Analyzing Sotnikova and Kim's footwork in the FS

Blades of Passion · Mar 12, 2014

gmyers said:
No. That's just the way you are choosing to read it. You open a thread built on a distortion and then complain when people oppose your distortion which just so happens to conform to your opinion that sotnikova didn't deserve to win.

No, it's not the way I am choosing to read. You have poor reading comprehension and/or you do not understand competitive ice skating.

Again, these rules have been in place for the past FOUR seasons and ANY Level 4 Step Sequence that you examine will show 5 different types of turns executed at least once in both directions and 3 different types of steps executed at least once in both directions.

The burden of proof is on you. Show me ANY Level 4 step sequence from the past four years where my "interpretation" of the rule is wrong.

drivingmissdaisy said:
Assuming you are correct, what is the chance that the caller made a genuine mistake in determining the level? It was obviously a very close call according to your detailed analysis.

It's not that close of a call at all. She only did ONE type of step in both directions. The rules require THREE.

Part of what this all goes to show, though, is how the rules for step sequence level have been long overdue for a rehaul. Sequences are overly busy and impossible to be judged by one person in any normal space of time.

capcomeback · Mar 12, 2014

drivingmissdaisy said:
I agree, but for her to get level 4 but only achieve 4/5 of turns and 1/3 of steps under BoP's interpretation would be quite a disaster, whereas under an alternative reading it would be level 4.

Still not clear what that "alternate reading" means. Are you parsing the sentence to mean that she has to do 5 turns in total with only the step sequences done in either direction? That does not seem to be the way programs are choreographed. Additionally, that would not make sense as a Level 3 program would require more turns than a Level 4.

gmyers · Mar 12, 2014

Blades of Passion said:
No, it's not the way I am choosing to read. YOU have poor reading comprehension and YOU do not understand competitive ice skating.

Again, these rules have been in place for the past FOUR seasons and ANY Level 4 Step Sequence that you examine will show 5 different types executed at least once in both directions and 3 different types of steps executed at least once in both directions.

The burden of proof is on YOU. Show me ANY Level 4 step sequence from the past four years where my "interpretation" of the rule is wrong.

It's not that close of a call at all. She only did ONE type of step in both directions. The rules require THREE.

Part of what this all goes to show, though, is how the rules for step sequence level have been long overdue for a rehaul. Sequences are overly busy and impossible to be judged by one person in any normal space of time.

You make up your own rotational calls on jumps and your own levels on spins and steps because you think you know it all and are always right and then judge competions based on your own jump calls and spin and step levels. I am going by the calls of the technical panel. You need to prove the panel was corrupt. That they read the rules wrong but you can't because the rules absolutely justify a level 4 for sotnikova.

gmyers · Mar 12, 2014

capcomeback said:
Her win won't be "thrown out". For better or worse Adelina won gold and that won't change. Still, if that win is not legitimate due to human or technical error (or conspiracy), that is what people want to change for the future.

I'm still not clear how the rule could be interpreted differently than it is written. It looks pretty straight forward to me.

The op also demands her triple toe be called underrotated if not downgraded. They are trying to make up stuff so where "factually" sotnikova has a lower score than sotnikiva. The rule was read correctly to give level 4.

capcomeback · Mar 12, 2014

gmyers said:
You make up your own rotational calls on jumps and your own levels on spins and steps because you think you know it all and are always right and then judge competions based on your own jump calls and spin and step levels. I am going by the calls of the technical panel. You need to prove the panel was corrupt. That they read the rules wrong but you can't because the rules absolutely justify a level 4 for sotnikova.

Actually, he does not need to prove the panel anything. As I've been saying, the panel could have been mistaken and missed it. The panel does not need to be corrupt to be inept or just overwhelmed by Adelina's busy-ness. Still, there is a chance of corruption.

zamboni step · Mar 12, 2014

gmyers said:
You make up your own rotational calls on jumps and your own levels on spins and steps because you think you know it all and are always right and then judge competions based on your own jump calls and spin and step levels. I am going by the calls of the technical panel. You need to prove the panel was corrupt. That they read the rules wrong but you can't because the rules absolutely justify a level 4 for sotnikova.

You always challenge the decisions of the judges, saying certain skaters are overscored/underscored in PCS, Adelina domestically for example, and saying she deserved << on her 3Lz-3L at the start of the season when they were in fact fully rotated other than TEB.

kslr0816 · Mar 12, 2014

gmyers said:
You make up your own rotational calls on jumps and your own levels on spins and steps because you think you know it all and are always right and then judge competions based on your own jump calls and spin and step levels. I am going by the calls of the technical panel. You need to prove the panel was corrupt. That they read the rules wrong but you can't because the rules absolutely justify a level 4 for sotnikova.

i'm surprised by your statement. the only question at hand is whether or not sotnikova's step sequence was called correctly, which seems largely dependent on what the true interpretation of a rule being discussed at hand is. nothing to do with corruption or proving the panel was corrupt. they could have simply called it incorrectly by accident. the question was whether or not it was called correctly.

gmyers · Mar 12, 2014

zamboni step said:
You always challenge the decisions of the judges, saying certain skaters are overscored/underscored in PCS, Adelina domestically for example, and saying she deserved << on her 3Lz-3L at the start of the season when they were in fact fully rotated other than TEB.

Yeah those were my opinions that I didn't try to present as objective truth. She stopped doing lutz loop because it was too risky to get <<.

Blades of Passion · Mar 12, 2014

CanadianSkaterGuy said:
And if we're talking semantics, obviously commas make a difference. "5 different types of turns, and 3 different types of steps, all attempted in both direction" could be interpreted as only the turns need to be attempted in all directions. "5 different types of turns, and 3 different types of steps all attempted in both directions" could be interpreted as only the steps need to be in all directions.

The word "ALL" is what makes the meaning of the sentence clear. It refers back to the subjects of the sentence, which are turns and steps. Your first example could not be interpreted as only the turns needing to be attempted in both directions, it's simply grammatically incorrect. Your second sentence is also grammatically incorrect; a comma would never go there.

capcomeback said:
Still not clear what that "alternate reading" means. That does not seem to be the way programs are choreographed. Additionally, that would not make sense as a Level 3 step sequence would require more turns than a Level 4.

DING DING DING, we have a winner!!!

Glen Parry · Mar 12, 2014

Blades of Passion said:
No, it's not the way I am choosing to read. YOU have poor reading comprehension and YOU do not understand competitive ice skating.

Again, these rules have been in place for the past FOUR seasons and ANY Level 4 Step Sequence that you examine will show 5 different types of turns executed at least once in both directions and 3 different types of steps executed at least once in both directions.

The burden of proof is on YOU. Show me ANY Level 4 step sequence from the past four years where my "interpretation" of the rule is wrong.

It's not that close of a call at all. She only did ONE type of step in both directions. The rules require THREE.

Part of what this all goes to show, though, is how the rules for step sequence level have been long overdue for a rehaul. Sequences are overly busy and impossible to be judged by one person in any normal space of time.

Sorry, but I must take umbrage with this statement.

If, as seems to be the case, you have edited the text of the rules in sucha way that their interpretation is able to be changed, then it is not that others are incapable of correctly comprehending them, rather it could be argued that you have muddied the waters &, thus, made the comprehension of the rules more difficult than might otherwise be the case.

Whether this was done deliberately, or out of a misguided attempt at emphasising what you believe to be the critical clause within the rules, will no doubt continue to be the subject of debate, but if your intention was the latter, you have actually achieved the exact opposite.

zamboni step · Mar 12, 2014

gmyers said:
Yeah those were my opinions that I didn't try to present as objective truth. She stopped doing lutz loop because it was too risky to get <<.

She stopped doing it because the stupid tech panel saw a 3-3L and instantly hit the < button. And you said it in the manner as BoP, and I agree with BoP here. I understand you were entitled to your opinion and have no problem with presenting it like that when it comes to rotation, but don't be a hypocrite.

gmyers · Mar 12, 2014

kslr0816 said:
i'm surprised by your statement. the only question at hand is whether or not sotnikova's step sequence was called correctly, which seems largely dependent on what the true interpretation of a rule being discussed at hand is. nothing to do with corruption or proving the panel was corrupt. they could have simply called it incorrectly by accident. the question was whether or not it was called correctly.

There is no reason to believe the call is incorrect at all. I think the only thing that could is a beleif the panel was corrupt and overscoring sotnikova which the op stated they didn't call an underrotated triple toe as well.

drivingmissdaisy · Mar 12, 2014

Blades of Passion said:
DING DING DING, we have a winner!!!

Err... no. Doing one step and four turns in both directions does not mean she did a total of one type of step and four types of turns. Unless my English is as bad as you say it is.

capcomeback · Mar 12, 2014

Glen Parry said:
Sorry, but I must take umbrage with this statement.

If, as seems to be the case, you have edited the text of the rules in sucha way that their interpretation is able to be changed, then it is not that others are incapable of correctly comprehending them, rather it could be argued that you have muddied the waters &, thus, made the comprehension of the rules more difficult than might otherwise be the case.

Whether this was done deliberately, or out of a misguided attempt at emphasising what you believe to be the critical clause within the rules, will no doubt continue to be the subject of debate, but if your intention was the latter, you have actually achieved the exact opposite.

People frequently bolden text to highlight it on discussion boards. Perhaps your umbrage might be reduced if he colored it Gold, lol.

capcomeback · Mar 12, 2014

drivingmissdaisy said:
Err... no. Doing one step and four turns in both directions does not mean she did a total of one type of step and four types of turns. Unless my English is as bad as you say it is.

There are only two possible readings here (and one makes no sense) that I can see. If you see a third, please explain how the sentence can be parsed in that particular way. Please be sure to include the actual text (no subtext, lol).

kslr0816 · Mar 12, 2014

gmyers said:
There is no reason to believe the call is incorrect at all. I think the only thing that could is a beleif the panel was corrupt and overscoring sotnikova which the op stated they didn't call an underrotated triple toe as well.

The OP, and a few others, disagree, based on a rule currently being discussed. This is why the discussion exists. I don't know what the rule is, which is why I haven't said anything about the actual step sequence being level 3 or level 4, I'm learning as I go along. To me it does seem, as OP stated, the burden of proof is on you. Your response is basically, it's correct because it was called correct. For the more inquisitive mind, that's not a good enough answer. at least DMD is discussing the actual rule that this argument basically hinges on.

Mathman · Mar 12, 2014

Glen Parry said:
Sorry, but I must take umbrage with this statement.

If, as seems to be the case, you have edited the text of the rules in sucha way that their interpretation is able to be changed, then it is not that others are incapable of correctly comprehending them, rather it could be argued that you have muddied the waters &, thus, made the comprehension of the rules more difficult than might otherwise be the case.

Blades of Passion can be feisty, but he did not "edit the text of the rules." He copied and pasted verbatim from pages 8 and 9 of ISU Communication 1790. (In particular there are no commas in the sentence in question.)

ILuvYuna · Mar 12, 2014

Blades of Passion said:
The burden of proof is on YOU. Show me ANY Level 4 step sequence from the past four years where my "interpretation" of the rule is wrong.

This much is true. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. BoP made a claim about A's StSq being L3, it was based on his/her personal interpretation of the rule, and he/she has given us some evidence to back it up.

Anybody who wants to claim it was L4, based on their personal interpretation of the rule, ought to make a case for it (I would like to see two more breakdowns - one from a skater who scored L3, and one from a skater who scored L4 - Maybe Gold and Kostner? That would give us a better idea of where A's skills fit in).

ps- thank you daisy for steps vs. turns!

drivingmissdaisy · Mar 12, 2014

From an objective perspective, I could see making an error that would prevent level four by missing one turn. However, for her to do as many steps as she did but only do 1/3 needed in both directions makes me think her program was choreographed in this way, and for her to get level 3 multiple times this season would suggest she would review the footage and change the choreography needed to get level 4.

Glen Parry · Mar 12, 2014

It wasn't the Bold text, which is an obvious emphasis, but the insertion of punctiation, that was lacking from the source material, which has given rise to the debate regarding the OP's interpretatrion of the rules.

As I said previously, this may have been done with the aim of further emphasising the point they wished to stress but, by potentially changing the meaning of the quoted text, has possibly served to obscure the meaning of the original text.

This may have been unintentional but for the OP to then start casting aspersions on the ability of others to either read English, or to comprehend printed material, when they point out this potential for misinterpretation, is rather arrogant and undignified.

Analyzing Sotnikova and Kim's footwork in the FS

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be

capcomeback

gmyers

gmyers

capcomeback

zamboni step

kslr0816

gmyers

Blades of Passion

Skating is Art, if you let it be

Glen Parry

zamboni step

gmyers

drivingmissdaisy

capcomeback

capcomeback

kslr0816

Mathman

ILuvYuna

drivingmissdaisy

Glen Parry

Similar threads

Connect with us