- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
I think Vanshilar meant 5 "types" of CW and CCW turns. I don't think anyone here believes one should earn level 4 by doing three types of turns in the bad direction.
Analyzing Sotnikova and Kim's footwork in the FS
- Thread starter Blades of Passion
- Start date
- Status
I think Vanshilar meant 5 "types" of CW and CCW turns. I don't think anyone here believes one should earn level 4 by doing three types of turns in the bad direction.
Er, yeah...I meant 5 different types of CW turns, and 5 different types of CCW turns...sorry about that! Hence the earlier description of doing turns A, B, C, D in both directions, and then E in one direction, and F in the other to satisfy the requirement for level 4, because there are 6 types of turns (so TMC's example would work, but the description of the rule should be modified). Similarly with the steps (3).
The problem is that the rules state "all executed at least once in both directions" which to me seems to be standard English for saying that each of the 5 types of turns and each of the 3 types of steps must be done in both directions to count, but not according to those arguing this interpretation to justify Sotnikova's receiving a level 4 (and doesn't answer why Kim received a level 3 when she clearly fulfilled both interpretations, so it's not an issue of the technical panel being lenient). Whether or not this interpretation is correct is what should be cleared up.
P.S. Regarding the 2 different combinations of 3 difficult turns requirement, it seems to me like Kim fulfilled this via:
8.) Rocker, clockwise
9.) Bracket, clockwise
10.) Rocker, clockwise
24.) Twizzle, counterclockwise (x2)
25.) Rocker, counterclockwise
40.) Counter, counterclockwise
41.) Twizzle, counterclockwise (x2)
Sotnikova fulfilled this via:
15.) Rocker, clockwise
16.) Counter, clockwise
17.) Bracket, counterclockwise (barely, edge is shallow and immediately changes over with free foot coming down)
22.) Rocker, clockwise
23.) Rocker, counterclockwise (barely, edge is shallow and immediately changes over)
24.) Rocker, counterclockwise
25.) Chasse, clockwise (x3)
So if I'm reading it right, both did 3 combinations. Although change of edges are not allowed during the combinations, so I don't know if changing the rotation direction during Sotnikova's rockers implies a change of edge as well (which is not allowed during a combination), I'll have to look at the video. She did two other ones anyway.
I have argued that Sotnikova could have fulfilled the 5 different turns each in both directions interpretation if the technical panel identified some of the turns differently than Blades of Passion identified them. My identification differed from his in a few instances, mostly attributable to camera angle.
I'm not going to get into which of us was "right" or "wrong." What matters is what the technical panel saw at the time.
There's no need to reinterpret the "5 turns in both directions" rule in order to argue that Sotnikova fulfilled it.
However, anyone who wants to argue against BoP, who can argue grammar but can't identify turns, is focusing on the wording of the rule. We should really focus more on what the skater did on the ice.
Yeah I had read through your analysis, but used BoP's because he also analyzed Yuna's moves and I wanted to place them side by side (to consider the "maybe judges were just being lenient" argument), and it'd make more sense to use the analyses from the same set of eyes when comparing skaters. I agree that people should be focusing more on looking at what the skaters did, but it doesn't seem like many people are willing and/or able to do it. I could give it a shot but I'd have to spend some time reading up on them and looking at example videos, since I am "recreational" at best and don't have much experience in this.
P.S. You mentioned earlier about watching it on VHS. Would it be easier if I uploaded a gif of the step sequence in slow motion? Also, I use VLC to play the videos which is freeware and allows for slow motion and frame-by-frame, I don't know if that would help for you. Or if you prefer it on VHS
Totally agree and it's the reason why I've been following this thread but did not opine myself too much. I am learning from some smart people here but not knowledgeable enough to intervene. I just remember that Yuna's footwork received level 4 in the past while Adelina level 3, and Yuna's footwork looked more complex and effortless than Adelina's in Sochi. I am trusting detailed analysis by the BoP. It is disingenuous to play with semantics when the levels have been determined countless of times in the past. Others should offer their own analysis instead of trying to find loopholes to defend corrupt judging.
I mean, go back the earlier pages of this thread and see those who demanded BoP analyse Yuna's step sequence (as if they'd paid BoP for it). Why? They say that's only fair. Now that BoP did a favor to everyone in this thread and the the focus shifts to grammar? Are you kidding me?
One of the best was this:
http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/sh...work-in-the-FS&p=885857&viewfull=1#post885857
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2011
This is why it is ridiculous that the ISU will only accept protests within 30 minutes. It has taken the entire internet almost a month just to investigate the footwork sequence. How would an athlete be able to do this, at the competition?
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
I'm sorry...the entire Internet? Lol
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2014
(Sorry, can't resist)
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate!
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
Short answer: It depends!
Long answer: if the skater ends up on the wrong edge coming out of a turn or step (where a choctaw becomes a Mohawk or a rocker becomes a 3 turn/change of edge) it CAN affect the level.
Yes it would.
I don't think we can rely on one set of eyes to determine that the tech panel made the wrong call.
Choosing one camera angle for everyone here to rely on and analyze (if able) can be educational about what the technical panel would be looking for.
Relying on one knowledgeable poster's analysis (either BoP's, or mine, or that of anyone else who wants to give it a try) of one step sequence, or two rivals' step sequences, can tell us how that poster would have called the levels.
However, if two or more posters disagree on exactly what a particular turn or step actually was, that means that any one poster's determination is not automatically the correct one -- it means the skater didn't perform it in a way that was completely clear and/or that at least one of the viewing angles may have been deceptive.
So I think all we can conclude at this point was that the official calls for Sotnikova's and Kim's step sequences in their Sochi freeskates were not clearly and indisputably correct. We have not proven that they were clearly and indisputably incorrect.
Slow motion would help, if the video is clearer than what's available on youtube. One good-quality
My VHS tape on my moderately large TV screen is much better resolution than anything I can watch on youtube, and no worse than a high-resolution online video on my average-sized computer monitor.
The drawback for my own analysis is the same as videos I can access online -- I can watch in real time, or I can stop and start with the pause button, but I can't smoothly slow down a particular sequence.
The drawback for discussing with other posters here is that I can't show you the good-quality video I have on tape. I don't know how to convert it to a format that could be uploaded, or how to do the uploading myself. Even if I did, some quality would undoubtedly be lost. And NBCSN has not posted their broadcast online -- the camera angles are different in some places from those on nbcolympics.com, which itself is not available to viewers in all parts of the world.
And none of the several different broadcast camera angles may be identical to the official tech panel angle.
So don't take my word for it that a particular turn was definitely a rocker or a counter. But please do take my word for it that some of them were ambiguous and likely to be interpreted differently depending on viewing angle.
I.e., we shouldn't take BoP's word as more authoritative than the official decision -- only as a different view that shows the official decision was not indisputable.
We're free to dispute it, but we can't prove it was incorrect without access to the official video and knowledge that the tech panel did in fact review the step sequences.
If we knew for a fact that they didn't review, we could guess that the calls were likely incorrect but not whether they were intentional misrepresentations or honest mistakes in real time.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
But you can't wait a month before declaring a winner. And you can't take someone's medal away a month later because analysis of replays reveals scoring mistakes. These are "field of play" decisions, as is the case in all sporting events.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2014
I agree. But the rule as described by those who interpret it this way was difficult to understand in the first place, and even after thinking a lot and trying, I still haven't been able to write it down in a simple and concise manner (like the actual IJS tech handbook rule).
People arguing for this particular interpretation (number 3 in my list), please feel free to modify what I've written so that the rule would become clear and impossible to misunderstand. I would be very grateful! I won't send my query to the ISU until I - or preferably somebody who understands this interpretation - can come up with a wording that is easy to understand.
I agree. I wish we could think of a way of expressing this Rule/Interpretation number 3 in a way that is as understandable.
Well, if you believe in conspiracy theories and believe that the motivation of the technical panel was something other than objective, then I'd say that the technical panel was extremely smart in making the calls that they did, because footwork sequence levels are rarely scrutinized as much as UR/DG and edge calls, as many fans just don't have the knowledge/patience to immediately dispute the call. In what should've been a closer competition than is recorded by the protocols, the difference in step level sequences wouldn't have been the first thing that people looked at.
I realize you're referring to Sotnikova above. But have you tried looking at Kim's footwork sequence in the FS, to see if there were any calls of her turns that could've ambiguously gone against her? Because even if you've established that some of the calls for Sotnikova's steps could've been interpreted differently depending on the viewing angle, you haven't established that Kim's steps could've been interpreted differently via a viewing angle.
Even if there are some of Kim's steps/turns that could be "interpreted differently" via a different viewing angle, that doesn't explain why Sotnikova got the "benefit of the doubt" and Kim did not.
What a coincidence that these multiple "field of play" decisions benefited one skater and disadvantaged one other skater. What a coincidence! Amazing how technical panels on the GP, GPF, and Europeans managed to call Adelina on her flutzes and level 3 footwork in the FS but somehow the Olympic panel somehow missed them. What a coincidence!
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2011
Yes, you can. There have been multiple instances of medals being revoked-rewarded after investigation of impropriety. Whether it be athletes being on drugs, lying about their ages, or judges' conduct exposed. It can be done. If a judge is discovered to be corrupt, their "field of play" decision is null and void. Just like one underage gymnast voids the entire team's medal, one or more corrupt judge will void the entire panel.
Hmm well here's what I can do on relatively short notice (i.e. easy and quick to do). It's an animated gif of Yuna's step sequence from the free skate:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2846/13235063555_84672e428c_o.gif
My videos are just from whatever I can find online, so they're not particularly high quality (unless I find them in high quality, of course). But, I can adjust to any desired slow motion and convert to gif. I only used every 3rd frame from a 30 frames per second (FPS) video, so the gif is displaying as if it were recorded at 10 FPS. It's also 1/4 of the original size, both vertically and horizontally, to save space, as well as having its colors reduced to 256 colors. I also slowed it down to as if it were playing at 1/4 speed, although this does not affect the file size. Here are some things observations:
1. The whole thing takes a long time to go through. And, being an animated gif, unless you have some special software, you won't be able to rewind it per se; you can only wait until it loops again. This is probably because I did the whole step sequence. I can just as easily only do small chunks of it per file though, which will allow it to be bigger, and the same move can be repeated more quickly (i.e. you don't have to wait as long for it to loop back to the same move).
2. It shouldn't be too hard for me to put on some indexing number into the image, so that people can refer to the same move (i.e. "the move at frame 37") if we're looking at moves. I'm actually extracting images from the video and then collating them into an animated gif as different scripts, so I can easily add in a "insert number here" in the middle of the script. I'm doing this in Matlab, if anyone is curious -- which isn't specialized for videos and images but incidentally, works well enough.
3. Even though it's relatively small and low FPS, I'm curious if this is enough to identify most of the moves. For moves where it is unclear, is that simply due to the angle that the video is taken at? If so, then I could conceivably take several fan cam videos from Youtube to look at the same move from different angles. Also, I can set the slow motion to any desired amount.
4. Given the video, it's not that difficult for me to put it into this animated gif form for anyone to see. So fire away at requests, as long as you have a video that I can grab, if you want to try to identify the step sequence moves. Youtube videos are fine. However, videos from sites like nbcolympics, where they do continual streaming in .f4f format, are not; I haven't figured out yet how to put the different files together into a single video (and by "I" I mean "my downloader").
5. In theory, of course, I can just upload slow-motion videos to Youtube. However, I suspect Youtube will just pull them down for copyright infringement. Hence why I'm using animated gifs.
Edit: Photobucket was giving me problems so now I'm using Flickr instead.
lol month long kiss and cry
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
Awarding a skater the wrong level is not proof of corruption. And in an case where actual corruption was discovered, in Salt Lake, the solution was to award a second gold medal, not to revoke the first one.
- Status
Similar threads
