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.
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.
Originally Posted by TontoK
Maybe the key would be to introduce an overall jump difficulty mark, and penalize skaters there who don't attempt quads triple axels.
Originally Posted by Li'Kitsu
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.
You will hate me and some of the skaters will as well, but I would do it as follows. If you perform an element and fall, then this element is not considered in the rating.
Originally Posted by Newbiespectator
Right now FS suffers under a "more & more points syndrome". We have many beautiful skaters who perform elements which they are not confident with. They might land them, or they might not. Its like a gamble every time and the programs suffer under this a lot.
Whenever I have the chance to speak to someone who actually is a judge or does skate, the same topic that we have here comes up quite often, especially after an event.
Not all, but definitely some do agree that the current point system forces skaters to sloppy performances, just because they score high with them. It gives FS some type of "fail competition" sometimes more, sometimes less and it doesn't do the beauty of that sport justice. FS isn't about falling on your butt, but about performing - selling a routine with your body language, combined with elements like jumps, spins, steps etc.
I often like the programs of skaters not competing for medals a lot more, because they actually perform their sport with grace and elegance and don't rush from element to element or perform those with a 50-50 chance of success.
We have a few exceptions to that rule of course and if the other skaters run clean, then hey its great to see as well as they mastered the difficulty, but you also often find exactly those performance less entertaining than those who were less difficult, but performed with attitude and grace. I think its a real pity for the sport, that even many in the media only talk about how many triple jumps someone did, or if there was a quad. That's not what FS is about, it isn't!
If we look back in time for instance at Susanna, one of the great skaters in Europe about 10 years ago - she did the triple Lutz - double Toe, also a triple Flip and I wonder whats wrong with that? Were her programs not just wonderful and sheer of amazing? She didn't need that triple - triple combination or a triple Axel.
I know we have many die hard jumping fans at this forum who only speak about that type of element and hey, I don't blame you for that. But in my eyes, that's just not what FS is all about
The current 1 point deduction just doesn't influence the judges marks at all either. I saw skaters who fell three times in their program and they still scored so much higher in their PC´s than someone going clean. While we all know why PC´s are PC´s, I still think such falls should matter in choreo or int, maybe even SS - after all it influences the smoothness of the performance.
That said I am not a judge at all, but to me the current judging system is far from perfect and very hard to sell to people who are not die hard fans as we are here at the forum or the ice rink.
I was asked so often at Budapest why Maxim and Tatjana won, even though they did so "poor". These questions will never stop and its not good for acquiring new fans. Because sports that you don't understand, seems unlikely to keep your attention for long.
I taught English for 16 years including honors level for seniors. Firstly, I assume that you are talking about in-class essays or essay exams. If a student had turned in unfinished writing to me for a homework assignment, I would have returned it to be finished and taking off late points which would have assured that s/he did not end up with anything near an A+. As for timed essays/essay exams, one of the key points in grading for me was always that the student wrote a clear conclusion. An unfinished essay, no matter its brilliant content or grammar, would not have received an A+ for that reason. Additionally, the grading criteria we used counted organization as a distinct element of scoring and the highest points in that area could not be received for a piece that was unfinished. I also would have spent some time with a student not finishing essays consistently to address the problem and look for time management solutions.
Originally Posted by spikydurian
Honestly, either your analogy is made up or you were dealing with very lenient instructors who were easily blown away by style and didn't care enough to address a student's clear deficiency.
So my response is that no, I would not give the essay writer an A+ for not finishing her work. Nor should skaters not see a consequence in points for not properly performing elements.
The key to combating what you've raised as a concern is this:
Originally Posted by koheikun90
Skaters who DO complete the difficult elements are rewarded. It's about risk/reward, an important aspect of sport. I know that the sports are not the same... but I'm a golfer. Attempting a risky shot can have great rewards, or it can lead to severe misfortune. High risk elements should have a great reward, but right now I don't think there is sufficient penalty for failure.
In skating, if one's competition is successfully performing high-risk elements... there is the incentive to train and master them to keep up with their base value. But there should not be a great (even a good) reward for failure.
One man's opinion, of course.
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.
I think this balance is important, but actually trying to achieve that in a scoring system that applies across 4 disciplines and a range of competition levels is a difficult thing to do. It might be useful to think about what we want the winning performances to look like. Ideally we would want to see top difficulty + beautiful artistry + excellent skating skills + perfect execution. But, I think we've seen over the past few years, especially among the men, that this ideal isn't very realistic.
Originally Posted by Ven
So if you can't have all of those things together, where do you want to compromise? And how do you achieve that balance? I don't necessarily think that the current scoring system doesn't do that, actually. You can see examples like Yuna Kim, who doesn't have the most difficulty but can complete her planned content cleanly most of the time. This makes her difficult to beat. In the men's field, on the other hand, nobody has been doing programs that they can reliably complete with minimal errors. (It would be interesting to calculate the clean skate rate among the top men over the past few years!)
To complicate matters, what you want to see at the senior international level might be different from, say, the junior national level. In that case you may want to encourage skaters to try more difficulty even if they're not successful.
Perhaps the real problem with some of these high profile examples is that certain skaters have such astronomically high PCS, GOE's and/or base value that they end up having a multi-fall cushion against the rest of the field. Hanyu has an 8 point advantage in base value over Chan in the LP, which essentially means he can make some mistakes and still win if their PCS and GOE's are more or less equal. The reasons for that 8 point advantage are relatively subtle.
No, just make the scaling for -GOE different from the scaling for +GOE. Problem solved.
Originally Posted by FlattFan
Increasing the penalties for multiple falls (i.e., 2 point deduction for first fall; 4 for second, etc.) still allows some who are otherwise good enough to try one new difficult element while still minimizing the risk. Also, the SP and FS could be scored differently, so the SP stressed perfection -- this would require making it possible to get enough positive GOEs on a triple to equal the points on a quad, for example, and severe penalties on falls -- while the FS allowed a little more tolerance for mistakes.
If it is so difficult for the men to complete their programs cleanish, then that means their degree of difficulty is too high. Perhaps the ISU should stipulate only 1 quad per skate.
At the rink. Again.
^^ Then you are hindering the Olympic ideal of stronger, higher, faster by limiting program content.
Giving no points for a fall would reduce the technical content back to the early 80s.
Falls should have deductions as a percentage of base value of the element. If you fall on your jump combination worth 10 points, that's a 1 point deduction at 10% of BV, if you fall in your choreographic, that's 0.2 points and so on and there should also be an upward sliding scale for multiple falls - something like 15% first fall, 20% second fall and so on. There should also be a computer docked 0.25 or 0.5 from each of the PCS marks for each fall. The other option would be to have falls deducted as a percentage of the total program score (say 1 or 2 percent) so that you weigh your risk-reward. Yeah, you fell on a 2A late in the program, but your overall program was 150 points so that's a 3 point loss at 2 percent...
Increase BV for quad and 3As.
Originally Posted by mskater93
The younger guys will assess risk vs. rewards. They will go for the harder elements.
Since 2010, BV went up and up, and more guys are now doing quads. So, giving no points for a fall & increase BV for hard jumps will not reduce technical content back to early 80s. No one without a quad will win anymore.
At the rink. Again.
BV for quads was QUITE good ~2010 but the penalties for < + fall were so high, hardly anyone was jumping them. If the points were 0 for a fall, guys who don't hit them 90%+ in practice won't be jumping them because you could do a 2A in that place worth about 4 points (with +1 GOE) that's a no brainer for them late in the program.
I vote for:
-3 GOE on all elements should leave the score for that element at less than half, maybe 25%, of the element base value. This will affect other serious errors on elements aside from falls. (For underrotated and downgraded jumps, the lower starting base mark will be a more serious loss of points in addition to the GOE reduction)
For falls only, on elements including mid-step sequence and also between elements, take a fall deduction as a percentage of the Total Segment Score, so that only one set of rules is needed for all levels and disciplines but the amount will scale to the skill level of the skater who receives the deduction and of comparable skaters s/he is directly competing against.
E.g., we want a deduction that will be large enough to make a difference between, say, Mao Asada and Carolina Kostner if one of them falls, but not so big that it cancels out the advantage of a senior lady's SP with 5-ish PCS and two triples but one fall vs. a senior lady with 4-ish PCS and no triples but no falls. They're all competing under the same senior ladies' rules, but the total scores for the elite ladies might be twice those of the lower-level ladies.
And then the penalty for multiple falls can increase with each subsequent fall. E.g., 1 or 1.5 or 2% of TSS for the first fall, 2 or 3 or 4% of TSS for the second fall, etc.
Write into the PCS guidelines reminders that judges should reflect disruptions in the program especially in the Performance/Execution component and other components as applicable -- maybe suggest 0.25-1.00 per fall or other disruptive error, depending on severity. However, it's the mandatory deductions from the total segment score that are automatic -- the PCS reductions should still be left to the discretion of the judges; not all falls are equally disruptive, and in very rare cases not really disruptive at all. For example, falling on an end pose and remaining in character to end the program sitting on the ice.