Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 62

Thread: ISU, Get it Together and Verify Your Own Rules

  1. #1
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    129

    ISU, Get it Together and Verify Your Own Rules

    http://tony-wheeler.blogspot.com/201...ese-pairs.html

    Or.. someone please lead me to a more recent document than the two I presented which states that anyone should think the rules are different. This is so ridiculous that it's funny!

  2. #2
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,192
    I couldn't find the relevant documents on the ISU site, but I would assume that there weren't enough pairs teams entered so there were contingency provisions to add some more.

    Many countries do not have a pairs team to send at all, and Japan, Russia and Canada only sent two when they could have sent three.

  3. #3
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    I couldn't find the relevant documents on the ISU site, but I would assume that there weren't enough pairs teams entered so there were contingency provisions to add some more.

    Many countries do not have a pairs team to send at all, and Japan, Russia and Canada only sent two when they could have sent three.
    I have asked my reporter there to find out why. Will let you know what she says. If there is a "fill up" rule for ISU events I would be surprised. I don't think there is. Hopefully an answer will be waiting when I get to work in the morning.

  4. #4
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by gsrossano View Post
    I have asked my reporter there to find out why. Will let you know what she says. If there is a "fill up" rule for ISU events I would be surprised. I don't think there is. Hopefully an answer will be waiting when I get to work in the morning.
    Thanks George. It's frustrating that it's just being blown off like no big deal by most people. If I were Ashley Wagner or someone in her similar situation I'd be getting a lawyer right now-- seriously. If they are just going to let the rules slide once then why can't they do it for others?

    Mathman- not sure what you are talking about. Japan had two entries, and they sent one. Canada had three entries and they used all three. Russia, same thing. The relevant documents in this case are linked on my page... and I don't see anything updated since those documents to change the rules they have published.

    There were PLENTY of pairs teams entered in this competition. As I said on my blog, the ISU has never stretched the rules any other time, including when there were very minimal numbers of pairs in competitions, so why do it now? And I'm sorry, but if you have governing rules, they are there for a reason. You can't just change something. I mean you can... but it's not going to go unnoticed.

  5. #5
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by gsrossano View Post
    I have asked my reporter there to find out why. Will let you know what she says. If there is a "fill up" rule for ISU events I would be surprised. I don't think there is. Hopefully an answer will be waiting when I get to work in the morning.
    Didn't they 'fill up' in the GPs a couple of years ago, and the Teams who had already skated two segments of Pairs were asked if they wanted to do a third? I thought it was sad for that American Team who did the first Throw Quad and placed 4th but would have placed 3rd and medalled if Pang and Tong were not asked to do their THIRD GP? If there was a rule for fillup, it should have been said then.

    I think they were worried about box office receipts which of course is more important than sport.

  6. #6
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    129
    All disciplines of the Grand Prix (and when it was called the Champions Series) used to feature the top six skaters skating in three events. Example-- Kwan usually opted to skate in two, while Butyrskaya would usually skate in Germany, France, and Japan each year. Then they had it so that it was only the top pairs that could skate in a third event if they so chose. But it's been a few years since that has even happened.

    21 pairs teams at the World Juniors meant that five teams weren't even making the long program... that definitely was a big enough field that there was no need to add extra pairs for no reason.

  7. #7
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    15,534
    It's particularly heinous if the inappropriately included team either deprives another of a medal, or of a chance to skate their LP or affected the number of pairs another country could send to Jr. Worlds the following year. Thanks for highlighting this Tony.

  8. #8
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    beijing
    Posts
    1,910
    Quote Originally Posted by dorispulaski View Post
    It's particularly heinous if the inappropriately included team either deprives another of a medal, or of a chance to skate their LP or affected the number of pairs another country could send to Jr. Worlds the following year. Thanks for highlighting this Tony.
    Yes, the Estonian pair that placed #17 after the SP.

  9. #9
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    15,534
    Exactly. It's easy to focus on the impact of the medals, or the number of teams next year, but the chance to perform both their programs at Jr Worlds is a big deal to skaters who have spent such an amount of time, pain, effort, and yes, money, to qualify to be there. The ISU should respect their own rules.

  10. #10
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler View Post
    Thanks George. It's frustrating that it's just being blown off like no big deal by most people. If I were Ashley Wagner or someone in her similar situation I'd be getting a lawyer right now-- seriously. If they are just going to let the rules slide once then why can't they do it for others?
    When Alexandra Stevenson asked for me, in den Haag, it was a big surprise to everyone there and no one she has spoken to so far understands it. A request is in at the ISU for an official answer.

  11. #11
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by gsrossano View Post
    When Alexandra Stevenson asked for me, in den Haag, it was a big surprise to everyone there and no one she has spoken to so far understands it. A request is in at the ISU for an official answer.
    So basically what that is saying is that ISU wasn't even aware that they were breaking their own rules until some fans simply looked at the 2009 event website and pulled up the results? All the more reason for the ISU to love me right now, I'm sure.

  12. #12
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler View Post
    All disciplines of the Grand Prix (and when it was called the Champions Series) used to feature the top six skaters skating in three events. Example-- Kwan usually opted to skate in two, while Butyrskaya would usually skate in Germany, France, and Japan each year. Then they had it so that it was only the top pairs that could skate in a third event if they so chose. But it's been a few years since that has even happened.

    21 pairs teams at the World Juniors meant that five teams weren't even making the long program... that definitely was a big enough field that there was no need to add extra pairs for no reason.
    That was quite some time ago, but recently Vise and Trent in one of the GPs did their ground breaking Throw Quad and it looked like a medal and podium for them, but Pang and Tong had their third go at a GP after qualifying for the Final. P&T as well as S&S in another GP of the same year had an extra practice session on competition time,was to their benefit, but it pushed all the other teams back one placement.

    Are you saying that was ok based on the years ago championships? Can you get an official explanation as to why that was approved. I don't buy that unwritten contingency deal. If it were then, rules are not sacred, but should be broken as unspecified changes. There are TWO GPs before qualifying for the Final. No?

  13. #13
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    129
    The Vise/Trent situation was at the 2007/2008 Grand Prix Bompard, so already over two full seasons ago. The option for the top six placed pairs in the World to do a third event was clearly stated in the ISU rules. THIS situation is not.

    If anyone did a third event then it was already stated in the beginning of the Grand Prix series as to which event would not count for points. Remember the 2001 NHK Trophy (I know it was a long time ago too, but just an example) when Slutskaya and Butyrskaya both withdrew in the week before the event? Had they competed and assumingly finished 1-2, then Angela Nikodinov, who was also in the event and had it chosen as her non-scoring event, she would have made the Final. Without the Russians there, Tataiana Malinina won the event and qualified in front of Nikodinov to the Grand Prix Final. It happens. You can also look at that as Nikodinov could have won the event herself instead of finishing the 4th place she ended up, and then she would have protected her own spot.

  14. #14
    Custom Title bekalc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz View Post
    That was quite some time ago, but recently Vise and Trent in one of the GPs did their ground breaking Throw Quad and it looked like a medal and podium for them, but Pang and Tong had their third go at a GP after qualifying for the Final. P&T as well as S&S in another GP of the same year had an extra practice session on competition time,was to their benefit, but it pushed all the other teams back one placement.

    Are you saying that was ok based on the years ago championships? Can you get an official explanation as to why that was approved. I don't buy that unwritten contingency deal. If it were then, rules are not sacred, but should be broken as unspecified changes. There are TWO GPs before qualifying for the Final. No?
    It was okay because as Tony said the rules allowed the top 6 to compete at three events (and they choose before hand which one was non scoring I believe). The current rules did not allow China to have 3 pairs sports. Did they ask another country if they wanted an extra spot? How the ISU didn't know who qualified how many pairs I don't know. How the Chinese didn't know how many pairs they were qualified (which they should know)

    Frankly the Chinese federation should be penalized a spot for next years worlds, and any team that is one spot away from qualifiying for another spot should get the spot. Clearly Sui/Han would have been on the team, and they don't deserve to lose their gold because this isn't their fault. But who can say for sure who would have been the 2nd and 3rd teams.

  15. #15
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    604
    A few tidbits on this now on my site. ISU is currently stonewalling. Rules for entries at ISU Championships and Grand Prixs are different. Don't muddy the waters by getting into Grand Prix rules. Entries at Championships are covered by Rule 378. Ultimate responsibility for entries being handled correctly rests with Peter Krick.
    Last edited by gsrossano; 03-11-2010 at 03:08 PM.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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