Analyzing Sotnikova and Kim's footwork in the FS

Yes, but they jumped pretty much the same height (at least in the short program, I haven't looked at the jump heights for the long program yet). So my point is that it would be unfair to say one skater had really good height as an argument for being a better jumper than the other or for the scoring.

Click to expand...

The height is obviously only one bullet used to award GOE. I agree with you here and think its important to note that the height bullet is not only awarded to the highest jumper in the competition. It's very subjective. As a judge if a jump becomes under rotated how then could you award the height and distance bullet in that case? Clearly there wasn't enough height to make full rotation right. No matter how high it was. It may be the highest jump of the day but it wasn't enough for that particular jump to be successfully landed. I think it's part of the subjective nature in judging but its crucial in establishing the positive GOE before you then begin deducting points as is the required process in establishing GOE per ISU guidelines.

I wound up in a debate over establishing GOE for Yuna's 3lz the other day if it had been ruled under rotated. I was mostly playing devils advocate but if we were to assume an under rotation it becomes critical in figuring the final score of the jump. Same is true for Adelina and all other skaters.

Re: Quads and 3a....

Vanshilar said:

Well if pre-rotation is fine as long as the toe pick skate doesn't actually face directly forward, then it's fine (I assume there's no GOE penalty for it until it gets counted as cheated). And now looking at the videos, if someone starts saying that pre-rotation (less than facing directly forward) does count as an under-rotated jump ("<"), I can quickly pull out gifs of other skaters at the Olympics such as Kostner whose toe picks were nearly facing directly forward when they left the ice, but weren't called for under-rotation.

Click to expand...

Here's an example of a double toe that is clearly prerotated to take off facing forward (toe axel). You don't see that very often at the elite level -- this is clearly a mistake, not the skater's usual technique.

That's the point though -- if fans start arguing that it was just slightly above a quarter turn under-rotated using slow motion, then it's just a matter of pointing out the part about benefit of the doubt in the rules.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think we pretty much agree about the overreaching arguments.

Is it because elite skaters usually don't pre-rotate past directly forward, or is it because they do but judges will usually ignore it?

Click to expand...

They don't usually rotate past forward, as far as I can tell in real time.

In other words, if the judges gave a 9 for a component in a close competition, I wouldn't find people arguing it should really have been 8.75 or 9.25 to be particularly persuasive, and if that's enough to make the difference in the rankings, then I would just take the scores to be a toss-up in the first place. If some people started arguing that the skater should have gotten a 6 instead, I don't think (or at least I hope not) people could give convincing arguments why the skater deserved a 6 while some other people simultaneously gave convincing arguments why it should have been a 9. Or are the PCS scores really that subjective that this wide of a range is acceptable? I always thought people would generally agree within half a point or a point or so.

Click to expand...

This would be an interesting discussion to have -- choose a few programs, and discuss how we would score the program components and why. See if we change our minds by more than 0.5 after reading others' reasonings.

I think there's usually pretty good agreement among experts about the skating skills, although there are exceptions. That can be the hardest component to analyze on video because some of the qualities (speed, flow, the kinds of sounds or lack thereof that the blades make) are much more obvious in person, especially up close. But that's where all judges should have similar training in how to evaluate the skills.

Different judges, or fans, might take different approaches to how to come up with numbers for the other components. Do they just start with the SS score and go up or down from there? If so, do they try to go up and down in increments of 0.25 or whole points? Do they start with a different component? Which criteria in a component such as Performance/Execution or Choreography do they give the most weight to? E.g., some judges, or fans, might put a lot of emphasis on body line, or lack of obvious mistakes, or having a coherent theme to the program, whereas others might put more emphasis on emotional connection to the audience or complex patterning over the ice surface.

So if there were a skater who has excellent skating skills worth 9s, but was significantly bowlegged with bad posture and a generic, albeit well phrased and well patterned, program to generic music, a judge or fan who likes to spread his/her marks and severely punish those particular deficiencies might score this skater as low as 6 for PE or CH, whereas more conservative scorers who put more weight on areas that happen to be this skater's strengths might stay in the 8s for those components. The scoring system will average them out, but those two judges/fans would probably have to have a pretty in-depth discussion about this skater's strengths and weaknesses before they would convince each other that their initial scores had been overly harsh or overly generous, respectively.

As long as everyone respects each others' opinions, I love those kinds of discussions.

Ven said:

And this is where the split has occurred between fans and figure skating. You have an easily manipulated and confusing scoring system that -- I believe -- purposefully exists to confuse fans into submission, so they don't feel they have the expertise to question the scores and placements. Prior to CoP, the scoring was simple enough and more qualitative that the fans could confidently express an opinion of who deserved to win ... and this ran contrary to the ISU and the federations' goal of being able to manipulate the results at will. The fans could lock onto a particular judge's score and easily notice that cheating had occurred. As a result, the ISU went to anonymous judging, and now CoP, and now ever-constant rule changes and ex post facto explanations, all to basically give the audience the following message:

"Look, you don't understand the scoring system, and that's the way we like it, because now you will not be able to question us with confidence when we fix the results to make one skater win over another."

And in turn, people just don't care anymore. And why should they?

Click to expand...

CoP has certainly confused the daylights out of this particular fan but my lack of expertise hasn't made me any less opinionated. It would take a lot more than Speedy and the ISU to do that. Trying to educate myself, though.

But do you truly believe that the ISU came up w/ CoP for the purpose of manipulating results? Sheesh, that's hard for me to accept. I'm not so naive as to believe that judging can ever be completely unbiased, but the idea of purposeful, across-the-board manipulation is causing my aging brain cells to short-circuit! Not arguing, just asking.

It's doubtful that I'll stop caring any time soon. That isn't good for aging brain cells, either...

It's doubtful that I'll stop caring any time soon

Click to expand...

:agree: :yes:

skatedreamer said:

But do you truly believe that the ISU came up w/ CoP for the purpose of manipulating results?

Click to expand...

Yes, that is my belief skatedreamer. CoP exists to cover up cheating. In my opinion CoP is a ruse and it was always intended to be a ruse. The judging guidelines are not followed, and the scores are goal-seeked to match pre-determined results.

Entering a competition, deals are made according to trades or bribes or whatever, and some skaters are favored and others are not. The ones who are favored can magically see their levels go up and their GOEs go up and get their jump mistakes overlooked ... the ones who are not favored can magically see their levels drop, get dinged harsher on jumps, and get stingier GOEs. Additionally, some skaters get junior PCS scores and then suddenly they are scoring near world records 2 months later.

Cheating happened under 6.0 too, but at some point leading up to 2002 the public had caught on. The ISU and the federations were faced with a clear mandate: clean up the sport and ensure its long-term viability, or else.

Instead, the ISU leadership (from Cinquanta right on down the line) + the leadership of the federations and the judges and everyone appear to be so filled with corrupt and filth ... maybe they are all cheaters ... that they decided for their own survival, the best course of action was to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

-----

Let me ask all of you this ...

How many times have people asked for immediate access to the protocols? Did anyone ever consider the ISU doesn't want you to have immediate access to the protocols?

How many times have people pleaded for the announcers on tv to explain the scoring system to viewers? Did anyone ever consider the ISU doesn't want the scoring system to be explained to the viewers?

Sam-Skwantch said:

As a judge if a jump becomes under rotated how then could you award the height and distance bullet in that case? Clearly there wasn't enough height to make full rotation right. No matter how high it was. It may be the highest jump of the day but it wasn't enough for that particular jump to be successfully landed.

Click to expand...

Um... if a jump is under-rotated... I don't see how it follows, that the skater did not have enough height or distance, and should not receive that bullet point.

If the height and distance were good, but the jump was under-rotated... it simply means they didn't have enough speed-of-rotation.

Maybe they didn't tuck their arms in tightly enough or had a shakey takeoff. Whatever - it would be a flaw/mistake that is independant of height/distance?

Ven said:

How many times have people asked for immediate access to the protocols? Did anyone ever consider the ISU doesn't want you to have immediate access to the protocols?

Click to expand...

How immediate do you want? They're usually up immediately after the competition segment ends -- even the short programs lately. Originally none of the protocols were posted online until after the free program.

How many times have people pleaded for the announcers on tv to explain the scoring system to viewers? Did anyone ever consider the ISU doesn't want the scoring system to be explained to the viewers?

Click to expand...

Different networks give different amounts of explanations. None take air time to give long lectures, but some commentators do a better job of explaining than others. Historically, Canadian commentators have done much better at this than Americans, for example. That has nothing to do with the ISU and much to do with the specific commentators' interests and also what the network producers think the majority of their audience are interested in.

YesWay said:

Um... if a jump is under-rotated... I don't see how it follows, that the skater did not have enough height or distance, and should not receive that bullet point.

If the height and distance were good, but the jump was under-rotated... it simply means they didn't have enough speed-of-rotation.

Maybe they didn't tuck their arms in tightly enough or had a shakey takeoff. Whatever - it would be a flaw/mistake that is independant of height/distance?

Click to expand...

Yup. Or sometimes it's because they jump high but start rotating later. The delayed rotation could be considered excellent technique on doubles, but with the addition of the third revolution it causes a problem in completing the rotation in time. The clearest examples I can think of are from before IJS: Lu Chen's jumps, and Elena Berezhnaya's twist.

4) good height and distance

Click to expand...

That is all the guideline says. To me it is open for interpretation. I willingly admit I would be a bit more stingy than certain judges on awarding GOE in relation to jumps but if I see a landing that is skidding I'd feel comfortable calling that not good height and especially distance. No matter how high or far it went. I just think one thing is related to the other. Is it fair to not award

7) effortless throughout

Click to expand...

to the same jump then? I sure wouldn't want to give an effortless GOE to a jump that wasn't fully rotated and/or involved skidding on the landing. I'm not seeing anything in the guidelines that discourages this line of thought.

I don't think it's even clearly defined what good height is. Is it an absolute measurement off of the ice (for ex. 8in. or higher) or is it in relation to the skaters physical demeanor. Is its goodness determined in comparison to the rest of the competitors or is it merely for the jump at hand. This is for the judges to assess and I dont think you'll ever get a clear consensus on any one panel. To me a jump that allows for full rotation is not enough to be awarded the height/distance bullet in all cases but is a good place to start when assessing a jump's final value.

The GOE bonus is basically the icing and candles on the cake. The thing is I won't put either on until all the main ingredients are mixed and cooked properly. Probably a terrible example.

gkelly said:

Different networks give different amounts of explanations. None take air time to give long lectures, but some commentators do a better job of explaining than others. Historically, Canadian commentators have done much better at this than Americans, for example. That has nothing to do with the ISU and much to do with the specific commentators' interests and also what the network producers think the majority of their audience are interested in.

Click to expand...

Very true. Italians as well do a very good job, especially Eurosport.

Ven said:

How many times have people asked for immediate access to the protocols? Did anyone ever consider the ISU doesn't want you to have immediate access to the protocols?

How many times have people pleaded for the announcers on tv to explain the scoring system to viewers? Did anyone ever consider the ISU doesn't want the scoring system to be explained to the viewers?

Click to expand...

The protocols are up and online, at most, within hours of the event's completion.

As far as the scoring system, I feel like the commentators do a sufficient job balancing explaining the scoring without boring the casual fan to tears.

As far as Adelina's PCS, when was it ever juniorish? She has consistently been getting top 6 in the world PCS, in that second group along with Akiko and Ashley. She skated at home, hit all her triples, and electrified the crowd so her PCS went up. Yuna was flat and skated too defensively, so her PCS didn't rise.

If this event were in the 6.0 era, it would have been much easier, wouldn't it. The judges didn't have to do crazy math like this. Mostly they only had to say which one they liked better and gave out the placement, we would know which judge placed Adelina or Yuna higher.

Just like Oly 1994, even though some people still don't agree with the placement, at least we know which judge favour which skater.

CoP wouldn't be such a mess if they erased anonymous judging right from the beginning.

Sam-Skwantch said:

I don't think it's even clearly defined what good height is. Is it an absolute measurement off of the ice (for ex. 8in. or higher) or is it in relation to the skaters physical demeanor. Is its goodness determined in comparison to the rest of the competitors or is it merely for the jump at hand. This is for the judges to assess and I dont think you'll ever get a clear consensus on any one panel. To me a jump that allows for full rotation is not enough to be awarded the height/distance bullet in all cases but is a good place to start when assessing a jump's final value.

The GOE bonus is basically the icing and candles on the cake. The thing is I won't put either on until all the main ingredients are mixed and cooked properly. Probably a terrible example.

Click to expand...

Speaking only as a more-than-casual fan, the idea of full rotation as a place to start makes sense to me. The rotation is what I'd understand as one of the basics of the jump, with height and distance adding the "wow" factor that would contribute to a GOE bonus. As for "effortless," that's the Holy Grail!

The ingredients/cake/icing analogy didn't seem all that weird but I come from a long line of amazing cooks & bakers!

Did blades of passion ever get to analyze Sotnikova's short program step sequence? I lost track after this thread started going off-topic.

Couple things I want to say about off-topic discussions;

1. Yuna's single 3Lutz - someone's calling it FLUTZ now? (sam skwanch?) Flutz is when you take off for Lutz jump with inside edge instead of outside edge - it has nothing to do with the rotations. And for those who claim Yuna pre/under-rotated, when you count revolutions, it's pointless to look at captured moments because everyone would be under rotated somehow picking the supposed exact moment that the foot makes contact with ice - even when it's only toe pick. You should look at the entire jump - start from the moment of take off and count the rotation of the foot - although with Yuna, looking at her upper body will be just fine cuz she doesn't twist her upper body to forfeit rotation (specialty of Sotnikova and Mao - this is shown by their head turned sideways during their jumps). No doubt Yuna had full rotation - a little tight - but she does complete full rotation in air - a close one though and she barely makes it. The huge turn she makes afterwards was to stabilize her landing, not to complete her rotation on ice.

2. Comparing Yuna with Buttle/Tuktamisheva
Okay, in all fairness they all used Adios Nonino and they all had their own edit version of the music piece. And yes, people may have different preferences. But where do people get the idea that Yuna didn't interpret the music vs Buttle/tuktamisheva did better than Yuna? Yuna expresses various emotions & captures every nuances every time the beat/tempo changes in Adios Nonino - it starts off with sad/ mourning tone and her facial expressions also reflect the mood. Her little smile after her FCCoSp4 right before her step sequence marks the change of tempo into a faster paced/passionate tango. Towards the end of step sequence, it's back to sorrowful/slow tempo. She acts out a mourning daughter who misses her father. And then right before LSp3, there's a little alluring piano prelude leading up to the climax and Yuna does that little finger tip touching her face - perfectly expressing feminity/maturity. Then finally accelerated tempo along with Yuna's choreo sequence... She expresses agony here. Her ending pose marks the growth/maturity of a girl through her father's passing/tango. See how it's so easy to tell a story from her performance? Who said her performance was boring? It had so many changes of tempos and different grounds for various moods/emotions/expressions. And please do compare it with other Nonino performances - were they able to perfectly match/fit their elements into the music? Were they able to make the music come alive or did the music carry the skaters?

3. Crossovers - some say Adelina had less crossovers but that's because she didn't cover enough ice. With the same amount of time given, she lack speed and covered less ice. (Look up the ice coverage comparisons)
http://youtu.be/Lf7V6DTHuhw this is a raw cam. Just look at her speed.

4. Sotnikova with difficult entry and less severe wrong edge on her lutz? First of all, wrong edge is a wrong edge. i think the new isu rule giving out attentions to less severe ones is ridiculous. So basically it's enough to pretend you have outside edge way before take off and when you actually take off you slyly change to inside edge but it's barely noticeable. So it's less severe? I mean because that's exactly what Sotnikova does. But this is about the jumping technique itself, before even getting into GoEs and difficult entries. If that is not going to be penalized strictly, then what about skaters like Yuna who properly does the outside edge right when she takes off? Shouldn't they award Yuna with +3 GoEs just for her textbook jumping technique? And speaking of difficult entry, she may look like she does more in her entry because she does turns before the jump - but if you look at it in a different perspective, all that stuff before the jump is possible because she lacks speed. Look at Yuna's entry. It's with so much speed - and it's not like she does nothing - if you look it up, no other skaters do that cross-steps before the lutz jump.

skatedreamer said:

Speaking only as a more-than-casual fan, the idea of full rotation as a place to start makes sense to me. The rotation is what I'd understand as one of the basics of the jump, with height and distance adding the "wow" factor that would contribute to a GOE bonus. As for "effortless," that's the Holy Grail!

Click to expand...

I agree but I would add the landing as well, as one of the basics of the jump.

Guys. I'm so sorry but Sotnikova sucks. Her jumps are huge but ugly. She lacks artistry on ice. Why are we even discussing this? She has fire though, I will give her that. But if you want to become a complete skater, look at others please.

Alba said:

I agree but I would add the landing as well, as one of the basics of the jump.

Click to expand...

Yes, indeed -- and "finishing" the landing a la Michelle Kwan. I'll look for an example & post a clip if I find one.

EDIT: This is MK in her "Salome" program from 1996 Worlds. Watch the jump around 2:00 and the lovely landing position...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKmUW8wPB0s

jand0387 said:

Did blades of passion ever get to analyze Sotnikova's short program step sequence? I lost track after this thread started going off-topic.

Click to expand...

Yes, although I haven't taken time to write it all down yet. It should have been called as Level 3. At this point, it kind of feels like I'd be wasting my own time to write it all down, although I will if people really want to see. I'd like to focus on trying to push for improving the sport going forward, rather than revisiting an ugly step sequence and yet another judging mistake that was made in Sochi.

Alba said:

I agree but I would add the landing as well, as one of the basics of the jump.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more and in at least one thread, maybe even here, I've suggested a once per program ~3pts bonus awarded to any one element held out longer than required. Most skaters could achieve this easily but currently aren't being rewarded for it. All you would need is wording like "enhances the element value" or "adds impact to the performance". It would encourage an artistic edge while not drastically overhauling the system and hindering skaters from pushing the tech side too.

Height is way overrated in my books. The landing and how a jump is woven into a program should be of more significant impact on scoring to me.

Blades of Passion said:

rather than revisit ... yet another judging mistake that was made in Sochi.

Click to expand...

"Mistake" implies an error not done on purpose. I think in this case, it's a poor word choice, since the intent was clear -- the technical panel was determined to give Sotnikova Level 4, and her main challengers Level 3, regardless of what any of them did on the ice.

Blades of Passion said:

Yes, although I haven't taken time to write it all down yet. It should have been called as Level 3. At this point, it kind of feels like I'd be wasting my own time to write it all down, although I will if people really want to see. I'd like to focus on trying to push for improving the sport going forward, rather than revisiting an ugly step sequence and yet another judging mistake that was made in Sochi.

Click to expand...

You have be to unbiased to get heard. Right now you have an agenda.