Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 38

Thread: CoP: points for falls

  1. #1
    Custom Title Ogre Mage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    493

    Thumbs down CoP: points for falls

    I am concerned that the judging system encourages skaters to attempt extremely difficult elements which they cannot complete simply to gain points. For instance, a fall on a fully rotated quad attempt gives the same number of points as a clean 3loop (5.0)! This is stupid. There is a difference between promoting risk and promoting sloppy skating. Right now, CoP encourages the latter.

    My suggestion: for flawed elements (step-out, two-footed, etc.) continue to give credit with negative GOE. But for an outright fall, instead of getting -4 points on the element the skater should simply be given no points. This gives credit for a good try while harshly punishing outright disaster. Perhaps then skaters will be less likely to make Hail Mary attempts on difficult moves which they have a snowball in hell chance of completing.

    Another alternative would be to give bonus points for a skate without any falls/clean program.

    This is not a criticism of the current medalists. They earned their medals fairly based on the rules at this time. But a fall is a fall, whether it is on a 4toe or 2toe. It is an ugly failure to do an element. The system should not encourage falls by giving out points for falling on highly difficult elements. If this continues, people will stop watching skating.
    Last edited by Ogre Mage; 02-19-2006 at 05:59 PM.

  2. #2
    Rabbit Tycoon dutchherder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    526

    Thumbs up

    I agree with you 100%. When people tune into the Olympics, they want to see beautiful, clean programs from their medalists, like Brian Boitano's in '88. I don't think that rewarding skaters for falling on a difficult jump will encourage more skaters to try harder tricks. Certainly that didn't motivate Dick Button when he completed the first triple, nor did it motivate Kurt Browning when he completed the quad. They knew they *could* do it, and would be rewarded if they did it *right*.

    I agree that there should be points awarded for an attempt that is two-footed or turned out, but not for a fall. I think there should be additional points awarded for a clean program. There's nothing wrong with encouraging excellence.

    I think the current system of rewarding falls turns people away from the sport. What's worse than watching someone give a gorgeous, spellbinding performance, and then to watch them be beaten by someone who did some butt skating??

  3. #3
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    902

    Ita

    Count me in too. You are both spot on/absolutely right. A clean program should garner more points, not excessive risk when you can't do the jump.

  4. #4
    Medalist
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    87
    I wish they'd go back to using the 6.0 and have the scoring system be more specific and simple for people to understand.

  5. #5
    Forum translator Ptichka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,430
    One of the early criticisms of CoP was that it discouraged quads because penalties for falls were so severe - originally no points for elements, PLUS a deduction. I agree that what we see now is ridiculous, but I'm not sure giving no credit at all for falls is the solution.

  6. #6
    Custom Title antmanb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    UK - Manchester
    Posts
    4,913
    Ok i just don't get it. Threads are started saying the current system discourages skaters from trying the harder elements they're not sure to hit because of the severe penalties, then threads get started saying that the current system is encouraging people to put things in their programs that they have no chance of landing because the penalties are not harsh enough.

    Its a bit of stale mate really for the powers that be if people are really this divided on teh opnion since any movement either way upsets the rest!

    Ant

  7. #7
    Custom Title Ogre Mage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Ptichka
    One of the early criticisms of CoP was that it discouraged quads because penalties for falls were so severe - originally no points for elements, PLUS a deduction.
    I didn't agree with that either -- it is too harsh. You don't want to totally discourage skaters from trying anything hard. I would just say no points, no deduction.
    Last edited by Ogre Mage; 02-20-2006 at 02:51 PM.

  8. #8
    Custom Title Ogre Mage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by antmanb
    Ok i just don't get it. Threads are started saying the current system discourages skaters from trying the harder elements they're not sure to hit because of the severe penalties, then threads get started saying that the current system is encouraging people to put things in their programs that they have no chance of landing because the penalties are not harsh enough.

    Ant
    If you get 5 pts. for falling on a quad attempt, how is that a "severe penalty?" The system needs to find the right balance and it very clearly has not found it yet.
    Last edited by Ogre Mage; 02-20-2006 at 02:55 PM.

  9. #9
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    788

    Falls in Ice Dancing

    Falls in singles and pairs should be handled differently than falls in ice dancing. Falls in ice dancing should be punished more severely.

