CoP Olympic report card

evenstar said:

Hmmm.... I thought if you did a triple toe instead of a quadruple, you'd get 4 points. You'd get credit for the triple lutz/triple toe. But you would'nt get credit for the triple toe part of the triple axel/triple toe, but you would get credit for the triple axel, because it was part of a combination. Am I right?

Click to expand...

No because the CoP sees any fault (in terms of zayak or one too many jumps)with any part of the combination as negating the entire element. So Pluschenko lost the GPF to Sandhu that year for an extra combination (i think the COP at the time only allowed two combinations maximum in the LP and Plushy did a third) instead of giving him the points for the first jump (was it a triple axel?) and not counting the jump that was the second part of combination he was given 0 for the entire element and lost the GPF.

Ant

Oh, ok! Then I guess you would lose 16.5 points.

antmanb said:

No because the CoP sees any fault (in terms of zayak or one too many jumps)with any part of the combination as negating the entire element. So Pluschenko lost the GPF to Sandhu that year for an extra combination (i think the COP at the time only allowed two combinations maximum in the LP and Plushy did a third) instead of giving him the points for the first jump (was it a triple axel?) and not counting the jump that was the second part of combination he was given 0 for the entire element and lost the GPF.

Click to expand...

They did change the rules after that year to allow three combinations/sequences, but the principle remains the same and if a skater does four they will lose credit for the whole fourth combo, not just for the second jump. (Johnny Weir had this problem at US Nationals last year.)

Another change is that at 2005 Worlds, Irina Slutskaya did three triple loops (3lutz-3loop combo, solo 3loop, and 3loop-2loop) and got credit for the double loop in the last combo but none for the triple, so it was as if she did a solo double loop with a really difficult preceding transition move. Then last summer they changed the rule so that in a situation like that the whole combo would get zero credit.

And finally, as I mentioned above, underrotated jumps that are downgraded are scored as if they were the lower revolution, but for the Zayak rule they count as the attempted jump of higher revolution.

Skate Canada actually uses different notation on the protocols for their domestic competitions to distinguish intentional double jumps from downgraded triples (or triples vs. quads, or singles vs. doubles), so their protocols make it clearer what actually happened.

gkelly said:

And finally, as I mentioned above, underrotated jumps that are downgraded are scored as if they were the lower revolution, but for the Zayak rule they count as the attempted jump of higher revolution.

Click to expand...

To me, this is the heart of the matter. I certainly have no objection to giving out stiffer penalties for an improper edge on an attempted Lutz. What I can't see (and neither can the ISU) is then, on top of that, using the Zayak rule to negate a correctly done flip later on in the program.

GKelly said:

...so it was as if she did a solo double loop with a really difficult preceding transition move.

Click to expand...

Maybe that's why she got such high PCSs for Transitions!

Mathman said:

Maybe that's why she got such high PCSs for Transitions!

Click to expand...

Well they had to pull them from somewhere, and that's a good a reason as i've read!!!

Ant

gkelly said:

And finally, as I mentioned above, underrotated jumps that are downgraded are scored as if they were the lower revolution, but for the Zayak rule they count as the attempted jump of higher revolution.

Click to expand...

Does this mean that the jump has to be an actual quad attempt? I've noticed that there are some men who are planning to add a quad toe -- Weir and Buttle, IIRC -- but perform a very deliberate, clean triple instead in that spot. If not a 4T physical attempt, is the resulting 3T considered in the Zayak rule?

That would count as a triple.

107 pages later and #1319, I am comfortable inside the box:agree: , CoP is just. But that is JMO.

Good grief, Seanibu, I didn't expect anyone actually to read that monster! :agree:

One thing is for sure I really don't feel the need for a terms a definitions section on the forum anymore.

You called me Seanibu? Wow.:scratch:


BTW, the only "grey" I see now is in the Judges.

How do they score an attempted quad that because of a faulty take off, the skater only managed a triple. Is the technical sheet proof that there was supposed to be a quad?

If that's enough proof then the quad would be downgraded to the triple.

If that's not enough proof, then Zayak on the triple would apply if there was or will be any triple in the program.

Am I correct?

Joe

Joesitz said:

How do they score an attempted quad that because of a faulty take off, the skater only managed a triple. Is the technical sheet proof that there was supposed to be a quad?

If that's enough proof then the quad would be downgraded to the triple.

If that's not enough proof, then Zayak on the triple would apply if there was or will be any triple in the program.

Am I correct?

Joe

Click to expand...

Just trying to think of an example of the above and i actually thought of one - either Abt or Klimkin (and i'm thinking it was Klimkin) missed a quad in, i think, an LP once because his pick slipped on the quad toe. He was skillfull enough to still pull off a triple toe.

Although that was under 6.0, that for any purposes is a successfully landed triple (though technically you might say slightly flawed from the slip/skid on the toe pick). There is a very fine balance between attempts and attempts

What i mean by that is an attempt where you actually try to complete the element e.g. getting three and have turns round on a toe loop trying to hit the quad. Setting up a Lutz into the corner of the rink and switching over to an inside edge for a blade's length. And other's where regardless of what you were going for in your mind, you actually complete somethign lesser e.g. popping a quad to a triple or a triple to a double.

I know, Joe, that you would put a Lutz in the second category based on the edge switch producing a "flip" but i would disagree.

Just picknig up the point about the crib sheet for the caller - i have no doubt that every competition Mikki Ando entered the first element on the sheet was the 4Sal, she trippled and doubled out of that on more occasions this season than she actually went for the four rotations - where she did triple out then it would have beenm scored as a triple (not the quad) and would have counted to her zayak totals for thhe jump.

Ant

Ant - I didn't mention a Lutz. You seem to be reading into my posts. All I mentioned was an attempted quad on paper that the Caller uses and the skater, for whatever reasons, was only able to make 3 revolutions which turned the attempt into a triple.

Klimkin's attempt was a good example but under the 6.O only the Zayak rule would apply - no downgrading from an attempted Quad. Now, I presume (I don't know) if that were CoP, he would be excused from the downgrade because of the downgrade exception to quads. There is an exception for quads. Am I correct. I don't know for sure. Now, would he be excused from the Zayak rule?

It's not unusual for a skater to cut short his intentions to keep from falling. Lambiel is a good example of attempting a 3A on Caller sheet, but changes it to a 2A, which I presume would be to prevent falling. Although, if he were to read the Rules, a fall is not all that serious and if he made the revolutions, it would be only a -1 for the fall.

And how many attempts have we seen, where popoffs occur but landed properly for the limited air turns?

Joe

The only thing I can figure out is that this must come under the tech specialst's discretionary purview. That is, the caller has to decide, from what he sees, whether the skater made a legitimate attempt at a quad or not. I don't know what guidelines the ISU provides for this. (?)

I think Joe is right on the money about getting those revolutions in and not worrying about falling. A quad toe which is absolutely attrocious in every respect, plus you fall hard, is still worth 5.0 points, compared to 4.0 for a well done triple.

Compared to ordinal judging, the CoP penalizes underrotaion more, but other faults (such as double footing and falls) less.

Joesitz said:

Ant - I didn't mention a Lutz. You seem to be reading into my posts. All I mentioned was an attempted quad on paper that the Caller uses and the skater, for whatever reasons, was only able to make 3 revolutions which turned the attempt into a triple.

Click to expand...

I know you didn't mention the Lutz, i did, i mentioned it because i think i understand correctly from the other post that when a skater Flutzes you believe them to have jumped a flip, whereas i would believe they performed a flawed attempt at a lutz which is the distinction i have in the two "categories" of attempts that could probably be summarised as follows: firstly, attempts where an attempt results in a ratifiable different element (so here a popped quad toe turning into a triple toe, my suspicions, though please correct me if i'm wrong, is that you would put the Flutz in this category because for you a flutz is a flip), and secondly, an attempt which is a flawed attempt at something that doesn't turn into something else, like being short of rotation on a quad attempt, or a change of edge on the entrance to jump like the FLutz or 'lip.

Joesitz said:

Klimkin's attempt was a good example but under the 6.O only the Zayak rule would apply - no downgrading from an attempted Quad. Now, I presume (I don't know) if that were CoP, he would be excused from the downgrade because of the downgrade exception to quads. There is an exception for quads. Am I correct. I don't know for sure. Now, would he be excused from the Zayak rule?

Click to expand...

No the triple toe he completed would be a completed triple toe and count towards his Zayak total - if he went on to complete e.g. a 3A/3T combo and then another solo triple toe, the solo triple toe would not count because of a violation of the Zayak rule, the quad attempt is only excused from the Zayak rule when it is downgraded by the caller to a triple, in this case Klimkin himself downgraded it to a triple not the caller (i know there wasn't a caller there at the time but if there had actually been a caller there he would have just called the element he saw much like the caller has done all season with Mikki's opening salchow.)

Joesitz said:

It's not unusual for a skater to cut short his intentions to keep from falling. Lambiel is a good example of attempting a 3A on Caller sheet, but changes it to a 2A, which I presume would be to prevent falling. Although, if he were to read the Rules, a fall is not all that serious and if he made the revolutions, it would be only a -1 for the fall.

Click to expand...

There would be the -1 for a fall but don't forget the -3 GOE he'd get for falling. And since the callers (or rather one in particular one at worlds!) seems to have a problem actually calling Lambiel's triple axels it might be safer for him to stick with the double!

Joesitz said:

And how many attempts have we seen, where popoffs occur but landed properly for the limited air turns?
Joe

Click to expand...

Quite a few really - Sandhu is the king of landing a great 4t (often in combo) and then popping his axel to a single. A lot of the men often do it on their quads when they feel slightly off axis or like the jump isn't big enough - you often see them opening up on the third revolution. The reason i remember the Klimkin one vividly is that he got up into the air opened up after the second revolution, realised he was so high up in the air he would have been fine and pulled back in for the third revolution - it was quite spectacular...perhaps under COP it should get a +GOE for the flight part "delay on the entry, exit or middle of the jump"!!!

Ant

Mathman said:

The current issue of Blades on Ice has a feature by George Rossano critiquing the performance of the New Judging System at the Olympics. Dr. Rossano is a mathematician and space physicist with a keen interest in figure skating. He has written a goodly number of articles, some with non-trivial statistical content, pointing out the weaknesses of the ISU judging system.

Click to expand...

Mathman:
Is this essay published on George Rossano's site
http://www.iceskatingintnl.com/current/content/HowManyJudges.htm
the same as the one published in BOI or a different one?

Different, although some of the material is repeated (for instance, the discussion of the wide differences of opinions among the judges in the compulsory dance).

The BOI article is much more subdued and ballanced in tone than this one is.

It is hard for me to evaluate Dr. Rossano's statistical papers. He already hates the NJS (if not the ISU) with a passion, which gives his "scholarly" articles the impression that he has already made up his mind, then he goes looking for data to supprt his opinion.

It should be than the other way around -- look at the data with a dispassionate eye and see where it leads you.

The Blades on Ice article was more of an overview of several different aspects of how the CoP played out at the Olympics. The paper in your link addressed the specific statistical point that the greater the spread in a collection of data, the larger the sample size must be for us to have the same confidence in the conclusion.

The relevant formula, by the way, is that the "standard error of the sample mean" is equal to the standard deviation divided by the square root of the sample size. This result is called the Central Limit Theorem.

So for instance, if a panel of 9 judges had a variation of plus or minus 2 points in scoring an element, you would have to increase the size of the panel to 36 judges to get the same reliability if the variation doubled to 4 points.

Dr. Rossano is arguing that the "reliablity" of the results was greater under 6.0 judging, by this sort of standard.

If you don't like Rossano's arguments, the cleanest way to oppose them is simply to say that the assumtions (of randomness, etc.) that underlie this kind of statistical analysis just do not apply to the scores of a judged sport.

MM

Mathman - As a fellow mathematician, and a big fan of figure skating do you differ from his calculations? How do we know that he hates the NJS? and that his result is already there before he actually goes into the data?

I'm not saying you are wrong. It's just 2 mathmaticians differing leaves the layman without much to go on.:scratch:

Joe

You can learn what Dr. Rossano thinks about most figure skating issues by visiting his on-line magazine

http://www.iceskatingintnl.com/

Click on "Archive" to see articles going back to 1996. If you note the big promotional picture of Sonia Bianchetti's book Cracked Ice (a scathing indictment of the ISU over the last 40 years), and his editorials in support of Jon Jackson and Ron Pfenning (who were active in the World Skating Association which tried to topple Cinquanta and the ISU), it is easy to see what side he is on in most issues.

You can tell what he thinks of the New Judging System just by reading the titles of some of his articles. (For instance: "How many clowns can you fit in a Volkswagon," which ridicules the ISU judging system for encouraging skaters to cram as many points into their programs as possible without regard to quality.)

Long before the New Judging System was approved he wrote extensively on the topic of what a disaster it was going to be, using statistical arguments to bolster his position. For instance, in the Blades on Ice article quoted in the first post on this thread, he says things like, well, the random draw did not effect the results of the Olympics, but it's a only a matter of time before it does, and when it happens, figure skating will get yet another black eye. (Specifically, if Sasha had been charged with two falls instead on only one in her free skate, then the random draw might have made a difference between second and third place.)

I do not find any fault with his actual statistical arguments. In fact, I think it's cool that someone besides Speedy's team is looking hard at the numbers.

However, I have two reservations in accepting his conclusions uncritically. First, he chooses to present those data that support his positions while silently passing over data that perhaps point in another direction. (Not that there is anything wrong with this. He is trying to make a point. If anyone disagrees, that person is welcome to gather evidence on the other side.) For instance, in discussing the spread of judges' scores he chose to focus on the Compulsory Dance, where the scores were indeed all over the lot, instead of, say, the Ladies Short Program where there was substantial agreement.

My second reservation is that mathematical models are just that -- they are models that help us capture some interesting feature of real world experience. The model can never rival in complexity the thing that is being modeled.

Specifically, the statistical methods that Dr. Rossano and other statisticians are attempting to apply to judges' scores are most appropriately used when the data are just a bunch of numbers chosen at random from a bigger set. This is far from an accurate assumption for the marks given by judges in a figure skating contest.

(Rossano would probably agree with this last statement and use it against Speedy. In part, the New Judging System does try to apply quantitative ideas (like the trimmed mean, for instance) in a situation where ordinals make more sense.)

MM

Thank you MM, but I see nothing wrong with anyone expressing an opinion. I happen to like Bianchetti's book more than I like Cinquanta, and I'm not against another World body for figure skating. Two bodies producing two champions with a World Series to clinch the title. It has a nice ring.