Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 63

Thread: What are the most glaring examples of cheating using the CoP within the last 5 years?

  1. #31
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,854
    Joe Inman and his email which may have only been the tip of the iceberg in what was going on against plushenko!

  2. #32
    Custom Title plushyfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3,026
    Quote Originally Posted by gmyers View Post
    Joe Inman and his email which may have only been the tip of the iceberg in what was going on against plushenko!
    and 2 judges, who scored Plushenko's SP at 22nd and 23rd places in Vancouver.

  3. #33
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,965
    Quote Originally Posted by plushyfan View Post
    and the 2 judges, who scored Plushenko's SP at 22nd and 23rd places in Vancouver.
    No one scored his whole SP in 22nd or 23rd place -- if you could separate out a single judge's column of GOEs and PCS, add those scores to the technical calls, and figure out rankings, all of the judges would have had Plushenko in the top group, if not all in first place.

    Some of them did score him that low just on Transitions, if that's what you're referring to.

  4. #34
    Custom Title plushyfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3,026
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    No one scored his whole SP in 22nd or 23rd place -- if you could separate out a single judge's column of GOEs and PCS, add those scores to the technical calls, and figure out rankings, all of the judges would have had Plushenko in the top group, if not all in first place.

    Some of them did score him that low just on Transitions, if that's what you're referring to.
    Right. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbbfflDE4PE look at please..

    and read this, please https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...7FZ2nxIQQ/edit

  5. #35
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    5,489
    He was scored pretty harshly on Transitions, but to be fair, he really doesn't have the transitions that most of the field has if we're being completely honest. He even said that himself. The fact that Inman sent that email though is shady and yes, it likely did compromise Plushenko's scores. But not so much out of the realm of reason. 6.00 is harsh for TR for Plushenko, but anything above an 8.50 is too generous and something he usually only gets when he jumps clean (because a clean skate translates to high PCS across the board if you're a top skater anyways).

    I wouldn't say there's blatant cheating but we could name a million GOE examples that are questionable... e.g. Mao getting positive GOE for her clearly two-footed 3A in the SP, or Kostner getting mainly -2's for a fall (that wasn't even called as UR'ed), or Chan getting a +3 on his less-than-ideal 4T-3T in the SP.

    As with Chan, the Germans and Kostner, it's evident that judges will use good PCS to prop up skaters, even with errors. This can be construed as cheating if they're deliberately exhibiting favouritism and not penalizing these skaters, while holding down cleaner skaters who might not be as artistically developed but still skate lights out.

  6. #36
    At the rink. Again. mskater93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,235
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    My solution to this would be to make the fall deduction subtract a percentage of the total segment score rather than a flat 1.0.
    This would be easier than having different flat amounts for each level and each discipline.
    I suggested something similar last year (and the year before) when there was the hoo-ha about winning with 5 falls. It should be a % off the TSS not just the TES because if you are doing a bucketload of transitions into and out of elements, you should suffer on both marks because more than likely the transitions into/out of your elements made you do it (fall)....

    Also, I suggested such because it should be a risk-reward proposition. If you are going to risk going after the bigger elements, you get a bigger score but if you FAIL at them in some way, you should lose more. It's like gambling: if you play a nickel slot and you lose, you only lose a nickel and if you win, your winnings are moderate but if you play $100 slots and you lose, you lose $100 ($100 >>>>> $0.05) but if you win, your winnings will be much considerable. It still becomes your choice on how much and what to pack in the program.

    AND a percentage is scalable. 1% of a 200 point program is 2 points (which is a Senior Men's World podium program score, let's say) and 1% of 100 points is 1 (which is a final round Senior lady's FS program at Worlds) and 1% of 50 points is 0.5 (which is about an average US Intermediate FS score) and 1% of 25 is 0.25 (which is about an average US Adult Gold FS score). Now, the Intermediate is less disadvantaged when trying that 2A for the first time in competition if she falls (only losing about 1/2 what was being lost before) and that Gold level skater is less disadvantaged when putting that 1A back in their program.

  7. #37
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,829
    Do you know if this petitioner received a response from Mr. Rogge?

  8. #38
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    5,489
    That % thing sets up a double standard though. It essentially means that falls should be more severe if the skater performs better overall, but for an inferior skater the falls are less of a deduction.

  9. #39
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,829
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy View Post
    That % thing sets up a double standard though. It essentially means that falls should be more severe if the skater performs better overall, but for an inferior skater the falls are less of a deduction.
    This pinpoints what is wrong with the CoP. If we stick strictly to the principles on which the CoP was founded, we get screwy and unacceptable results. The only way to avoid this seems to be to compromise the CoPs basic idea.

    To me, the conclusion is that the culprit is the basic idea of the Cop in the first place. Tinkering and tailoring will not make the problems go away.

  10. #40
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,965
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy View Post
    That % thing sets up a double standard though. It essentially means that falls should be more severe if the skater performs better overall, but for an inferior skater the falls are less of a deduction.
    True, but the counterargument is that the better-performing skater can afford it better. The reason for proposing this change is that the 1.0 deduction is negligible at the elite level, especially for senior men, because the scores for everything else are so much higher at that level. At the upper end of the PCS range, the gaps between the best and the next-best skater can be large enough to cushion the skater with 9s against a skater with 8s so that falls won't have much if any impact on his placement. Even among the lower-ranked senior men, if a skater with PCS in the 5s falls a couple of times, he will be more likely to lose placements because the next-best skater with comparable technical content and no falls is likely to be closer in the PCS range.

