Using IJS

I created a twitter hashtag during the last U.S. Championships:

#mathhasruinedmysport

Well-known for creating inexplicable outcomes, the International Skating Union Judging System, or IJS (also known as Code of Points or COP) has replaced the overly subjective and equally (though differently) impenetrable 6.0 system with a nearly impenetrable table of "protocols" that parse out the art into minute judgements on technique.

For fans, it's infuriating.

But for skaters it can be an incredibly useful tool, because it allows you to see what the judges are focusing on for you.

Personal best and seasons best
Know these scores. First of all, it gives you an instant idea of how you did, and whether you should be happy or disappointed. Second, your season's best score tells you how this program is doing. If you keep not matching your personal best in a given season, you may want to rethink the program. IJS not only rewards/punishes skating skills, it also rewards good choreography. If you consistently miss your personal best, it might not be you. It might be the choreo.

Using knowledge of points to know your prospects
First of all, you can use your own point history to judge how  how well you are likely to do. If you know your personal best and season's best scores you can have a pretty good idea of what your standing is going to be throughout the season (taking a lot of the agony out of waiting for the judges sheets). You can look at your competitors scores and know when you're going to have to blow it out of the water to win (and it does happen-- look at Dennis Ten at the recent World Championships).

Component scores
As far as I'm concerned, for your own skating, the component scores are where it's at. These tell you how good the judges think your basic skating skills are. While these scores are notorious in elite skating-- there have been indications that judges are pressured to score skaters based on their "seed" or standing-- at local and qualifying competition they can be used to help you understand whether judges just think you skate well, regardless of your performance on specific skills that day.

Comparisons
Don't just look at your own protocols (judging sheets). Look at your competitors as well. See what kinds of scores are being achieved by skaters you admire.  Where do they excel; where do you best them?

More on personal best
Personal best is to IJS what Judge 5 was to the 6.0 system. By which I mean, skaters used to look at their rankings and say "well Judge 5 placed me 2nd!" (somebody loves me.)  Now you can look at your protocols and see an overall personal best, or most positive GOEs (see next), or increased PCS. You can even take it down to the individual skills-- you can have a goal to get the maximum point value on a specific skill, or achieve a given Level on just one skill, or a set of skills.  Because IJS is so detailed, you can really use the scoring both to help you figure out what to work on, and to say "well at least I did something right."

Choreography
Evan Lysacek won the Olympics by putting together a program in which he could achieve the absolute maximum points, even if he fell short on various individual skills.  Supposedly a battle between the "technical" Plushenko and the "artistic" Lysacek, they actually had identical PCS (the "artistic" score). Lysacek won it on a brilliantly conceived choreography that maximized technical point value.  Your coach and choreographer should know how to play this game-- whether to go for the higher base value of a Level 3 or 4 or triple jump, or the better GOE of a Level 1 or 2 or double jump. Where to place jumps. How to maximize the value of the footwork sequence, etc.

Goals
In this same way, IJS helps you set goals.  Achieving positive GOE, getting the full point value on a skills, increasing PCS base values, getting a higher level on footwork or a spin.  The goal no longer has to be "beat skater X" or, worse, "win." Goals can now be really fine-tuned to an individual skater's needs.

How have you used IJS to help you understand or improve your, or your skaters', abilities?

Comparing skaters

The International Skating Union Judging System, or IJS, was instituted to attempt two goals: first, to reduce the appearance of collusion and, yes, cheating, among the judges,  and second, to reduce subjective measures of judging as much as possible.

In other words, they're trying not so much to stop comparing apples to oranges, as to find the commonalities between apples and oranges and to judge those objectively.

One of the most common parent conversations at skating practices goes like this:

Parent A: I see Mary has her double lutz.
Parent B: Yes, but look at those legs. Of course she's landing that jump, whoever saw thighs like that on an 8 year old.
Parent C: Her folks can afford four lessons a week, too. If I had that kind of money, Johnny would have his lutz and then some.

In other words, we're looking at all those apples and attributing their success to the fact that some of them are actually oranges.

Lots of factors go into success as a skater.  You can't really compare them, which was the point of IJS-- ranking skaters to choose a winner was inherently unfair. How in the world do you compare Michelle Kwan and Surya Bonaly, two brilliant skaters with nothing but the framework in common.

But compare them we will. We'll go ahead and ascribe positive motivations to the people that came up with the IJS, and try to figure out how to compare our own apples and oranges, from the stands, without the catty comments (okay, maybe a few catty comments).

Age
Age is less a factor than you might think in actual skating ability, as anyone knows who's watched the little 6 year old dynamos who keep crushing your talented 9 year old at Regionals. It's better, both for your own ego and as an objective factor, to consider a skater's maturity.  A 9-year-old who cannot focus on a lesson or direct her own practice is going to be less successful than a 7-year-old who can.

Body Type
Not a factor, unless your body type is "40 pounds overweight." There are certainly some physiognomies that help a skater-- flat bosom, long waist, bow legs-- but we've all seen enough body types to understand that there is no body type that actually precludes skating success. Body type complaints and kudos (think Rachael Flatt and her supposed problems because of "sloping shoulders," or the positive but frankly racist assertions about Asian body types) are about aesthetics, not athletics.

Trajectory
A kid who is not aiming for Nationals is not going to Nationals. I don't care how talented he is.  To achieve a goal you have to set it. No one gets into elite skating by accident. You can't compare your recreational skater, who likes to try new stuff, to the 30-hour-a-week phenom.

Motivation
Motivation pretty much equals Maturity + Trajectory. You have to know your goal (elite skating, International competition, Gold level tests, a certain jump, a solo in the ice show, or whatever), and then manage the steps it takes to get there. Without motivation, the game is over. And mom can't supply it. Further, motivation doesn't just mean "motivated to win competitions." Kids are motivated by, and toward, different outcomes. Don't compare a kid who's motivated to win Nationals with one who's motivated to landing the axel before graduating high school. Both are worthy goals; comparing them is pointless.

Coach
Even given talent, motivation, and trajectory, a good coaching match is the single most critical factor in a skating career, whatever the goal is. And yet it's not one of the things you commonly hear parents comparing, or praising. You hear lots of praise for coaches-- "we have the top coach," "our coach has taken xx number of skaters to nationals," "he has the most students," etc. But the most important factor-- that wonderful coaching relationship-- is often ignored.

Level
Don't even. If your Jennie is in Freestyle 1, and "rival" Susie is in Freestyle 5, why do you even care. Everyone goes through the levels, at their own pace. I do not want to hear skaters compared based on their level. Sh! I mean it!

Financial
 Out of your control. If Mary can afford four lessons a week, good for her. Work with what you've got, and don't teach your child to make excuses based on external resources.

Cheating judges

In a couple of words, they don't.

Or not much anyway.

I usually stay out of fangirl territory in this blog. There are lots of blogs parsing scores minutely, and offering analysis, some simplistic, and some quite cogent, about elite skaters.

But today there feels like more than the usual sour grapes.

The 2013 Ladies Single podium felt tainted last night-- Ashley Wagner won with a flawed free skate, golden child and media darling Gracie Gold pulled off "only" 2nd in her first senior appearance, perennial crowd favorites Carolina Zhang and Mirai Nigasu had heartbreaking falters.

I think the judges probably held Gracie up a little bit, and they were remarkably kind to Ashley on some questionable executions. They came down awfully hard on Mirai and Caroline (and Christina Gao for that matter-- geez, will you put that girl on the podium already?)

But here's the thing about IJS. For all the #theyruinedmysportwithmath jokes, and avenues for manipulation (levels, component scores), in point of fact it is very hard to cheat at IJS, which was entirely the idea behind the system. There are a lot of checks; there is a lot of independent scoring, like the technical calls, that make it hard for judges to independently prop someone up.

And I don't believe in conspiracy theories.

I also believe in good intentions.

Here's why Gracie didn't win -- she blew the short. And that's where the old adage comes in-- you can't win a medal with the short, but you can lose one.

Here's why Ashley did-- she rocked the short program, and she had a smart, points-packed long so that even if she had some mistakes she would have enough points to recover. This isn't cheating, and it isn't evidence of collusion. It's smart coaching, and it's evidence of a competitive skater who, frankly, spent years being pushed down and disrespected-- by the media, by the fans, and by the judges-- but who knew she had it in her, and made a plan to achieve it.

I'll take that over the latest golden girl any day.

P.S. Shame on Ice Network for its appalling morning after headline: "Wobbly Wagner outlasts glittering Gold in Omaha." You owe Ashley Wagner, first back to back Ladies Champion since Kwan, an apology.

Is someone cheating?

Here's a great phrase a friend of mine likes to use:

Assume Positive Intentions

If you go through the day under the premise that people basically aren't jerks, you'll be a lot happier.

Granted, people cheat. People especially cheat to get their darlings the gold ring.

Just ask Honey Boo Boo.
 
Here's a question from a reader:

I was wondering whether a skater who had taken her pre pre Free Skate test in January could compete at a lower level after her test results are posted by USFS. She took the test in January, and the competition was in March.  She is competing at the next competition at no test again, against my daughter's friend. Should I report her?

 Well, no.

Don't report her.

First of all, don't get involved in someone else's fight. Second of all, assume positive intentions.

In a situation like this, you can contact the club that is running the competition and ask for a clarification of the rules. Note I don't say- "tell them someone is cheating and here is why." Just ask what the rules are.  In the case above, it may be that the application and the test just crossed in the mail, it may be that the club had to combine events or age groups because of under-enrollment. What is NOT happening is cheating, because it simply doesn't happen in this way, plus cheating at all at USFS competitions is vanishingly rare, especially at the non-qualifying level. The more common "cheat" is for coaches to sandbag their kids--not allow them to test so that they can compete and win at the no test levels. If this skater is testing, then she is doing it right.

Don't forget that clubs are run by volunteers. Mistakes happen, rule misapplication happens, and kids win (and lose) competitions for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with their actual test level.

The worst thing you can do is worry about who is winning non-quals. They don't count. Their purpose is to give kids experience at competing, and apparent unfairness of this sort is exactly the kind of situation that strengthens them for when they go to the "show."

The only thing a parent should be worrying about  at competitions (and this includes the show!) is whether the kid got enough rest, enough food, enough lead time at the site, and has all her/his stuff in their skating bag.

That's enough to worry about.

Who should know what about IJS?

Ah, more alphabet soup.

IJS, or the International Skating Union Juding System, is the mind-bogglingly complex attempt of the ISU to standardize judging, following the Salt Lake scandal.

The unassailably positive motiviation behind the system was to create transparency-- while you don't know which judge is giving which marks, you can see in numbing detail exactly what the marks are for every single second of a program. I won't get into my opinion of the system (as one friend put it "math has stolen my sport").

Here's a sample "protocol" or judging sheet:

Behind all this is nearly 300 pages of rules, supplemented by endless tweaks and changes to those rules.

Gah.

What does it all mean.

Well, I'm not going to tell you. What I am going to tell you is what you should learn, on your own, depending on who you are in the skating world.

Fan
Go crazy. Learn every single nuance of the system. Know it better than the most experienced international judge. Give the top Tech Specialist a run for his money. Follow every competition on "you be the judge" (a website that allows you to judge using IJS in real time). Be sure to tweet about how wrong the judges got it.

Competitive Coach
You need a post-doc level of understanding. Unfortunately, you're going to have to relearn it every year, because they change minute details of it on a rolling basis.

Class coach
Appear to know what you are talking about. Beyond that, thank your lucky stars if you have no students in competition and don't need to load down the gray matter with this stuff.

Skater
You need to know one thing: positive GOE.

Other than that, have a basic familiarity with the jump, spin, footwork and moves requirements for a program at your level and the next level up. Forget about where you've been--by the time you're a coach it will have completely changed (heck, by next year it will have completely changed). Know the terminology, and how it applies to your own programs. Know how to read a protocol (i.e. learn all the squiggles and abbreviations). But don't try to achieve a fan-level of intimacy with it. More important that you spend your time learning not to cheat that jump, than to be worrying about whether you've repeated a feature. (For instance, you should have been able to read this paragraph and know what I was talking about).

In the meantime, repeat after me: positive GOE, positive GOE, positive GOE.

Skater, redux
Know exactly why your competitors' scores are complete bull shit if they did better than you, and how the judges totally used the system to let them win.* If your scores are better, be able to point out how you and your coach worked with the system to create a win.

Parents
Have a solid understanding of how to read a protocol. Know enough to ask the coach about any downgrades or negative GOEs. (Actually, the coach would love it if you didn 't know this stuff, or ask about it, and I agree, but I know I can't stop you, so at least know what you're talking about.) DON'T, by all that is holy, offer advice--to the coach or the skater or god forbid the judges--on how to fix things.

Parents, redux
See Skater, redux

* this is very hard in IJS

Why does it matter how I look

The recent posts on What to wear and What not to wear sparked a lot of debate, mostly along the lines of "why should it matter." I've written about this before, but it bears repeating.

This is a huge issue with figure skating and the other artistic sports, gymnastics and dance. Strangely, in the most artistic of them, dance, the body-type restrictions have started to be overcome through such forward-thinking companies as the Joffrey in Chicago, whose founder specifically sought out non-typical body types. They have had squat, and heavy, and bosom-y, and most notably non-white dancers in the company since their founding.

Inevitably when following a Twitter discussion, or just listening to the live media comments, at some point someone will bring up the costumes. If I had a dime for every time Dick Button mentioned that so-and-so is "a beautiful girl" I would be a rich woman.

These sports rely, for both scoring and enjoyment, on how they look. The problem comes when we overlay cultural definitions of beauty onto the successful execution of the skills. This is not the same thing as costume. For me, I want costumes to be neat, I want hair to be simple and safe, and I don't want to see undergarments, even on very young children.

The bigger problem is that while we consciously get indignant over costume--as one commenter put it "why should my daughter's undewear have anything to do with her skill"--we are unconsciously not even considering the fact that the judges are selecting, through gamed scoring, for specific body types. While judges tend to be pretty fair in testing situations, I maintain that even at the lower levels they will favor the look over the skills, especially when all other things are equal. The thin, flat-chested pixies start getting held up because judges like thin, flat-chested pixies.

We had an amazingly talented skater at our rink who grew a beautiful, full bosom in her mid-teens.

At which point her coach told her she was done, because she was now "too fat." Trust me, the ONLY fat on that girl's body was in her breasts. She still had the jumps, she still had the art. But her coach, and the judges, decided she didn't look right, and that's how they scored her.

I maintain that Rachael Flatt is a perfect example of someone repeatedly criticized not for her skating, but for her body type. A lot of the discussion was "no one knows how to dress that girl [to hide her sloping shoulders and thick middle.]" But what was meant was that she didn't look like our image of a skating champion. I really believe that consistent underscoring by judges was a way for them to get rid of this young woman who just didn't look right.

A generation ago they did the same thing to Surya Bonaly and Debi Thomas, who had the audacity to be black. The irony there, of course, is that the person who beat Debi Thomas at the Olympics was Katarina Witt, whom I used to call "hope for fat girls everywhere." Sometimes the talent really does trump the look. But like women in the board room, they had to be head-and-shoulders better than the sylphs they were beating.

The unfairness of this is maintained by the scoring system--where there is a tie (rare in the IJS but common under 6.0)--the performance marks break the tie. If the technical mark broke the tie, as it should, you would start seeing a wider range of body types, and probably more consistent skating as well, as skaters and coaches started realizing that they couldn't rely on the more subjective component (i.e. the artistic) score.

Children should not be fat, but frankly if we stopped excluding the fat ones from praise for taking part in the beautiful sports, maybe some of them would start feeling like they could be fairy princesses on the ice too.

I still don't want to see their undergarments, by the way.

A sample ISI judging sheet, explained

It's competition season! Get ready for bling, hardware, and take a deep breath. Your admission to Harvard is not at stake.

One of the most confusing things about competition, especially ISI competition, can be "why didn't the best skater win." So I've created a sample scoring sheet to explain how this might happen.

Please note that I have "rigged" this sheet-- it is not based on any real skater, I made it up, sitting at my desk, to illustrate various points. Randy Winship, Director of Skating Programs at the Ice Skating Institute, who reviewed this for me, strongly recommends that you read the competition manual for judges (someone let me know if you can open this; it may be allowing me in because of my professional membership) which is available as a free pdf download on the ISI site (search "Judging Essentials").

ISI competitions use a panel consisting of 3 judges, one of whom must be Gold tested, and a referee, who I believe must be Gold tested, all through the ISI judges certification system. Each judge has their own sheet like the one below (I've consolidated all three onto a single form for ease of discussion). They mark only their own set of columns. Judges do not discuss marks except in certain instances. It is impossible for a single judge to rig an outcome.

PLEASE NOTE THIS IS AN EXAMPLE ONLY AND NOT IN ANY WAY CONNECTED TO ANY ACTUAL EVENT!


So who wins this event, and who was the best skater? Looking at the individual skills marks, looks like Skater 3 is the best skater, so how come she came in fourth? The worst skater- Skater 1, pulls off a third.

What happened?

ISI gives the judges a statutory range, based on the number of skaters in a flight, which is not supposed to go over 5. (For scheduling and other reasons, competitions may stretch this to 6 or even 7; the largest ISI flight I've ever seen was 9.) You'll see at the left top of the sheet "7.0-7.8" which is the statutory marks range for a flight of 5. Judges must stay within this range, except in certain prescribed instances, and must use the entire range for each skill. Judges grade ONLY the skills and qualities listed on their sheet. They do not see, or discuss, what the other judges are doing, unless there is a dispute or a question.

Looking over the sheet, you see everything within the marks range, except in the Back O-I Pivot and Duration columns (Judge 1), and the Change Foot column (Judge 2).

A correct duration gets 10 points (the referee has a stopwatch), but if you go over time (more than 10 seconds from start of movement to end of movement) there are prescribed penalty marks. Skater 4 went between 10 and 15 seconds over her time limit, so she loses 2 points. The referee notes this on her sheet, and initials the judge's sheet. Some coaches will mess around with the time limit; knowing that you've really got 10 extra seconds, they'll cut a 90 second program for 99 seconds. If the equipment plays that music a little slow (this happens less with digital recordings than it used to with audio tapes), or if she skates slow and finishes after the music ends, that skater is risking a penalty.

Silly skater 3 didn't do a pivot, so she gets a goose egg for the skill. This is not a bad pivot or an incomplete pivot, but a missing pivot. When this happens, the judge who is marking this skill will ask "Was there a pivot?" If all the judges and ref agree there was no pivot, it goes down on the judge's sheet and the ref's sheet as a zero, and the ref must initial the judge's sheet.

Skater 5 messed up her change foot spin. She might have had insufficient rotation, or left off the second forward spin. A recognizable attempt at a skill that is not completed gets a penalty mark of 5. This is NOT the same thing as a fall, or a badly executed skill. A fall on a completed skill will just put you at the bottom of the marks range (assuming someone else isn't even worse) and will cost you placement under "correctness" and "general overall"; falls on completed skills in ISI are not specifically penalized unless it prevents the skater from completing the skill. When there is any question at all, every panel I've ever been on will put a disputed skill at the bottom of the marks rather than giving a penalty mark. ISI judges try their hardest not to give penalty marks.

Again, all penalties must be agreed upon by the entire panel, and initialed by the ref. Some rinks also complete "penalty sheets" to back up any penalty calls in case of disputes.

And this is how it happens: Skater 3 had the highest marks across the board, and didn't do a pivot. Maybe she just forgot it. Maybe her coach is an idiot and didn't choreograph it. Notice that this error also cost her on Correctness and General Overall.

Skater 1 loaded her program with tons of extra content and apparently had great choreography, because her Pattern mark is also high, knocking her to the top of the heap with all her extras. That's a smart coach, and a good choreographer, focusing on this skater's strength.

Skater 5, also a good skater, needs to fix her pivot. But she's feeling pretty good right now, because she doesn't usually beat Skater 3.

Skater 3's parents are standing at the Skating Director's door, screaming at her. After she shows them the video, demonstrating that their kid missed an element, they're going to scream at poor Skater 3 all the way home for forgetting her pivot, and then fire the coach, even if it wasn't her fault.

Skater 1, who always comes in last, even against the book, as well as her parents and her coach, having no idea that all this is going on, now believe that she has a shot at the Olympics.

What does a skater look like?

There's an ideal skater type; coaches sigh and flutter their eyelashes when these kids walk in-- they are naturally slender, look taller than they are, with a low center of gravity and short legs. If their legs are slightly bowed, even better. Sasha Cohen is the perfect example; Yu Na is another one-- they look so tall and slender, but when you see them in person you can't believe how tiny they are. Evan Lysacek and Carolina Kostner are unusual in that they are tall with long legs. As Johnny Weir once remarked, he admired Lysacek because it's really hard to jump "when you're 13 feet tall."

We like the little fireplugs with the power thighs, too. I call them mini-mights. Think Tonya Harding (well, the skating and body type anyway).

And gee, they never seem to wear glasses.

Coaches do talk about your children's looks. We're perfectly awful about it. Sometimes in admiration, sometimes mean, sometimes with a wistful "too bad he doesn't (get contacts, lose weight, tuck in his shirt, come to the rink without his mother...)."

But I hear worse stories, naturally, of the children who are told that they can't be skaters unless they lose weight, or get contacts, or wear their hair a certain way, or that they can't be skaters at all because they are knock-kneed, or slope shouldered, or some other physical attribute completely beyond their control.

So what's the truth, can anyone be a skater?

In a word, yes.

However (you knew there was a however).

Certain body types and morphological issues will limit your "career"-- if you are really overweight (medically overweight, I'm not talking about what we used to call chubby kids who slim down when they hit puberty), then the higher level jumps will be hard. You're just fighting gravity too much, and your flesh will literally be in your way. There is a limit to how hard a fat person can pull in, or how low they can get for a sit spin. (Sorry).

Glasses will fly off your face on a layback or a triple jump. You can get a strap--common in other sports--but because in figure skating presentation is also important, this is just not going to happen. Canadian champion and Olympic bronze medalist Joannie Rochette actually got eye surgery to correct her bad vision because glasses were out and she couldn't handle contacts.

On the other hand, Joannie Rochette is a multiple international medalist, so this kind of step makes sense for her. Your child is just taking Preliminary Moves. So here's the low down:

Glasses
Yes you can skate in glasses. If your child can handle contacts, fine, but this should be under the consultation of a medical professional, not a skating coach whose self-esteem is wounded by an "ugly" child in glasses. You can take ALL the moves tests in glasses. There is nothing in any Moves level that would be difficult in glasses.

Yes, you can do low-level competitions in glasses. Until you are doing lay backs and double jumps, you are not going to notice them. If they make the skater nervous, get a strap and arrange hair to disguise it. Or not. Make the nerdy look the kid's signature.

Overweight
There is a very talented obese child at my rink. Yes, there is an upper limit right now to the skills she could acquire, and she cannot compete at a national level with the weight; for one thing training at that level she would simply lose it. But even with the weight there is an axel and probably a couple of doubles in her future. I have seen many many overweight children test at the lower levels without any penalty from the judges.

Her mother knows she is overweight. She doesn't need the coach to tell her. She especially doesn't need the coach to refuse to let her test because the coach disapproves of her weight. Testing is about the quality of the skills, not what the skater looks like. Judges, especially in the lower and recreational levels, understand this. Judges in testing situations are not allowed to take a child's appearance into account, unless it is interfering with the quality of the skills.

Now, if you go to the coach and say that you want her to be nationally competitive, then the coach has a right, even an obligation to tell you what that will take, including losing weight. No child should be on a diet regimen unless they are under medical supervision.

Not classically pretty
It's a sport not a beauty pageant. The next coach I hear who says "she'd be great if she would get a nose job" is going to get her own nose broken. I'm sorry, I have difficulty focusing on a skater's nose when they're spinning at 40 revolutions a second. This attitude is also responsible for generations of black and brown kids who don't even try because they figure they'd be penalized for their skin color. This, thank god, is starting to change.

Too tall
Like the overweight ones, the tall ones have greater difficulty. Even when they're very thin, they simply have more weight to heft off the ice. The center of gravity is necessarily higher. But just as they do not have trouble figuring out how to handle stairs when they are this tall, they also figure out skating.

Slope shoulders
Two words-Rachael Flatt.

Here's the low down--coaches love kids who are easy to teach, we're only human. Medical and morphological issues make kids hard to teach. A competitive coach may not want to be bothered with a skater whom she judges has no shot. And you know what, with this shallow coach the kid doesn't have a shot. I'm also extremely bothered by the prognosticating-- how they heck does any coach know that some kid who wears glasses at the age of 8 or 10 can't ever be nationally competitive because of this? In this culture, how dare a coach hold a child back because she doesn't conform to some ideal? Soviet Russia, okay. Middle class West? Please.

WHAT is he talking about?

As we move into the competitive season, I'm starting to think about the phrases you hear from the commentators. "Features" "Clean landing" "Extension" "Wrap" "Run of the Blade" When I hear these I know what I'm looking for, because I'm a figure skating expert. But what about the non-skater casual fan?

