Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 47

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

  1. #1
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    249

    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    Outdated Old Dinosaur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
    910
    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
    1,374
    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
    3,968
    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
    326
    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
    310
    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
    249
    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
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    136
    Of course then you'd have competitions where skaters would not try quads at all, and fewer triple A's, which is the problem the current system set out to address. Clean, but very dull indeed. With ten marks off, or not credit at all, many would be better off doing all. doubles. There are probably those who would prefer that, but why can't those people stick watching to the ice shows? Also, consider that with the lower reward for trying difficult elements, those skater who have been most criticized for winning on components would win even more often.

  9. #9
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    272
    I have come to believe that punishing falls not too harshly is a deliberate policy of ISU to encourage the skaters to try the difficult stuff. They certainly have an interest to develop the sport further and to let the audience see more of those spectacular 3A's and quads.

    On the other hand, winning or medaling with multiple falls (hi Patrick! ) leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth. 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.

  10. #10
    🌸🐱❄🐱❄🐱🌸 jennyanydots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    226
    I'd still keep the 1 point deduction with maybe a mandatory -GOE. Maybe a greater GOE range is needed to more accurately score elements in general. If you don't give the element any points at all, the men's technical content will surely go back to 2009-2010 or maybe even worse. As currently defined, the PCS is not directly affected by falls and I'm not sure if a mandatory deduction would be the way to go either. Some skaters recover from falls as if nothing happens while for others it really affects the performance, so I still think they should be differentiated.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,212
    I've always thought there's a balance between penalizing too harsh, so skaters won't push technical limits, and not penalizing enough, which gives incentive to sloppy performances with higher base values.

    I think currently, the balance is too far to the latter. Too many sloppy performances with higher base values.

    But, I think another issue is GOE ... the judges are far too lenient on +GOEs, and since there's an upper bound limit, it negates the advantage that superior skaters should have on elements.

  12. #12
    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.

  13. #13
    #TeamAUS
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,388
    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).

  14. #14
    Forever stuck on those steps Li'Kitsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    982
    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.

  15. #15
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    123
    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.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 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
  •