You can receive a "0" for an element that you mess up like popping a double axel into a waltz jump or for actually not even attempting the element at all. If the skater has such a bad program, falling a lot, they can end up so far behind that they are better off leaving out the last element (usually a spin or in pairs it's often the death spiral) than taking the time deduction after putting the element in. The time deduction can cost you more than the element is worth therefore you are better off not even attemping the element - you'll get a zero but it's better than a minus.
Missing a Required Element in the Short Program (spoilers)
- Thread starter Joesitz (RIP)
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
At present the only substantive difference between the SP and LP is length, there are no major penalties for botching required elements in the SP and the LP no has so many restrictions that it cannot possibly be called a 'free skate'.
For the SP to have any meaning it has to have something or do something that the LP doesn't it at present it ... doesn't.
Some suggestions:
more strict requirements on elements. Put a required jump in the combination (rotating each year). Make the jump out of footwork the same for all skaters (again rotating each year - maybe any edge jump one year and flip the next)
Dictate the level of at least one spin so that skaters are only competing in terms of GOE nd not adding ugly, pointless changes just to move up a level.
.
Ditch the godforsaken spiral sequence (I am so sick of baby bawaweenas with their legs sticking straight up that I could barf). Two step sequences (one with moves in the field which could include spirals) would be far superior and dictate levels so that skaters are competing in terms of GOE and not flailing around like electrocuted monkeys just to up the levels.
For the SP to have any meaning it has to have something or do something that the LP doesn't it at present it ... doesn't.
Some suggestions:
more strict requirements on elements. Put a required jump in the combination (rotating each year). Make the jump out of footwork the same for all skaters (again rotating each year - maybe any edge jump one year and flip the next)
Dictate the level of at least one spin so that skaters are only competing in terms of GOE nd not adding ugly, pointless changes just to move up a level.
.
Ditch the godforsaken spiral sequence (I am so sick of baby bawaweenas with their legs sticking straight up that I could barf). Two step sequences (one with moves in the field which could include spirals) would be far superior and dictate levels so that skaters are competing in terms of GOE and not flailing around like electrocuted monkeys just to up the levels.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Good post, Bennett. Your reason for retaining the SP is strictly for the candy it brings. If there are serious reasons for the SP and I do mean serious, can someone tell us naysayers just what they are. the SP no longer tests the basics of a skater what with the necessity of choosing a quad or a 3A and a combo or one's choice, and single triple jump. Yeah, these are the basics!I do not want them to do away with the SP altogether because it's simply more exciting to see two than just one
But I agree that the purpose of having SP is getting a bit unclear especially because LP is no longer a free program at all.
Joe
Oh yes, if one of those 'basics' is missed like a fall out of a camel spin, how serious will that be judged?
Depends how badly they fall out of it.
If they literally fall down on the entrance or otherwise fail to spin or stop spinning before 3 revolutions, even if they start it up again and fill the rest of the planned spinning time with good spinning, they'll get no credit for the element. And a -1.00fall deduction for an actual fall..
If they fall or fall out after 3 revolutions then it will be called as a spin, quite likely lower level than intended, and the judges will give negative GOE. And a -1.00 fall deduction for an actual fall.
Worst-case scenario:
Fall to the ice on the entry to the spin. Called as the spin with no level and no point value, and -1.00 fall deduction. Net score: -1.00
Other scenarios:
A good flying camel spin or a change-foot camel spin with several features and plenty of revolutions and then fall down before exiting the spin. Could be level 4 with average -2 GOE (+1 for the majority of the spin and then -3 for the fall), and -1.00 fall deduction. 3.0 base mark, -1.0 GOE (the minuses are worth less than 1.0 each for elements with lower base marks), so 2.0 for the element and -1.00 deduction for the fall. Net score: +1.00
Combo spin started with a shaky, badly positioned and badly centered camel barely held for 3-4 revolutions, loss of balance and "fall" out to the other foot, but manages to save the foot down into a change of foot to the second half of the planned spin, adequately executed with two features. Level 2 combo spin base mark 2.5, probably -3 GOE (touchdown of the free foot and not enough revolutions on the first half of the spin, worth -1.5). No fall deduction. Net score: +1.00.
Other variations of these scenarios are possible. With lower level spins and actual falls, the net score is more likely to be negative.
I think the short program does hurt people. It cost Mao the Grand Prix Final Title, it also cost her the world championship last year. So the short does matter, and missing an element hurts you.
If it doesn't hurt Mao much against most of the field, it's because Mao is just that much better than the rest of the field, and most of the people in the short, weren't clean themselves, including Kostner, Meissner, etc.
Missing an element hurts you because you lose the points if you missed it. For example, even falling on the triple lutz, would have given Mao more points than missing it alltogether. She missed 6/ (well really five points) out of that.
If it doesn't hurt Mao much against most of the field, it's because Mao is just that much better than the rest of the field, and most of the people in the short, weren't clean themselves, including Kostner, Meissner, etc.
Missing an element hurts you because you lose the points if you missed it. For example, even falling on the triple lutz, would have given Mao more points than missing it alltogether. She missed 6/ (well really five points) out of that.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Finally, someone who is honest and realizes the SP serves no purpose but some fans need candy.I do not want them to do away with the SP altogether because it's simply more exciting to see two than just one
But I agree that the purpose of having SP is getting a bit unclear especially because LP is no longer a free program at all.
What I would like to read here is some suggestions that could revamp the SP into something meaningful or do away with it.
Joe
I believe the Senior level should go back to a rotating required jump. This is better for developement of all jumps for the skater. Junior level skaters still have a required jump in their program - this year the loop. However, they have also taken the required jump out of the lower levels, leaving Junior as the only level with a required jump - I'm not sure how that makes any sense.
In the freeskate I think they need to do away with so many axels allowed. I am hoping by the time you get to junior and senior (especially for the men) you can do a 2 axel, (you need it to get your test) so allowing skaters to have 3 in one program allows them to rack up points if they don't have all their triples. This is very boring to watch and doesn't stretch the skaters abilities at all. Someone attempting a 3 axel can have their attempt at it and still rack up points by doing two 2 axels, it's silly really.
In the freeskate I think they need to do away with so many axels allowed. I am hoping by the time you get to junior and senior (especially for the men) you can do a 2 axel, (you need it to get your test) so allowing skaters to have 3 in one program allows them to rack up points if they don't have all their triples. This is very boring to watch and doesn't stretch the skaters abilities at all. Someone attempting a 3 axel can have their attempt at it and still rack up points by doing two 2 axels, it's silly really.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Hi grossano. When making up the Title of the thread, I should have been clearer when using the word: MISSING I did not mean it to be 'omitting'. I meant that a skater faulted on a required element, i.e., FELL.
I remember in the 6.0 era, a fall on a required element really knocked out the skater's placement. Faulty elements, i.e. slipping on a spin, two footed jumps, tripping on footwork, etc., all were consiered against the 'basics' which the SP was to represent. Not unlike School Figures.
Joe
Not necessarily. It was far from unknown for skaters to win short programs, or place in the top 3 and still "control their own destiny," with a fall or other major mistake. It all depended what the other skaters did and how good everything else was.
If everyone made mistakes, then the winning program would have to be one with a mistake.
If a skater who was much better than much of the rest of the field made a mistake and the others who skated clean were weaker on most of the other elements and/or basic skating and presentation, the skater with the mistake could still end up ahead.
Into the early 1990s the short program deductions for falling on a jump or some other major errors were 0.5 or in some cases in some years I think even up to 0.7, so those mistakes could be very costly. Especially when the rest of the field skated clean.
Since about 1994 the maximum deduction for an element that was actually attempted was 0.4 (0.5 for an omission), so a performance that was very good in most other aspects could often compensate for the deduction.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Very good and informative post, but from what you wrote, there is no difference in judging Short Programs from Long Programs.
The main difference beween the SP and the LP are the duration of the programs, and the limitation on the number of elements to be utilized. There is, however, a huge selection of elements one can choose for the SP which kind of makes it similar to the LP, imo.
Can you say the SP actually serves a purpose in deciding a podium of medalists? If so, why not have two or three SPs?
We know the SP is no longer a replacement for the School Figures, but has it ever been explained what it is measuring in todays skating? Are judges looking at the basics or the convoluted spins and 3As as they would in the LP?
Joe
Mostly true. There is one additional difference between the SP and FS. In the SP some of the elements requirements are even more specific than in the FS, so that certain errors in the SP result in a serious GoE penalty that would not be given in the FS.
For example, in the SP a senior must do a double Axel. If they do a single the GoE goes to -3. In the FS they must include an Axel, and if it is a single, that is OK. There are also more stringent requirements for some spin and sequence elements in the SP compared to the FS.
But mostly the SP and FS get judged the same way. In my mind the SP now is just a mini-FS (or, if you prefer, the FS is an extended SP).
FS as an extended SP seems to be a good description of what I am seeing in this CoP era
:
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
And you will understand my question about is this enough to have an entire competition set out with the SP to avoid minus GoEs?
If the main reason for the original SP was to judge strictly the basics of figure skating in taking the place of school figures, it no longer does, unless one considers that check off box in the PCS scores about 'skating ability' is the remnant of judging basics.
I don't see anything too wrong with the makeup of the SP but it is judged on difficult elements only. Why not devise another type of SP where basics like perfect axels and lutzes are judged according to definition, and not with the intentions, or the give-him-credit anyway if he fell. That sort of thing is ok in LP but it should not be in the SP. Have your wrong edge flip or lutz in the LP but not in the SP. What's wrong with that? (a minus 1 GoE is for LP not a serious SP) A skater with a correct edge takeoff on a double lutz should get higher GoEs than the wrong edge triple lutz
Otherwise, we have a contest signifying nothing, imo.
Joe.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
I may sound really stupid, but i always wondered when wierd things happen, like to Mao in the GPF Short, why doesn't the skater,( knowing the rules, esp under the 6.0 system where emiting an element in the SP was lethal) throw in a replacment jump somwhere. True, she could not change her program and set up for another lutz, but couldn't she have thrown a 3 toe in somwhere, or at least a double jump? then she would bypass that penatly that required a solo, non-axel jump.
When I mess up in competiton I often change future jumping passes, and so do other skaters that I have seen in TV. For example, if I pop by first 2 lutz, I put my next jump, the double salchow in combonation to make up for lost points. I would think that senior skaters could pull of swiches like that.
I so agree with that! nowadays the SP has lost all worth and diffrence from the freeskate. this using the rules you outline, it will give the skaters with good technique a headstart going into the free. Good idea Joe!
When I mess up in competiton I often change future jumping passes, and so do other skaters that I have seen in TV. For example, if I pop by first 2 lutz, I put my next jump, the double salchow in combonation to make up for lost points. I would think that senior skaters could pull of swiches like that.
I so agree with that! nowadays the SP has lost all worth and diffrence from the freeskate. this using the rules you outline, it will give the skaters with good technique a headstart going into the free. Good idea Joe!
Last edited:
There is a little bit of an opportunity to do that in the SP, but not as much as in the FS. Some examples:
3Lz+2T and 3F are planned. The skater falls on the 3Lz. They could then do 3F+2T instead of the solo 3F. I see that kind of thing done in competition a few times each season.
But in Junior, if the solo jump is specified (say a loop like it is this year) then the solo jump could not get turned into a second attempt at the combo, since the loop has to be solo.
If the skater aborted a jump so early an element was not called at all, they could put it in elsewhere, within the rules. But in the SP there often is not enough time or flexibility in the choreography to make it fit. But if the skater can make it fit, it would be within the rules. Same is true for spins. A stumble or fall just before the entry to a spin ruins the setup, but an element is not called, then the skater can improvise to fit it in. The gotcha is that if an element is called and the skater tries again, you end up with extra elements and other potential problems. The skater has to be thinking very clearly on their feet not to get caught by the rules in some circumstances.
Similar threads
