A sliding scale for underrotations?

bekalc · Nov 24, 2008

bekalc - i don't understand the point you are making - some of your posts sound like you think under-rotations are punished too much (like your earlier one i replied to before), and now you are saying you don't think they're punished enough?

I don't mind the current rules on underrotation, but I see the arguments about falls costing you less points. I'm for downgrading an underrotated jump, but eliminating the double penalty.

I think skipping an element altogether should be harshly deducted. I also think skating a messy program with all kinds of double foots stumbles etc, should be reflected in your PCS.

Mathman · Nov 24, 2008

gkelly said:
Remember the Grand Prix Final last year when Mao Asada simply didn't do the planned triple lutz in her short program and got 0 points for it (and no additional deduction).

On a similar note, I just watched Mao's 2008 Worlds LP several times to firm up my thoughts about the underroation question.

(First, though, Mao's recovery and skate after the Axel attempt was astonishing. A stunning performance. :clap:

)

Mao attempted 7 triple jumps. To my untutored eye, it looked like 6 of them (the first flip was good, I thought) were both pre-rotated and underrotated. Whether by 90 degrees or more I couldn't tell because she has such quick feet on her landings.

If the technical specialist had called all 6 she would have lost 16 points or so and would have finished 7th instead of first.

So the difference between winning the World Championship and finishing well off the podium was, she got lucky with the tech specialist.

... Let me rephrase that.

Are the tech specialists that good that we want the entire contest to come down to these calls and non-calls?

antmanb · Nov 24, 2008

Mathman said:
If the technical specialist had called all 6 she would have lost 16 points or so and would have finished 7th instead of first.

So the difference between winning the World Championship and finishing well off the podium was, she got lucky with the tech specialist.

... Let me rephrase that.

Are the tech specialists that good that we want the entire contest to come down to these calls and non-calls?

And I think sadly this is the only logical conclusion to the tinkering with the COP. Micro management of details that cannot really be spotted by real life humans in real time, or in slow motion since it depends on the angles which can can only really be spotted by examining the tracing on the ice...sounds familiar?!

I think a more holisitc approach needs to be taken. People are up in arms about 3 degrees of rotation, how many fractions a minute someone spends (or doesn't spend) on an edge prior to take off etc etc. And what for? There are no enquiries afterwards just fed up fans.

Do we really want FS to boil down to what three people decide has or has not been completed on the ice?

Ant

bekalc · Nov 24, 2008

antmanb said:
And I think sadly this is the only logical conclusion to the tinkering with the COP. Micro management of details that cannot really be spotted by real life humans in real time, or in slow motion since it depends on the angles which can can only really be spotted by examining the tracing on the ice...sounds familiar?!

I think a more holisitc approach needs to be taken. People are up in arms about 3 degrees of rotation, how many fractions a minute someone spends (or doesn't spend) on an edge prior to take off etc etc. And what for? There are no enquiries afterwards just fed up fans.

Do we really want FS to boil down to what three people decide has or has not been completed on the ice?

Ant

The jumps are called first by technical callers in real time and then reviewed by slow motion. A trained technical caller probably can catch things in real time. And I'm sorry but yes these things need to be judged hard, and I'm for punishing prerotation too.

The thing is years ago people were upset by flutzs not being punished/cheated jumps. I don't think we should go back to any triple jump counts, no matter how badly done it is.

What I take issue with is in the PC department people getting huge PCS for messy, messy programs like Kostner at Worlds and Mao at TEB... Or Lambiel on multiple occassions. I also think it was ridiculous that Lambiel won the GPF over Daisuke based on what both men did.

Yes, I think the underrotations/flutz penalties hurt now. But I'm willing to bet you that five years from now we will see less flutzs/and less underrotations. I just think it's a good thing that under this system good technique is rewarded and bad technique is penalized. It makes it less likely for Hughes/Lipinski wins. I don't think standing up your jumps should automatically give you a win if your jumps are cheated.

Mathman · Nov 24, 2008

^ Again, the argument is not whether errors should be penalyzed. It is about whether two different skaters -- or the same skater on two different occasions or on two different jumps -- should sometimes be penalyzed and sometimes not, depending on the angle, eyesight, mood, etc., of the officials.

It is ALWAYS bad for a sport when people leave the arena talking about the officiating instead of the performances. Check out the threads on the ladies event at Cup of Russia. Very few posts about the skaters or the skating. Many posts about the officials and the officiating. Sport should be about the athletes, not about the referees. (JMO.)

bekalc · Nov 24, 2008

Mathman said:
^ Again, the argument is not whether errors should be penalyzed. It is about whether two different skaters -- or the same skater on two different occasions or on two different jumps -- should sometimes be penalyzed and sometimes not, depending on the angle, eyesight, mood, etc., of the officials.

