ina Bauers, hydroblading, transitional (unlisted) jumps, spinning movements etc. A Choreographic Sequence for Ladies must include at least one spiral (not a kick) of any length. A Choreographic Sequence for Pairs must include at least one spiral (not a kick) of any length by each partner. The Sequence commences with the first move and is concluded with the last move of the skater. The pattern is not restricted, but the Sequence must fully utilize the ice surface. If this requirement is not fulfilled, the Sequence will have no value. The Choreographic Sequence has to be performed later then the step sequence. The Choreographic Sequence has a base value and will be evaluated by the judges in GOE only.
5. Features for Levels in Spins
1) All features for levels in Spins except difficult variations count only once per program.
2) Clear increase of speed in camel, sit, layback or Biellmann position
3) Spin categories
- "Intermediate position" → "Non-basic position"
- IS, JS → separate features (not a difficult variations)
Other changes irrelevant to the judgement
6. In the Short Program of Single Skating the base values (but not the GOE’s) for all jump elements started in the second half of the program will be multiplied by a special factor 1.1 in order to give credit for even distribution of difficulties in the program. Each factored base value for all jump elements performed in the second half of the Short Program will be rounded to two decimal places. The second half commences in the middle of the maximum time which means 1 min. 25 sec.
7. A deduction - 1.0 will be applied by the Referee if a part of the costume/decoration falls on the ice.
8. Starting from the season 2014-2015 vocal music with lyrics will be allowed.
1. Compulsory feature for Step sequence level 1 : Minimum variety
- Minimum variety must include at least 5 turns & 2 steps, none of the types can be counted more than twice.
2. Guidelines in establishing GOE for errors
UNCLEAR EDGE TAKE-OFF F/Lz (no sign) -1
1. Lesser base values
1) Full rotation: signs < and << indicate an error. The base value of the jump with a sign < is approximately 70% of the original base value. The jump with a sign << is evaluated with SOV for the same jump one revolution less.
2) Take-off edge in F/Lz: signs “e” and “!” indicate an error. The base value of the jump with a sign “e” is approximately 70% of the original base value. If both signs < and “e” are applied for the same jump, the base value is approximately 50% of the original base value. In cases of serious errors (sign “e”) the base value of the jump and the GOE are reduced, final GOE is negative. In cases of smaller errors (sign “!”) the original base value stays, the GOE is reduced, however the final GOE is not restricted.
3. Jumps with less than 1,5 revs in both Short and Free programs of Seniors/Juniors will have no value. deleted in Communication No. 1884
4. In Short Program jumps which do not satisfy the requirements (wrong number of revolutions) will have no value; if a combination of two double jumps is not allowed (senior men and ladies, junior men), jump with a lesser value will not be counted.
II. Spins, Step sequence
1. Lesser base values
1) For flying spins of both Short Program and Free Skating:
a) a clear visible jump;
b) basic landing position reached within the first 2 revs;
c) held for 2 revs after the landing.
2) For any spin with change of foot: at least one basic position on each foot.
3) For spin combinations with change of foot: all 3 basic positions.
Sign “s” indicates that one of these 5 requirements was not fulfilled, the base value of a spin with a sign “s” is approximately 70% of the original base value.
Sign “ss” indicates that two or more of the 5 requirements were not fulfilled, the base value of a spin with a sign ”ss” is approximately 50% of the original base value.
2. Features for Levels in Spins
1) Regular backward entry is no longer considered a difficult entry.
2) All 3 basic positions on the booth feet → on the second foot
3. Features for Levels in Step sequence
"Use of body movements for at least 1/3 of the pattern" - the visible use for a combined total of at least 1/3 of the pattern of the step sequence any movements of the arms, head, torso, hips and legs that have an effect on the balance of the main body core.
(* from "upper body")
4. Minus GOE guideline for step sequence : Incorrect pattern (too small) - deleted
III. Confirmed after 55th ISU Congress
1. Duration of Free Skating/Free Dance REJECTED 1) Senior : Men, Ladies, Pairs, Ice Dance - 4 minutes 2) Juinor : Men, Ladies, Pairs, Ice Dance - 3 1/2 minute 2. Reduced number of Jump elements in Senior/Junior Men : 8 → 7 3. PCS Factors 1) Men : SP 1.0 / FS 2.0 → 1.8 2) Ladies, Pair : SP 0.8 → 1.0 / FS 1.6 → 1.8
4. Any double jump (including double Axel) cannot be included more than twice in total in a Single’s Free Program (as a Solo Jump or a part of Combination / Sequence).
5. A Choreographic Sequence consists of any kind of movements like steps, turns (except twizzles), spirals, arabesques, spread eagles, Ina Bauers, hydroblading, any jumps with maximum of 2 revolutions, spins, small lifts etc. Listed elements included in the Choreographic Sequence will not be called and will not occupy a box. The pattern is not restricted, but the sequence must be clearly visible.
6. The Technical Panel identifies the Choreographic Sequence which commences with the first skating movement and is concluded with the preparation to the next element (if the Choreographic Sequence is not the last element of the program). It can be performed before or after the Step Sequence.
7. [Rule 548, paragraph 3] There will be no draw for the order of skating in each group, competitors will skate in reverse order to their places in the preceding segment of the competition, that is, with the best placed Competitor skating last.
The order of skating between tied Competitors shall be determined by a separate draw. REJECTED
1. Signs V1 and V2 are not shown to the Judges.
Jumps with less than 1,5 revs in both Short and Free programs of Seniors/Juniors will have no value. DELETED
Written by Paige Summers in GoldenYuna
Web Edited by Ene
▶ You can download the original file updated by Paige Summers in May 23, 2014
For those who wonder (because Yuna critics mention it all the time) why Yuna didn't plan her program with 3Lo (3 loop) or 2A3T so her technical base marks can be higher... Here's something you can work with if you wanted to counter argue as to why Yuna had to choose her elements the way she did and why she didn't need 3Lo and 2A3T to win.
I. WHY YUNA DIDN'T DO LOOP JUMP ANYMORE
On a Golden skate forum thread (link above), the top post by ladyepheu said ― “YUNA IS A PERFECTIONIST”. She doesn't settle for anything less than perfect.
It's not that Yuna can't do 3Lo. In fact, no other skater, not even Mao whose signature jump is 3Lo (besides 3A), has the level of execution as Yuna does. (Yuna's height and distance and textbook posture can't be compared with other skaters) However, very unfortunately, Yuna didn't have much luck in racking up GoE with 3Lo & had less success rate of landing clean 3Lo jump in the actual competitions all throughout 2007~2008 & 2008~2009 seasons. Well, not as high as the success rate of landing good quality 3F-3T & 3Lz & 2A anyways. - Even though she landed 3Lo perfectly fine during the practices. AND the funny thing is, since Yuna goes into 3Lo with so much speed, if the bending of the legs goes wrong, it can make you lose balance and eventually fall ? CBC commentator says this after Yuna’s fall after attepting 3Lo at 4CC 2009. (loop jump is when you make crossover x shape with your legs before take-off ? and it requires great balance skill because there’s bound to be bending towards a side when the skater gets ready to take-off) Also, Yuna does it with so much power that Loop jump often led to injuries - meaning, doing it the right way with great speed and power built up the pressure on her hip joint and right ankle (mainly affected by Loop jump) - So possibly with high probability of injuries in mind, Yuna somehow jinxed herself with 3Lo especially during the performances, which is very unfortunate because she does it so well.
Now, unlike Mao who pursued 3A regardless of very low success rate, since it awarded her such high base points (even with under-rotation deductions, she walked away with good 6~7 marks), Yuna had no reason to include 3Lo if she didn't have high success rate. (She often lost good 3-4 points when she poped it or fell during the jump - after the deductions, she only got like 1~1.5 points) Yuna already had solid 3Lz, which awarded her more point than 3Lo (5~7 points) and after 2008/2009 season, Yuna substituted 2A for 3Lo, which guaranteed her good 4-5 points (3.3 + GoE) ― Yuna's Ina Bauer or Spread eagle + 2A has been a very difficult signature routine.
* Note from Yuna’s score sheets that Yuna always had good success rate of 3F-3T racking up GoE of +2 ― except in 2008~2009 season ― a tech specialist was suddenly obsessed with giving Yuna an attention edge call on Yuna’s perfect 3F.
Vancouver 2010 - Start of jump elements compositions 3Lz-3T, 3F, 2A-2T-2Lo, 2A-3T, 3Lz, 3S, 2A
The tactic to include 2A jump instead of 3Lo worked just fine in Vancouver season in terms of working around the ISU rules. Back in 2010, the rule said in FS, only 2 kinds of triples are allowed to be repeated - meaning hypothetically you can have 2 3Lz and 2 3F but while keeping these jumps, you can't have 2 3Lo, 2 3T, 2 3S, 2 3A. (Only one of each four kind will be allowed.) And this limitation didn't apply to 2A so Yuna was able to include 3 2A jumps (2A2T2Lo, 2A3T, 2A) Even without 3Lo, Yuna entered the competition with a technically difficult program with base values of 61. - 3Lz-3T, 3F, 2A-3T, 2A-2T-2Lo, 3Lz, 3S, 2A. High base value plus massive GoE gave Yuna 78 TES. In this case, Yuna did have 2A3T, but didn't need 3Lo for her to win.
* ISU changed the rule after Vancouver, however, as if to find ways to disadvantage Yuna, so that 2A was a subject to the limitation as well. Not only that, they increased value of 3A & 3Lo (Mao’s two favourite jumps), decreased value of 3S (always a part of Yuna’s program). 3T went from 4.0 to 4.1 ? but no increase in 3Lz at all. (3Lz is Yuna’s signature jump - so many skaters struggle with wrong edge and only Yuna nails it with nearly 95% success rate) The biggest change was Scale of Value system. Up to Vancouver, GoE were applied as 1:1 ratio ? meaning the average of what 9 judges gave, after trimming out highest and lowest, are the GoE points you get. With Scale of Value system, it reduces the amount of GoE you can get. For instance, if all nine judges gave +1 GoE on 3Lz, up to Vancouver, you would have gotten 6.0 +1.0 = 7. But with scale of value of 1:0.7, you only get 6.0+0.7=6.7.
ISU rule for FS program 2013-2014
7 jumping elements (at least 1 must be axel jump (2A or 3A)), 3 spins, 1 Chreo, 1 Step seq = total of 12 elements
- 2 triples can be repeated
- if repeated, one of them has to be a part of a combination - 3-3 or 3-2 or 3-2-2
- 2A can't be included more than two times.
- A jump combination may consist of the same or another single, double, triple or quadruple jump. There may be up to three jump combinations or jump sequences in the Free Program. One jump combination could consist of up to three (3) jumps, the other two up to two (2) jumps.
So, new rule prevented Yuna from having 3 2A jumps. It meant that Yuna had to give up on one of the 3 2A jumps - now, there are a couple scenarios assuming Yuna keeps other jumping elements the same (3Lz3T, 3F, 3S, 3Lz) ;
1) Keep both 2A-3T & 2A-2T-2Lo;
Yuna has 2 3Lz & 2 3T, 1 3F, 1 3S (3S2T automatically gets thrown out - 3S can't be repeated and Yuna already would two 2-jump combinations - 3Lz-3T & 2A-3T)
So, 3Lz-3T, 2A-3T, 3F, 3S, 3Lz, 2A2T2Lo so far - but Yuna needs one more jump element to replace 2A - now, Yuna already has 2 repeated triples and three other single triples, so she has to include 3Lo/3A. (very similar to Vancouver, but Yuna must do 3Lo/3A instead of 2A)
2) Keep 2A3T and 2A & drop 2A-2T-2Lo;
Yuna has 2 3Lz, 2 3T, 1 3F, 1 3S (drop 3S2T since she can't have more than two repeated triples and can't have three 2-jump combinations), one 2A - she needs a combination of three jumps, so she can turn single 3F into 3F2T2Lo or 3Lz into 3Lz2T2Lo
So in this case, she has 3Lz-3T, 2A-3T, 2A, 3S/3F/3Lz (any one of these can turn into three jump combination with 2T/2Lo instead of single) - Yuna has 2 3Lz & 2 3T so she can’t repeat 3S or 3F as 7th jumping element. So Yuna needs 3Lo or 3A. (this is exactly the layout of Adelina's program - she has an extra 3F instead of 3Lz - she has single 3F and 3F2T2Lo)
* MANY skaters usually choose 2A3T as a 3-2 combination because it has relatively high base value (3.3+4.1) - 2A is a 2.5 revolution and has higher value than any other double jumps. But actually since 3T has one of the lowest base value out of all the triples, 3Lz-2T(6.0+1.3) or 3F-2T(5.3+1.3) have almost the same base value. So, 2A-3T does not have to be mandatory when trying to get high marks - although skaters and the judges value its difficulty for it being an axel jump combination.* And in order to include 2A3T, you can see how you need 3Lo or 3A to work around ISU rule.
3) Keep 2A & 2A-2T-2Lo (what Yuna had for Les miserables and Adios nonino)
Yuna has 3Lz3T, 2A2T2Lo, 3F, 3S, 3Lz, 2A - this leaves room for one 3-2 two-jump combination ? almost anything other than 2A3T would go - 3(S,F, not Lutz because that means 3F or 3S need to be repeated but when you repeat a triple, at least one of them has to be in a combination)2(T,Lo) would work out. This give Yuna an option to not include triple loop. She could have done 3F2T instead of 3S2T, which would have had higher base value - but not too much difference anyway. I personally think 3S2T was placed perfectly into her routine for both Les Miserables and Adios Nonino. - I love the Yuna's Salchow because they are always so artistic and fitted so perfectly with music. I even think only Yuna can nail 3S properly.
4) Choose to have only one of 2A or 2A-3T or 2A-2T-2Lo
#1 If single 2A; 3Lz3T, 3F, 3S, 3Lz, ()2T2Lo, 2A, 3()2() - maybe 3F2T2Lo and 3S2(T or Lo) or vice versa - not having to include 3Lo
#2 If 2A-3T; 3Lz3T, 2A3T, 3F, 3S, 3Lz, (3F or 3S or 3Lo)2T2Lo, 3(Lo/A) - must include 3Lo/3A
#3 If 2A-2T-2Lo; 3Lz3T, 3F, 3S, 3Lz, 3(F or S)2(T or Lo), 2A2T2Lo, 3(Lo or A) - must include 3Lo/3A
* So in order for Yuna to have a program without 3Lo, she could only choose option 3) or option 4) #1. And she chose option 3) with 3S-2T for Les Miserables and Adios Nonino (exact same elements)
Written by Paige Summers in GoldenYuna
Web Edited by Ene
▶ You can download the original file updated by Paige Summers in May 23, 2014
II. WHY YUNA DIDN'T NEED 3LO/2A3T TO WIN
TES = Base Value + GoE
As the top post on this thread by ladyepheu says, while some skaters derive their technical points from the base value of their elements (hence they come up with a program with elements with relatively higher base value), Yuna is a perfectionist who focuses on overall quality of her elements (hence she aims for high GoE). They both carry risks of their own - it’s not that only skaters who have higher technical base value carry risk (of executing difficult elements), but skaters like Yuna carry the risk in that she needs higher GoE to rack up the points. But it’s about where the emphasis lies - BV or GoE.
If you actually look at it in a different perspective, skaters who plan a program with higher technical base value have logic that they don’t need high GoE (meaning execute the element in high quality) and even if they fail to execute the elements, they can still walk away with good amount of points even after the deduction of marks. - so it is worthwhile to try out harder elements even though they are not at a level to execute the difficult elements with high quality. So their emphasis is aiming for better/harder “tricks or stunts” to impress people and insure high marks - Like Mao’s 3A. Now, this is not a bad tactic - if the skater can bring themselves to the level that allows them to handle difficult elements, it will be even more effective. But in this case, skaters tend to put less weight on artistry and overall quality on each element because they have hard time just to keep up with executing the difficult elements they can’t master. It is very rare that we see full quality/choreographic transitions on the all elements and good interpretation of music. (music and elements make good harmony and are in sync)
Yuna’s emphasis is on striving for executing a perfect program and applying inarguably flawless technical quality to all of her elements when executing her elements. Her technical strong points don’t stand out like Mao’s iconic 3A attempts, but Yuna has her own signature skills overall - Her textbook jumping technique, unbeatable consistency & high success rate of landing clean textbook 3Lz/3F (she was known for her 3F-3T/3Lz-3T combinations - she is the only skater who has three 3Lz & two 3F all throughout short & long program), Ina Bauer/Spread eagle entry + 2A, and Yuna camel spin (variation from camel spin - leg bent 90 degrees and upper body facing upward - requiring great flexibility). What makes her stand out the most is that she goes beyond simply executing the elements and completes a masterpiece of storytelling by reflecting the very emotion and essence of music into her program. And this kind of artistry and connection with music were founded upon her mastery over strong basic skating skills and proper jumping techniques. In Yuna’s case, she has to give the skate of her life every time (meaning she has to make tremendous effort in executing the elements in perfect quality) to get super high marks - this is a risk no different than the risks that the skaters who aim for higher technical base value programs take with their programs.
Now, 2013 Les Miserables was a classic case of how Yuna’s overall quality was truly reflected in her marks. I want to do a comparison between Les Miserables vs Sotnikova’s FS in Sochi vs Adios Nonino. This was partly motivated by a blog site posted on Golden Yuna, comparing Les Miserables and Sotnikova’s Sochi FS;
- http://blog.daum.net/jwvoice/12105063 (This site was posted by someone earlier in Golden Yuna and has nice gifs to help you see the huge diff in quality of elements btw Yuna and Adelina ? and this website motivated me to do GoE comparisons)
Protocols / Score sheet of the three programs
01. 3Lz-3T 3-3 Combinations
Les Miserables 12.0 = 10.1 BV + 1.9 GoE
Simply perfect textbook - clear outside edge, great height and distance & flow in and out of the jumps, and good in-air position/axis, her head stays in-line with her upper body, her upper body stays straight, not twisted
Sotnikova FS 11.1 = 10.1 + 1.0
Inside edge on 3Lz, pre/under-rotation & full-blade on 3T ― subject for deductions
- With edge call & 3T under-rotation
Should be 7.5 = 8.9 BV (6.0 3Lz+2.9 3T<) - 1.4 GoE (at least average of -2 GoE- translates into -1.4 with Scale of Value)
Adios Nonino 11.7 = 10.1 + 1.6
(not much difference in quality compared to Les. Deserved 1.8 at least.)
* Send in the Clowns; 11.6 = 10.1 + 1.5
The jump that was even better than Les Miserables in my opinion - really deserved +2.1 GoE (the max GoE you can get) Looks so effortless. Notice cross-foot-change back step going into 3Lz. No other skater does that movement before going into 3Lz.
* delayed jump ― right after jumping into air, a brief moment of stillness before rotating with much speed― speed & power going into the jump creates this delay ― subject for bonus
Sotnikova Short Program 3T-3T 3-3 Combination
9.80 = 8.20 + 1.60
Seriously, right after the three turn it’s hard to tell if she’s going into toe loop jump ― 00:12:82s she lands two foot after three turn when she’s supposed to flow from three turn to 3T. She doesn’t have the speed going into the jump so she uses power to get up high but her in-air axis is unstable. Did this jump combination really deserve 1.60 GoE?
Les Miserables 7.2 = 5.3 + 1.9
Perfect/flawless jump with solid, almost non-slanted (close to 90 degrees vertical) inside edge ― and with massive three-turn before take-off.
Sotnikova FS 6.8 = 5.3 + 1.5
Notice unstable and shaky edge right before take-off - it moves sideways just like her flutz, pre-rotate.
Adios Nonino 6.5 = 5.3 + 1.2
Again, not much difference in quality from Les. Should have been at least 1.7 GoE ― and look at her choreographic transitions afterwards.
* Send in the Clowns; 6.4 = 5.3 + 1.1
The jump that was same, if not better, than Les Miserables 3F - really deserved at least +1.8 GoE.
Written by Paige Summers in GoldenYuna
Web Edited by Ene
▶ You can download the original file updated by Paige Summers in May 23, 2014
II. WHY YUNA DIDN'T NEED 3LO/2A3T TO WIN
Les Miserables 5.6 = 4.20 + 1.40
Out of all of Yuna’s jumps, the most artistic & musical jumping element
Adios Nonino 5.52 = 4.62 (2nd half bonus) + 0.90
Sotnikova FS 5.82 = 4.62 (2nd half bonus) + 1.20
Is it an axel jump? Can’t really tell the difference…
04. 3S-2T vs 2A-3T
Les Miserables 7.35 = 6.05 (2nd half time bonus) + 1.30
Adios Nonino 6.60 = 5.50 + 1.00
Same quality, 3S-2T in Adios Nonino had choreographic transition element right before the jump. But GoE 1.30 → 1.00
Sotnikova FS 9.94 = 8.14 (2nd half bonus) + 1.80
For god’s sake… she nearly stumbles in between her jumps? looks like she carries heavy weight leaning forward & lacks flow. Doesn’t look effortless at all. And she pre-rotates on 3T? Oh and is her 3T an axel? She kicks of with full blade... This got GoE of 1.8??
Yuna Kim Vancouver FS 9.50 = 7.50 + 2.00
Yuna nailed this jump with spread eagle (difficult) entry, crazy height and distance, great stability and control on landing, beautiful flow/transition after the jump.
05. 2A-2T-2Lo vs 3F-2T-2Lo
Les Miserables 7.83 = 7.04 (2nd half bonus) + 0.79
Spread Eagle entry + massive ice coverage/distance travelled going into the jump, perfect flow in and out of the jumps ? but only 0.79?? Even at 2013 Worlds, Yuna didn’t get max GoE she could get…
Adios Nonino 7.83=7.04 (2nd half bonus) + 0.79
Same quality on the jumps (same as Les Misrables), Ina Bauer entry
Sotnikova FS 3F-2T-2Lo 8.34 = 9.24 (2nd half bonus) - 0.90
Again, Sotnikova’s persistent flaw in her toe jumps (the jumps that use toe pick to take off - 3Lz, 3F, 3T) is that she takes-off on full blade when it’s not a blade jump like 3A, 3Lo,3S (even if not as severe as full blade, she doesn’t take off on clear toe pick) and she tends to pre-rotate. And her 3F here is not an exception. And two foot landing 00:03:30(gif clip above), stepped out 00:00:46 - all these flaws and only -0.90?
06. 3Lz vs 3Lo
Les Miserables 3Lz 8.40 = 6.60 (2nd half bonus) + 1.80
Perfect textbook. Very visible clear outside edge 00:00:49, Speed, Great control of in-air position (axis, straight upper body, not twisted, head not turned sideways), fully rotated, beautiful light-as-a-feather landing, effortless throughout… And look at the transition right after the jump. One of Yuna’s best single 3Lz - and in second half too. Yuna derives big points from single 3Lz with 2nd half bonus
Adios Nonino 3Lz 7.60 = 6.60(2nd half bonus) + 1.00
Shaky landing, hard to expect highest GoEs but she had everything else in tact - great speed, great control in air, entry with outside edge (the second clip 00:03:19~23). But GoE of +1 seems quite generous considering how strict they were with GoEs on other elements that were done flawlessly - like Yuna’s 3-3, 3F. It’s funny a judge gave +3 GoE on this jump as if to mock her jump. It shows they didn’t really mark according to what they saw - they simply gave out GoEs they wanted.
Personally, even her shaky landing seemed a part of her routine - it’s amazing how she managed not to fall because it would have taken her a godly sense of balance.)
Sotnikova Sochi FS 6.70 = 5.10 + 1.60
Yuna 2007 ISU Grand Prix Cup of China
5.80 = 5.00 (base value of 3Lo before post 2010 rule change) + 0.80
Remind you, this was Yuna when she was 17. How is it that Adelina, who claims she was ready to claim gold, meaning her skills are ripe and established at high level, lands 3Lo with less quality than a 17-year-old and walks away with 1.60 GoE? (There are also clips of Yuna’s 3Lo in practice in earlier slide)
Les Miserables 4.77 = 3.63 + 1.14
Ina Bauer Entry, massive height & distance
Sotnikova Sochi FS 4.70 = 3.63 + 1.07
Right after 3S, no transition into the jump whatsoever…
Adios Nonino 4.42 = 3.63 + 0.79
Right after her choreographic sequence - Look at the speed & flow (after choreo) going into the jump
Send in the Clowns 4.70 = 3.63 + 1.07
Look at the deep edges in both directions during her Spread Eagle entry. This deserved at least 1.2 GoE
Sotnikova Short 4.63 = 3.63 + 1.00
Difficult entry, but she just doesn’t look confortable doing the entry element - her edges are unstable. I would say, however, that this was a good quality jump. Don’t know how she got +1.07 in FS 2A
Written by Paige Summers in GoldenYuna
Web Edited by Ene
▶ You can download the original file updated by Paige Summers in May 23, 2014
II. WHY YUNA DIDN'T NEED 3LO/2A3T TO WIN
08. Step Sequence; Les Miserables & Sotnikova Short
Les Miserables StSq4 5.30 = 3.90 + 1.40
Sotnikova Short StSq4 5.40 = 3.90 + 1.50
Notice how Sotnikova extends her free leg ― leg with foot not on ice (called “swinging” ― specialty of ice dancing teams) A LOT but that is to hide her lack of edge control ― when non experts see her steps, they will think she did better because of her seemingly flamboyant free leg movement. ― looks like she did more, but it’s the deep edge use that counts towards step sequence level. It’s about how to do turns and steps with both side of edges and how to include body movement that will affect balance during the steps. GoE of 1.5 is bogus. +1.70 in FS Steps also was a massive bogus for the same reason.
Yuna is known for her deep & clean edge use during her step sequence . but she got level 3 on both short & long program step sequence.
Technical Specialist -in-training Tim Gerber’s analysis on Step Sequences
08. Step Sequence; Send In The Clowns StSq3 level 3
1. Chasse, clockwise
2. Rocker, clockwise
3. Chasse, clockwise
4. Choctaw, counterclockwise
5. Chasse x2, counterclockwise
6. Mohawk, counterclockclockwise
7. Crossroll (executed with a spiral), counterclockwise
8. Curve with change of edge, clockwise - ATTEMPT, the edge is shaky and doesn't get onto the new edge long enough, rolling her back onto the starting edge (may count if not too strict)
9. Rocker, counterclockwise
10. Counter, clockwise
11. Rocker, clockwise
12. Free foot comes down onto the ice on flat of blade, changes over to inside edge
13. Chasse, clockwise
14. Three turn, clockwise
15. Twizzle x2, clockwise (however, the second one isn't actually complete)
16. Mohawk, clockwise
17. Toe step x2, clockwise
18. Mohawk, counterclockwise
19. Two-foot mini curve, counterclockwise
20. Choctaw-like step (was on two feet), clockwise (This can be argued for a Choctaw)
21. Cross step, clockwise
22. Counter, counterclockwise
23. Twizzle x2, counterclockwise
24. Three turn, counterclockwise
25. Rocker, counterclockwise
26. Two-foot curve on ice (into full stop), counterclockwise
27. Push onto RFO 28. Three turn, clockwise
29. Loop, clockwise
30. Two-foot push onto LFO, almost with a mini hop
31. Rocker, counterclockwise
32. Curve with change oaf edge, counterclockwise
33. Loop, counterclockwise
34. Chasse, counterclockwise
35. Cross step, counterclockwise
36. Toe hop, clockwise
37. Push with toepick onto new skating foot
38. Toe step, clockwise
39. Chasse x2, clockwise
40. Rocker, clockwise
41. Bracket, clockwise
42. Counter, clockwise
She has 5 types of turns in both directions - Counter, Rocker, Twizzle, Three, Loop (Bracket would be here as well but her one shaky edge caused the turn to change to a Rocker)
She has 2 types of steps in both directions - Chasse, Mohawk
The one shaky edge cost her the level, by negating a step that she needed. I wonder if she was supposed to have another choctaw in there as well, though. It almost looked like she did one in a different direction during the second part of the sequence, but she was on two feet too long for it to count. That would have saved the level.
The “mistakes” or flaws #8 & #20 that Gerber mentions are counter-argued by “yyskate”on the same thread that Gerber posted his analysis on (Golden Skate);
“Yes, Yuna made a mistake there, if you watch her korean national SP step sequence, that part is suppose to be a curve with change edge + bracket. because of that mistake she lost the bracket and curve with change edge, both of which could be counted towards to levels. Although I still think the curve with change edge should still be counted if been lenient. I also think #20 should be counted as a choctaw step. I watched that step of her sochi performance and korean national one super slow-mo, they looked exactly the same to me, and the change of foot is pretty clear to me, and I dont see too foot during the change of foot. So I think the Sp step sequence is still level 4 even with that mistake and definitely will be a level 4 if lenient.I also tried to analyze Adelina's step sequence, but I give up, for the exact reasons you mentioned above, I dont know what level Adelina's step sequence will get, if we scrutinize hers using the same strict standard as we analyzing Yuna's here.”
Send In The Clowns StSq3 4.44 = 3.30 (Base Value lv.3) + 1.14
If this was properly graded as lv. 4, 5.50 = 3.90 (Base Value Lv.4) + 1.60
GoE 1.60 = (1.4*5+2.1*2)/7
Yuna got three +3 GoE and six +2 GoEs - trimming out highest & lowest, 5 +2s and 2 +3s left. Scale of value translates +2 into 1.4 and +3 into 2.1 (lv.4)
08. Step Sequence; Adios Nonino StSq3 level 3
1.) Toe step, counterclockwise
2.) Back edge pull with free foot toepick push, clockwise
3.) Mohawk, clockwise
4.) Waltz hop, clockwise
5.) Cross step, clockwise
6.) Change of edge from inside to outside with free foot in quick ina position, counterclockwise
7.) Change edge from outside to inside with free foot placed on ice
8.) Rocker, clockwise
9.) Bracket, clockwise
10.) Counter, clockwise
11.) Cross Roll, counterclockwise
12.) Rocker, counterclockwise
13.) Change edge from outside to inside
14.) Loop, counterclockwise
15.) Full turn on ice while changing feet, counterclockwise
16.) Toe steps, clockwise
17.) Rocker, clockwise
18.) Cross step, counterclockwise
19.) Choctaw executed with a hop, clockwise
20.) Twizzle, clockwise
21.) Chasse, clockwise
22.) Choctaw, clockwise + Choctaw, counterclockwise
23.) Top hop, counterclockwise
24.) Twizzle, counterclockwise (x2)
25.) Rocker, counterclockwise
26.) Edge change from inside to outside
27.) Three turn, counterclockwise
28.) Brief back inside two foot glide with back free foot mini-kick
29.) Choctaw, clockwise
30.) Three turn, clockwise
31.) Loop, clockwise
32.) Toe hop, clockwise
33.) Chasse, counterclockwise
34.) Curve with change of edge, clockwise
35.) Bracket, counterclockwise
36.) Cross step, clockwise
37.) Cross step, counterclockwise
38.) Half turn and edge change from inside to outside with free foot push, clockwise
39.) Toe step, clockwise
40.) Counter, counterclockwise
41.) Twizzle, counterclockwise (x2)
42.) Three turn, counterclockwise
43.) Rocker, counterclockwise
44.) Half turn and edge change from inside to outside with free foot placed on ice, counterclockwise 45.) Change of foot with free foot push, counterclockwise
46.) Illusion turn, counterclockwise
47.) Chasse, counterclockwise
48.) Toe step, clockwise
49.) Cross step, counterclockwise
50.) Chasse, counterclockwise
51.) Toe step, counterclockwise
She has 6 types of turns in both directions - Rocker, Bracket, Twizzle, Loop, Counter, Three
She had 4 types of steps in both directions - Toe hop, Toe step, Chasse, Choctaw
She has full body rotation covering at least 1/3 of the pattern in total for each rotational direction.
She most definitely has upper body movements for at least 1/3 of the pattern.
She has 3 different combinations of three difficult turns executed with a clear rhythm.
This footwork sequence is clearly Level 4.
Adios Nonino StSq3 4.44 = 3.30 (lv.3 BV) + 1.14
If this was properly awarded lv.4, 5.50 = 3.90 (lv.4 BV) + 1.60
GoE 1.60 = (1.4*5+2.1*2)/7
Yuna got three +3 GoE and six +2 GoEs - trimming out highest &lowest, 5 +2s and 2 +3s left. Scale of value translates +2 into 1.4 and +3 into 2.1 (lv.4)
08. Step Sequence Sotnikova FS StSq4 level 4
1.) Three Turn, counterclockwise (x2)
2.) Curve with change of edge, clockwise
3.) Twizzle, clockwise
4). Toe Hop, counterlockwise
5.) Rocker, counterclockwise
6.) Change edge from inside to outside
7.) Three Turn, clockwise
8.) Twizzle, counterclockwise (barely makes it around and free foot comes down quickly)
9.) Curve with change of edge, clockwise
10.) Loop, clockwise
11.) Three Turn, clockwise
12.) Choctaw, counterclockwise
13.) Illusion turn, counterclockwise
14.) Toe Steps, clockwise
15.) Rocker, clockwise
16.) Counter, clockwise
17.) Bracket, counterclockwise (FAILED attempt, edge is flat before the turn and unsteady on exit, with free foot coming down)
18.) Mohawk, counterclockwise
19.) Loop, counterclockwise
20.) Toe Hop, clockwise
21.) Chasse, clockwise
22.) Rocker, clockwise
23.) Rocker, counterclockwise (barely, edge is shallow and immediately changes over) 24.) Rocker, counterclockwise
25.) Chasse, clockwise (x3)
26.) Edge change from inside to outside
27.) Edge change from outside to inside with free foot placed on ice
28.) Rocker, clockwise (barely, edge is shallow and immediately changes over)
29.) Three Turn, clockwise
5 types of turns need to be executed in both directions. By my count Sotnikova only executed 4 types of turns in both directions - Three Turn, Rocker, Loop, and Twizzle (and this one is very questionable on the counterclockwise attempt).
3 types of steps need to be executed in both directions and I only see 1 type of step executed in both directions - Toe Hop.
She not only failed to achieve the #1 criteria for Level 4, but she also failed to achieve the #4 criteria. Other people who are able to, analyze this step sequence with me and let's uncover the truth.
Sotnikova FS StSq4 (should be lv.3) 5.60 = 3.90 (lv.4 BV) + 1.70
If this was properly awarded lv.3, 4.51 = 3.30 (lv.3 BV) + 1.21
GoE 1.21 = (1.0*4+1.5*3)/7
Sotnikova got four +3 GoE and four +2 GoEs and 1 +1 GoE - trimming out highest &lowest, 4 +2s and 3 +3s left. Scale of value translates +2 into 1.0 and +3 into 1.5 (level 3)
Les Miserables 3.60 = 2.00 + 1.60
Massive quality lunge, interprets music on a godly level
Adios Nonino 3.50 = 2.00 + 1.50
Nearly at the end of her program, she attacks her Choreo seq. with so much energy & speed with various moves executed with deep edge use and great sense of balance, in perfect sync with music
Sotnikova FS 3.50 = 2.00 + 1.50
Really? Spiral element and saying hi with your hand gets you high Chreo sq GoE??????? Without much elements packed into Choreo sq.?
This is a comparison between Layback spins of Kim and Sotnikova. You can see that Yuna has less range of travelling away from axis. It shows better centered control. But Yuna got less than 1 GoE.
Written by Paige Summers in GoldenYuna
Web Edited by Ene
▶ You can download the original file updated by Paige Summers in May 23, 2014
III. PCS (PROGRAM COMPONENT SCORE)
PCS cover five areas
Performance / Execution
01. Skating Skills
Definition: Overall skating quality: edge control and flow over the ice surface demonstrated by a command of the skating vocabulary (edges, steps, turns, etc.), the clarity of technique and use of effortless power to accelerate and vary speed.
Criteria: YUNA KIM
Balance, rhythmic knee action and precision of foot placement √
Flow and effortless glide √
Cleanness and sureness of deep edges, steps, turns √
Power/energy and acceleration √ (Her effortlessness/poise degrades her power in the eye of the beholder, but she overflows with energy - her program’s filled with transitions/elements(restless) and she keeps great speed till the end
Mastery of multi-directional skating √ (Yuna fulfilled lv.4 step requirements 5 turns and 3 steps in both directions)
Mastery of one-foot skating √
Equal mastery of technique by both partners shown in unison (pairs and ice dancing)
Balance in skating ability of individual skaters (synchronized)
* Jumping Technique
- Yuna’s jumps are textbook in terms of proper entry & posture & edge, speed & height, in-air position/axis, and stable landing. With Yuna, t’s very easy to tell the differences between different jumps.
Yuna’s skating skills worthy of 9.2~9.6 points
Balance, rhythmic knee action and precision of foot placement
Flow and effortless glide (she stumbles in her footwork segment… lack of flow)
Cleanness and sureness of deep edges, steps, turns
Power/energy and acceleration √ (she does carry herself with energy)
Mastery of multi-directional skating (didn’t even fulfill 5 turns/3teps in both directions)
Mastery of one-foot skating √ (Lots of free leg swinging ? so she does A LOT of one foot element)
Equal mastery of technique by both partners shown in unison (pairs and ice dancing)
Balance in skating ability of individual skaters (synchronized)
* Jumping Technique
- Sotnikova’s toe jumps (Lz, F, T) are mostly pre-rotated and take-off with full blade (naturally looks like an Axel jump). And her blade jumps that take off with full blade (A, S, Lo) are unrecognizably similar that you can’t tell the difference. (you can barely tell from the entry ie) three turn before 3S, cross x shape for 3Lo)
Sotnikova’s skating skills worthy of 7~8 points
02. Transitions/Linking Footwork/Movement
Definition: The varied and/or intricate footwork, positions, movements and holds that link all elements. In singles, pairs and synchronized skating, this also includes the entrances and exits of technical elements.
I’m not going to post all the transitions here, Adelina seems to have good amount of movements/transitions going in and out of the elements. Even more so than Yuna. (check out gifs of all the jumps and other elements) But if you look, only Yuna matched all the transitions with the music - the movements best complemented the tone of music ? make it a true part of her routine. And You’ll see that Yuna has better quality & flow of the transitions. Sotnikova does lots of three turns/movements in and out of elements but they are not with much quality and they are mismatched with music and they don’t help with the overall flow - it’s too much & overflowing & messy - don’t serve any purpose. But she got GoEs for supposedly difficult entry into the jumps when her jump themselves have cheating/bad technique.
03. Performance / Execution
Definition: Performance is the involvement of the skater/couple/teams physically, emotionally and intellectually as they translate the intent of the music and choreography. Execution is the quality of movement and precision in delivery. This includes harmony of movement in pairs, ice dancing and synchronized skating.
Criteria: (I’ve removed pairs/synchronized criteria)
Physical, emotional and intellectual involvement √
Style and individuality/personality √
Clarity of movement √
Variety and contrast √
Projection - Very unfortunate that Kim skated in front of Russian crowd, waiting for Yuna to make mistakes (Adelina surely got lots of crowd response out of patriotism)
Look at the variety of tempos, rhythms, expressions, and characters/personalities - emotional connection, poise, style of tango/mature feminine - all of these translated into her intricate footwork & clean/clean-cut upper body movement requiring balance, tango moves give it a distinct style? again in full style. SHE DESERVED 9.5~10
Definition: An intentional, developed and/or original arrangement of all types of movements according to the principles of proportion, unity, space, pattern, structure and phrasing.
Purpose (idea, concept, vision); Yuna (Tango) Send In The Clowns (reminiscence of long lost love) Sotnikova??? Doesn’t have a clear concept… for both Carmen & Saint-Saens
Proportion (equal weight of parts) / Unity (purposeful threading)
Utilization of personal and public space
Pattern and ice coverage; Yuna tops Ice coverage ? she moves from one end of the rink to the other in a speed of light while executing her elements. Sotnikova lacks ice coverage.
Phrasing and form (movements and parts structured to match the phrasing of the music); Yuns’s every movement matches music ? Yuna incorporated tango moves into her routine, staying true to the music’s nature ? in perfect sync with tango melody (ie. Abrazo & Voleo in step sequence) Adelina had nothing that was dedicated to the essence of the music piece.
Originality of purpose, movement and design; Tango is often not a common choice for FS - the rhythm/tempo are dynamic ? meaning the music carries various tones - sadness, passion, etc. - hence, the music is very hard to interpret. Yuna included unique tango-on-ice moves that match the music perfectly.
Shared responsibility in achieving purpose (pairs, ice dancing and synchronized skating)
Yuna deserves 9.5~10 in this category
(from upper left; Abrazo, Voleo, Enrosque, Gancho)
So basically, Yuna evenly placed her elements and it would have taken her great energy to carry out all her elements till the end. Notice how she put her step sequence before half way point. It takes great energy out of you to cover ice and do steps/turns that require balance ? she does it for nearly a minute and then without a resting point she goes into 3Lz ? first jump past the half way point. Yuna didn’t play it safe at all ? this would have been very challenging.
On the other hand, Sotnikova stalls in the first half only completing three jumping elements (3-3, 3F, 3Lo) & spin ? Notice how it took her 30s to get to her 1st 3-3 jumps (she didn’t even cover ice for the 1st 15s) and after 3-3, it takes her another 30s to get to her 3F. Did she put any choreography in between there that interprets the music? Nope, not at all… just pointless transitions that still would count towards program component, but it is very cowardly to stall for so long because her lack of actual elements in 1st half was to save energy for the second half -she has difficult combinations planned for second half ? 2A3T, 3F2T2Lo. She planned to have these combinations in the second half for higher marks ? now, she wanted to save energy for those so she fills first half with lots and lots of transitions… Have Adelina do it in a similar order as Yuna ? do you think she can handle it? Also, she finishes all her jumping elements before 3 min into her program. No other skater has that composition of elements in their programs. Lastly, it was very cowardly of her to put Step sequence and ChSp1 back to back so people don’t notice that she lacks elements in her StSq. Her step sequence only lasted 25s vs Yuna’s 50s. And her Choreo sq wasn’t really Choreo sequence ? it was a 8s spiral ? nothing related to her music… How on earth can you call her program difficult? And how on earth did Adelina get over 70 PCS?
Definition: The personal and creative translation of the music to movement on ice.
- Effortless movement in time to the music; √
- Expression of the music's style, character, rhythm; √
- Use of finesse* to reflect the nuances of the music √
- Relationship between the partners reflecting the character of the music (pairs, ice dancing and synchronized skating)
- Appropriateness of music in ice dancing, short dance and free dance
* Finesse is the skater's/team's refined, artful manipulation of nuances. Nuances are the personal artistic ways of bringing variations to the intensity, tempo and dynamics of the music made by the composer and/or musicians.
Again, this shows how Yuna reflected changing/dynamic tones/nuances of the music and made it all part of her character. You see how she marks the change of tempo/tone with various expressions. This piece of Adios Nonino is unique and creative in that it was colorful despite the overall sorrowful tone ? Piazolla wrote it in memory of his late father. (Moments like 2. and 4. ? bring a different dynamics/tempo from the original music piece.) And with Yuna’s interpretation, it comes natural to do a story telling from her various expressions (through her facial expressions/poses) THIS PROGRAM DESERVED 9.8~10 for interpretation.
I’m not even going to bother going into performance, choreography, interpretation with Sotnikova’s performance because it is an insult to even compare it with Yuna’s performance. All I’m going to say is that Sotnikova had a very weak program that doesn’t fulfill all the required criteria for program components. And she got one of the highest PCS (nearly perfect) simply for putting on a seemingly clean performance without a visible/major flaw (falls).
NOW, TO WRAP UP WITH WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN...
Total TES&PCS of both short program & FS after taking all technical errors into account and with more reasonable GoE
SOCHI, Russia ? Ottavio Cinquanta of Italy, president of figure skating’s international federation, was unaware of a controversy over the results in the Olympic women’s event that ended Thursday with Adelina Sotnikova of Russia beating defending champion Yuna Kim of South Korea.
Alexander Lakernik of Russia, head of the three-member technical panel that helped determine those results, knew the decision had become a “big issue” but insisted such questions were to be expected.
That two leading officials of the International Skating Union would react in that way illustrates a gap between perception and reality that the federation makes no attempt to reduce. Its failure to give explanations for even those parts of the judging that are the most objective, such as which mistakes lower a spin’s base level, further undermines the sport’s shaky credibility.
Both spoke exclusively to the Tribune on Friday, Cinquanta by telephone, Lakernik at his hotel in the Sochi Olympic Park.
At a time when dissemination of such explanations to a wide audience never has been easier, Cinquanta clearly did not grasp the need to provide it in a timely manner.
“I’ll get back to you tomorrow,” was his answer to the request for official rationales behind the scores.
Because he had been on the judging panel, Lakernik declined to identify those reasons without Cinquanta’s approval.
“I’m not hiding anything,” Lakernik said.
So thousands of TV viewers around the world are left feeling Sotnikova won because the event took place in Russia. It makes no difference that a TV screen does not provide an accurate impression of the performance as seen by judges at rinkside. Outraged viewers smell rancid home cooking.
“It could be the judging was more favorable for Russian skaters,” said 1984 Olympic pairs champion Oleg Vasiliev, a Russian. “But Adelina skated great, and she deserved it.”
Cinquanta was stunned to be told some are likening what happened in the women’s event to the 2002 judging scandal in Salt Lake City.
“I don’t understand the use of this word,” he said.
The comparison is, for now, quite a stretch. In Salt Lake City, a judge revealed she had been pressured into a vote-trading deal that would help guarantee a Russian victory in pairs for a French win in ice dance. In the wake of that, the International Olympic Committee ordered the ISU to award a second pairs gold medal to the Canadians who had finished second in pairs, in which Lakernik was the assistant referee.
Spokesman Mark Adams said Friday morning the IOC would take no action in this case without a “credible complaint” made to the skating federation. The ISU released a statement just before midnight saying it had not received any official protest.
“Any result in this way would be questionable because there were great performances who could be considered better or worse from a different angle,'' Lakernik said. “Yuna Kim could be first or Carolina Kostner (the Italian who was third) could be first, and it would be the same story. Some people would think another result is correct. But the result is the product of many details.”
The details that raised the most eyebrows involved the component scores, which evaluate five areas under specific criteria but seem as subjective as the artistic impression scores in the old 6.0 system.
In her previous four competitions this season, Sotnikova’s free skate component scores were, in order, 60.31, 64.65, 60.47 and 69.60. The Olympic judges gave her 74.41, just .09 behind Kim, clearly the more aesthetically pleasing skater.
“If you skate well, you are marked well, and (Sotnikova) definitely did the performance of her life,” said Lakernik, whose job in determining the results did not involve the component scores.
The presence of two people on the judging panel, which grades the execution of the elements and components, understandably has fueled criticism.
One judge, Alla Shekhovtseva, is married to Valentin Piseev, former president of the Russian Figure Skating Federation and its current general director. Another, Yuri Balkov of Ukraine, was suspended for one year for being part of a result-fixing affair in 1998.
One is a clear conflict of interest. The other is akin to having a bank rehire an employee caught for embezzling.
“Would you rather have an idiot acting as a judge than a good one who is a relative of the manager of a federation?” Cinquanta said. “It is far more important to have a good judge than a possible conflict of interest.
“I can’t suspend a person for life for a minor violation. (Balkov) is a matter for the Ukraine federation because they chose to send him.”
That is another issue. Judges have no independence because national federations train them and decide which ones to nominate for big assignments.
None of this is new, but the new judging system ? implemented after Salt Lake City ? was supposed to make the results less debatable.
To Scott Hamilton, the 1984 singles champion and a TV commentator, the controversy is the best thing that could have happened.
“You’re going to be around the water cooler and everybody is going to have an opinion, and I love it because it will make everyone care about the sport again,”
he said, laughing.
ISU Constitution and General Regulations 2012
3. Time limits for filing protests
b) Protests concerning the composition of the panel of Officials must be filed within one hour of its announcement.
c) Any other protests, except cases covered by subparagraph d) below, must be filed with the Referee immediately, however, not later than 30 minutes after the completion of the competition concerned. Completion of a competition (for this purpose only) means end of the last race of all races for a single distance in Speed Skating, end of the last heat/qualifying round or of the last of a series of heats/qualifying rounds, or all four quarter finals or of the last of both semi-finals or of the final for a single distance in Short Track Speed Skating, and end of any single segment (Short Program / Free Skating / Pattern Dance / Short Dance / Free Dance) of a Figure Skating competition.
d) Protests against incorrect mathematical calculation may be filed until 24 hours after the completion of the competition concerned. (See also paragraph 4. A. iii) below). If the Referee is not available in person at the site or hotel, the Protest shall be sent by fax or email to the Secretariat which will forward it to the Referee concerned.
4. Protest restrictions
A. Figure Skating
i) No protests against evaluations by Referees, Judges and the Technical Panel (Technical Controller, Technical Specialists, Data & Replay Operator) of Skaters’ performances are allowed;
ii) Protests against results are permitted only in the case of incorrect mathematical calculation. A wrong identification of an element or of a level of difficulty, although it results in a lower or higher score, is a human error and not an incorrect mathematical calculation;
5. Referee’s decision
a) The Referee shall decide upon any protest in writing and as soon as possible. The Referee shall deliver such decision to the person filing the protest or shall arrange such delivery. Copies of any protest and Referee decision shall be forwarded to the Secretariat.
b) If a protest is filed:
i) after the time limit or
ii) which is not allowed by the Rules,
the Referee shall dismiss the protest in writing with reference to the applicable Rule but without dealing with the merits of the claim.
e) The Referee’s decision upon a protest is final and there is no appeal against such decision except in cases specified in Rule 124.
An appeal may be made to the Council only against decisions which concern the eligibility of a Competitor, the incorrect calculation of the result, or the composition of the panel of Officials and only in cases where the ISU Statutes relating to the afore-mentioned subjects have been contravened.
2. Every appeal against a decision of the Referee must be submitted to the Council of the ISU within 30 days from the issuance of the decision.
3. Appeals do not have the effect of deferring the decision.
4. Appeals may be lodged only by those entitled to lodge protests (see Rule 123, paragraph 2).
ISU Constitution and General Regulations 2012
ISU Special Regulations & Technical Rules Single & Pair Skating and Ice Dance 2012
List of Officials 2013/14 for Single & Pair Skating, Ice Dance and Synchronized Skating
Grand Prix of Figure Skating 2013/2014 General Announcement
Rule 121 오피셜들
2. 오피셜 지정의 제한
b) 의회 멤버와 스포츠 이사회 멤버, 가능하다면 ISU 고문은 Rule 107에 지정된 대회에서 레프리, 저지, 테크니컬 스페셜리스트, 테크니컬 컨트롤러, 데이터&리플레이 오퍼레이터, OAC 멤버, 개회자, 선수들 관리인으로 활동해서는 안 된다.
e) 기술 위원회 멤버는 그들이 적절한 규정에 따라 저지로 인증되었다고 해도, 가능하다면, 그들의 적절한 분야 내의 경기에서 저지로 활동해서는 안 된다. 그러나 그들은 레프리, 테크니컬 컨트롤러로는 활동할 수 있다.
j) 개인적, 상업적, 가족 관계
ISU 이벤트나 동계 올림픽, 동계 유스 올림픽에서, 선수의 가족(family)에 해당하는 사람은 해당 선수가 경기하는 분야의 오피셜로 활동하는 것이 금지되지만, 이해 상충이 발생하는 상황이 아니라면 그 ISU 이벤트, 동계 올림픽 혹은 동계 유스 올림픽의 다른 분야에는 참가할 수 있다.
4. ISU 이벤트나 동계 올림픽, 동계 유스 올림픽에서, ineligible person의 가족(family)에 해당하는 사람이나 보수를 지불받는 코치의 가족(family)은 그들의 학생이 참가하는 분야의 오피셜로 활동하는 것이 금지되지만, 이해 상충이 발생하는 상황이 아니라면 그 ISU 이벤트, 동계 올림픽 혹은 동계 유스 올림픽의 다른 분야에는 참가할 수 있다.
5. 이 룰에서 말하는 용어 "family"는 경기하는 선수, ineligible person, 보수를 지불받는 코치와 이해 상충이 발생할 것으로 보이는 관계에 있는 모든 이를 지칭한다.
6. 레프리는 지정된 ISU 오피셜들에게 ISU 윤리강령을 적용하여 볼 때 이해 상충이 발생할 모든 상황에 대해 결정을 내려야 한다.
Rule 352 ISU Judging System
최대 9명의 저지 : 발행된 목록에서 선택
1명의 레프리, 1명의 TS, 1명의 어시스턴트 TS(이하 ATS), 1명의 TC : ISU 이벤트의 경우 각각 발행된 목록에서 ISU가 직접 지정
Rule 410 올림픽에서 오피셜 지정
2. 올림픽 개최국은 그들의 레프리/테크니컬 컨트롤러/테크니컬 스페셜리스트를 싱글/페어 스케이팅에 2명, 아이스댄스에 1명을 추천할 수 있고, 그들은 ISU 위원들 중 한 명이어도 된다.
Rule 402 올림픽에서 저지
a) 전년도 월드 챔피언십 결과에 따라 퀄리파잉한 국가에서 13명을 추첨한다.
f) 쇼트 시작 전 레프리에 의해 13명 중 9명을 추첨한다. 이 때 추첨되지 않은 4명은 프리에 자동으로 배정되며, 쇼트 저지 9명 중 5명을 추첨하여 프리 저지 9명을 완성한다.
Rule 420 국제 대회에서 오피셜의 지정 (일반 룰)
6. a) 모든 ISU 이벤트, 올림픽 게임의 퀄리파잉 경기, 동계 올림픽에 있어서, 가능하다면, 레프리, 테크니컬 컨트롤러, 테크니컬 스페셜리스트는 같은 국적이어서는 안 되며 모두 ISU에 의해 지정되어야 한다.
7. 국제 대회를 개최하는 연맹은 패널 오브 저지를 최대한 많은 참가국으로 구성하기 위해 최선을 다해야 한다.
Rule 421 챔피언십에서 오피셜의 지정 (특별 룰)
2. 개최국은 그들의 레프리/테크니컬 컨트롤러/테크니컬 스페셜리스트를 싱글/페어 스케이팅에 2명, 아이스댄스에 1명을 추천할 수 있고, 그들은 ISU 위원들 중 한 명이어도 된다.
4. ISU 챔피언십 조직위원회 멤버는 해당 챔피언십에서 레프리, TC, TS, DRO, OAC 멤버, 저지로 활동할 수 없다.
Rule 582 저지 추첨
4. a) 각국 멤버는 각 퀄리파잉한 종목에 한 명의 저지(개인이 아닌 국가에 할당)를 보낼 수 있다.
