I wouldn't have a big issue with flutzes being scored as flips or lips being scored as lutzes, but then you run into the balanced program element issues. If a skater flutzes (and some skaters only do it sometimes, so they aren't expecting to take off on the wrong edge) and that lutz attempt gets called as a flip, that is going to result in zero points for the final flip in the program if there were also two flips. That is not a fair punishment for a slight change of edge on a jump takeoff. When you look at the value of a flutz after -GOE, it is going to be less than the value of a flip, so it's fair, IMO.
As for falls, how could anyone find it fair to negate an entire element just because the skater falls at the end of it? That's like saying your life was worthless because you died at the end. But seriously. . . A jump is made up of the takeoff, the rotation in the air, and the landing. There is no way that a fully rotated triple axel with a bad landing (i.e., loss of balance on landing that leads to a fall) should get the same score as a waltz jump. Only the best skaters in the world can fully rotate a triple axel, whether they stay upright on the landing or not.
If your major concern is what disrupts the program for the viewers, you might prefer ice shows and exhibitions, where they never attempt anything very difficult and hardly ever fall.
Last edited by vlaurend; 02-04-2010 at 07:57 PM.
For the fall alone the judges would take off -3 GOE and for the wrong edge they would take off -2. However, the lowest you can get is -3, so if the skater got -3 for the fall they judges cannot take off any more for the wrong edge.
After factoring, this results is a loss of 1.0 point in GOE, bringing the total for the element down to 0.9 points.
Then they apply the extra -1 point fall deduction.
Grand total for the element: negative 0.1 points.
Every time I look at people arguing "that looks rotated enough to me" "no, that looks underrotated" on every figure skating discussion board and not reaching any definite conclusions, I always wonder why the line must be drawn at all, especially by a crew consisting only of three members. Why can't the tech panel just decide the levels of spins/spirals/step seqs and let the individual judges decide how much to add or subtract from the base value of the attempted jumps, taking rotation into his/her GOE evaluation? I bet individual judges also have differing evaluations of how bad the underrotation of a certain jump attempt appeared to his/her eyes, in real time and with a close look at the slo-mo playback. I mean, what are so many people sitting at the juding panel for? Not to take varying opinions into account?
For this matter, instead of allowing the judges to choose a GOE value from a set of only 7 possible values (---, --, -, 0, +, ++, and +++), I say give them more freedom so that wider aspects of jump quality can be accomodated and distinguished.
I rarely follow all these judge system discussions so my opinion above may have been addressed and repeated and even torn completely to shreds, so I apologize in advance if this is just another rehash.
Yes, you have to draw a line between double and triple.Do you actually really need to draw a line for underrotation for a judging system to work?
Logically, it would make more sense to draw that line at 180 degrees short rather than 90.
It would then be necessary to build in the potential for sufficient penalties that a jump that is significantly underrotated but not downgraded and has no other errors would be worth more than a jump that is significantly underrotated but not downgraded and has multiple other errors.
So if judges have 3 grades of negative execution to award, which they can apply for underrotations if they see them, and the tech panel determines fall deductions, then also allow the tech panel to apply an additional deduction for moderately cheated jumps. Then the worst jumps will get downgraded to the lower basemark and -3 and fall deductions; the bad jumps that were not quite 180 degrees short and had other errors would get the cheat deduction, -3 GOE, and fall deduction if applicable; jumps almost 180 short with no other errors would get the cheat deduction and average -2 GOE; jumps a little over 90 degrees short with no other errors would get the cheat deduction and GOEs of -1 from judges who saw the cheat, 0 from those who didn't, and +1 from those who didn't see it and saw other aspects of the element to reward.
I think it is reasonable to take off points for an under rotated jump. But I think the penalty is too severe. To only value the jump as a double, instead of an under rotated triple does not seem right.
I know the system is already complicated, but couldn't they have a value for an under rotated triple that was a little higher than for a triple that literally turned into an unintended double - a pop? To me the pop is a bigger mistake.
In other words, a double jump has a base value, a triple jump has a base value, and so would an under rotated triple, because even though it is not perfect, it is still harder than a double jump.
As I read it, the thrust of the main body of the article is that the IJS lacks a coherent translation of the relative difficulty of various on-ice accomplishments to the number of points that these accomplishments earn. Thus, the IJS is not necessarily absurd in principle, it's just that the "ISU minions have squandered its potential."
However, the first three paragraphs point to even more profound difficulties.
The question then becomes, is this possible even in principle? To me, the key word is "repeatable." If the exact same performance gets a different score on Wednesday than it did on Tuesday, how can we claim that we are "measuring" anything?The system that has been created provides neither accurate, precise nor repeatable measurements, nor does it include a completely defined absolute standard on which to score performances.
Last edited by Mathman; 02-05-2010 at 04:36 PM.
Now as Scott Hamilton says: All jumps turn the same way in the air (even counter rotation jumps) and land the same way. Only the Take-Off is different and that's what gives the jump a name. in It's obvious to me, but you can clarify it with Scott, if you like.
My major concern is to give the big Three Errors equal penalties. To me, one error is as bad as another. Why give partial credit to an error.We are talking about Senior Skaters
Failing that, we will just relax and enjoy wrong definitions. No need to send in the clowns. They are already here. (sorry, not emoticons on this page.)