Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 47

Thread: Fantasy COP: How much would you deduct for a fall?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    447

    Fantasy COP: How much would you deduct for a fall?

    So, every one falls some times. In your fantasy COP, how much would you deduct for a fall? If too many points are deducted for a fall then the motivation to try difficult elements wanes and skaters might choose the safer options, but if too little is deducted we would -and do- see programs that are full of falls.

    Or should the fall simply cancel out whatever element was being attempted?

    I'm personally a big fan of creative spins and step sequences, perhaps they should be awarded more points though they may be harder to judge?

    Sometimes I'd rather see a quick fall and recovery than a terribly struggled landing....

    I'm rambling. Well, tell me what you think?

  2. #2
    Outdated Old Dinosaur
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    913
    A one point deduction for a fall seems too skimpy.

    How about a 1 point deduction and no points for the attempted element.

    It still gets on my nerves that skaters will attempt unreliable quads because they can still rack up points even if they fall on it.

    I'm perfectly fine with a handsome reward for LANDED quads (or other jumps), but right now the risk/reward is out of balance.

  3. #3
    Custom Title CoyoteChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Spokane
    Posts
    1,377
    As Dick Button said at the Friends of figure skating breakfast at Boston, giving any points for a fall is rewarding failure. No points for any element fallen on and a deduction for artistry and skating skills.

  4. #4
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,995
    I'd only deduct half a point. The -GOE scores need to be increased to more harshly penalize mistakes. A jump with -3 GOE, but without a fall, is pretty much just as bad as a jump you fall on. -2 GOE on an element should be a big deal, but at the moment it's not really.

  5. #5
    Custom Title ahy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    333
    Actually i think if you fall, it shouldn't be rewarded marks... if it's too harsh and base value divided by half and deduct 1 mark...

  6. #6
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    311
    I would say in senior ladies, minus 5, in senior men's, minus 10. In junior's or novice competitions, the deduction should be less. There are a lot of ramifications to whatever method is choosen, but currently the penalty is not sufficient. Many who have witnessed a Chan competition would agree.

  7. #7
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    447
    Interesting! I would simply cancel out any points that would have been gained for a fall on a jump. But a fall on a step sequence or a spin would be more problematic. I'm not sure.

  8. #8
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    211
    I agree with Tontok, no points for the attempted element with a fall, but I think it's best to get rid of the 1 point deduction to simplify.

    To counter the possibility that no quads will be attempted, just boost the base value of for the quad enough to make it worthwhile for to attempt.

    Which one would you prefer commentators say:

    A. That's his/her/their second fall -- No Gold for ________ this time around
    B. That's his/her/their second fall -- I wonder whether that's going to be enough for Gold
    C. That's his/her/their second fall -- Still should be able to hang onto Gold


    For me, it should be A even if you're a Patrick Chan, Yuna Kim, Davis & White, Virtue & Moir, Sasha Cohen, or even my favorite, Michelle Kwan.

  9. #9
    #TeamAUS
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,439
    No points for a fall seems like a harsh but reasonable idea. It would at least highlight the importance that skaters need a clean long program. To see that a 4T with a fall is still worth 7.30 points (not including the 1 mark deduction for the fall). Is mystifying. It woild also create better separation of marks so there is a clear winner.

    In saying that the deduction is used to indicate that there were problems which detracted from the performance. Not having the deduction for falls might make it a little confusing. Maybe they should both cancel the element and havethe one mark deduction to really make it rub in. And to compromise, they can lessen the penalties for underrotations and edge deductions because even though they are 'cheating' jumps, underrotations dont always detract from performance- (mirai nagasu is a good example of thid).

  10. #10
    Forever stuck on those steps Li'Kitsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruin714
    I agree with Tontok, no points for the attempted element with a fall, but I think it's best to get rid of the 1 point deduction to simplify.

    To counter the possibility that no quads will be attempted, just boost the base value of for the quad enough to make it worthwhile for to attempt.
    I doubt it's as easy as that. Especially since keeping your difficulty up often means including new jumps in your programs. But doing a jump in practice or doing it in competition are two different things! You can be as consistent as you want in practice, the big tricks often still need time to succeed in a real competition. Look at Jason Browns 3A or Yuzuru Hanyus 4T. Today, both of them are consistent enough to go for these elements even with the high risks of 0 points if they fall. But in their first seasons going for it, respectively, both made so much more mistakes on them, it would have really cost them and maybe they wouldn't have wanted to risk a mendatory 0 points for an element that nonetheless makes her whole routine twice as hard.
    And you can't just raise the BV for quads and/or 3As into infinity. That would mean, that if some little jumping bean had a good day and landed 3 quads in contrast to someone who just has one, they'd have already won. No amount of skating skills, choreography, transitions or prasentation could make up for that. That can't be what anyone wants either.

    Quote Originally Posted by WrongEdge
    So I would slightly increase deductions to two or at maximum three points, and maybe we could think about accumulative (is that the right word?) deductions: e.g. two points deduction for the first fall, four for the second, six for the third and so on. One fall should be forgivable and not ruin your chances completely, but if you do a splatfest, you should really go down.
    That's definitly a good idea! With the third fall and a -6 you're already in the "0 points for an element" area, as it's likely the fall would be on an elements that's BV is less than 6. Yet, it wouldn't encourage skaters to go for risky elements as much.

  11. #11
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    124
    i know its a little off topic but i think there should harsher penalties for flutzes and lips. A skater should get credit for the edge take off. So if a skater does 2 flutzes and one flip, the third jump should be invalid and given no cedit. another example, is in the junior ranks. If the prescribed single jump (either lutz or flip) in the short program is taken off on the wrong edge, then no credit should be given.

    Finally, downgrades should be given to jumps that are prerotated more than a 1/4 turn. Worst case, Satoko Miyahara. But, downgrades and under rotations should not be given -GOE or +GOE if its landed cleanly. The downgrade itself is a harsher penalty. Id rather see a skater win a competition with downgrades and underotations versus fully rotated jumps with falls and stumbles.

    But to answer your question, a fall should be given a deduction of 2 points and 1 point in performance and execution.

  12. #12
    Custom Title spikydurian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    978
    I would like to relate a real situation which I think many of us who have been student may be able to relate to, to this question falls should equal no wins.

    I used to have a classmate who, despite not being able to complete her essays, would continually top the class in essay writing. We were baffled and decided to check her out. Reason? Her grammer, style and creativity were so good that despite having marks deducted for not completing her essay, her other near perfect marks gained from other criteria were able to push her essays into the A+ group. When one reads her essays, one wants more.

    Should there be a rule that all other marks gained from the other criteria should be void if she did not complete her essay? That would be a double whammy. Should her brilliance in other criteria be ignored totally? Unfortunately, she would have to miss half of the essay in order for us to beat her. She was that brilliant and we were just not her standard despite completing our essays.

    Marks on falls are already deducted. And if skaters and coaches (since the rules are made for the benefit of the sport and not the audience, lest we forget) think falls should be discouraged, they should revert to pre Vancouver – falls on jumps equal 0 marks. Then you will have skaters who would never try any jumps until the jumps are second nature to them.

  13. #13
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,702
    Increase -GOE wouldn't work because it also increase +GOE. Then you would have a 2A with +3 GOE being the same as a 3Lz with 0 GOE.

    Element with a fall = incomplete. 0 point.
    On top of that, - 1 for CH, -1 for PE, -1 for IN.

    Quad BV, 3A BV should increase to reward higher risk.

  14. #14
    Custom Title bekalc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Li'Kitsu View Post
    I doubt it's as easy as that. Especially since keeping your difficulty up often means including new jumps in your programs. But doing a jump in practice or doing it in competition are two different things! You can be as consistent as you want in practice, the big tricks often still need time to succeed in a real competition. Look at Jason Browns 3A or Yuzuru Hanyus 4T. Today, both of them are consistent enough to go for these elements even with the high risks of 0 points if they fall. But in their first seasons going for it, respectively, both made so much more mistakes on them, it would have really cost them and maybe they wouldn't have wanted to risk a mendatory 0 points for an element that nonetheless makes her whole routine twice as hard.
    And you can't just raise the BV for quads and/or 3As into infinity. That would mean, that if some little jumping bean had a good day and landed 3 quads in contrast to someone who just has one, they'd have already won. No amount of skating skills, choreography, transitions or prasentation could make up for that. That can't be what anyone wants either.



    That's definitly a good idea! With the third fall and a -6 you're already in the "0 points for an element" area, as it's likely the fall would be on an elements that's BV is less than 6. Yet, it wouldn't encourage skaters to go for risky elements as much.
    Maybe the key would be to introduce an overall jump difficulty mark, and penalize skaters there who don't attempt quads triple axels.

    The thing is yes you have to attempt those jumps and fall, but why does it mean your results shouldn't be sacrificed. Is it fair to those who have already mastered the element that your getting all of these points for a fail.

    And also, I don't mind one fall so much, but I do mind multiple. IF your inconsistent with an element you really shouldn't be trying it twice, and you probably shouldn't be trying multiple elements at a time that your not comfortable with.

  15. #15
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by TontoK View Post
    A one point deduction for a fall seems too skimpy.

    How about a 1 point deduction and no points for the attempted element.

    It still gets on my nerves that skaters will attempt unreliable quads because they can still rack up points even if they fall on it.

    I'm perfectly fine with a handsome reward for LANDED quads (or other jumps), but right now the risk/reward is out of balance.
    I think giving 0 points on a fall is a bit harsh and would discourage, esp. the men to attempt quads. I like that the rule has raised the level of diificulty. Thats what makes figure skating a sport. I watched Evans free program in Vancouver yesterday and honestly i was really bored.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 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
  •