What are the most glaring examples of cheating using the CoP within the last 5 years? | Page 3 | Golden Skate

What are the most glaring examples of cheating using the CoP within the last 5 years?

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
But shouldn't a fall have the same severity for everyone? While I agree for lower levels it reduces the severity, but why not just make it 0.5 or 0.25 deductions for falls at lower levels (which is the case for lower competitions, like Adult Nationals in Canada, and whatnot).

Perhaps there should be a bonus for triples or quads that are successfully landed instead? I know there's positive GOE and flutzing and all that too consider, but in gymnastics, you're awarded bonus for movements you end up successfully executing and then receive deductions for major errors... so both are in tandem.

I think CoP does do this in a sense with GOE, but a program done by a junior skater with 7 triples should really score higher than a program done by a senior skater with 4 triples and falls, in the grand scheme of things.
 

mskater93

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
A percentage would make it the same level of severity for everyone. As I said - it should be risk-reward. You take a big risk by packing a program with 2 quads, 2 3As and busy transitions and if you fall, you should take a bigger hit (like gambling - you only lose $0.05 playing nickel slots one at a time but you lose $1 at dollar slots one at a time but if you win on the $1 slots, you are probably going to get 20X what the guy winning nickel slots won; you have to decide which is right for you).

In the same way, you choose what elements go in the program based on that risk-reward proposition and maybe you conciously choose to reduce the busy transitions into and out of elements to improve your jump hit rate and get an 8 for transitions instead of a 9 but don't lose the 2 points on a 200 point program for the fall. Then you get a win-win situation - the fans of a given skater can say "see, even with a 1% deduction per fall my guy STILL won because his content was more difficult than everyone else's and he could afford a fall or two (or five :) )" OR cleaner programs with slightly reduced content/transitions end up on the podium/winning and casual fans don't scratch their heads and wonder how the heck that happend. ;)
 

pangtongfan

Match Penalty
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Atleast 60% of Chan's wins and every single one of his scores.

The no doubt Shpilband politiked bronze medal of the Shibutanis in 2011.

The bronze medals of Pechalat & Bourzat over a superior Weaver & Poje (who were already robbed by the Shibutanis) in 2012.

The string of wins, mostly all undeserved, of the now retired Vanessa Crone & forever overrated Paul Poirier over the always unlucky and underscored Weaver & Poje in 2010 and 2011.

The generous over the top scores of comebacking heroes Shen & Zhao in 2010, and the obvious federation dumpage of the Zhangs that same year.

The federation dumpage of Pang & Tong in favor of the Zhangs in 2008 and 2009.

The undeserved World title of a badly faltering Savchenko & Szolkowy over both the Zhangs and Dube & Davison in 2008.

The NHK result this year between Asada and Suzuki which clearly showed who was Japanese #1 now no matter what.

The inflated scores of Miki Ando in the 2010-2011 season, no doubt Morozov politiked.
 

louisa05

Final Flight
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
The reason for proposing this change is that the 1.0 deduction is negligible at the elite level, especially for senior men, because the scores for everything else are so much higher at that level.

And I think this is why the controversial results have mostly been in men's competition.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
But shouldn't a fall have the same severity for everyone?

How do you define "same severity" -- in relation to the value of the element the skater fell on (assuming it was on an element)? In relation to the program as a whole?

As is, a fall on double toe loop, in a competition where that's one of the more difficult jumps being executed, is a lot more costly than a fall on a quad toe. Is that the intention?

Perhaps there should be a bonus for triples or quads that are successfully landed instead?

The Russian Federation agrees with you there.

I think CoP does do this in a sense with GOE, but a program done by a junior skater with 7 triples should really score higher than a program done by a senior skater with 4 triples and falls, in the grand scheme of things.

And so it would, at least on the tech side.

For the sake of argument, let's say both skaters attempt the same 7 triples, but the senior skater falls on 3 of them. Let's say that the junior gets 0 GOE on all the jumps, and the senior gets +1 on all the successful ones and -3 on the ones with falls. Already the senior skater has lost more in -GOE than she gained in +GOE.

Then the senior skater should also get three deductions for the falls. Since 7-triple programs tend to score well over 50 points in base value (and in TES when skated clean) and often well over 100 in total score including PCS, then a 1% deduction per fall would be somewhat more than 1 point each fall. The same would be true if it were defined as as 2% of the TES. But since we'd prefer not to see a skater building up too much of a cushion with PCS, taking the percentage off the whole score also takes away some of that cushion.

Guidelines to reward clean programs and penalize messy ones in PCS might close the gap a little more. So would increasing penalties for subsequent falls, on the theory that each additional disruptive error multiplies rather than simply adds to the disruptive effect.

Still, if the junior skater is earning 5s in PCS even with any discretionary boosts for skating clean, and the senior is earning 7s even with any dings for skating messy, then even though the junior will deservedly end up with higher technical scores, the senior skater might deservedly end up with enough higher PCS to hold onto a higher total score.

If the junior starts out with 5s and gets a bump into the 6s, and if the senior usually gets 7s but gets knocked down to 6s on this bad day, then the junior would come out ahead.
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Atleast 60% of Chan's wins and every single one of his scores.

60%?! Chan has won 14 titles internationally in his senior career. Could you please specifically name which 8 titles of those he shouldn't have won due to CoP fixing? I suppose all those where he had "5 falls", right? :rolleye:

Since you apparently love throwing absurd numbers out there, why not question 90% or 120% of his wins! :laugh:
 

Ruffles78

On the Ice
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
I think you should get a minus 2 to 3 GOE (depending on the severity of the fall or if a skater lands a great lutz but misses the double toe in combo) and a minus 3 deduction off of the overall score. That would be fair and square for everybody, and not overly complicated. This would also make it more severe if a skater falls on a non-element. (Getting just a minus 1 for a fall in the middle of a program on some crossovers or something is just not serious enough.) A fall has always been the most noticeable way to screw up in figure skating. It is disruptive to the point that the audience may gasp in disappointment or even horror! Every element is a ship, and that one just went down and took the crew of points with it! It should be treated like a disastrous error, and anyone who does it (especially in the short program) should sink...like that ship.. much lower in the standings than if they skated clean. Period. Maybe I'm just old school, but a fall should be heavily penalized. Carolina Kostner and Agnes Zawadski getting second place in short programs with falls over other enjoyable skaters with clean programs is ABSURD!

As far as results that I do not agree with...just for this season since my list could go on and on:
Chan's 2013 Worlds win
Kostner's 2013 Worlds short program score
Asada's win at NHK
Zawadski's 2013 Nationals short program score

:mad: Now I'm just grumpy and shouldn't have touched this thread.
 

mskater93

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Should that -3 in your suggestion apply at all levels or just Senior? -3 is a HUGE amount of points at the Juvenile level (where the BEST skaters score around 45 points) but not as large at Senior. This is why gkelly and I both have been advocating a % of the TSS per fall - basically if you are risking a lot (ie, putting out a program with really hard content and a lot of transitions) expecting a big reward, if you don't deliver you should have a bigger risk.
 

plushyfan

Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2012
Country
Hungary
Do you know if this petitioner received a response from Mr. Rogge?

Yes. :yes: And was another petition, where collected signatures, like for Ten now. They collected more than 6000 signatures in two weeks. And most of them weren't Russians. They were from all over the World, especially from Japan. And many fans wrote directly to the ISU.

I have seen a video, where Rogge hugs Plushy.
 

MoonlightSkater

On the Ice
Joined
May 17, 2011
But shouldn't a fall have the same severity for everyone? While I agree for lower levels it reduces the severity, but why not just make it 0.5 or 0.25 deductions for falls at lower levels (which is the case for lower competitions, like Adult Nationals in Canada, and whatnot).

Perhaps there should be a bonus for triples or quads that are successfully landed instead? I know there's positive GOE and flutzing and all that too consider, but in gymnastics, you're awarded bonus for movements you end up successfully executing and then receive deductions for major errors... so both are in tandem.

I think CoP does do this in a sense with GOE, but a program done by a junior skater with 7 triples should really score higher than a program done by a senior skater with 4 triples and falls, in the grand scheme of things.

Nope, not true. In gymnastics you get the technical value of a skill you complete, but there is no bonus on top of that if you do it really well. Only deductions if you have form errors. There has been discussion in gymnastics circles that some form of positive grade-of-execution style bonus could be appropriate to distinguish between adequate (non-deductible) and superb performance of a skill. It would seem most judges are afraid not to take deductions in many cases (see Michaela Maroney's team finals vault), anyways, so that might not be viable, but the point stands that there is no bonus in gymnastics.
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Nope, not true. In gymnastics you get the technical value of a skill you complete, but there is no bonus on top of that if you do it really well. Only deductions if you have form errors. There has been discussion in gymnastics circles that some form of positive grade-of-execution style bonus could be appropriate to distinguish between adequate (non-deductible) and superb performance of a skill. It would seem most judges are afraid not to take deductions in many cases (see Michaela Maroney's team finals vault), anyways, so that might not be viable, but the point stands that there is no bonus in gymnastics.

I see what you're saying but I should clarify, I meant bonus for movements you end up doing strung together (vault being an exception, of course). But it still has to do with the way you're executing elements. The difference, as far as I understand, is that there's rarely a positive grade of execution tacked onto an element -- i.e. you don't get extra marks for exceptional height on a leaping split ("+GOE" if you will); you do however get deducted if you don't hit the full split.

And yeah, Maroney's imperfect vault score was ridiculous. Guess her bra strap was showing. :rolleye:
 

Ruffles78

On the Ice
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Should that -3 in your suggestion apply at all levels or just Senior? -3 is a HUGE amount of points at the Juvenile level (where the BEST skaters score around 45 points) but not as large at Senior. This is why gkelly and I both have been advocating a % of the TSS per fall - basically if you are risking a lot (ie, putting out a program with really hard content and a lot of transitions) expecting a big reward, if you don't deliver you should have a bigger risk.

Just the senior level. I'm not sure if I agree with the % of TSS per fall idea. Someone with a riskier program should not lose more points on a fall on a triple toe as opposed to someone with a less difficult program. That fall should be the same amount of points off for everyone, regardless of the technical content planned. That's fair. Think about it, Skater A falls on a triple toe and loses 4 points, while skater B loses 5.5 for the exact same mistake? Nah, I can't agree with that.
 

mskater93

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
But, you can say that BECAUSE of the difficulty of the program, skater B fell on the triple toe and if he/she had backed off somewhere else such as the transitions in and out of the first two jump passes or had put three passes in the first half of the program instead of only 2, he/she would have done the 3T cleanly. My problem with the current system as it stands is that some skaters will get a boost elsewhere to make up that three points (just like they do now for that one point) just because their name is X. A percentage off the TSS basically negates the ability to boost it because if you give them more, they just lose more.
 

MoonlightSkater

On the Ice
Joined
May 17, 2011
I see what you're saying but I should clarify, I meant bonus for movements you end up doing strung together (vault being an exception, of course). But it still has to do with the way you're executing elements. The difference, as far as I understand, is that there's rarely a positive grade of execution tacked onto an element -- i.e. you don't get extra marks for exceptional height on a leaping split ("+GOE" if you will); you do however get deducted if you don't hit the full split.

And yeah, Maroney's imperfect vault score was ridiculous. Guess her bra strap was showing. :rolleye:

To be fair, I've taken a bra strap deduction- in the case of a silver racer back sports bra that was not at all the right pattern to go with the black and red scoop-neck leotard it was worn under. The rule is there to encourage appropriate attire for gymnasts and teams of a certain level. Every gymnast knows that you need to make sure your underwear works with your leotard. In the case of a bra strap that is the same color of, or sufficiently similar to, the leotard and does not stick out very much, most judges simply let it go. Same with underwear. Spray glue is around for a reason, though, and should be used if you're worried about the leo-wedgie effect.

Sorry about the bra strap rant. I've been wanting to get that one out there for years, ever since I saw Stick It, which is a very entertaining movie that has very little basis in fact and hates on judges waaaay too much.

