Obviously this should be applied across the board for all skaters. Carolina Kostner's CH and INT were destroyed by her fall on the final jump, and that should have been reflected in her scores.
It would definitely be possible for next season for the ISU to encourage judges to lower their PCS more for programs with disruptive and/or multiple errors.
That alone won't guarantee that programs with errors won't win or that the cleanest program will win. But it would make close contests more likely to tip in that direction.
For future seasons there could also be adjustments to the -GOE values and the fall deductions so that falls and other failed elements would be more costly.
More radically, there could also be further changes to the number of elements in short vs. long program and/or to the PCS factors for each program, to give the free program more weight, or there could be a different way of combining the results of the two programs instead of just adding the scores. I don't expect these changes in the immediate future.
Again, all of these would make it more likely that a skater who does reasonably well in the short program and wins the freeskate with the cleanest long program would win the title. None of these changes would guarantee that a skater with no falls will always beat a skater with falls. Sometimes one skater is enough better overall than the one(s) with the cleaner programs that s/he can afford a mistake or two and still deserve to win. That's true at all levels of competition.
I felt Chan's SP was overscored as were his CH, PE, and IN in the LP.
But I think even without a change of rules the PCS bullets could be interpreted with a little more common sense. Just to grab a couple of bullets at random, here are two from Choreography and Cpmposition:
Is falling on your butt a "purposeful threading of movement?" Is it "necessary to the whole?" Does it serve an "underlying vision?"*Unity – purposeful threading of all movements.
A program achieves unity when: every step, movement, and element is motivated by the music. As well, all its parts, big or small, seem necessary to the whole, and there is an underlying vision or symbolic meaning that threads together the entire composition.
Well, I guess finishing your highlight element with a splat is "finding a conclusion." But it greatly detracts from building energy, easy flow into the next phrase, etc. When a skater has multiple falls he has not carried out the intent or the details of his choreography. He should not get choreo marks in the eights or nines.*Phrasing and Form (movement and parts are structured to match the phrasing of the music).
A phrase is a unit of movement marked by an impulse of energy that grows, builds, finds a conclusion, and then flows easily and naturally into the next movement phrase.
This is a problem that could be addressed without any rule changes at all.
The original PCS guidelines advised judges consider what percentage of the program met the criteria for each component. 100% of the time would be worth 10.0, 90% would be worth 9.0, etc.Well, I guess finishing your highlight element with a splat is "finding a conclusion." But it greatly detracts from building energy, easy flow into the next phrase, etc. When a skater has multiple falls he has not carried out the intent or the details of his choreography. He should not get choreo marks in the eights or nines.
There is a problem with that approach for other reasons -- e.g., it would be possible to meet the criteria just adequately throughout the program, whereas someone else might meet them exceptionally well for 90% of the program and not at all for the other 10%. So who would deserve a higher score for that component?
But even simplifying to look just at percentage of time, a 4- or 4 1/2 minute program is 240 or 270 seconds.
Let's say the average fall disrupts the program for 3 seconds.
If the rest of the program meets all the choreography criteria for the entire rest of the program, then a senior skater who is otherwise deserving of 10.0 for the rest of the program could easily deserve to still stay in the 9s just going only by percentage of time.
If the skater gets up and is back in the program immediately afterward, that's not much of a disruption.
If the skater has moved on but the viewer is still thinking
"Oh no, she fell! How many points will that lose? She'll never win now! There go her chances to qualify for (Worlds, Grand Prix Final, third spot for next year, etc.) Thank goodness I have a clean copy of the program from [earlier competition] that I can rewatch when I just want to enjoy the program"
"Wow, he fell! Bwahaha! Now my favorite actually has a chance to win after all, if only the judges will penalize that fall enough. They'd better, but I know those judges' tricks. They'll probably hold him up as usual..."
Well, those thoughts may last a lot longer than 3 seconds and disrupt the viewer's aesthetic experience of the program. But most of that disruption is happening inside the viewer's head, not in what the skater is doing on the ice.
Of course, most skaters don't start out close to 10.0 or even 9.0 to begin with, because the quality of how they meet the criteria is not topnotch or because they waver in and out of meeting them while busy concentrating on setting up elements. But if they lose only 5% of their the potential time doing good stuff to falls and recovery, why should we expect their PCS to drop by more than 5%?
Yes, without any outright rule changes the technical committees could issue guidelines encouraging judges to penalize more for falls in the PCS. And even without such official guidelines, individual judges could decide to do so on their own and could discuss their reasoning with other judges and maybe convince them to do the same.This is a problem that could be addressed without any rule changes at all.
But I still don't think you're going to see a couple of breaks of a couple seconds each leading to penalties worth 10% or more of the PCS as a whole. That's not how the PCS are designed.
There is a thread started about who is going to make the olympic team next year from, u.s.a., canada.russia. You.fans only list a few skater,from each country primarily the skaterwho finished in top two in each country.
