Sometimes I wish more was added to CoP

[indicatoto101]

No, not quite true. If we are assuming combos here... example. the 3?-3T skater only has a 2.7 point advantage over the 3?-2T, and only a 2.5 point difference if the second jump is a Loop instead of Toeloopp. 2.7 and/or 2.5 points is NOT enough to make up for the difference between the difficulty of doing the 3-3 over the 3-2.

Think of how many skaters can do a triple lutz-double toe/loop as opposed to how few can do a triple lutz-triple toe/loop combo. There should be more of a bonus.

I think having a bonus of a multiplication factor of 1.1 is atleast fair, since that it what they offer for jumps after attempted after the halfway point in the LP. The triple-triple combo should atleast get the same respect (and additional point value) as a triple lutz tacked on to the end of a program.

In point difference alone but skaters with a 3-3 generally get more GOE for that jump and PCS increase. Yu-na generally gets +2 for her 3f-3t but if she doubles her toe, the GOE she gets for the jump is less.

[lcd]

In the detailed guidelines for the CoP... it is disappointing that there seems to be little if any weight or encouragement for... "ORIGINALITY"... If one were to think about the "greats" we all enjoy... usually one of the elements was having something unique about their skating... the rules leave so little room for novelty if it 'ain't worth points...kind of sad...

[bethissoawesome]

In point difference alone but skaters with a 3-3 generally get more GOE for that jump and PCS increase. Yu-na generally gets +2 for her 3f-3t but if she doubles her toe, the GOE she gets for the jump is less.

But still, GOEs and PCS are so subjective. It would still be nice if there were something absolutely concrete to boost the element. And it also brings into question, if someone has a planned 3-2... shouldn't their GOEs be judged solely based on how they perform the 3-2. Comparing it to a 3-3 they don't have is pointless. However if the skater has a planned 3-3 and downgrades it to a 3-2 during the performance, I think it's fair for the GOEs to drop (but not drastically if they are sincerely performing a 3-2 consciously and not just one because there was a mistake in the intial 3). A GOE should be compared against the execution of that element alone, not hypotheticals like what it could be/should be/would be if the skater were more talented and/or able to actually pull off the 3-3. I hope that makes sense.

[gkelly]

However if the skater has a planned 3-3 and downgrades it to a 3-2 during the performance, I think it's fair for the GOEs to drop (but not drastically if they are sincerely performing a 3-2 consciously and not just one because there was a mistake in the intial 3). A GOE should be compared against the execution of that element alone, not hypotheticals

The way I see it, if the skater goes into the element intending to perform a 3-3 combination and ends up performing 3-2 instead because of problems with the first jump, it should be penalized exactly as much as appropriate for the problems that are visible. If all the edges and rotation are correct and the problems consist only of losing some speed or body position being somewhat off balance, then the penalty might be the difference between +1 and 0 or between 0 and -1.

If there is no problem evident, there is no need to reduce the GOE.

If the skater submitted a planned program content sheet with 3-3 listed but then decided during the warmup, with the coach, or during the program before starting the element, that it would be wiser just to do a 3-2 combination instead, I think the combination that is performed should be evaluated solely on what was performed and not compared with the hypothetical of what it might have been like if the skater had done the element as submitted on the sheet.

Skaters sometimes deviate a lot more significantly in performance from what was written on the planned program content sheet than just reducing the rotation of one jump in a combination. They're supposed to be judged on what they actually do during the performance, not on how closely it conforms to what they wrote on the sheet days or weeks earlier.

[Joesitz]

I would think the PPC is there for the Tech Panel only and not the judges. I really don't know anything about to whom it is intened except the media. Anyone know for certain who gets to see the PPC other than the media?

No reason for judges to evaluate a combo that they didn't see. I believe the basic tenet of the CoP is to give credit to what the skater does right then and there.