How do you penalize falls?

[ivy]

Oh the artistry/athletic debate. Of course it's a technical, athletic sport, but it's also a artistic experience and the best programs, to me, use brilliant athletic prowess , combined with artistry, to create an emotional, transcendent experience for the viewers. Could a skater get an OGM with a fall? Sure - and that's OK with me. I go back to falls should be slightly more penalized then they are now, but not so much that they discourage high risk elements.

One thing I wonder about is whether men will start including a quad, that they know they will fall on. From my understanding it gives them another jumping box, they can try a 4T plus still include 2 3Ts (one in combination). Sure they won't get the dozen or so points of a nice completed jump, but they might get 3, and points are points. (point values off the top of my head so could be off - sorry guys)

 

[janetfan]

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.

I have to agree with this. Skating, like other sports has to be defined at some level by success or failure.
If a batter gets three strikes he is out. That's it and no consideration is given for how hard he swings or the form of his swing.

Baseball is very clear - three strikes and you are out.

Skating used to penalize falls and did not reward failed jumps.
A batter swinging very hard , trying to knock it out f the park is like a skater jumping high and trying to spin four times. When you go for more your reward can be higher. But when you fail the choice you made did not work out so well.

To get credit the jump needs to be identified by it's takeoff, needs to complete the revolutions and to land cleanly with flow out. GOE can be used to identify qualities of the jump.

But if you fall I don't see how it matters whether you rotated 2, 3 or 4 times. You still fell and there was a problem too obvious with your jump for anyone to miss including fans and judges.

It is like the third strike to me. You struck out. No credit and better luck on your next jump.

The goal for years in skating was to keep on your feet and not to fall down during jumps and elements.
The CoP wants to rewrite the basic concept of sport by suggesting there are levels of failure and they must be rewarded.

Nonsense......and this not only confuses and drives away fans - but is not helping the skaters and more than likely hurting them.

What does Chan work on in practice? Does he work on landing his jumps - or does he concentrate first and foremost on rotating them? What is the CoP suggesting to him?

His scores have been controversial this season and part of it has to do with his historical medal winning splatfests - the likes of which have never been seen in the long history of figure skating.

Someone said "the CoP is not for me." :think:

I will decide what I like and don't like and I can see these failed jumps getting so much credit is a fiasco and bad for skating.

Some will say, well the casual fan can't see that Chan deserved to beat Oda at SC.
I say the casual is far too smart to swallow some of the CoP voodoo that some of you defend so blindly.

Fall down and it is like strike three. You're out .....and no credit for falling.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

ivy, yes, you could theoretically do a 4t and two 3ts, but I don't know any guy who does a solo 3T (well, I think Chan does, but that's only because he hates the loop)

 

[Mathman]

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.

Perhaps we are using the word "logic" differently. Consistency, for instance, is not the same as logic. Argument by analogy may be convincing, but this has to do wth psychology, not to any principle of logical inference.

I don't know -- I just see see too many arguments like this:

(a) Butterflies have wings.

(b) People are like butterflies.

(c) Therefore people ought to have wings.

Well, people are like butterflies. (One way in which people are different from butterflies is that butterflies have wings and people don't, but that is irrleevant to the logical structure of the argument.)

Not only that, but the conclusion of this argiument is true -- people ought to have wings. (They don't, but they ought to.)

As for the role of logic in the design or a sports scoring system, I like what Einstein said about applying mathematics to physics: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

 

[Bluebonnet]

How much of the 97 other details do you want to ignore just to privilege the 3 details that bother you the most?

We were talking about the same thing! Though I didn't know that there are 100 details.

When I said "details", I was thinking about all other skating elements listed on TES and PCS. My fault that I didn't explain it properly.

This thread generated so fast. I need time to go through all of the posts here.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

This is not about Chan. Let's keep the Sport a Sport, and there is no Artistry in Falling and laying there on the ice. Falls have no definition other than being a grave error.

 

[Mathman]

One thing I wonder about is whether men will start including a quad, that they know they will fall on. From my understanding it gives them another jumping box, they can try a 4T plus still include 2 3Ts (one in combination). Sure they won't get the dozen or so points of a nice completed jump, but they might get 3, and points are points.

Jeff Buttle was accused of putting th quad fall into his program deliberately, but I don't believe it. Falling takes too much out of you to ever want to do it on purpose. (The rules may, however, encourage a skater to try a quad when it is on;ly 75% reliable instead of 90%.)

By the way, that "4t plus two 3T's" scenario is why the ISU instituted the "<" call (now the "<<" call.) Before, an under-rotaed quad was just scored as a triple. But that messed up the rest of the program because of Zayak rules. So they decided to list the attempt as a quad anyway, but give it the base value of a triple.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

Here's what I mean.

1. You shouldn't get credit for failure
2. Falls are a failure to do the element.
3. Therefore you shouldn't get credit for an element with a fall
4. Edge calls are a failure to do the element.
5. Therefore you shouldn't get credit for an element with an edge call.

I don't see how this reasoning if wrong if you believe the initial assertion.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

By the way, that "4t plus two 3T's" scenario is why the ISU instituted the "<" call (now the "<<" call.) Before, an under-rotaed quad was just scored as a triple. But that messed up the rest of the program because of Zayak rules. So they decided to list the attempt as a quad anyway, but give it the base value of a triple.

Just curuous. Is the term "attempt" actually used for partial credit? Like is it official in scripture?

 

[janetfan]

Just curuous. Is the term "attempt" actually used for partial credit? Like is it official in scripture?

It may be part of the "Holy CoP Bible" - maybe one of the true followers and devotees who keep it by their bedside and read it every night before they go to sleep can confirm whether it is indeed part of the sacred CoP scripture.

 

[PolymerBob]

Here's what I mean.

1. You shouldn't get credit for failure
2. Falls are a failure to do the element.

No. Falls are a failure of a portion of the element. The take-off and rotations can still be successes.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

No. Falls are a failure of a portion of the element. The take-off and rotations can still be successes.

I agree with that, but that's the central nub of the discussion.

 

[blue dog]

To be blunt, the system is not for you. NOT YOURS. NOT FOR YOU.

It's for the ten-year-old skater and her coach, who is going to find it much more helpful to know that her skating have gone up dramatically from a few months ago since she started all those drills, but she still needs work on listening to the music and connecting with the audience, and that her layback is awesome, the sit spin needs work, her double sal is really nice, the axel is coming along well, but the double loop is cheated and the lutz isn't a lutz.

Anonymous judging is a terrible thing, but everyone complaining about the complexity of the system being too hard to understand needs to stop. IT'S NOT FOR YOU.

FYI, regardless of what system you are under (adults compete under 6.0 still), or what level you skate, you will receive feedback from judges, whether you like it or not. You will know exactly what they think, where you can improve, how well you are doing. Your coach will know whether your entrances and exits from jumps need work, or whether your turns need improvement.

Bottom line, even if they judged this sport with an applause meter, judges will still talk to skaters to tell them what could be improved.

 

[gkelly]

Skating used to penalize falls and did not reward failed jumps.

To get credit the jump needs to be identified by it's takeoff, needs to complete the revolutions and to land cleanly with flow out. GOE can be used to identify qualities of the jump.

But if you fall I don't see how it matters whether you rotated 2, 3 or 4 times. You still fell and there was a problem too obvious with your jump for anyone to miss including fans and judges.

The goal for years in skating was to keep on your feet and not to fall down during jumps and elements.
The CoP wants to rewrite the basic concept of sport by suggesting there are levels of failure and they must be rewarded.

Sorry, this is a vast oversimplification of how the sport worked under 6.0. I'm sorry if your knowledge of the sport all came from Dick Button and Scott Hamilton and not from the rulebook and the years in the rink. They simplified their explanations for casual fans who just wanted to sit back and enjoy the skating and have a vague idea of the rules.

Those oversimplifications might have made a good rule of thumb for casual understandings of who skated best and would probably win. But in real life sometimes the judges emphasized other qualities and scored skaters with falls higher than skaters without falls. The rulebook even stated explicitly that falls were no bar to winning.

I've already explained in post 32 that the number of revolutions and the choice of takeoff for jumps in short programs absolutely did matter even if the skater fell. For long programs, it got more complicated and subjective.

I'm just glad there are now clearer rules, freely available to all of us and not just in judge training seminars or in their own heads, on what gets rewarded by how much, at least more or less.

But the TV commentators will still oversimplify because they're addressing casual viewers more than serious fans.

 

[gkelly]

FYI, regardless of what system you are under (adults compete under 6.0 still), or what level you skate, you will receive feedback from judges, whether you like it or not. You will know exactly what they think, where you can improve, how well you are doing. Your coach will know whether your entrances and exits from jumps need work, or whether your turns need improvement.

Not sure what you mean here.

When I compete as an adult under 6.0 in US club competitions, all the official feedback I get, whether I like it or not, is a string of ordinals.

Same for kids competing in Open Juvenile or Prejuvenile and below, or any other events that use 6.0 judging.

The competitions at those levels use closed marking, so I never get to see if the judges were giving me scores closer to 1.5 or 2.0 or 2.5. Maybe some of each -- with closed marking there's no "median mark" for the first skater, so different judges could be marking on significantly different scales. And I don't get to see whether they scored me higher for technical merit or presentation. All I see is the ordinals.

Now, if I want more feedback, I can ask the judges. Or my coach can ask. I know a lot of the judges who judge me, so I'm sure some of them would be happy to talk to me briefly about my skating and where I should improve. But that's not information I get whether I like it or not. I have to like it enough to go out of my way to ask for it.

If I were competing under IJS, I could see where I got -GOE for my elements and where I got base mark. I'd be thrilled if I could get a +1. I could see whether my PCS are in the 1s or 2s and have a goal to break that 2.0 barrier if I haven't already. I could see whether most of the judges thought my choreography and interpretation were better than my skating skills or not as good. And so forth. All that information would be right in the protocols, which I would be able to get a copy of without having to bother the judges to ask for special feedback.

I'm actually considering signing up to take a freestyle test that I don't need just to get feedback. It would cost me about the same as entering a competition. I would probably not pass the test. But I would get forms with some comments about my skating from three judges, which would tell me a lot more than a string of ordinals.

 

[mousepotato]

As it stands now, a good jump erases almost all the deductions of a fallen jump, which is why certain people fall all over the place and still win. You only need to land a little over half --5/8--and if you land them really well, it's like the falls never happened.

I think you need to familiarize yourself with the COP a little better. A good jump does not erase a bad jump, skaters are still penalized for a fall (+1) or a wonky jump. The skater IS given credit for a jump done well...so you think that's wrong? If the skater did both jumps well they would have double the points including the one point that would not have been taken away.

Anonymous judging is a terrible thing, but everyone complaining about the complexity of the system being too hard to understand needs to stop. IT'S NOT FOR YOU.

First of all, the ISU knows full well who the judges are and what scores they gave. Just because you don't doesn't mean anything. The reason behind it is so fans/skaters can't say "Oh I see the Russian won because the Russian judge gave the skater +3 on their jumps."

The judges don't know what ordinal they are placed so they are not aware if they are a judge that is dropped. All judges must think their scores are weighed equally.

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?

Any "fan" of any sport needs to learn the rules of the game. Figure skating rules are not difficult at all compared to some other sports. The fs "fan" does not need to be talked down to; they just need to learn the rules. I don't know how many times I have watched with someone (mostly at the Olympics) when someone says, I can't believe so and so won with a fall. But after I explain why, it makes sense, for those who choose to listen.

I have to agree with this. Skating, like other sports has to be defined at some level by success or failure.
If a batter gets three strikes he is out. That's it and no consideration is given for how hard he swings or the form of his swing.

Baseball is very clear - three strikes and you are out.

Skating used to penalize falls and did not reward failed jumps.
A batter swinging very hard , trying to knock it out f the park is like a skater jumping high and trying to spin four times. When you go for more your reward can be higher. But when you fail the choice you made did not work out so well.

To get credit the jump needs to be identified by it's takeoff, needs to complete the revolutions and to land cleanly with flow out. GOE can be used to identify qualities of the jump.

But if you fall I don't see how it matters whether you rotated 2, 3 or 4 times. You still fell and there was a problem too obvious with your jump for anyone to miss including fans and judges.

It is like the third strike to me. You struck out. No credit and better luck on your next jump.

The goal for years in skating was to keep on your feet and not to fall down during jumps and elements.
The CoP wants to rewrite the basic concept of sport by suggesting there are levels of failure and they must be rewarded.

Nonsense......and this not only confuses and drives away fans - but is not helping the skaters and more than likely hurting them.

What does Chan work on in practice? Does he work on landing his jumps - or does he concentrate first and foremost on rotating them? What is the CoP suggesting to him?

His scores have been controversial this season and part of it has to do with his historical medal winning splatfests - the likes of which have never been seen in the long history of figure skating.

Someone said "the CoP is not for me." :think:

I will decide what I like and don't like and I can see these failed jumps getting so much credit is a fiasco and bad for skating.

Some will say, well the casual fan can't see that Chan deserved to beat Oda at SC.
I say the casual is far too smart to swallow some of the CoP voodoo that some of you defend so blindly.

Fall down and it is like strike three. You're out .....and no credit for falling.

If a batter strikes out, HE is out for the time being, but he still can some back and knock it out of the park. And even though he struck out, the team still wins. Can't a quarterback who throws an interception still score a touchdown to win the game?

The skaters are judges on all the criteria that go into a jump, not just the landing. Just like the example I posted of S/Z 2002 lp....that was a beautiful quad but she got no credit because she fell 2 seconds after the jump was over. What if she rode her edge for 10 seconds before falling? Clearing the jump wasn't the issue, I don't even think the landing was an issue, I think it was just a weird thing that happened, like falling on footwork. So you think it's fair if they would have got no credit for any of it? Totally not fair!

Skaters don't put things in their program they don't consistently land at practice. That is like saying if Plushenko falls on a quad he should take them out because obviously he's not ready to do them. Everyone said K/S should stop doing the quad throw even though they have landed it 10 times and fallen on 6. I'm sure at practice skaters know they are ready and even do well in warm-up so the jump is completed. Sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't. But the flawed system is not the COP it's the GEO, it should go from 0-9 not negative to positive.

Would people be happy if after a fall the skaters were asked to leave the ice?

 

[mousepotato]

Your coach will know whether your entrances and exits from jumps need work, or whether your turns need improvement.

If your coach doesn't know that until he/she reads the protocols, you need to fire your coach.

 

[gkelly]

We were talking about the same thing! Though I didn't know that there are 100 details.

When I said "details", I was thinking about all other skating elements listed on TES and PCS.

100 is a rough estimate, just for a round number.

A senior long program has 12 or 13 elements. Let's say there are an average of 5 relevant details per element (definition of the element and its difficulty as determined by the tech panel, which I think should often count as more than 1 detail, and the 4 "phases" of each element that judges consider in assigning GOEs). That makes at least 60-65 details that figure into the TES.

Then we have 5 components. Are there 7 details per component? Well, some of them have 7 bullet points, but some have fewer.

So maybe there are only 80 or 90 details that are officially considered in the scoring.

There might be a few other uncaptured details that judges and/or fans care about but that haven't been officially written into the rules. Or some of the bullet points might themselves be considered to consist of more than one detail.

Now that I break it down, I think 100 isn't a bad estimate as a round number. Actually I think it's an underestimate for senior long programs.

 

[janetfan]

Would people be happy if after a fall the skaters were asked to leave the ice?

Umm, maybe after three falls .....yes.

At the least it feels absurd to see a skater getting very high marks for P/E.

It's almost like the judges were wearing blindfolds while the program was skated :yes:

How 'bout this - three strikes and you are out in baseball and in skating three falls and your P/E goes down and the effect of the falls might be considered for the overall impact of the program.


Button used to rhapsodize how Sasha at times could create such a special mood and then poof - with one fall he said "the spell was broken."

I am pretty sure Button was saying the fall directly impacted the flow and feeling of the program - and the overall effect of the skating had been diminished.

I must agree with Button on this and think falling three times has to effect the components more than what we are seeing.

 

[Nadine]

To answer the thread topic question, I'm not sure, the only thing I am 200% sure about is that I do not like falls whatsoever, doesn't matter whence it comes from nor how many times it happens (e.g. 1,2,3 et al). A Fall is a fall is a fall, and I really hate it, I'll even get up & leave sometimes when a fall happens, that's how much it affects my enjoyment of the skating.

My only saving grace as regards figure skating is that I cannot recall an Olympic Champion having ever won with a fall. Thank God, seriously. Except I think Kristi Yamaguchi did, but so did her nearest competitor Midori Ito, so in that case it all equals out. But the point is that the very highest pinnacle/honor awarded to a skater requires a skater to skate clean, as it should be. Yes, 2nd & 3rd place allow for falls, but NEVER 1st place (unless the top 2 both fall, which is really rare). I can live with that.

And really the truly great skaters throughout history do not fall, and that hasn't changed, nor do I expect it to. Winners come & go, but champions last forever (ala Henie, Grafstrom, Plushenko).