Hamilton Shares His Thoughts on Judging System

[Joesitz]

But that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about how many points the CoP awards for a fully rotated quad and how few it takes off for a fall on the element.

Indeed, it is better to fall on a quad then any other jump.

One thing I wonder what actually the Caller is seeing when a Quad fall takes place. It would not be unusual for a quad fall to happen before the air turns were completed especially if it is just a minute infraction of what would be the landing rule.

Oh well, you know my feelings about the Power of the Caller.

Joe

[SeaniBu]

Still, though, ... this "risk" thing is bothering me. "Taking a risk" means you get a big reward if you make it and a big penalty if you fail. The way the quad is scored under the CoP, I see the big reward. I don't see the big penalty. Where is the "risk?"

Just thinking - trying to spawn thought - where is the incentive to try it? And because it is now a "Code" of rather than a "Grade" of.... But it is seeming fair to me.

[Mathman]

One thing I wonder what actually the Caller is seeing when a Quad fall takes place. It would not be unusual for a quad fall to happen before the air turns were completed especially if it is just a minute infraction of what would be the landing rule.

I agree. I would assume that most falls on jumps occur because you don't get that landing edge down exactly right. So is it really completely rotated?

The only way that it would be clear is the case where the jump is landed properly and then ... oh! I just can't quite hold on after all! Even then, a huge burden on the caller, considering how many points are at stake for that one element.

[hockeyfan228]

I agree. I would assume that most falls on jumps occur because you don't get that landing edge down exactly right. So is it really completely rotated?

The only way that it would be clear is the case where the jump is landed properly and then ... oh! I just can't quite hold on after all! Even then, a huge burden on the caller, considering how many points are at stake for that one element.

They have replay, which shows where the blade took off and where it landed.

[Mathman]

Just thinking - trying to spawn thought - where is the incentive to try it?

The incentive (assuming that you can rotate the darn thing all day long, you just can't land it very often), is that on the off chance that you get lucky, you're in like Flynn, point-wise.

But if you fall -- which you probably will -- so what? You're no worse off than before. (In fact, you're still a point ahead -- 5.0 insead of 4.0 -- than if you had done the jump that you can actually do, a triple toe.)

There is also the subjective factor that Joe points out. The judges are just not going to let a quadless wonder skate off with the gold medal -- not when they've got Plushenko, Lambiel, Joubert, etc. to give it to.

But conceivably they might give it someone who made a real solid effort on a quad, had a good approach, a solid take-off, fine position in the air, a full 1440 -- eat your heart out, Flying Tomato -- and an oh-so-close almost perfect landing, with just enough of a skid to tumble you. Then up you pop for your triple Axel combo. Ta da!

MM

[Mathman]

They have replay, which shows where the blade took off and where it landed.

OK. But in other sports I watch these instant replays on television over and over and I still can't tell. The exact position of the blade at the exact split second that it touches the ice? Does one part of the blade touch first?

I have been watching those computerized reinactments for line calls at Wimbledon this week. Hmm.

I do not think we will ever be able -- even if it were desirable to do so -- to make judging free of judgment.

[SeaniBu]

The incentive (assuming that you can rotate the darn thing all day long, you just can't land it very often), is that on the off chance that you get lucky, you're in like Flynn, point-wise.

But if you fall -- which you probably will -- so what? You're no worse off than before. (In fact, you're still a point ahead -- 5.0 insead of 4.0 -- than if you had done the jump that you can actually do, a triple toe.)

There is also the subjective factor that Joe points out. The judges are just not going to let a quadless wonder skate off with the gold medal -- not when they've got Plushenko, Lambiel, Joubert, etc. to give it to.

That is a highly appreciated and exactly what I was getting the impression of being the incentive. That makes perfect sense - to me - why under a code this would be. So taking a bigger risk pays off bigger. No matter how many one pulls, it is only an assumption, but it is still a bigger risk. Shouldn't that be a bigger pay off, thoughts?

Love the tomato analogy

[Mathman]

...So taking a bigger risk pays off bigger. No matter how many one pulls, it is only an assumption, but it is still a bigger risk. Shouldn't that be a bigger pay off, thoughts?

Well, my thought is that it is not really a bigger risk at all. If you succeed, you get big points. If you fail, you still get big points. Where's the risk?

A risk is, if you win you get a billion dollars, if you lose, off with your head.

To me, it's not a risk to say, if you win you get a billion dollars, if you lose you get a million.

So -- bottom line -- I don't mind the current point values, but I would be in favor of tweaking them to provide for a greater penalty for making mistakes on the higher rated elements. They do this for everything else except the quad.

MM

[SeaniBu]

The more you get me to accept this "code" the more I see "all" pointing out the flaws. The one thing that I can say for sure - because I have said it already - is maybe the penalty is not harsh enough. This I do agree with but I have to believe the fact it is a Quad, a Quad just makes it harder, hence more risk, hence more points for attempting.

I guess I was on once and now I am off, but I am sticking with what has been learned. It is now a Code and not a Grade.

Smack me if I need to wake up!

[Theatregirl1122]

A risk is, if you win you get a billion dollars, if you lose, off with your head.

What if you think of it more as, if you win you get a billion dollars, if you get second you get a million dollars, if you lose, off with your head?

I think that I am in favor of the current system simply because I don't think that any guys other than those who already have quads would get them if you got slammed for trying and failing.

With all the discusion of the take-off edge of a lutz/flip being only one part of the jump and you can't just call what jump it is based on that, I would think that the landing is only one part of the jump. If the guys (or ladies) can get it up in the air, rotate it, and then just can't quite do it, then they should be rewarded for at least trying and getting it partly right.

I guess (to use some math) It's like getting partial credit on a question. If I have to do a problem and I do it exactly right until, oops! I accidentally used the wrong number in part of the problem, should I get 0 points? I didn't get the answer exactly right, but my process was there so I should get some points for pulling that off, right? Shouldn't it probably be more points than I would have gotten for getting an easier question entirely correct?

(Did he also land one at 2003 Worlds, or is that an urban myth?)

Here's the answer.

2003-2004 season. Worlds (not there -- Sandhu and Ferreira made the Canadian team).

You may be losing your memory on us Mathman!

[ladybug]

What would be wrong with a jump that ends in a fall gets zero points for TCS and a minus on the PCS to be decided at the time of the fall and how bad the fall was.

There just aren't too many falls that do not disrupt the end result of the program.

In the sport of running - if you fall, they don't subtract yards from the total of the race because you may have looked cute while falling and would have been further along in the race if you hadn't fallen.

Everyone falls at one time or the other but you shouldn't get rewarded because you made the four turns in the air prior to the splat on the ice because that is what it is, a splat on the ice. jmo

Ladybug

[antmanb]

Sorry just adding to say i think they were treated the same under 6.0 - remember i think it was 1995 worlds were Stojko stepped out of his quad attempt but still wound up with one or two 5.9s?

The skaters with flawed quad attempts including falls always came out ahead of teh 8 clean triple crowd in the few seasons leading up to the introduction of CoP...in this regard i don't think the judging systems are that different.

Ant

I wasn't proof reading - i meant 6.0s that stojko got!

Ant

[antmanb]

Since Buttle's quad is a major beef I have with CoP, here's a question ~ has he ever landed a clean quad in competition? I don't remember seeing one, but since I'm not a big Buttle fan, that doesn't mean I could've missed it...

The answer i'm fairly certain is yes, but i can't tell you at which competition(s). I know he's landed one and have a feeling he's landed two.

Ant

[antmanb]

I just checked Olympics, Worlds, GP Final and all GP events for the last three seasons, and it looks like the answer is no, Jeff has never landed a quad in competition.

2005-2006 season. No quad attempt in any Short Program (or qualifying round at Worlds). LP: Olympics = fall. Worlds = no attempt. GP Final = no attempt. Eric Bompard = fall. Skate Canada = fall.

2004-2005 season. No quad attempt in any SP or qual. Worlds = no attempt. GP Final = no attempt. Cup of China = no attempt. Skate Canada = fall.

2003-2004 season. Worlds (not there -- Sandhu and Ferreira made the Canadian team). GP Finals (withdrew). NHK SP = fall (it was his intended combo, but he didn't do the second jump. In that season there was only a -3.00 GOE deduction and no extra -1.00 fall deduction. After the 2003-04 season the ISU decided to penalize falls more heavily by tacking on the extra -1.00.)

NHK LP = Solo triple toe (2nd element, probably intended to be a quad).

Skate Canada SP = fall, no combo. Skate Canada LP = Solo 3T.

So basically, I would have to say that the quad is not Jeffrey's friend.

So Midori Ito never landed a triple axel because we can't find it in a protocol???? Come on guys - there is a world of skating pre CoP!!! I think Buttle's quad landing came under 6.0.

Ant

[antmanb]

Indeed, it is better to fall on a quad then any other jump.

One thing I wonder what actually the Caller is seeing when a Quad fall takes place. It would not be unusual for a quad fall to happen before the air turns were completed especially if it is just a minute infraction of what would be the landing rule.

Oh well, you know my feelings about the Power of the Caller.

Joe

Well take Buttle's quad as an example - last season he nearly alwys got credit for the quad because it was fully rotated so often - i think it was his olympic LP fall if you look closely at the blade it is completely round but his weight transfer to the back of the balde and pops off the back of the blade. It is pretty consistently rotated, even though he usually struggles to control his upper body and keep his weight over the perfectly landed blade.

I think its another area open to abuse by the caller working on reputation. I remember seeing a couple of Pluschenko's quad's in slo-mo that i spotted had scratchy landings in real time and when i looked at teh slo-mo, it was scratchy cos it was short on rotation...twice it was about a quarter turn, give or take...because he's pluschenko, he got it called a quad, i'd be willing to bet if it had been a skater in a flight outside of the last two it would have been called a triple...come to think of it, if it had been lambiel (with scott davis calling) it might ahve also been called a triple!!

Ant