When I watch hockey or football, I find the comments make me more, not less confused. It took me quite literally years to figure out what a "hat trick" is, and I'm still not entirely convinced I've got it right. I'm so confused by football terminology that I can't even come up with an example of a phrase that confuses me. So here's a little lexicon, and this week I'll add short posts on how to apply these to your own skating or teaching as well.

Features
Features are extra difficulty added to specific skills. Every skill has them, but you most commonly hear about them in spins because it's probably been the most obvious change in what figure skating looks like now. A feature is any variation to the basic position or rotation. So if you're doing an upright spin and wave your arms (creating a helicoptor effect), that's a feature. A different foot position is a feature, as is changing the spinning edge. (Different from a position change-- that's a thing in itself. There are four basic positions-- upright, sit, camel and layback. Features occur within each basic position.) A classic "forward" spin is actually on a back inside edge, but you can do any spin on any edge, and changing from one edge to another without losing speed or center is difficult, and gains points. All those "haircutter" contortionist postitions are a feature. You can only use any given feature once per program, which is why you get these awful can't-keep-my-eye-on-what's-happening flailing spins. I was happy to learn that there is a new feature this year-- 8 rotations in one position-- and you can use it as often as you want throughout the program. So we'll be seeing longer spins this year. And because extra rotations take time up in the program, you're also going to see some warp-speed rotating. Nice.

Clean landing
This is probably the most commonly used, and abused, phrase in figure skating commentary. It has come to mean a landing that is fully rotated, but originally it meant just what it sound like-- a landing that didn't kick up any snow or spray, i.e. "clean". Perforce, an underrotated landing won't be clean in this classic sense. The underrotation itself scrapes and gouges the ice. Other things to watch for that make a clean landing are a straight, upright back position (no pitching forward or twisting) and a held edge. Fussy choreography following a jump is often the coach's "fix" for a jump that the skater can't check (i.e. stop the rotation). Michelle Kwan was a genius at the saved landing. Watch her free leg cross behind her landing leg sometime-- she's having difficulty checking the rotation.

Extension
Just what it sounds like-- using the full range of motion of arms, hands, legs, feet, and neck, especially in held positions. The classic extension move is the arabesque or spiral, of course, but the best skaters will demonstrate good extension on everything. That blurry tight back scratch spin is a function of good extension, with all extremities pulled in and as tight as they can go. Watch for better expression in this as well this year. The ISU Judging System has changed the spiral sequence to encourage long full extension rather than a series of fussy features. As one judge said to me "we got tired of ugly spirals." Spirals will now be 6 to 8 seconds in a single position (with edge changes) or two positions of 3-4 seconds each. Hallelujah.

Wrap
A wrap is actually an error. While not specifically wrong, it affects rotation and ruins the beauty of the air position. Watch for a very high free leg with the knee sticking out during the jump's air time. It's very difficult both to spin fast and to land cleanly when you "wrap" during a jump.

Run of the blade
This skill comes to the fore in the men's Moves in the Field skills, the women's spirals, and in footwork. It means smooth, snowless glide. Watch for skaters whose glides don't stutter or wobble, have no loss of speed, and for footwork sequences with clear, obvious, snow-free curves and turns. Since I picked on Michelle Kwan for her questionable landings, I'll pull her out here as the queen of the glide. No one demonstrates this ability better. It's created through the skaters' understanding of which part of the blade to put in contact with the ice. Since a blade is a rocker, i.e. curved on the bottom, you can press the back, middle, or front of the blade, plus either the inside or outside edge, to create different turns, to aid acceleration, and to emphasize flow.

Underrotated, formerly known as "cheated"
Jumps are scored based on the difficulty of the entry, and the number of rotations in the air.  An underrotated jump is more than 1/4 of a turn short of full rotation, and almost always has to be reviewed by the live video in the judges' station. It is the main cause of delays in announcing the scores, as the judges review selected jumps.

What commentator's phrase has confused you?

Understanding competition placement

I was saving this post for the Olympics, but the controversial (for some reason) awarding of the US Ladies Singles title to Rachel Flatt, I dug this post idea out of my drafts list.

Competition placement ranks second only to changing coaches in anxiety production among figure skating parents and, if Twitter is anything to go by, figure skating fans. And just like bad calls in team sports generate weeks of recrimination, figure skating scores just never seem fair to the fanboys and -girls.

There are currently three judging systems being used in figure skating:

The big leagues: The International Judging System, or IJS (also referred to as NJS, new judging system and CoP, Code of Points) is used in all national and international "qualifying" competitions and in local, non-qualifying competitions for Juvenile through Senior that act as training competitions and feeders for the qualifying ones. This is the system that has those incomprehensible point totals (TES of 50.12, TCC of 21.87 and PCC of 29.02 for a total score of 101.01). The judges at these events must qualify through judges training and rigorous exams. As someone whose non-competitive (at singles) daughter once had to compete in the same flight with Alissa Ciszny I can tell you this system is nitpicky and brutal, but it really covers the bases and tells you how you skated. ( For more about qualifying and non-qualifying competitions, check out usfigureskating.org. )

Update: here's a great article at About.com explaining scoring in IJS.

The bush leagues: U.S. Figure Skating also sanctions competitions for beginning skaters, with such skill/level designations as "Beginner," "Limited Beginner," Basic 7, etc. These competitions still use the old 6.0 scoring system. Qualification to judge at Basic Skills competitions is, I believe, just membership in U.S. Figure Skating and age (you must be 16). In practice, judges at these competitions are local coaches or coaches from the sponsoring club.

The crosstown rival: The Ice Skating Institute, which is a strictly recreational skating association, also runs hundreds of local, national and even international competitions. Judges for these events again are local and participating coaches or interested amateurs that have taken the judging exams, available on line. These competitions are mostly run by skating schools rather than clubs.

Every single one of them will turn in results that seem incomprehensible, if not downright unfair. I have never been to a competition where some parent or coach did not insist that the judges "cheated," or that the rink "held up" its own skaters, or that some program "sandbags" its kids and on and on.

Salt Lake City notwithstanding, I believe in the basic integrity of all three judging systems, if for no other reason than that I have been through judges training and testing in all three systems and it is very very hard. The people doing this take it seriously, and they know that at the higher levels there is a lot at stake.

Dealing with disappointment
The gold and silver medal coaches from yesterday, Frank Carroll and Tom Zakrajsek, are madly spinning their skaters' scores and style today, and at that level it's expected. At non-qualifying competitions, at Basic Skills and ISI competitions, and even at Regional and Sectional competitions, that kind of talk should be kept within the skating family: skater, coach, parents. It is only destructive to complain about marks.

The best measure of how your skater did at a local competition is whether they achieved a personal best, or landed a new jump in competition. You cannot possibly ever demystify the individual decisions that went into the marks, especially in a system as on-the-fly and complex as the IJS. All three systems have mechanisms for protests, but they should be used sparingly and only in the face of overwhelming and obvious ill intent on the part of judges.

At the 2010 U.S. Nationals, Olympic berths and future careers are at stake. The controversy there is basically whether the system should reward technique or artistry, and in fact as it stands the system actually favors artistry--in the event of a tie, the higher component, or artistic, score (the so-called "second mark") wins. But judges can, and do, reduce component scores for poor technique, which is what happened at yesterday's Ladies Free Skate. It was a judgment call on the part of the panel, but that is why we call them "judges" and not "computers."

At local competitions, just don't worry about it. Ask your coach, or a judge, how scores are arrived at generally. Ask to have the relative placement of skaters in a flight explained, again, generally. Never berate a skater for their placement, as they have very little control over it. Ditto the coach, for the most part.

How can I learn more?
Both the Ice Skating Institute and U.S. Figure Skating have been running a series of articles on understanding their two judging systems. The latest one from ISI is in this quarter's Recreational Ice Skating magazine (available on line here) on page 27. A very clearly written series on IJS has been in the last several issues of Skating Magazine, U.S. Figure Skating's member's magazine. (I would be grateful if someone can find a link to Skating Magazine. U.S. Figure Skating has revamped their site and now I can't find anything. If you find the link, please post the URL in the comments.)

Monday morning quarterbacking is a blood sport to skating fans. I feel bad for Rachel Flatt, who gave a brilliant and flawless performance, won the gold, and had to wake up this morning to "Mirai wuz robbed" headlines.

How much worse for your little skater to feel like she did her best and an evil world conspiracy (in the person of those incompetent judges from that other rink) withheld the marks.