Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Results 196 to 204 of 204

Thread: Proposed CoP Changes for Singles

  1. #196
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    4,152
    That's the reason why underrotated jumps should be penalized by a deduction in base value rather than -GOE.

  2. #197
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,838
    Quote Originally Posted by shallwedansu View Post
    Then what about this:

    - If you don't complete the revolutions, you did not do a triple jump. = Take it one base lower, but may award positive GOE if the jump itself is done with good precision, regardless of the revolutions.

    - If you went off the wrong edge, then you did not do the intended jump. Your jump is not accurate. It's basically, the wrong jump. = Keep the base value, but only award negative or 0 GOE.

    - If you fall on the landing, then you did not complete a jump. Period. = 0 points
    I think something like this is the only refuge for skating purists.

    1. Falling is absolutely the worst possible thing you can do on skates. The ground zero of skating is gliding on your blades, not sprawling on your belly. A fall on an element should be 0 credit, and a -1 fall deduction to boot. Get off the ice -- my dog can do better than that, and he died three years ago.

    2. If you do not take off from an outside edge, then you have done a flip not a Lutz. It should be scored as a flip. If you do too many flips in your program, then you suffer the consequences of the Zayak rule.

    This would force flutzers to think twice about putting more than two flutzy-lipsies in their program. It would reward those skaters who have a true Lutz and a true flip.

    3. Give skaters a break on underrotations? Here's your break. You get to cheat by 90 degrees. Probably should be cut down to 45 degrees.

    Now we've got a real sport.

  3. #198
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by mskater93 View Post
    Me personally if I could design the judging system?

    1) 3T + any GOEs based upon flip out, step out, 2 ft, or positive - this would go for anything up to 1/4 turn short
    2) 3T between 1/4 and 1/2 turn short - 3T called and mandatory negative GOE ranging from -1 from just over 1/4 turn to -3 for 1/2 turn
    3) 1/2 turn - 3/4 turn - current downgrade rules apply
    4) popped to a double - double plus any GOEs for issues/awesomeness
    So basically you simply want to move the downgrade point to 1/2 rotation. Sorry I simply cannot agree on allowing that much latitude on poor execution. This would only serve to reinforce continued bad jumping habits from an early age. I see many young kids forward landing their jumps and do not know a single coach that would accept this underrotation as a successful jump.

    If your not able to at least 3/4 of the required rotation you simply cannot do the jump. If you are going to jump with 1/4 cheat and hope that the tech panel gives you the jump the you would deserve the call that you got either way.

    I also feel that flutz's (at least the severe ones) should be counted as flips. Scoring zero for a fall on an element plus the-1 fall deduction has merit. I have always been a bit annoyed by skaters that attempt a pile of jumps they cannot land and still place well up the standings.

  4. #199
    Dreaming and dancing Bennett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Watching the sunset
    Posts
    2,793
    I am with those who think that URs should be called, but should not result in as much penalty as they do now relative to other faulty techniques. I think it okay to call a slight UR, but I do not think it okay that slight URs that are barely visible even to professional commentators and core FS fans affect the overall outcome as seriously as they do now.

  5. #200
    it's olympic season :D bethissoawesome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    NYC; Tokyo
    Posts
    495
    A change I would propose would be somehow incorporating variety and showcasing a complete set of skills within a program. I don't think skaters should have to milk the CoP's by throwing in multiple 3Lz's or 3F's and neglecting to do Loops and Salchows (jumps that even top skaters can't perform solo). I think a skater should be rewarded for demonstrating mastery of all jumps in a program, not penalized because certain jumps are worth less. The same thing goes for spins... skaters should be able to show atleast every variation of spin in their peformances and be rewarded for it, not penalized for lower base values... and considering multiple changes of position are involved in many spins, it wouldn't be difficult for a skater to show a solid sit, layback, camel, standing spin etc.

    I also think the aesthetic quality of elements and the overall performance should be counted into the PCS scores. Sure, there are some skaters who can do level 4 spins and spirals by following the CoP rule book, but it looks sloppy and unattractive. I rather see a penalty for the lack of aesthetic quality so the skater is forced to go back a level, do an attractive level 3 spin or spiral (or step sequence) and try to earn +GOE's rather than wobbling all over, pausing between positions, and just lacking grace by trying to do the higher level.

    I also agree that slightly underrotated jumps shouldn't be docked down to the score of a double jump, and then have -GOE's on top of it. If you are going to mark it as a double jump, score the GOE's as if it were a double jump. Although to me it makes more sense to just take a percentage off for underrotation, score it somewhere between a double and a triple. Since the base scores are "based" on difficulty, obviously it is more difficult to do a triple jump, though slightly underrotated, than just a simple double jump. They shouldn't wind up with the same base value.

  6. #201
    Custom Title prettykeys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,803
    I'm not sure where to put this...so I'll just put it here.

