Those mistakes are compensated for in TES, and PCS is not intended to measure success or failure in technical elements. This is why it took me a long to to grasp why someone like Chan could win with several mistakes. But based on the system, he should. I don't like that PCS can give you a several fall buffer against other top competitors, but the ISU has decided not to penalize errors as much as I would if I made the system. PCS really shouldn't vary much based on falls or mistakes because those moments only account for a few seconds of a four minute program. As long as the other 3:55 is skated as planned the marks should reflect that.
Yes I understand the argument but disagrees it in principle. It is about disproportionate quantification without scientific or mathematical basis. It is like false maths and false art judging moonlight as a credible judging system that is suppose to accurately reward technical marks (which fails with reduced GOEs) and artistry.
While you may consider these qualitative components only consist of few seconds equivalent during the program, but when you consider the amount of 'effort' and the 'value' of these components are integrated to the other 3m55sec as well especially when it is a multiple of major errors that disturbed the presentation of the program. These critical components are the life blood that impact on the overall presentation. Surely they deserve to weigh heavily than 0.25, 0.5 narrow set of corridor for PCS, especially when factor it in during the SP (0.8 factors for ladies), it matters even less. Let's say tomorrow we are blessed with an amazing newbie from nowhere who just did perfect 10 with her SP along with the best artistry we have ever seen, and certainly the best at the event, do you think she deserve more than just +0.25 across the board in PCS. And what does that worth exactly?
0.25 x 5 x 0.8 (factoring) = 1.0 points
That would only works out 1 measly points to be gain in PCS for the rare perfectly executed program by a newbie without federation support. Does that sound right, fair or just?
As a newbie, her GOEs are likely to be conservatively marked as well. The reduced 30% GOE values is huge and messed up with the TES scoring over all since it is suppose to reward good quality and penalize poor quality, now with factoring, and human error, it get even more murky. It doesn't help when the judges are rewarding GOE with even less strictly over all these days. Regardless of protocols and bullet points of how you are a suppose to reward GOEs, it seems a reputable skater generally get get like -1, 0 for mistakes, maybe -1, -2 for falls, while someone like Liza or Akiko might will get -2, -3s generally for not being federation favs. For example at GPF, Mao only got -0.2 for under rotating her 3flip and Ashley only got -0.3 deduction for her 3lz with edge call. These 2 are clearly going to have high PCS anyway which can more than compensate for mistakes compare with the newbies who just did perfect 10 with no federation support, or reputation. One would like to think if the system been designed correctly, the newbie would have won on her own merit and what has been performed on the day. The fact she can't win says a lot about this sport, and why someone might be put off by it.
The thing is I feel the judges should perhaps use their own common sense to adjust the PCS corridor to something beyond +- 0.25 to +-0.5 consensus to reflect more accurately on how the skater actually skated ON THE DAY. May be to something like +-0.5 to -+2 corridor instead at their own discretion. By expanding the consensus corridor, they can compensate the inadequacy of the TES risk rewards due to reduced scale of GOEs, that despite it is suppose to be reward technical merit marks, they made UR/Wrong edge/Qualitative standards virtually negligible over all. Cheated jumps should be more penalized more, Perfect jump from a nobody should be rewarded more regardless, otherwise how are sporting qualities ever going to improve and give the new kids half a chance?
So let's see... quality of execution and performance shouldn't be important, and UR/Wrong edge means even less. Gee... no wonder it explains the poor state of ladies today.
