{"history":[],"article":{"id":"a3274e4d-d226-43ad-b035-50a6431cb2d8","title":"ISU Judging System","slug":"isu-judging-system","content":":::summary\n:::\n\n# \nThe **ISU Judging System** or the **International Judging System** (IJS), occasionally referred to as the **Code of Points** (COP) system, is the scoring system that has been used since 2004 to judge the [figure skating](https://bliptext.com/articles/figure-skating) disciplines of [men's and ladies' singles](https://bliptext.com/articles/single-skating), [pair skating](https://bliptext.com/articles/pair-skating), [ice dance](https://bliptext.com/articles/ice-dancing), and [synchronized skating](https://bliptext.com/articles/synchronized-skating).\nIt was designed and implemented by the [International Skating Union](https://bliptext.com/articles/international-skating-union) (ISU), the ruling body of the sport.\nThis system of scoring is used in all international competitions sanctioned by the ISU, including the [Olympic Games](https://bliptext.com/articles/olympic-games).\nThe ISU Judging System replaced the previous [6.0 system](https://bliptext.com/articles/6-0-system).\nIt was created partially in response to the [2002 Winter Olympics figure skating scandal](https://bliptext.com/articles/2002-winter-olympics-figure-skating-scandal), in an attempt to make the scoring system more objective and less vulnerable to abuse.\nU.S. Figure Skating has released a summary of the new judging system.\n\n# Previous judging system\nFigure skating was formerly judged on a 6.0 scale.\nThis scale is sometimes called \"the old scale\", or \"old system\".\nSkaters were judged on \"technical merit\" (in the free skate), \"required elements\" (in the short program), and \"presentation\" (in both programs).\nThe marks for each program ran from 0.0 to 6.0 and were used to determine a preference ranking, or \"ordinal\", separately for each judge; the judges' preferences were combined to determine placements for each skater in each program.\nThe placements for the two programs were then combined, with the free skate weighted more heavily than the short program.\nThe highest scoring individual (based on the sum of the weighted placements) was declared the winner.\n\n# Scandal and response\nA judging controversy occurred during a pair skating event at the [2002 Winter Olympics](https://bliptext.com/articles/2002-winter-olympics), which used scoring based on the [6.0 system](https://bliptext.com/articles/6-0-system).\nA second award ceremony was held in which the top two teams were both awarded gold medals.\nIn 2004, the ISU adopted the New Judging System (NJS), or Code of Points, in an effort to establish a more objective system.\nThis became mandatory at all international competitions in 2006, including the [2006 Winter Olympics](https://bliptext.com/articles/2006-winter-olympics).\nThe ISU released an explanation of the advantages of the new system over the 6.0 system.\n\n# Technical details\n\n## Technical panel\nUnder the ISU Judging System, the base value of each element performed by the skater is identified by the Technical Panel.\nThe purpose of this panel is to identify all of the elements performed by the skater in real time as they happen.\nThe panel is also responsible for identifying any \"technical errors\" to jumps; identifying falls of the skater; and the \"levels of difficulty\" performed in Spins and Steps.\nThe Technical Panel is composed of the following three people:\nThe Technical Panel is assisted by two people:\n\n## Judging panel\nThe role of the judges is to evaluate the quality of each element performed (Technical Score) and the quality of the performance (Presentation Score).\nAt most international events and other large National Championships (such as the U.S. Championships), there are nine judges.\nAt smaller competitions the panel might consist of between four and seven judges.\nAn odd number of judges was needed to break ties in the old 6.0 system, but this is no longer necessary with averaging marks in the ISU Judging System.\n\n### Technical Element Score (TES)\nEach element performed has a base value (which depends on its difficulty), and the judges assign a Grade of Execution (GOE), which can increase or decrease the base value.\nThe GOE is marked as an integer from -5 to +5 since the [2018–19 season](https://bliptext.com/articles/2018-19-figure-skating-season).\nBefore the system change, the scale went from -3 to +3.\nEach plus or minus step in the GOE results in increasing or decreasing the base value by 10 % in single and pair Skating and by 16 % in ice dance.\nThe total of all element scores gives the final Technical Element Score (TES).\n\n### Program Component Score (PCS)\nIn addition to the Technical Element Score, the judges award points on a scale from 0.25 to 10.00 with increments of 0.25 for different program components to grade the overall presentation of the performance.\nSince the [2022–23 season](https://bliptext.com/articles/2022-23-figure-skating-season), the judging panel evaluates three components: Composition (CO), Presentation (PR) and Skating skills (SK).\nBefore the system change, the judges evaluated five components: Skating skills (SS), Transitions (TR), Performance (PE), Composition (CO) and Interpretation (IN).\nThe total of all components is called the Program Component Score (PCS).\n\n### Computation of scores\nThe judging panel consists of up to nine judges and one referee.\nThe Technical Panel sends the element codes to the judges' computers for marking.\nFor each element, all of the judges award a mark for Grade of Execution (GOE) that is an integer between –5 and +5.\nThe GOE mark is then translated into a value using the Scale of Value (SOV) table which is published regularly by ISU Communications.\nThe GOE values from the nine judges are averaged using the \"[trimmed mean](https://bliptext.com/articles/trimmed-mean)\" procedure, where the highest and lowest values are discarded and an average is calculated from the remaining seven values.\nThis average value (which may be positive or negative) is finally added to the base value to produce the judging panel's overall score for the element.\nJudges also mark the Program Components, which are: Skating Skills; Presentation; and Composition.\nThese Components are marked on a scale of 0.25–10 with 0.25 increments and averaged using the same \"trimmed mean\" procedure that was used for averaging the GOE marks.\nJudges also have the power to input majority deductions such as Music Violations and Costume/Prop Violations.\nThe Referee inputs other deductions such as Time Violations, Interruption in Excess and Costume Failures.\n\n## Technical elements\nThe number and type of technical elements included in a skating program depend on the event and on the level of competition.\nAt the senior international level, the [short program](https://bliptext.com/articles/short-program-figure-skating) for senior singles skaters must contain seven technical elements: (a) double or triple axel, (b) triple or quad [jump](https://bliptext.com/articles/figure-skating-jumps), (c) [jump](https://bliptext.com/articles/figure-skating-jumps) combination including triple or quad [jump](https://bliptext.com/articles/figure-skating-jumps)s (maximum one double [jump](https://bliptext.com/articles/figure-skating-jumps)), (d) flying [spin](https://bliptext.com/articles/figure-skating-spins), (e) [camel](https://bliptext.com/articles/camel-spin) or [sit](https://bliptext.com/articles/sit-spin) [spin](https://bliptext.com/articles/figure-skating-spins) with only one change of foot, (f) [spin](https://bliptext.com/articles/figure-skating-spins) combination with only one change of foot, and (g) [step sequence](https://bliptext.com/articles/step-sequence).\nThe [free program](https://bliptext.com/articles/free-skating) for senior singles skaters must contain (a) a maximum of seven jumps, one of which must be an Axel, (b) a maximum of three spins (one a combination, one flying and one with a single position), (c) a maximum of one step sequence, and (d) maximum of one choreographic sequence.\nThe short program for senior pairs skaters for the season 2023-24 shall consist of the following required elements: (a) any hip lift take-off (hand to hip or upper part of the leg position), (b) double or triple twist lift, (c) double or triple throw jump, (d) double or triple solo jump, (e) solo spin combination with only one change of foot, (f) death spiral forward inside, and (g) step sequence.\nThe free skating program for senior pairs skaters must contain: (a) maximum of three lifts, not all from the same group, (b) maximum of one twist lift, (c) maximum of two different throw jumps, (d) maximum of one solo jump, (e) maximum of one jump combination or sequence, (f) maximum of one pair spin combination, (g) maximum of one death spiral different from the death spiral of the Short Program, (h) maximum of one choreographic sequence.\n\n## Component factoring\nThe panel's points for each Program Component are multiplied by a factor depending on the event.\nFor singles and pair skating, the factor is uniform for all components, as follows:\nThe factors in ice dance are different for each Program Component and depend on the dance type.\n\n## Protocol details\nFollowing an event, the complete judges' scores are published in a document referred to as a protocol.\nThis document uses specific notations as described below.\nIf a skater attempts more than the allowed number of a certain type of element in a program, then the element is still described and called as such by the technical controller, but receives a base value of 0 as well as a GOE of 0, regardless of how the judges have marked it.