Technical Panel Disclosed

[sorcerer]

So there it's written.

Lots of fan-buzz foreseen...

[Hsuhs]

So, what is Sissy Krick infamous for?

[HCOSurfer]

Dunno about Sissy Krick, but I do know that the entire technical panel for the ladies is basically the same as the one from the GPF (you know, the one that downgraded Kim's 3-3 combo). I have a feeling that this isn't gonna be pretty folks.

[Tesla]

Dunno about Sissy Krick, but I do know that the entire technical panel for the ladies is basically the same as the one from the GPF (you know, the one that downgraded Kim's 3-3 combo). I have a feeling that this isn't gonna be pretty folks.

What? The messageboards or the Olympics?

[DesertRoad]

Dunno about Sissy Krick, but I do know that the entire technical panel for the ladies is basically the same as the one from the GPF (you know, the one that downgraded Kim's 3-3 combo). I have a feeling that this isn't gonna be pretty folks.

That downgrade was ridiculous. If they try the same crap at the Olympics, I won't begrudge the fans for going crazy on the panel.

[HCOSurfer]

The message boards.

[Tesla]

The message boards.

Did you expect otherwise?

[Mathman]

So, what is Sissy Krick infamous for?

She voted for the Canadians Sale and Pelletiere over Berezhnaya and Sikharudlisze in 2002, so she will probably favor Patrick Chan over Evgeni Plushenko this time around.

[miki88]

They are using the same tech from the GP for the ladies? I can just see the controversy now~~~~~

[doug_log]

But Kim's 3-3 WAS underrotated. I'm a huge Kim fan and think she will/deserves to win the OGM, but the techs have been kind to her re: rotation calls. I was happy to see that call at the GPF.

[DesertRoad]

If claiming you're a huge fan of hers validates your technical call, then let me say I'm not a huge Kim fan, and that 3/3 was not under-rotated.

[doug_log]

If claiming you're a huge fan of hers validates your technical call, then let me say I'm not a huge Kim fan, and that 3/3 was not under-rotated.

Not really. I just prefaced it with that to guard myself from any Mao-bot accusations.

[miki88]

Not really. I just prefaced it with that to guard myself from any Mao-bot accusations.

So do believe it was justified or not? I don't think it really matters if it is or not on that night, because since it's that judge again, if she downgrades her 3-3, there will be complaining.

[doug_log]

So do believe it was justified or not? I don't think it really matters if it is or not on that night, because since it's that judge again, if she downgrades her 3-3, there will be complaining.

Yes, I believe it was justified. But, you're right. If she's downgraded, there'll be a huge uproar. But the new rules that prevent the judges from seeing the techs' downgrade should keep the scores from changing too much (unless it's a blatant downgrade). I guess that's the most important thing.

[DesertRoad]

I take it back. I just downloaded her SP and rewatched it. It does appear she landed forward on her 3toe, thus justifying the downgrade.

Well, it's up to Yu Na and all the other athletes to land their jumps, and the tech panel to call it correctly. Let's hope one follows the other.