It is ALWAYS bad for a sport when people leave the arena talking about the officiating instead of the performances. Check out the threads on the ladies event at Cup of Russia. Very few posts about the skaters or the skating. Many posts about the officials and the officiating. Sport should be about the athletes, not about the referees. (JMO.)

Yes but most of the criticisms are because so and so's favorite skater got an underrotation or an edge call... And/or someone's least favorite skater should get these calls. And this is a judged sport, that means people are going to be making these calls. As long as their is justification for it....

Tonichelle · Nov 24, 2008

it seems to me that the CoP did not eliminate the problem of human error (or for that matter the ease of bribing a panel)... instead of a bunch of judges calling a close decision it's in the hands of one or two people... it's a lot easier to buy one caller than it is to buy several judges, I would think....

I'm not saying we're seeing that in any of the competitions, but it's obvious the Tech caller has far more power to call an event than anyone else.

In all other sports you have a host of refs/umps/whatever... the only "ref" skating has is the guy who calls time... granted the more tech callers you have the more confusion you have...

I don't think there's an EASY solution... or a RIGHT one... *shrugs*

bekalc · Nov 24, 2008

Tonichelle said:
it seems to me that the CoP did not eliminate the problem of human error (or for that matter the ease of bribing a panel)... instead of a bunch of judges calling a close decision it's in the hands of one or two people... it's a lot easier to buy one caller than it is to buy several judges, I would think....

I'm not saying we're seeing that in any of the competitions, but it's obvious the Tech caller has far more power to call an event than anyone else.

In all other sports you have a host of refs/umps/whatever... the only "ref" skating has is the guy who calls time... granted the more tech callers you have the more confusion you have...

I don't think there's an EASY solution... or a RIGHT one... *shrugs*

I don't know, maybe there can be a review panel.. and a skater can well appeal right after their program is over... if it's within let's say 5 minutes after they skated. Or maybe they should expand the panel so there's maybe 5 judges calling elements and a majority have to agree on downgrading them.

Tonichelle · Nov 24, 2008

^^ they have that option in football and they also can only contest so many calls (I think each team gets one per game) and it isn't taken lightly, you can get penelized if the refs are found in the right....

Mathman · Nov 24, 2008

bekalc said:
I don't know, maybe there can be a review panel.. and a skater can well appeal right after their program is over... if it's within let's say 5 minutes after they skated.

Tonichelle said:
^^ they have that option in football and they also can only contest so many calls (I think each team gets one per game) and it isn't taken lightly, you can get penelized if the refs are found in the right....

But the trouble is, no one would ever contest the ruling on his own underrotation and flutz calls (they are obviously correct). Instead they would want to be able to call foul on their opponents.

They could throw out a red flag that means, "hey, you downgraded my jump, but what about that atrocious underroation that so-and-so just did!"

Joesitz (RIP) · Nov 24, 2008

bekalc said:
I don't know, maybe there can be a review panel.. and a skater can well appeal right after their program is over... if it's within let's say 5 minutes after they skated. Or maybe they should expand the panel so there's maybe 5 judges calling elements and a majority have to agree on downgrading them.

How would a skater know officially if he/she was just marked with an UR or a WETO? Does a skater have time within 5 minutes to post an appeal? The operative word here is officially. Expanding the Panel after they have just reduced the number of judges? Hardly. Do you really believe your guesses will happen? I seem to think it is 'no way'.

antmanb said:
Except, as i pointed out in another thread - Chris Howarth (the one who always makes the right calls!) is both a free skater and free skating coach. He wasn't commentating on COR. It was Nicky Slater (ice dancer who often calls the jumps the wrong name and sometimes doesn't spot popped jumps, let alone URs and edge changes) and Simon Reed - i don't know what his skating background is, but it is definitely Chris who does the best real time calling.Ant

Does a popped jump get a downgrade for failing to do the complete jump? Does it get any credit for the actual air turns in that error? Is it counted toward the max number of jumps one can do in a program?

gkelly · Nov 24, 2008

Joesitz said:
Does a popped jump get a downgrade for failing to do the complete jump? Does it get any credit for the actual air turns in that error?

It gets credit for the actual turns in the air. If ends up a double, it's called as a double. If it ends up a single, it's called as a single. In a long program, if the landing is clean it might not get negative GOE. In a short program, if a triple is required, then a single or double will get -3 GOE.

If it's 1 1/2 turns in the air (for a backward-takeoff jump, landed facing forward), then it's called as a downgraded double, given the base mark for a single, and the GOE would probably be -3, -2 at best.

Is it counted toward the max number of jumps one can do in a program?

