Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 98

Thread: maybe controversial but want to know...ladies bronze vancouver

  1. #46
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,581
    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.
    But it does matter whether they were fully rotated or not. If they were downgraded, then they wouldn't be ratified.

    See Takahashi's quad flip attempt at Worlds this year.

  2. #47
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,101
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    But it does matter whether they were fully rotated or not. If they were downgraded, then they wouldn't be ratified.
    What exactly does "ratified" mean? Who is the ratifier and what do the skaters get for being ratified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bijoux View Post
    I have always been turned off by fanaticism when it comes to athletes.
    But then again, it's harmless. Like yelling yourself hoarse with your friends at a Jonas Brothers concert.

    I don't really think Michelle Kwan is the Second Coming, but it's fun to pretend that I do.

  3. #48
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by GoPC2018 View Post
    Actually no. see what happened to Yuna in LP at the TEB 09. They counted her flip as an attempted jump.
    Also, see Mao's own failed Triple Axel attempt in 2008 Worlds here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOwrOxjLRGE#t=0m46s

    Again, her body prepared to rotate as she stepped onto the forward outside edge but slipped off her edge just before the take off. As a result, the rotation never took place as she fell on take off. The verdict however at the time was that it counted as an Attempted Jump even though her body never actually lifted off from the ice.

  4. #49
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by prettykeys View Post
    Nah, the rules clearly state that preparation for a take-off may, in some instances, be counted as an attempt. If Mao is "preparing to rotate", for what other reason would she be preparing for other than a rotation for a jump?

    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.
    Here is the issue. If you believe, as I see it, that particular stumble happened during the final moment before her take off for a Triple Toe Loop, then what consequences it entails, in terms of its gravity or lightness, should not be a consideration. Otherwise, if we let our personal preference color our judgement, then this becomes subjective if not biased judging. Don't get me wrong, I want to stress again the discussion here is purely educational - no one has been cheated and no one is being biased here. We all have our disagreement with the rules and in many ways, the CoP is a good system but far from perfect. But not matter what our personal opinion is re: the system, it has to be followed to the letter for the integrity of the process and fairness to all skaters, from the lowest level to the elite athletes. Yu-Na Kim has her share of run-in with the CoP too, if you recall, her final spin at the 2009 Worlds was voided by Technical Panel, that's about as costly as the value of a Double Axel. Rachael Flatt had one of her spin voided as well at the 2009 Skate America. Numerous other skaters have had their jumps voided, including Asada herself at the Rostelecom Cup 2009 (Russia Grand Prix). Are those mistakes costly? Absolutely! Too harsh or not is not a consideration. So if you accept that her preparation for take-off should be deemed an Attempted Jump as defined in the ISU Technical Handbook for Singles, then the skater needs to be penalized accordingly regardless of how we feel personally.

  5. #50
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    ^ Well, where have I been? This is the most interesting thread on the Edge.
    Someone PM me last night and warned me about potential bots hijacking this thread due to the sensitivity of the discussion. I told her that I'll give it a shot and hopefully challenge people to think and if and when bots show up, I'll just run and hide. :indiff: I am glad at least some people found this discussion useful and in fact, some people have said they already thought about this during the Olympics as well but simply didn't want to stir the pot and potentially get confrontational with some Mao bots.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post

    (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?)
    Good question. The answer is no, it cannot be counted as a jump sequence . The reason is pretty straightforward. There is no such thing as 0T as you listed. In order to create a jump sequence as part of a jumping pass, there is a need to have at least two "Listed Jumps" as defined by the ISU in that jumping pass. There are jumps allowed in free skating which are considered for transition value but not considered as Listed Jump, for example, half loop. So a Triple Toe/half loop/Triple Salchow Sequence will only marked as 3T+3S+SEQ. Notice the half loop doesn't have a notation and therefore, no base value. Since the first Attempted Jump did not rotate, therefore, it cannot be given a notation such as 1T, hence it cannot be combined with the 1T that followed. In other words, a Non-Listed Jump follow by a Listed Jump is explicitly defined by the rule as being a solo jump, not a sequence. See the rule here:
    http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/...-0-file,00.pdf

    ref. page 16

    A jump sequence, consisting of only one listed jump together with other nonlisted
    jumps is not considered a jump-sequence, but will count as a solo jump.
    But you are going to ask, if the first Toe Loop attempt is considered a non-listed jump, then why should it block off a jumping pass box, after all, a non-listed jump does not normally count against a jumping pass allowance, no? Here is the problem, the rule explicitly stated an Attempted Jump of a Listed Jump (in the case, a Toe Loop), must block a jumping pass box even if the jump has no base value. If instead Asada was doing a half Loop into a Single Toe, but stumbled somewhere on the half Loop, that mistake would NOT block off a jumping pass box. Sounds complicate? It really isn't, because half Loop is not a Listed Jump, therefore, the call re: Attempted Jump does not apply. Asada's take off unmistakeably indicated she was set to a Toe Loop jump, therefore, the rules governing Attempted Jump would seem to apply in her case as do the consequences of such attempt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post

