Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 80

Thread: Asada's 3A: underrotated or not?

  1. #61
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by Minze2001 View Post
    Yes question it, but to keep repeating over and over Mao's jumps were under rotated is annoying. We got it the first time

    This thread (which I didn't start) is discussing Mao's underrotations. If you don't like to read anything about that topic, you are free to ignore this thread.


    Quote Originally Posted by CarneAsada View Post
    "The callers" also gave < to her triple Axel in the SP. I think it's fair to question calls for being either overly strict or overly lenient. Though I question the point of calling a jump "underrotated" when it's a 1/8 turn short - you could just as well say it's underrotated when it's 10° short too.

    The important question is at which point a skater should get punished for the "underrotation". Some people or judges are more strict than others. But when a skater underrotates a jump by about 1/4 and apparently *just* doesn't get the < sign from the callers, then it is quite clear to me that it is the judges who at least should be taking a -1 GOE reduction for the jump (how it is written in the rules: -1 for UR without < sign) but judges are obviously not doing that.

  2. #62
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Beyond Neverland
    Posts
    1,145
    Quote Originally Posted by David21 View Post
    This thread (which I didn't start) is discussing Mao's underrotations. If you don't like to read anything about that topic, you are free to ignore this thread.





    The important question is at which point a skater should get punished for the "underrotation". Some people or judges are more strict than others. But when a skater underrotates a jump by about 1/4 and apparently *just* doesn't get the < sign from the callers, then it is quite clear to me that it is the judges who at least should be taking a -1 GOE reduction for the jump (how it is written in the rules: -1 for UR without < sign) but judges are obviously not doing that.
    Can someone enlighten me with regards to the rule and point scoring changes for 1/4 UR prior to Vancouver and after Vancouver? Has the rules been loosened since?

  3. #63
    Six Point Zero Krislite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Yunaverse
    Posts
    1,535
    Quote Originally Posted by os168 View Post
    Can someone enlighten me with regards to the rule and point scoring changes for 1/4 UR prior to Vancouver and after Vancouver? Has the rules been loosened since?
    After Vancouver, under-rotation calls were divided into two:

    1. a UR with "<", which means under-rotation between a quarter and one-half. This is far less punitive and the BV is reduced to 70%.
    2. a UR with "<<", which is a full down-grade to a double when the jump is considered under-rotated by at least a half.

    Up to Vancouver, the tech panel made no such distinction. anything under-rotated by more than a quarter gets a downgrade and a severe GOE penalty.

  4. #64
    Custard Title
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    982
    Quote Originally Posted by Krislite View Post
    After Vancouver, under-rotation calls were divided into two:

    1. a UR with "<", which means under-rotation between a quarter and one-half. This is far less punitive and the BV is reduced to 70%.
    2. a UR with "<<", which is a full down-grade to a double when the jump is considered under-rotated by at least a half.

    Up to Vancouver, the tech panel made no such distinction. anything under-rotated by more than a quarter gets a downgrade and a severe GOE penalty.
    Adding to this: for a UR with <, the GOE deduction is between -1 and -2, but there are no restrictions on final GOE. For UR with <<, the GOE is -2 to -3 and the final GOE must be negative.

    There was one change in the leadup to Vancouver that mattered - in 2009-10, they changed it so that the < mark was no longer visible to the judges. The BV was still marked down, but the judges could award GOE however they chose (but applying a deduction from -1 to -3). In the 2008-09 season, I believe the deduction was the same, but the overall GOE had to be negative.

  5. #65
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Beyond Neverland
    Posts
    1,145
    Quote Originally Posted by Krislite View Post
    After Vancouver, under-rotation calls were divided into two:

    1. a UR with "<", which means under-rotation between a quarter and one-half. This is far less punitive and the BV is reduced to 70%.
    2. a UR with "<<", which is a full down-grade to a double when the jump is considered under-rotated by at least a half.

    Up to Vancouver, the tech panel made no such distinction. anything under-rotated by more than a quarter gets a downgrade and a severe GOE penalty.
    Interesting, so all these 3A borderedlined 1/4 UR could have got downgraded prior to Vancouver to the equivalent score of a double axel with negative GOEs.

  6. #66
    Custard Title
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    982
    Quote Originally Posted by os168 View Post
    Interesting, so all these 3A borderedlined 1/4 UR could have got downgraded prior to Vancouver to the equivalent score of a double axel with negative GOEs.
    If they did not get marked < in the recent competitions, they would not get downgraded prior to Vancouver. The definitions for 1/4 turn were not changed. If they were marked <, then yes, they would of course get the same credit as a 2A. Last Olympic season, Asada did have some otherwise nice-looking 3As (mostly in combination) downgraded (both at Worlds 2010, one in her 2010 4CC SP). The scoring of her Axels at 2010 Worlds might have been one of the reasons behind adding the < and << gradations as some considered it overly harsh.

