A New Commentary by Bianchetti

Thanks for the link. It is always interesting to read what Mrs. Bianchetti has to say.

I totally agree with two of her main points. The ISU promotes itself as a serious regulatory body and guardian of the integrity of the sport. There is no reason why it's official rules should be full of gobbledegook.

As for the second point, giving the technical specialists ever the more authority to make judgement calls (did the skater shift his weight between positions?) -- it would be much better to let the judges judge. Granted, some judges would see a shift of weight and some wouldn't, but nine heads are better than three.

If it really was borderline, and the judges' panel split about how to score it, that would be quite an appropriate outcome, IMHO.

(I also like the suggestion that Joesitz has made in this forum, to have the judges stationed at different points around the rink. That way the scoring could at least average out features that can be seen clearly from one angle but not from another.)

I have to like this lady. Anyone who bucks an establishment is good in my book.
As for writing the rules, I think whoever does it writes worse than me and that is terriblel

There have been several amendments and changes to some of what she talks about and I have to agree on some of them, my eyes get heavy trying to deciper exactly what is written. I did fall asleep on one of them.

Thanks MM for reminding me of what I said about spreading the judges around the ice for clearer views of technique. I would further suggest that the ISU hire a camera man for following the skater with a view to the skaters' skates and not the face. (Let NBC show the face.)

To honestly see an overrotation, one has to witness the landing of the skater from his/hers backside. Side views are not conclusive.

At the US Open they have a huge screen which shows instant replay and there is no mistaken whether a ball is inside or outside the boundaries.

Joe