    Mathman, in some other discussions, raised the point that randomly selecting 7 judges' scores from a panel of 9 does not really "add more randomness" to the judging, because whether you selected 7 judges randomly from the whole population of available judges; or you select 9 judges randomly, and then from those 9, you further shrink it to 7 randomly, makes no difference.

    I don't know why this thought came to me so late, but this is not really true, because it is assuming that the initially selected 9 judges (from which the final scoring panel is shrunk down to 7) are randomly chosen, and they are not. Most significantly, the initial panel of 9 judges is chosen to at least be somewhat fair in representing certain nations. When you randomly toss out 2 judges' scores, you have the possibility of skewing the final result in favour of certain nations' bias "just because".

    So it would be very important to keep the scores of all the original judges on the panel in considering the final score, not only so that you have a larger sampling of scores from different judges...but also in order to not introduce a random element of bias in terms of which scores are accounted for and which are randomly tossed out.

  7. #202
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,838
    Quote Originally Posted by prettykeys View Post
    Most significantly, the initial panel of 9 judges is chosen to at least be somewhat fair in representing certain nations.
    The "population" from which the draw is made is the set of all federations, not the set of all individual judges. The ISU conducts a draw 6 months or so in advance to choose which federations will get to send judges. (I believe that this draw is random among all federations, but I am not completely sure about that. It seems like the major federations get "lucky" more often than the smaller powers, but this may be only because they have qualified judges for each of the four disciplines, while others don't and so do not participate in all four draws.)

    Anyway, if the draw is random among all federations, and then the draw that cuts down the panel to the representatives of 7 federations from the original 9 is , too, then i think the argument is still valid. Slovakia has just as great a chance to end up as one of the final seven whether the random draw has two steps or one (namely, 7 chances out of however many federations there are.)

    Instead of thinking about this problem internally, think about the end result. You are the judge that the Canadian federation intends to nominate. As long as Canada is not favored or disfavored over any other nation, you have 7 chances in 100 (or whatever) of ending up on the "marking panel" -- exactly the same as the representative from any of the other 99 countries.
    Last edited by Mathman; 02-16-2010 at 04:14 PM.

  8. #203
    Custom Title prettykeys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,803
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    The "population" from which the draw is made is the set of all federations, not the set of all individual judges. The ISU conducts a draw 6 months or so in advance to choose which federations will get to send judges. (I believe that this draw is random among all federations, but I am not completely sure about that. It seems like the major federations get "lucky" more often than the smaller powers, but this may be only because they have qualified judges for each of the four disciplines, while others don't and so do not participate in all four draws.)

    Anyway, if the draw is random among all federations, and then the draw that cuts down the panel to the representatives of 7 federations from the original 9 is , too, then i think the argument is still valid. Slovakia has just as great a chance to end up as one of the final seven whether the random draw has two steps or one (namely, 7 chances out of however many federations there are.)

    Instead of thinking about this problem internally, think about the end result. You are the judge that the Canadian federation intends to nominate. As long as Canada is not favored or disfavored over any other nation, you have 7 chances in 100 (or whatever) of ending up on the "marking panel" -- exactly the same as the representative from any of the other 99 countries.
    I'm not sure if I'm understanding completely, but I noticed that for example, in a competition that YuNa Kim is participating in, there is always at least one Korean judge. I don't think that is random. Unless I am misunderstanding the meaning of "major federation" to mean those that have a top 5 skater or something? My conjecture is really based mostly on this observation. I think the intent is that anyone who has a fairly strong shot at the podium "earns" the privilege to have a judge from her nation be on the panel. South Korea is not exactly a powerhouse in the Figure Skating world, and I think the reasoning behind this principle is that it would not be fair to have a contender be marked by a panel made up solely of other countries' judges. If that is accepted, then the random selection of a subset of the panel is kin:d of defeating the purpose.

    I bolded the part of your post that I don't think is true.

    Edit: I just checked the panels of judges for competitions that YuNa has been in for the past year, and there indeed was one--World Championships 2009--without a Korean judge of the 9. But in every other instance w/ YuNa there is one. Although, this may be complicated by the fact that even if you are right and federations are chosen randomly, I suppose if a nation isn't too invested in a particular competition, they can turn down the spot and allow another federation to be chosen.
    Last edited by prettykeys; 02-16-2010 at 05:07 PM.

  9. #204
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,965
    At a small competition such as a Grand Prix event, there will only be a limited number of countries participating, so the chances are very high that a judge from each skater's home country will be on the panel. At the GP Final, it's often necessary to include judges from countries that don't have skaters represented.

    The same judges can do men's and women's events, and also pairs, so sometimes the judge from the top skater's home country might end up on one of the other freestyle panels instead.

    Ice dance judges come from a different judging pool, so it's even more likely that a dance team will have a compatriot judge on the panel.

    At large events like Worlds or Junior Worlds, and to a lesser extent at Europeans and Four Continents, there are more countries participating than there are judges needed. Not every skater, or even every skater who makes it to the final round, will have a judge from their country on the panel. Sometimes it's some of the medal contenders who don't get that advantage.

Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Posting Permissions

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