Cop question: What's worse, "popping" a jump or falling on a jump?

[Mathman]

Is the max points scheduled in a prog. defined by the number of elements in a routine or governed by a max number allowable?

IOW, is say 34 max allowed or is it just naturally defined by the elements allowed?

There is no preset limit on the number of points you can get.

In a men's long program there are a maximum of 8 jumping passes, 4 spins and 2 step sequences. How many points you can squeeze into these 14 elements is up to you.

One could, I suppose, figure out the maximum number of points that you could possibly get if you had all level four spins, etc., and if your jump card featured, say, 2 quad Axels, 2 quad Lutzes, a quad loop, Salchow, toe and varios triples in combination, all with +3 GOE, together with perfect 10s in program component scores.

 

[enlight78]

A triple Axel with a fall is worth 7.5 - 3.0 - 1.0 = 3.5 points.

A double Axel (assuming 0 GOE) is worth 3.3 points.

Thats a shame.

 

[Mathman]

Well, I think the ISU's rationale is that they want to encourage skaters to attempt the hardest stuff.

The place where I think an improvement could be made is in the program component scores. If you have a bad fall on a triple Axel that totally disrupts the flow of the program, that should be reflected in lower scores in choreography, interpretation and skating skills.

Similarly a beautifully done double Axel that enhances the performance and brings oohs and ahhs from the audience and the judges alike, that should be rerwarded beyond just the bare book value of the element.

 

[SeaniBu]

Well, I think the ISU's rationale is that they want to encourage skaters to attempt the hardest stuff.

I just thought of it this way,
Hardest stuff, is worth more because it is harder, want more, try harder.
I would be one who wants better before "forcing" the harder and it looking contrived - I think that is in sentiment. ??

The place where I think an improvement could be made is in the program component scores. If you have a bad fall on a triple Axel that totally disrupts the flow of the program, that should be reflected in lower scores in choreography, interpretation and skating skills.

Similarly a beautifully done double Axel that enhances the performance and brings oohs and ahhs from the audience and the judges alike, that should be rerwarded beyond just the bare book value of the element.

I think I must be missing something because I am thinking that is the difference between a +3 and a -3.??

 

[R.D.]

A triple Axel with a fall is worth 7.5 - 3.0 - 1.0 = 3.5 points.

A double Axel (assuming 0 GOE) is worth 3.3 points.

Hmm, on the plus side this could ENCOURAGE risk-taking rather than discourage it (as was the case with 6.0). Still, falls should be penalized more in situations like these (imo).

 

[hockeyfan228]

ok, so in that case I suppose it depends. I wonder how that was treated in the 6.0 system.

In the SP, there were mandatory deductions for not completing elements. In the LP, who knows: each judge was responsible for assessing all the tech in one score, and there were no fixed weights or GOE-type ranges for the elements.

 

[Mathman]

I think I must be missing something because I am thinking that is the difference between a +3 and a -3.??

The GOE, -3 to +3, is the grade of execution for that element. In the comparison we are considering, we have already factored in the -3 GOE in the case of falling on a triple Axel.

There are specific guidelines for giving out negative GOEs. On the plus side, I don't know exactly what you have to do to get a +3 GOE. I don't think I have ever seen seen one, even by a single judge, and I have looked at literally thousands of these scores, LOL. For most elements a 0 GOE is quite an acceptible result and a +1 is a sweet bonus.

What I was saying is that beyond the quality of the particular element, I think the judges ought to consider the effect of the element within the context of the program as a whole.The judges have an opportunity to do this when they assign program component scores.

Many people (Enlight and Red Dog on this thread, for instance) think that attempting a difficult element but falling should not get a higher score than completing an easier element well. I see both sides of this question, but I also think that falls and other flubs detract from the overall effect of the program and that this should be reflected in lower PCSs independent of the score, GOE included, for the element considered in isolation.

For instance, Zhang and Zhang had such a bad fall iin the Olympics that they had to stop their program completely, go over to the boards and consult with their coaches and medical personnel, and then finally resume the program. They still got very high program component scores and received no further penalty than the mandatory deductions for the particular element (a throw quad Salchow!!! ).

As impressive as the attempt was, I don't see how you can say that crashing to the ice almost killing yourself, then staggering to the boards in a daze for five minutes, represents good choreography.

 

[Mathman]

I thought under COP a skater only has 7 jumping passes, one of which must be an axle type jump??? Which is why unless a skater has a 3axle, 3/3, 2axle/3 or a sequence, they cannot have a 7 triple program. :scratch:

True, but it's not the Zayak rule that forces this. It's just math.

6 jumping passes, 7 triples. One of the passes must have two triples.

 

[Ladskater]

Popping a jump is always worse than falling. Even under the old 6.0 system opening up (or popping) a jump downgraded the jump. I believe under the new marking system skaters get credit for a jump even if they fall and if they open up on the jump they get no credit. That was one of Emanuel Sandhus problems last year - he kept opening up on some of his jumps - especially the triple axel and therefore lost major points.

 

[R.D.]

Many people (Enlight and Red Dog on this thread, for instance) think that attempting a difficult element but falling should not get a higher score than completing an easier element well.

It depends on the difference of difficulty between the two elements in question. For example if we're referring to a 2A vs. 3A, I'd say either break even or let the 2A attempt be worth more than a failed 3A attempt. Why aren't more skaters then just going for the 3A if they can at least complete the rotations than sticking to the 2A if a failed 3A gets more points? (Maybe Kimmie might have a 1-up in this area) I suppose I don't quite understand.

 

[SeaniBu]

The GOE,

I feel foolish Duh Sean! That clarified it right there. Thanks

 

[SeaniBu]

Many people (Enlight and Red Dog on this thread, for instance) think that attempting a difficult element but falling should not get a higher score than completing an easier element well. I see both sides of this question, but I also think that falls and other flubs detract from the overall effect of the program and that this should be reflected in lower PCSs independent of the score, GOE included, for the element considered in isolation.

For instance, Zhang and Zhang had such a bad fall iin the Olympics that they had to stop their program completely, go over to the boards and consult with their coaches and medical personnel, and then finally resume the program. They still got very high program component scores and received no further penalty than the mandatory deductions for the particular element (a throw quad Salchow!!! ).

As impressive as the attempt was, I don't see how you can say that crashing to the ice almost killing yourself, then staggering to the boards in a daze for five minutes, represents good choreography.

OK, now that I have read the whole post...I see both sides as we have discussed and feel I myself in agreeance with the system needing improvement. Although I was NOT comfortable either with the placement of ZZ, they did do a 5th or 6th place IMO. I see where this could be a matter of greater concern on the COP.

I would like to point out that in reviewing the ZZ pro (when I used it in the "So I Fall Again" vid) they were not outside of the 2 minute allotment regulated in the guidelines. From the time she was bent over (indicating they were not able to continue immediately) to the time the music started back up was under 2 minutes and taking into consideration the "time" starts when the Ref says, I would safely say they were with in the "rules." However is that rule fair? I don't know. But it also says that there is more then just the elements that are getting points. In this case integrity and perseverance had to have played a roll hence their placement - but I still don't think they should have meddled. As I feel, there SHould be a deduction for taking that "break." Something like that could be considered a 2 or more point deduction IMO.

I think the CoP will improve - I hope - and am VERY thankful MK was not in this ONLY because she may have been a victim of this new system. And as most know I feel Fumie was robbed by this sys and the way it works (particularly the falls and deductions part - also Ira I feel was broken by this too), but if it was MK there might have been a riot.

I am glad to see this come up again, sounds like RD and others are right on par with what I am / was wondering and this might bring more understanding than my blind faith. An I can close my eyes and think "It's OK Ira and Fumie, you weren't robbed.":yes:

Back to the original, If a fall on a 3t or something is downgraded to a poorly executed 2t then why don't they downgrade a Pop to a poorly executed falling leaf? :yes: That seems consistent - I guess that is the reason the COP is questionable, constancy and acknowledgment of artistic components. I guess I am trying to be funny while making sense of this.

If the CoP was solid it wouldn't be questioned THIS much...would it?

 

[Mathman]

Back to the original, If a fall on a 3t or something is downgraded to a poorly executed 2t then why don't they downgrade a Pop to a poorly executed falling leaf? :yes: That seems consistent?

Basically, that is what they do. A falling leaf, whether executed well or poorly, gets 0 points under the CoP.

If the CoP was solid it wouldn't be questioned THIS much...would it?

Yes, I think it would.

 

[Mathman]

Why aren't more skaters then just going for the 3A if they can at least complete the rotations than sticking to the 2A if a failed 3A gets more points?

I think it is as simple as this. A triple Axel is hard. Not many ladies can complete the rotations. If you don't complete the rotaitions and you fall, you get zero, instead of the 3.3 that you could get for a successful 2 Axel.

The difference between a fully rotated 3 Axel with a fall and an ordinary 2 Axel is only two tenths of a point. Plus, you might get +1 GOE for an excellent 2 Axel, bringing your total up to 4.3 (three tenths of a point better than a triple toe).

Besides that, who wants to fall? Not only does it hurt, it takes the wind out of your sails for the rest of the program. I think that's what happened to both Kimmie and Mao in the Campbell's thing. After they missed their opening triple Axel attempts, they couldn't get their stuff going for the rest of the program.

JMO.

 

[R.D.]

I think both Meissner and Asada are more determined than that, however.

 

[SeaniBu]

Basically, that is what they do. A falling leaf, whether executed well or poorly, gets 0 points under the CoP.

Yes, I think it would.

Regarding the questioning, is that because it is new? And was the GoP questioned this much? - by skating "fans." I am sincere

 

[Mathman]

What I meant was, figure skating is a judged sport. New system, old system, fans will never agree on anything.

However, under 6.0 judging there were not so many details of the system itself to argue about, so mostly people argued about who was robbed, grr how could the judge from Outer Slobovia give So-and-so a 5.8 in presentation when she obviously can't spiral herself out of a paper bag -- that sort of thing.

JMO.

 

[SeaniBu]

What I meant was, figure skating is a judged sport. New system, old system, fans will never agree on anything.

However, under 6.0 judging there were not so many details of the system itself to argue about, so mostly people argued about who was robbed, grr how could the judge from Outer Slobovia give So-and-so a 5.8 in presentation when she obviously can't spiral herself out of a paper bag -- that sort of thing.

JMO.

I totally agree. People will always question - well MK's 6.0? Yes that is true someone will always question.

It is a little odd to me that the COP was meant to relinquish some of the questioning going on, yet it seems that there is so much. I guess it is indicative of a Judging sport people are going to say "my fave was better than that." Watching the 96 and seeing US give a 5.7 and AUS give a 5.1 does make a person say hunh.

BTW, you word some of your examples so funny, you must be a riot in person. One of those teachers that can make even math fun.

 

[enlight78]

Does anyone know if the Goe's are giving for the whole jump or different parts of the jump; like a good rotation vs a smooth flowing landing or the hight of the jump.

 

[gio]

What I meant was, figure skating is a judged sport. New system, old system, fans will never agree on anything.

However, under 6.0 judging there were not so many details of the system itself to argue about, so mostly people argued about who was robbed, grr how could the judge from Outer Slobovia give So-and-so a 5.8 in presentation when she obviously can't spiral herself out of a paper bag -- that sort of thing.

JMO.

Sorry if I go a little bit off topic.
The reason they created COP was because of unfair judging. As we see now, COP didn't solve this problem. IMO, Elena Sokolova was robbed of the bronze medal at Worlds, Fumie Suguri of the bronze at Olympics, Susanna Poykio of gold at 2005 Euros and the list can continue also in Men, Dance and Pairs. I'm Italian but I think that the first place for FusarPoli and Margaglio after compulsories was exaggerated (sp?). And so on and so forth ...
We have to understand a thing, skating is a subjective sport/art, and it will always be, regardless of the system of judging.
I would like a return to the 6.0 system!