uh...Chan's PCS is not even 2 points higher than Abbott, http://www.isuresults.com/results/gprus2010/SEG001.HTMAnd no way is Chan's PCS that much better than someone like an Abbott. Overscored, as usual.
You really think 40.42 vs. 38.54 is a lot, in Men's skating where the total score among elites is usually 220~240 points in total?
Now, I don't think you really believe that's true.Chan will win this even if he falls 5 times in the free.
The penalty for falling is still not severe enough for my liking, and that would apply to any skater, not just Chan. Falling on any jump in the short program, should be a major sin in my book.
And yes, I think the PCS spread is a lot over Abbott and Verner. I'm looking at the component scores. If Chan got lots of 8.00+, Abbott especially should have gotten them too.
Don't downplay a 2-point spread. Competitions have been won or lost over less of a spread.
Last edited by skatinginbc; 11-19-2010 at 09:59 AM.
Plus, isn't the bullet point system technically a guideline (as in, you don't need to necessarily fulfill 4 of the bullets to get a +2 on a jump, for instance), though many judges do follow it literally?
OK, then can you please justiy your position under the rules? I am interested in hearing your explanation.And yes, I think the PCS spread is a lot over Abbott and Verner. I'm looking at the component scores. If Chan got lots of 8.00+, Abbott especially should have gotten them too.
It´s not only chan bashing it´s also judges bashing all the time and that from pepple who don´t know the rules properly.
a single fall does not nececerily affect any program component score if the fall does not bothered the overyll impression. There is no rule that even the P/E score has to go down by a certain amount of points because of a fall. Sometimes falls just don´t affect PCS sometimes they do. And I am talking about today´s single fall and not about Chans SP at SC. The more falls the more it really affects PCS.
I don't agree with, or care for, many aspects of the COP, it's as simple as that. Particularly with GOE's and with the entire PCS setup. I believe there is still wide enough latitude for unhealthy manipulation to take place. And I have always been against judge scoring anonymity, it abets the possibility (probability) of manipulation.
Wally, you can spout GOP rules and regulations like an Army drill sargeant all day long, but it still doesn't obscure the issue for me--that Chan was overscored (or others were underscored).
Last edited by bigsisjiejie; 11-19-2010 at 10:01 AM.
all the -3s are wrong marks because Chans SlSt was for sure no GOE 0 to start the evaluation from. If you think the SlSt was +1 and then reduce for the fall the obligory -3 you end up in GOE -2, or a judge started from +2 then -3 and endet up in -1
You have to be in Minus because of the fall, but both GOE -1 and GOE -2 are both a rule correct mark for this SlSt
Re:SlSt2 that Chan had in his SC SP, given that a fall is not an automatic -3 GOE, the judges certainly was within in their rights to consider mitigating actors in diminishing the impact of the falls. In fact, judges are instructed to consider the element as a whole and score the element as though it's error free before considering the impact of the error. So say a judge would have given Chan +2 without the mistake, then +2 - 3 = -1 In Step Sequences, more than jumps, and we see it in Ice Dance mostly - falls don't and shouldn't result in automatic -3. Crone/Poirier and Davis/White are examples of that. Why? Because unlike jumps, which lasts about 1-2 second or so in the air, + maybe 2-3 seconds on landing, a step sequence is a lot longer and relatively, a fall on a St is a much smaller part of the whole element vs. a fall on a jump. Hence, it is not a surprise different judges come up with more varied GOE when an error happens on a St. In my opinion, those judges who gave Chan -3 on the SlSt erred by not considering the element as a whole since it was unlikely the element would have scored 0 GOE without error.
Granted, not everyone look at a same thing in the exact same way, hence there are usually 9 judges, not just one person. However, so long as they are following the correct underlying principles. does it really matter there are reasonable difference in opinion?
Last edited by wallylutz; 11-19-2010 at 10:06 AM.