Page 8 of 114 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 58 108 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 1710

Thread: Analyzing Sotnikova and Kim's footwork in the FS

  1. #106
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy View Post
    Honestly who cares? We know it was judging in her favour and a level 3 wouldn't have affected the results.

    The competition is done. Sequences and levels are called incorrectly all the time. The amount of effort you've put into analyzing Sotnikova's sequence, while interesting in the context of how footwork is marked, is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.
    while you're not entirely incorrect i disagree that past performances, especially highly publicized, controversial ones, do matter. they set precedents. the question at hand is a worthwhile one

  2. #107
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    270
    BoP-

    While I agree with you in principle, a comma can parse a sentence in a way that can change the meaning of a sentence. I think that is what DMD is getting at (but in this case, s/he seems off-base).

    That being said, the rules seem pretty clear as you indicated and I read. According to your analysis, Adelina failed to meet Level 4 requirements (missing at least one turn in both directions-if not possibly 2 and only completing 1 step sequence correctly). Just because she adds elements without executing others correctly should not give her bonus point, DMD.

    As BoP said at the beginning, and gkelly offered, it might useful for knowledgeable folks to give us some analysis of their own.

  3. #108
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    5,285
    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.

    For unambiguity it should be "5 different types of turns all executed in both directions, and 3 different types of steps all executed in both directions". Treat them as separate bullets if need be.

  4. #109
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,739
    Quote Originally Posted by I♥Yuna View Post
    Anyone care to explain which of these items are "turns' and which are "steps"
    Types of turns: three turns, twizzles, brackets, loops, counters, rockers.
    Types of steps: toe steps, chasses, mohawks, choctaws, curves with change of edge, cross-rolls, running steps.

  5. #110
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,791
    Quote Originally Posted by capcomeback View Post
    How do we know your way of interpreting the rule is right? BTW, what is your way? Oh, yeah, the way you get your result.
    The point of this thread is to try to prove the technical caller was wrong and sotnikovas level 4 was a level 3 and sotnikovas score should go down or her win thrown out or something else. The rules can be read in an entirely different way and were read in an entirely different way and the op is not right and saying sotnikova is a illegitimate winner. But that is not true because of the rules in how to get level 4.

  6. #111
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    5,285
    Exactly. It should have been called a level 3 as the title implies and as how BoP has pointed out.

    Is this thread done, now?

    You wonder how many threads people are going to start about "Sotnikova's spin should have been a level 3 not a level 4." and then pointing out all the aspects of the spin. As mentioned, levels are miscalled all the time, especially if there is an underlying bias (which in Sochi, there obviously was).

  7. #112
    Best comeback EVOR! zamboni step's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    683
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy View Post
    Exactly. It should have been called a level 3.

    Is this thread done, now?
    They're all the same, it'll never be done.

  8. #113
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by kslr0816 View Post
    while you're not entirely incorrect i disagree that past performances, especially highly publicized, controversial ones, do matter. they set precedents. the question at hand is a worthwhile one
    Especially if it leads to improvement in judging/officiating or if it is determined that there was a conspiracy.

  9. #114
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    No, but you do need to analyze other step sequences and the official calls for them to draw any conclusions about the competence or bias of the technical panel.
    i don't entirely disagree with this statement, but then it becomes either they're biased or they're incompetent. if their call on adelina's step sequence was incorrect (which is being debated here, now) then: either they called the other skaters correctly, and they're biased, or they called the other skaters incorrectly as well, and they're incompetent.

  10. #115
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    941
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy View Post
    Exactly. It should have been called a level 3.

    Is this thread done, now?
    If that's the consensus, I have no objection. I can refer to this thread in the other thread.

  11. #116
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    5,285
    Quote Originally Posted by kslr0816 View Post
    while you're not entirely incorrect i disagree that past performances, especially highly publicized, controversial ones, do matter. they set precedents. the question at hand is a worthwhile one
    Sotnikova is not the first, nor the last, skater to ever have an element called with an incorrect/higher level.

  12. #117
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,739
    Quote Originally Posted by capcomeback View Post
    Just because she adds elements without executing others correctly should not give her bonus point, DMD.
    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.

  13. #118
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by gmyers View Post
    The point of this thread is to try to prove the technical caller was wrong and sotnikovas level 4 was a level 3 and sotnikovas score should go down or her win thrown out or something else. The rules can be read in an entirely different way and were read in an entirely different way and the op is not right and saying sotnikova is a illegitimate winner. But that is not true because of the rules in how to get level 4.
    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.

  14. #119
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy View Post
    Sotnikova is not the first, nor the last, skater to ever have an element called with an incorrect/higher level.
    i'm not talking about the scoring - i'm referring to the rule that people are talking about right now, about what kind of variety is defined as necessary for level 4.

  15. #120
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by drivingmissdaisy View Post
    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.
    i completely agree with this statement. this is the first question that needs to be answered, otherwise the rest of the debate is completely moot. either BoP's translation of the rules is right, or DMD's is. what's the "true" interpretation?

Page 8 of 114 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 58 108 ... 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
  •