So far, I've only seen 3, maybe 4 posters actually contributing to this thread's purpose, which is to provide detailed analysis according to the IJS rule book; none from those who call BoP as a hater. I really, I mean it sincerely, am interested in Lv. 4 analysis; yes, expect opposing views, but that's what this thread is about. I assume it's too much of a scary job for most people, so I don't blame on just the fact it's not done; I know because I never went back after my file got deleted midway done; never again will I try, at least in written form.
Wow, there are a lot more different angles and edits out there than I expected, and none of them is the official replay. I don't think we're ever going to get a definitive answer on a few of these steps, or the contested jump calls.
Which means that there are some gray areas, which doesn't speak strongly in favor of the clarity of Sotnikova's edge quality in those instances.
I think the best we can conclude is that she was probably lucky to be given benefit of doubt on a few of the calls. What the motivation was for the tech panel (and judges) to be generous is an open question -- I don't think we're going to get a definitive answer there either. Believe what you want to believe.
OK -- I don't know the criteria for how deep or how long held the edge changes need to be to count.Edge changes have to be on a full curve to count as a step, though.
I was thinking about this thread last night in bed when I couldn't sleep (yeah that's how crazy I am), and I came up with an idea:
Let's change the thread title to "Analyzing Ladies' Olympic Singles TES - Please limit analysis to Ms X, Ms Z, Ms Q and Ms T."
Obviously we'd assign a letter to each skater and one that isn't in any of their actual names.
This would, I'd hope, help people look past the person and only look at the performances in the most objective way possible.
The posts would look a little something like this:
"Ms Q received lv4 because of something, but I disagree with her GOE for this jump because as I see it it was UR and wrong edge on top of that. I would have given -# GOE"
"I disagree, as I see it her edge change was doubtful, not blatant"
Anyone using a) the actual names of the skaters included and/or b) extreme adjectives such as hate and/or c) personal attacs against other posters would be severely reprimanded by all and invited to leave the thread, go think about what they did, and come back when they can play with others again.
All coaches/choreographers try to get their skaters to a L4 if at all possible. I know one of her Senior ladies has gotten her step sequence called as a L4 when it was executed perfectly. This skater also has struggled to get her jumps fully rotated and so has spent a great deal of time working to gain points elsewhere.
It was just about exactly 3 minutes from the time Adelina hit her final pose to the time her scores were announced while she was in the Kiss-and-Cry.
During that time this broadcast showed Adelina taking her bows, getting off and hugging her coach . . . replays of a couple elements . . . sitting in the K&C. Even though it was a US network, they did not focus on the US skater next to compete.
That's a pretty typical amount of time, not enough for the audience to get impatient, but plenty of time for a few reviews, even a pass through the step sequence if they felt it necessary.
However, "benefit of the doubt" on some elements could also mean "Looks good in real time, no need to review."
This thread is only about technical panel calls, not judges.And it's not only that - it's the notion that the same tech they used to call everybody elses mistakes during the competition, somehow failed when Adelina took the ice, leaving the technical panel with nothing but doubt about the elements in question, such that their only choice was to either give her the benefit of the doubt, or mark her down. Sorry, but it's just too much of a logial stretch for me to be charitable about the judge's intentions.
Are we going to apply the same scrutiny to other skaters' level 4 elements, to other skaters' borderline jumps, and see if maybe we would have given less credit than this tech panel in other cases as well?
Who else might have gotten benefit of doubt, without public outrage because they didn't win?
is everyone on the same page that BoP's "interpretation" of the rule was the correct one?
I don't see any other interpretation as fitting the wording.
I wasn't aware that skaters were given the benefit of the doubt on spin/footwork levels. Unlike with jumps, where skaters can underrotate up to 1/4 and still be given the benefit of the doubt, resulting in some debatable calls sometime, I thought that with spin/footwork levels, there was much less room for skaters to be given the benefit of the doubt--skaters either fulfilled the level requirements or they didn't. I can see how on occasion there's some wiggle room and debatable decisions to be made, but overall, spin/footwork calls seemed fair and justifiable but not generous, and they didn't appear to have any relation to reputation.
Yuna Kim got a level 3 on her flying camel spin at 2013 Worlds SP, and it was totally deserved. Didn't matter that she was the reigning Olympic champion; her first position wasn't stable, she got dinged accordingly. That's fair. Akiko Suzuki really, really struggled in the Olympics team event FS with her footwork sequence (was it something with the ice? No ladies skater got a level 4 step sequence in the team event), and so even though it's Akiko Suzuki and she usually has wonderful footwork, I wasn't shocked to see the level 2 in the protocols.
At the 2014 Olympics, in the ladies team event and ladies individual, the only skater who got a level 4 step sequence in more than one segment was Adelina Sotnikova.
- Ladies team event: No level 4 step sequences were given out at all
- Ladies individual SP: level 4 step sequence - Adelina Sotnikova, Akiko Suzuki
- Ladies individual FS: level 4 step sequence - Adelina Sotnikova, Mao Asada, Carolina Kostner, and Kaetlyn Osmond
If the technical panel was generous across the board, and giving multiple skaters the "benefit of the doubt" on level 4 step sequences, I would expect to see more level 4 step sequences called for other skaters. Certainly, Adelina Sotnikova is not the only skater capable of getting a level 4 step sequence or with a program constructed with the intention of getting a level 4. Akiko Suzuki, Mao Asada, and Carolina Kostner all received level 4 step sequences for both the SP and FS in at least one other ISU competition this season (Kostner = 2014 Europeans; Asada = 2013 GPF; Suzuki = 2013 Skate Canada). That is not to say that Kostner, Asada, and Suzuki did not make mistakes at the Olympics that prevented them from getting a level 4 step sequence in one segment at these Olympics. But it is fair to say that they were not given the benefit of the doubt in getting a level 4 step sequence in that segment...because they didn't.