Let's assume that Yuna's lutz prerotated 1/4, which is fair based on the video; the take off was very well done. Your argument means that she can be 179 degrees shy of the direction of the landing with no penalty (basically completing a half turn on ice to get her body backwards), because her take-off wasn't as pre-rotated as Julia. I don't believe this is how jumps are (or should be) evaluated, mainly because different jumps have different levels of prerotation. Salchows and toe loops are typically going to pre-rotate more than a lutz; ideally all these jumps should finish without the blade turning more than a 1/4 turn on the ice regardless of the take-off or jump type.
That is NOT my argument at all. My issue right now is what YOU are using as the starting point of the jump, which affects how you determine how underrotated a jump is on landing. The only way YOU can argue that the jump is 135 degrees short on the landing--what you were claiming earlier--is if you are using a starting point somewhere after she starts her pre-rotation of the jump. My point is that was wrong.
This isn't how it works. They don't say well Yuna usually gets a +3 or +2 and then subtract from there.
Um, *I* didn't say that the JUDGES said, "Well, Yuna usually gets a +3 or +2, so now I'm going to deduct -1 from that and give +1 or +2". My wording was a little ambiguous, and you twisted it, so let me clarify.
By citing what Yuna usually gets on her second lutz (+2/+3)--without the landing issue that she had in the Sochi FS, and comparing it to what she got in the Sochi FS (mostly +1/+2), my point was that the judges in Sochi didn't just ignore the error and showered her with +GOE--meaning she didn't just get +GOE based off of rep. On the other hand, if the judges had uniformly given +2/+3s across the board, that would be unjustified to me. She didn't get that.
Honestly a fair by the book judge would find it hard to justify more than +1 before subtracting the negatives. So lets reduce from +1 shall we. If we site "lacking rotation" (no sign) -1 and not the more severe "under rotation" (sign <) which calls for -1 or even -2. We end up at 0 if we go by the book. These are not to be confused with "one or more revolution than required" which calls for -3 GOE.
I don't really understand why you admit you're "no expert" yet you also have no problem saying statements like a "
fair by the book judge would find it hard to justify more than +1 before subtracting the negatives". What? Yuna's second lutz IN SOCHI did still fulfill enough bullets for positive GOE--good height/distance, perfectly timed with the music (note the pause to the music and choreographed upper body movement to the music immediately preceding the luz take-off), effortless, nice extension of the free leg on landing. So we're already at +2. So if some of the judges chose to apply -1, then they would end up at +1, which the MAJORITY of the judges did. Could they have been a little harsher? Yes, but relative to how they were giving GOE to all other skaters--no. Was the error such a serious one that it demanded a -2/-3 GOE? No.
So, I have no idea why you think you can't get to more than +1 for Yuna's lutz. Meanwhile, in your other post, you argued that Adelina should've gotten more than +1 GOE for her combo. Why? Because as you said, the "judges were quite excited"? That is not a reason that Adelina's combo should've gotten +2 before taking the negative GOE into account.
This is a by the book approach which isn't required. The judges can say Yuna landed that jump and satisfied only two bullets and still give +3 GOE to start. It's called judges discretion and it is allowed under ISU guidelines. They could then subract only 1 point as it appears some did, right. Putting us back at +2 or +1 but if we don't want to allow them such freedoms with Adelina why should we with Yuna. That is what should be in question. A fair approach used similarly for all.
A fair approach for all is ideal, with a consistent level of generosity and strictness for all skaters. If the only issues at hand were the -GOE for Adelina's flip combo and Yuna's lutz, then I would shrug it off as the difference is not that big. But that's not the only issue, and altogether, most of the issues added up in one skater's favor.
I've already said before that the lack of a UR call on Adelina's 3T doesn't bother me nearly as much as the lack of a flutz call, which is the biggest thing that makes me doubt the integrity of the technical panel (that and the footwork levels). When the IJS came about, it was impossible not to think about how it would have been used in SLC--not just for the pairs, but for the ladies event. Sarah Hughes's scores would've looked very different under IJS with her flutzes and questionably rotated 3/3s. Yet, in 2014, the IJS was used and we had the same thing happen in Sochi that happened in SLC--hometown girl flutzes, URS, and skates with excitement and freedom and wins controversially! And yet the system that was being used was SUPPOSED to explicitly record and punish flutzes and URs, but it didn't! So how did this happen?
Had fair calls been given with the flutz call and/or proper footwork levels, Adelina may still have won, or she may have not, but it would've been MUCH closer. But she skated before Yuna, and no one knew how Yuna was going to do. So unfortunately, there is a perception--and evidence to support it--that the technical panel was generous on Adelina in order to make her chances as strong as possible. But they overplayed their hand, with FAR too many generous calls for Adelina. Whoops. Had they been smarter, they would've given at least that flutz call after all.
This and the fact that the same tech controller was on the panel in Vancouver 2010 where you had the unjustifiable downgrades on Rachael Flatt's flips--who skated first in the group, before any medal contender--in order to ensure that she in no way would be getting near the podium--makes me continue to question the motivations of the technical panel. Those calls will never be justified.
Yuna should have got a zero on her solo triple Lutz. The rotation was fine but the swinging free leg on the landing marred the effect.
That was the point- it was a mixture of mild passion, sorrow, melancholy and recovery (when she pauses at some point, skates forward and then her face lights with a smile, how she lacks any expression there like some have said? how?). Like the SP it had the same theme- farewell, bittersweetness. It was her farewell to the sport. It just broke my heart when she came out of the ice, and one of her coaches hugs her, at one point she looks like she feels like crying. She knew she lost,heck I think she new after the SP....
) Kim's program did not capture enough IJS points, but I think it will stand the test of time as the exclamation point to her essential canon.