Yes.

mskater93 · Nov 24, 2008

Joesitz said:
Does a popped jump get a downgrade for failing to do the complete jump? Does it get any credit for the actual air turns in that error? Is it counted toward the max number of jumps one can do in a program?

In the SP, if a jump is popped, it gets an automatic -3, if LP, gets GOE scored as the judges see fit (wow, that was a really NICE single! +2!!). A pop automatically gets the base value of what it was popped to (double or single jump in most cases, or in the case of an Axel, can get the dreaded "A" with no value like Zhang got at CoC). Yes, it is counted towards the max jump passes in the program.

Mathman · Nov 24, 2008

Just to put some numbers to it:

Triple Lutz (0 GOE) = 6.0

Triple Lutz attempt with 2.74 revolutions (<, -1 GOE) = 1.6

Triple Lutz attempt popped into a double (2 revolutions, 0 GOE) = 1.9

Intended double Lutz (+1 GOE) = 2.2

Single Lutz (+2 GOE) = 1.6

Moral of the story -- if you underrotate your triple Lutz, try to pretend it was a double.

Joesitz (RIP) · Nov 24, 2008

Mathman said:
Moral of the story -- if you underrotate your triple Lutz, try to pretend it was a double.

That's actually believable. I don't know if the Tech Panel get copies of the Planned Program Sheets. If not, let the double ride on.

Tinymavy15 · Nov 24, 2008

Mathman said:
Just to put some numbers to it:

Triple Lutz (0 GOE) = 6.0

Triple Lutz attempt with 2.74 revolutions (<, -1 GOE) = 1.6

Triple Lutz attempt popped into a double (2 revolutions, 0 GOE) = 1.9

Intended double Lutz (+1 GOE) = 2.2

Single Lutz (+2 GOE) = 1.6

Moral of the story -- if you underrotate your triple Lutz, try to pretend it was a double.

makes you wonder why skaters who underoate/fall a lot don't plan doubles. Add tano arms and a nice flowing edge.... there you go.

Joesitz (RIP) · Nov 24, 2008

mskater93 said:
In the SP, if a jump is popped, it gets an automatic -3, if LP, gets GOE scored as the judges see fit (wow, that was a really NICE single! +2!!). A pop automatically gets the base value of what it was popped to (double or single jump in most cases, or in the case of an Axel, can get the dreaded "A" with no value like Zhang got at CoC). Yes, it is counted towards the max jump passes in the program.

I assume what you are saying is that a popped jump is not a failed jump as an underotated jump. hmm yeah ???

mskater93 · Nov 25, 2008

A popped jump being one that ends up with one or two revolutions instead of three (Someone in ladies (Yu Na Kim?) had one last year at Worlds with a Lutz where it ended up being a single and Jeremy Abbott just had one at CoR in his SP that ended up being a single) versus a total pop that leaving the ice and not getting anything in terms of rotation (Asada's 3A at Worlds in 08, Zhang's 2A in the SP at TEB)

Medusa · Nov 25, 2008

Tinymavy15 said:
makes you wonder why skaters who underoate/fall a lot don't plan doubles. Add tano arms and a nice flowing edge.... there you go.

Isn't that what some of the high-up people tried to inspire? Do what you can do, and not what is doomed not to work in the first place? Isn't that why a skater like Laura Lepistö with only 3 different (but exquisite) Triples and a nice 2 Axel came in third at Euros and 8th at Worlds? There are also a few skaters on the Junior circuit who got very high marks for their LPs because they didn't try more than one or two Triples and had a nice program with good Doubles instead of a mess with edge-calls, underrotations, falls and step-outs.

I don't have a clear opinion on this - on the one hand I have to say that Lepistö is a fantastic skater and that the lack of Lutz and Flip doesn't disturb the artistic expression of her programs in any way. But then again I deeply admire skaters like Asada and Joubert who push the envelope further, who risk a lot every time they step on the ice - that's really exciting and thrilling to me. So I really don't know.

Mathman · Nov 26, 2008

Medusa said:
Isn't that what some of the high-up people tried to inspire?

I really don't think so. The phrase "well balanced program" is given a lot of play, but the bottom line of the CoP is, do the big jumps and everything else will take care of itself. (In this it is no different from 6.0 judging.)

The major change in this year's scale of values is that they increased the base value for quads and triple Axels. It takes a whole lot of spinning and choreography to match a 4T+3T combo (13.8 points).

A sliding scale for underrotations?

bekalc

Mathman

antmanb

bekalc

Mathman

bekalc

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll

bekalc

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll

Mathman

Joesitz (RIP)

gkelly

mskater93

Mathman

Joesitz (RIP)

Tinymavy15

Sinnerman for the win

Joesitz (RIP)

mskater93

Medusa

Mathman

Similar threads

Connect with us