We know about the CoP and the defenders of it for certain skaters, but Can anyone tell me what Patrick did on the PLUS side that other skaters did not? I mean, like Preaubert and Fernandez did not do any of the 'things' that Patrick was so good at as he wiped up the ice?
I can understand FALLs being a minus in the Tech, but they also disrupt the choreographed program. No? Should not the PC scores show this as minus also?
BTW. I'm a big fan of Patrick and to be honest, this was not his night and the scores were ludicrous.
Not true! The discussion is about Falls be they on Jumps, Spins, or Footwork. Falls are penalized in the Tech but that's not the end of it. Falls also disrupt the PC Flow of the Program. No?Based on people here, it seems like most people only care about the jumps not the overall quality.
Since you didn't mention him I used the word implication. The sudden appearance of Skating Skills is a remnant of the 6.0 system to save favorites from a meltdown.
Fernandez was in the competition and didn't fall. He just turned out on the landing of a 3A. I can't believe that's bad overall SS for 1 jump.
Other than the automatic deductions in the Tech, we do not know whether judges consider Falls as poor performance. But if a ballerina falls in Swan Lake and I've seen it happen, the performance is not good and the audience lets her know it, and that is not even a competition. It's obvious too in skating - poor performance.
I've going to have to use the "eyeroll" emotion a lot in this thread, I can see.
Part of the reason why people stopped risking Quads was because of (A.) how much the Double Axel was worth in comparison to the Quad, and (B.) How overpenalized downgrades used to be. If you did a Quad, but underrotated it, you used to get less points than if you had done an easy 2Axel. A top skater could easily get 4.5+ points from a Double Axel whereas an underrotated Quad, a move which takes FAR more energy and places FAR more stress on the skater going into their performance, would only get 4 points at most (and likely a lot less given that other errors on the landing are more frequent for a Quad).
Even if you did land the Quad, fully rotated and cleanly, it wouldn't necessarily help you. Doing a Quad takes more energy and forces your mind to focus on that different technique, which can make the rest of the jumps in your program more difficult. Doing a good Double Axel out of a transition easily got you 4.5+ points, allowed you to focus more energy on other jumps in the program so that they get better +GOE and are more consistent, and also meant there was extra incentive to make a case for your Transitions program component.
The new rules have fixed the problem of how underrotations are scored and also increased the point difference between the Quad and easier jumps. However, the new rules have also been changed such that MESSY jumps are penalized less. This is a big problem because the penalties for mistakes were already too lenient in many cases! So now we will see people falling on Quads and receiving more points for that jump than if they had done a good Triple Flip.
Now, back to your post, Patrick didn't just fall on a Quad. If that had been his only mistake and he had skated the rest of the program up to his full potential, then I probably would have put him ahead of Adam Rippon. That wasn't his only mistake, though. He fell on his Triple Axel (a tilted, barely rotated attempt), which really sucked the life out of the program. And then when he was starting to get it back on the footwork sequence, he fell again and the performance was left with an extremely unsavory aftertaste.
When the protocol comes out and the panel determined the fall wasn't part of the element, would you then apologize for your very impolite and accusatory dismeanor?