\nOn ISU protocol sheets, elements that have been nullified by this are denoted by an asterisk (*) next to the element name.\nIn free skating, for jumps executed twice as solo jumps, the second jump is marked as +REP and receives 70% of its base value.\nJump elements performed after the halfway point of a program are marked with x and receive a 10% bonus added to their base value.\nIf a jump has been called as having an unclear take-off edge, that jump is marked with !\nand receives a –1 to –2 GOE depending on severity; if a jump has been called as having an incorrect take-off edge (for example, an inside edge on the take-off of a [Lutz jump](https://bliptext.com/articles/lutz-jump)), that jump is marked with e and receives a –2 or –3 GOE depending on the severity of the edge fault.\nJumps that are under-rotated are marked with < or << depending on the degree of turns completed on the ice instead of in mid-air.\n< indicates that a jump had less than a ½ turn but more than a ¼ turn completed on the ice, reducing the base value to 70% of its original value.\n<< indicates a severe under-rotation (a ½ turn or more) and the jump is valued as if it had one less rotation (e.g. a triple would receive the value of a double).\nJumps that are executed in combination or sequence are marked as a single element, with a base mark equal to the sum of the base marks for the individual jumps.\nHowever, a combination or sequence can be downgraded – marked with +COMBO (combinations in the short program) or +SEQ (combinations and sequences in the free skate) – in which case the sum of the base values of the jumps is reduced to 80% of its original value.\n\n### Scale of Values (SOV) and abbreviations of common elements\nEvery spring/summer the ISU releases rule updates which include a current Scale of Values (SOV) for different types of element.\nOne is released for Singles/Pairs and another for Ice Dance.\nClick \"show\" below to view the abbreviations and codes for different figure skating elements.\nThe level of a spin or footwork sequence is denoted by the number following the element abbreviation.\nThe number of rotations on a jump is denoted by the number preceding the element abbreviation.\nFor example, 3A denotes a triple Axel, while SlSt4 denotes a level four straight line step sequence.\nChSt and ChSq are step sequences and spiral sequences that have no level and a fixed base value.\n\n## In ice dance\n[Ice dance](https://bliptext.com/articles/ice-dancing) judging is similar to pairs and singles, but uses a separate set of rules and table of values.\nIn the compulsory dance, steps are specified and \"elements\" are defined for each dance as subsets of the prescribed steps.\nFor compulsory dance only, there is no program component score given for transitions and choreography.\nInstead there is a timing (TI) program component that is exclusive to the compulsory dance, leaving only four program components in the compulsory dance.\nIn the original dance there are five marked technical elements.\nIn the free dance, there are nine marked technical elements.\nUnlike singles and pair skating, the different program components are weighted differently in each segment of the competition.\nThe highest factored component(s) in each segment are skating skills and timing in the compulsory dance, interpretation in the original dance, and transitions in the free dance.\nThe calculation of these factors is described in Rule 353.\n\n# Highest scores\nAfter being trialed in 2003, the IJS replaced the old [6.0 system](https://bliptext.com/articles/6-0-system) in the 2004–2005 figure skating season.\nUp to and including the [2017–2018 season](https://bliptext.com/articles/2017-2018-figure-skating-season), the Grade of Execution (GOE) scoring system for each program element ranged between –3 and +3.\nStarting with the 2018–2019 season, the GOE was expanded to range between –5 and +5.\nHence, the [International Skating Union](https://bliptext.com/articles/international-skating-union) (ISU) have restarted all records from the 2018–2019 season and all previous statistics have been marked as \"historical\".\nThe ISU only recognizes the best scores that are set at international competitions run under the ISU's rules, and does not recognize, for example, scores that are obtained at national figure skating championships.\nThe competitions recognized by the ISU are: [Winter Olympics](https://bliptext.com/articles/figure-skating-at-the-olympic-games) (including the team event), [Youth Olympics](https://bliptext.com/articles/figure-skating-at-the-youth-olympic-games) (including the team event), [World Championships](https://bliptext.com/articles/world-figure-skating-championships), [World Junior Championships](https://bliptext.com/articles/world-junior-figure-skating-championships), [European Championships](https://bliptext.com/articles/european-figure-skating-championships), [Four Continents Championships](https://bliptext.com/articles/four-continents-figure-skating-championships), [GP events](https://bliptext.com/articles/isu-grand-prix-of-figure-skating), Junior [GP events](https://bliptext.com/articles/isu-grand-prix-of-figure-skating), [Challenger Series events](https://bliptext.com/articles/isu-challenger-series), and [World Team Trophy](https://bliptext.com/articles/isu-world-team-trophy-in-figure-skating).\n\n## List of highest scores in figure skating\nFor highest scores achieved prior to the 2018–2019 season, see [List of highest historical scores in figure skating](https://bliptext.com/articles/list-of-highest-historical-scores-in-figure-skating).\n\n## List of highest junior scores in figure skating\nFor highest junior scores prior to the 2018–2019 season, see [List of highest historical junior scores in figure skating](https://bliptext.com/articles/list-of-highest-historical-junior-scores-in-figure-skating).\n\n# Subjectivity\nLike [gymnastics](https://bliptext.com/articles/gymnastics) and [diving](https://bliptext.com/articles/diving-sport) competitions, judging in figure skating is intrinsically [subjective](https://bliptext.com/articles/subjectivity).\nAlthough there may be general consensus that one skater \"looks better\" than another, it is difficult to reach agreement on what causes one skater to be marked as 5.5 and another to be 5.75 for a particular program component.\nAs judges, coaches, and skaters gain more experience with the new system, greater consensus may emerge.\nHowever, for the 2006 Olympics there were cases of 1 to 1.5 point differences in component marks from different judges.\nThis range of difference implies that \"observer bias\" determines about 20% of the mark given by a judge.\nAveraging over many judges reduces the effect of this bias in the final score, but there will remain about a 2% spread in the average artistic marks from the randomly selected subsets of judges.\nAside from intra-expert subjectivity, skating is very open to misjudgement from everyday spectators who only see skating casually, e.g. every four years at the Olympics.\nA skater's jump may look perfect, but the general public will not be aware that the competitor landed on an incorrect edge, therefore receiving fewer points for an element, resulting in the appearance of haphazard or biased judging.\n\n# Criticism\nThe aim of the IJS is to ensure that the judging of figure skating competitions is more consistent with the judging of sports such as [diving](https://bliptext.com/articles/diving-sport) and [gymnastics](https://bliptext.com/articles/gymnastics).\nIt also includes features intended to make judging more resistant to pressure by special interests.\nHowever, there is debate as to whether the new system is in fact an improvement over the old 6.0 system.\nOne criticism of the adoption of the IJS was in the way it alienated casual figure skating fans; whereas the 6.0 system was universally understood due to its simplicity and intuitive scale, the large cumulative scores given by the IJS are less intuitive.\nJudging bias was also found to be about 20 percent greater in the IJS than in the 6.0 system, with judges being inclined to give higher marks to skaters from their own country.\nInitially under the new ISU rules, the judges' marks were anonymous, which removed any public accountability of the judges for their marks.\nHowever, problems with this system came to the forefront during the [Sochi Olympics in 2014](https://bliptext.com/articles/2014-winter-olympics) following Russian skater [Adelina Sotnikova](https://bliptext.com/articles/adelina-sotnikova)'s victory over [Yuna Kim](https://bliptext.com/articles/yuna-kim).\nIn large part due to the judging and technical panels including four Russians, these results sparked a debate over the judges' objectivity.\nIn June 2016 the ISU Congress voted to abolish anonymous judging altogether.\n\n# Ties\nWhile the IJS has minimized the number of ties and the need for multiple tiebreaks, as there were under the old 6.0 system, ties do still occur for both overall score and also for single segments of the competition.\nShort/rhythm segment ties are broken based on the TES score and free segment ties on the PCS.\nFor ties in the overall score, ties are broken based on the free segment placement.\n\n# Judge reduction in 2008\nIn 2008, the [ISU](https://bliptext.com/articles/international-skating-union) ruled to reduce the number of judges from twelve to nine.\nThe need to reduce costs was given as the prime reason for this change.\nSince the highest and lowest extreme scores are discounted, the scores of seven judges (rather than ten) determine the outcome of competitions.","current_revision":null,"created_by":"kACnuQmH5k9Nr5VNVEpVeg7XpvUmMctD","created_at":"2025-01-26T08:01:48.479Z","updated_at":"2025-01-26T08:01:48.479Z","search_vector":"'isu':1 'judg':2 'system':3","search_content":" \n \n\n# \nThe **ISU Judging System** or the **International Judging System** (IJS), occasionally referred to as the **Code of Points** (COP) system, is the scoring system that has been used since 2004 to judge the [figure skating](https://bliptext.com/articles/figure-skating) disciplines of [men's and ladies' singles](https://bliptext.com/articles/single-skating), [pair skating](https://bliptext.com/articles/pair-skating), [ice dance](https://bliptext.com/articles/ice-dancing), and [synchronized skating](https://bliptext.com/articles/synchronized-skating).\nIt was designed and implemented by the [International Skating Union](https://bliptext.com/articles/international-skating-union) (ISU), the ruling body of the sport.\nThis system of scoring is used in all international competitions sanctioned by the ISU, including the [Olympic Games](https://bliptext.com/articles/olympic-games).\nThe ISU Judging System replaced the previous [6.0 system](https://bliptext.com/articles/6-0-system).\nIt was created partially in response to the [2002 Winter Olympics figure skating scandal](https://bliptext.com/articles/2002-winter-olympics-figure-skating-scandal), in an attempt to make the scoring system more objective and less vulnerable to abuse.\nU.S. Figure Skating has released a summary of the new judging system.\n\n# Previous judging system\nFigure skating was formerly judged on a 6.0 scale.\nThis scale is sometimes called \"the old scale\", or \"old system\".\nSkaters were judged on \"technical merit\" (in the free skate), \"required elements\" (in the short program), and \"presentation\" (in both programs).\nThe marks for each program ran from 0.0 to 6.0 and were used to determine a preference ranking, or \"ordinal\", separately for each judge; the judges' preferences were combined to determine placements for each skater in each program.\nThe placements for the two programs were then combined, with the free skate weighted more heavily than the short program.\nThe highest scoring individual (based on the sum of the weighted placements) was declared the winner.\n\n# Scandal and response\nA judging controversy occurred during a pair skating event at the [2002 Winter Olympics](https://bliptext.com/articles/2002-winter-olympics), which used scoring based on the [6.0 system](https://bliptext.com/articles/6-0-system).\nA second award ceremony was held in which the top two teams were both awarded gold medals.\nIn 2004, the ISU adopted the New Judging System (NJS), or Code of Points, in an effort to establish a more objective system.\nThis became mandatory at all international competitions in 2006, including the [2006 Winter Olympics](https://bliptext.com/articles/2006-winter-olympics).\nThe ISU released an explanation of the advantages of the new system over the 6.0 system.\n\n# Technical details\n\n## Technical panel\nUnder the ISU Judging System, the base value of each element performed by the skater is identified by the Technical Panel.\nThe purpose of this panel is to identify all of the elements performed by the skater in real time as they happen.\nThe panel is also responsible for identifying any \"technical errors\" to jumps; identifying falls of the skater; and the \"levels of difficulty\" performed in Spins and Steps.\nThe Technical Panel is composed of the following three people:\nThe Technical Panel is assisted by two people:\n\n## Judging panel\nThe role of the judges is to evaluate the quality of each element performed (Technical Score) and the quality of the performance (Presentation Score).\nAt most international events and other large National Championships (such as the U.S. Championships), there are nine judges.\nAt smaller competitions the panel might consist of between four and seven judges.\nAn odd number of judges was needed to break ties in the old 6.0 system, but this is no longer necessary with averaging marks in the ISU Judging System.\n\n### Technical Element Score (TES)\nEach element performed has a base value (which depends on its difficulty), and the judges assign a Grade of Execution (GOE), which can increase or decrease the base value.\nThe GOE is marked as an integer from -5 to +5 since the [2018–19 season](https://bliptext.com/articles/2018-19-figure-skating-season).\nBefore the system change, the scale went from -3 to +3.\nEach plus or minus step in the GOE results in increasing or decreasing the base value by 10 % in single and pair Skating and by 16 % in ice dance.\nThe total of all element scores gives the final Technical Element Score (TES).\n\n### Program Component Score (PCS)\nIn addition to the Technical Element Score, the judges award points on a scale from 0.25 to 10.00 with increments of 0.25 for different program components to grade the overall presentation of the performance.\nSince the [2022–23 season](https://bliptext.com/articles/2022-23-figure-skating-season), the judging panel evaluates three components: Composition (CO), Presentation (PR) and Skating skills (SK).\nBefore the system change, the judges evaluated five components: Skating skills (SS), Transitions (TR), Performance (PE), Composition (CO) and Interpretation (IN).\nThe total of all components is called the Program Component Score (PCS).\n\n### Computation of scores\nThe judging panel consists of up to nine judges and one referee.\nThe Technical Panel sends the element codes to the judges' computers for marking.\nFor each element, all of the judges award a mark for Grade of Execution (GOE) that is an integer between –5 and +5.\nThe GOE mark is then translated into a value using the Scale of Value (SOV) table which is published regularly by ISU Communications.\nThe GOE values from the nine judges are averaged using the \"[trimmed mean](https://bliptext.com/articles/trimmed-mean)\" procedure, where the highest and lowest values are discarded and an average is calculated from the remaining seven values.\nThis average value (which may be positive or negative) is finally added to the base value to produce the judging panel's overall score for the element.\nJudges also mark the Program Components, which are: Skating Skills; Presentation; and Composition.\nThese Components are marked on a scale of 0.25–10 with 0.25 increments and averaged using the same \"trimmed mean\" procedure that was used for averaging the GOE marks.\nJudges also have the power to input majority deductions such as Music Violations and Costume/Prop Violations.\nThe Referee inputs other deductions such as Time Violations, Interruption in Excess and Costume Failures.\n\n## Technical elements\nThe number and type of technical elements included in a skating program depend on the event and on the level of competition.\nAt the senior international level, the [short program](https://bliptext.com/articles/short-program-figure-skating) for senior singles skaters must contain seven technical elements: (a) double or triple axel, (b) triple or quad [jump](https://bliptext.com/articles/figure-skating-jumps), (c) [jump](https://bliptext.com/articles/figure-skating-jumps) combination including triple or quad [jump](https://bliptext.com/articles/figure-skating-jumps)s (maximum one double [jump](https://bliptext.com/articles/figure-skating-jumps)), (d) flying [spin](https://bliptext.com/articles/figure-skating-spins), (e) [camel](https://bliptext.com/articles/camel-spin) or [sit](https://bliptext.com/articles/sit-spin) [spin](https://bliptext.com/articles/figure-skating-spins) with only one change of foot, (f) [spin](https://bliptext.com/articles/figure-skating-spins) combination with only one change of foot, and (g) [step sequence](https://bliptext.com/articles/step-sequence).\nThe [free program](https://bliptext.com/articles/free-skating) for senior singles skaters must contain (a) a maximum of seven jumps, one of which must be an Axel, (b) a maximum of three spins (one a combination, one flying and one with a single position), (c) a maximum of one step sequence, and (d) maximum of one choreographic sequence.\nThe short program for senior pairs skaters for the season 2023-24 shall consist of the following required elements: (a) any hip lift take-off (hand to hip or upper part of the leg position), (b) double or triple twist lift, (c) double or triple throw jump, (d) double or triple solo jump, (e) solo spin combination with only one change of foot, (f) death spiral forward inside, and (g) step sequence.\nThe free skating program for senior pairs skaters must contain: (a) maximum of three lifts, not all from the same group, (b) maximum of one twist lift, (c) maximum of two different throw jumps, (d) maximum of one solo jump, (e) maximum of one jump combination or sequence, (f) maximum of one pair spin combination, (g) maximum of one death spiral different from the death spiral of the Short Program, (h) maximum of one choreographic sequence.\n\n## Component factoring\nThe panel's points for each Program Component are multiplied by a factor depending on the event.\nFor singles and pair skating, the factor is uniform for all components, as follows:\nThe factors in ice dance are different for each Program Component and depend on the dance type.\n\n## Protocol details\nFollowing an event, the complete judges' scores are published in a document referred to as a protocol.\nThis document uses specific notations as described below.\nIf a skater attempts more than the allowed number of a certain type of element in a program, then the element is still described and called as such by the technical controller, but receives a base value of 0 as well as a GOE of 0, regardless of how the judges have marked it.\nOn ISU protocol sheets, elements that have been nullified by this are denoted by an asterisk (*) next to the element name.\nIn free skating, for jumps executed twice as solo jumps, the second jump is marked as +REP and receives 70% of its base value.\nJump elements performed after the halfway point of a program are marked with x and receive a 10% bonus added to their base value.\nIf a jump has been called as having an unclear take-off edge, that jump is marked with !\nand receives a –1 to –2 GOE depending on severity; if a jump has been called as having an incorrect take-off edge (for example, an inside edge on the take-off of a [Lutz jump](https://bliptext.com/articles/lutz-jump)), that jump is marked with e and receives a –2 or –3 GOE depending on the severity of the edge fault.\nJumps that are under-rotated are marked with < or << depending on the degree of turns completed on the ice instead of in mid-air.\n< indicates that a jump had less than a ½ turn but more than a ¼ turn completed on the ice, reducing the base value to 70% of its original value.\n<< indicates a severe under-rotation (a ½ turn or more) and the jump is valued as if it had one less rotation (e.g. a triple would receive the value of a double).\nJumps that are executed in combination or sequence are marked as a single element, with a base mark equal to the sum of the base marks for the individual jumps.\nHowever, a combination or sequence can be downgraded – marked with +COMBO (combinations in the short program) or +SEQ (combinations and sequences in the free skate) – in which case the sum of the base values of the jumps is reduced to 80% of its original value.\n\n### Scale of Values (SOV) and abbreviations of common elements\nEvery spring/summer the ISU releases rule updates which include a current Scale of Values (SOV) for different types of element.\nOne is released for Singles/Pairs and another for Ice Dance.\nClick \"show\" below to view the abbreviations and codes for different figure skating elements.\nThe level of a spin or footwork sequence is denoted by the number following the element abbreviation.\nThe number of rotations on a jump is denoted by the number preceding the element abbreviation.\nFor example, 3A denotes a triple Axel, while SlSt4 denotes a level four straight line step sequence.\nChSt and ChSq are step sequences and spiral sequences that have no level and a fixed base value.\n\n## In ice dance\n[Ice dance](https://bliptext.com/articles/ice-dancing) judging is similar to pairs and singles, but uses a separate set of rules and table of values.\nIn the compulsory dance, steps are specified and \"elements\" are defined for each dance as subsets of the prescribed steps.\nFor compulsory dance only, there is no program component score given for transitions and choreography.\nInstead there is a timing (TI) program component that is exclusive to the compulsory dance, leaving only four program components in the compulsory dance.\nIn the original dance there are five marked technical elements.\nIn the free dance, there are nine marked technical elements.\nUnlike singles and pair skating, the different program components are weighted differently in each segment of the competition.\nThe highest factored component(s) in each segment are skating skills and timing in the compulsory dance, interpretation in the original dance, and transitions in the free dance.\nThe calculation of these factors is described in Rule 353.\n\n# Highest scores\nAfter being trialed in 2003, the IJS replaced the old [6.0 system](https://bliptext.com/articles/6-0-system) in the 2004–2005 figure skating season.\nUp to and including the [2017–2018 season](https://bliptext.com/articles/2017-2018-figure-skating-season), the Grade of Execution (GOE) scoring system for each program element ranged between –3 and +3.\nStarting with the 2018–2019 season, the GOE was expanded to range between –5 and +5.\nHence, the [International Skating Union](https://bliptext.com/articles/international-skating-union) (ISU) have restarted all records from the 2018–2019 season and all previous statistics have been marked as \"historical\".\nThe ISU only recognizes the best scores that are set at international competitions run under the ISU's rules, and does not recognize, for example, scores that are obtained at national figure skating championships.\nThe competitions recognized by the ISU are: [Winter Olympics](https://bliptext.com/articles/figure-skating-at-the-olympic-games) (including the team event), [Youth Olympics](https://bliptext.com/articles/figure-skating-at-the-youth-olympic-games) (including the team event), [World Championships](https://bliptext.com/articles/world-figure-skating-championships), [World Junior Championships](https://bliptext.com/articles/world-junior-figure-skating-championships), [European Championships](https://bliptext.com/articles/european-figure-skating-championships), [Four Continents Championships](https://bliptext.com/articles/four-continents-figure-skating-championships), [GP events](https://bliptext.com/articles/isu-grand-prix-of-figure-skating), Junior [GP events](https://bliptext.com/articles/isu-grand-prix-of-figure-skating), [Challenger Series events](https://bliptext.com/articles/isu-challenger-series), and [World Team Trophy](https://bliptext.com/articles/isu-world-team-trophy-in-figure-skating).\n\n## List of highest scores in figure skating\nFor highest scores achieved prior to the 2018–2019 season, see [List of highest historical scores in figure skating](https://bliptext.com/articles/list-of-highest-historical-scores-in-figure-skating).\n\n## List of highest junior scores in figure skating\nFor highest junior scores prior to the 2018–2019 season, see [List of highest historical junior scores in figure skating](https://bliptext.com/articles/list-of-highest-historical-junior-scores-in-figure-skating).\n\n# Subjectivity\nLike [gymnastics](https://bliptext.com/articles/gymnastics) and [diving](https://bliptext.com/articles/diving-sport) competitions, judging in figure skating is intrinsically [subjective](https://bliptext.com/articles/subjectivity).\nAlthough there may be general consensus that one skater \"looks better\" than another, it is difficult to reach agreement on what causes one skater to be marked as 5.5 and another to be 5.75 for a particular program component.\nAs judges, coaches, and skaters gain more experience with the new system, greater consensus may emerge.\nHowever, for the 2006 Olympics there were cases of 1 to 1.5 point differences in component marks from different judges.\nThis range of difference implies that \"observer bias\" determines about 20% of the mark given by a judge.\nAveraging over many judges reduces the effect of this bias in the final score, but there will remain about a 2% spread in the average artistic marks from the randomly selected subsets of judges.\nAside from intra-expert subjectivity, skating is very open to misjudgement from everyday spectators who only see skating casually, e.g. every four years at the Olympics.\nA skater's jump may look perfect, but the general public will not be aware that the competitor landed on an incorrect edge, therefore receiving fewer points for an element, resulting in the appearance of haphazard or biased judging.\n\n# Criticism\nThe aim of the IJS is to ensure that the judging of figure skating competitions is more consistent with the judging of sports such as [diving](https://bliptext.com/articles/diving-sport) and [gymnastics](https://bliptext.com/articles/gymnastics).\nIt also includes features intended to make judging more resistant to pressure by special interests.\nHowever, there is debate as to whether the new system is in fact an improvement over the old 6.0 system.\nOne criticism of the adoption of the IJS was in the way it alienated casual figure skating fans; whereas the 6.0 system was universally understood due to its simplicity and intuitive scale, the large cumulative scores given by the IJS are less intuitive.\nJudging bias was also found to be about 20 percent greater in the IJS than in the 6.0 system, with judges being inclined to give higher marks to skaters from their own country.\nInitially under the new ISU rules, the judges' marks were anonymous, which removed any public accountability of the judges for their marks.\nHowever, problems with this system came to the forefront during the [Sochi Olympics in 2014](https://bliptext.com/articles/2014-winter-olympics) following Russian skater [Adelina Sotnikova](https://bliptext.com/articles/adelina-sotnikova)'s victory over [Yuna Kim](https://bliptext.com/articles/yuna-kim).\nIn large part due to the judging and technical panels including four Russians, these results sparked a debate over the judges' objectivity.\nIn June 2016 the ISU Congress voted to abolish anonymous judging altogether.\n\n# Ties\nWhile the IJS has minimized the number of ties and the need for multiple tiebreaks, as there were under the old 6.0 system, ties do still occur for both overall score and also for single segments of the competition.\nShort/rhythm segment ties are broken based on the TES score and free segment ties on the PCS.\nFor ties in the overall score, ties are broken based on the free segment placement.\n\n# Judge reduction in 2008\nIn 2008, the [ISU](https://bliptext.com/articles/international-skating-union) ruled to reduce the number of judges from twelve to nine.\nThe need to reduce costs was given as the prime reason for this change.\nSince the highest and lowest extreme scores are discounted, the scores of seven judges (rather than ten) determine the outcome of competitions.","revisionCount":0},"hasMore":false,"nextCursor":null}

History