Right? I still don't get the costume, though.Originally Posted by christinaskater
Right? I still don't get the costume, though.
That is not correct. Gachinski's fall on the 4T ensured that jump will pretty much have -3 across the board even without the connecting steps to make it into a solo jump. Given that the 4T was not followed by another jump, he was in fact free to tackle a 3T behind his 3Lo and would have gotten credit for the 3/3 combo and if well executed, positive GOE as well. I am not sure what your confusion is but listed element vs. actually executed are different things and skaters are allowed to deviate from their planned elements without adverse impact so long as they abide by the SP rules.
Pogue meant that if the Quad had been planned as a solo Quad and the Loop had been planned as 3Loop-3Toe, then would Gachinski have also gotten -3 GOE on the Loop for not doing it in combination.
In actuality what is "listed" shouldn't matter at all and whenever there is a case like that, the jumping pass that is preceded by less of a linking movement should be counted as the combination jump.
Any youtubes/videos? Thanks...
Ah O.K., I understand why IP was confused now. But no, there was no such risk. Even if Gachinski has listed 3Lo+3T and 4T as his solo jump and only did a 3Lo, it would be assumed that the 4T was the missed combo jump and 3Lo will count as the solo jump because the logic is if the skater had really intend to the 3Lo to be the combo, he/she would have attached a jump behind it. Whenever a skater failed a combination due to fall and the 2nd jump was never initiated, there is no GOE penalty if the other jump has no combination. Think of it this way, supposed Gachinski has done the 3Lo first as a solo jump, it became abundantly clear that the failed 4T that followed was intended to be the combo jump, so the GOE of the first jump will not be retroactively adjusted. So whether the 3Lo was executed before or after the failed 4T really doesn't matter. It's same logic when a skater did two identical Triple/Quad in the FS but without the 2nd one being in combo or sequence, the panel will automatically assume that the 2nd jump intends to be combo/sequence, thus, add + SEQ behind and block out one of the 3 combo slots. These scoring systems are designed to be logical, and are often made in a way to give the skaters' the benefits of the doubts but they are not without limitations, just Oda who got the raw end of such "logical design" way too many times.
FYI, the issue of linking movements or connecting steps is harder to ascertain because both jumps could potentially be preceded by such movements/steps making determination on such, unreliable. However, if the solo jump was not preceded by the proper movements after a fall on a previous intended combo jump, judges could in theory deduct the 2nd jump accordingly for failure to execute the proper steps. But in most cases, skaters chose to do a combo jump whenever they fell on the first one, hence also making the issue of CS moot since you can't give more than -3 for GOE, so the fall already ensured the first fall being -3 with or without connecting steps.
Last edited by wallylutz; 11-25-2011 at 07:00 PM.
I can't think of one who does a 3loop 3 toe combo!
Kevin Reynolds
It just seems rare that anything comes after a loop except a loop
Thanks wally. I thought otherwise.... he says redundantly.
The thing is, though, on Christina Gao's protocol it shows the +COMBO next to her popped lutz, and her planned combo was most likely the flip+toe.
That hand down is part of the choreography, no reason for a deduction.
That's exactly what I was trying to explain just above. I guess I was unclear. The "Logic" of COP is to give skaters the most benefits when they make unexpected mistakes. Gao had error on the 3F, causing her to miss the intended combo. Instead of giving that jump a mandatory -3 GOE across the board as prescribed by the rule, the Technical Panel noted that the 1Lz that followed is the combo instead, and since a 1Lz in a combo or not, is a mandatory -3 for GOE due to less than required revolutions, Gao is being saved from being hit twice with two mandatory -3 GOE for just one - on the 1Lz. The panel is actually doing Christina a favor instead of second guessing what her intentions really were since we just don't know and none of us are reliably telepathic. I hope this is clearer now.
a) I recognize that
b) As did the panel
c) Panels aren't always consistent
d) Jeremy invites panels to take a closer look at the part of his footwork, where he places the hand down.
e) If they decided that Jeremy's hand down consistutes a fall, he could get a deduction, GOE penalty and a level penalty.
f) A related example would be Brian Joubert's 07/08 SP. Despite skating it multiple times and not getting any music penalty, at Worlds, with that specific technical panel, he did get a music deduction. Another one would be the exit from V/M's The Goose or the ending of their Flamenco OD. There were rumours that each specific maneuver would be judged illegal, despite not being so at previous competitions. Instead of taking the risk at the Olympics, they changed the exist from The Goose. At Worlds, the rumours were about the OD, and they changed that. They decided that it wasn't worth the risk.
g) To me, despite being a lovely moment, I would echo that conclusion here - it's not worth the risk.
I liked Abbott a lot more here than in China. Yuzuru's program wasn't too bad b/c he did the rest of his program well after the blotched quad. I don't agree with how close Yuzuru's and Gachinski's PCS are though, but that is just personal taste. Really like Brezina's SP probably b/c of the music choice and I don't think he needs to go for a quad in the SP if he gets decent GOEs from his 3F-3T which is really beautiful.
Agreed. The hand-down did not contribute anything but awkwardness and abruptness and confusion to viewers like me. It was unnecessary and therefore it's not worth the risk (to gain what????).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks