CoP question

I'm not sure if anyone knows the answer to this, but if a skater performs a jump that doesn't count (like Plushenko at last year's GPF), but he or she falls on it, do they still get a -1 deduction. My guess is no, since the judges are suppossed to look at it like it never happened, but I don't know. Also does it take away from the TCS at all? It seems like it would, because how can you have a perfect program with a fall, but if its not counted....ugh....anyone know?

Yeah, any fall in program takes away 1 point from total mark.

However they have definition of fall, something like your blades leave the ice or so to warrentee a deduction.

The ISU rule for falls in JS 09 Singles/Pairs Principles of Calculation do not require that falls occur during an element, counted or not.

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-152076-169292-64122-0-file,00.pdf

A fall is defined as "the loss of control of a skater resulting in both blades leaving the ice and the skater landing immobile (even momentarily)." There is an additional -1 for every group of 10 seconds in which the fall interrupts the program. For example, a fall is a -1 deduction. If the skater's program is interrupted by 11-20 seconds, then there is an additional -1 deduction, by 21-30 seconds is an additional -2 deduction, etc. The principle seems to be not that a fall is a worse landing because of position, but because each fall interrupts the program.

hockeyfan228 said:

The principle seems to be not that a fall is a worse landing because of position, but because each fall interrupts the program.

Click to expand...

That actually makes perfect sense to me. What I don't like about CoP and un-counted jumps is that they still go toward the jump total. For instance, if a man does a 3 toe loops, and then proceeds to do 6 more jumping passes (for a total of 9), the last jump won't count, even though the 3d toe loop did not get any credit. I'd prefer them to say - if this jump didn't get credit, it's like it didn't happe. As you pointed out, of course, a fall is a different story.

I believe you are all correct. Wasn't there a skater who received a 1.0 deduction when they slipped off an edge on a cross-over during the GP series? Same theory, no one required or compelled the skater to do a cross-over or turn, but if you fall on one, it's still a 1.0 deductions because most skaters don't choreograph "spills" into their program

A good example of this would be Marzi Hienzman (sp?) when she took her spill at nationals and then slid into the boards....she would have received a deduction for not completing an element, one for falling, and another for failing to get up post haste

sk8m8 said:

I believe you are all correct. Wasn't there a skater who received a 1.0 deduction when they slipped off an edge on a cross-over during the GP series? Same theory, no one required or compelled the skater to do a cross-over or turn, but if you fall on one, it's still a 1.0 deductions because most skaters don't choreograph "spills" into their program

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Actually I'd prefer something like 1fall -1; 2falls -1-2=-3; 3falls -1-2-4=-7; so on so forth. So basically after 3 or 4 falls, you are out. With that many fall not only program is disrupted, it also indicates skater lack of control of his edges. And also skaters shouldn't try something they couldn't master or too difficult for them, audience don't want to see a splat fest.

So if a skater fall's twice than they get -2 right?