ISU Judging System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The ISU Judging System (or the International Judging System (IJS)), occasionally referred to as the Code of Points (COP) system,[1] is the scoring system that has been used since 2004 to judge the figure skating disciplines of men's and ladies' singles, pair skating, ice dance, and synchronized skating. It was designed and implemented by the International Skating Union (ISU), the ruling body of the sport.

This system of scoring is used in all international competitions sanctioned by the ISU, including the Olympic Games. The ISU Judging System replaced the previous 6.0 system. It was created in part in response to the 2002 Winter Olympics figure skating scandal, in an attempt to make the scoring system more objective and less vulnerable to abuse.[2]

Previous judging system[edit]

Figure skating was formerly judged on a 6.0 scale. This scale is sometimes called "the old scale", or "old system". Skaters were judged on "technical merit" (in the free skate), "required elements" (in the short program), and "presentation" (in both programs). The 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. The placements for the two programs were then combined, with the free skate weighted more heavily than the short program. The highest scoring individual (based on the sum of the weighted placements) was declared the winner.

Scandal and response[edit]

There was a judging controversy during the 2002 Winter Olympics for pair skating, with scoring at the time based on the 6.0 system. A second award ceremony was held in which the top two teams were both awarded gold medals. In 2004, the ISU adopted the New Judging System (NJS), or Code of Points, in an effort to establish a more objective system. This became mandatory at all international competitions in 2006, including the 2006 Winter Olympics.

Technical details[edit]

Technical panel[edit]

Under the ISU Judging System, the base value of each element performed by the skater is identified by the Technical Panel. The purpose of this panel is to identify all of the elements performed by the skater in real time as they happen. The 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.

The Technical Panel is composed of the following five people:

  1. The Technical Specialist (TS), who verbally calls the elements as they happen.
  2. The Assistant Technical Specialist (ATS), who takes written notes on all of the elements performed and to contribute to any decisions on technical calls during the "review of elements".
  3. The Technical Controller (TC), who supervises the panel, and breaks ties on technical decisions during the "review of elements" when the TS and ATS do not agree. The TC is also responsible for "rule vetting" the program. The TC can discard any elements from scoring that break the rules for that level and specific program.
  4. The Data Operator (DO) inputs the codes of the elements and levels of difficulty into the computer system. The DO also flags elements called "for review". In the U.S. the DO also replays the video clips of the elements during the review process. The DO is available to assist the TC in the process of "rule vetting", in the event that the TC is unsure or makes a mistake.
  5. The Video Replay Operator (VRO) marks clips of elements for review. This person replays the clips in place of the DO in international competitions.[3] But in the U.S., this person is not involved in the review process.

Judging panel[edit]

The judging panel's primary purpose is to grade the quality of each individual technical element performed by the skater, known as the Grade of Execution (GOE), and the five Program Component Scores (PCS) for each segment of the competition. The five component scores replaced the "presentation mark" in the old 6.0 system. At most international events and other large National Championships (such as the U.S. Championships), there are nine judges. At smaller competitions the panel might consist of between four and seven judges. An 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.

Grade of Execution (GOE)[edit]

The evaluation of the Grade of Execution (GOE) for each technical element has clear guidelines from the ISU; it ranges from a "base value" of 0, to as high as +5 and as low as –5. In order to award a positive GOE, a judge needs to identify a certain number of "positive bullets" with almost no reductions. One positive bullet is needed for a GOE of +1, two bullets for a +2, three for a +3, four for a +4, and five or more for a GOE of +5. In the case of a negative GOE, a judge must be able to support their evaluation with reference to the published list of reductions. As the skater performs each element, the judges evaluate all phases of the element, possibly weighing both positive and negative aspects of the element in order to determine a final GOE.[4] Prior to the 2018–19 season, which started on 1 July 2018, the GOE scoring system ranged from –3 to +3, with a base value of 0.[5] The changes were implemented to allow more accurate scoring factors to be awarded in a sport that is becoming increasingly technical.[6]

To aid the process of evaluating only the quality of an element, while ignoring the difficulty of the element, the judges are simply shown the element codes on their screens; they do not see the levels of difficulty awarded by the Technical Panel. The judges must be able to support every mark that they have awarded in case they are questioned by the referee after the event.

Program Component Scores (PCS)[edit]

The five program component scores are Skating skills, Transitions, Performance, Composition, and Interpretation. Each mark has individual characteristics that are evaluated; they are scored from 0.25 to 10.00 in quarter-point increments. The scale from zero to ten is an absolute scale, so for example if 6.00 is considered "above average" then each judge’s understanding of a 6.00 should remain the same throughout an event and their judging careers.

  • Skating skills: This mark assesses the skater's command of the blade over the ice, including the ability to skate with power and ease, forwards and backwards, clockwise and counter-clockwise. How acute is the skater's blade to the ice? How clean and clear are the curves over the ice (known as edge quality)? Skating skills are considered to be excellent if the skater moves quickly and easily, and flows over the ice with soft knees and ankles; but they are judged to be poor if the skating is scratchy and noisy, with the skater pushing from their toes rather than from the sides of the blades.
  • Transitions: This mark evaluates all of the "in between" skating when technical elements are not being performed, i.e. whether the skater is merely skating in circles, or incorporating different turns and steps, perhaps also using their arms. A program with good transitions manages to "thread" all the elements together, making the skater's program seem effortless. Poor transitions are sometimes non-existent or merely places between the technical elements with a precise "stopping" point where the skater begins to prepare for the next element.
  • Performance: This is where the scores start to become slightly more abstract and largely based on the judges' individual opinions. Is the skater physically, emotionally, and mentally involved in their program? Does the skater project to the entire audience and arena? Does the skater have presence on the ice with good carriage? Do they project their own personality while skating?
  • Composition: This mark is concerned with the pattern and spacing over the ice, i.e. how the technical elements are placed throughout the ice surface. Does the skater always skate in the same part of the ice or are they making use of the entire area given to them? Is there a purpose to the way the program is constructed? Maybe their performance is designed to convey an abstract idea like rain or snow; or it might be about a particular story, e.g. when performing to a movie soundtrack or ballet. Does the movement in the program match the phrasing of the music? Perhaps there is meant to be a traditional musical "call and answer" or something more abstract.
  • Interpretation: This score reflects how well the judges feel that the skater is performing with their "soul" (whereas the Composition score is more about the choreography). Does the skater move in time to the music, or are all the movements just off by a beat or two? Does the skater reflect every little trill and ding with a corresponding skating move?[7]

Computation of scores[edit]

The judging panel consists of up to nine judges and one referee. The Technical Panel sends the element codes to the judges' computers for marking. For each element, all of the judges award a mark for Grade of Execution (GOE) that is an integer between –5 and +5. The GOE mark is then translated into a value using the Scale of Value (SOV) table which is published regularly by ISU Communications.[8] The GOE values from the nine judges are averaged using the "trimmed mean" procedure, where the highest and lowest values are discarded and an average is calculated from the remaining seven values.[8] This 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.

Judges also mark the Program Components, which are: Skating Skills; Transitions/Linking Footwork; Performance and Execution; Composition and Choreography; and Interpretation and Timing. These 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. Judges also have the power to input majority deductions such as Music Violations and Costume/Prop Violations. The Referee inputs other deductions such as Time Violations, Interruption in Excess and Costume Failures.

Technical elements[edit]

The number and type of technical elements included in a skating program depend on the event and on the level of competition. At the senior international level, the short program for both singles and pair skaters must contain seven technical elements. The free program must contain twelve elements for singles and eleven elements for pairs.[8]

Details of the seven elements required of singles skaters in their short program are given in ISU rule 611: the skater must attempt two solo jumps, one combination jump, three spins (including one combination spin and one flying spin), and one step sequence. The seven elements required of pair skaters in their short program are detailed in ISU rule 620; the pair must attempt two lifts, one side-by-side jump, one throw jump, one spin combination, one death spiral, and one step sequence.[8]

The twelve elements required of singles skaters in their free program are detailed in ISU rule 612; the skater must perform seven jumps, three spins (including one combination spin and one flying spin), one step sequence, and one choreographic sequence (formerly the "choreographic step sequence" for Men and the "spiral sequence" for Ladies). The eleven elements required of pair skaters in their free program are detailed in ISU rule 621; they must attempt a maximum of four lifts (including one twist lift), four jumps (including two different throw jumps), one pair spin combination, one death spiral, and one choreographic sequence (previously known as the "spiral sequence").[8]

Component factoring[edit]

The panel's points for each Program Component are multiplied by a factor depending on the event. For singles and pair skating, the factor is uniform for all components, as follows:

Discipline Short program
Free skating
Men 1.0 2.0
Ladies 0.8 1.6
Pairs 0.8 1.6

The factors in ice dance are different for each Program Component and depend on the dance type.[8]

Protocol details[edit]

Following an event, the complete judges' scores are published in a document referred to as a protocol. This document uses specific notations as described below.

If 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. On ISU protocol sheets, elements that have been nullified by this are denoted by an asterisk (*) next to the element name. In free skating, for jumps executed twice as solo jumps, the second jump is marked as +REP and receives 70% of its base value. Jump elements performed after the halfway point of a program are marked with x and receive a 10% bonus added to their base value. If a jump has been called as having an unclear take-off edge, that jump is marked with ! and 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), that jump is marked with e and receives a –2 or –3 GOE depending on the severity of the edge fault. Jumps that are under-rotated are marked with < or << depending on the degree of turns completed on the ice instead of in mid-air. < 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. << 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).[9]

Jumps 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. However, 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.

Scale of Values (SOV) and abbreviations of common elements[edit]

Every spring/summer the ISU releases rule updates which include a current Scale of Values (SOV) for different types of element. One is released for Singles/Pairs[5] and another for Ice Dance.[10]

Abbreviation Full name Full Code
A = Axel Single Axel jump 1A
Double Axel 2A
Triple Axel 3A
Quadruple Axel 4A
Lz = Lutz Single Lutz jump 1Lz
Double Lutz 2Lz
Triple Lutz 3Lz
Quadruple Lutz 4Lz
F = Flip Single Flip jump 1F
Double Flip 2F
Triple Flip 3F
Quadruple Flip 4F
Lo = Loop Single Loop jump 1Lo
Double Loop 2Lo
Triple Loop 3Lo
Quadruple Loop 4Lo
S = Salchow Single Salchow jump 1S
Double Salchow 2S
Triple Salchow 3S
Quadruple Salchow 4S
T = Toe loop Single Toe loop jump 1T
Double Toe loop 2T
Triple Toe loop 3T
Quadruple Toe loop 4T
Throw jumps
ATh Throw Axel Full code shows number of revolutions using same concept as above for solo jumps
LzTh Throw Lutz
FTh Throw Flip
LoTh Throw Loop
STh Throw Salchow
TTh Throw Toe loop
CSp Camel Spin Full code ends in nothing for No Value, or B for Base, 1 for Level 1, 2 for Level 2, 3 for Level 3, and 4 for Level 4
LSp Layback Spin
SSp Sit Spin
USp Upright Spin
CoSp Combination Spin
CCSp Change foot Camel Spin
CLSp Change foot Layback Spin
CSSp Change foot Sit Spin
CUSp Change foot Upright Spin
CCoSp Change foot Combination Spin
FCSp Flying Camel Spin
FLSp Flying Layback Spin
FSSp Flying Sit Spin
FUSp Flying Upright Spin
PSp Pair Spin
PCoSp Pair Combination Spin
Step sequences
ChSt Choreographed Step Sequence
CiSt Circular step sequence
DiSt Diagonal in hold step sequence
MiSt Midline in hold step sequence
NtMiTw Not Touching Midline Sequential Twizzles
NtMiSt Not Touching Midline Steps
SeSt Serpentine step sequence
SlSt Straight line step sequence
Choreographic Sequences
ChSq Choreographic Sequence
Spiral sequences
ChSp Choreographed Spiral
SpSq Spiral sequence of any pattern (no longer in use as of 2010)
Pair lifts
Tw Twist Lift, Preceded by number of revolutions. E.g. Double Twist is coded 2TW
1Li Group One Lift. (Hand to Armpit Hold)
2Li Group Two Lift. (Hand to Waist Hold)
3Li Group Three Lift (Hand to Hip Hold)
4Li Group Four Lift (Hand to Hand Hold) (AKA "Press Lift")
Group 5 Lifts Below all Group 5 lifts, are a pressure lift with rotation on the takeoff by the lady. The difference in code depends on the precise take off.
5ALi Axel Lasso Lift- Lady takes off Forwards edge and facing the same direction as the man. (Both skaters facing forwards.) Lady makes one full Rotation around the man on the way up.
5RLi or 5BLi Group Five Reverse/Backward Lasso Lift. Like the 5ALi, the lady makes a full revolution on the way up. This lift she and the partner may be back to back, or the lady is towards the man. Her take off from the ice is from a backwards positions.
5SLi Step Takeoff- Similar to 5ALi but direction doesn't matter and only a 1/2 revolution on the way up.
5TLi Toe Takeoff- Similar to 5SLi but the lady's toe taps upon taken. Only 1/2 revolution on the way up.
Dance lifts
CuLi Curve lift
RRoLi Reverse rotational lift
RoLi Rotational lift
SeLi Serpentine lift
StaLi Stationary lift
SlLi Straight line lift
Death spirals
BiDs Backward inside death spiral
BoDs Backward outside death spiral
FiDs Forward inside death spiral
FoDs Forward outside death spiral
Dance elements
STw Synchronized twizzles

The level of a spin or footwork sequence is denoted by the number following the element abbreviation. The number of rotations on a jump is denoted by the number preceding the element abbreviation. For example, 3A denotes a triple Axel, while SlSt4 denotes a level four straight line step sequence. ChSt and ChSq are step sequences and spiral sequences that have no level and a fixed base value.

In ice dance[edit]

Ice dance judging is similar to pairs and singles, but uses a separate set of rules and table of values. In the compulsory dance, steps are specified and "elements" are defined for each dance as subsets of the prescribed steps. For compulsory dance only, there is no program component score given for transitions and choreography. Instead there is a timing (TI) program component that is exclusive to the compulsory dance, leaving only four program components in the compulsory dance. In the original dance there are five marked technical elements. In the free dance, there are nine marked technical elements. Unlike singles and pair skating, the different program components are weighted differently in each segment of the competition. The 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. The exact values of these factors are listed in ISU Rule 543.1k.

High scores[edit]

After being trialed in 2003, the IJS replaced the old 6.0 system in the 2004–2005 figure skating season. Up to and including the 2017–2018 season, the Grade of Execution (GOE) scoring system for each program element ranged between –3 and +3. Starting with the 2018–2019 season, the GOE was expanded to range between –5 and +5. Hence, the International Skating Union (ISU) have restarted all records from the 2018–2019 season and all previous statistics have been marked as "historical".[11]

The 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. The competitions recognized by the ISU are: Winter Olympics (including the team event), Youth Olympics (including the team event), World Championships, World Junior Championships, European Championships, Four Continents Championships, GP events, Junior GP events, Challenger Series events, and World Team Trophy.

List of highest scores in figure skating[edit]

For highest scores achieved prior to the 2018–2019 season, see List of highest historical scores in figure skating.

List of highest junior scores in figure skating[edit]

For highest junior scores prior to the 2018–2019 season, see List of highest historical junior scores in figure skating.


Like gymnastics and diving competitions, judging in figure skating is intrinsically subjective. Although 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. As judges, coaches, and skaters gain more experience with the new system, greater consensus may emerge. However, for the 2006 Olympics there were cases of 1 to 1.5 point differences in component marks from different judges.[citation needed] This range of difference implies that "observer bias" determines about 20% of the mark given by a judge.[citation needed] Averaging 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.[citation needed]

Aside 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. A 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.


The 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 and gymnastics. It also includes features intended to make judging more resistant to pressure by special interests. However, there is debate as to whether the new system is in fact an improvement over the old 6.0 system.[12][13] One 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.[13] Judging 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.[13]

Initially under the new ISU rules, the judges' marks were anonymous, which removed any public accountability of the judges for their marks. However, problems with this system came to the forefront during the Sochi Olympics in 2014 following Russian skater Adelina Sotnikova's victory over Yuna Kim. In large part due to the judging and technical panels including four Russians, these results sparked a debate over the judges' objectivity.[14] In June 2016 the ISU Congress voted to abolish anonymous judging altogether.[15]


While 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. Short/rhythm segment ties are broken based on the TES score and free segment ties on the PCS. For ties in the overall score, ties are broken based on the free segment placement.

Event Skaters Discipline Segment Score Segment Placement
2004 Skate America Canada Cynthia Phaneuf Ladies Short program 50.20 Tied third
(Identical TES and PCS)
United States Alissa Czisny
2007 World Championships Italy Carolina Kostner Total score 168.92 Nakano 5th, Kostner 6th
(Higher free skating placement)
Japan Yukari Nakano
2008 U.S. Championships United States Evan Lysacek Men 244.77 Lysacek 1st, Weir 2nd
(Higher free skating placement)
United States Johnny Weir
2009 U.S. Championships United States Katrina Hacker Ladies Short program 54.79 Hacker 5th, Nagasu 6th
(Higher TES)
United States Mirai Nagasu
United States Laney Diggs Total score 147.48 Diggs 10th, Musademba 11th
(Higher free skating placement)
United States Kristine Musademba
2009 World Championships Russia Sergei Voronov Men Short program 72.15 Voronov 9th, Abbott 10th
(Higher TES)
United States Jeremy Abbott
2009 World Team Trophy Canada Joannie Rochette Ladies 62.08 Rochette 2nd, Ando 3rd
(Higher TES)
Japan Miki Ando
2011 World Championships Italy Carolina Kostner 59.75 Leonova 5th, Kostner 6th
(Higher TES)
Russia Alena Leonova
2018 Winter Olympics International Olympic Committee Evgenia Medvedeva Free skating 156.65 Medvedeva 1st, Zagitova 2nd
(Higher PCS)
International Olympic Committee Alina Zagitova
2019 Russian Championships Russia Stanislava Konstantinova Short program 74.40 Kostornaia 3rd, Konstantinova 4th
(Higher TES)
Russia Alena Kostornaia
2020 Rostelecom Cup Russia Makar Ignatov Men Total score 260.78 Semenenko 6th, Ignatov 7th
(Higher free skating placement)
Russia Evgeni Semenenko
Estonia Eva-Lotta Kiibus Ladies Free skating 128.12 Trusova 4th, Kiibus 5th
(Higher PCS)
Russia Alexandra Trusova
2021 World Championships China Chen Hongyi Short program 58.81 Březinová 21st, Chen 22nd
(Higher TES)
Czech Republic Eliška Březinová
2021 World Team Trophy Russia Evgeni Semenenko Men Total score 255.19 Semenenko 5th, Brown 6th
(Higher free skating placement)
United States Jason Brown
2021 Lake Placid Ice Dance International Australia Holly Harris / Jason Chan Ice dance 159.87 Harris/Chan 4th, Pate/Bye 5th
(Higher free dance placement)
United States Eva Pate / Logan Bye
2021 CS Nebelhorn Trophy Latvia Anete Lāce Women Short program 54.96 Lāce 8th, Taljegård 9th
(Higher TES)
Sweden Josefin Taljegård
Hong Kong Joanna So 48.79 So 19th, Sauter 20th
(Higher TES)
Romania Julia Sauter
Germany Kai Jagoda Men Free skating 107.75 Jagoda 20th, Lewton Brain 21st
(Higher PCS)
Monaco Davide Lewton Brain
2021 CS Finlandia Trophy Canada Keegan Messing Men Short program 92.39 Messing 1st, Brown 2nd
(Higher TES)
United States Jason Brown

Judge reduction in 2008[edit]

In 2008, the ISU ruled to reduce the number of judges from twelve to nine. The need to reduce costs was given as the prime reason for this change.[34] Since the highest and lowest extreme scores are discounted, the scores of seven judges (rather than ten) determine the outcome of competitions.