6. a) 유럽 챔피언십에서는 유럽 출신 저지들만 추첨에 참가할 수 있다.
c, g & h) 쇼트와 프리의 저지 배정 방식은 올림픽과 동일. (13명 → 9명 → 4명+5명)
7. c) 사대륙 챔피언십의 경우 13명의 풀을 선택하지 않고 직접 9명을 추첨한다.
그랑프리 일반 규정
7.3 패널 오브 저지
가능하다면 각 종목마다 서로 다른 국적을 가진 9명의 저지로 구성된다. 인터내셔널 혹은 ISU 저지가 그랑프리 시리즈 이벤트에 참가하는 것이 가능하다. 각 저지는 그랑프리 시리즈 두 개 대회까지, 추가로 파이널에 참가할 수 있다. 개최국은 ISU가 승인한 과정에 따라 저지들을 초청한다.
9.6 패널 오브 저지 (그랑프리 파이널)
패널 오브 저지는 가능하다면 서로 다른 국적을 가진 9명의 저지로 구성되며, 7명보다 적어서는 안 된다. 저지는 "ISU 저지"여야 한다. 저지의 초청장은 ISU 사무국이 발행한다.
어떤 저지도 ISU 그랑프리 파이널과 주니어 그랑프리 파이널에서 두 개 이상의 분야에서 활동할 수 없다.
패널 구성의 우선 순위는 다음과 같다:
a) 시니어 파이널 참가국
b) 주니어 파이널 참가국
c) 필요하다면, 각 ISU 그랑프리 이벤트 개최국
d) 필요하다면, ISU 주니어&시니어 그랑프리 파이널에 참가하지만 a)와 b)에 언급되지 않으면서 저지를 갖고 있는 국가
e) 필요하다면, ISU 주니어&시니어 그랑프리 파이널 개최국
f) 필요하다면, 시니어 파이널에 대기자로 퀄리파잉한 스케이터/커플 소속국
g) 필요하다면, 주니어 파이널에 대기자로 퀄리파잉한 스케이터/커플 소속국
h) 필요하다면, 시니어 파이널에 퀄리파잉하지 못한 스케이터/커플 소속국이면서 대기자가 아닌 스케이터/커플 중 가장 높은 포인트를 가진 스케이터/커플 소속국
저지의 초청장은 ISU 사무국이 2013/14시즌 마지막 그랑프리 이벤트(로스텔레콤 컵)이 끝난 즉시 발행한다.
저지로 결정된 국가는 해당 저지의 이름(들)을 2013년 11월 28일까지 제출하여야 한다.
저지의 선택은 각 국에 맡긴다. 각 국은 모든 선택된 저지와 대기 저지에 대하여 제 시간에 여행 서류를 준비할 의무가 있다.
ISU Constitution and General Regulations 2012
ISU Special Regulations & Technical Rules Single & Pair Skating and Ice Dance 2012
List of Officials 2013/14 for Single & Pair Skating, Ice Dance and Synchronized Skating
Grand Prix of Figure Skating 2013/2014 General Announcement
Rule 121 Officials
2. Restrictions applying to appointed Officials:
b) Council members and Sports Directorate members shall not and ISU Advisors if possible should not act as Referees, Judges, Technical Specialists, Technical Controllers, Data & Replay Operators, OAC members, Starters and Competitors Stewards in competitions specified in Rule 107.
e) Members of the Technical Committees, although they are approved as Judges according to the provisions of the relevant Rules in the respective Special Regulations should not, if possible, act as Judges in competitions of their appropriate Branch.
j) Personal, Commercial and Family Relationships
i) The ISU Code of Ethics, including but not limited to its conflict of interest” provisions, is applicable to appointed ISU Officials and other participants as stated in the ISU Code of Ethics;
ii) Without detracting from the broad and personal applicability of the Code of Ethics, the following examples are presented for guidance:
1. At an ISU Event or the Olympic Winter Games or the Winter Youth Olympic Games Office Holders, elected or appointed, shall not act as members of any national team, or act as team leaders, assistant team leaders, chaperons, team doctors or team coaches, or wear national team uniforms (except Coaches serving on an ISU Technical Committee, may coach individually their students who are entered in an ISU Event or an international competition).
2. For the Figure Skating Branch only, ISU Officials (Referees, Judges, Technical Controllers, Technical Specialists, etc.), when at an ISU Event or the Olympic Winter Games or the Winter Youth Olympic Games where they are not serving as an ISU Official, may act as a member of a national team, team leader, assistant team leader, chaperon, team doctor or team coach, and may wear national team uniforms.
3. At an ISU Event or the Olympic Winter Games or the Winter Youth Olympic Games, a person of the family of a competing Skater is not permitted to serve as an Official of the competition in which such Skater is entered, but such person may serve at other competitions of such ISU Event or the Olympic Winter Games or the Winter Youth Olympic Games unless such service may reasonably appear to be a conflict of interest.
4. At an ISU Event or the Olympic Winter Games or the Winter Youth Olympic Games, a person of the family of an ineligible person, or of the family of a remunerated Coach, is not permitted to serve as an Official of the competition in which a competing pupil of the ineligible person or remunerated Coach is entered, but such person may serve at other competitions of such ISU Event or the Olympic Winter Games or the Winter Youth Olympic Games unless such service may reasonably appear to be a conflict of interest.
5. The term ”family” as used in this Rule shall be understood as including all persons who, due to their relationships, may reasonably appear to be in a conflict of interest position regarding a competing Skater, ineligible person or remunerated Coach.
6. For purposes of staffing at an event, the Referee(s) shall decide any issues raised at the event concerning conflicts of interest or other matters involving the applicability of the ISU Code of Ethics to assigned ISU Officials.
Rule 352 ISU Judging System
e) A maximum of 9 Judges selected from the published ISU list of Judges and Referees will be used for the selection and composition of the panel for each category of a competition;
A Referee from the published ISU list of Referees will be appointed to take care of the panel and oversee the event based on all applicable ISU Rules and Regulations.
A Technical Specialist and an Assistant Technical Specialist from the published ISU list of Technical Specialists, will be appointed and used to determine whether an element and which element has or has not been performed. A Technical Controller from the published list of Technical Controllers will be appointed in each event to supervise the work of the Technical Specialists in that event;
Rule 410 Appointment of Officials to the Olympic Winter Games
2. The Member for the country in which the Olympic Winter Games are held may recommend to serve not more than two of its own Referees/ Technical Controllers/Technical Specialists for Single & Pair Skating plus one Referee/Technical Controller/Technical Specialist for Ice Dance, including those that are also ISU Office Holders.
Rule 402 Panels of Judges for the Olympic Winter Games
1. a) For each discipline thirteen (13) Judges shall be drawn from those Members which have Skaters qualified for the Olympic Winter Games according to the results of the World Championships of the preceding year in the discipline concerned.
f) For the first segment of the event nine (9) Judges will be drawn from all thirteen (13) Judges drawn for the respective event. For the second segment of the event, the four (4) Judges not drawn for the first segment will automatically be assigned to be in the panel of nine (9) Judges for the second segment and all other Judges serving already in the first segment will participate in the draw to complete the panel of nine (9) Judges.
Rule 420 Appointment of Officials to International Competitions (general)
6. a) For all ISU Events, Qualifying Competition for the Olympic Games and the Olympic Winter Games, if possible, the Referee, Technical Controller and the Technical Specialists must not be from the same Member and all must be designated ISU.
7. Members organizing International Competitions must do their utmost, in composing the panels of Judges, to secure representation on the panels of Judges from as many participating Members as possible.
Rule 421 Appointments of Officials to ISU Championships (special Rule)
2. The Organizing Member may recommend to serve not more than two of its own Referees/Technical Controllers/Technical Specialists for Single and Pair Skating and one of its own Referees/Technical Controllers/Technical Specialists for Ice Dance, including those who are also ISU Office Holders.
4. A member of the Organizing Committee of an ISU Championship may not serve as a Referee, Technical Controller, Technical Specialist, Data & Replay Operator, OAC member or Judge at the Championship concerned.
Rule 582 Judges Draws
* ISU Championships
4. a) Each ISU Member may enter one Judge by number (not by name) in each discipline in which Judges of this Member are qualified to judge and in which that Member has participated with at least one (1) Skater/Couple in the same Championships or (for the season 2012/2013 only) its Preliminary Rounds (see subparagraphs 6.d), 7.c) and 8.d)) of the preceding year, who has/have finished at least one segment of the individual competition or reached in the Preliminary Round the minimal number of points established for that year.
6.a) Only European ISU Members who have entered with Judges for the European Figure Skating Championships will participate in the draws for the composition of the panel of Judges for this Championships.
c, g & h) Judge Draw : same as Olympics
7. c) Nine (9) ISU Members are drawn amongst all the ISU Members of the Four Continents, who have entered a Judge by number for this particular discipline and who have participated with a Competitor/Couple in the same discipline of the Four Continents Figure Skating Championships of the immediate preceding year, provided that this Competitor/Couple had finished at least one segment (see also paragraph 4. a).
* Grand Prix General Announcement
7.3 Panel of Judges
The panel of Judges in each individual event of the ISU Grand Prix of Figure Skating will consist of 9 Judges of different ISU Members in each discipline if possible, but not less than 7 Judges. Only International or ISU Judges are eligible to serve in the ISU Grand Prix of Figure Skating events. Each Judge may participate in no more than two ISU Grand Prix of Figure Skating events plus the ISU Grand Prix of Skating Final. The Organizing ISU Members will invite the Judges based on a procedure agreed with the ISU.
9.6 Panel of Judges (* Grand Prix Final)
The panel of Judges will consist of 9 Judges of different ISU Members in each discipline, if possible, but not less than 7 Judges. Judges must have the qualification of “ISU Judge”. The invitations to the Judges will be issued by the ISU Secretariat.
No Judge may serve in more than two disciplines of the ISU Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final and two disciplines of the ISU Junior Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final 2013/14 each.
The composition of the panels of Judges in each category will be made in accordance with the following procedure:
a) first priority will be given to the participating ISU Members in the Senior Final;
b) second priority will be given to the participating ISU Members in the Junior Final;
c) third priority, if necessary, will be given to the ISU Grand Prix of Figure Skating organizing Members of individual ISU Grand Prix events (Senior);
d) fourth priority, if necessary, will be given to the ISU Members with Judges present at the ISU Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final (Junior and Senior), but not mentioned under a) and b);
e) fifth priority, if necessary, will be given to the host Member of the ISU Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final and the ISU Junior Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final;
f) sixth priority, if necessary, will be given to the ISU Members with Skaters/Couples qualified as alternates in the Senior Final;
g) seventh priority, if necessary, will be given to the ISU Members with Skaters/Couples qualified as alternates in the Junior Final;
h) eighth priority, if necessary, will be given to the ISU Members with Skaters/Couples not qualified for the ISU Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final, with priority to the discipline concerned, starting from that Skater/Couple with the highest total amount of points but not being alternate for the final.
The invitations to the Judges will be issued by the ISU Secretariat immediately following the last event of the ISU Grand Prix of Figure Skating 2013/14 (Rostelecom Cup).
The respective ISU Members entitled to nominate a Judge must submit the name of the Judge(s) not later than November 28, 2013.
The selection of Judges will be made by the respective Member. The Members are responsible for providing all selected and stand-by Judges with the appropriate travel documents in time.
Letter to ISU office holders: “People deserve to know if a mistake was made”
According to Tim Gerber’s analysis ? reviewed by two other ISU-certified technical specialists ? the level calls for the step sequence of Adelina Sotnikova and Yuna Kim (in the free program) were both wrong (the Russian received a Level 4 and the South Korean, a Level 3, when, in fact, it should have been completely opposite); and wrong was also the judgement of Sotnikova’s Triple Lutz + Triple Toeloop combination: “Sotnikova clearly has a wrong edge flutz takeoff on her Lutz. She has had this technique problem her entire career. How can it be that the tech panel suddenly missed it? Her edge clearly changes over as she takes off for the jump. Furthermore, the Triple Toeloop in combination with the Lutz was obviously underrotated”.
The levels of the step sequence for both skaters, the flutz takeoff, the underrotated Toeloop… Tim Gerber summarizes: “This is a total of 4 wrong calls that the technical panel made, which were all in the benefit of Sotnikova. She also received insanely high and incorrect scores from the judging panel ? who on Earth could ever give Sotnikova’s step sequence +3 GOE when she has so many sloppy edges, lack of flow between movements, and very little rhythmic timing of her movements? All of these incorrect marks look like far more than honest mistakes or being generous to a young girl who skated well in front of a home audience. It looks like cheating. There is no explanation other than complete incompetence by the both the technical panel and the judges”.
번역 My Dear Korea
ISU 관계자들에게 보내는 (팀 거버의) 편지: “잘못이 있었다면 우리에겐 알아야 할 자격이 있다”
(플로렌티나 톤 (Florentina Tone) 기자) 2014년 소치올림픽에서 여자 피겨 싱글 경기가 끝난지 한 달이 지났다. 하지만 사람들은 여전히 러시아의 소트니코바가 지난 밴쿠버 올림픽 챔피언인 김연아를 누르고 금메달을 딴 소치 올림픽 결과에 대해 의문을 제기하고 있다. 여기서 (의문을 제기하고 있는) "사람들"이란 단지 (자기가 좋아하는 선수에 대한 주관적 견해로 비판을 받기도 하는) 보통의 피겨 팬들 뿐 아니라 현재 피겨종목에서 사용되는 신채점제(COP)를 잘 알고 있는 피겨 기술 전문가들까지도 포함해서 지칭하는 것이다. 이들 전문가 중 한 사람이 바로 팀 거버(Tim Gerber)인데, 그가 전직 피겨 선수라는 사실보다 더욱 중요한 것은 그가 예전에 ISU 테크니컬 스페셜리스트 세미나에 참여한 적이 있다는 것이다. 이 세미나는 피겨 경기의 테크니컬 스페셜리스트가 되고자 하는 사람들을 위한 전면적인 훈련을 제공한다. 이러한 자격(혹은 피겨 지식)을 갖춘 팀 거버는 최근 국제빙상연맹 (ISU)에 소속된 피겨 관계자 33명에게 편지를 보냈다. 이 편지의 수신자에는 소치 여자 싱글 경기에 테크니컬 컨트롤러로 참여한 알렉산더 라커닉도 있는데, 이 편지에서 그는 이번 동계올림픽의 바로 이 특정한 경기 (곧 여자 싱글)에서 테크니컬 패널이 어떤 일을 했는지를 묻고 있다.
팀 거버의 분석에 의하면 (참고로 이 분석은 ISU 공인 테크니컬 스페셜리스트에 의해 (이미) 검토되었다) 소트니코바와 김연아의 프리 경기 스텝시퀀스에 각각 주어진 레벨은 둘 다 잘못 되었다. 소트니코바는 레벨 4를 받았고 김연아는 레벨 3을 받았는데 사실 이 판정은 완전히 반대로 되었어야 했다. (김연아가 레벨 4, 소트니코바가 레벨 3을 받았어야 했다는 뜻) 또 잘못된 판정은 소트니코바의 트리플러츠-트리플 토룹 컴비네이션 점프에서도 있었다. "소트니코바가 러츠 점프를 뛸 때 롱엣지 플러츠 도약을 한다는 것은 분명한 사실이다. 이런 기술적 문제는 그녀가 피겨 선수로 뛰는 동안 내내 가지고 있던 문제였다. 그런데 어떻게 테크니컬 패널이 갑자기 그것을 못 볼 수 있는가? 그녀의 엣지는 도약하는 순간 명확하게 (아웃엣지에서 인엣지로) 바뀌었다. 게다가 트리플 러츠-트리플 토룹 콤비네이션 점프의 연결 트리플 토룹은 명백하게 회전수가 부족한 점프였다."
선수 두명에 주어진 스텝시퀀스 레벨, 플러츠 도약, 회전수가 부족한 토룹... 이에 대해 팀거버는 다음과 같이 요약했다. "이는 테크니컬 패널이 총 네 부분에 있어 잘못된 판정을 했다는 사실을 말한다. 물론 모두 소트니코바에게 이익이 되는 판정이었다. 그녀는 또한 저징패널 (가산점을 주는 심판단)으로부터 미쳤다고 밖에는 볼 수 없는 잘못된 고득점을 했다. 지구상 그 누가 엣지 사용이 엉망이고 동작과 동작을 연결하는 흐름도 없고 음악에 맞춰 타는 동작도 거의 볼 수 없는 소트니코바의 스텝시퀀스에 +3의 가산점을 줄 수 있단 말인가? 이러한 잘못된 점수들은 정직한 실수, 즉 고의가 아닌 실수라거나 자국 관중 앞에서 스케이트를 잘 탄 어린 소녀에게 후한 점수를 준 것 뿐이라고 보기엔 너무 과했다. 이것은 부정 행위(cheating)이다. (그게 아니라면) 테크니컬 패널과 심판들 모두가 완전히 무능했다고 볼 수 밖에는 없다."
팀 거버가 말했듯 "잘못이 있었다면 우리에겐 그걸 알 자격이 있다." 그래서 "이번 소치 올림픽의 각각의 테크니컬 패널들에게 주어진 임무가 무엇이었으며 그들이 어떤 판정을 했는지"를 묻기 위해 2014년 소치 올림픽 여자 싱글 경기의 테크니컬 콘트롤러였던 알렉산더 라커닉을 포함한 ISU 관계자 33명에게 편지를 보냈다. 하지만 지금 이 순간까지 그 편지의 수신자들 중 그 누구도 답변을 하지 않고 있다.
이미 끝난 지 한 달이 다 되어 가는 소치 여자 싱글 경기에 대한 관심이 (여전히) 크고 (팀 거버가) 편지에서 제기한 질문들이 정당하므로, 우리는 팀에게 그의 편지를 보다 많은 독자들과 공유할 수 있도록 허락을 구했다. 그가 ISU 피겨 관계자들에게 보낸 편지 전문은 다음과 같다.
“친애하는 나의 피겨 동료들께,
우리는 소치 올림픽에서 테크니컬 패널들이 얼마나 신통치 않게 판정을 했는지에 대해 이야기를 해 볼 필요가 있습니다. 먼저 여자 싱글 경기에서 1, 2등을 한 선수 두명이 받은 판정에 대해 얘기를 해 보죠.
첫번째로, 소트니코바와 김연아가 받은 스텝시퀀스 레벨입니다. 소트니코바는 레벨 4를, 김연아는 레벨 3을 받았습니다. 하지만 이에 대해 나도 분석해 보고 또 다른 전문가들도 분석해 봤지만 이 레벨 판정은 잘못되었습니다. 소트니코바는 (기껏해야) 레벨 3을 받았어야 했고 김연아는 레벨 4를 받았어야 했습니다. 이에 대한 전반적인 분석은 이곳에서 볼 수있습니다.
(소치 올림픽 경기에서) 스텝시퀀스를 할 때 소트니코바가 완벽하지 않는 엣지사용과 완벽하지 않은 스텝을 했다는 건 명백한 사실이며, 이제까지 그녀가 참가했던 다른 대회에서 항상 레벨 3 밖에는 받을 수 없었는데 그런 그녀의 스텝 레벨에 대해 어떻게 테크니컬 패널은 레벨 4를 줄 수 있었나요? 어떻게 더 잘 짜여진 구성요소로 레벨 4를 받는데 모든 기준을 만족 또는 초과했던 김연아의 스텝시퀀스가 레벨 3을 받을 수 있었는가 말입니다! 김연아의 스텝시퀀스는 아주 복잡하면서도 매우 정확한 엣지사용을 보여줬습니다.
테크니컬 패널은 스텝시퀀스를 판정할 때 각각 임무를 분담하며, 또한 시퀀스의 레벨을 책정하는데 필요한 각기 다른 기준들에 부합하여 선수가 경기를 했는지를 보기 위해 3명의 패널들이 각각의 책임을 분담합니다. 나는 이번 소치 올림픽에서 각 테크 패널들이 어떤 임무를 분담했고 각각 어떤 판정을 했는지 알고 싶습니다. 만약 잘못이 있었다면 우리에게는 그것을 알 자격이 있습니다. 적어도 미래의 테크니컬 패널들은 이번 올림픽에서 내려진 신통치 않은 판정을 통해 배울 수 있고 성장할 수 있으니까요.
이번 올림픽 테크니컬 패널에 대한 두번째 문제는 소트니코바의 트리플러츠-트리플 토룹 콤비네이션에 대한 판정입니다. 소트니코바가 러츠 점프에서 플러츠 도약을 했다는 건 명백한 사실입니다. 그녀는 이런 (잘못된 엣지 사용이라는) 기술 문제를 그녀의 선수 생활 내내 가지고 있었습니다. 그런데 어떻게 테크니컬 패널이 그걸 갑자기 못 볼 수가 있었지요? 그녀의 엣지는 점프 도약시 명백하게 바뀌었습니다. 게다가 이 트리플러츠-트리플토룹 콤비네이션에서 (연결점프인) 트리플 토룹은 명백하게 회전수가 부족했습니다. (선수가 90도 각도 이내에만 착지하면, 즉 1/4 바퀴정도 부족하게 착지만 해도 회전수 부족으로 감점을 받지 않지만) 소트니코바의 스케이트날은 이 기준에도 훨씬 못 미치는 지점에서 이미 빙판에 착지해 있었습니다. 그녀는 테크니컬 패널이 앉아 있는 쪽의 보드를 90도 등진 채 점프 도약을 했습니다. 이건 그녀가 점프를 확실히 인정 받고 점수를 다 받기 위해서는 그녀의 스케이트가 테크니컬 패널을 똑바로 마주 본 채 빙판에 착지해야 한다는 것을 의미합니다. 하지만 그녀의 스케이트 날은 그 기준점에서 명백하게 부족한 곳에 (그렇게 똑바로 마주 보지 못한 채로) 착지했습니다. 이런 회전수 부족은 소트니코바가 선수 생활 내내 가지고 있었던 또다른 기술적 문제 중 하나입니다. 소트니코바는 이제까지 트리플러츠-트리플 토룹 콤비네이션을 뛸 때 회전수를 다 채운 점수를 받은 적이 없었습니다. 이 소치 올림픽 이전까지도. 이전 점프가 의심할 수 없는 부정 (cheating) 점프였다면 어떻게 소치에서는 그런 점수를 받을 수 있었나요?
지금까지 언급한 네가지 부분이 모두 소트니코바에게 이익이 되었던 테크니컬 패널의 잘못된 판정들입니다. 하지만 그녀는 또한 저징패널 (가산점을 주는 심판단)으로부터 미쳤다고 밖에는 볼 수 없는 잘못된 고득점을 했습니다. 지구상 그 누가 엣지 사용이 엉망이고 동작과 동작을 연결하는 흐름도 없고 음악에 맟줘 타는 동작도 거의 볼 수 없는 소트니코바의 스텝시퀀스에 +3의 가산점을 줄 수 있단 말입니까? 이러한 잘못된 점수들은 정직한 실수, 즉 고의가 아닌 실수라거나 자국 관중 앞에서 스케이트를 잘 탄 어린 소녀에게 후한 점수를 준 것 뿐이라고 보기엔 너무 과했습니다. 이것은 부정 행위(cheating)입니다. (그게 아니라면) 테크니컬 패널과 심판들 모두가 완전히 무능했다고 볼 수 밖에는 없습니다.
피겨 종목이 성공적으로 지속되기 위해서는 이런 일들이 계속 벌어져서는 안 됩니다. 부정 행위에 대한 이야기를 잠시 미뤄 봅시다. 러시아인들로부터 뇌물을 먹었거나 경기 결과를 비틀도록 그들에게 위협을 받은 사람이 저지들이나 테크니컬 패널들 중에 아무도 없었다고 가정해 봅시다. 그렇다면, 모든 판정을 명확하게 하기 위해, 부패의 가능성을 줄이기 위해 무엇을 할 수 있을까요? 태크니컬 패널들을 더 잘 훈련시켜야 합니다. 저지들도 더 잘 훈련시켜야 합니다. 저지들은 익명으로 판정해서는 안 됩니다. 채점제를 아주 많이 수정해야할 필요가 있습니다. 스텝시퀀스는 이렇게 과도하게 복잡할 이유가 없습니다. (과도하게 복잡한 스텝시퀀스는) 프로그램의 진짜 안무를 제대로 볼 수 없게 만들고, 경기가 벌어지는 동안 관중들로 하여금 저지들의 판정을 이해하는 것을 불가능하게 만듭니다.
팀 거버는 누구인가
인사이드 스케이팅(Inside Skating)은 팀 거버의 편지와 함께, 그가 ISU에 편지를 쓰게 된 정황을 이해하기 위해 그와의 짧은 인터뷰를 싣는다.
팀 거버씨, 당신의 편지를 보다 잘 이해할 수 있도록 당신과 당신의 피겨 경력에 대해 간략한 소개를 부탁한다.
나는 피겨선수로 수년간 훈련을 했으며 트리플 러츠까지 모든 점프를 뛸 수 있었다. 2010년에 (ISU의) 테크니컬 스페셜리스트 훈련을 위한 강좌를 수강할 기회가 있었다. 그곳에서 나는 ISU가 (참가자들에게) 제대로된 훈련을 제공하고 있지도 않을 뿐 더러, ISU 자체가 자신들이 만든 채점제를 충분히 이해 못하고 있다는 느낌을 받았다. 이와는 별개로 나는 또한 피겨역사와 기술, 그리고 안무를 광범위하게 공부하였다.
ISU가 (참가자들에게) 제대로된 훈련을 제공하고 있지 않다는 건 무슨 의미인가? 좀 더 구체적으로 말해 주겠는가?
세미나는 3일 과정이었는데 이 과정을 통해 참가자들은 경기에서 테크니컬 스페셜리스트를 볼 수 있는 자격을 갖게 되는 모든 훈련을 받게 된다. 내 기억이 정확하다면 이런 규모의 세미나가 미국에서 매년 두번 열린다. 경기요소를 구별하는 방법을 가르치기 위해 많은 예를 보여주지만 가장 눈에 띄는 점은 바로 점프의 회전수를 판정하기 위한 그 어떤 실제적인 과학적 근거를 가르쳐 주지 않는다는 것이다. 피겨의 점프는 과학이다. 우리는 공중에서 점프의 회전수를 식별할 수가 있다. 하지만 ISU의 과정은 점프의 회전수가 부족한지 아닌지를 판단하는데 있어 참가자들에게 점프의 실제 도약 지점과 실제 착지 지점을 비교하는 것을 가르치지 않은 채로 명확하지 않은 설명 만을 해 줄 뿐이었다.
마찬가지로. "난이도(difficult variations)"에 따른 스핀 레벨을 결정하는 규정 또한 이랬다 저랬다 한다. (심판들은) 어떤 스핀을 고난이도로 인정하기 위해서는 몸의 중심축에서 한결같이 흔들리지 않으며 수행되는 스핀 포지션을 봐야 한다고 배운다. 하지만 선수가 몸의 중심을 전체적으로 콘트롤 할 수 있는 능력이 돼야만 수행가능한 스핀임에도 불구하고 이런 고난이도 레벨을 받을 수 없는 스핀들이 많다. 예를 들면, 전체적으로 등에 완만한 아치를 그리면서 떠있는 한쪽 다리를 뒤로 들어 빙면과 평행을 이룬 상태로 도는 전형적인 레이백 포지션, 등을 꼿꼿이 편 상태로 떠있는 한쪽 다리를 앞으로 곧게 뻗고 도는 싯 스핀 포지션, 그리고 떠있는 발을 엉덩이 높이 뒤로 뻗어서 수평이 되게 하는 자세로 도는 전형적인 카멜 스핀..... 하지만 이 모든 포지션들은 이를 수행하기 위해서는 몸의 중심을 전체적으로 사용해야 한다는 (중심축에서 흔들리지 않아야 한다는) 필수 요건을 만족시킴에도 불구하고 그저 "기본" 포지션에 불과하며 (고난이도에 해당하는) 점수를 받을 수가 없다.
당신의 이런 지식을 가지고 피겨 테크니컬 패널로 일한 적이 있나?
ISU 주관 경기에서 테크니컬 패널로 참가한 적은 없고 지금 현재 다른 선수들을 가르치지도 않는다. 하지만 과거에 하위 레벨 선수들을 가르치고 안무를 짜준 경험이 있다. 2012년에 나는 피겨를 직업으로 계속할 수 없다는 결론에 도달했다. 이것으로 밥을 벌어 먹을 만큼 충분한 기회를 얻을 수가 없었기 때문이다. 피겨 선수를 하는 동안 나는 가족이나 후원자의 도움이 없이 모든 비용을 나 혼자 지불했다. 틴에이저가 된 이후 나는 피겨를 위해 이런 저런 부업을 하며 비용을 마련했다. 피겨계에서 이런 예는 찾아 볼 수 없고 따라서 나는 상위 레벨에서 경기해서 이름을 알릴 기회를 쉽게 얻을 수 없었다. 나는 현재 헐리우드의 디자인 회사에서 사업관리자로 일하고 있다.
당신의 편지는 누구를 향해 쓰여진 것인가? 수신자들에게서 피드백은 있었나?
국제빙상연맹(ISU) 안의 모든 관계자들에게 쓴 편지이다. 이번 올림픽 여자 싱글 경기에서 테크니컬 패널에 있었던 알렉산더 라커닉이 그들 중 하나이다. 라커닉은 여자 싱글과 페어 경기의 테크니컬 위원장이었다. 내 편지는 단체 이메일을 통해 총 33명의 ISU 관계자들에게 전해졌다. 하지만 아직까지 그 누구에게서도 답신을 듣지 못했다.
또한, 이번과 비슷한 문제로 나는 ISU에 자료를 보낸 적이 있다. 물론 ISU 관계자에게 이런 "문제를 야기하는" 편지를 보낸 건 이번이 처음이지만 말이다. 지난 수년동안 나는 채점제를 비판해 왔고 이 제도를 개선할 수 있는 제안서를 ISU에 제출하는데 적극적인 역할을 하고자 노력해 왔다. 내 제안서 중 몇개는 실제로 ISU에서 표결에 붙여져 규정화되었다.
당신의 편지 도입부에서 당신은 다른 전문가들도 레벨 판정이 틀렸다고 동의했다고 했다.
소트니코바와 김연아에 내려진 테크티컬 판정에 대한 내 분석은 두 명의 ISU 공인 테크니컬 스페셜리스트에 의해 이미 검토되었으며 그 둘 모두 내 분석 결과에 동의하였다.
간단히 말해서 당신은 어떤 목적으로 편지를 썼나? 실제로 당신은 ISU에 편지를 보낸 후 피겨계의 다른 사람들에게 이를 알리려 노력해 왔다.
편지의 목적은 빙상 커뮤니티의 다른 이들에게 이번 올림픽에서 테크니컬 패널이 얼마나 형편없는 판정을 내렸는지, 그리고 얼마나 형편없이 가산점이 주어졌는지를 알리려는 것이었다. (경기 직후) 다수의 피겨 전문가들은 경기결과가 잘못됐다는 자연스런 반응을 보여 주었지만 이를 두고 실제적인 분석은 충분하게 이루어지지 않았다. 경기가 끝나고 며칠이 지나자 소트니코바가 김연아보다 채점제를 더 잘 이용했고 현 채점제의 규칙 (물론 좋은 규칙이라는 뜻은 아니지만) 덕분에 김연아 보다 더 많은 점수를 획득하는게 당연했다는 이야기들이 나오면서, 논쟁을 "그만 두자는" 분위기가 생겨났다. 하지만 이런 이야기들은 결코 맞는 말이 아니다. 현 채점제에 근거해서 조차도 소트니코바는 경기의 승자가 될 자격이 없었다. 테크니컬 패널에 의해 실제 경기 요소들에 대해 잘못된 판정이 내려졌으며 많은 경우 (선수들에게 준) 저지들의 가산점이나 구성점수 또한 완전히 잘못되었기 때문이다.
테크니컬 패널이 얼마나 형편없는 판정을 했는지, 저지들이 얼마나 형편없는 가산점을 줬는지 (모든 사람들이 아직까지도 의아해하고 있는 것은 이전에 부정 행위로 자격이 정지됐던 심판이 어떻게 다시 국제 경기에서 심판을 볼 수 있게 허용이 될 수 있었나 하는 것이다)... 이러한 것들은 부정 행위를 증명할 가능한 예가 될 수도 있는 것이다. 이번 올림픽의 테크니컬 패널과 저징 패널 중 몇몇이 이번과 같은 경기 결과를 만들어 내도록 뇌물을 먹었거나 위협을 받지 않았다면, (이런 결과를 설명할 수 있는) 남은 유일한 방법은 그들이 무능력했다는 것 밖에는 없다. 무능력한 심판들은 더 이상 그 일을 해서는 안 된다. 나아가 나는 내 분석이 현 채점제가 갖고 있는 개선해야 할 결점들, 특히 이번 올림픽에서의 과도하게 복잡한 스텝시퀀스가 갖고 있는 결점들을 보여줄 수 있기를 바란다.