Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 31

Thread: Cohen and Weiss like the CoP

  1. #16
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,421
    To nthus. (I wrote this before I saw NorthernLite's response).

    I think that's right. I think that NorthernLite was saying the same thing, that the caller decides whether the intended triple Lutz was really a triple Lutz, or was it a triple flip or a double Lutz?

    To do a quote, just click on the "quote" button just below the person's post that you want to quote. Then if you don't want to quote the whole message, you can delete the part you don't want.

    Alternatively, on the page where you type your reply, click on "Enhanced mode" on the left under vB Code. This activates the buttons at the top, B, I, U, size, color, quote, etc. Use "close tag" or "close all tags" at the end.

    Last resort. Type [quote*] at the beginning and [/quote*] at the end (leave out the *).

    Tip: The VBoard software automatically double-spaces after a quote. So start typing right after the end-quote instruction without any space or carriage return.

    Mathman
    Last edited by Mathman; 11-23-2003 at 08:15 PM.

  2. #17
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,421
    NorthernLite, I don't think that we can blame the caller for the "phantom combo." This is built into the rules. Like at Skate Canada, Sasha planned a triple-Lutz/double toe as her opening element. But she only did the triple Lutz. The caller called it properly as a triple Lutz.

    Later on in the program she had planned a triple flip. Instead she tried to do the 3L/2T combo again, but she only managed the first jump. The caller called it correctly as a triple Lutz.

    The rules (i.e., the computer), not the caller, automatically listed the second Lutz as a failed COMBO. Not because she had intended to do a combo, but because that is how the rules score a second instance of the same jump.

    Yes, this is a little bit double-talk. The rules should not call this a failed COMBO. It should invent a new term, like a failed MOMBO. But the way it is scored I think is fair enough. The new rule softens the Zayak rule so as not to punish a skater too severely for going for a hard combination later in the program.

    I think it's a fair rule, at least in so far as it applies to all skaters equally.

    Mathman

    PS. For a skater who was so far ahead after the short program that he couldn't lose, how about Yagudin at Salt Lake City. With his only competiton stuck in fourth place after the short, all Yags had to do was show up. (Those four 6.0s were just gravy, LOL.)
    Last edited by Mathman; 11-23-2003 at 08:32 PM.

  3. #18
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Mathman - The rule on the Caller deciding whether a skater intended to do a combo but only completes the first part is willy nilly, imo. He has a list of the skater's planned elements. I believe Sasha's 2nd attempt at a combo was not on the list so in the judgment of the Caller he decided that it was an attempted combo. But given the Caller's decision, Sasha had 2 triple lutzes in the program and got credit for both of them. Apparently, the attempted combos waive the Zayak rule. hmmm.

    I am not bashing Sasha (her SC program was a good example of the CoP), and I'm not bashing the CoP (I like it). But I am not going to suck up what rules the Caller decides on.

    I'm with Northerlite on this. The role of the Caller MUST be discussed after the GPF. It needs serious discussion, and not just a complacent 'nothing we can do'.

    Joe

  4. #19
    Go NJ Devils
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,700
    Originally posted by NorthernLite
    Another thing to remember, is that CoP has also erased the distinction between the technical program and the freekskate. Now you have programs judged with identical criteria, yet set up so that one skater can amass an enormous lead in the first, shorter portion. At least in recent 6.0, any of the top three "controlled their own destiny" in the free. And that made it more exciting.
    The SP has a maximum of eight elements, including one jump combo, the restriction of performing an axel jump, and a maximum of three jump elements. The LP has a maximum of fourteen elements, including two jump combos and/or sequences, one of which can have three jumps, and up to seven (Ladies) or eight (Men's) jump elements in total. In Pairs, the number of jump elements, throws, and death spirals is also doubled for the LP. That makes the LP tech elements, structurally, about half the value of the SP tech elements. The Program Elements are weighted 50/100 as well.

    If a skater/team does so well on the SP that s/he has an insurmountable lead, that means that no one/team in the LP was able to do so much better than the leader, even though s/he or they had twice as much opportunity, in a program worth twice as much. It means that someone who is significantly better in the SP, but marginally worse in the LP, can still win. And, it means that skaters other than the top three can control their own destiny, like Liashenko in CC.

    I agree that PE are not being scored according to the guidelines -- not enough element-specific variation in scoring. But since nearly every judge is making the same mistake in every discipline, secrecy is not the issue, because you would just know which 95% of the judges aren't judging correctly. I'm not sure what that would accomplish.

  5. #20
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,421
    Originally posted by Joesitz
    Mathman - The rule on the Caller deciding whether a skater intended to do a combo but only completes the first part is willy nilly, imo. He has a list of the skater's planned elements. I believe Sasha's 2nd attempt at a combo was not on the list so in the judgment of the Caller he decided that it was an attempted combo. But given the Caller's decision, Sasha had 2 triple lutzes in the program and got credit for both of them. Apparently, the attempted combos waive the Zayak rule. hmmm.

    Joe
    Joe, I am certain that's wrong. BravesSkateFan, Ptichka and Skatingfan5 all posted the rules in full on the Skate Canada thread. I was very surprised to read what the actual rules say. The caller does not make the decision as to whether it was an attempted (but failed) combo. The caller just calls "triple Lutz" and the computer adds the "+ combo" automatically if the skater already got credit for this jump. The rules, bizarre as it seems, are very clear on this. That's why I wasn't joking when I said that all they have to do is come up with a new computer-generated word for this, instead of refering to it as a combo when it wasn't. But anyway, in this instance it is not the caller's call. Here is the rule, from the ISU protocols:

    "Only two jumps with 3 or more revolutions can be repeated in the Free Program and they must be in either a jump combination or in a jump sequence. A repeated triple or quadruple solo jump, not included into a jump combination or jump sequence, will be considered as a part of a not successfully executed jump combination and counted as a jump combination with only one jump executed."

    This is automatic. The caller does not have to say whether this was supposed to be a combination or not. Yes, this is a deliberate waiver of the Zayak rule, and intended to be just that. The Zayak rule no longer says what it used to say.

    Hockeyfan, about secrecy, I agree that identifying the judges by name won't make them better judges. But I still wish they would do it. It would just make the whole process smell a little better.

    I think that with practice the judges will get better at distinguishing between, say, good transitions and good choreography.

    Mathman
    Last edited by Mathman; 11-24-2003 at 01:07 AM.

  6. #21
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    263
    Originally posted by Mathman

    What I liked about Sasha's comment was the attitude that "people" (i.e., the caller), because of lack of experience with the system, didn't yet fully appreciate the qualities of her spiral.

    Mathman
    This was not Sasha's point. Her program constructed to get maximum number of points under COP. She was most likely told that a sequence she does: spiral - fan - spiral - skid - Charlotte, would worth more, than just a COE spiral, she did last year.

    Same thing with the footwork, Tarasova have changed her straight line steps to serpentine one, after they've got a feedback, that serpentine footwork would bring more points. But the system is new, and every judge seems to have his own set of requirements. Sasha and TT got into trouble of changing program, but it didn't help to boost up the scores (at least, not at TL) -- that's the point.

    In regard to spiral, maybe this element should be viewed only under level 1 and 2 categories, but since they do have level 3, if Sasha's spiral cannot be considered worthy of it, than who's would? I can't think of a skater who's able to perform the same difficult spiral sequence (anywhere as good as Sasha), I mentioned above.

  7. #22
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mathman
    The caller does not make the decision as to whether it was an attempted (but failed) combo. The caller just calls "triple Lutz" and the computer adds the "+ combo" automatically if the skater already got credit for this jump. The rules, bizarre as it seems, are very clear on this. That's why I wasn't joking when I said that all they have to do is come up with a new computer-generated word for this, instead of refering to it as a combo when it wasn't.

    Am I correct to think then, that in Sasha's case, since she already was credited with a lutz despite the fact that it was an intended combo, the next lutz was also credited because the computer recognized that the first attempt was not an attempt since the computer did not know this, but it did expect the second attempt to be combo which allows a repeat of the jump.

    [Quote][i]This is automatic. The caller does not have to say whether this was supposed to be a combination or not. Yes, this is a deliberate waiver of the Zayak rule, and intended to be just that. The Zayak rule no longer says what it used to say.[/b]

    The Zayak rule was always clear and I can't remember any infraction of the rule in recent times. However, if a combo is not a combo when not completed, then I think the Zayak rule should come into play. Credits for two the same jumps, imo, are a no no.

    Joe

    BTW, Good transitions and good choreography are very subjective elements. That's not just my opinion; that's fact.

  8. #23
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    16,170
    Count me among those that would like the criteria for 1,2,3 on spirals and steps and spins worked on.

    However, the fact that Sasha ends up on a flat; wouldn't that be a GOE issue, not a level issue? I thought the caller identified the attempt, not the quality?

    I would guess the crossovers have something to do with the level though.

    dpp

  9. #24
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,421
    Registered, I just can't slip anything by you, LOL. The instant I hit the "send" button I thought, uh oh. I will retreat to my original position:
    Hmm. If Sasha's spiral is only judged as a "level two" I wonder what in the world you have to do to get a "level three?" -- Mathman
    Seriously, are there any published rules about what qualifies as a "level 1," "level 2," or "level 3" spiral? Is it the caller's responsibility to make the judgment about that?
    "Am I correct to think then, that in Sasha's case, since she already was credited with a lutz despite the fact that it was an intended combo, the next lutz was also credited because the computer recognized that the first attempt was not an attempt since the computer did not know this, but it did expect the second attempt to be combo which allows a repeat of the jump." -- Joe
    Well, that sounds like a pretty silly way to go about it, but, yes I think that's right.:\ I might be wrong about this, but I think that the skater's "intentions" have nothing to do with it. It's what they do that counts (properly so) not what they intended to do or planned to do or put down on their jump card. But the computer is programmed automatically to violate the Zayak rule by "cheating" for the skater and pretending that the second jump was a combination, even though it wasn't.

    As I said, if the ISU really wants it to be this way, they could just change the designation (to "3L/Zayak," for instance), give credit for the jump and take off a -3 Zayak deduction instead of a GOE deduction for a failed combo. This would more honestly reflect the intent of the rule change, IMO.
    However, the fact that Sasha ends up on a flat; wouldn't that be a GOE issue, not a level issue? I thought the caller identified the attempt, not the quality? -- Doris
    That's a good question, and a slippery slope, IMO. The caller cannot reasonably be expected to identify what the skater is "attempting," only what the skater actually does. Sasha may "attempt" to stay on edge, but if that is the difference between a level 2 and a level 3, what then?

    Mathman

  10. #25
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Imo, flat skating is a serious defect in figure skating.

    Tara did the entire routine on the flat but she had that joie de vivre in her style that won over the judges. I think in Sasha's case her routine is so dynamic that her style wins over the judges. It's still a subjective sport, imo.

    Joe
    Last edited by Joesitz; 11-24-2003 at 05:32 PM.

  11. #26
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    263
    Originally posted by Joesitz
    Imo, flat skating is a serious defect in figure skating.

    Tara did the entire routine on the flat but she had that joie de vivre in her style that won over the judges. I think in Sasha's case her routine is so dynamic that her style wins over the judges. It's still a subjective sport, imo.

    Joe
    I guess it is subjective, and personally, I don't see Sasha doing "flat skating." Considering, that she's scoring the highest in skating skills, transitions and execution, different panels of judges tend to agree with old clowns -- Dick and Peggy, on the question of quality of Sasha's skating technique. If anything, code of points had to clarify the debate on edges, and if it is to reward "quality skaters," it has shown element by element, who has the best skills, edges notwithstanding.

  12. #27
    Go NJ Devils
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,700
    Originally posted by Mathman
    Sasha may "attempt" to stay on edge, but if that is the difference between a level 2 and a level 3, what then?

    Mathman
    According to ISU Communication 1224, the difference between a Level 2 and a Level 3 spiral is:

    Level 2: Element includes three of the following features:

    *Sequences use variety of spiral positions -- plus inclusion of extra position or variety/creativity on minimum of two positions

    *Difficult acceleration steps between spiral position

    *Spirals curve mainly in one direction, but at least one uses the opposite curve, different edge combinations

    *Use of upper body to increase difficulty of spirals and connecting steps

    Level 3: Element includes three of the following features:

    *Sequence uses variety of spiral positions -- required spirals plus inclusion of extra unsupported positions (no holding of the free leg) or variety on more than two positions.

    *Minimum number of steps between spirals and steps enhance difficulty

    *Spirals curve equally in both directions with unsupported change of edges

    *Use of upper body and/or varied positions to increase difficulty of spirals and steps throughout the sequence

  13. #28
    ~ Evgeni's Sex Bomb ~
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    daydreaming about Edvin Marton
    Posts
    614
    Okay, going from that, Sasha is not a level 3. Let's look at the criteria (and I'm going from memory, so please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this)

    *Sequence uses variety of spiral positions -- required spirals plus inclusion of extra unsupported positions (no holding of the free leg) or variety on more than two positions.

    I believe she holds her leg twice and has it free twice.

    *Difficult acceleration steps between spiral position

    To the best of my knowledge, crossovers would not be considered "difficult" nor does she seem to accelrate as the spiral goes on, it seems to slow down

    *Spirals curve equally in both directions with unsupported change of edges

    In her SP, I don't think there's an unsupported change of edge at all, she changes edges after the crossovers. Not sure about the FS.

    *Use of upper body and/or varied positions to increase difficulty of spirals and steps throughout the sequence

    This is the only place I can see it being level 3, in that her extension is so high.

    What do y'all think?

    Laura

  14. #29
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,900
    Originally posted by Mathman
    Here are a couple of quotes that I found interesting.

    It seems like any skater who can manage three and a half revolutions before falling down should pack his program with "quads."

    Three and three-quarters. If it's underrotated by more than a quarter rotation, it will be called as a triple.

  15. #30
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,421
    Thanks for the correction, gkelly. Your posts are always very informative. I look forward to them.

    Mathman

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Kwan Decries CoP Additions
    By giseledepkat in forum 2003-04 Figure Skating archives
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 10-08-2003, 06:03 PM

Posting Permissions

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