Back to the scoring discussion~

The bonus for the combination of difficult skills goes under the total difficulty score. It's more like the second-half bonus is in skating. It has nothing to do with how well you did the skills, just that you completed them to a recognizeable degree. There's never a positive grade of execution in gymnastics. It's all difficulty value + the execution score. The execution score starts at ten and never goes up, only down. No execution bonus anywhere. There are a few tenths for artistry in there, but again, you start with all three and just get deducted from there if you can't express your floor routine. Bars and vault don't have artistry deductions, though bars does have rhythm deductions. I don't think gymnastics applies well for bonus. What skating might borrow from gymnastics is the degree to which a fall affects the score- the athletes lose what is equivalent to about 7% of the score of a good elite level routine when they lose a full point off a score that is in the 15-16 range. If figure skating were to translate that to the ice, they'd need each fall to cost about 10 points. Clearly a 1 point deduction is vastly insufficient.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
There's never a positive grade of execution in gymnastics. It's all difficulty value + the execution score. The execution score starts at ten and never goes up, only down. No execution bonus anywhere.

Interesting. This may be the source of some people who follow both sports believing that in skating under 6.0 the scores started at 6.0 and went down from there. Not the way it really worked, even in elite short programs, but if you were only watching the top skaters and also following gymnastics, it would be easy to get it into your head in those terms.

Theoretically the judging of school figures sort of did work that way -- 6.0 was defined as "perfect and flawless" and in figures it would be possible to judge the results on how closely the tracings approached a perfect circle with perfectly shaped turns, so every score less than 6 could be seen as deductions for lack of perfection.

But since scores in the 5s were very very rare in school figures, the benchmarks even for the best skaters were more 4.0 as good and 5.0 as very good, with adjustments up and down from there.
 

mskater93

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Interesting. This may be the source of some people who follow both sports believing that in skating under 6.0 the scores started at 6.0 and went down from there. Not the way it really worked, even in elite short programs, but if you were only watching the top skaters and also following gymnastics, it would be easy to get it into your head in those terms.

Actually, scores were based upon median marks under 6.0. The median mark was defined to be the first skaters marks for the program. Each skater was judged relatively to that skater's score (and each subsequent skater). So, if the first skater got 4.0/4.0, each skater beyond that would either be higher or lower than that. As a judge, you'd try to make your median mark for a group such that you didn't paint yourself into a corner and have to tie skaters. :)
 

Ruffles78

On the Ice
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
But, you can say that BECAUSE of the difficulty of the program, skater B fell on the triple toe and if he/she had backed off somewhere else such as the transitions in and out of the first two jump passes or had put three passes in the first half of the program instead of only 2, he/she would have done the 3T cleanly. My problem with the current system as it stands is that some skaters will get a boost elsewhere to make up that three points (just like they do now for that one point) just because their name is X. A percentage off the TSS basically negates the ability to boost it because if you give them more, they just lose more.

No, you can't say that. That's just "ifs and buts." Besides, are you saying that skater B should be punished for not backing off somewhere in their transitions or jumping passes since you somehow know that if they had done fewer, the toe loop would have materialized effortlessly? There is no way to know that. Regardless of what they did in the rest of the program, both skaters fell on the toe loop because they made a mistake. I am not trying to be difficult, I swear! I will say that I would like your idea far better than the current system. It would be more effective, and would definitely help negate the "boosting" of popular skaters, but in my personal opinion, I still would find it unfair for one skater to lose more points for the same error. I originally said they should get a negative GOE and 3 points off the overall score. How about 0 points for the element they fell on (if you did a combination and fell on the second portion like 3z/3t(fall), you would get base points and 0 GOE for just a lutz) and then 5 points off the TSS. This would make you lose about 9 points...that would be really hard to boost. I just wish we could actually bounce these ideas off of an ISU official!
 

mskater93

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Hmm. Would you also give them the phantom "sequence" for that 3Lz or would they be allowed to put another combo somewhere?
 

snsd

On the Ice
Joined
Nov 30, 2012
Ashley Wagner deserved to be the US Champion. Yes she fell, but Gracie Gold made mistakes in the short, and the short program counts. Just because Gracie Gold skated a clean long it doesn't mean she's the overall winner, and Ashley Wagner skates with a lot more character and maturity than Gracie Gold which really helps.

So it is okay for Ashley to fall in a long and win because of her PC, but when it is Patrick that wins because of PC everyone has a fissy fit?
 

mskater93

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Different situation, snsd - Gold had a fall and a pop in her SP and was the only one to REALLY hit it out of the park in the LP of the ladies with big scoring potential. D10 was clean in both phases at Worlds and it wasn't like he didn't do 4T.
 
Top