With the likely change of Venue, will this change your opinion of the Results?

[ImaginaryPogue]

I guess the question is are falls the least worrisome in terms of scoring? An edge call, as we've seen consistently demonstrated this season, generally is given -1.0 AT MOST. Falls get that -1 from the total, in addition to GOE lost (so a minimum reduction of -3 for triples/quads). To me, that means falls are considered more worrisome than edge calls.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

^^^
Let me put it this way. A triple lutz not quite making the 3 rotations but a solid landing. A triple lutz with sufficient rotations but does not land at all except on the ice. Which do you see as disturbing the program?

There are no minus points in the PC scores for Falls. The minus 1 is all incusive.

I think our disagreements lay in our differences of scoring interpretation. I see you appreciating the nitty gritty of scoring while I am more of a Gestaltist and appreciating the whole package.

 

[silverlake22]

If they all skate well, it's a known fact that Oda's PCS will be well below that of Chan and Takahashi. The only way he will win Worlds is if Chan is a human zamboni and Takahashi bombs AND he skates well and remembers how to count. The way things are looking now, I don't even expect him to finish ahead of Kozuka here, and there's a chance someone like Joubert or Verner, maybe even Brezina or Amodio, could sneak ahead of Oda in they skate well.

 

[Mathman]

There are no minus points in the PC scores for Falls. The minus 1 is all inclusive.

Besides the -1 there is also the negative GOE.

For a triple Lutz, typical scoring would be something like

Wrong edge take-off = 6.0 - 1.4 (GOE) = 4.6

UR = 6.0 - 1.8 (30%) - 0.7 (GOE) = 3.5

Fall = 6.0 - 2.1 (GOE) - 1.0 = 2.9.

On the gestalt side , the judges can then take off more points for Performance, Choreography, and Interpretation if they feel that the program has been disrupted by the error.

 

[blue dog]

Wherever this Worlds takes place, it will be a unique part of skating history. It will represent a tremendous effort to overcome obstacles.

You're right. Plus, the theme of this year seems to be overcoming big obstacles--

V/M with her injury
The Kerrs with her injury
Mao with her new technique
Alissa and Carolina...overcoming their biggest obstacles...Alissa and Carolina
I could go on and on, but you all know the stories. No matter what the outcome of worlds, this year will probably go down as my favourite post-Olympic year. Ever.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Besides the -1 there is also the negative GOE.

For a triple Lutz, typical scoring would be something like

Wrong edge take-off = 6.0 - 1.4 (GOE) = 4.6

UR = 6.0 - 1.8 (30%) - 0.7 (GOE) = 3.5

Fall = 6.0 - 2.1 (GOE) - 1.0 = 2.9.

Thanks MM. I appreciate this explanation of the points. However, one has to assume there is an intended jump to declare it was the wrong edge takeoff. No? How do the judges know the intention was a Lutz and not the Flip it turned out to be for a GoE? I presume the Tech Panel knows, and no one else. That's a pretty high result for breaking the Zayak rule, and it is justified by the word "intent", which is a guess at best. btw, are wrong edge takeoffs only used for lutzes and flips?

Are intended jumps actually mentioned in the regulations of the CoP?

I take it the URs with a solid landing (most of which I've seen) gets a minus .7 which should result in 5.3. Typo? If it is 5.3, that isn't too bad given the solid landing. There was a takeoff, but the air rotations and landing were cut short. How much? Who knows?

Can the amount of underrotation be measured except by eye?

Whereas the FALL, which seems the heaviest penalty, but given it's incomplete 3 basic part to a jump (tsakeoff, air rotations, landing) should negate any consideration for a jump not shown according to definition. Like the WET, there was no definition of a Jump to score. Neither URs, nor WETs halt the flow of the program, but Falls do.

In essence we are talking about Intents or Attemps to get full base value credit and leaving it to GoEs to penalize those Intents/Attempts with no regard to the definitions of elements. Correct?

On the gestalt side , the judges can then take off more points for Performance, Choreography, and Interpretation if they feel that the program has been disrupted by the error.

I doubt that is done in practice. While the bullets of the PC scores give guidance to the judges, they are n ot part of the rules and regulations, and therefore, totally optional for the judges to play with. No? Flow and effortless glide are so easy to interpret to avoid using Falls as disrupted to the Program Component while choosing the knee jerk to raise the score. We really do not know how the PC scores are actually judged together with the levels. We have to assume those judges are well versed in the Art of Figure Skating moreso than any spectator.

To me, it will never be a perfect sport and the artful performance is disappearing. Not only am I a Gestatist, I'm also pro Bianca.

 

[R.D.]

You know, such a big deal is being made about the change of venue possibly affecting the results. But I think a bigger factor that's not really being talked about here is the extra month between now and Worlds. Skaters trained to peak this week. Because of the rescheduling, they've had to come down from that peak, and were in limbo until yesterday when the ISU (finally) set a new place and date for Worlds. Now they have to recondition. The X-Factor says that it's very likely that:

a) the skaters that WOULD have done well may possibly have been affected by this delay, and may or may not be able to reach that peak again in a month

b) the skaters who might have been slightly injured, or not as well prepared, now have a little more time.

c) in other words, the results of Moscow Worlds will probably be different in many ways than results of Tokyo Worlds IF it were able to be held.

But that's ok, especially given the circumstances, and that it's being held in reasonable time (i.e. NOT in October).

 

[Mathman]

Thanks MM. I appreciate this explanation of the points. However, one has to assume there is an intended jump to declare it was the wrong edge takeoff. No? How do the judges know the intention was a Lutz and not the Flip it turned out to be for a GoE? I presume the Tech Panel knows, and no one else. That's a pretty high result for breaking the Zayak rule, and it is justified by the word "intent", which is a guess at best. btw, are wrong edge takeoffs only used for lutzes and flips?

Yes. It is explicitly spelled out that the wrong edge call is only for Lutzes and flips.

Are intended jumps actually mentioned in the regulations of the CoP?

That is kind of curious. The official Technial Panel Handbook mentions "intentions" and "attempts" quite a few times.

For instance, for under-rotations it says

The Technical panel must call the attempted jump even if it is clear that it is under-rotated or will be downgraded.

In other words, it is up to the technical panel to decide whether a skater "attempted" to do a quad, but was short of rotation, or whether the "attempt" was a triple all along.

For popped jumps it says

The attempt will count as one jump element. However, a small hop or jump with up to one-half revolution performed as a kind of "decoration” is not to be considered as a jump and will be marked within the component “Transitions”

So the technical panel is charged with deciding whether the skater "attempted" a jump but popped it, or whether his "intention" was just to do a decoration.

There is a section titled "Attempted Jumps," (i.e., aborted jump attempts) which reads like this:

Attempted Jump

What is an attempt? In principle, a clear preparation for a take off for a jump, stepping to the entry edge or placing the toe pick into the ice and leaving the ice with or without a turn is considered an attempt of a jump, receives no value and blocks a box.

In some cases, which need to be decided by the TP, the preparation for the take off without leaving the ice might be also called an attempt, e.g. a loop jump take off when the skater falls before leaving the ice, or a skater steps onto the forward take off edge of an Axel and pulls back the free leg and arms,starts the forward movement to jump into the air with the free leg and arms passing through forward but at the last moment does not leave the ice, etc.

For "intended combinations that weren't," the language is

If there is no second jump in a jump combination, the Technical Panel identifies the intended combination during or after the program. If there is no clear way to identify the combination or the solo jump preceded by steps...the Technical Panel will decide which one is the solo jump and which one is the combination in favour of the skater.

This applies to the short program. If you do a triple flip (no combination, no leading steps), then you do a triple loop (no combination, no steps), then the technical panel must decide which one was "intended" to be a combo and which one was "intended" to have steps, even though there was no combo and no steps for either.

For wrong edge take-offs it does not use the word "attempt" or "intend". It says:

In cases of not taking off from the clean correct edge the Technical (Panel) will indicate the error to the Judges using the sign “e” (edge). Usually the wrong edge take-off is identified without any review in slow motion which can be used only if the camera angle does not allow to see the take-off edge at normal speed.

Each Judge will then decide himself/herself on the severity of the error (major or minor error) and the corresponding GOE reduction

In other words, it is the job of the technical panel to decide, from clues in the approach and set-up, which jump the skater was trying to do, rather than going strictly by the take-off edge. Then it is up to each judge individually to decide for himself how bad the wrong edge was and how much the skater should be punished for it.

NB. I am just reporting, as a public service, on how the current rules are worded. I am not expressing approval or disapproval. Don't shoot the messenger.

I take it the URs with a solid landing (most of which I've seen) gets a minus .7 which should result in 5.3. Typo?

In addition to the -.7 or -1.4 GOE, there is also a reduction in base value of 30%. So for an under-rptated Lutz and skater would probably get 6.0 - 30% = 4.2 base value, and then -.7 or -1.4 and end up with 3.5 or 2.8, depending on what the judges thought about the jump as a whole.

Can the amount of underrotation be measured except by eye?

The technical handbook says:

The quarter and half mark of landing are the border lines to identify cheated jumps.

The camera angle is important to consider when deciding upon a cheated jump particularly when the jump is at the opposite end of the rink {from} the camera. In all doubtful cases the Technical Panel should act to the benefit of the skater.

I take that to mean, the technical panel must do the the best it can, both with their eyes and with camera replays -- understanding that nobody's perfect.

In essence we are talking about Intents or Attemps to get full base value credit and leaving it to GoEs to penalize those Intents/Attempts with no regard to the definitions of elements. Correct?

I think the judging system gives a lot of leeway to the technical panel to make judgments about what jumps were attempted and how successfully. The idea that a Lutz jump, etc., is defined strictly by the edge at take-off seems not to be the way the judging system operates.

Under-rotation is the only error that is penalized in base value.

I doubt that is done in practice. While the bullets of the PC scores give guidance to the judges, they are not part of the rules and regulations, and therefore, totally optional for the judges to play with. No?

I agree. It was that way in 6.0 judging, too. The judges did pretty much as they pleased with the second mark.

It seems to me that under 6.0 judging the judges did tend to decrease the second mark somewhat to reflect technical errors. In the present system, the judges do not seem to do so very much. (I might be wrong about that, though.)

To me, it will never be a perfect sport and the artful performance is disappearing. Not only am I a Gestaltist, I'm also pro Bianca.

Sport or art?

 

[mousepotato]

I really get tired of the three fall drumbeat. There's a tiny Roy Orbison in my brain, belting out , "It's O-o-over..."

As Pogue says , I doubt anyone would win with three falls..but with three quads ? I could see that.

Wherever it is , the circumstances are so unusual , I would think if any group of skaters will attract a general aura of goodwill , it will be the Japanese..( emanating from me ,as well ).This could lessen or even cancel out the usual home ice advantage/curse.

In the pairs K/S and V/T were in good shape before any of this happened , and I hope they still are. That was set to be quite the contest.

The podium for the pairs will be either S/S, P/T, K/S or V/T in any order - it's possible both Russian teams will be on the podium but for sure one of them will be without a doubt. Who gets pushed off is the question. I don't feel there will be home field advantage, Yuko for instance is just as popular in Russia as she is in Japan they just won't need to travel now. I really don't see it making a big difference. I think all are healthy.

 

[museksk8r]

I hope Kozuka is able to skate his best at Worlds! He's had such a breakthrough season winning both of his GP events, taking the bronze at the GPF, and defeating both Takahashi and Oda at Nationals. His only real letdown was his SP at 4CC, which cost him a medal there. It's really too bad that he has to skate through the qualifying round at Worlds (I'm still completely puzzled by that), which is going to cause him greater fatigue than those who will not have to skate in the QR, plus dealing with the tragedy in his home country. I'm really hoping for the best for him as he is my favorite skater in the men's event this year at Worlds. GO TAKA! <3

 

[museksk8r]

Alissa and Carolina...overcoming their biggest obstacles...Alissa and Carolina.

Yes, this has been my favorite aspect of this season in terms of the ladies. The successes of Czisny and Kostner for me almost make up for the absences of Rochette and Kim.