1. 0

## CoP question

Under the CoP will there still be mandatory deductions in the short program if a skater fails to do a required element?

Mathman

2. 0
Hmmm, interesting question. I did NOT see anything in the ISU bulletin about this. I wonder if it's one of those things that will need to be ironed out before next season.

3. 0
Deductions are already built into CoP in terms of the values assigned to the various elements. Obviously, if a skater fails to do an element, they won't get a score for it.

4. 0
I still think the CoP is pointless and stupid... it's not going to help anything as long as the bad judging is ignored >:

5. 0
Originally posted by Lee
Deductions are already built into CoP in terms of the values assigned to the various elements.
From the ISU interactive guide and the Nebelhorn results, this has been implemented: for example, in "Jumps Preceeded by Steps", -3 is the score where there weren't steps, -2 is the score where there is "longer break between steps and the jump", and -1 is for a "slight break" between the steps and the jump. Where a triple preceeded by footwork is required in the Men's short, jumps with fewer revs were "called" as such at Nebelhorn, and the GOE was deducted from the base mark for the lesser jump (ex: Ari-Pekka Nurmenkari's 1F, Nuriyuki Kanzaki's 2F, Mikko Minkkinen's 1L).

Obviously, if a skater fails to do an element, they won't get a score for it.
I'm assuming this means doesn't even try, because attempts will get points, as long as the element "called" is on the list. The rules state that extra elements get no credit either.

6. 0
As to extra elements, there used to be a penalty for it.
And also for repeating an element.
What is the deduction under COP?
dpp

7. 0
I see by the Nebelhorn results that there are some outright deductions, for instance for inapropriate costume or going over the time limit.

MM

8. 0
Originally posted by hockeyfan228
From the ISU interactive guide and the Nebelhorn results, this has been implemented: for example, in "Jumps Preceeded by Steps", -3 is the score where there weren't steps, -2 is the score where there is "longer break between steps and the jump", and -1 is for a "slight break" between the steps and the jump. Where a triple preceeded by footwork is required in the Men's short, jumps with fewer revs were "called" as such at Nebelhorn, and the GOE was deducted from the base mark for the lesser jump (ex: Ari-Pekka Nurmenkari's 1F, Nuriyuki Kanzaki's 2F, Mikko Minkkinen's 1L).

I'm assuming this means doesn't even try, because attempts will get points, as long as the element "called" is on the list. The rules state that extra elements get no credit either.
Besides the GOE deduction. No points for the element a skater did not even try. I would suppose there is deduction from 5 program components too. Is the choreograph and balance program belong to one of 5 components?

9. 0
Originally posted by mzheng
I would suppose there is deduction from 5 program components too. Is the choreograph and balance program belong to one of 5 components?
I tried to think of the scenarios where an element could be missed in the SP:

*Pair does the wrong kind of lift or death spiral
*Pair completes 1 rev in twist and lands it?
*Pair or single does wrong kind of footwork or spin
*Singles skater does the same jump with footwork as in the combination jump (flutzing/lipping doesn't count as same jump)
*Singles skater uses a 3A in the combo and a 2A as the Axel jump, but underrotates the 3A and is given credit for a 2A in the combo.
*Vapor lock -- skater forgets program.

I think the duplicate 2A is the only standard scenario. Quite a few quadless men have used this in the past, and they may be rethinking the strategy this year. Perhaps we'll see more 3L/3T's in place of 3A/3T.

But whether the skater qualifies for a much lower score in choreography would depend on where the omission occurs, because the qualifying elements could still be well-placed. Where the first three elements are combo jump, axel jump, steps into single jump, the highest the skater should receive in choreography is in the 5's, regardless of whether the skater hits or misses them.

The only specific deduction in the CoP program components is the required -.5 for each "Major Error," which is described as -3 "eg Fall." (From this description, if a skater falls but still receives a -2 or -1, the deduction doesn't seem to be mandatory.) I suspect to see the top skaters receive -2 or -1 on a fall in lieu of -3, which avoids the -.5 deduction. In a close contest, the extra 1.5-2.5 could make a difference.

10. 0
Originally posted by hockeyfan228
I tried to think of the scenarios where an element could be missed in the SP:

*Pair does the wrong kind of lift or death spiral
*Pair or single does wrong kind of footwork or spin
Deduction for doing a non-required "extra" element and additional deduction for not attempting a required one.

Wrong elements can happen because the skater and coach were working from an outdated rulebook, or as a mistake because the skater was unable to complete a required element and filled the time with an incorrect one instead (e.g., skater can't get into position for required layback and spins in sit position instead).

Not sure how Code of Points would handle these incorrect elements -- would they get marks for what was done and then deductions for the added/missing elements? Or just no mark for that element, which would mean the base mark total would be based on 7 elements rather than 8? With or without an additional deduction for incorrect element(s)?

*Pair completes 1 rev in twist and lands it?
The singled twist would count as an attempt at the double with insufficient revolutions. In Code of Points it would be marked with the base marks for a single with minus Grade of Execution as appropriate.

*Singles skater does the same jump with footwork as in the combination jump (flutzing/lipping doesn't count as same jump)
*Singles skater uses a 3A in the combo and a 2A as the Axel jump, but underrotates the 3A and is given credit for a 2A in the combo.
Also wrong/repeated-element type deductions in the old system, which in some cases meant two deductions.

