.
.
.
2. The edge call on the triple lutz
Lutz is differentiated from flip by the take-off edge when entering into the jump. The former uses deep outside edge and the latter an inside edge. If this distinction is not upheld by the judges, there would be little point in awarding different marks for each jump. The judging call on the wrong edge take-off in the Olympics is all the more interesting in light of this fact: from 2013 World Championship to CoC, TEB, GPF and European Championship, she tried 3Lz 7 times and was found to have used the wrong edge 6 times. As the replay of her programmes will show, Sotnikova still jumped with the wrong edge in the Olympics. But there was no wrong edge mark in her protocol.
In fact, she received positive GOE for jumps that were done with the wrong technique. According to current rules, judges can request a super-slow video of the jumps to verify the edge call. How could have the judges missed it?
3. The lack of rotation on the 3T in Sotnikova’s 3LZ – 3T in the free programme.
.
.
.
6. Awarding of GOE on the jumps
The giving of positive GOE on executed jumps involves the consideration of ISU guidelines. Those include the consideration of flow, both in and out of the jumps, in-air position, and the take-off. In comparing Sotnikova’s flip with Yuna’s flip, the discrepancies in GOE are readily obvious. For one, Sotnikova clearly demonstrated poor take-off. The full blade, as opposed to just the toe, was in contact with the ice; the flow in and out of the jump also looked heavy and forced. Sotnikova's jumping mechanism is the same whether she jumps the flip or flutz (lutz with wrong edge take-off) - a clear indication of a technical flaw.On the other hand, Yuna’s flip was jumped with perfect technique, blended into the choreography of the programme, with excellent flow in and out of the jump. But it was Sotnikova who was awarded the higher GOE. One of the judges even gave Yuna zero GOE for her flip, when the quality of the jump called for plus GOE.
7. The rebuttal of the base value argument.
Only 1.4 difference in the base value
The base-value argument, i.e. Sotnikova had one more triple than Yuna, is logically flawed. We only need to look at the TES in the short programme to disprove it. Yuna, jumping 3Lz-3T, 3F and 2A, had more base value in jumps than Sotnikova. Yet she was awarded lower TES though her jumps were perfectly landed. Even if we were to argue on the basis of base-value argument, the difference between Sotnikova and Yuna is extremely slim. Calculating the base value in the short and the free, there is only 1.44 separating the two. That is not even worth a double flip or loop.
The base-value argument fundamentally ignores the fact that the final score of the programme also relies on the awarding of GOE as well as PCS. Whether there were 7 triples or 6 triples or 8 triples is only a very small part of the story. Mao Asada jumped 8 triples for the free programme, but was scored under Sotnikova because of minus GOE. It is the actual execution of those jumps and judges’ perception of their quality that decides the marks, not the plan on the paper. It has already been said that Sotnikova’s execution of technical elements were not the cleanest on the night. But GOE given to her is something you would see given to perfectly executed elements.
At any rate, 1.44 is a difference that could be overcome by a skater like Yuna, whose quality of skating and interpretation very strongly merits a high level of positive GOE and PCS. That much is evident, easily proven by referring back to Yuna’s protocols over the course of her career. Despite the fact that her free programme was executed perfectly well, her GOE in comparison to Sotnikova’s was underscored. The base value argument is misleading in the extreme, trying to take away the attention from poor judgment calls made during the ladies’ event. The level of PCS and GOE, as well as the edge call, given to Sotnikova should be the debating point, not Yuna’s base values.