And you wonder why it is going down, you also ignore the fact you might upset the skaters fans not listed. Why should we continue vto watch or pay attention if our skater\team dont have a shot now. Why help other skaters, teams if they arent being backed or in it and constantly critized for every mistake( I am not talking about patrick chan here or ashley wagner ) . I am talking about teams skaters who have every little mistake pointed out.
By ignoring those skaters you also,give way reason foropeople not to watch now.
What is,compelling,if,the,teams are,already made,for,the olympic team,now.,why shouldnt the other skaters fans be upset and not watch and tell others not to watch . The,teams, podium winners are already made out now. No reason to,watch by that I mean , patrick, yuna, v/t, d\w, v/m, s/s, mao, daisuke,carolina, either denis ten or javier, p/b, b\s will be kn podijm despite falls, pops, urs, wrong edge because undet ijs these are the skaters who work system are favored in pcs despite blantant mistakes in short,.long program.
W should anyone care outside of their fans to watch spread the spory. Even in shows the skater skates to ijs system , not fans
Using a ne phone and n oi t use to it yet or speed in typing
thank you for pointing it out to this elder. I was going to say old foegy but not sure if spelled correctly..
IMHO falls on what were supposed to be choreographic highlights greatly diminish the value of the performance as a whole, no matter how fast the skater gets up.
Last edited by Mathman; 04-01-2013 at 11:25 PM.
The fallacy that I detect in gkelly's explanation is that it measures the magnitude of disruption simply in terms of the time not spent correctly executing the program. This is just not persuasive in the artistic sense. If a pianist were playing a Bach fugue, and kept hitting B-sharp when he should be playing B-flat, can it still be considered a good performance, if the percentage of wrong notes was only, let us say, 1% of the total played? This is clearly nonsensical. The disruption to the performance, when one judges the quality of it, would be catastrophic. The pianist would be lucky not to be met with a hail of whatever detritus was immediately at hand in the concert hall, and probably well before he stopped playing.
Any scoring guideline needs to make at least an effort to correspond to a notion of aesthetic effect, whose scale of measurement must be constructed on its own terms. Debate may be required as to what that scale should look like, but it certainly doesn't look like a timetable.
In fact, skating competition is both, but the aesthetic considerations are there more as 1) evidence of technical control and 2) extra enhancements to increase enjoyment -- for the skaters as well as the spectators -- if they happen to be so inclined.
So purely aesthetic considerations completely unrelated to technique are only a small portion of each component, although an increasingly larger proportion moving down the list from Skating Skills to Interpretation.
Aesthetic considerations that are related to technique are the bulk of the PCS and can also play some part in the GOEs.
Obviously glaring mistakes are technical failures as well as aesthetic failures. But how much, and how, should they be penalized in a competition that is primarily athletic and technical? The answer would clearly be different in a contest that was primarily focused on artistic impact -- which is not what ISU-style competition is about.
I'm not arguing that proportion of time disrupted is or should be the sole or primary determinant of the PCS.The fallacy that I detect in gkelly's explanation is that it measures the magnitude of disruption simply in terms of the time not spent correctly executing the program.
What I am arguing is looking at the proportion of time that each criterion is fulfilled (as opposed to disrupted) was originally built into the guidelines that the judges use to determine PCS. It's not as if everyone starts at 6.0 (old system) or 10.0 and loses points for errors. Skaters need to build up the PCS points in the first place. Any time spent making mistakes will usually take away from positive qualities they could have been displaying during that time. But how much does it take away, compared to how many positive qualities demonstrated in the vast majority of the program?
It doesn't need to be persuasive in the artistic sense because competitive figure skating is not an art contest. Approaching the sport as if it were primarily an aesthetic competition is a fundamental theoretical fallacy.This is just not persuasive in the artistic sense.
Any guideline for scoring aesthetic impact to some degree should make an effort to correspond to a notion of aesthetic effect to approximately the same degree.Any scoring guideline needs to make at least an effort to correspond to a notion of aesthetic effect, whose scale of measurement must be constructed on its own terms.
But if the purpose of the guideline is to score mastery of skills --- including but not limited to or even dominated by the aesthetic effect of those skills -- then the negative effects of brief disruptions would not be as significant as if the purpose of the guideline were solely to measure aesthetic effect.
I think it probably would be a good idea to revise the guidelines to explicitly encourage judges to reflect errors with lower PCS marks. But I don't think it would be a good idea to determine a priori that a performance with one or two falls could never deserve scores in the 9s or 8s.
Here's a performance with one fall (at 1:49-1:53 -- i.e., the recovery wasn't even all that quick). Judges at the time agreed it was either the best or second-best freeskate of the night, and the Artistic Impression scores ranged from 5.8 to 6.0.
If judged under IJS, what kind of program component scores do you think this performance would deserve?