Mirai's Triple Lutz Unfairly Downgraded?

gkelly · Jan 27, 2010

FlattFan said:
I'm saying there's a difference between 89 and 91. One is a double, one is a triple.

I don't think we can really say that a triple jump that is short by 91 degrees is a double.

In fall 2003 when the new system was first introduced for a trial run, they were calling the underrotated triples as doubles. E.g., a cheated 3T showed up in the protocol as 2T. But that led to problems with unintentional Zayak rule violations. So then they started calling them as downgraded triples with the notation 3T<.

3T< is not considered the same thing as 2T, even though it receives the same base value.

According to the rule, it would be accurate to say that that jump receives the base value of a double. It's worth the same as a double for scoring purposes. It's on the wrong side of the cutoff for downgrading. But none of those statements are the same thing as saying the jump was a double.

A cutoff point has to be drawn somewhere. Wherever you draw the line, there will be examples very close to the line on either side -- the so-called gray area.

The rulemakers have chosen to draw the line at 90 degrees. Therefore, according according to the rules, if the jump is 89 degrees short it gets full value. If it's 91 degrees short it gets downgraded.

If the tech panel can't be sure that they have distinguished accurately between 91and 89, they'll give the skater the benefit of the doubt.

If they're sure it was slightly more than 90 but they're not sure if it's 91 or 95, then they'll downgrade it.

We can argue that that cutoff is too harsh, and that 135 or 180 degrees would be a fairer place to draw the line. But then we'd still have a gray area, just in a different place. And people would be arguing that 134 looks very much like 136 or that 179 looks very much like 181.

aftertherain · Jan 27, 2010

janetfan said:
I think I agree. What supports that strongly is that US Skating put Rachael in the very exclusive "200 point club."

I wonder if the margin of victory was stretched to make the statement Rachael is like Yuna, Mao and Joannie. She can score 200 points just like they can.

We will see how many points she scores in Vancouver - and for that matter how the scoring goes at the Olympics.

If that's the case, which yes, I think it is, I don't like it. I don't like it at all. She's a nice skater, but boosting her scores to make a point is stupid.

Layfan · Jan 27, 2010

janetfan said:
Here is a link to Jenny's blog about Mirai, COC, UR's and CoP

It seems to fit the topic and thought it might add some insight for those who missed it.

http://trueslant.com/jenniferkirk/2...skaters-routines-best-for-the-sport/#more-898

I think Jenny's broader point is that if you go by the numbers Mirai suddenly became a vastly worse skater from one night to the next and it's hard for audiences and for her to understand that.

Also, she made very clear that she thinks under-rotated jumps should be penalized. She just wondered if she they should be be penalized to such an extend that Mirai should lose so harshly to Korpi, whose skate seemed much sloppier.

FlattFan · Jan 27, 2010

Layfan said:
Mirai should lose so harshly to Korpi, whose skate seemed much sloppier.

A sloppier skate by a prettier girl won, people complained.
A sloppier skate by a prettier girl lost, people complained.
People are so hard to pleased. :rofl:

Layfan · Jan 27, 2010

chuckm said:
Rachael's FS score (130.76) pales beside Joannie Rochette's FS score (144.08). At least scores in the low 130s have been achieved in the past by multiple skaters. No lady has every scored anywhere near 140, let along above it. If Rochette had not fallen on the 3Z in the SP (she scored 64.14), she would have gotten a SP score over 70, and her total score would have eclipsed Rachael's by nearly 5 points.

But Nationals scores are not meant to be taken seriously. It's a way of giving National champions a big sendoff, to boost their confidence. Personally, I don't think Rachael is particularly in need of confidence boosting, as she is one of the most consistent skaters I've ever seen. But that's Nationals for you.

If Mirai had completely rotated two of those 3 URd jumps, her score would have been a lot closer to Rachael's.

It just really gets on my nerves, though. And I don't think a whole lot of fans or even close watchers of the sport understand that national scores are apparently meant to be smirked at. I haven't seen too many stories about national explaining that Mirai and Rachael's scores should not be taken to mean they are at the same level as Yuna. Or that Rochette's ridiculous score does not mean that she will easily smoke Yuna at the Olympics.

I used to think that Alissa's 65-plus SP score from last year's nationals was inflated, but wow. At least Alissa has scored pretty near that level at international competitions. When I saw this year's scores ...:no:

Trying give the champions a send off and boost their confidence strikes me as very silly. Who do they they are fooling? Do they think that Rachael and Mirai are dim enough to expect to score 70 in the SP at the Olympics? Do they think Rachael and Mirai walked away from nationals thinking they had suddenly become favorites for gold? Do they think international judges started thinking of them as gold medal threats or that foreign competitors of Rachael and Mirai suddenly started quaking in their boots?

I realize that Michelle Kwan always got more 6.0s at nationals than at worlds. But her scores were not so vastly different between the two competitions.
You can bet that Rachael and Mirai's scores will be vastly different and so will Rochette's. And it really just undermines the argument that CoP is an objective, "numbers-don't-lie" way of judging skating.

janetfan · Jan 27, 2010

aftertherain said:
If that's the case, which yes, I think it is, I don't like it. I don't like it at all. She's a nice skater, but boosting her scores to make a point is stupid.

A few weeks ago some of us were up in arms over the inflated scoring at Russian Natls. Hersh wrote about it and said it was not good for skating to have such capricious scoring whether it was Natls or any at other event.

Then we saw what many thought were inflated scores at Canadian Natls and more complaints followed.

It could be said US Natls scores were also inflated. In each case the defenders said it was Natls and didn't matter whether the scores were inflated.

I am not sure what to think about it. I certainly didn't care when Lambiel received a huge score at Swiss Natls. Maybe because he is one of my favorite skaters

I would say it was not just an accident of inflation that Plushy hit 100 in his SP at Russian Natls and it feels a little similar to me that Rachael broke 200 at US Natls. She still would have won with 199 points - but what fun is that

Layfan · Jan 27, 2010

FlattFan said:
A sloppier skate by a prettier girl won, people complained.
A sloppier skate by a prettier girl lost, people complained.
People are so hard to pleased.

This is silly and not funny. And I've never said Rachael wasn't pretty and I'm sorry you just did.

FlattFan · Jan 27, 2010

aftertherain said:
If that's the case, which yes, I think it is, I don't like it. I don't like it at all. She's a nice skater, but boosting her scores to make a point is stupid.

No, it's not the case. Score inflation in the world is rivaling Zimbabwe.
Sasha's spectacular SP at the Olympics was 66? By the same token, Mirai's SP was 70. In 2006, flutz wasn't penalized. So Sasha did as much as Mirai if not more for being Sasha and her score was still less.

Joannie got 70 for the same content.

Rachael got 200+ is inflation adjusted, given how Joannie got 144 for her long program. :rofl:

I don't think the judge got the memo telling them Rachael had to score this and this in the SP, this and this in the LP.

aftertherain · Jan 27, 2010

janetfan said:
A few weeks ago some of us were up in arms over the inflated scoring at Russian Natls. Hersh wrote about it and said it was not good for skating to have such capricious scoring whether it was Natls or any at other event.

Then we saw what many thought were inflated scores at Canadian Natls and more complaints followed.

It could be said US Natls scores were also inflated. In each case the defenders said it was Natls and didn't matter whether the scores were inflated.

I am not sure what to think about it. I certainly didn't care when Lambiel received a huge score at Swiss Natls. Maybe because he is one of my favorite skaters

I would say it was not just an accident of inflation that Plushy hit 100 in his SP at Russian Natls and it feels a little similar to me that Rachael broke 200 at US Natls. She still would have won with 199 points - but what fun is that

Agree, agree, and agree. :biggrin:

But she broke Sasha's national record .. and I preferred Sasha's R&J program over Rachael's current LP. It was so pretty. :love:

FlattFan · Jan 27, 2010

Layfan said:
This is silly and not funny. And I've never said Rachael wasn't pretty and I'm sorry you just did.

You have pretty, and you have prettier. I'm sorry you did not understand that. :rofl:

Mathman · Jan 27, 2010

I don't think the judges can calculate that fast. "f I give Rachael a 7.50 she will only have 199.8 points, but if I artificially raise it tp 7.75, that will edge her over 200."

I really don't see anything in the scores that says the judges did anything other than try to score what they saw to the best of their ability.

If she lands ten triples in Vancouver, she will place ahead of almost all the ladies in the field.

Layfan · Jan 27, 2010

Mathman said:
I don't think the judges can calculate that fast. "f I give Rachael a 7.50 she will only have 199.8 points, but if I artificially raise it tp 7.75, that will edge her over 200."

I really don't see anything in the scores that says the judges did anything other than try to score what they saw to the best of their ability.

If she lands ten triples in Vancouver, she will place ahead of almost all the ladies in the field.

But then how do you explain why all the national scores are so much higher than the international scores? Maybe they don't do that type of fast calculation but it's not that hard to believe that they were just giving everyone higher element scores across the board.

silverlake22 · Jan 27, 2010

FlattFan said:
You have pretty, and you have prettier. I'm sorry you did not understand that.

pretty = kostner
prettier = lepisto

pretty = lysacek
prettier = joubert

If pretty skates as well as prettier, prettier will always get a higher score, and pretty will get higher scores for skating as well as everyone else. Sorry but it's kind of true.

kyla2 · Jan 27, 2010

Pretty is as Pretty does and other thoughts

Please everyone, stop talking about people's appearance. I mean this is just rude. All the skaters go out there dressed to the nines and look very nice.

As for Mirai, it has to be greater than 1/4 under rotated. It wasn't. She was harshly penalized and always has been. There is no way for the "technical experts" to quantify her under rotation as greater than 1/4. It would have to have been significantly under rotated for them to have dinged her as harshly as they did. But this is COP for you, and the judges have drunk the coolaid.

Rachel's scores were inflated and it won't make one bit of difference to the international judges at the Olympics. If you think they are going to place her over Yu Na, guess again. Not going to happen.

chuckm · Jan 27, 2010

The reason why Nationals scores are higher than ISU scores is pretty obvious. Usually, the biggest inflation is going to be on the GOE and PCS scores, since technical elements have an established value. The judges assign GOE and PCS scores for the skaters, and ALL the judges at Nationals are from the same country and have similar backgrounds and culture.

ISU competitions include judges from many different countries and cultures. What looks good to one judge may not look good to another. Look at any ISU protocol and you will see a gamut of GOE scores for the same skater, same element, and wildly divergent component scores for the same skater, same performance

There is also a certain amount of national bias at work, sometimes due to culture, and sometimes due (unfortunately) to the desire of some judges to place certain skaters ahead of their closest competitors.

PCS
Compare the PCS scores for Joannie Rochette's Nationals Performances to the ISU PCS scores over the past two years:

60.14 Skate Canada 08
60.32 TEB 08
58.40 GPF 08
64.39 Nationals 09
58.56 4CC 09
62.80 Worlds 09
61.44 World Team 09
58.64 Cup of China 09
62.88 Skate Canada 09
69.14 Nationals 2010

GOE
At Worlds 2009 (where Rochette won silver) from the ISU judges she mostly got +1s and 0s, plus some -1s and 2s with a total +3.5 over the base value of her elements.

At Nationals 2010, she received no -GOE, only five 0s, and mostly +1s and +2s and one +3 for a total of 13.45 over the base value of her elements.

chuckm · Jan 27, 2010

kyla2 said:
As for Mirai, it has to be greater than 1/4 under rotated. It wasn't. She was harshly penalized and always has been. There is no way for the "technical experts" to quantify her under rotation as greater than 1/4. It would have to have been significantly under rotated for them to have dinged her as harshly as they did. But this is COP for you, and the judges have drunk the coolaid.

Rachel's scores were inflated and it won't make one bit of difference to the international judges at the Olympics. If you think they are going to place her over Yu Na, guess again. Not going to happen.

ALL the Nationals scores were inflated, mostly in the GOE and PCS, not just Rachael's. Neither Rachael nor Mirai received scores that high in their GP events. I would not expect either of them to get scores anywhere near that high at Vancouver or Worlds.

However, Rachael scored 116 for her FS at Skate America for a skate similar to her Nationals FS. OTOH, Mirai's top FS score this season was 100.49 at Skate Canada, where she URd two jumps. The 16 point difference there dovetails quite nicely with the 14 point difference in the Nationals FSs.

Mirai has gotten URs on the same elements in her GP events this season. Show me on what basis you KNOW she hasn't rotated over 1/4. According to ISU and USFS judges, and the replays at Nationals, Mirai chronically URs those pick jumps. What is your particular evidence for saying otherwise? Are you a certified ISU technical associate with taped evidence, or just a fan who believes what he/she wants to believe is true regardless of evidence to the contrary?

Mathman · Jan 27, 2010

Layfan said:
But then how do you explain why all the national scores are so much higher than the international scores?

I think the judges for the most part know these skaters, like them, and wish them well.

Layfan · Jan 27, 2010

Mathman said:
I think the judges for the most part know these skaters, like them, and wish them well.

I guess. I just don't like it. Not to the extend it's been happening at national competitions this year. They're obviously just trying to flex their muscles and it makes me feel like they're taking audiences for fools.

gfskater · Jan 27, 2010

CoP question

gkelly said:
In fall 2003 when the new system was first introduced for a trial run, they were calling the underrotated triples as doubles. E.g., a cheated 3T showed up in the protocol as 2T. But that led to problems with unintentional Zayak rule violations. So then they started calling them as downgraded triples with the notation 3T<.

3T< is not considered the same thing as 2T, even though it receives the same base value.

I have a problem with this aspect of CoP but before I jumpot to conclusions I have some questions about how this works.

A 3T< has the same base value as a 2T.
A 3T< will most likely get a negative GOE so will get less pts than a 0 GOE 2T.

I would think a 90+ degree, and even a 110 degree 3T< is more difficult than a average 2T yet gets less points.

If a 3T has a great take off, great height, great distance but was 100-110 degrees UR it will get 3T< and start with base of 2T.

1 Would it get negative GOE?
2 Should it get negative GOE?
3 Would the judges out there today give it a negative GOE?
4 Would it receive fewer points than a pretty good but not great 2T?

If #4 is true, does anyone else think this is a problem with CoP?

On another theme:
My understainding is that a 3Lz-3T base value is the sum of a 3Lz pts + 3T pts
Isn't that harder to do than the individual jumps? Shouldn't it be worth more? if not more points, should the allowable cheat factor be increased for combinations, or al least for the second jump?

Figure88 · Jan 27, 2010

kyla2 said:
As for Mirai, it has to be greater than 1/4 under rotated. It wasn't. She was harshly penalized and always has been. There is no way for the "technical experts" to quantify her under rotation as greater than 1/4. It would have to have been significantly under rotated for them to have dinged her as harshly as they did. But this is COP for you, and the judges have drunk the coolaid.

There might be a rationale though of why some skater's jumps may receive more scrutiny than others, if that's what's happening. Judges probably give a benefit of doubt to first time skaters who under-rotate because it might due to mistake. But if a skater later receives a UR call and doesn't fix the problem, the skater runs the risk of getting a reputation as a "cheater" and that might be the reason some skaters are more scrutinized than others. After all, it's like saying to the judges the first under-rotation wasn't a mistake, and it's like a slap in the face to the judges if the skater expects to be fully credited for similarly UR jumps later on. So, if a skater does receive a UR call for the first time. it's probably in their best interest to correct it ASAP like Flatt did, lest you get on the judges' wrong side. But this is just my theory.

Mirai's Triple Lutz Unfairly Downgraded?

gkelly

aftertherain

Layfan

FlattFan

Match Penalty

Layfan

janetfan

Match Penalty

Layfan

FlattFan

Match Penalty

aftertherain

FlattFan

Match Penalty

Mathman

Layfan

silverlake22

kyla2

chuckm

chuckm

Mathman

Layfan

gfskater

Figure88

Similar threads

Connect with us