How do you penalize falls?

[Mathman]

And this is what I don't get, Mathman. You're clearly not willing to apply that reasoning to other things.

Correct. I am not willing to apply that reasoning to other types of errors. I am willing to apply that type of reasoning to falls. What is it you don't get?

 

[gkelly]

^ This would be an interesting experiment: Get a bunch of "average fans" and let them watch some programs judged under 6.0, then some programs judged by the Code of Points.

Let the spectators guess who won, and then compare that with who actually did win. Which system better satisfies the audience's perception that this skater's performance was better than that skater's?

Yes, that would be an interesting experiment.

For a start, why not look at the two pairs of programs from the 1990s that I linked in post 27 of this thread? There were mixed ordinals involved, though maybe not as much as you might expect.

If you remember the long program results from those events, why do you think the majority of judges favored the skaters that they did? All we can do is guess since we couldn't read the judges' minds and they didn't leave us any notes except two numbers per skater. We can match up their scores with their names and nationalities, though, which tempts us to guess based on politics more than skating. Let's resist that temptation.

If you don't remember the results, why not explain which program you think was better and why? Do put more weight on falls or on jumps completed? Do you count anything else besides the jumps?

I believe it to be in the interests of the sport to treat fans as something more than just a target to be tutored and lectured at. IMO it would be a good start to give 0 credit for a fall on a jump. This would be a far, far better solution than to launch into an explanation of why an under-rotation or a wrong-edge take-off is actually a worse error because of blah, blah, blah. We cannot blame the fan who responds, "Whatever."

So the scoring should be designed to appeal to fans with limited knowledge, at the expense of being fair to the skaters who work so hard to develop their skills?

If this were a professional sport funded primarily by ticket sales and sponsors, then structuring it as a product to appeal to mass audiences and ignoring technical details that don't translate well to television would make sense.

But even though that kind of funding has increased significantly in the last 20-30 years, figure skating developed as an amateur sport and for most participants -- even at the world level -- it's a very expensive hobby. They've put a lot of time and money into learning to execute skills with the best technique they're capable of. How is it fair to tell them that none of that matters if the casual TV viewer can't tell the difference?

I can't blame a skater for getting angry if she works her butt off to rotate all her triples, distinguish her flips from lutzes, and clean up her stroking and then loses to someone with cheated landings, incorrect takeoffs, and scratchy edges.

Of course, if you can point to other areas where the winner was superior (spins? speed? posture? choreography? expression?) to explain the results, then the skater who loses can see what the reasons were for her loss, even if she doesn't agree. And she knows what to work on to make her less vulnerable to losing to that competitor.

Same for the other skater if the result goes the other way.

If the only reason is "Well, the other girl is more attractive to the audience and she didn't fall," the sport will have sold out its integrity.

Skating has always been judged on picky technical details, and the ISU historically was never very forthcoming about trying to educate viewers. TV networks packaged the tip of the iceberg of large events into small packages of entertainment and told the viewers only as much as fitted comfortably into their time slots and the narratives they wanted to tell.

I think the ISU always would have been better off inviting audiences to understand the details of the sport for themselves and appreciate the sport on its own terms instead of ignoring the fans and letting fans rely on network-mediated packages as their only point of entry into a complicated, fascinating (IMO) sport.

Well, now they're finally trying. The Internet age makes it a lot easier to get the information out to the public, and the new judging system generates detailed information on specific decisions about specific competitions and performances.

There's always room for improvement in the rules. But I think it would be much better to plan any rule changes around the interests of the skaters than the interests of the fans. Or rather, a subset of fans, since different fans have different interests.

 

[Layfan]

Quite so. I have gradually come to realize that this is indeed the stance of the figure skating establishment. Figure skating has made its choice. It is a participatory sport and not a spectator sport. The rules are for the participants not for the audience.

I guess all I can say is, be happy in the life you have chosen (to quote Ebeneezer Scrooge's ex-girl friend. )



No. Don't look at it in terms of "costs" and penalties. There would be no penalty for a fall. You just didn't do that element.

Keep the shiny side down.

Oh. But then what about when Yuna skipped her triple flip at TEB in 2009? If you just get no points for a fall then a skater who fell on a triple flip would be no worse off then Yuna who just didn't do it? Well, maybe that would be fair. Afterall, it is a competition and not just a performance...

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

Correct. I am not willing to apply that reasoning to other types of errors. I am willing to apply that type of reasoning to falls. What is it you don't get?

Because it's a conflation of two logical precepts that morphs into an oroborous, if I understand you correctly.

 

[Mathman]

So the scoring should be designed to appeal to fans with limited knowledge, at the expense of being fair to the skaters who work so hard to develop their skills?

No, that would not be better. It would be better to be fair to the skaters who work so hard.

I think that choice has been made. I think the fans don't like it much. Too bad for them.

 

[Mathman]

Because it's a conflation of two logical precepts that morphs into an oroborous, if I understand you correctly.

Utter nonsense. Logic has nothing to do with it. None of the details of this or any figure skating scoring system has anything remotely to do with the rules of logical inference.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

Which brings us back to the big question: How? How can you create a system wherein the audience doesn't feel like it's being tutored, that recognizes the nuances of the sport and is fair to the skater, all the while allowing our favourites to win?

.... anyone?

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

Utter nonsense. Logic has nothing to do with it. None of the details of this or any figure skating scoring system has anything remotely to do with the rules of logical inference.

Then I must not understand you correctly.

 

[doubleflutz]

No. Don't look at it in terms of "costs" and penalties. There would be no penalty for a fall. You just didn't do that element.

Well, I think there should be a token penalty for falls, but the -1 per in the current rules is fine.

Let's say three skaters, we'll call them Rose, Daisy, and Violet, all do a solo double axel in their long, as the third element, well before the second half mark.

Rose does a solid one on her one and only attempt. 2A+1 GOE.

Daisy falls on hers, but pops right back up, and a few moments later manages to weave another one seamlessly into the program at an appropriate moment. The execution is just as good as Rose's. No points for the fall, 2A+1 GOE for the successful attempt.

Violet goes flying off her take-off edge and crashes into the boards, is visibly shaken and takes quite some time getting back into her program, and doesn't really start performing again until a few more elements. At the very end, though, well after the second half, she manages to pull out a double axel that's every bit as good as Rose and Daisy's. No points for the fall, 2A+1GOE for the successful attempt.

Camellia falls on two different 2A attempts, but she's the reincarnation of Sasha Cohen and she carries on her program without a hitch, just like Daisy. Late in the program, she too finally pulls one off, and it's just as good as all the other girls. 2A+1GOE.

Rose deserves to have her 2A be worth just a little more than Daisy and Violet, because she did an error-free program and got it on the first try. Daisy's fall barely disrupted the program, so she shouldn't take a hit on her P/E, but she still shouldn't be quite as high as Rose, because she made. -1 seems fair in that situation. Violet should take a big PCS hit, because the fall made her give up on her program for a while, and she should take the penalty for her mistake, but keeps the 10% bonus on her jump, it's still hard to pull off when you're tired! Camellia's PCS shouldn't go down, after all she is the reincarnation of Sasha Cohen, but she had more errors than the other girls, so -2 it is, and she keeps the 10% bonus and +2 GOE because she's going to need it.

Take away the penalty on the falls, and instead of Rose > Daisy > Violet > Camellia, you get Camellia > Violet > Daisy = Rose (or Camellia > Daisy = Rose > Violet, depending on whether the PCS hit makes up for the bonus 10% or not). Not fair, not correct.

Keep the shiny side down.

 

[Mathman]

Then I must not understand you correctly.

I guess what I mean is that I do not see any particular virtue in trying to apply a consistent train of reasoning to different types of figure skating errors.

I am not all het up about the argument that goes, if you flutz then you didn't satisfy the definition of the jump you attempted, so therefore it follows by logical necessity that you should get zero points for it. I have no quarrel with people who do take that point of view. But it is incorrect to appeal to logical necessity when the conclusion is, "you should."

On the other hand, I believe that if you fall then you have not done much of anything -- you are not really even skating So I don';t think you should get any points for the attempt.

I do not claim that this opinion is logical or illogical -- it's just how I feel about it. You are neither an illogical nor a logical person if you disagree.

 

[Mathman]

Well, I think there should be a token penalty for falls, but the -1 per in the current rules is fine.

Let's say three skaters, we'll call them Rose, Daisy, and Violet, all do a solo double axel in their long, as the third element, well before the second half mark.

Well, I would say that a fall on a jump would still fill that box, even if the skater got 0 base value for it. So the three skaters who fell would lose the opportunity to earn points by making use of all their jumping passes. If they did another double Axel at the end it would come at the expense of whatever else they were planning to do with that pass.

As for how the fall would be reflected in the program component scores, I would be satisfied to leave that up to the judges. They would have to make a judgment -- that's what they are there for -- as to how much the fall interrupted the flow of the program, etc.

 

[doubleflutz]

Well, I would say that a fall on a jump would still fill that box, even if the skater got 0 base value for it. So the three skaters who fell would lose the opportunity to earn points by making use of all their jumping passes. If they did another double Axel at the end it would come at the expense of whatever else they were planning to do with that pass.

I think that's fair in the short program, since it's supposed to be a technical program, but not in the free/long. If you get nothing for a fall, we're back to undervaluing the hard jumps and impeding progress in the sport. I don't want the Carolina Kostner strategy to become normalized, nor the Jeffrey Buttle strategy.

I would much rather see something like Midori reattempting her triple axel at the 92 Olys and very deservedly getting silver. She deserved to beat Nancy, but she wouldn't have been able to if she wasn't able to to re-attempt the jump. Winning over Kristi, which was probably what would have happened if the whole thing had been judged under the current system, or even getting silver, just because she rotated the attempt before she fell, would have been wrong, too. It's a good compromise between two extremes, I think.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Well, I think there should be a token penalty for falls, but the -1 per in the current rules is fine.

Well, in order to keep the Sport from being too masculine, we must pamper the skaters wherever possible.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

What is the status of the Short Program nowadays with so many skaters coming on strong with their 'Artistry' and overtaking any semblance of a Technical Sport?

 

[PolymerBob]

My usual position is that as long as all skaters are pampered ( or screwed ) equally, there is no problem. But I think zero points for a fall is a bit much.

Of course, for those of you who think that a skater who falls did nothing, .... set up a video camera, lace on some skates, and show us a clip of your triple salchow.

 

[Mathman]

What is the status of the Short Program nowadays with so many skaters coming on strong with their 'Artistry' and overtaking any semblance of a Technical Sport?

I think what has happened is that the short and long programs have switched roles.

As you say, the skaters try to come on strong with "artistry" in the short program, whereas the long program is pretty much just an endless list of one technical element after another.

Of course, for those of you who think that a skater who falls did nothing, .... set up a video camera, lace on some skates, and show us a clip of your triple salchow.

That sort of "reasoning" is what I am talking about. There are lots of things that I cannot do. Indeed, I sit back and marvel at the talents of those who can.

That does not seem to be relevant to a discussion of how many points should be awarded or withheld in the case of a badly flawed attempt in a skating competition.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

As for whether a fall should get zero points, I am a bit torn. Here's why:

Skater A fully rotates his quad and falls.

Skater B doesn't fully rotate his quad and falls. Shouldn't one fall A be a little less costly than fall B?

It's a question of the Partial Credit regulation. I think it is official. Others like me, work out of the Definitions of an Element. A Jump has 3 parts (anything else is pure GoE stuff): The Takeoff give the jump a name; the rotations give the jump addidional difficulty ; and the Landing with Flow Out is the 'selling' point (I did it all correctly).

To see a competitor laying on the ice, is not part of the definition so, for me, (and I'm not the nurturing kind) would say the jump was not complete and not give the attempt any credit. There is a learning period from mistakes and should make 'next year' easier. Most of the nurturing fans will oppose me on that. So be it.

Skaters should come to the competition fully prepared to win. Mistakes should be costly (that's what a competition is all about). Incomplete Elements are a NO NO. and btw, Falls on spins and footwork are very messy.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

Mathman, check out the video posted of Shen/Zhao's 2002 Olympic FD. Does the throw quad not contribute anything technically to the program to you?

In general I'm opposed to the abrogation of logic in anything, and certainly when creating rules and structure for a sport. To operate otherwise is asking for trouble.

 

[PolymerBob]

Big, booming voice over loudspeaker : "Mr. Chan, .... please terminate your program and leave the ice immeadiately!"

 

[Layfan]

It's a question of the Partial Credit regulation. I think it is official. Others like me, work out of the Definitions of an Element. A Jump has 3 parts (anything else is pure GoE stuff): The Takeoff give the jump a name; the rotations give the jump addidional difficulty ; and the Landing with Flow Out is the 'selling' point (I did it all correctly).

To see a competitor laying on the ice, is not part of the definition so, for me, (and I'm not the nurturing kind) would say the jump was not complete and not give the attempt any credit. There is a learning period from mistakes and should make 'next year' easier. Most of the nurturing fans will oppose me on that. So be it.

Skaters should come to the competition fully prepared to win. Mistakes should be costly (that's what a competition is all about). Incomplete Elements are a NO NO. and btw, Falls on spins and footwork are very messy.

Okay, I'm down with that.

Fall, no credit for the jump.

It does seem silly that if you rotate a triple you but fall you get credit for the triple but if you UR right on the line you don't get credit. I don't know if in practice a DG is more costly than a fall but it seems like the rules at least open the door to it in theory.