  1. ^ "Swiss Timing and Figure Skating". 2017 Swiss Timing. Retrieved 25 March 2018.
  2. ^ "Scoring System Approved". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 July 2011.
  3. ^ US Figure Skating Rulebook 2017-2018. Colorado Springs, CO USA: US Figure Skating. pp. 107–108.
  4. ^ "ISU Communication No. 2168 – Single & Pair Skating – Scale of Values, Levels of Difficulty and Guidelines for marking Grade of Execution, season 2018/19 (REVISED)". International Skating Union. 25 June 2018. Retrieved 9 July 2018.
  5. ^ a b "ISU Communication No. 2089 – Single & Pair Skating – Scale of Values, Levels of Difficulty and Guidelines for marking Grade of Execution, season 2017/18" (PDF). International Skating Union. 11 May 2017.
  6. ^ "Agenda of the 57th Ordinary Congress, Seville – 2018". International Skating Union. 30 April 2018. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
  7. ^ "Program Components – Singles & Pairs, Ice Dance" (PDF). 28 August 2016.
  8. ^ a b c d e f "ISU Constitution & Regulations". Retrieved 22 April 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  9. ^ "Communication No. 1611 – Single & Pair Skating – Scale of Values, Levels of Difficulty and Guidelines for marking Grade of Execution". International Skating Union. 4 May 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 May 2010. Retrieved 9 January 2015.
  10. ^ "ISU Communication No. 2094 – ICE DANCE Scales of Values, effective July 1st 2017" (PDF). 1 July 2017.
  11. ^ "Statistics including Personal Best & Season's Best information". International Skating Union. Retrieved 22 July 2016.
  12. ^ Balding, Clare (19 February 2006). "Jury is out on skating's latest judging system". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 October 2019.
  13. ^ a b c Pilon, Mary; Longman, Jere (5 February 2014). "Despite Revamp, Figure Skating Gets Mixed Marks". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 6 February 2014. Retrieved 2 October 2019.
  14. ^ "Olympic figure skater won't defend gold medal". 27 August 2017. Retrieved 18 August 2022.
  15. ^ "ISU vote to abolish anonymous judging system in figure skating to "increase transparency"". inside the games. 8 June 2016. Retrieved 25 March 2018.
  16. ^ SmartOnes Skate America: Ladies – Short Program
  17. ^ ISU World Figure Skating Championships 2007: Ladies – Results
  18. ^ Tie Breaker Allows Lysacek to Defend Title
  19. ^ 2009 US Nationals Ladies Short Program
  20. ^ 2009 US Nationals Ladies Final Results
  21. ^ ISU World Figure Skating Championships 2009: Men – Short Program
  22. ^ ISU World Team Trophy in Figure Skating 2009: Ladies – Short Program
  23. ^ ISU World Figure Skating Championships 2011: Ladies – Short Program
  24. ^ Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018: Ladies' Single Skating – Free Skating Results
  25. ^ Rostelecom Russian Nationals 2019: Ladies – Short Program
  26. ^ ISU GP Rostelecom Cup 2020: Men – Result
  27. ^ ISU GP Rostelecom Cup 2020: Ladies – Free Skating
  28. ^ ISU World Figure Skating Championships 2021: Ladies – Short Program
  29. ^ ISU World Team Trophy in Figure Skating 2021: Team Standing
  30. ^ 2021 Lake Placid Ice Dance International: Senior Ice Dance
  31. ^ ISU CS Nebelhorn Trophy 2021 OWG Qualifying: Women – Short Program
  32. ^ ISU CS Nebelhorn Trophy 2021 OWG Qualifying: Men – Free Skating
  33. ^ ISU CS Finlandia Trophy 2021: Men – Short Program
  34. ^ Rutherford, Lynn (28 April 2008). "How many judges are there, anyway?". Retrieved 25 May 2018.

External links[edit]