Fantasy COP: How much would you deduct for a fall?

koheikun90 said:

I think giving 0 points on a fall is a bit harsh and would discourage, esp. the men to attempt quads. I like that the rule has raised the level of diificulty. Thats what makes figure skating a sport. I watched Evans free program in Vancouver yesterday and honestly i was really bored.

Click to expand...

The key to combating what you've raised as a concern is this:

Skaters who DO complete the difficult elements are rewarded. It's about risk/reward, an important aspect of sport. I know that the sports are not the same... but I'm a golfer. Attempting a risky shot can have great rewards, or it can lead to severe misfortune. High risk elements should have a great reward, but right now I don't think there is sufficient penalty for failure.

In skating, if one's competition is successfully performing high-risk elements... there is the incentive to train and master them to keep up with their base value. But there should not be a great (even a good) reward for failure.

One man's opinion, of course.

Increase -GOE wouldn't work because it also increase +GOE. Then you would have a 2A with +3 GOE being the same as a 3Lz with 0 GOE.

Element with a fall = incomplete. 0 point.
On top of that, - 1 for CH, -1 for PE, -1 for IN.

Quad BV, 3A BV should increase to reward higher risk.

Ven said:

I've always thought there's a balance between penalizing too harsh, so skaters won't push technical limits, and not penalizing enough, which gives incentive to sloppy performances with higher base values.

Click to expand...

I think this balance is important, but actually trying to achieve that in a scoring system that applies across 4 disciplines and a range of competition levels is a difficult thing to do. It might be useful to think about what we want the winning performances to look like. Ideally we would want to see top difficulty + beautiful artistry + excellent skating skills + perfect execution. But, I think we've seen over the past few years, especially among the men, that this ideal isn't very realistic.

So if you can't have all of those things together, where do you want to compromise? And how do you achieve that balance? I don't necessarily think that the current scoring system doesn't do that, actually. You can see examples like Yuna Kim, who doesn't have the most difficulty but can complete her planned content cleanly most of the time. This makes her difficult to beat. In the men's field, on the other hand, nobody has been doing programs that they can reliably complete with minimal errors. (It would be interesting to calculate the clean skate rate among the top men over the past few years!)

To complicate matters, what you want to see at the senior international level might be different from, say, the junior national level. In that case you may want to encourage skaters to try more difficulty even if they're not successful.

Perhaps the real problem with some of these high profile examples is that certain skaters have such astronomically high PCS, GOE's and/or base value that they end up having a multi-fall cushion against the rest of the field. Hanyu has an 8 point advantage in base value over Chan in the LP, which essentially means he can make some mistakes and still win if their PCS and GOE's are more or less equal. The reasons for that 8 point advantage are relatively subtle.

FlattFan said:

Increase -GOE wouldn't work because it also increase +GOE. Then you would have a 2A with +3 GOE being the same as a 3Lz with 0 GOE.

Element with a fall = incomplete. 0 point.
On top of that, - 1 for CH, -1 for PE, -1 for IN.

Quad BV, 3A BV should increase to reward higher risk.

Click to expand...

No, just make the scaling for -GOE different from the scaling for +GOE. Problem solved.

Increasing the penalties for multiple falls (i.e., 2 point deduction for first fall; 4 for second, etc.) still allows some who are otherwise good enough to try one new difficult element while still minimizing the risk. Also, the SP and FS could be scored differently, so the SP stressed perfection -- this would require making it possible to get enough positive GOEs on a triple to equal the points on a quad, for example, and severe penalties on falls -- while the FS allowed a little more tolerance for mistakes.

If it is so difficult for the men to complete their programs cleanish, then that means their degree of difficulty is too high. Perhaps the ISU should stipulate only 1 quad per skate.

^^ Then you are hindering the Olympic ideal of stronger, higher, faster by limiting program content.

Giving no points for a fall would reduce the technical content back to the early 80s.

Falls should have deductions as a percentage of base value of the element. If you fall on your jump combination worth 10 points, that's a 1 point deduction at 10% of BV, if you fall in your choreographic, that's 0.2 points and so on and there should also be an upward sliding scale for multiple falls - something like 15% first fall, 20% second fall and so on. There should also be a computer docked 0.25 or 0.5 from each of the PCS marks for each fall. The other option would be to have falls deducted as a percentage of the total program score (say 1 or 2 percent) so that you weigh your risk-reward. Yeah, you fell on a 2A late in the program, but your overall program was 150 points so that's a 3 point loss at 2 percent...

mskater93 said:

Giving no points for a fall would reduce the technical content back to the early 80s.

Click to expand...

Increase BV for quad and 3As.
The younger guys will assess risk vs. rewards. They will go for the harder elements.

Since 2010, BV went up and up, and more guys are now doing quads. So, giving no points for a fall & increase BV for hard jumps will not reduce technical content back to early 80s. No one without a quad will win anymore.

BV for quads was QUITE good ~2010 but the penalties for < + fall were so high, hardly anyone was jumping them. If the points were 0 for a fall, guys who don't hit them 90%+ in practice won't be jumping them because you could do a 2A in that place worth about 4 points (with +1 GOE) that's a no brainer for them late in the program.

I vote for:

-3 GOE on all elements should leave the score for that element at less than half, maybe 25%, of the element base value. This will affect other serious errors on elements aside from falls. (For underrotated and downgraded jumps, the lower starting base mark will be a more serious loss of points in addition to the GOE reduction)

For falls only, on elements including mid-step sequence and also between elements, take a fall deduction as a percentage of the Total Segment Score, so that only one set of rules is needed for all levels and disciplines but the amount will scale to the skill level of the skater who receives the deduction and of comparable skaters s/he is directly competing against.

E.g., we want a deduction that will be large enough to make a difference between, say, Mao Asada and Carolina Kostner if one of them falls, but not so big that it cancels out the advantage of a senior lady's SP with 5-ish PCS and two triples but one fall vs. a senior lady with 4-ish PCS and no triples but no falls. They're all competing under the same senior ladies' rules, but the total scores for the elite ladies might be twice those of the lower-level ladies.

And then the penalty for multiple falls can increase with each subsequent fall. E.g., 1 or 1.5 or 2% of TSS for the first fall, 2 or 3 or 4% of TSS for the second fall, etc.

Write into the PCS guidelines reminders that judges should reflect disruptions in the program especially in the Performance/Execution component and other components as applicable -- maybe suggest 0.25-1.00 per fall or other disruptive error, depending on severity. However, it's the mandatory deductions from the total segment score that are automatic -- the PCS reductions should still be left to the discretion of the judges; not all falls are equally disruptive, and in very rare cases not really disruptive at all. For example, falling on an end pose and remaining in character to end the program sitting on the ice.

Negating an entire element for a fall is a really silly proposition. What's the point of guys even attempting risky elements like quads or women even attempting triple-triples, when they can get more points for a successful double axel?

I suppose everyone should just do doubles to avoid falls altogether.

I'd maybe suggest a graded system where falls on harder elements are less severe and reflect the element's inherent difficulty -- 1 point for a fall on a 3A or quad in men's (including GOE deduction) or a fall on a 3-3/3F/3Z/3A in women's; 2 points for a fall on any other triple in men's, 1.5 points for a fall on any other triple in women's.

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

Negating an entire element for a fall is a really silly proposition. What's the point of guys even attempting risky elements like quads or women even attempting triple-triples, when they can get more points for a successful double axel?

I suppose everyone should just do doubles to avoid falls altogether.

Click to expand...

I think completely negating the element would not work--an otherwise complete program dropping a skater to tenth place for falling on a quad or 3A would upset people, too. I don't think athletes would be out there doing waltz jumps or even a ton of doubles, if that were the rule, though. Enough athletes on the highest levels have motivation and ambition to push the envelope that others who wanted to keep up would have no choice but to follow suit.

I like the percentage of TSS solution. The one point deduction doesn't work on the senior level, especially for the men. It isn't enough--even combined with lost GOE--to push them to perfect elements. There has to be a balance of risk and reward as many have pointed out. It is out of balance now or we wouldn't see so many sloppy programs medaling. And, at least in what I hear from friends who are not fans and have watched with me, it doesn't do the sport any favors with the audience beyond us to see skaters impersonating a zamboni then being rewarded with a medal. Mistakes are mistakes no matter how we explain them away. Peyton Manning and the Broncos don't get 3.5 points if Wes Welker drops the ball in the end zone just because the pass had good form. And all of us devoted enough to post here can explain why skating is not football--but the casual fan just sees something that ignores mistakes yet claims to be a legitimate sport.

^ To be fair though, plenty of sports ignore mistakes or fouls that are committed without any penalty. Whenever you have a referee of sorts, you will get bad calls that can adversely affect results. People over-simplify figure skating to a matter of jumps. Saying a figure skating routine is defined by 30 seconds of jumps would be like saying a soccer or hockey game is defined by 1 minute of play. Another thing is that a bad call in pro sports rarely affects an outcome, and if it does, it's just one game of an 80-game season so people forget about it. In figure skating, that 4-minute routine has to be seen as pristine otherwise people question the sports legitimacy. Nobody questions why basketball isn't a legit sport even though athletes miss shots and free throws all the time, or why tennis isn't a legit sport even though players double fault. The reality is, there are errors in every sport because if everyone did perfectly, it wouldn't necessarily be very interesting or impressive.

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

^ To be fair though, plenty of sports ignore mistakes or fouls that are committed without any penalty. Whenever you have a referee of sorts, you will get bad calls that can adversely affect results. People over-simplify figure skating to a matter of jumps. Saying a figure skating routine is defined by 30 seconds of jumps would be like saying a soccer or hockey game is defined by 1 minute of play. Another thing is that a bad call in pro sports rarely affects an outcome, and if it does, it's just one game of an 80-game season so people forget about it. In figure skating, that 4-minute routine has to be seen as pristine otherwise people question the sports legitimacy. Nobody questions why basketball isn't a legit sport even though athletes miss shots and free throws all the time, or why tennis isn't a legit sport even though players double fault. The reality is, there are errors in every sport because if everyone did perfectly, it wouldn't necessarily be very interesting or impressive.

Click to expand...

If you miss too many shots in basketball, you lose the game. If they started giving out bonus points for pretty shooting form and the team that missed the most shots won on account of the extra points for form, people would begin questioning the legitimacy of the sport. If foul balls began to count as fair if the batter's swing was beautiful...people would begin to question the legitimacy of the sport. I'm a baseball fan and love a pure swing. But you can still strike out with one.

I vote for deducting a percentage of the base value of the jump. That way, skaters still get credit for trying, and let's face it – if they don't get credit, what's the point of trying? I'm not sure about exactly how much, but if, for example, 40 percent were deducted for a fall on a fully-rotated triple axel, the base value of that element would be 5.1 points, still more than a clean double, but once you add in the appropriate grades-of execution, you get a much different picture.

louisa05 said:

If you miss too many shots in basketball, you lose the game. If they started giving out bonus points for pretty shooting form and the team that missed the most shots won on account of the extra points for form, people would begin questioning the legitimacy of the sport. If foul balls began to count as fair if the batter's swing was beautiful...people would begin to question the legitimacy of the sport. I'm a baseball fan and love a pure swing. But you can still strike out with one.

Click to expand...

Such is the burden of figure skating and other judged sports that start with a perceived level of perfection. Hardcore skating fans will tend to focus on the number of jumps landed and performance that was achieved, whereas casual fans focus on the number of mistakes that were made. Athletes like basketball players will still be scrutinized and criticized for a poor performance, but their ability isn't usually questioned when they miss a shot. Whenever somebody asks me why figure skaters fall if they practice so much, my immediate response is "Why do basketball players miss free throws, why do punters miss field goals, why do hockey players miss shots when they all practice so much too?"

Also, I disagree with those saying that falls are ruining figure skating. If anything, when all skaters go clean and there are no discernable differences - i.e. ice dancing - that's why people lose interest. Skaters need to challenge themselves and more skaters trying quads or high risk elements will get the sport much more respect.

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

Such is the burden of figure skating and other judged sports that start with a perceived level of perfection. Hardcore skating fans will tend to focus on the number of jumps landed and performance that was achieved, whereas casual fans focus on the number of mistakes that were made. Athletes like basketball players will still be scrutinized and criticized for a poor performance, but their ability isn't usually questioned when they miss a shot. Whenever somebody asks me why figure skaters fall if they practice so much, my immediate response is "Why do basketball players miss free throws, why do punters miss field goals, why do hockey players miss shots when they all practice so much too?"

Also, I disagree with those saying that falls are ruining figure skating. If anything, when all skaters go clean and there are no discernable differences - i.e. ice dancing - that's why people lose interest. Skaters need to challenge themselves and more skaters trying quads or high risk elements will get the sport much more respect.

Click to expand...

I don't think it is an expectation of perfection that is the difference here. Male skaters perform in a free skate for 4:30 +/- 10 seconds and are limited to eight jumping passes. Saturday night, LeBron James played for over 39 minutes and took 22 shots. With defenders trying to stop him. It isn't exactly comparable. The comparison would be what percentage can LeBron get on the court alone in four and half minutes. I guarantee you it would be better than the 59% he shot Saturday night.

And, btw, punters miss field goals because they are punters and punts are different than field goals.

I don't think the current penalty for falling is high enough, but I think awarding 0 points for the element is too far the other direction. I would like to see both an increased penalty for multiple falls and a mandatory negative affect on PCS scores. I don't mind seeing a skater who falls once, but is otherwise flawless win gold.

I do mind watching someone fall two or three times and win gold. A single fall doesn't totally ruin the flow and feel of a program the way multiple falls do.

ISU seems to love the idea of multiplying numbers to make things complicated. How about a fallen element only gets like 70% of the base value, minus GOE plus one point deduction? They can add a "f" into the "info" column on the protocol....

Even the base values are a mess. Assuming the values here are accurate (http://gofigureskating.com/skills/jumps/compete.html), the difference between triple toes and salchows are 0.1, but between those two quads is 0.2. Oddly, the difference between triple salchows and loops is 0.9, but between those two quads is 0.3 (which is even less than the 0.4 difference between DOUBLE salchows and loops).

ETA: Nevermind, that appears to have been fixed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_skating_jumps