Mirai's Triple Lutz Unfairly Downgraded?

[jeff goldblum]

After taking a small break from the board after all the great skating at Nationals, I'm back to throw in my two cents on this thread.

First of all, both Rachael and Mirai skated great. Both are going to the Olympics and I think most everyone can agree that they are deserving of that honor. As a Mirai fan, I too question the downgrades. However, even if Mirai were rewarded all those lost points, she still may have come up short to Flatt. The competition was close, and the results do inspire some head scratching, for sure.

I think it's really obvious to see from this thread that the judging system is still suspect, and there is just as much opportunity for "cheating" by the judges as there ever was. Whether this is the case for this particular event can continue to be open to a lively debate. It's clear though, that judges can inflate GOEs or PCS in order to give a particular skater an advantage. What happened to questioning the judges' credibility on rulings? I remember often hearing a lot about judges who, when grossly over-marking or under-marking skaters in the 6.0 system, would be subject to disciplinary committees or something of that sort. Is it just assumed that our new system is infallible?

The other really clear thing is that jumps just don't seem to be well understood by anyone: fans, judges, coaches, and skaters alike. I think Mafke (is that right?) and maybe silverlake22 have contributed some really intelligent posts to this thread on that matter. It certainly does seem as though the ISU has suddenly concocted a criteria for jumping that runs completely counter to the way they've been executed (especially by female skaters) for ages, and somewhat to the laws of physics. I've tried at length to explain this before, but there really is so much more to a jump than whether it's got 2 3/4 turns in the air or 2 2/3 (especially when, in reality, most have even less). The ISU protocol is a joke to me "the toe loop is the most commonly cheated take off jump." That's because the jump does take off forward. I've also tried to explain the difference between a properly executed triple toe with forward take off and a toe axel. Shouldn't the governing body for the sport have precise knowledge of just how these things work. And we've got all sorts of posters arguing that they did or didn't see the under rotations in real time or saying there's a cut off point that must be observed or that there's a difference between 91 and 89 degrees. Those skaters who agree with downgrading call out those fans who dispute them, saying "are you a technical specialist, qualified to make that judgment?" But are they any more qualified to say a jump is downgraded, or are they simply agreeing with the call that's been made by the judges? And no one can tell the difference between 2 degrees of rotation, definitely not with the naked eye, and most likely not with a mere slow-motion video playback. As I've said before, jumps are in fact somewhat objective. I always say, no educated skating professional would watch Mirai's performance at Nationals and say she landed 3 triples and a bunch of doubles. We all know that's not true, so then why, despite the semantics of what these jumps are termed on the judging protocols, are they given the same point value?

Also, in regards to whomever said that a flip and true lutz cannot be pre-rotated, both those statements are simply false. Now I may be getting into semantics, but there is always a measure of pre-rotation on every jump. Even a single toe loop isn't much more than 1/2 a turn in the air. It is a physical impossibility to generate rotation after jumping straight up into the air. Give it a shot at home, and you'll find it rather difficult. If a flip jump pre-rotates a quarter turn, the laws of physics do not dictate that at the point the skater leaves the ice, he will suddenly start to move in that direction. The forces of momentum and inertia, as well as rotational inertia beginning to be created on the ice, will ensure that the skater continues to travel in the same path of the take off.

In regards specifically to Mirai's issues. I think a lot of it has been her growth. She has been hit with UR calls as far back as US Nationals in 2007, and probably before that, but compare the jumps from 2007 and 2008 to this past season. Though she's always had somewhat "round" landings, her jumps were often more backwards in the past. I find it odd that so many people are criticizing her technique since it is basically very good. One thing I did notice though is how early she is with her upper body, especially on flip and Lutz. She manages to keep the body in line, but it would surely help her if her upper and lower body were a little more in synch. I think the calls were questionable. The first toe loop should have been called clean in my opinion. The second one was noticeably cheated. The second Lutz was very close, and could have gone either way. Perhaps the judges had a different camera angle for review, but I would have given her the benefit of the doubt.

Based on her progress this season, I'd say she and Frank are going to be continuing to address this issue for the next three weeks, the remainder of the season, and into the next year of skating. And I hope the judging system will catch up too, in the meantime.

 

[gkelly]

The reason why Nationals scores are higher than ISU scores is pretty obvious. Usually, the biggest inflation is going to be on the GOE and PCS scores, since technical elements have an established value. The judges assign GOE and PCS scores for the skaters, and ALL the judges at Nationals are from the same country and have similar backgrounds and culture.

True. They'd be more likely to have similar training in how to judge and what to value, and the skaters would be more likely to demonstrate the qualities that judges from their countries tend to value.

I think the judges for the most part know these skaters, like them, and wish them well.

That too.

Another point to consider is that not all judges at nationals are international judges. So the top performances at nationals are the best skating they get to judge all year. After giving low scores to bad skating and middling scores to mediocre skating and pretty good scores to pretty good skating all year, maybe they would get excited when they actually get to give good scores to good skating and get a little overenthusiastic. That might certainly explain +3s for good elements that would more likely earn only +2 internationally.

I guess. I just don't like it. Not to the extend it's been happening at national competitions this year. They're obviously just trying to flex their muscles and it makes me feel like they're taking audiences for fools.

Scores were always higher at nationals than internationally in the old system too.

The conspiracy theory was usually that the judges were trying to send messages to international judges about how great their country's skaters are. There's an actual motive in that theory. If they are doing it on purpose and expecting it to work, more like they'd be taking the other countries' judges for fools. What the audience thinks would just be incidental.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Well, a barely within a quarter turn is, by definition, a fully rotated.
Outside of a quarter turn is, by definition, a double.
Rachael rotated her triples, barely or not.
Mirai did not rotate her triple, doesn't matter how flowy and high she got. She underrotated. NBC showed a clip, clearly showing she URed.
Since when does Scott's commentary become an objective compass?

I like you to watch the clips and not interpret Scott's and Sandra's tone to make up your mind.

Obviously seeing close-ups is important...and I have. Mirai didn't UR to the point where it should have been downgraded.

Flatt got a pass, plain and simple.

 

[bigsisjiejie]

<snip>
Also, in regards to whomever said that a flip and true lutz cannot be pre-rotated, both those statements are simply false. Now I may be getting into semantics, but there is always a measure of pre-rotation on every jump. Even a single toe loop isn't much more than 1/2 a turn in the air. It is a physical impossibility to generate rotation after jumping straight up into the air. Give it a shot at home, and you'll find it rather difficult. If a flip jump pre-rotates a quarter turn, the laws of physics do not dictate that at the point the skater leaves the ice, he will suddenly start to move in that direction. The forces of momentum and inertia, as well as rotational inertia beginning to be created on the ice, will ensure that the skater continues to travel in the same path of the take off.
<snip>

I'm curious about this paragraph of your post, especially the bolded parts: are you speaking from the point of view of a physicist/scientific analyst, or from actual experience as a skater who has learned and practiced jumps?

 

[Layfan]

True. They'd be more likely to have similar training in how to judge and what to value, and the skaters would be more likely to demonstrate the qualities that judges from their countries tend to value.



That too.

Another point to consider is that not all judges at nationals are international judges. So the top performances at nationals are the best skating they get to judge all year. After giving low scores to bad skating and middling scores to mediocre skating and pretty good scores to pretty good skating all year, maybe they would get excited when they actually get to give good scores to good skating and get a little overenthusiastic. That might certainly explain +3s for good elements that would more likely earn only +2 internationally.



Scores were always higher at nationals than internationally in the old system too.

The conspiracy theory was usually that the judges were trying to send messages to international judges about how great their country's skaters are. There's an actual motive in that theory. If they are doing it on purpose and expecting it to work, more like they'd be taking the other countries' judges for fools. What the audience thinks would just be incidental.

Yeah, I know. I've already noted that Michelle Kwan got way more 6.0s at nationals than at worlds. But somehow it didn't seem so over-the-top and it the difference between Rachael Flatt getting a 116-whatever at Skate America and 130-whatever at nationals just seems insulting to fans. I do think Rachael was better at nationals and I seem to recall something about her not getting full credit for one of her spins at SA. But still.
And not just Rachael. Mirai and everyone else's scores were utterly inflated. Not to mention Rochette at Canadian nationals. I mean, sheesh.