    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.
    The example given in the rulebook is for an Axel jump. The offending element in question here is a Toe Loop jump. You are not going to find any resemblance whatsoever between these two different jumps. Toe Loop always take off from back edges whereas Axel's take off is always forward outside edge. The two take off are completely different and therefore, the preparatory movements into the take off are completely different as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    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.
    On that, I have to disagree. I believe in the video clips I posted, I time marked her Top Loop attempt at 2m41s and also stated that she should be in the air by 2m42s if everything went as planned. Asada's Toe Loop was at the final stage of her preparation just prior to the take off, akin to an airplane's final and accelerated near-sonic run on the ground into its take off. In other words, her right foot was in her final position before she vaults into the air for the Toe Loop while her free leg (left foot) was about to pick into the ice. At that precise moment, she slipped off of her edge but didn't fall. She was at the absolute last stage of a Toe Loop take off, without a doubt, based on the rotational movement that was already observable in her upper body. If anything, her preparation was farther along than Kim's Flip attempt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    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.
    Such design is necessary for CoP. Just imagine if we don't restrict the number of jumps, then skaters can just rack up all their points from jumps alone. The cumulative score of TES requires such restriction compared to the 6.0 system.
    Last edited by wallylutz; 04-10-2010 at 01:28 AM.

  6. #51
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by miki88 View Post
    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?
    No, it would still have counted because she would still be within the 7 jumping pass allowed when that 2nd Triple Axel was attempted. Though Ito has this tendency to add jumps that she missed from earlier so her final jump, whatever that is, may not count however.

  7. #52
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    What exactly does "ratified" mean? Who is the ratifier and what do the skaters get for being ratified?
    Since the CoP was implemented, getting ratified generally means the jump has been given the credit as the attempted jump without downgrade. In other words, the Technical Panel of the competition in question would serve as the ratifier. For example, Asada can now claim she has landed three Tripel Axels in an Olympic Games because her three attempts in the Vancouver Olympic were given value as Triple Axels.

  8. #53
    can't come down to Earth prettykeys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,800
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz View Post
    Here is the issue. If you believe, as I see it, that particular stumble happened during the final moment before her take off for a Triple Toe Loop, then what consequences it entails, in terms of its gravity or lightness, should not be a consideration. Otherwise, if we let our personal preference color our judgement, then this becomes subjective if not biased judging. Don't get me wrong, I want to stress again the discussion here is purely educational - no one has been cheated and no one is being biased here. We all have our disagreement with the rules and in many ways, the CoP is a good system but far from perfect. But not matter what our personal opinion is re: the system, it has to be followed to the letter for the integrity of the process and fairness to all skaters, from the lowest level to the elite athletes. Yu-Na Kim has her share of run-in with the CoP too, if you recall, her final spin at the 2009 Worlds was voided by Technical Panel, that's about as costly as the value of a Double Axel. Rachael Flatt had one of her spin voided as well at the 2009 Skate America. Numerous other skaters have had their jumps voided, including Asada herself at the Rostelecom Cup 2009 (Russia Grand Prix). Are those mistakes costly? Absolutely! Too harsh or not is not a consideration. So if you accept that her preparation for take-off should be deemed an Attempted Jump as defined in the ISU Technical Handbook for Singles, then the skater needs to be penalized accordingly regardless of how we feel personally.
    You raise a lot of good points around the issues...my comment was based on my gut rather than thinking it through, but I guess I'll share where I'm coming from.

    First of all, I have no judging experience or even a long-term analytical habit as a fan. I learn selective details at convenient times rather than studying the system for its own end. I once took a survey course in Philosophy of Law, and some concepts really stood out for me, so I'd like to speak in the abstract with my (imagined) understanding.

    I realize that my desire to be forgiving or lenient with Mao Asada (or any skater) needs to be tempered by fairness towards other skaters, as well as by respect for the rules that are in place.

    Some rules are in place because they are just good housekeeping; they keep the competition going in an organized way. The time limit rule is one of these. Other rules are in place because the ISU has some sort of philosophy of skating--what it should be, what should be rewarded, what should be discouraged, etc.--that it wants to promote via points or deductions that are allotted for what skaters demonstrate in a competition. The judges (including the technical panel) are supposed to be well-versed in these rules and apply them in a manner that is hopefully fair and consistent, more or less between themselves, and also with themselves (i.e. when they grade different skaters at various competitions.)

    You are pointing out that letting Mao off her botched 3T attempt would be inconsistent judging, which is biased and unfair.

    There is a set of rules and situations that are extremely clear-cut, black and white, on what needs to be done in judging. However, there are also situations where the rules and judgments are not as clear-cut, and where it is up to the judges to decide how to apply or interpret the rules (or the intent of the rules, I would imagine.) The rules on Attempts (as well as in other parts of the rules handbook) seem to allow for some discretion on the part of judges to make individual calls. One legal philosopher called this the difference between the "core" and the "penumbra" of a system.

    I think it's fair to say that perhaps Mao should count herself lucky that she was not punished as she could have been, as other skaters and perhaps herself have been punished before for failed attempts. However, I don't think it is clear-cut that such a punishment was required. (Disclaimer: I'm not a judge so I can't say how strictly the rules are supposed to be applied, and how "clear" this situation really is/should be for a judge!) I'm speaking from the perspective of a casual fan. But furthermore, in the context of a competition that is supposed to rank skaters on the quality of their performance, the theoretical consequences that you gave for making the fill-in 1T her final jumping pass and totally discounting her 2A just seems really counter to that ideal. So, according to my view that overall, her combined SP+LP was better-skated than the SP+LP of Joannie Rochette, plus given that her botched 3T-turned-into-1T situation seems to allow for some leeway (it's a little ambiguous and borderline)...I think the final decision to count Mao's 1T and the final 2A was actually fair and in keeping with the philosophy of awarding good skating. They could have thrown out the 1T as a whole, but really, she should have been given that 2A. So her placement would (and should, in my eyes) remain Silver.

  9. #54
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by prettykeys View Post
    You raise a lot of good points around the issues...my comment was based on my gut rather than thinking it through, but I guess I'll share where I'm coming from.

    [...]

    I think it's fair to say that perhaps Mao should count herself lucky that she was not punished as she could have been, as other skaters and perhaps herself have been punished before for failed attempts. However, I don't think it is clear-cut that such a punishment was required. (Disclaimer: I'm not a judge so I can't say how strictly the rules are supposed to be applied, and how "clear" this situation really is/should be for a judge!) I'm speaking from the perspective of a casual fan. But furthermore, in the context of a competition that is supposed to rank skaters on the quality of their performance, the theoretical consequences that you gave for making the fill-in 1T her final jumping pass and totally discounting her 2A just seems really counter to that ideal. So, according to my view that overall, her combined SP+LP was better-skated than the SP+LP of Joannie Rochette, plus given that her botched 3T-turned-into-1T situation seems to allow for some leeway (it's a little ambiguous and borderline)...I think the final decision to count Mao's 1T and the final 2A was actually fair and in keeping with the philosophy of awarding good skating. They could have thrown out the 1T as a whole, but really, she should have been given that 2A. So her placement would (and should, in my eyes) remain Silver.
    Very interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing. I appreciate your perspective, it's refreshing to read. Personally, I think your reasoning makes quite a bit of common sense. You'd think a girl who did three Triple Axels should at least get a Silver, it seems to make the most common sense. That's what I kept telling myself at the event so that I didn't have to feel miserable re: the outcome knowing what I know on that very emotional evening.

  10. #55
    Dreaming and dancing Bennett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Watching the sunset
    Posts
    2,793
    Quote Originally Posted by #1Kerryfan View Post
    I had Rochette second. I know I'm in the BIG minority in the skating world, but I had Asada for gold, Rochette for silver and Nagasu for bronze, with Kim fourth.
    I think that Yuna coud have been fourth at Worlds with a different panel of judges and I personally think that reputation scores after the Oly may have affected too much there. But at the Oly, no. I mean, how? She was the clear winner there. Although Mirai and Yuna were both clean and fast, Yuna's jumps are much bigger than Mirai's, and Mao and Rochette made major visible mistakes.