    Linny

  10. #10
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,356
    It has always been my position when CoP was first applied, that a falled jump should get no points at all if not add more deduction for disrupption of the program. Compare to old system, in 6.0 scale no credit on a falled jump, the punishment is more severer than NJS with -4 deduction.

    Take SP for example,
    In old system a falled jump got 0.4 deduction off 6.0
    In CoP a falled jump got -4 deduction off a typical 70 points.

    In LP the difference between two system is even bigger. That's why Jeff would put a quad in his LP even knowing he would fall, but as long as he got it full rotated he'd got 5 points on that jump pass.

  11. #11
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    I'm of the school of thought that an element in any sport if not completed should not be credited at all.

    How many Sports give credit for an attempt? Only figure skating, I think, and is that really a Sport?

    Joe

  12. #12
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    414

    Weiss

    Michael Weiss has been trying quads he couldn't complete in the 6.0 system for years & it obviously paid off for him. It's nothing new.

  13. #13
    Custom Title antmanb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    UK - Manchester
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre Mage
    If you get 5 pts. for falling on a quad attempt, how is that a "severe penalty?" The system needs to find the right balance and it very clearly has not found it yet.
    I wasn't criticising either point of view i was doing abit of fence sitting and observing that people think the penalties harsh.

    To take your example, you get 5 points for falling on a fully rotated quad jump. Often (present Olympic Champion excepted) if you fall on a quad attempt its because you're short on rotation. I havne't looked at the protocols and maybe joubert got the benefit of the doubt - his first quad was on the border line of a quarter short so that could go either way - the second one was definitely short and should have called a triple.

    I agree that the system is not working correctly yet - i think the underotating penalty needs to be looked at.

    The only problem i can see about giving no marks for an jump that you fall on, is part of the problem now - what's a fall? How do you define it? Clearly you think Jeff Buttle's fall on the quad is one that deserves no marks...what about a skater who falls forward and puts both hand down on the ice? Is that a flawed jump that still gets marks because the whole body didn't go down? But just because the fall went forwards and our anatmoy is such that we tend to catch ourselves more often if we fall forwards than the virtual impossiblity of catching yourself if you fall backwards (that or broken wrists). Where do you draw the line? What about (and i forget the skater who did this) a really severe step out on a jump, the skater then immediately trips themselves up and starts toe pick dancing to save himself from going down...that is about as flawed as i've seen a jump but no fall so would that still get marks?

    The ridiculous thing about any code of points is that you're trying to lay down the law about something that cannot be made to fit within the rigidity of the system. the whole not being able to see the wood for the trees. The CoP and any tinkering of it is playing about at the tree level and really the most important thing is the program as a whole and comparing one with that of another skater. I don't think Pluschenko won this year as convincingly as his score claims.

    Ant

  14. #14
    Custom Title antmanb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    UK - Manchester
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by mzheng
    It has always been my position when CoP was first applied, that a falled jump should get no points at all if not add more deduction for disrupption of the program. Compare to old system, in 6.0 scale no credit on a falled jump, the punishment is more severer than NJS with -4 deduction.

    Take SP for example,
    In old system a falled jump got 0.4 deduction off 6.0
    In CoP a falled jump got -4 deduction off a typical 70 points.

    In LP the difference between two system is even bigger. That's why Jeff would put a quad in his LP even knowing he would fall, but as long as he got it full rotated he'd got 5 points on that jump pass.
    While i agree with you about the SP I diagree about the LP - the official rule book said (now i'm paraphrasing but i'm fairly sure i'm prtty much spot on with the language) that a failed quad jump should be given no more credit than successful double jump. Strictly speaking that's not no credit that's the same as a clean double. Now i realise at the moment that a failed quad is about as good as an clean easier base triple and agree that something should be done but it is a misconception that the old system didn't reward failed jumps.

    Plus there's the small matter of the judges just giving one mark out for technical. If a judge gives a 5.8 then how do we know how much weight they may or may not have given a failed quad?

    Ant

  15. #15
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    A failed jump is also an unsuccessful attempted jump. Whatever the rule is, imo, a failed jump is not a legal jump,

    I think in the 6.0 system failed jumps worked in the presentation LP scores because, the whole package was more important. In CoP it is believed that the PCS scores cover the whole of presentation. I'm not so sure of that.

    Joe
    Last edited by Joesitz; 02-21-2006 at 07:44 AM.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •