To the best of my knowledge the official language of the ISU was German from its founding in 1892 until sometime around the 1970s, when it was changed to English.
The rule reads:
Complexity must include at least 5 different types of turns and 3 different types of steps all executed at least once in both directions.
What I think the argument is about is which one of the following is the correct interpretation:
Complexity must include:
1)
5 different types of turns executed at least once.
- Each of those 5 different turns must be executed once in CW direction.
- Each of those 5 different turns must be executed once in CCW direction.
3 different types of steps executed at least once.
- Each of those 3 different steps must be executed once in CW direction.
- Each of those 3 different steps must be executed once in CCW direction.
2)
5 different types of turns.
3 different types of steps executed at least once.
- Each of those 3 different steps must be executed once in CW direction.
- Each of those 3 different steps must be executed once in CCW direction.
1) Results in
- 10 turns (5 CW & 5 CCW)
- 6 steps (3 CW & 3 CCW)
2) Results in
- 5 turns
- 6 steps (3 CW & 3 CCW)
Are there other interpretations?
Thank you for setting out the question clearly.
I do not think that the second interpretation makes any sense in context.
For one thing, not all steps even have a "direction" (e.g., "toe steps" and "running steps" may have no curve or rotation at all), whereas turns are specifically always either clockwise or counterclockwise. So it wouldn't make sense to require steps to be performed in both directions but not to require the same of turns.
The definition of "variety" requires 9 total turns, each kind counted a maximum of twice each, which would mean at least 5 different kinds of turns (4 performed twice and another performed once -- or all 6 kinds, 3 kinds performed twice and the other 3 once each).
So for level 3, with "variety" of turns and steps, a skater could get credit for performing the exact same turn from the same edge twice during the sequence, or could get credit for performing it from, say, both right forward inside and also left forward outside or right back outside -- different edges, in one case a different foot, but all with a counterclockwise entry curve. (The direction of the turn itself would depend on the type of turn -- in brackets and counters the body would turn clockwise from the edges named above.) Variety of types is required but not variety of direction.
The complexity requirement for level 4 adds the requirement that the different kinds of turns be performed in both directions. Level 4 is the only level that
requires demonstration of the ability to turn approximately equally in both directions. Not only do the "variety" and "simple variety" definitions not require it, but also it's not necessary to include the rotation in each direction for 1/3 of the pattern feature in order to earn level 2 or 3.
For the highest level, the intention is clearly to demonstrate not only the ability to do the most different kinds of turns (level 3 as well as level 4 requires at least 5 different kinds), but also the ability to do each of those kinds of turns in both directions.
There would be no reason to add the "both directions" requirement to apply to steps only.
Where BoP and I disagree is not on the interpretation of the rule, which seems perfectly straightforward to me, but rather on the identification of a few of Sotnikova's turns and steps.
For the turns, rockers and counters specifically (and also whether to count the second twizzle as a twizzle or as three turns). The fact that there was ambiguity on these turns depending on which camera angle one uses, and also perhaps depending on how strict or forgiving we want to be, doesn't speak well of the quality of those specific turns.
But if you accept that the tech panel may have been more forgiving of what they saw in real time and may have been watching from an angle more similar to the ones I used, then those turns could legitimately have been identified in a way that just meets the requirement for 5 different kinds of turns in both directions. It's not necessary to reinterpret the rule in order to come up with Sotnikova meeting the requirement -- only to interpret a few of the ambiguous turns differently than BoP did.
Similarly, if you're generous in identifying and counting all the choctaws and edge changes that I noted and that BoP did not, then she would meet the requirement for steps in both directions as well.
Was the panel overly generous to her, giving credit for a few turns and steps that didn't deserve to be counted? Maybe. But they may have looked adequate in real time, from their angle, to the tech panel member who was counting them.
Same with the 3Lz+3T, although that's not directly relevant to this thread.
For both the step sequence level and the 3-3 combo, I think it's fair to say that upon strict scrutiny after-the-fact it appears that the tech panel may have erred on the side of generosity in their calls for these two elements of Sotnikova's. I don't think that necessarily implies that they went out of their way to make incorrect calls -- one has to watch from specific angles in slow motion to see small errors that may not have been apparent in real time from the official angle.
steps)Plural
