It seems to me that the skaters and judges are doing their job. Chan shouldn't be blamed or hated for this. What people are complaining about is the scoring system that allows very flawed programs to win.
In that case, maybe falls should be penalized more, instead of a one point deduction, a five point deduction. Three falls for Chan, or anybody else would take them off the podium.
Chan fell four times. Deducting 16 more points from his total would give him 211.21. Removing the extra eight points from Abbott (who fell twice) would give him 209.21. The podium at CoR wouldn't change.Originally Posted by Bruin714
It seems to me that the skaters and judges are doing their job. Chan shouldn't be blamed or hated for this. What people are complaining about is the scoring system that allows very flawed programs to win.
In that case, maybe falls should be penalized more, instead of a one point deduction, a five point deduction. Three falls for Chan, or anybody else would take them off the podium.
I don't want to see skaters being punished by trying harder jumps. I think one fall on quad should be above a clean program without quad. And the quad is the most likely jump to have falls and deductions. So maybe the better solution is to keep -1 deduction for the first fall, and give -3 for the second fall, -5 for the third fall, and so on.
No one is complaining about the podium placement. What they're saying is Chan would win had he not add the 3T after his 2A. The deduction would make it impossible for him. Isn't this what people got worked up about?
I would actually have a system you are deducted 5 additional points for the 2nd fall, 15 additional points for the 3rd fall, 30 additional points for the 4th fall. Make it nearly impossible for many fall programs to win or even medal, which is exactly how it should be. As the risks part know if you try the quad and fall it can be fine as long as you dont fall on another jump and for sure dont fall on two more jumps.
Last edited by pangtongfan; 11-22-2010 at 01:51 PM.
In FS Chan can’t handle choreography he is given, so he can’t’ get high marks for this. His Interpretation and Performance/Execution was awful and he was over scored by judges, with performance like COR he should get around 4 or 5 and get seventh place overall. There was zero connection to the music and audience.
Judges had some mushrooms again. They are ruining the sport.
I feel sorry for young skaters who working very hard to skate clean programs and then get mislead by watching competitions like men SC and COR
LOL, those suggestions about falls are ridiculous.
The elements themselves just need a much bigger reduction in value from -GOE. And judges need to stop giving high PCS for crappy performances just because of a skater's "name".
Within the same program, right?.
So Chan would lose 20 more points (the first fall in each program maintaining only the -1 deduction) and Abbott losing 5 (first fall in LP maintaining). Well, Chan would drop off the podium, but only by .09. He'd still be on if he didn't do the fourth combo error.
What we have to weigh here is that Chan was given a +1 for an incomplete quad which negated a -1 for a Fall. Is that fair? Does the lack of continuity of a flawed program show up in the PC scores?It seems to me that the skaters and judges are doing their job. Chan shouldn't be blamed or hated for this. What people are complaining about is the scoring system that allows very flawed programs to win.
In that case, maybe falls should be penalized more, instead of a one point deduction, a five point deduction. Three falls for Chan, or anybody else would take them off the podium.
Yes within the same program of course. Basically if you have 3 actual falls in a program, not just stumbles/touchdowns/pops or mistakes, your score should always suck and under those rules it would no matter what.
So Chan if he falls 3 times in one of his programs (like the short at Skate Canada or the long here in Russia) would struggle to even maybe get 3rd place at a grand prix event with mediocre field and mostly mediocre skating? That makes sense. It would make alot more sense to the general public which is already increasingly alienated from the sport in recent years anyway. Basically nobody should do well with that many falls.
Then in an event like 2006 Turin Olympics with Sasha losing an additional 5 points for a 2nd fall (assuming it was counted as such), and if Irina wasnt so overscored for one of her worst ever performances, someone like Suguri could have been 2nd then if she didnt double one jump, which as it was she couldnt have medaled even with anyway.
Last edited by pangtongfan; 11-22-2010 at 08:37 PM.
Why it's ridiculous? What is crappy performance? How much PCS should a crappy performance worth? There is no clear cut. If there is no clear cut, defferent judge will treat the same situation differently with subjectivity involved. Same as -GOEs. Too subjective to make it reliable, I think.
Wouldn't Denis Ten at Skate America have a negative score with that rule? Are you willing to go to 60 points for the 5th fall? Quick check says that nope, he would've stayed on the plus side of the 0 barrier. Scoring something like 2 points.
That's very true.
2 points would have been a good score for his Ten's 5 fall performance there anyway. It would have ensured him last place and for that many falls when he isnt even that great a skater to begin with, it would be about right.
I will take that over skaters winning gold medals with 4 falls over clean performances by main competitors since they have good skating skills anyday.
I think that's an even better suggestion. I agree that if a skater falls on a difficult quad, he would only lose 1 point. Now in the same program, if there's two falls, that should receive a more severe deduction. And three falls should make even Chan, Taka, Yuna, Davis & White, Virtue & Moir, S&S, and any other competitor out of medal contention. (The same applied to Browning, Kwan, Cohen, Slutskaya, Gordeava & Grinkov, etc.)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks