- Joined
- Mar 30, 2006
That shouldn't have been the case, though. Emily's jumps should not have been downgraded and she should have placed 6th overall.
~Z
World Team
- Thread starter flying camel
- Start date
That shouldn't have been the case, though. Emily's jumps should not have been downgraded and she should have placed 6th overall.
~Z
If Emily's triples shouldn't have been downgraded, then neither should a lot of the other ladies have been downgraded. Even Mao Asada took a hit. Worlds 07 wasn't the first time Emily has been dinged for underrotation. She got severely dinged at CoC for the same thing.
Two years in a row, Emily seems to have peaked at Nationals and her later competitions were underwhelming. I hope that doesn't happen at Worlds 2008 (assuming Emily makes the World team) because indeed the US will be down to two ladies for 2009, and with Caroline, Rachael and Mirai all reaching eligibility, it would be such a downer if two of them won't be going to Worlds.
Two years in a row, Emily seems to have peaked at Nationals and her later competitions were underwhelming. I hope that doesn't happen at Worlds 2008 (assuming Emily makes the World team) because indeed the US will be down to two ladies for 2009, and with Caroline, Rachael and Mirai all reaching eligibility, it would be such a downer if two of them won't be going to Worlds.
I said "saved" because the real problem was Rochette's PCS.
Joannie was held down so badly compared to GP and 4CC.
We can imagine it was a "consideration" to help the Americans to keep three spots. The PCS is sometimes called "Political Consideration Score".
And if you calculate the total score by cutting the highest and the lowest judge scores, Rochette will be over Hughes by a slim margin.
In that case, Rochette was 159.90, and Hughes was 159.76.
Simply said, the US was "saved" by the random judge selection, which I don't believe really "random".
Joannie was held down so badly compared to GP and 4CC.
We can imagine it was a "consideration" to help the Americans to keep three spots. The PCS is sometimes called "Political Consideration Score".
And if you calculate the total score by cutting the highest and the lowest judge scores, Rochette will be over Hughes by a slim margin.
In that case, Rochette was 159.90, and Hughes was 159.76.
Simply said, the US was "saved" by the random judge selection, which I don't believe really "random".
Last edited:
That is absolutely ludicrous. The reason why Joannie Rochette got a low PCS score was that she skated in the SECOND flight, since she had finished 16th in the SP. The judges tend to give lower scores in the early flights. Hughes was 6th in the SP and skated in the final flight.
It could just as well be argued that the technical panel tried to sabotage Hughes by charging her with underrotated jumps.
Looking at the judging panel, which of these European judges do you think were motivated to "save" the US spots? AUT, EST, FIN, FRA, HUN, ROU, RUS, SVK, SWE. I'd say none of the above. And JPN and CAN were supporting their own skaters.
Joannie Rochette used to get better PCS scores, but in the last two seasons, she has blown either the SP or FS in every major competition. I believe the ISU judges had great expectations for her a couple of years ago, but she's disappointed majorly since then. Maybe if she could pull herself together, skate with confidence and attack, and do two good programs in the same event, she would get more respect from the judges, and much better PCS scores.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Regardless of Emily's plight,. I think there should be an official camera that focuses on all skaters at the landings of jumps from the back view.
I watched Emily live in Tokyo and I watched ESPN on tape, and I still do not see the underrotation. I do not say she didn't underrotate, I am just saying I didn't see it. I know enough about skating to question the Caller, but he is infallible. Has any of his cohorts ever questioned him?
I do sometimes see in TV closeups where a skater lands a jump with the free leg in front which is then brought back to the proper finish. However, I often see in those instances, that the skater has completed the rotations and just had a faulty landing, and not underrotated.
My question is do we assume because the skater landed a jump with the free leg in front that the required air turns were not completed?
(Jumps are generally landed with the free leg close to the landing leg - but not on the ice - and then squished back to make it look graceful.)
Joe
Last edited:
Note about the caller: It isn't ONE person who determines the call. Both the TS and the ATS have to agree on a call. If they don't, the Technical Controller (who is an ISU judge) resolves the disagreement. So at least two of the three team members had to have agreed on the underrotation calls.
To recap the identities of the tech panel at Worlds 2007 Ladies:
Technical Controller: Charles Cyr (USA)
Technical Specialist: Ravi WALIA (CAN)
Assistant Tech Spec: Isabel DUVAL DE NAVARRE (GER)
To recap the identities of the tech panel at Worlds 2007 Ladies:
Technical Controller: Charles Cyr (USA)
Technical Specialist: Ravi WALIA (CAN)
Assistant Tech Spec: Isabel DUVAL DE NAVARRE (GER)
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Thanks Chuckum but my original question about landing a jump with the free leg in front is an automatic assumption that the requisite rotations were incomplete is really looking for an answer.
Joe
Joe
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2006
Very true. Alissa had 3 of her jumps downgraded but only her final Lutz truly should have been knocked, imo. Kiira Korpi's last Salchow and Sarah Meier's 3Toe that got downgraded were sufficiently rotated to me also.
~Z
I agree with chuckm, and understand that the priority for the USA in '08 is to get 3 spots for the Worlds '09.
This in mind, what was a risky escape this year seems to be even more so next year.
Emily's thirteenth place in FS last March, (which its numeral impression made me mistake in my previous post as her overall,) is neither surprising nor disastrous within today's highly competitive circumstance; double digit place can well happen now to any of those talented star skaters. (Especially if one is to attend Harvard at the same time!)
Most probably Kimmie will stay among the very top but you can't depend ONLY on her progress, however likely she's to show that; younger Yu-Na might make more progress in comparison, who knows?
But this kind of uncertainty would apply to any country, so what's mostly needed is rather that "uptide atmosphere" in the team, no?
In my daydream the US ladies '08 team that would create such uptide would be, though bit unrealistic, Meissner, Hughes(or Czisny), and Kwan as her once and final comeback.
It may be a heavy task for Kwan, but her comeback would be a dramatic exitement even for us Japanese fans; and a refreshing stimulation for Kimmie and Emily.
She doesn't have to medal, just be there on ice and show the very best possible out of Kwan'08 herself!
Last edited:
You'd need at least six or eight cameras positioned around the rink, probably more, to get back views of all landings by both clockwise and counterclockwise jumpers wherever they might position each of their jumps.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2006
So?
In any case, the problem seems to be how the actual landing is defined. To me, the tech specialists should be looking at when the majority of the blade is on the ice. Lots of jumps touch down to the ice with the toepick more than a quarter of a rotation before the completition of the jump. In these cases, the tech specialists seem to downgrade the jump if it is not pristine clean. If the toepick touches down before that quarter turn mark, but the landing is smooth, they ignore it.
None of Emily's jumps were more than a quarter turn underrotated by the time most of the blade was actually on the ice and with the naked eye they all look like fine Triples. That should be what's important.
~Z
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
I brought this up because I slomoed Kimmies 3A at Portland Nats. Her skating foot landed in a squat-like position with her free leg in kind of a shoot the duck position. The rotations for me looked fine, however, many posters insisted she underrotated. Does a sloppy landing mean underrotation?
Joe
Joe
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
Not necessarily. She might have just lost control of the edge if the jump was landed at the wrong angle.
But if the 3A was Kimmie's, I'll bet my 2 cents that it was indeed underrotated.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
That sounds to me like wishful thinking more so than anything close to be a sportsfan observer.But if the 3A was Kimmie's, I'll bet my 2 cents that it was indeed underrotated.
Joe
