Yeah, I suppose no one can (even the rule book can't) answer for this mystery except judges...
2017 GPF Ladies SP
- Thread starter dorispulaski
- Start date
Yeah, I suppose no one can (even the rule book can't) answer for this mystery except judges...
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
Kaetlyn jumps are getting extra bullet point for greater high and distance. So when judges deduct negative points for unclear edge they deduct it from higher number in Kaetlyns case.
And they want her, otherwise the calls at SA and today for her jumps would have been different.
Yes, regarding the edge, I think Wakaba's 3F was better than Kaetlyn's 3Lz. If judges compensate Kaetlyn's 3Lz with the height, distance, landing etc., Wakaba's 3F should also be rewarded generously...
Last response to this because you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding. I am talking about individuals being singled out suddenly. I'm sure that in the history of the rule there have been others who have pre-rotated and continue to do so and have not been called. That means that in the ISU's interpretation PR does not mean the same thing fans want it to mean. If the ISU wants to change to the fan definition then they need to let the skaters know. That is quite simple and has nothing to do with coddling.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2015
Yes, you can't blame a skater for the decisions of a judging pannel. Also, why all the hate just for Satoko. Many skaters prerotate jumps. Pretty much every Eteri girl does it on their 3T/3L in the combinations. (not Polina but pretty much all the other girls)Just because someone gets more height does not mean they aren't prerotating. Many girls don't get edge calls although they deserve them. Others get PCS marks that have no relationship to their actual skating skills/ presentation ( Alina) so why all the hatred for you one very young sweet lovely skater. Maybe, the judging system needs to change or Judges should be held responsible for their errors but suggesting any skater is purposely not jumpIng correctly is both stupid and cruel.
As I said before: paging Shin Amano as technical caller ...
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2015
No it doesn't. Or you may think that is what it means and I'll disagree with you. It just means ISU is not applying the rule. The same way that steps before a solo in the SP is a rule that is not being followed, or only occasionally when the skater in question is someone way lower on the ladder. There's nothing to "interpret" there, they just get collective amnesia when one of the big guys doesn't have the steps. So as far as I am concerned, just like nobody should get a warning that this rule is suddenly going to be applied, the same goes for prerotation.
What I would agree with is that of course, say slow mo is suddenly allowed for PR issues, everyone is especially notified of this, after it's included in the rules. Otherwise no.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2013
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
His upper body slightly, yes, but way less then 180°. His blade? No.
Actual skaters on the board have disagreed with this definition of PR so let's not pretend like the definition and rule are established and agreed upon.
Also, there's a big difference between a clear rule that is inconsistently applied rule and a rule that is never applied. Some judges do apply the steps before and some don't. At least folks are on notice that steps are required and they can take the risk to get it called or not. I don't know of examples where PR has been called the way fans want it to be called. That calls for some kind of notice and not just a sudden change in interpretation.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2003
It's funny that some people think they know more than the tech specialists regarding the pre-rotation. Here is the thing. The reason why Shoma, Satoko and any others who have been accused of cheating(pre-rotating) don't get called out for pre-rotation is because the tech callers don't consider them pre-rotated, period. I do agree though, that Shoma's flip, lutz(flutz) are not great and Satoko's jumps are so tiny and not good at all but they are still not cheated according to the judges and tech callers. You never hear any figure skating commentators complaining about his or Satoko's pre-rotations, ever. I do call them out if their jumps are underrotated. So just get over yourselves. Some of you guys repeat the same thing over and over. We heard you, trust me. It's annoying.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
All rules are applied by the judges. The problem is in the fact that some things are not for Tech panel to call, so individual judges can miss things like prerotation, full preceding step etc...
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2015
Jason Brown thinks he has the best 3A in the world.
Good luck with those PR calls! 
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2015
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2003
ok so one commentator. are you happy now?
The ability to press pause and use slow motion has given us an unprecedented number of sports experts in the 21st century. It's a technological marvel
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2016
We should probably drop the pre-rotation nonsense. That's a technique/GOE issue - the issue is the number of revolutions. If you rotate a bit on the ice but still get the >2.75 revolutions - who cares! A good example is Med. She pre-rotates but often (though not always) gets enough revolutions. The reason pre-rotation isn't punished is because the rule book states that you can only look at the *landings* of a jump in slow-motion, but I can only determine the # of revolutions based on where you took off. If I can't scrutinize a take-off, and the rulebook requires I give the skater the benefit of the doubt if I can't be entirely confident, then I can't input a downgrade/under-rotation for any take-off issues. The technical structure de-facto punishes under-rotation more than pre-rotation even if the # of revolutions is the same.
As far as cheated take-offs, that's only for egregious forward takeoffs (or backwards for axels). Similarly you cannot scrutinize these take-offs with slow-motion because that rule is designed for egregious cases. Historically, the toe-loop is where this rule is applied but nothing requires this in the handbook. My opinion was Satoko's lutz was egregious enough that it was obviously a cheated take-off, but these are extremely rare in high-level competition.
As far as cheated take-offs, that's only for egregious forward takeoffs (or backwards for axels). Similarly you cannot scrutinize these take-offs with slow-motion because that rule is designed for egregious cases. Historically, the toe-loop is where this rule is applied but nothing requires this in the handbook. My opinion was Satoko's lutz was egregious enough that it was obviously a cheated take-off, but these are extremely rare in high-level competition.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Sticky