Elite-level example:
skater attempts quad toe combination but doubles the first jump and does no combination; skater then does 3axel-3toe combination instead of scheduled solo 3axel, and 3lutz out of steps -- deduction for no solo axel (double or triple allowed for senior men) and for extraneous 2toe instead
(This happened from skater attempting to improvise to make up for mistake without being able to remember all the rules and requirements in the middle of performing the program)

Non-elite example:
Novice skater does 2axel combination and 2axel for solo axel requirement. Should have done either a different double or a triple for the combination and/or single axel for the solo axel.
(This happens from not reading the rulebook carefully before deciding on jump content for the program.)

*Vapor lock -- skater forgets program.
It happens sometimes, especially early in the season when programs are brand new. Or skater is disconcerted by one mistake and spaces out about what to do next.

Another possibility -- example from junior pair program:
Both skaters fall on side-by-side jumps. Boy takes 30 seconds of more to get up and catch up. Girl continues skating through the elements where they are supposed to occur in the music until her partner catches up, but just raising her arms and one leg where the lift should have occurred can't really be counted as an attempt at the lift -- for all practical purposes that element was omitted.

11. 0
Originally posted by gkelly
Deduction for doing a non-required "extra" element and additional deduction for not attempting a required one.

Not sure how Code of Points would handle these incorrect elements -- would they get marks for what was done and then deductions for the added/missing elements? Or just no mark for that element, which would mean the base mark total would be based on 7 elements rather than 8? With or without an additional deduction for incorrect element(s)?

According to what I've seen published, wrong elements and extra elements get no credit. The deductions are for time and costume violations.

The singled twist would count as an attempt at the double with insufficient revolutions. In Code of Points it would be marked with the base marks for a single with minus Grade of Execution as appropriate.

This isn't clear from what's been published so far. While to get base score the pair must complete the revolutions, there's no reference to incomplete revolutions in the descriptions for -1, -2, and -3, which list throw, catch, landing, distance, and split errors. That's why I'm not sure a 1 twist would count. I wonder where B&S's 1.5 twist in the 1998 Olympics LP would stand under CoP.

Also wrong/repeated-element type deductions in the old system, which in some cases meant two deductions.

Not in CoP. They're ignored, leaving a gap in the placement of the elements.

Elite-level example:
skater attempts quad toe combination but doubles the first jump and does no combination

In CoP it appears that the skater must at least attempt to tack on another jump in order to get at least -3 GOE credit. Otherwise no credit for a combination.

(This happened from skater attempting to improvise to make up for mistake without being able to remember all the rules and requirements in the middle of performing the program)

This is more likely in a LP scenario than in a SP scenario, since the only duplicate is likely to be the Axel jump, if used in combination.

Another possibility -- example from junior pair program:
Both skaters fall on side-by-side jumps. Boy takes 30 seconds of more to get up and catch up. Girl continues skating through the elements where they are supposed to occur in the music until her partner catches up, but just raising her arms and one leg where the lift should have occurred can't really be counted as an attempt at the lift -- for all practical purposes that element was omitted.
In the SP, a 30 second miss would be devastating. It was bad enough when Winkler & Lohse lost about 20 seconds in the Free Dance at 03 Euros.

In this case, it's better for the girl to go back and pick up the boy

12. 0
Anyone who can answer this for me.

I am still confused over the Amber thing. She, apparently, attempted a triple. The Caller sent word that the jump was a double. I believe that is his perogative. Yet, I read examples that an attempted jump is ok but valued at much less. So how was Amber's case reached by calling it a separate jump and not an attempted jump?

Since the flutz is not an official jump, a skater who attempts a lutz and instead does a flip, should not the caller then say the skater did a flip?

Joe

13. 0
HockeyFan,
You are a great source of both information about the COP as well as pointing out "what if" situations and how they would probably be handled by the COP. Keep up the great posts! I'm learning a lot.

Joe,
Good questions. Wish I knew the answers. Although I expect we will see a lot of different decisions with different callers until a lot of the bugs in the COP get worked out. Unfortunately, the skaters will be "guinea pigs" until that happens. I wouldn't be surprised if the same situation with the same skater but at different events with different callers are handled completely differently. This could be a frustrating year for a lot of skaters, but I still think the COP is a step in the right direction in terms of judging that more accurately assesses the true abilities of a skater in a given performance. OTOH, all the secrecy stuff is yet more marching backward with Speedy beating the drum.
Rgirl

14. 0
Joe,

well I wasn't there so I'm not sure. But as I read reports from people who were in the audience AND of at least one judge....

It seems to me that her triple attempt was underrotated (in jumping off AND landing btw) that it was less than 2,5 rotations so the caller said it's a double. If it would be more than 2,5 it would have been an attempted triple.

The caller (and the referee AND the technical assistant who work together) has a video system where he can review any element in real time, in slo-mo and even in still pictures. So it's not that hard to decide how many rotations a skater did actually.

Btw - any of the judges can ask the caller to review any element if he/she doesn't agree. Then they try to solve the problem with the video system again. This procedure seemed to have the effect that there was quite a long time between the routine and the marks coming up for certain skaters.... :D

15. 0
Tdnuva - I am not decrying the Caller. and I am not making an issue for Amber. I'm trying to find out what an attempted jump is. As many GS member's know I do not recognize a flutz as an attempted Lutz. To me it is a Flip. It follows the definition of a Flip perfectly therefore it is not an attempted Lutz. It is an executed Flip.

If a Caller decided that a skater (such as Amber) did not attempt a triple but overrotated a double - ok, no problem for me, but then I see the flutz as not an attempted lutz but a flip.

What I need and maybe the fine tuning in CoP needs is a definition of an attempted jump.

Joe

Page 1 of 2 1 2 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•