Was Sasha gifted by the Tech Specialist?
I just rewatched Sasha's Romeo and Juliet long program from Nationals. An outstanding performance with only one significant flaw, a step-out and hand down on the first jump of her 3T+3S sequence.
In the scoring, she got full credit for the sequence, but took a -2.43 GOE for the stumble.
If you watch closely, after she straightens herself up after landing the toe, she takes a l-o-o-ng gliding stroke, then a little hop, then another l-o-o-ng stroke -- and then launches into the Salchow. To me, it looked like this was too much in-between to be counted as a sequence.
The rules are pretty strict on this. And in fact, this is exactly what happened to her in her only international event this year, Trophee Eric Bompard. The ISU technical specialist called the element as two separate jumps. Therefore she did not get credit for her last jump, a solo triple Salchow, because that was her eighth jumping pass.
But at the U.S. Championship, the caller let it go. This allowed Sasha to score an extra 5.71 points for her final jump (including GOE and second-half bonus), in addition to the 5.07 net score for her sequence.
The fact that there was some doubt about how to score the sequence is evident from the official score sheets. The 3T+3S SEQ is listed as "element # 7," and her next element, a spin, is listed as "element #9."
Did the tech specialist get it right or wrong?
Sequence vs. Combination
Jeez Mathman, you get me thinking and then I spend the next hour digging for info...oh well, it's fun anyway. It would be nice to have the orginal doc that lists the elements the skater is planning to do, so we'd know when they are thinking on their feet. So we're sorta in the dark when they change stuff and all we see is the end product. I know that Michael Weiss was changing elements from his planned content.
Sorry this is long but not possible to paraphrase, I certainly don't know the answer but this from ISU Communication 1319:
Rule 320, paragraph 2
Jump Combination A jump combination may consist of the same or another single, double, triple or quadruple jump. There may be up to three jump combinations or jump sequences in the Free Program. One jump combination could consist of up to three (3) jumps, the other two up to two (2) jumps. If the jumps are connected with a not listed jump (e.g. half-loop), the element is called as a jump sequence. If the first jump of a two-jump-combination fails to succeed and turns out into a “not listed jump”, the unit will still be considered as a jump-combination. In a jump combination the landing foot of the first jump is the take off foot of the second. The same would apply to the third jump. A three turn on one foot between the jumps without touching the ice with the free foot keeps the element in the frame of this definition allowing still to call it a combination (with an error), but if together with this turn the skater's free foot touches the ice, the element becomes a jump sequence.
Jump Sequence A jump sequence may consist of any number of jumps of any number of revolutions linked by hops, mazurkas and non-listed jumps immediately following each other; while maintaining the jump rhythm (knee). There can be not more than one (1) revolution on the ice between any hop, mazurka, non-listed jump or jump. the sequence must have a constant rhythm and There can be no crossovers or stroking during the sequence. A jump sequence, consisting of only one listed jump together with other non-listed jumps is not considered a jump-sequence but will count as a single jump.
We should call ourselves ferrets or terriers or detectives or some such.
Yeow, the stuff I pasted didn't come thru the same as it is in the actual communication. There are changes and strikes thrus that did not show. Best to go to:
It's on page 4, then you can see the actual rule.
Sexy, smart and sterilized!
I haven't watched the tapes yet, but from what we saw, it appeared that almost everybody was gifted. Talk about inflated scores. But it was Nats and it was the first time COP had been used at that comp.
I'm not sure about the point tallies, but I think Cohen was gifted at least 10 points. IMO it was barely a 180 point performance and she gets 199 for it??!?!
RD, the cool thing about the New Judging System is that we can't say any more, oh, I think this performance was only worth 5.6 and the lyin', cheatin' judges gave it a 5.8. It's all right there in black and white. If you think Sasha's program is only worth 180 points, show me where the judges erred. Did they give her 5 points for a triple Salchow when they should only have given her 4.5?
Numbers Cruncher, thanks again for the detective work. IIRC these rules are spelled out in even greater detail somewhere in the labyrinthe of the ISU. One strange rule is the one that says, yes you can do as many jumps in a sequence as you want, but only the first two count (discounted at .8), and the rest you just do for fun.
Anyway, Sasha does not have a triple/triple combination in her arsenal (nor a triple Axel or double Axel/triple combo) so the only way she can do a 7 triple program is to do a triple/triple sequence. The key words are:
"immediately following each other; while maintaining the jump rhythm (knee). There can be not more than one (1) revolution on the ice between any hop, mazurka, non-listed jump or jump. The sequence must have a constant rhythm and there can be no crossovers or stroking during the sequence."
I'm not exactly sure what that "knee" means. But anyway, what the caller had to decide is whether Sasha maintained "a constant rhythm" with "no stroking" between the jumps. It looks to me like she did not, and the technical specialist erred. (This is not really a matter of opinion -- um, in my opinion, LOL -- you can clearly see the stroking in addition to breaking the rhythm of the sequence with the turn out).
If this element had been called as two separate jumps instead of a sequence, then Sasha would have used up her quota of seven jumping passes when she got to her double Axel, and she would have received 0 points for the triple Salchow at the very end of the program. This would have brought her point total down to 194 or so, instead of 199.
This has nothing to do with the judges, by the way. Maybe the U.S. judges did give out ridiculously inflated PCSs (or even GOEs) compared to international standards. That, however, is a judgement (what judges do), rather than a determination of which elements were performed (the responsibility of the technical specialist).
(To me, this is great fun and beats the heck out of random wuzrobbin'.)
Last edited by Mathman; 01-20-2006 at 06:12 PM.
If indeed Sasha got a "gift" on this, I can only hope that Team Sasha is aware (as they should be since a similar thing happened under international scoring) and is working on it to make SURE this sort of thing doesn't come into question at the Oly's.
I also suspect there were close calls for others at Nats, where the "Teams" are looking out for stricter calling at Oly's. Best of luck to all!!
I am sure that team Sasha knows all about it. If Sasha had landed the triple toe smoothly there would not have been any problem.
Originally Posted by Doggygirl
When you don't land the first jump properly, there's hell to pay in getting off the second jump at all, especially in a combination. In a sequence you have a little more leeway. In this example Sasha saved it, in the view of the tech specialist.
I don't know that there is anything Sasha can do to prevent this from happening at the Olympics. It is just one of the ways that the point system penalizes you when you don't skate squeaky-clean.
Even with the gift if there was one, she was the obvious winner.
That's quite true, Joe, but the reason I brought it up was to underscore the point that you have been making about the New Judging System -- the technical specialist is the most powerful official in the building.
Originally Posted by Joesitz
This one decision produced a swing of 5 points or so. Many contests are decided by a lot less.
By comparison, if the whole judging panel decided to get together and keep a skater off the podium, by systematically giving her .50 lower than she deserved in every single program component (say, 6.75 instead of 7.25), that would amount to only a 4 point swing overall.
ITA MM. The score sheets for review IMO are a wonderful outcropping of COP. If I could add another thing to my "wish list" of information, it would be access to what elements were called out for technical review. Now that's a BIG Santa Wish isn't it? But it sure would be awesome.
Originally Posted by Mathman
She probably was when one reads the requirements of a jump sequence, but it is small potatoes since she was such a dominant winner, and nobody takes the point totals from Nationals too seriously anyway.
I am not too sure of your last statement. I think the people in the US take those scores quite seriously. In fact it may be something that team Sasha can use to boost her confidence level. Her total score is higher than anything Irina ever earned. That has to be important to some. As far as her win was concerned, it was a 'no contest' type situation.
Originally Posted by slutskayafan21
possibly...but at the same time, I think they can be misleading. Not even Irina got that much for her flawless performances this year.
If Team U.S is really going to even try and take any of the scores from their Nationals seriously then they need a major reality check. I would like to think none of them are that naive, especialy one with Sasha's experience.
Originally Posted by Vash01
As well didnt Suguri score higher at Japanese Nationals than Sasha did at U.S Nationals or Irina ever has as well? So based on that line of thinking she must think she is the gold medal fave for Turin now.