Rachael Flatt's Downgraded Combination

[icesk8erdude4e]

The technical specialists called Rachel Flatt's triple lutz-triple toe a triple lutz-double toe. That was bull****! The first jump was perfectly rotated and so was the second what do you say?

I think that Rachel Flatt should've been in the top 3 after the short programme, she was that awesome!

I'm definately happy for her and I think that she will be one of the future faces of American Skating, but this year maybe a trip to Four Continents and I see her going there and medaling how about you guys?

 

[cmk]

Rachel Flatt is only 14 so I don't thing she's age elgible for 4 cs. She could make the trip to Junior worlds though.

ck

 

[julietvalcouer]

Ah. Hm. They seem to be basing it on the bobbled landing of the (f)lutz that made her hold it around the corner. Or so they say. Now they're looking to review it.

But top three--are you serious? Honestly, I've been hearing how she's just so great, and she was kind of boring. Nice arms, and that's the only impression she made.

 

[icesk8erdude4e]

she was awesome! She had the expression, the heart, the artistry, and the jumps. I liked her performance, idk maybe she is eligible for the Four Continents, but if she isn't yeah she'll definately go to Junior Worlds, no doubt about that. Idk if she's even been there before, but maybe she'll go and win a medal.

Sarah Huges won a world Junior medal at the age of about what 12? I definately think that Rachel Flatt can do it too.

 

[skatere1990]

she should be 4th because with the added points for the TRIPLE TRIPLE she would end up there. Kimmie, Emily, and Bebe's component scores are high as they should be so that is why she should not be top 3 but there is no way that jump was cheated. If there calling Rachel's cheated then kimmie should be 3rd, and thats coming from a total kimmie supporter.

 

[R.D.]

I'm not sure I understand why, either. As I reported in the other thread, according to ESPN her coach will ask the tech specialist for a review. But if it's determined that a mistake was made, can the score be adjusted?

 

[icesk8erdude4e]

YES if Rache'ls triple-triple was downgraded then so should Kimmie's. the rule is that if its more than a quarter turn cheat on the end then its downgraded down to the next highest value. Kimmie's was definately more than a quarter turn cheated and it should've been downgraded to a triple-double but i mean of coz she's the World Champion, their going to keep her up there if they at all can, this is also coming from a Kimmie Supporter.

Yeah 4th would do, as long as she gets higher than 6th, she definately deserved to be higher than Alissa Czisny and she was marvelous, in my opinion Alisa's popped lutz took her out of the top three.

 

[Big Momma]

3/3

Christine Z's 3/3 was clearly clean - the best of the 3/3's I thought. But ESPN is not replaying it so I'm just going by memory.

 

[SeaniBu]

IMO it was the flutz that made the difference. Is that right??? Questioned Kimmie's to start - if you don't know it already I am a huge Kimmie fan - and was surprised they didn't downgrade the lutz for Rachael and the 1/3 turn on Kimmie.

They are picking on the Colorado girl I bet.

:frown2:

 

[icesk8erdude4e]

YES the score will be adjusted, like at the 2004 World Championships, Evan Lysacek, during his free skate a number was put in wrong and they ended up lowering his score, fortunately for him it wasn't enough to take him off the podium.

Yeah they will review it, and if they do decide that its ligite then they'll adjust the score, and then put Rachel in her rightful position.

 

[chuckm]

But Christine's was a 3T3T, while Kimmie and Rachael did 3Z3T, a much harder combination.

If the call on Rachael's combination is reversed, then she would be in 4th place.

 

[skatere1990]

This is really hard to wait and figure out whats going to happen... I want to know now! how long do you think the review will take and news will be avaliable?

 

[R.D.]

YES the score will be adjusted, like at the 2004 World Championships, Evan Lysacek, during his free skate a number was put in wrong and they ended up lowering his score, fortunately for him it wasn't enough to take him off the podium.

Yeah they will review it, and if they do decide that its ligite then they'll adjust the score, and then put Rachel in her rightful position.

but that was the WORLD championships, wasn't it? This is the USFS we're talking about here (but then they should adjust it if necessary). An adjustment might mean bumping her up to 4th so it would affect the placements of everyone below her. Plus, a wrong entry is different than a mistake on a call. Has a mistake on a call ever been fixed?

 

[Mathman]

IMO it was the flutz that made the difference. Is that right???

No, the flutz is a separate issue. The technical specialist ruled that Rachael's triple toe was not fully rotated, so it only counts as a double.

Replays show that to be pretty clearly incorrect. But I think Kurt Browning's comment is right. She had to turn so much before the take-off of the second jump that it changed the angle that the tech specialists saw it from, making it appear to be underrotated.

Independent of whether the toe loop was called a triple or a double they will probably take off -1 GOE for the flutz.

 

[SeaniBu]

No, the flutz is a separate issue. The technical specialist ruled that Rachael's triple toe was not fully rotated, so it only counts as a double.

But the flutz effected the latter, and the hesitation into it... there is a \point were I wonder if it was a choice of the two calls. Recognizing the flutz was different but effecting the decision.

 

[Spun Silver]

Looks like Joe was right again about a young skater with potential. (He called first Caroline now Rachel to our attention.)

 

[Mathman]

But the flutz effected the latter, and the hesitation into it... there is a \point were I wonder if it was a choice of the two calls.

I don't think so. I don't see how there can be a choice. If you flutz, you flutz. If you underrotate you underrotate. If you do both, that's a double whammy.

The flutz was on the take-off edge of the first jump. The other problem was on the transition from the landing of the first jump to the take-off of the second.

I don't see any reason to think that the landing would have been better if she had done a true Lutz. If anything, a true Lutz is probably much harder for her than a flutz -- otherwise she wouldn't switch over to the more secure edge like that. (There is a reason that skater's flutz -- it's easier.)

 

[SeaniBu]

I don't think so. The flutz was on the take-off edge of the first jump. The problem was on the transition from the landing of the first jump to the take-off of the second.

My thought here is more along the lines of them seeing one mistake and choosing to call it something else. Being as they called Kimmie's clean earlier they needed to compensate with the other factors that cased the downgrade. This is not to say the scores from the judges would have been negative on the combo yet even on the downgrade. I might not be making sense as often, but it happens in a number of sports with refs and saw no real difference there.

 

[Mathman]

My thought here is more along the lines of them seeing one mistake and choosing to call it something else.

Goodness, I hope not.

But yeah, I know what you mean. In basketball they do it all the time. They blow a call at one end, so they deliberately come up with a phony call at the other end to make up for it. (Figure skating judges are above such shenanigans, however. )

 

[SeaniBu]

They blow a call at one end, so they deliberately come up with a phony call at the other end to make up for it.

I wouldn't put it past them. The delay and the angle were not enough of a difference to make a call that was different on practically the same thing IMO.

Regardless, Rachael, I am a mega fan, wonderful to watch. Her and Taylor are my "sub" Fave at this point in time. Love them, LOVE!!!!! FS Just so great to watch, Bebe gained a number of spots tonight as well. Great night, strange calls, but infected with the "FS Love Bug" even more - was it possible???