    Plus it makes the size of the fall deductions more commensurate with the points available for elements and PCS at lower levels, as mskater93 points out.

  11. #41
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    5,489
    But shouldn't a fall have the same severity for everyone? While I agree for lower levels it reduces the severity, but why not just make it 0.5 or 0.25 deductions for falls at lower levels (which is the case for lower competitions, like Adult Nationals in Canada, and whatnot).

    Perhaps there should be a bonus for triples or quads that are successfully landed instead? I know there's positive GOE and flutzing and all that too consider, but in gymnastics, you're awarded bonus for movements you end up successfully executing and then receive deductions for major errors... so both are in tandem.

    I think CoP does do this in a sense with GOE, but a program done by a junior skater with 7 triples should really score higher than a program done by a senior skater with 4 triples and falls, in the grand scheme of things.

  12. #42
    At the rink. Again. mskater93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,235
    A percentage would make it the same level of severity for everyone. As I said - it should be risk-reward. You take a big risk by packing a program with 2 quads, 2 3As and busy transitions and if you fall, you should take a bigger hit (like gambling - you only lose $0.05 playing nickel slots one at a time but you lose $1 at dollar slots one at a time but if you win on the $1 slots, you are probably going to get 20X what the guy winning nickel slots won; you have to decide which is right for you).

    In the same way, you choose what elements go in the program based on that risk-reward proposition and maybe you conciously choose to reduce the busy transitions into and out of elements to improve your jump hit rate and get an 8 for transitions instead of a 9 but don't lose the 2 points on a 200 point program for the fall. Then you get a win-win situation - the fans of a given skater can say "see, even with a 1% deduction per fall my guy STILL won because his content was more difficult than everyone else's and he could afford a fall or two (or five )" OR cleaner programs with slightly reduced content/transitions end up on the podium/winning and casual fans don't scratch their heads and wonder how the heck that happend.

  13. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,147
    Atleast 60% of Chan's wins and every single one of his scores.

    The no doubt Shpilband politiked bronze medal of the Shibutanis in 2011.

    The bronze medals of Pechalat & Bourzat over a superior Weaver & Poje (who were already robbed by the Shibutanis) in 2012.

    The string of wins, mostly all undeserved, of the now retired Vanessa Crone & forever overrated Paul Poirier over the always unlucky and underscored Weaver & Poje in 2010 and 2011.

    The generous over the top scores of comebacking heroes Shen & Zhao in 2010, and the obvious federation dumpage of the Zhangs that same year.

    The federation dumpage of Pang & Tong in favor of the Zhangs in 2008 and 2009.

    The undeserved World title of a badly faltering Savchenko & Szolkowy over both the Zhangs and Dube & Davison in 2008.

    The NHK result this year between Asada and Suzuki which clearly showed who was Japanese #1 now no matter what.

    The inflated scores of Miki Ando in the 2010-2011 season, no doubt Morozov politiked.

  14. #44
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    608
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    The reason for proposing this change is that the 1.0 deduction is negligible at the elite level, especially for senior men, because the scores for everything else are so much higher at that level.
    And I think this is why the controversial results have mostly been in men's competition.

  15. #45
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,965
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy View Post
    But shouldn't a fall have the same severity for everyone?
    How do you define "same severity" -- in relation to the value of the element the skater fell on (assuming it was on an element)? In relation to the program as a whole?

    As is, a fall on double toe loop, in a competition where that's one of the more difficult jumps being executed, is a lot more costly than a fall on a quad toe. Is that the intention?

    Perhaps there should be a bonus for triples or quads that are successfully landed instead?
    The Russian Federation agrees with you there.

    I think CoP does do this in a sense with GOE, but a program done by a junior skater with 7 triples should really score higher than a program done by a senior skater with 4 triples and falls, in the grand scheme of things.
    And so it would, at least on the tech side.

    For the sake of argument, let's say both skaters attempt the same 7 triples, but the senior skater falls on 3 of them. Let's say that the junior gets 0 GOE on all the jumps, and the senior gets +1 on all the successful ones and -3 on the ones with falls. Already the senior skater has lost more in -GOE than she gained in +GOE.

    Then the senior skater should also get three deductions for the falls. Since 7-triple programs tend to score well over 50 points in base value (and in TES when skated clean) and often well over 100 in total score including PCS, then a 1% deduction per fall would be somewhat more than 1 point each fall. The same would be true if it were defined as as 2% of the TES. But since we'd prefer not to see a skater building up too much of a cushion with PCS, taking the percentage off the whole score also takes away some of that cushion.

    Guidelines to reward clean programs and penalize messy ones in PCS might close the gap a little more. So would increasing penalties for subsequent falls, on the theory that each additional disruptive error multiplies rather than simply adds to the disruptive effect.

    Still, if the junior skater is earning 5s in PCS even with any discretionary boosts for skating clean, and the senior is earning 7s even with any dings for skating messy, then even though the junior will deservedly end up with higher technical scores, the senior skater might deservedly end up with enough higher PCS to hold onto a higher total score.

    If the junior starts out with 5s and gets a bump into the 6s, and if the senior usually gets 7s but gets knocked down to 6s on this bad day, then the junior would come out ahead.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •