And, too, I wonder if committed skating fans shouldn't be careful what they wish for; sure, these developments might make skaters and general audiences happier, but I sometimes muse that we skating fans are a masochistic lot, and would feel positively deflated without controversial calls to parse endlessly.
When I watch a tennis match on TV I am constantly wuzrobbing the computerized line-calling technology. After a close call they show a purported picture of the ball landing clearly out.
Completely agree with this.
-As far as the "artistic" components of PCS are concerned, which are by definition analogue in nature, they are potentially amenable to accuracy (eg comparative ranking), but are resistant to fine precision (that is to say, better by how much?). This will always be true.
-In practice, the "technical" components face similar issues (due to the real-time, high speed nature of many elements, and the very subtle and fine-grained distinctions that need to be made by human beings in the heat of the moment). In principle, however, and in contrast to the artistic aspect, the technical components should be susceptible to higher degrees of quantification and measurement than is currently the case.
Measurement: the bottleneck is the limitations of human perception. A strictly quantitative measure of rotation (3, or 2.75) is used for a triple-jump, for example, but the measuring device is the human eye and the human brain, which works qualitatively. Even with the aid of slow-motion, it's not always clear-cut. In the longer term, it may be feasible to alleviate this bottleneck through a form of machine scoring, using digital motion capture technology and software.
Quantification: As a consequence of such developments, it's possible to envision more strictly quantified definitions of many, if not all, technical elements, including jumps, spins, spirals, speed, deep edging, etc., as well as GOE bullets (speed, height, ice coverage, flexibility, et al). The current definitions, which are often neither completely fish nor fowl, are necessarily the way they are because they need to be applied by human beings using imperfect tools of measurement.
-The issues with going digital: Institutional conservatism, inertia and politics, for one. And the not inconsiderable cost and effort involved, for another. But I'm of the view that all sports will be going down this road eventually, although some of them may not yet know it. At some point, though (IMHO), such technologies will be sufficiently established in the wider sporting world, and the costs will have come down so significantly, that figure skating will find it difficult to hold out, given the benefits that it offers to such a technically opaque sport.
And, too, I wonder if committed skating fans shouldn't be careful what they wish for; sure, these developments might make skaters and general audiences happier, but I sometimes muse that we skating fans are a masochistic lot, and would feel positively deflated without controversial calls to parse endlessly.
I really wont interfere in the conversation but many fans (and posters here) and some other skaters like Joubert and Lambiel -who have a small nose btw
- have talked about holes in the new system and have expressed some judging about it. We are all used to judge anything in fs and CoP except for leaving the skaters do the same as we do all day.
, but if you are not prepared to accept that explanation then figure skating is not for you.
But you wouldn't dare question it if the ISU included the landing of jumps to be computerized for wrong edge takeoffs on the Jumbo Thon. I believe the Tech Panel has the sole privilege of watching this action for the scoring of competitions. That cartoon showing is how the Tech Panels sees the Wets, and the URs. Is that ok? Should the public see it too?When I watch a tennis match on TV I am constantly wuzrobbing the computerized line-calling technology. After a close call they show a purported picture of the ball landing clearly out.
Balony! That's a computer-generated virtual cartoon of a wholly imaginary flattened sphere crossing a line that exists only in the software's tangle of 0's and 1's.
But there are fans who see the CoP as divinely written. It's best to ignore that group.I really wont interfere in the conversation but many fans (and posters here) and some other skaters like Joubert and Lambiel -who have a small nose btw
Not everyone thinks that way, but you are entitled to your beliefs.
Actually, in spite of everything, I am not really against the CoP. It is an attenpt to paint a veneer of objectivity over a subjective endeavor.
Jessica Dubé )
I wrote "kind of", and left it open for some anti N.Americans to gang up when they learn how to do it. However, I have not noticed that since 6.0 was disgraced in 2002 Olympics. However if you believe CoP does not discourage collusion, can you give examples?
