How Figure Skating Judges Resolve Video Reviews
Figure skating judges resolve video reviews by checking the disputed element against competition rules and the available replay, then confirming or changing its call. Video can clarify what happened; it does not replace the judges’ responsibility to apply the rules.
The numbers
average home-country advantage reported across more than 1,600 performances
reported odds of the home-country preference pattern among 16 of 48 judges occurring by chance
A review may focus on a specific technical detail, such as whether a jump was fully rotated or a skate touched the ice. What officials can examine, and how a review affects the final decision, depends on the competition’s procedures.
Understanding how figure skating judges resolve video reviews means separating what the replay shows from how the rules classify it: the image is evidence, not the ruling itself.
| Decision area | What is reviewed | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Element identification | Whether the element was performed | Can affect the technical call |
| Difficulty level | Whether the difficulty was called accurately | Can affect the element’s technical value |
| Grade of Execution | Quality of execution | Separate mark from -5 to +5 |
| Virtual-test video quality | Whether the video is judgeable | Insufficient quality means notice and withdrawal |
What can a figure-skating video review check?
The technical panel uses video replay to identify each element in a figure-skating program, check whether it was performed and assess whether its difficulty level was called accurately.
That review concerns the elements themselves. It is separate from the judges’ Grade of Execution marks: the panel’s element call and difficulty assessment are not a review of every judge’s quality mark as one combined score.
Element calls and execution quality
For each element, Grade of Execution (GOE) runs from -5 to +5. Zero means adequate execution; positive grades reward quality, while negative grades reflect errors. Replay can help verify the element and its difficulty, but GOE describes how well the element was performed.
Who requests a review, and who makes the call?
The technical panel makes the video-based review of elements and difficulty; its review checks the technical call, while individual judges assign Grade of Execution (GOE) marks.
That distinction matters when a call is questioned. The panel uses video to identify and verify an element and its difficulty level. GOE is a separate assessment of how well an element was performed, and a panel review should not be described as a judge changing an individual GOE mark.
Competition reviews and virtual tests
The rules described here do not establish a general competition procedure for a skater or coach to request a replay. A technical review is not the same thing as a personal challenge, so avoid assuming that a skater can trigger one.
Virtual testing has a different route for video concerns. The skater and coach are responsible for the submitted recording; if its quality raises a concern, they should address it with the test chair. Judges who find the recording insufficient must inform the chair and withdraw from judging. This is a test-session process, not an on-ice competition challenge.
How does a technical-panel decision affect the result?
A technical-panel decision determines which technical value is applied to an element, so a confirmed or corrected call can change the element’s contribution to the skater’s result.
When video review confirms an element or its difficulty level, the corresponding technical value stands. If the panel corrects the call, the value used for that element changes; that can affect the total result. The change concerns the element’s technical contribution, not an automatic rewrite of every other score.
Technical value and execution are separate
Grade of Execution (GOE) is a separate assessment of how the element was performed, on a scale from -5 to +5. The technical call establishes which element or difficulty is being evaluated; GOE assesses its execution. A video check of the call does not, by itself, reveal each judge’s individual mark.
For more than a decade, the International Skating Union (ISU) listed scores without identifying which judges awarded them. A technical-panel decision can therefore explain a change in an element’s technical value without showing how each judge assessed its execution.
What limits the review in virtual testing?
Virtual testing is limited by the same standard as an in-person test session, the video rules, and the limits of the recording itself.
Judges should watch the full test video in one sitting at normal speed. They may pause between elements, but pausing within an element or replaying it is not part of the stated review procedure. Under rule 4524, an electronic device is permitted only to access official documents or time the program.
When the recording is not usable
Video quality sets a hard boundary: if the recording is insufficient for judging, judges must tell the test chair and withdraw. The skater and coach are responsible for the submitted video, so they should check that it clearly shows the test before sending it. Any concern about the recording belongs with the test chair.
These limits matter because a video can support review of elements, but it cannot replace missing or unclear footage. A judge who cannot assess the test from the recording should not fill gaps by guessing; the next step is to contact the test chair and withdraw from judging.
What does a video review change—and what does it not change?
Video review can verify a technical element and its difficulty, but it does not decide the separate question of how judges score the quality of its execution.
In figure skating, the technical panel can use video to identify elements and check difficulty. Judges’ Grade of Execution marks assess how each element was performed; reviewing the footage does not remove that judgment from the scoring process.
Replay has limits beyond the technical call
The distinction matters because judge-level marks were not always identifiable to the public. For more than a decade, the ISU listed scores without identifying which judges awarded them.
A BuzzFeed News analysis of more than 1,600 performances found that figure skating judges gave skaters from their own countries an average 3.4-point advantage. The report also found that 16 of 48 judges at the Winter Olympics in South Korea showed a pattern of home-country preference whose odds of occurring by chance were less than 1 in 100,000.
Replay can help settle what element was performed and its difficulty; it cannot, by itself, resolve concerns about how judges evaluate execution or whether national preference shaped their marks. When reviewing a score, keep the technical call and the judges’ execution marks separate.
Frequently asked questions
Can a skater or coach demand a video review?
Does replay decide the Grade of Execution?
What happens if a virtual-test video is too poor to judge?
Can judges pause a virtual-test video?
Key takeaways
- The technical panel uses replay to check elements and their difficulty.
- GOE is a separate element mark, ranging from -5 to +5.
- For virtual testing, inadequate video quality requires notice to the test chair and withdrawal.
- A replay can correct a technical call, but does not by itself resolve wider judging-transparency concerns.
Sources
- members.usfsaonline.org — “Virtual Testing Handbook”
- pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov — “Relationship between judges’ scores and dive attributes from a video recording of a diving competition”
- Adults Skate Too LLC — “Figure Skating Scoring Explained | How IJS Works in Plain English”
- sports.yahoo.com — “Figure skating scoring system, explained: How Olympic judging works and its history of scandals – Yahoo Sports”
- Forbes — “How Is Olympic Figure Skating Judged? 2026 Milan”
