Analyzing Sotnikova and Kim's footwork in the FS

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Honestly who cares? We know it was judging in her favour and a level 3 wouldn't have affected the results.

The competition is done. Sequences and levels are called incorrectly all the time. The amount of effort you've put into analyzing Sotnikova's sequence, while interesting in the context of how footwork is marked, is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

 

[kslr0816]

so what exactly IS the rule? is it up to interpretation, or does anyone here who actually judges know what the rule is for sure? or any choreographers, skaters who work with choreographers obviously have to aim for something, otherwise get dinged every time they skate..

 

[ILuvYuna]

She did 6 types (which is "at least 5" types) AND 5 in each direction

So you mean 5 in both directions, or 5 in any direction? Nevermind, let me just do this so we can all see it better lol:


Clockwise

15.) Rocker, clockwise
22.) Rocker, clockwise
28.) Rocker, clockwise (barely, edge is shallow and immediately changes over)

7.) Three Turn, clockwise
11.) Three Turn, clockwise
29.) Three Turn, clockwise

10.) Loop, clockwise

3.) Twizzle, clockwise

20.) Toe Hop, clockwise

16.) Counter, clockwise

14.) Toe Steps, clockwise

21.) Chasse, clockwise
25.) Chasse, clockwise (x3)

2.) Curve with change of edge, clockwise
9.) Curve with change of edge, clockwise

Counter-Clockwise

5.) Rocker, counterclockwise
23.) Rocker, counterclockwise (barely, edge is shallow and immediately changes over)
24.) Rocker, counterclockwise

1.) Three Turn, counterclockwise (x2)

19.) Loop, counterclockwise

8.) Twizzle, counterclockwise (barely makes it around and free foot comes down quickly)

4). Toe Hop, counterlockwise

12.) Choctaw, counterclockwise

13.) Illusion turn, counterclockwise

17.) Bracket, counterclockwise (barely, edge is shallow and immediately changes over with free foot coming down)

18.) Mohawk, counterclockwise


Other

6.) Change edge from inside to outside
26.) Edge change from inside to outside
27.) Edge change from outside to inside with free foot placed on ice



Types and Directions:

Rocker - both
Three Turn (?) - both
Loop - both
Twizzle - both
Toe Hop - both

Toe Steps - C
Chasse - C
Curve (?) - C

Chocktaw - CC
Mowhawk - CC
Bracket - CC
Illusion - CC


I feel like I've accomplished something, but I have no idea what

Anyone care to explain which of these items are "turns' and which are "steps"

 

[gkelly]

you don't need to analyze another skater's step sequence to analyze adelina's, so why keep talking about it? make a thread about yuna's step sequence and how it was deserved, and people will debate that one there or not.

No, but you do need to analyze other step sequences and the official calls for them to draw any conclusions about the competence or bias of the technical panel.

 

[zamboni step]

Honestly who cares? We know it was judging in her favour and a level 3 wouldn't have affected the results.

The competition is done. Sequences and levels are called incorrectly all the time. The amount of effort you've put into analyzing Sotnikova's sequence, while interesting in the context of how footwork is marked, is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

I realise it was in order to prove that Sotnikova didn't deserve the win, but I do find the analysis interesting. I can score steps but I still find myself feeling like a crazy person everytime I do it, because it takes so much more time, so it's nice someone else did it and I don't have to obsess.

 

[kslr0816]

Honestly who cares? We know it was judging in her favour and a level 3 wouldn't have affected the results.

The competition is done. Sequences and levels are called incorrectly all the time. The amount of effort you've put into analyzing Sotnikova's sequence, while interesting in the context of how footwork is marked, is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

while you're not entirely incorrect i disagree that past performances, especially highly publicized, controversial ones, do matter. they set precedents. the question at hand is a worthwhile one

 

[capcomeback]

BoP-

While I agree with you in principle, a comma can parse a sentence in a way that can change the meaning of a sentence. I think that is what DMD is getting at (but in this case, s/he seems off-base).

That being said, the rules seem pretty clear as you indicated and I read. According to your analysis, Adelina failed to meet Level 4 requirements (missing at least one turn in both directions-if not possibly 2 and only completing 1 step sequence correctly). Just because she adds elements without executing others correctly should not give her bonus point, DMD.

As BoP said at the beginning, and gkelly offered, it might useful for knowledgeable folks to give us some analysis of their own.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

And if we're talking semantics, obviously commas make a difference. "5 different types of turns, and 3 different types of steps, all attempted in both direction" could be interpreted as only the turns need to be attempted in all directions. "5 different types of turns, and 3 different types of steps all attempted in both directions" could be interpreted as only the steps need to be in all directions.

For unambiguity it should be "5 different types of turns all executed in both directions, and 3 different types of steps all executed in both directions". Treat them as separate bullets if need be.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

Anyone care to explain which of these items are "turns' and which are "steps"

Types of turns: three turns, twizzles, brackets, loops, counters, rockers.
Types of steps: toe steps, chasses, mohawks, choctaws, curves with change of edge, cross-rolls, running steps.

 

[gmyers]

How do we know your way of interpreting the rule is right? BTW, what is your way? Oh, yeah, the way you get your result.

The point of this thread is to try to prove the technical caller was wrong and sotnikovas level 4 was a level 3 and sotnikovas score should go down or her win thrown out or something else. The rules can be read in an entirely different way and were read in an entirely different way and the op is not right and saying sotnikova is a illegitimate winner. But that is not true because of the rules in how to get level 4.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Exactly. It should have been called a level 3 as the title implies and as how BoP has pointed out.

Is this thread done, now?

You wonder how many threads people are going to start about "Sotnikova's spin should have been a level 3 not a level 4." and then pointing out all the aspects of the spin. As mentioned, levels are miscalled all the time, especially if there is an underlying bias (which in Sochi, there obviously was).

 

[zamboni step]

Exactly. It should have been called a level 3.

Is this thread done, now?

They're all the same, it'll never be done.

 

[capcomeback]

while you're not entirely incorrect i disagree that past performances, especially highly publicized, controversial ones, do matter. they set precedents. the question at hand is a worthwhile one

Especially if it leads to improvement in judging/officiating or if it is determined that there was a conspiracy.

 

[kslr0816]

No, but you do need to analyze other step sequences and the official calls for them to draw any conclusions about the competence or bias of the technical panel.

i don't entirely disagree with this statement, but then it becomes either they're biased or they're incompetent. if their call on adelina's step sequence was incorrect (which is being debated here, now) then: either they called the other skaters correctly, and they're biased, or they called the other skaters incorrectly as well, and they're incompetent.

 

[usethis2]

Exactly. It should have been called a level 3.

Is this thread done, now?

If that's the consensus, I have no objection. I can refer to this thread in the other thread.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

while you're not entirely incorrect i disagree that past performances, especially highly publicized, controversial ones, do matter. they set precedents. the question at hand is a worthwhile one

Sotnikova is not the first, nor the last, skater to ever have an element called with an incorrect/higher level.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

Just because she adds elements without executing others correctly should not give her bonus point, DMD.

I agree, but for her to get level 4 but only achieve 4/5 of turns and 1/3 of steps under BoP's interpretation would be quite a disaster, whereas under an alternative reading it would be level 4.

 

[capcomeback]

The point of this thread is to try to prove the technical caller was wrong and sotnikovas level 4 was a level 3 and sotnikovas score should go down or her win thrown out or something else. The rules can be read in an entirely different way and were read in an entirely different way and the op is not right and saying sotnikova is a illegitimate winner. But that is not true because of the rules in how to get level 4.

Her win won't be "thrown out". For better or worse Adelina won gold and that won't change. Still, if that win is not legitimate due to human or technical error (or conspiracy), that is what people want to change for the future.

I'm still not clear how the rule could be interpreted differently than it is written. It looks pretty straight forward to me.

 

[kslr0816]

Sotnikova is not the first, nor the last, skater to ever have an element called with an incorrect/higher level.

i'm not talking about the scoring - i'm referring to the rule that people are talking about right now, about what kind of variety is defined as necessary for level 4.

 

[kslr0816]

I agree, but for her to get level 4 but only achieve 4/5 of turns and 1/3 of steps under BoP's interpretation would be quite a disaster, whereas under an alternative reading it would be level 4.

i completely agree with this statement. this is the first question that needs to be answered, otherwise the rest of the debate is completely moot. either BoP's translation of the rules is right, or DMD's is. what's the "true" interpretation?