  7. #67
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Krislite View Post
    After Vancouver, under-rotation calls were divided into two:

    1. a UR with "<", which means under-rotation between a quarter and one-half. This is far less punitive and the BV is reduced to 70%.
    2. a UR with "<<", which is a full down-grade to a double when the jump is considered under-rotated by at least a half.

    Up to Vancouver, the tech panel made no such distinction. anything under-rotated by more than a quarter gets a downgrade and a severe GOE penalty.
    The rule has constantly changed in favor of Asada. Since the 2010-2011 season, ladies can have either a double or a triple Axel in SP. (In the 2008-2009 season, the BV of 3A was increased from 7.5 to 8.2)
    Given the only skater who tried 3A was Asada and she couldn't jump 3+3, it was evident such a rule change seemed to be targeted to favor Asada.

    More than that, the rule was changed underrotated jumps were less penalized and judges have constantly ignored Asada's underrotation.

    I think Asada is the most favored skater by the judges given the rule changes.

  8. #68
    Custom Title chapis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    México
    Posts
    642
    Quote Originally Posted by szidon View Post
    Given the only skater who tried 3A was Asada and she couldn't jump 3+3, it was evident such a rule change seemed to be targeted to favor Asada.
    If men are allowed, why not Mao?, if she has 3a it would be absolutely sexist not let her do it

  9. #69
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by chapis View Post
    If men are allowed, why not Mao?, if she has 3a it would be absolutely sexist not let her do it
    Is there any sport in the world to change the rule to benefit a specific athlete?

  10. #70
    Custom Title chapis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    México
    Posts
    642
    Quote Originally Posted by szidon View Post
    Is there any sport in the world to change the rule to benefit a specific athlete?
    It is not Mao´s fault that she is the only woman doing 3a, it is not like the other girls are forbidden do it, but if she is doing it it is fair the change of the rule.
    If Yuna would be the only one doing 3a I am sure you would not think it is unfair new rule

  11. #71
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by chapis View Post
    It is not Mao´s fault that she is the only woman doing 3a, it is not like the other girls are forbidden do it, but if she is doing it it is fair the change of the rule.
    If Yuna would be the only one doing 3a I am sure you would not think it is unfair new rule
    I'm not blaming Asada. What I mean is all the politicking whithin the ISU is ridiculous.

  12. #72
    Custom Title chapis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    México
    Posts
    642
    Quote Originally Posted by szidon View Post
    I'm not blaming Asada. What I mean is all the politicking whithin the ISU is ridiculous.
    Why not to think the ISU simply find out the previous rule was ridiculous. Basically you are implying the ISU, I guess because the japanese federation´s order are trying prop up to Mao. The JSF couldn't even get to ratify a good 3a in GPF in Japan with the tech specialist being Japanese

  13. #73
    Custom Title Minze2001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by chapis View Post
    Why not to think the ISU simply find out the previous rule was ridiculous. Basically you are implying the ISU, I guess because the japanese federation´s order are trying prop up to Mao. The JFS couldn't even get to ratify a good 3a in GPF in Japan with the tech specialist being Japanese
    This is from the people who claimed mao was practicing double footed 3A.

  14. #74
    Custom Title Minze2001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by szidon View Post
    The rule has constantly changed in favor of Asada. Since the 2010-2011 season, ladies can have either a double or a triple Axel in SP. (In the 2008-2009 season, the BV of 3A was increased from 7.5 to 8.2)
    Given the only skater who tried 3A was Asada and she couldn't jump 3+3, it was evident such a rule change seemed to be targeted to favor Asada.

    More than that, the rule was changed underrotated jumps were less penalized and judges have constantly ignored Asada's underrotation.

    I think Asada is the most favored skater by the judges given the rule changes.
    Mao Asada how dare you be the only woman who attemps a jump? Just because you say something over and over does not make it true. If you bothered to check protocols you will see all the under rotations call Mao has gotten.

  15. #75
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Minze2001 View Post
    Mao Asada how dare you be the only woman who attemps a jump? Just because you say something over and over does not make it true. If you bothered to check protocols you will see all the under rotations call Mao has gotten.
    You didn't read all the post in this thread. This thread is about Asada's underrotated jumps which was not called as underrotated.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 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
  •