Mathman, do you know what the "correct interpretation" of the rule is?
Analyzing Sotnikova and Kim's footwork in the FS
- Thread starter Blades of Passion
- Start date
- Status
Mathman, do you know what the "correct interpretation" of the rule is?
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
What you just wrote is an example of poorly worded sentence. "One step" as you wrote it could mean simply one step. It is not connect to the "four turns in both directions" later in the sentence. If you had said "one step and four turns all in both directions", that would make it clear.
Face the facts - EVERY Level 4 step sequence in the past four years has shown 5 different types of steps, all executed in both directions, and 3 different types of types, all executed in both directions.
Well that's what people are having trouble with (since they have no valid arguments and are grasping at straws). What I wrote has a comma in the sentence, the ISU text does not. But it doesn't matter AT ALL either way. The rule is clear.
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
Do we really need all this technicality to demonstrate that Sotnikova was overscored? 
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
Wow, you've done the same analysis for every level 4 step sequence in the past four years? Or are you just saying that to blow off a legitimate question?
this is just a nonsense nitpick of wording. let's assume he did - then, do you know of one that doesn't?
The way the rule is written the listing of elements performed by sotnikova in the step sequence can be called level 4.
great. can you support your statement with another example of a performance that follows the guidelines (solely interpreted in this way) which received level 4?
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
No, but I'm not the one telling people to "face the facts" and accept everything someone says as true. I'm trying to have a dialogue, not trying to shut people up by criticizing their reading comprehension.
This casts doubt in my mind, as to whether the rules are indeed interpretted as BoP says.
Unless she had no intention of trying for level 4, could she really get it so badly wrong as to miss THAT many elements? Neither seems very plausible (although either IS possible).
And if the tech panel was deliberately cheating, would they really do it in a way that is so easy to catch? Especially when it (apparently) has so little value in terms of points? I mean this is not like a borderline edge or UR call, or anonymous and subjective GoE or PCS scoring - this is something that's "out there" for anyone with sufficient knowledge to spot. Again, it doesn't seem very plausible. They could of course simply be incompetent. This is where analysis of other skaters would help.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
EVERY competitive skating choreographer knows the rule and choreographs the sequence as such if their skater is capable of it. Would you like me to get Lori Nichol on The Skating Lesson?
I have done this analysis for all of Patrick Chan's and Daisuke Takahashi's footwork sequences from the past 4 years, btw. They do 5 different types of turns, each type in both directions, and 3 different types of steps, each type in both directions.
Do you have ANY clue as to how difficult figure skating is and how common it is to get an edge wrong?
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
What they have done is consistent with both interpretations so I'm not sure how that favors one. Maybe they chose 5 turns instead of 6 because it's easier.
Are you suggesting that Adelina's team is so clueless as to not know they needed to do more than one step in both directions, as she did 3+ in each direction? Her choreographer is an ice dancer and she got level 3 multiple times this season. I'm sure they could have figured it out.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
I don't mean to be (too, lol) insulting but are you basing your opinion because DMD started the sentence with "From an object perspective (which isn't really true anyway, the part about the OP being objective when it comes to Adelina, lol). Adelina could have just as easily got lost in the moment and probably forgot a sequence or two. Just because she intended to do them did not mean that she did. Her program was certainly busy enough that it certainly was possible that she failed to mentally check a box or two.
The bottom line for me is (stray) comma, or not, i cannot see how the rules can be parsed any differently than BoP stated (at least realistically). Anything else smacks of gainsaying for the sake of being contradictory to me.
No, it just strikes me as odd, that either:
a) she did not attempt to get level4, or that
b) she and her choreographers failed to sort out her choreography, or that
c) she had the right choreography, but spectacularly failed to execute it.
And then the judges gave her level4 anyway.
Not saying that BoP is right or wrong... or that one of the above isn't indeed the case. I wouldn't know. Just that I have doubts. I am a natural sceptic and cynic...
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I do not find the argument very convincing that goes, "Adelina's choreographer must have known the rules, therefore Adelina must have executed a level four sequence."
If that was all there was to it, every skater would do a level four sequence every time. Adelina herself would have done a level four sequence all season long -- the choreographer did not just suddenly discover the rules last month.
If that was all there was to it, every skater would do a level four sequence every time. Adelina herself would have done a level four sequence all season long -- the choreographer did not just suddenly discover the rules last month.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
When tech school and clarification memos to tech panel members push that it means 5 CW and 5 CCW and 3 CW and 3CCW and 3 sets of "clusters" for L4, then that is what is meant. As I stated when I cut and pasted the rules and the source, my coach IS a Regional TS and in designing her skaters' leveled steps (and in calling leveled steps at competitions), she makes sure it is 5/5 and 3/3 MINIMUM or else it doesn't get called. I suspect that if Sotnikova was trying to get a L4, either her bracket was supposed to be a counter or her counter was supposed to be a bracket (as those were the mis-matched turns).
There is also a possibility that it was DESIGNED as a L3 (especially since she's gotten L2 and L3 all season until here) but it was miscalled.
You made up your own "argument" (a non-sequitur, based loosely on the discussion at hand)...
...and then told yourself you are not convinced by that argument.
I don't understand why she is doing that many rockers and three turns? 
5.) Rocker, counterclockwise
15.) Rocker, clockwise
22.) Rocker, clockwise
23.) Rocker, counterclockwise (barely, edge is shallow and immediately changes over)
28.) Rocker, clockwise (barely, edge is shallow and immediately changes over)
1.) Three Turn, counterclockwise (x2)
7.) Three Turn, clockwise
11.) Three Turn, clockwise
29.) Three Turn, clockwise
Why she is also doing that turns which they are not counting? -Especially Illusion-
16.) Counter, clockwise
17.) Bracket, counterclockwise
13.) Illusion turn, counterclockwise
Different types of Turns: three turns, twizzles, brackets, loops, counters, rockers.
5.) Rocker, counterclockwise
15.) Rocker, clockwise
22.) Rocker, clockwise
23.) Rocker, counterclockwise (barely, edge is shallow and immediately changes over)
28.) Rocker, clockwise (barely, edge is shallow and immediately changes over)
1.) Three Turn, counterclockwise (x2)
7.) Three Turn, clockwise
11.) Three Turn, clockwise
29.) Three Turn, clockwise
Why she is also doing that turns which they are not counting? -Especially Illusion-
16.) Counter, clockwise
17.) Bracket, counterclockwise
13.) Illusion turn, counterclockwise
Different types of Turns: three turns, twizzles, brackets, loops, counters, rockers.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
elif, those are probably her "easy" turns based on body construction and what she has learned and are a good way for HER to cover the ice. I know I cover better ice and gain more speed as I go on both of those types of turns (and twizzles) than I do on brackets and counters.
- Status
Similar threads