  11. #56
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Seoul, Korea
    Posts
    262
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz View Post
    Very interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing. I appreciate your perspective, it's refreshing to read. Personally, I think your reasoning makes quite a bit of common sense. You'd think a girl who did three Triple Axels should at least get a Silver, it seems to make the most common sense. That's what I kept telling myself at the event so that I didn't have to feel miserable re: the outcome knowing what I know on that very emotional evening.
    Well, agree that the said rule should be applied consistently. Seeing that Canadian federation did not argue about the judgement, there would have been a reason. Otherwise, they would have voiced complaints. Wouldn't they? (No idea if there has been a case that a skater or certain country officially questioned the judges, demanding rearrangement of results.)

    The olympics can always be an overwhelming experience to anyone involved. The judges supposedly want to evade (political) controversy well as they can. It seems that they tend to be lenient at olys. Not very strict edge calls, DR/URs, somewhat inflated PCS etc.

  12. #57
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,101
    Quote Originally Posted by prettykeys
    Some rules are in place because they are just good housekeeping; they keep the competition going in an organized way. The time limit rule is one of these. Other rules are in place because the ISU has some sort of philosophy of skating--what it should be, what should be rewarded, what should be discouraged, etc.--that it wants to promote via points or deductions that are allotted for what skaters demonstrate in a competition. The judges (including the technical panel) are supposed to be well-versed in these rules and apply them in a manner that is hopefully fair and consistent, more or less between themselves, and also with themselves (i.e. when they grade different skaters at various competitions.)
    This is a very interesting analysis.

    Specifically with respect to sports, there is also the idea of "playoff rules." In the playoffs (or in the last two minutes of the championship game), the audience wants the game to be decided by the players, not by a referee's whistle. So the officials let stuff go that they would normally call during the regular season.

    As sunny0760 mentions, the technical specialist were indeed pretty lenient at the Olympics, except for Rachael Falatt.

    Quote Originally Posted by prettykeys
    One legal philosopher called this the difference between the "core" and the "penumbra" of a system.
    A huge concept in judicial law. In the U.S., unspecified "penumbral" rights of the people are guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution. This concept was famously invoked in the Roe versus Wade case that struck down a Texas state law forbidding abortions. The right of a woman to abort a pregnancy in the first trimester was ruled (two Justices dissenting) to be included in the unwritten penumbral right to privacy established by the Fourteenth Amendment.

  13. #58
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    , the technical specialist were indeed pretty lenient at the Olympics, except for Rachael Falatt.

    .

    I still wonder about that.
    Seeing Rachael's 200 score at US Natls felt almost absurd to me. She has never approached such a score in Intl competitions.
    Equally interesting was that Mirai's scores at US Natls and the Olympics were almost identical.

    I don't buy the 20 point difference between Rachael's Natls and Olympic scores anymore than I believe Mirai's similar scores at Natls at Olympics were a true reflection of her performances.

    It seems that Rachael was given a HUGE "Natls" bonus but scored more realitiscally at the Olympics and Worlds.

    Do you really believe Flatt deserved a better score after seeing her skate in Vancouver? Was she as good as the top four?

  14. #59
    "Hold an edge and look sexy!" museksk8r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Storybrooke, Maine
    Posts
    3,674
    Quote Originally Posted by janetfan View Post
    Seeing Rachael's 200 score at US Natls felt almost absurd to me. She has never approached such a score in Intl competitions.

    It seems that Rachael was given a HUGE "Natls" bonus but scored more realistically at the Olympics and Worlds.
    Rachael's very inflated scores from Nationals this year were like a plea of forgiveness from USFSA to Team Flatt for making the big mistake of touting mistake-ridden Alissa over her last season.

    I have to say Rachael seriously needs to work on the landings of all of her jumps. They're all so slow, lack flow, and are labored on the landings. Her posture and spins also need serious improvement if she is to attain the world placements she most wants. She's a hard worker and I think she is capable of improving; I hope she does!
    Last edited by museksk8r; 04-10-2010 at 08:45 AM.

  15. #60
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,044
    okay yes the women skaters scores were totally overinflated --all of them.
    however the final placements for 1-7 (in my opinion were correct.) the free skate placements however weren't.
    i would have kept yu-na 1st, mao-2nd, mirai 3rd, laura 4th and joannie 5th-but miki-6th, but kept the scores close enough that joannie still would have ended up with the bronze,
    with mistakes (the goe's are still added pluses instead of 0's and and not minuses. they are adding to the jump value when mistakes happen.
    what i was more appalled with was Yu-na 1st place in the free skate at worlds--no way should have yu-an gotten 1st place in free at worlds 2nd at best--not 1st.
    so the final standings would have been for the olympics--yuna 1st. mao-2nd, joannie 3rd, mirai, 4th, miki-5th and laura 6th.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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
  •