I know it happened under 6.0 but somehow it just seems more annoying to me that it happens under CoP, which is meant to be more objective and systematic.

Your point about national judges not always being international judges and how they might be seeing the best skating all year is very interesting, though, and I didn't know that. It does seem to explain a lot.

Anyhow, it's not the most annoying thing to me about skating or anything and it's not THAT huge of a deal to me. It's just a bit :scratch:

 

[gkelly]

If a 3T has a great take off, great height, great distance but was 100-110 degrees UR it will get 3T< and start with base of 2T.

1 Would it get negative GOE?
2 Should it get negative GOE?
3 Would the judges out there today give it a negative GOE?

The answers to these questions would be different this year than a year or two ago, because they changed the rules.

It used to be that the judges saw the < symbols next to the jump calls and they were required to give negative GOE. So in the case you describe, in 2008 almost all the judges would have given -1 or -2, and the ones who gave 0 or better were wrong according to the rules.

As of this year, the judges don't see the downgrade calls and are not required to give negative GOE.

If they see the underrotation, they're supposed to reduce their GOE from what it would have been otherwise. But that could mean reducing from +1 to 0, which is probably the most likely score for the otherwise great jump you describe.

If they don't see the underrotation, they wouldn't reduce the GOE, so +1 would be likely and +2 might be possible from a generous marker, especially if there were something else special about the jump approach, air position, etc.

4 Would it receive fewer points than a pretty good but not great 2T?

A good but not great 2T would probably receive 0 GOE, maybe some +1s.

Under this year's rules, the great-except-for-rotation 3T would also probably average 0s, maybe a little higher.

So they'd probably score about the same.

(Last year, the downgraded triple would have averaged -1 or a little lower, so the intended double would have scored better.)

On another theme:
My understainding is that a 3Lz-3T base value is the sum of a 3Lz pts + 3T pts
Isn't that harder to do than the individual jumps? Shouldn't it be worth more?

Yes, it's more difficult.
I don't think I've come across any documentation to confirm the reasoning for not rewarding jumps in combo more than solo jumps, beyond the simple observation that doing combos allows the skaters to do more jumps.

So what does that mean?
If there are seven jump passes for ladies, of which at maximum one may consist of three jumps, two of two jumps, and the other four must be solo jumps, that allows for a maximum total of eleven jumps across those seven passes.

For a lady who can do five different kinds of triples (no triple axel), with the limit of two repeats, that allows a maximum of seven triple jumps. There also has to be some kind of axel jump included. For skaters who can't do triple axel, double axel is probably the best way to meet that requirement and earn the most points.

So if a skater wants to perform seven triple jumps plus a double axel in seven jumping passes, then at least two of those difficult jumps (double axels and/or triples) must be performed in the same jumping pass. The reward for doing a combo or sequence with two triples, two double axels, or a triple plus a double axel, is a legal jump layout that includes at least eight of the difficult jumps. A skater who is only able to use double toes on the ends of harder jumps to achieve the required combinations for repeat jumps and to make use of all the allowed combo slots will only legally be able to fit in at most seven difficult jumps (six triples and a double axel, or five triples and two double axels, etc.)

So the added value of a 3-3 or 2A+triple combination is the point difference between a 2T or 2Lo and whatever triple the skater would otherwise have to forgo repeating to make room for a double axel.

Because jump sequences allow skaters to fit in more difficult jumps in a way that's easier to execute, they're worth less than combinations. The base value for the resulting whole jump layout with eight+ difficult/high-value jumps may or may not end up compensating for the points lost to the sequence multiplier.

Of course, GOEs also figure into the final jump-derived part of the TES. So skaters who don't execute the 3-3s or 2A+triples, or even some of the solo triples, well enough to get at least 0 GOE and full credit for the rotations would be better off not trying to fit in the eight+ difficult jumps and looking to earn more jump points with positive GOEs on their easier jump passes.

The best jumpers will be able to take full advantage of more difficult jumps and good GOE.

The details are a little different for men who get eight jump passes (maximum twelve total jumps) to work with and who are more likely to include triple axels and possibly quads. But the principle is the same. Difficult combinations make room for more high-value jumps, obviating the need to "waste" the back of each combo slot on a low-value 2T or 2Lo.

if not more points, should the allowable cheat factor be increased for combinations, or al least for the second jump?

Interesting proposal. It is true that triples as the second jumps in combination are more likely to be cheated. Whether that common result of difficult combinations should be allowed for and not penalized as harshly to encourage risk is a philosophical question. I don't know how seriously the rulemakers have considered that question, if at all.

 

[jeff goldblum]

I'm curious about this paragraph of your post, especially the bolded parts: are you speaking from the point of view of a physicist/scientific analyst, or from actual experience as a skater who has learned and practiced jumps?

Both.

As a skater with a perfectionist streak I was always checking the take-off and landings of my jump tracings on the ice. I wonder if we should start employing this technique as well, despite that it would draw competitions out to unbearable lengths. Anyway, particularly with toe jumps, you often spend a lot of time analyzing how to pivot correctly on the toe-pick in order to help spur the rotation of the jump. And as I've said before, there are times in practice when you might land a jump with a slightly less rotated landing that simply looks and feels better in every other aspect. This is why I find the penalties for under-rotation too harsh. I think this should be more an issue of GOE than completely devaluing jumps, except for extreme cases. Jumps are really quite complicated and it's no wonder that the majority of excellent skaters who never struggled with them have a hard time teaching others how to do them.

The physical part is also rather complicated. I am no physics expert, but it should seem to have something to do with the law of inertia. There must be some sort of external force acting on an object to change it's path of motion. If I skater were to jump straight up into the air, then try to initiate rotation it would simply not happen. We all notice that when a skater is spinning or jumping, the act of drawing the arms and legs close to the body increases the rotational speed, but this is not enough on it's own to generate rotation. If you stand on your kitchen floor and pull your arms in really fast you're not going to start spinning like a top. The rotational energy has to come from somewhere else, and has to do with momentum of the skater on the take-off and friction between the blades and the ice, etc. Likewise, this is why a jump that pre-rotates 90 degrees is not suddenly going to to travel perpendicular to the direction of the take-off once it is in air. The rotational inertia and the inertia of the movement across the ice will dictate that it continues to move in that direction.

 

[gfskater]

The answers to these questions would be different this year than a year or two ago, because they changed the rules.

It used to be that the judges saw the < symbols next to the jump calls and they were required to give negative GOE. So in the case you describe, in 2008 almost all the judges would have given -1 or -2, and the ones who gave 0 or better were wrong according to the rules.

As of this year, the judges don't see the downgrade calls and are not required to give negative GOE.

If they see the underrotation, they're supposed to reduce their GOE from what it would have been otherwise. But that could mean reducing from +1 to 0, which is probably the most likely score for the otherwise great jump you describe.

If they don't see the underrotation, they wouldn't reduce the GOE, so +1 would be likely and +2 might be possible from a generous marker, especially if there were something else special about the jump approach, air position, etc.

In this thread we are talking about national competitors. I think the problem may be worse at lower levels.

After an IJS competition (this year) we were allowed to go to a review session with a judge. He told my daughter if your 2A is not awesome and consistently rotated and your 1A is, do the 1A because you will get more points.

To me an under rotated 2A is much harder to do than a 1A. I think it is unfairly downgraded. If your 2A is slightly under rotated and you get a 2A< you start at 0.8 instead of 3.5. With a -GOE you may end up with 0.4 pts I saw it happen to several skaters at compitions this past fall. If your 1A is good with a +1 GOE you will get 1.3 pts. And if it is great you can earn 2.3 pts!

Again, i think an under rotated 2A is much harder to do than a great 1A.

I think this major bump down of the base value discourages putting the 2A in the program which means she will not practice it in the program. I have noticed that jumps are different when put in a program. The entire dynamics are different, music playing, timing, maybe out of breath, thinking about the next move...

I assume the same problem exists for triples which she is just starting to land, very inconsistently but hopefully by October....

 

[kyla2]

ChuckM

Let's see, why do I think that Mirai is unfairly dinged for a supposed OVER 1/4 rotation? Could be what I see Chuckie. Yes, she under rotates, but not typically greater than 1/4. Many of us feel that to be the case, not just me. I think she was unfairly penalized by the U.S. judges because she does under rotate and they have followed the international judges lead by dinging her regardless of how little or much. In short, I don't feel they are following their own rules to the letter. So, that is my opinion and it is just as legitimate as yours or anyone elses.

 

[jeff goldblum]

It's odd to me that the lutz actually looks more under-rotated to me in real time than in the slow motion video posted here.

 

[gkelly]

Yeah, I know. I've already noted that Michelle Kwan got way more 6.0s at nationals than at worlds. But somehow it didn't seem so over-the-top and it the difference between Rachael Flatt getting a 116-whatever at Skate America and 130-whatever at nationals just seems insulting to fans.

Well, fans may feel insulted, but I'm sure that what fans feel about it was not a consideration for the judges giving those marks.

For GOEs, they should be thinking "how well does this element compare to the requirements for how it should be performed and to the standard by which other such elements are performed." For PCS they should be thinking the same about the set of bullet points for each component.

For calling elements, including downgrades and levels, the tech panel should be thinking about how the element as executed meets the criteria.

If judges' (or tech panels') thoughts go beyond those technical scoring guidelines, maybe they would be thinking something like "How can I balance the scores so the skater I thought performed best will get the highest total?" Or, if they're cheating, "How can I balance the scores so the skater I want to win for reasons other than how everyone performed will get the highest total?"

Or maybe "How can I send a message to this skater and her rivals that I really appreciated what she did so well here?" Or "How can I send a message to this skater and her rivals that I really think this was a serious weakness that should be harshly penalized?"

Or, specifically with regard to Nationals score inflation, "How can I send a message to the skater, to her international rivals, and to the international judging community that we have confidence in her ability to contend for medals on the world stage?"

I'm sure that any of those thoughts, legitimate or illegitimate, would be a lot more likely than what the fans think ever crossing their minds.

If you like, you can be insulted by the fact that the judges probably don't care much what fans think about the marks.

Let's see, why do I think that Mirai is unfairly dinged for a supposed OVER 1/4 rotation? Could be what I see Chuckie. Yes, she under rotates, but not typically greater than 1/4.

Well, the question isn't whether she typically underrotates by greater than 1/4. The question is whether she DID underrotate by more than 1/4 on the specific jumps that were downgraded, as viewed by the technical panel from their angle, with slow motion replay, according to the rules.

 

[janetfan]

It is obvious seeing the way the SP was marked that the tech panel and judges do NOT care what fans feel and can see.

It was lame the way Sasha was scored only a half point lower than Mirai in the SP.
Do you think we couldn't see mistakes that were overlooked?

If nothing else, it looked incompetent........

Why do you expect fans to like that?

 

[mskater93]

If judges' (or tech panels') thoughts go beyond those technical scoring guidelines, maybe they would be thinking something like "How can I balance the scores so the skater I thought performed best will get the highest total?" Or, if they're cheating, "How can I balance the scores so the skater I want to win for reasons other than how everyone performed will get the highest total?"

Or maybe "How can I send a message to this skater and her rivals that I really appreciated what she did so well here?" Or "How can I send a message to this skater and her rivals that I really think this was a serious weakness that should be harshly penalized?"

Or, specifically with regard to Nationals score inflation, "How can I send a message to the skater, to her international rivals, and to the international judging community that we have confidence in her ability to contend for medals on the world stage?"

I'm sure that any of those thoughts, legitimate or illegitimate, would be a lot more likely than what the fans think ever crossing their minds.

If you like, you can be insulted by the fact that the judges probably don't care much what fans think about the marks.

Sorry, but I have to laugh at the thought that anybody on this board thinks a judge has time to let all these thoughts go through their heads while up on the panel. I've judged basic skills competitions and even after several years of doing it, I still feel like I am being rushed to put something down on the paper for the skater so that it's relative to the other skaters I see in the flight. I write myself little notes in the margin so I can remember which is which so I can review my final answer for standings when the event is over. Typically the event referee is tapping anxiously waiting for us to turn in our event sheets to move on to the next event. I am most concerned about getting it "right" as I see it and don't think about sending a message or balancing or any of that.

