Analyzing Sotnikova and Kim's footwork in the FS

[TMC]

So far, I've only seen 3, maybe 4 posters actually contributing to this thread's purpose, which is to provide detailed analysis according to the IJS rule book; none from those who call BoP as a hater. I really, I mean it sincerely, am interested in Lv. 4 analysis; yes, expect opposing views, but that's what this thread is about. I assume it's too much of a scary job for most people, so I don't blame on just the fact it's not done; I know because I never went back after my file got deleted midway done; never again will I try, at least in written form.

I too am really sincerely interested in analysis of Lv Sp Stsq and all the other fs-related letter scombinations you can think of! I wish people could calm down (and I think they have a bit) and provide actual analysis instead of accusations.

I was thinking about this thread last night in bed when I couldn't sleep (yeah that's how crazy I am), and I came up with an idea:
Let's change the thread title to "Analyzing Ladies' Olympic Singles TES - Please limit analysis to Ms X, Ms Z, Ms Q and Ms T."
Obviously we'd assign a letter to each skater and one that isn't in any of their actual names.
This would, I'd hope, help people look past the person and only look at the performances in the most objective way possible.
The posts would look a little something like this:
"Ms Q received lv4 because of something, but I disagree with her GOE for this jump because as I see it it was UR and wrong edge on top of that. I would have given -# GOE"
"I disagree, as I see it her edge change was doubtful, not blatant"
Anyone using a) the actual names of the skaters included and/or b) extreme adjectives such as hate and/or c) personal attacs against other posters would be severely reprimanded by all and invited to leave the thread, go think about what they did, and come back when they can play with others again.

 

[mskater93]

So a regional TS is who choreographs designs L4 steps for her students and yet there's a possibility that Adelina's team planned level 3 for her? You really think her SS are awful.

A L3 doesn't mean I think her SS are awful. Please don't cast some random opinion on me, I never said her SS were awful (overscored, yes, awful, no).

All coaches/choreographers try to get their skaters to a L4 if at all possible. I know one of her Senior ladies has gotten her step sequence called as a L4 when it was executed perfectly. This skater also has struggled to get her jumps fully rotated and so has spent a great deal of time working to gain points elsewhere.

 

[gkelly]

But in order to give somebody the benefit of the doubt, there has to be doubt, and I don't remember Gracie being held up for 2 minutes while the judges fussed over Adelina's scores.

Since I happen to have a tape of the live broadcast . . .

It was just about exactly 3 minutes from the time Adelina hit her final pose to the time her scores were announced while she was in the Kiss-and-Cry.

During that time this broadcast showed Adelina taking her bows, getting off and hugging her coach . . . replays of a couple elements . . . sitting in the K&C. Even though it was a US network, they did not focus on the US skater next to compete.

That's a pretty typical amount of time, not enough for the audience to get impatient, but plenty of time for a few reviews, even a pass through the step sequence if they felt it necessary.

However, "benefit of the doubt" on some elements could also mean "Looks good in real time, no need to review."

And it's not only that - it's the notion that the same tech they used to call everybody elses mistakes during the competition, somehow failed when Adelina took the ice, leaving the technical panel with nothing but doubt about the elements in question, such that their only choice was to either give her the benefit of the doubt, or mark her down. Sorry, but it's just too much of a logial stretch for me to be charitable about the judge's intentions.

This thread is only about technical panel calls, not judges.

Are we going to apply the same scrutiny to other skaters' level 4 elements, to other skaters' borderline jumps, and see if maybe we would have given less credit than this tech panel in other cases as well?

Who else might have gotten benefit of doubt, without public outrage because they didn't win?

 

[mskater93]

Who else might have gotten benefit of doubt, without public outrage because they didn't win?

I think the concern is more others did NOT receive the benefit of the doubt to the same degree.

 

[capcomeback]

This thread is only about technical panel calls, not judges.

Are we going to apply the same scrutiny to other skaters' level 4 elements, to other skaters' borderline jumps, and see if maybe we would have given less credit than this tech panel in other cases as well?

Who else might have gotten benefit of doubt, without public outrage because they didn't win?

I think the concern is more others did NOT receive the benefit of the doubt to the same degree.

Also, the notion of possible bias due to the tech controller being a Russian (and therefore not providing the same scrutiny to other skaters) so it almost seems like these elements were graded in real time without the use of equipment. Based on the shakiness or non-existence of these steps and turns, it seem odd that they were not given greater scrutiny.

 

[kslr0816]

is everyone on the same page that BoP's "interpretation" of the rule was the correct one?

 

[gkelly]

I don't see any other interpretation as fitting the wording.

 

[jaylee]

I wasn't aware that skaters were given the benefit of the doubt on spin/footwork levels. Unlike with jumps, where skaters can underrotate up to 1/4 and still be given the benefit of the doubt, resulting in some debatable calls sometime, I thought that with spin/footwork levels, there was much less room for skaters to be given the benefit of the doubt--skaters either fulfilled the level requirements or they didn't. I can see how on occasion there's some wiggle room and debatable decisions to be made, but overall, spin/footwork calls seemed fair and justifiable but not generous, and they didn't appear to have any relation to reputation.

Yuna Kim got a level 3 on her flying camel spin at 2013 Worlds SP, and it was totally deserved. Didn't matter that she was the reigning Olympic champion; her first position wasn't stable, she got dinged accordingly. That's fair. Akiko Suzuki really, really struggled in the Olympics team event FS with her footwork sequence (was it something with the ice? No ladies skater got a level 4 step sequence in the team event), and so even though it's Akiko Suzuki and she usually has wonderful footwork, I wasn't shocked to see the level 2 in the protocols.

At the 2014 Olympics, in the ladies team event and ladies individual, the only skater who got a level 4 step sequence in more than one segment was Adelina Sotnikova.

- Ladies team event: No level 4 step sequences were given out at all
- Ladies individual SP: level 4 step sequence - Adelina Sotnikova, Akiko Suzuki
- Ladies individual FS: level 4 step sequence - Adelina Sotnikova, Mao Asada, Carolina Kostner, and Kaetlyn Osmond

If the technical panel was generous across the board, and giving multiple skaters the "benefit of the doubt" on level 4 step sequences, I would expect to see more level 4 step sequences called for other skaters. Certainly, Adelina Sotnikova is not the only skater capable of getting a level 4 step sequence or with a program constructed with the intention of getting a level 4. Akiko Suzuki, Mao Asada, and Carolina Kostner all received level 4 step sequences for both the SP and FS in at least one other ISU competition this season (Kostner = 2014 Europeans; Asada = 2013 GPF; Suzuki = 2013 Skate Canada). That is not to say that Kostner, Asada, and Suzuki did not make mistakes at the Olympics that prevented them from getting a level 4 step sequence in one segment at these Olympics. But it is fair to say that they were not given the benefit of the doubt in getting a level 4 step sequence in that segment...because they didn't.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

is everyone on the same page that BoP's "interpretation" of the rule was the correct one?

I interpret the rules as all 5 different turns must be executed in both directions, and all 3 different steps must be executed in different directions. As pointed out, certain turns like her LFI bracket were turned into rockers, but a technical caller might have given her credit for the bracket, for example.

The reality is... it's simply not feasible to analyze 30 turns/steps and ensure the edges were correct, all for the sake of 0.6 points. And keeping track of whether 5 different turns and 3 different steps were both executed in each direction is damn near impossible, especially while assessing the other aspects of the footwork sequence. Even if you had a checkbox, that's 16 movements (along with all other movements executed in a footwork sequence).

I mean, judges fail to recognize when skaters don't do preceding movements into their solo jumps in the short program. You think a tech specialist is going to recognize every minute aspect of a footwork sequence. Skaters would be waiting an extra 2 minutes in the Kiss and Cry just over a level call.

 

[jaylee]

Just for reference, regarding how generous/strict the technical panel is across the board:

The only men's skaters who received level 4 step sequence in both the SP and the FS in the individual event were Patrick Chan, Denis Ten, and Daisuke Takahashi, as they were the only ones to achieve that in the FS. In the SP, though, 8 additional skaters received level 4 step sequences: Hanyu, Machida, Amodio, Brezina, Ge, Brown, Abbott, Majorov.

In the men's team event, only Patrick Chan and Florent Amodio received level 4 step sequence in the SP. No level 4 step sequences in the FS.

 

[bsfan]

How can this be seen as another Sot hate thread? I see an analysis, not one single hate comment from OP.

the thread start is not a professional judge or specialist. and he/she only did this to Sotnikova, not anyone else. he/she is just making a subtle hate thread, but is still hate thread.

 

[gkelly]

I wasn't aware that skaters were given the benefit of the doubt on spin/footwork levels. Unlike with jumps, where skaters can underrotate up to 1/4 and still be given the benefit of the doubt, resulting in some debatable calls sometime, I thought that with spin/footwork levels, there was much less room for skaters to be given the benefit of the doubt--skaters either fulfilled the level requirements or they didn't.

What I'm talking about is not so much official benefit of doubt when examining a turn with the same scrutiny as a jump rotation and then deciding it was exactly on the borderline so the call should go to the skater.

What I'm talking about is taking the steps and turns at face value.

For example, a skater goes into a turn on a forward outside edge with counterrotation, rotates outside the entry circle, and exits to continue curving down ice on the opposite curve as the entry edge, without holding the exit edge on one foot for very long or very deeply.

That turn must have been intended as a counter, given the entry and the direction of travel afterward.

A caller who is generous in general or inclined to be especially generous to this particular skater for political reasons will just count it as a counter and move on. I.e., benefit of the doubt.

A caller who is nitpicky in general or inclined to nitpick this particular skater for political reasons will review that part of the step sequence, analyze whether the skater changed edge before the turn (making it an inside three turn) or exited on a brief back inside edge and then changed over to back outside (making it a bracket), or exited on a flat or almost immediately onto two feet (making it not count as any turn for purposes of gaining levels).

So if the skater has clearly executed the turn as intended, there's no doubt and she gets credit for what she intended. If she has clearly not executed it as intended, there's no doubt and she doesn't get credit. If it's ambiguous, then there is wiggle room and room for honest disagreement.

If the turns taken at face value watching live during the program add up to enough to qualify for the feature, there's no need to review.

If there is a review and the video is inconclusive as to which edge the skater was on, then it comes down to the strictness of the panel.

For us analyzing after the fact, with low-contrast video or different fans using different video angles, we may disagree about what we see in these gray area situations.

If the technical panel was generous across the board, and giving multiple skaters the "benefit of the doubt" on level 4 step sequences, I would expect to see more level 4 step sequences called for other skaters.

So let's analyze those skaters' step sequences as well and see what we find.

The other thing to keep in mind is that all four possible features are required for level 4. The most likely reason not to achieve it is not getting credit for the "complexity" of turns and steps as defined earlier -- 5 different turns and 3 different steps in each direction.

But it's also possible that some skaters did get credit for complexity but did not get credit for executing the "clusters" of difficult steps as required, with continuous rhythm, or did not get credit for full upper body movement. (The rotation in each directions for 1/3 of the pattern is most likely to get credit as long as the skater executed all the planned steps and turns.)

That is not to say that Kostner, Asada, and Suzuki did not make mistakes at the Olympics that prevented them from getting a level 4 step sequence in one segment at these Olympics. But it is fair to say that they were not given the benefit of the doubt in getting a level 4 step sequence in that segment...because they didn't.

Well, if they made mistakes there may not have been any doubt. We would have to analyze what they actually did in those segments . . . and then we still might have doubt if the videos are not definitive.

 

[capcomeback]

I interpret the rules as all 5 different turns must be executed in both directions, and all 3 different steps must be executed in different directions. As pointed out, certain turns like her LFI bracket were turned into rockers, but a technical caller might have given her credit for the bracket, for example.

The reality is... it's simply not feasible to analyze 30 turns/steps and ensure the edges were correct, all for the sake of 0.6 points. And keeping track of whether 5 different turns and 3 different steps were both executed in each direction is damn near impossible, especially while assessing the other aspects of the footwork sequence. Even if you had a checkbox, that's 16 movements (along with all other movements executed in a footwork sequence).

I mean, judges fail to recognize when skaters don't do preceding movements into their solo jumps in the short program. You think a tech specialist is going to recognize every minute aspect of a footwork sequence. Skaters would be waiting an extra 2 minutes in the Kiss and Cry just over a level call.

Then why bother? The tech panel should make sure they get their calls right. If we have to wait an extra minute or two, then so be it. Also, for the Worlds and Olympics, maybe the tech panel should be expanded to add extra officials. The tech panel could utilize specialists whose responsibility would to be limited to observing either jumps, spins or footwork/turns sequences. One of these areas would be their entire focus, with the Tech controller sitting above them to verify their calls. Major League Baseball adds extra umpires for the Postseason. Why not skating?

If this is a case that there are not enough eyes on what's going on this should be corrected.

 

[ILuvYuna]

It was just about exactly 3 minutes from the time Adelina hit her final pose to the time her scores were announced [......] That's a pretty typical amount of time

Well, I was making reference to the amount of time that Kim had to wait for Gracie's scores to come up, which is not typical ( I assume that when it takes that long, it's because there's some careful reviewing, disagreement, and decision-making going on. At least that's what the commentators always say lol).

However, "benefit of the doubt" on some elements could also mean "Looks good in real time, no need to review."

To me, "benefit of the doubt" means letting something slide in spite of a hankering doubt (a lingering questionmark). To say that a skill "looks good" enough to not even feel the need to review is to say they never had a doubt about the execution of that skill in real time (no lingering question marks in the first place).

"Benefit of the doubt" is something that only makes sense for the skills that look iffy in real time. If they're iffy about it, then it's in doubt. If it's in doubt, it should be reviewed. If it's in doubt, and they don't review it, that's called "turning a blind eye" to a possible mistake (which indicates BIAS). If they do review it, and the replays cannot resolve their initial doubts, then they are left in a stalemate of doubt, and have to make a choice - give her "the benefit of the doubt", or not. If they encounter this situation for several different skaters, and choose to give the benefit of the doubt only to some of them, that also indicates bias.

That said, I admit we have no idea what was reviewed or not All I'm saying is that the time they took to determine Adelina's scores seemed fairly typical, and logically, you can only draw so many conclusions from that.

This thread is only about technical panel calls, not judges.

Alrighty then I'll leave the judges out of it.

Are we going to apply the same scrutiny to other skaters' level 4 elements, to other skaters' borderline jumps, and see if maybe we would have given less credit than this tech panel in other cases as well?

Well, I think we should, don't you? Aren't you interested in objectivity and fairness, or should we scrutinize nothing, and simply accept, wholesale, whatever the technical panel puts foward just because "they're objective" and "they're the authority"? hwell:

 

[gkelly]

Well, I think we should, don't you? Aren't you interested in objectivity and fairness, or should we scrutinize nothing, and simply accept, wholesale, whatever the technical panel puts foward just because "they're objective" and "they're the authority"? hwell:

Absolutely. I think this thread would be more valuable if several of us look at several skaters' step sequences and compare notes about what features we think they achieved.

It's just time consuming to analyze each of them.

The real tech panel has three people who each look at different things in real time. And then they may or may not review.

One person working from video has the opportunity to rewatch several times to look for each of the different features.

But the video might not be clear and might not be the same angle as the real panel had (live or in replay), so seeing something different doesn't necessarily mean that the person analyzing after the fact is right and the tech panel was wrong. Maybe we're wrong because our angle is more deceptive than the panel's. Or maybe we're right and they were wrong because their angle was deceptive.

If several of us watch, from several angles, and share observations and interpretations of ambiguous moves, we'll get a better result than taking one person's analysis as truer than the original panel's.

And if we do this for multiple skaters in the event, we can draw better conclusions about what the panel's limitations may have been than one person analyzing one skater's sequence.

 

[ILuvYuna]

The tech panel could utilize specialists whose responsibility would to be limited to observing either jumps, spins or footwork/turns sequences. One of these areas would be their entire focus, with the Tech controller sitting above them to verify their calls. If this is a case that there are not enough eyes on what's going on this should be corrected.

In thinking about the adjustments everyone makes during the season to improve their programs, it might be good for the skaters to submit an itemized list of the step sequences they intend to perform (like they do for BV's). If they do this the day before competition, it gives the tech specialists time to look them over, and determine who is attempting L3 or L4. They can then use the itemized list as a guide during competition (view replay in slow-motion and check boxes as they go along). That might make the process speedier.

 

[jaylee]

Well, I was making reference to the amount of time that Kim had to wait for Gracie's scores to come up, which is not typical ( I assume that when it takes that long, it's because there's some careful reviewing, disagreement, and decision-making going on. At least that's what the commentators always say lol).

That was Ashley Wagner's scores that took a long time to come up, not Gracie Gold's.

Ashley has somewhat of a reputation for underrotating, so I wasn't shocked that her elements took a bit of extra time to review. It was unfortunate that it happened prior to Yuna's turn.

What I'm talking about is not so much official benefit of doubt when examining a turn with the same scrutiny as a jump rotation and then deciding it was exactly on the borderline so the call should go to the skater.

Thank you for your clarification and explanation, gkelly, it's appreciated.

I'm all for analysis of all the other skaters. There does not need to be extra scrutiny or focus on any one skater's elements.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Then why bother? The tech panel should make sure they get their calls right. If we have to wait an extra minute or two, then so be it. Also, for the Worlds and Olympics, maybe the tech panel should be expanded to add extra officials. The tech panel could utilize specialists whose responsibility would to be limited to observing either jumps, spins or footwork/turns sequences. One of these areas would be their entire focus, with the Tech controller sitting above them to verify their calls. Major League Baseball adds extra umpires for the Postseason. Why not skating?

If this is a case that there are not enough eyes on what's going on this should be corrected.

Competitions would be an hour or more longer if the technical panel actually took the time to analyze every aspect of the 4 or 4.5 minute program. It would literally take as much time to analyze the program and show the scores as it takes to announce the skater and have them skate.

An umpire calling a ball or strike is a singular moment, that can take a minute to be reviewed. Now imagine the time it would take to review 30 singular moments packed together that are worth 3.3 points or 3.6 points depending on counting the right turns. "I counted 5 different turns in both directions" "Well, I counted 4 different turns" "Well I only saw 3 steps" etc. etc. etc. ... all this back and forth disagreement/discussion over 0.6 points in a 130 point skate.

 

[capcomeback]

Competitions would be an hour or more longer if the technical panel actually took the time to analyze every aspect of the 4 or 4.5 minute program. It would literally take as much time to analyze the program and show the scores as it takes to announce the skater and have them skate.

An umpire calling a ball or strike is a singular moment, that can take a minute to be reviewed. Now imagine the time it would take to review 30 singular moments packed together that are worth 3.3 points or 3.6 points depending on counting the right turns. "I counted 5 different turns in both directions" "Well, I counted 4 different turns" "Well I only saw 3 steps" etc. etc. etc. ... all this back and forth disagreement/discussion over 0.6 points in a 130 point skate.

If it is one person's job to verify the step sequences and another person's job to verify jumps (edges UR's etc), then you don't have any back and forth (except with the Controller and that happens now anyway).

 

[mskater93]

the thread start is not a professional judge or specialist. and he/she only did this to Sotnikova, not anyone else. he/she is just making a subtle hate thread, but is still hate thread.

There is no such thing as a "professional judge or specialist". No one is paid (unless covertly)