I realize that falling isn't an requirement. There was no reason to underline it. The reason I sited it was because she had her lift leg in the air going for the jump although she hadn't left the ice with her other foot. Imo when Yu Na's whatever was a ruled a jump that tech panel got it wrong. She just did the 3 turns but there was no jump at all. You don't have to do a jump when it's scheduled. You can do a 3 turns without jumping at all. I've see skaters do 3 turns in their footwork. She clearly made a mistake there but since there was no going in to the jump-it shouldn't have been ruled a attempt. Any way Mao didn't exactly reset after the mistake and continue into her toe loop.
Thanks mskater93 I didn't look at the protocols. I just knew it received no points that that people were saying that if she had failed to do another axel that attempt would have counted as her axel attempt.
I'm just curious about something: Let's say the Olympic tech/judging panel ruled that Mao's 3T attempt should have been voided...why make her 1T her final jumping pass, and allowing her 2A to count? The 1T was clearly the "fill-in" for her 3T after the stumble.
Also, using your logic, then Kim's layback spin should not have been voided in Torino either: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpTlrTLCp2Y#t=1m25s
The turn which she stumbled on wasn't a layback position or any other type of prescribed position such as sit, camel or upright position. Couldn't an argument be made that she just stumbled on a turn given that skaters too do different kind of turns in their footwork as well such as here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjgl_854vLs#t=2m41s
Let's face it, we are kidding ourselves if an argument can be made that Asada didn't stumble on her Triple Toe Loop attempt, then Kim must have just added an extra turn to her choreography going to her Layback spin and she merely stumbled on part of her "new" choreography. Such argument is disingenuous and highly suspect.
Anyway, what was done was done, history. It is merely brought up here for educational purpose, nothing more. The party concerned didn't file a complaint, so she is waving her right, case closed.
- T -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- 1T , followed by the GOE given to that element by the judges
Then when it comes to the 8th jumping pass, a 2A, the element would receive an asterix * besides that element and the whole box receive a --------------------------------------- as an invalid element with no value given.
I feel the same way about Yu Na's has I do Mao's. Neither should have been called an attempt. And Yu Na clearly started a spin so lets not go there.
Some people see the sum of the parts of Yu na -like her spiral leg isn't as pretty as some and forget to see the whole package in that she has an incredible edge and speed in that position. For example. I think the rules help Yu na (like the no 3 axel as the axel in the short) but Yu na is a lovely whole package skater who deserved her gold and huge over all lead. She really bought it under pressure plus she has the most gorgeous toe jumps perhaps ever!
Last edited by tarotx; 04-09-2010 at 03:49 PM.
Is that the criterion? That her upper body was "prepared to rotate?" Doesn't she have to actually begin the rotation to count as an attempt?Originally Posted by wallylutz
Meh, I think the Tech panel made a good decision not to call it an attempt, anyway. The consequences for that stumble, and then discounting Mao's subsequent 2A is way too harsh.
^ Well, where have I been? This is the most interesting thread on the Edge.
OK, I just watched the two clips, Asada's toe loop attempt at the Olympics and Kim's aborted flip at Eric Bompard. (By the way, could Asada's toe-loop could have been scored as a 0T-1T sequence -- then voided out because it is her fourth multi-jump combo/sequence?)
First of all, the rule quoted above by Wallylutz adrdresses the vagueness issue by giving a detailed example:
In my opinion, Asada's toe loop at Vancouver does not quite rise to the level of the equivalent of all this stepping onto edges, pulling back of legs, passing through of arms, and starting movement to jump into the air, as listed on the example given in the rules.In some cases, which need to be decided by the Technical Panel, the preparation for the take-off without leaving the ice might be also called an attempt, e.g. a loop-jump take-off when the skater falls before leaving the ice, or a skater steps onto the forward take off edge of an Axel and pulls back the free leg and arms, starts the forward movement to jump into the air with the free leg and arms passing through forward but at the last moment does not leave the ice, etc.
Kim's attempt at TEB is a little more borderline. To me, she does rotate completely into her take-off position and swing up her free leg into the fully extended position for the toe pick, and she has clearly started her pre-rotation for the jump when she aborts and brings her free leg down without picking in.
The part about "starting the (backward, in the case of the flip) movement to jump into the air" -- no, I don't think so. She prepared to start this movement, but never in fact started it.
So I think both examples should not have counted as an attempt, but that Kim was somewhat farther along in the attempted attempt than Mao.
By the way, this is quite a strange peculiarity of the CoP. Skaters not only get credit (or blame) for what they attempt (but don't actually do), now they are even scored on attempted attempts.
Like in hockey, we should give someone a point if he prepares for an attempted shot on goal -- but never actually attempts the shot itself.
Last edited by Mathman; 04-09-2010 at 08:21 PM.
Interesting. Is this rule applied only under COP? Because I remember in the past, skaters would often replace jumps that they missed. For example, Midori did another 3A after she missed the first one. Does this mean if COP was installed back then, Midori's second 3A might not count and Mao will actually be the 1st lady to land a 3A at the Olympics?
But if the second triple Axel were only the seventh pass, and there were no Zayak violations (I don't remember what other jumps she might have done two of), then I think the second one would have been scored as 3A+SEQ (the phantom sequence rule), and she would have got a twenty per cent sequence reduction (but a ten per cent second half bonus), and it would have been ratified at the first triple Axel.
Actually, she would have received credit in the protocols for the first triple Axel sequence, even though no second jump was attempted.
By the way, I believe that under the CoP Michael Weiss would have been credited with doing the first quadruple Lutz. If I remember correctly he did a couple of them in competition, but they were not "ratified" because the landings were double-footed. Under the CoP that doesn't matter any more, except for a couple of points in GOE.
Last edited by Mathman; 04-09-2010 at 08:34 PM.