What I'm talking about is taking the steps and turns at face value.
For example, a skater goes into a turn on a forward outside edge with counterrotation, rotates outside the entry circle, and exits to continue curving down ice on the opposite curve as the entry edge, without holding the exit edge on one foot for very long or very deeply.
That turn must have been intended as a counter, given the entry and the direction of travel afterward.
A caller who is generous in general or inclined to be especially generous to this particular skater for political reasons will just count it as a counter and move on. I.e., benefit of the doubt.
A caller who is nitpicky in general or inclined to nitpick this particular skater for political reasons will review that part of the step sequence, analyze whether the skater changed edge before the turn (making it an inside three turn) or exited on a brief back inside edge and then changed over to back outside (making it a bracket), or exited on a flat or almost immediately onto two feet (making it not count as any turn for purposes of gaining levels).
So if the skater has clearly executed the turn as intended, there's no doubt and she gets credit for what she intended. If she has clearly not executed it as intended, there's no doubt and she doesn't get credit. If it's ambiguous, then there is wiggle room and room for honest disagreement.
If the turns taken at face value watching live during the program add up to enough to qualify for the feature, there's no need to review.
If there is a review and the video is inconclusive as to which edge the skater was on, then it comes down to the strictness of the panel.
For us analyzing after the fact, with low-contrast video or different fans using different video angles, we may disagree about what we see in these gray area situations.
So let's analyze those skaters' step sequences as well and see what we find.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.
The other thing to keep in mind is that all four possible features are required for level 4. The most likely reason not to achieve it is not getting credit for the "complexity" of turns and steps as defined earlier -- 5 different turns and 3 different steps in each direction.
But it's also possible that some skaters did get credit for complexity but did not get credit for executing the "clusters" of difficult steps as required, with continuous rhythm, or did not get credit for full upper body movement. (The rotation in each directions for 1/3 of the pattern is most likely to get credit as long as the skater executed all the planned steps and turns.)
Well, if they made mistakes there may not have been any doubt. We would have to analyze what they actually did in those segments . . . and then we still might have doubt if the videos are not definitive.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.
If this is a case that there are not enough eyes on what's going on this should be corrected.
To me, "benefit of the doubt" means letting something slide in spite of a hankering doubt (a lingering questionmark). To say that a skill "looks good" enough to not even feel the need to review is to say they never had a doubt about the execution of that skill in real time (no lingering question marks in the first place).However, "benefit of the doubt" on some elements could also mean "Looks good in real time, no need to review."
"Benefit of the doubt" is something that only makes sense for the skills that look iffy in real time. If they're iffy about it, then it's in doubt. If it's in doubt, it should be reviewed. If it's in doubt, and they don't review it, that's called "turning a blind eye" to a possible mistake (which indicates BIAS). If they do review it, and the replays cannot resolve their initial doubts, then they are left in a stalemate of doubt, and have to make a choice - give her "the benefit of the doubt", or not. If they encounter this situation for several different skaters, and choose to give the benefit of the doubt only to some of them, that also indicates bias.
That said, I admit we have no idea what was reviewed or not All I'm saying is that the time they took to determine Adelina's scores seemed fairly typical, and logically, you can only draw so many conclusions from that.
Alrighty then I'll leave the judges out of it.This thread is only about technical panel calls, not judges.
Well, I think we should, don't you? Aren't you interested in objectivity and fairness, or should we scrutinize nothing, and simply accept, wholesale, whatever the technical panel puts foward just because "they're objective" and "they're the authority"?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?
It's just time consuming to analyze each of them.
The real tech panel has three people who each look at different things in real time. And then they may or may not review.
One person working from video has the opportunity to rewatch several times to look for each of the different features.
But the video might not be clear and might not be the same angle as the real panel had (live or in replay), so seeing something different doesn't necessarily mean that the person analyzing after the fact is right and the tech panel was wrong. Maybe we're wrong because our angle is more deceptive than the panel's. Or maybe we're right and they were wrong because their angle was deceptive.
If several of us watch, from several angles, and share observations and interpretations of ambiguous moves, we'll get a better result than taking one person's analysis as truer than the original panel's.
And if we do this for multiple skaters in the event, we can draw better conclusions about what the panel's limitations may have been than one person analyzing one skater's sequence.
Ashley has somewhat of a reputation for underrotating, so I wasn't shocked that her elements took a bit of extra time to review. It was unfortunate that it happened prior to Yuna's turn.
I'm all for analysis of all the other skaters. There does not need to be extra scrutiny or focus on any one skater's elements.
An umpire calling a ball or strike is a singular moment, that can take a minute to be reviewed. Now imagine the time it would take to review 30 singular moments packed together that are worth 3.3 points or 3.6 points depending on counting the right turns. "I counted 5 different turns in both directions" "Well, I counted 4 different turns" "Well I only saw 3 steps" etc. etc. etc. ... all this back and forth disagreement/discussion over 0.6 points in a 130 point skate.
Another tech panel member usually looks for both criteria #2 and #3 together (did the skater do turns in both direction for 1/3 of the pattern each and use upper body movement for 1/3 of the pattern), as they are the easier ones to determine.
And then the last tech panel member determines criteria #4 (were there two different combinations of difficult turns executed with clear rhythm).