I'm just talking about the CoP system in general comparision with 6.0 system, which has been used so long. So when a new system is developed, you have to use some standard ones as bench mark. In this case it is the old 6.0 system, since it has been used so long. in 6.0 system, While you step out or two footed quad might get some credit in 6.0 system, but a falled quad definetely got no credit from judges.antmanb said:
CoP: points for falls
- Thread starter Ogre Mage
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
I agree that there is little incentive to perform a flawless but perhaps not technically daring performance if they are going to award people for falls on quads. I am sooo irritated with the transparency of the system when it comes to the PCS marks. The judges are definately using this set of marks to hold people up. Both Plushy and Irina were stunning in the SP, but his lead was insurmountable which frustrates me! It takes out the element of competition. And there is NO way that irina should be within 3 tenths of sasha when you look at their coreography.
I hope they tweak things a bit.
I hope they tweak things a bit.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
Ogre Mage said:
Yes that's why its so difficult - i'm inclined to agree with you on teh brushing of both hands down...i was thinking more along the lines of both hand go down and take all the weight to stop you going down...i would even count one hand where the skater forceably pushes against he ice to get themselves back up again - i little like Joubert's quad.
[/QUOTE]You are correct, I would not have given Buttle's quad fall any credit and Jeff is my favorite current man. The problem isn't Jeff, the problem is the system. Jeff just competed intelligently based on the rules, which is more than I can say for some others.[/QUOTE]
Sorry i didnt' mean ti imply you were harping on Jeff - i was just referring to a proper fall - bum on ice no questions fall and sinc we weer discussing Jeff it seemed appropriate!
Ant
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
mzheng said:
Seriously though under 6.0 a fall on a quad did get credit from the judges - the rule book clearly states that a judge should give it no more credit than a successfull double jump. If its in the rules that pretty clear...i'm struggling to find any internet references to old 6.0 rules now though.
Ant
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
I agree jumps that are fallen on should not get credit. Its a failed attempt.... it makes no sense to award credit for 'full rotation' when you land on your butt.
Credit
Under 6.0, IMO, a fall on a quad totally DID get credit. Remember, specific elements weren't scored, so it's difficult to prove that one way or another, but - honestly - you must remember the many 6.0 programs with quad attempts that were placed ahead of non-fall programs without quad attempts.
Really, methinks the focus here is on the wrong mark. So, you get points for a failed quad attempt, what, something like 5 points? Big deal. We're talking about 5 points in a 60 TES program.
It's the PCS scores that need serious tweaking. Under which PCS score is program flow marked? For that score, the fall needs to be deducted.
Same thing with the transition scores... a fall means that the transition to the next element was not executed, thus a deduction there.
When a program that involves cross-over, cross-over, cross-over, jump, cross-over, (ignore music) cross-over, cross-over, jump can get the same PCS scores as one that is choreographed to the music, has inventive moves, flow and beauty, then a focus on a failed quad seems to be misplaced.
Linny
Under 6.0, IMO, a fall on a quad totally DID get credit. Remember, specific elements weren't scored, so it's difficult to prove that one way or another, but - honestly - you must remember the many 6.0 programs with quad attempts that were placed ahead of non-fall programs without quad attempts.
Really, methinks the focus here is on the wrong mark. So, you get points for a failed quad attempt, what, something like 5 points? Big deal. We're talking about 5 points in a 60 TES program.
It's the PCS scores that need serious tweaking. Under which PCS score is program flow marked? For that score, the fall needs to be deducted.
Same thing with the transition scores... a fall means that the transition to the next element was not executed, thus a deduction there.
When a program that involves cross-over, cross-over, cross-over, jump, cross-over, (ignore music) cross-over, cross-over, jump can get the same PCS scores as one that is choreographed to the music, has inventive moves, flow and beauty, then a focus on a failed quad seems to be misplaced.
Linny
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
Sure. However, consider this possibility. A skater has already done 1 triple axel. He/she falls on the second axel. They have a triple salchow planned down the road. As it is now, they cannot do an axel instead of a salchow because that would mean a 3d axel. With what I suggest, they could.FreeKatie said:
It could be even more dramatic with combos. Suppose a skater falls on a second part of a combo jump. I suggest judges would only consider the first jump of the combo (with perhaps a lower GoE). A skater could then tack on a second jump to one of the other jumps - turn it into a combo without exceeding the limit. If the did that today, not only would they not get credit for the second combo, they would not even get credit for the first jump of the second combo because the whole thing is only looked on as one unit.
At the beginning of the season, I heard some commentator (don't remember who) say that you'd see a lot less falling with CoP because it jurt your program so much. Um--WRONG! I think that if they don't tweak the system some more, it will hurt figure skating in the long run. What we have now is a splatfest on ice and more injured athletes than I've seen in a long time.
Similar threads
