My post about falls in ice dancing - that they should be severely punished - was written before I became aware of the recent spat of falls in ice dancing! Hope I didn't jinx anyone!
Linny
My post about falls in ice dancing - that they should be severely punished - was written before I became aware of the recent spat of falls in ice dancing! Hope I didn't jinx anyone!
Linny
To me, if you fall (and by that I mean land on your patootie, hip, whatever) on a jump, then you didn't complete the jump. Rotations in the air don't count. If you attempt a quad and you fall down on the landing, that's not completed.
And to me, a fall disrupts a program. I see no such thing as a "good" fall. It is disruptive to any program and should receive no credit.
However if a person completes the jump but puts a hand down on the ice, there should be a deduction for that from the overall points for the jump.
What really makes me ill is that skaters will attempt these jumps, ie Buttle, knowing they probably will land on their patooties and will still receive credit for completing the rotations. That galls me. I also wish they'd deduct for flutzing as well.
But this is just me. All this "let's do this to earn more points doesn't matter if we fall" crud is just that: crud.
BUt to my mind a fall where the sklater loses all control and balnce and has to put both hands down on the ice to stop from falling all the way down is the same mistake as the one who falls to teh side or backwards but doesn't catch themselves...technically whatever went wrong with the first example went wrong with ehe second example only you stand a chance to not end up sitting or lying on the ice if you fall forwards, its equally not fair.Originally Posted by swannanoa54
Ant
I seriously doubt that any skater would go in with the aim of falling on a jump..hasn't Jeff sucessfully landed a quad before? Unless you know u have a chance at making the jump it's not very wise to do it considering what will happen if you're not fully rotated. Takahashi didn't rotate his jump enough, and ended up getting 1 point for it, I don't think that try paid off for him..
Well, that raises an interesting point. CoP already mandates a -1 pt. penalty for a fall plus -3 GOE. What is the definition of a "fall" in the CoP rulebook? Or is it completely under the discretion of the technical caller? If "falling" is not clearly defined, then it should be. In the example that you gave, I would have to see it live to make a decision. If it was just just both hands brushing against the ice with a wild free leg, I would be tempted to give it credit with -3 GOE. If some other part of their body made contact with the ice (arm, leg, both feet, etc.) I would probably treat it as a fall and give it a goose egg.
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.
Plush's marks were ridiculous for the no choreography skate he had, but there already is a pretty long thread on that in the Olympics section.
Last edited by Ogre Mage; 02-21-2006 at 10:31 PM.
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.
Jeff said in one of his interview that his quad is about 50% landing rate in practice, and that was not even in program contents.
Last edited by mzheng; 02-22-2006 at 01:18 PM.
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.
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
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
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.
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
After reading everyone's opinions, I would support NOT giving credit for jumps resulting in a fall, but don't call it a jump either - in other words allow skater to try again without exceeding the jump limit.
That's a great idea!
That sounds like an interesting idea. Of course throwing in new jumps and changing the program would mean removing some of the skating components
so if extra jumps had to be thrown in, the component mark would be expected to drop.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks