What are the most glaring examples of cheating using the CoP within the last 5 years?
So we all know the CoP is a total mess and that it doesn't really do anything to address judges playing favorites and cheating. So what are the most glaring examples of the judges totally abusing the CoP system in recent memory? Obviously Patrick Chan didn't deserve to win at Worlds this year and probably not at Worlds last year either. Ashley Wagner should probably have been 3rd at US Nationals this past year and DEFINITELY not the winner. I'm sorry, but when you land on your behind twice in the middle of your long program, you should automatically be out of the running for a gold medal. Any other atrocious examples?
This thread is going to be the usual nightmare.
Ashley Wagner deserved to be the US Champion. Yes she fell, but Gracie Gold made mistakes in the short, and the short program counts. Just because Gracie Gold skated a clean long it doesn't mean she's the overall winner, and Ashley Wagner skates with a lot more character and maturity than Gracie Gold which really helps.
I think Caroline Zhang was scored very harshly at US Nationals, I think it was her 3L-3L that was downgraded, when it really shouldn't have been. Her performances were great and she didn't get the credit for them. Same in terms of Mirai Nagasu's long in my opinion.
I'm sorry but I'm not going to give my opinion about this, because of one simple reason:
Originally Posted by bump
I disagree with these two statements that are practically this thread's starting point...
Originally Posted by bump
The major problem with this judging system is that mistakes visible to the naked eye are or seem to be less important than those that cannot be seen easily, like flutzes and ur's. Mirai Nagasu has often skated a clean-looking program only to fall several places in the standings due to these "invisible" errors, and Carolina Kostner and Patrick Chan rarely skate clean but do so well with things like edging and knee bends that they rack up more points than clean-skaters. I don't know if anybody is cheating, but what the judges are focusing on is not what can be seen on television and certainly not from up in the stands.
There is another reason why the point system seems to be failing that nobody wants to talk about: None of our current skaters are very good compared to those in the past. Yes, I know the tricks are harder, but think about it. Can you see ANY of them, (save for YuNa) getting a row of 6.0's? Ever?
It's like they made this tremendously detailed grading system to determine which person who messed up in the long program should be put ahead of who messed up in the short program, or will they both be behind the person who skated clean but too slow?
I actually think you'd have the same problems with this current crop of skaters under any system, only we'd be like why did Carolina get a 5.8 when she fell, and why did Patrick still get a 5.7 with all his errors?
If/when someone who skated really well and usually clean emerges on the scene, that person will win fair and square and everyone will agree. I hope, LOL!
At the rink. Again.
Oh, no, Caroline was fairly scored at Nationals technically. The 3Lo+3Lo was definitely < and </<< (borderline between UR and DG) in replay. Caroline DID get credit for her PERFORMANCES - she got fairly high PCS. The thing she needs to work on is her skating skills to improve EVERYTHING (which I have been saying since she was in Juniors and which she REALLY hasn't done which is because she has a lot of lovely qualities but her basic skating is atrocious for a Senior lady).
Originally Posted by ffionhanathomas
Nagasu's long the jumps weren't even borderline - so obvious in real time and worse in replay. I had her ~ 5th overall without even doing the math just watching the LP because it was very clear this was going to be a low-scoring program technically.
If it was about cleanliness only, Hicks would have been National Champion over the two programs and that's something else I can't get behind.
I agree. Those "invisible" errors shouldn't that harshly penalized. They don't ruin the program nearly as much as the falls. I personally don't even care if somebody flutzes of lips, as long as the jump is landed.
Originally Posted by Poodlepal
Flutzing is actually easy to recognize when you're used to seeing a correct Lutz and it bothers me a whole lot. And of course cheating (yes, CHEATING) should always be penalized. What's the use of having detailed scoring system when you don't even encourage to jump with correct technique? When you look at the protocols It's not very "harshly" penalized anymore, resulting in GOEs of about -0.3 to -0.7. When you do a poor cheated 3Lz and receive the score the same as or more than that of a fine 3F, it's just not right. I guess this is where I and 6.0 supporters disagree.
All the examples given are "Decisions I disagree with" -- in most examples, because the poster disagrees with the rules, not that the judges weren't following the rules.
That's not cheating.
Blatant examples of judges, or technical panel members, cheating would be blatantly not following the rules, in some systematic manner to produce a desired results.
Of course, with the way the ISU scrambles the scores in the protocols at the senior international events, there's no way to identify a systematic pattern of incorrect scores, only individual mistakes.
But since some posts in this thread mention US Nationals, those scores are not anonymous; they're listed in order by judge number. If you think someone is cheating, you could study their marks for all the skaters and see whether you see a consistent pattern or not. Make sure to consider whether the scores you think are "bad" are really incorrect according to the rules, or just not in agreement with your personal opinion.
In colloquial use within the skating community, the word "cheating" is often used to refer to underrotated jumps. It's not really considered a moral failing on the part of the skater, but it does mean that the skater didn't really complete the jump as intended. To casual viewers who haven't trained their eyes to notice degrees of rotation, this error might appear "invisible" -- but even under 6.0 scoring, judges noticed. And skaters who did rotate their jumps noticed and resented it when they lost to skaters who didn't.
So along those lines "glaring examples of cheating" would be jumps that were so badly underrotated that even a casual viewer would see there was something wrong, without even waiting for slow motion replay.
You have no proof at all on any of your claims.
Originally Posted by bump
If you say that the system is gravely flawed, it might nail something. But if you say the judges are cheating, where?! I'm sorry but just because you don't like some skaters the way the judges like, it doesn't mean they are cheating. It only means that you are totally biased and playing favorites yourself!
Uh oh...CoP apologists all over the place. Sigh...well, if anyone that has two eyes and can see what is obviously going on wants to pipe up, please do. Let's face it...judges still play favorites and, yes, cheat deserving skaters out of winning. Let's get some folks commenting on this thread that aren't in love with the current scoring system. Come on, guys!!
Originally Posted by Poodlepal
Query, however, whether there would have been as much disagreement, or any disagreement at all, if Denis Ten had won the gold.
Perhaps a problem with the sport is that it is too closed and it is becoming ever more so. Where most people cannot agree or understand the results, and those results are vigorously defended, what is really being said is that the sport reflects the values of the few but not the many. It really does not bode well for the popularity of the sport or for the popular respect of its integrity. People can defend the results, believing them to be correct, but eventually other people are just going to stop watching. That is the danger ever becoming more real. No one wants that, do they?
Originally Posted by Bluebonnet
Ok, let's carry on!!!
During Skate Canada International Debbie Wilkes and Liz Manley commentated in the arena after the skater was completed. They did little bio info stuff and they also commented on the program itself. While I disagree with the timing of the commentary (during judges scoring), I did enjoy the analysis of the elements of the program. This allowed me to see what the judges were seeing and justified the TES mark for me. As for the PCS, I find there has to be a better system for that as I do believe that reputation scoring is very evident. Someone placed this on Youtube as a comparison of Transistion marks of Yuna Kim and Kaetlyn Osmond.
Should Kim have outscored Osmond in TR by 1.5 points? Or did Kim benefit from Reputation judging?