Page 9 of 114 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 59 109 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 1710

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

  1. #121
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,995
    Quote Originally Posted by gmyers View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by drivingmissdaisy View Post
    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.

  2. #122
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    270
    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.
    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.

  3. #123
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    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.

  4. #124
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,643
    Quote Originally Posted by capcomeback View Post
    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.

  5. #125
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by gmyers View Post
    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.

  6. #126
    Best comeback EVOR! zamboni step's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    631
    Quote Originally Posted by gmyers View Post
    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.

  7. #127
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by gmyers View Post
    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.

  8. #128
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,643
    Quote Originally Posted by zamboni step View Post
    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 <<.

  9. #129
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,995
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by capcomeback View Post
    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!!!

  10. #130
    Rinkside
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Bolton, Lancashire
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    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.

  11. #131
    Best comeback EVOR! zamboni step's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    631
    Quote Originally Posted by gmyers View Post
    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.

  12. #132
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,643
    Quote Originally Posted by kslr0816 View Post
    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.

  13. #133
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    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.

  14. #134
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Parry View Post
    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.

  15. #135
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by drivingmissdaisy View Post
    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).

Page 9 of 114 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 59 109 ... 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
  •