 

[gkelly]

Sorry, but I have to laugh at the thought that anybody on this board thinks a judge has time to let all these thoughts go through their heads while up on the panel.

I don't think so. In most cases all they would have time for would be the actual technical judging as I mentioned in the opening paragraphs of the post you quoted:

For GOEs, they should be thinking "how well does this element compare to the requirements for how it should be performed and to the standard by which other such elements are performed." For PCS they should be thinking the same about the set of bullet points for each component.

For calling elements, including downgrades and levels, the tech panel should be thinking about how the element as executed meets the criteria.

I've judged basic skills competitions and even after several years of doing it, I still feel like I am being rushed to put something down on the paper for the skater so that it's relative to the other skaters I see in the flight. I write myself little notes in the margin so I can remember which is which so I can review my final answer for standings when the event is over. Typically the event referee is tapping anxiously waiting for us to turn in our event sheets to move on to the next event. I am most concerned about getting it "right" as I see it and don't think about sending a message or balancing or any of that.

Well, with Basic Skills competitions, it's still ordinal judging, so you do have to balance out the good and bad aspects of each skater's performance in relation to the other skaters you see in that flight. In the programs, if you're giving two marks for technical merit and presentation, you have to decide whether skater A's superior presentation should prevail over skater B's superior technique or vice versa. That's the fair way to be balancing.

Under IJS, judges don't even have to do that any more -- just score each aspect as they see it.

I've judged Basic Skills events myself and learned so much about the thought processes by doing so.

 

[janetfan]

I am so proud of our USA judges and tech panel. I am sure they had alot of pressure to hold Sasha up in the SP - but for anyone who watched it was clear they were very competent and fair. Not a trace of favoritism was seen.

Overall it was nice to see how the top four Ladies were held to the same standard and we Americans should feel free to criticize other federations who obviously cheat and manipulate there Natl results to keep big sponsors and TV networks happy.

How I wish we had CoP when I was growing up. It is so fair and I will never question it again.

 

[aftertherain]

How I wish we had CoP when I was growing up. It is so fair and I will never question it again.

I detect a hint of sarcasm in your words.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Absolute Rule; a skater cannot pre rotate a proper Lutz. It can rock over the bo edge to a flat or bi edge which is a Flutz.

I am sure, if the tech panel is honest, they can measure underrotations. They are looking at the skaters in 3D with significant hi tech equipment. We have to believe them. Looking at them without slomo through a 2D screen is very questionable.

Mirai, and Rachael will meet the int'l judges soon who have no reason to place either of them. No?

 

[gfskater]

Absolute Rule; a skater cannot pre rotate a proper Lutz. It can rock over the bo edge to a flat or bi edge which is a Flutz.

I am having a hard time understanding this. I guess do not understand what pre-rotation or "cheated take off" is. I have read in the judges handbook that jumps should be downgraded for cheated take off if they are clearly forward.

I can see in the slow motion video that Mirai is facing forward while one foot is still on the ice. After she jabs her toe pick into the ice she pivots on that foot and rotates about 180 degrees be for lifting off. Is that OK? Is it OK for my daughter to do that for her toe type jumps? Is it a cheated take off, is it under rotation, is it poor GOE, or is it fine to do it that way?

 

[cornell08]

What perplexes me is why Mirai ends up underrotating when she's got so much height and distance to her jumps. Is the problem then that she doesn't have fast/tight enough revolutions in the air?

 

[Mathman]

Absolute Rule; a skater cannot pre rotate a proper Lutz.

I guess do not understand what pre-rotation or "cheated take off" is....

I can see in the slow motion video that Mirai is facing forward while one foot is still on the ice.

That is a great technical question! Thank you for persisting in asking.

So, Joe's point is that it is impossible to pre-rotate your skating foot on a Lutz because it is curving the wrong way.

But can you rotate on your toe-pick after your skating foot has left the ice? Sort of a pirouette on the tip of your picking foot on the way up?