Analyzing Sotnikova and Kim's footwork in the FS | Page 19 | Golden Skate

Analyzing Sotnikova and Kim's footwork in the FS

Status
Not open for further replies.

kozure

Rinkside
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Actually, the rule does. Do I need to cite the definition of "all" for you also?

Edit: Looking above at your response, it appears that English is not your first language and I will have to clarify further. The key words in the rule are "all" and "both." "All" does not appear in your purported counterexample.

Logically speaking, "all" is a scope modifier. It means that the "5 turn types and 3 step types" in the sentence are governed by it.

"All" indicates that the "5 turn types and 3 step types" must individually have the property of being performed in both directions (CW and CCW) in order to satisfy the rule. I can state this for you in logical notation if you wish, but I have already been far more pedantic than I wished to be on a forum where I thought a basic understanding of English was a given.

2nd Edit: It appears that I will have to break down the logical structure of the sentence for you and others like you. For the sake of the math-impaired I won't use logical notation.

The rule states:

Complexity must include at least 5 different types of turns and 3 different types of steps all
executed at least once in both directions.

"All" and "both" are the key words in the rule. We dealt with "both" already and the confusion that some seemed to have with it, wherein they mistook it for "either."

"All" is defined as:

all
[awl] adjective
1. the whole of (used in referring to quantity, extent, or duration): all the cake; all the way; all year.
2. the whole number of (used in referring to individuals or particulars, taken collectively): all students.
3. the greatest possible (used in referring to quality or degree): with all due respect; with all speed.
4. every: all kinds; all sorts.
5. any; any whatever: beyond all doubt.

[source: dictionary dot com]

In the rule, "all" is being used in the sense of 4. in the definition above. Which use, by the way, is synonymous with "each."

So schematically,

All (5 kinds of turns and 3 kinds of steps) must be performed in both (directions, CW and CCW)

in order to satisfy the rule for Level 4 StSq.
 

qwertyskates

Medalist
Joined
Nov 12, 2013
Go ahead and make my day because despite your pathetic attempts at personal insults, the use of "ALL" and *not* "EACH" again supports *my* position. :laugh:


"You must eat at least 5 different vegetables and 3 different fruits all selected at least once from both of these Dietary Tables".

"ALL....must be selected from BOTH" is very different from "EACH...must be selected from BOTH"

Actually, the one who seems to have a very poor grasp of English is you, since you tried to provide so-called "examples" ("He met both sisters"...talk about "purported example"...preposterous!) that have nothing whatsoever to do with the sentence structure at stake in this discussion, hiding under the ID of a "new" user....not exactly an honest poster!

No matter how many times you go back to edit over and over your posts, pedantically, you still can't change the reality that the Rule isn't as strictly interpreted in the manner that you preferred.

Sore loser...:cry:
 

qwertyskates

Medalist
Joined
Nov 12, 2013
Logically speaking, "all" is a scope modifier. It means that the "5 turn types and 3 step types" in the sentence are governed by it.

"All" indicates that the "5 turn types and 3 step types" must individually have the property of being performed in both directions (CW and CCW) in order to satisfy the rule. I can state this for you in logical notation if you wish, but I have already been far more pedantic than I wished to be on a forum where I thought a basic understanding of English was a given.

Nope....!

No matter how many times you go back to edit over and over your posts, pedantically, you still can't change the reality that the Rule isn't as strictly interpreted in the manner that you preferred. If that were the case, the Rule would clearly state that EACH of those turns and steps must be performed in both direction to remove all ambiguity.

"ALL" does not carry the connotations you implied, i.e. "must individually", especially when the subject is PLURAL in nature, i.e. both directions.

So as long as ALL the turns (>5) and steps (>3) in Adelina's Step Sequence were performed in both directions, and not only in one direction, the Rule has not been subverted in any way.
 

jand0387

Rinkside
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
In Yuna's SP, I saw one step that ended up being a Mohawk that was supposed to be a Choctaw (and she knew it when it happened, too, you could briefly see it on her face)

PS: I copied the rules from US Figure Skating's IJS page (because it's easier to find) which is taken from the ISU page AND the like, so looking at BoP's analysis, if he has gotten the steps/turns wrong or missed some, please point those out; otherwise, I don't see where he's "hating on Sotnikova".

No one has analyzed Yuna's because she got a L3.

So was that a subject for downgrade?
 

capcomeback

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Nope....!

No matter how many times you go back to edit over and over your posts, pedantically, you still can't change the reality that the Rule isn't as strictly interpreted in the manner that you preferred. If that were the case, the Rule would clearly state that EACH of those turns and steps must be performed in both direction to remove all ambiguity.


"ALL" does not carry the connotations you implied, i.e. "must individually", especially when the subject is PLURAL in nature, i.e. both directions.

So as long as ALL the turns (>5) and steps (>3) in Adelina's Step Sequence were performed in both directions, and not only in one direction, the Rule has not been subverted in any way.

Before we have to endure another grammar lesson, let me provide you with a linguistic one. In what language was the original document written? My guess is it was not in English. As BoP has indicated (in the part of this interpretation that is being disputed), the standard for Level Four is five turns and three step sequences, Each of these elements done in both directions. My guess is that there should have been a comma in the English translation of the document, but it was left out of the English version (at least the particular one that people on this board are citing).

As BoP has eloquently cited, programs containing turn and footwork sequences that meet Level 4 requirements, adhere to the the interpretation BoP is espousing. This is the way choreographers are reading the rule (many who don't speak English, lol).
 

TMC

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
This is ridiculous. Imma ring the ISU Monday morning, ask them to clarify this rule and post the phone conversation here :rolleye:
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Before we have to endure another grammar lesson, let me provide you with a linguistic one. In what language was the original document written? My guess is it was not in English.

Post of the day. :yes: Many ISU documents end up with peculiar grammar and sentence construction for this reason.

In reality, though, it is not conceivable that the technical specialists who make the calls are confused about what the rule is. Just us. ;)
 

Glen Parry

Rinkside
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
Before we have to endure another grammar lesson, let me provide you with a linguistic one. In what language was the original document written? My guess is it was not in English. As BoP has indicated (in the part of this interpretation that is being disputed), the standard for Level Four is five turns and three step sequences, Each of these elements done in both directions. My guess is that there should have been a comma in the English translation of the document, but it was left out of the English version (at least the particular one that people on this board are citing).

As BoP has eloquently cited, programs containing turn and footwork sequences that meet Level 4 requirements, adhere to the the interpretation BoP is espousing. This is the way choreographers are reading the rule (many who don't speak English, lol).

Just out of interest, why do you assume that the original document wasn't written in English, when this has been, pretty much, the standard language used for international communications for decades (for want of a better term, the lingua franca), with French, the previous diplomatic language, having been reduced to the status of an alternative?

Sorry, but this is genuine curiosity.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Just out of interest, why do you assume that the original document wasn't written in English, when this has been, pretty much, the standard language used for international communications for decades (for want of a better term, the lingua franca), with French, the previous diplomatic language, having been reduced to the status of an alternative?

Sorry, but this is genuine curiosity.

I am not capcomeback :) , but I think the point should be that many of the ISU documents are written by authors whose first language is not English. The evidence for this is in the documents themselves.
 

capcomeback

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Just out of interest, why do you assume that the original document wasn't written in English, when this has been, pretty much, the standard language used for international communications for decades (for want of a better term, the lingua franca), with French, the previous diplomatic language, having been reduced to the status of an alternative?

Sorry, but this is genuine curiosity.

I don't know for sure. It's just that most of the members of the ISU Governing Board are from non-English speaking countries. Throughout history, many international organizations have used the French language for their charters and to incorporate their rules. As the ISU is based in Switzerland, in which three languages are commonly spoken, it would make sense if the language used was French, Italian or German (English not spoken as frequently there). Does anybody know?
 

Glen Parry

Rinkside
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
I am not capcomeback :) , but I think the point should be that many of the ISU documents are written by authors whose first language is not English. The evidence for this is in the documents themselves.

Thanks for the explanation, although one would genuinely expect a large, international, organisation to be able to employ properly qualified translators, this isn't always the case; e.g. Pepsi Co having an advertising nightmare, when translating, "Pepsi, the drink for the now generation!", into Serbo-Croat as, "Pepsi, the drink that brings your ancestors back from the grave!" :)
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
^ :laugh:

In this case the argument is, what part of the sentence does "all" attach to?

1. You must do 5 turns and 3 steps, all eight in both directions.

2. You must do 5 turns and 3 steps, all three in both directions.

Both are OK English, I guess. But 2 is awkward and unnatural. Sentence 1 is pretty clearly right, IMHO.
 
Last edited:

capcomeback

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Thanks for the explanation, although one would genuinely expect a large, international, organisation to be able to employ properly qualified translators, this isn't always the case; e.g. Pepsi Co having an advertising nightmare, when translating, "Pepsi, the drink for the now generation!", into Serbo-Croat as, "Pepsi, the drink that brings your ancestors back from the grave!" :)

Companies and organizations frequently make mistakes with translations. You can imagine how popular an automobile like the Chevy Nova was in Latin America (though I guess this was a myth because the car sold well :laugh:).

Things like punctuation are easy mistakes to make (and can affect meaning in the way sentences are parsed). Still, like in all laws and rules, common sense needs to be utilized, as the way some people here are interpreting this passage, Level 3 turn sequences would be harder than Level 4 (from my reading).
 

Mista Ekko

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
This is ridiculous. Imma ring the ISU Monday morning, ask them to clarify this rule and post the phone conversation here

Do it ;)

I sure hope there will be a conclusion to this,
In trying to become a judge\caller i or anyone else will need to dissect step sequences like these successfully,
And having them supposedly scored unjustly by a professional panel would be a real annoying set back in learning,
I don't care if it helps whatever federation, Or if common crowds don't look in at that kind of stuff
 

TMC

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
Glen Parry, I imagine it is because ISU is based in Switzerland so people assume it was written in French first?
Also, French is one of the official languages of the Olympic Movement.

I'm preparing for my phone call to the ISU here.

Could somebody please clarify what the question is?
Everything is so convoluted I've got more and more confused reading this thread.

The rule reads:

Complexity must include at least 5 different types of turns and 3 different types of steps all executed at least once in both directions.

What I think the argument is about is which one of the following is the correct interpretation:

Complexity must include:

1)
5 different types of turns executed at least once.
- Each of those 5 different turns must be executed once in CW direction.
- Each of those 5 different turns must be executed once in CCW direction.
3 different types of steps executed at least once.
- Each of those 3 different steps must be executed once in CW direction.
- Each of those 3 different steps must be executed once in CCW direction.

2)
5 different types of turns.
3 different types of steps executed at least once.
- Each of those 3 different steps must be executed once in CW direction.
- Each of those 3 different steps must be executed once in CCW direction.

1) Results in
- 10 turns (5 CW & 5 CCW)
- 6 steps (3 CW & 3 CCW)

2) Results in
- 5 turns
- 6 steps (3 CW & 3 CCW)

Are there other interpretations?
 

qwertyskates

Medalist
Joined
Nov 12, 2013
Before we have to endure another grammar lesson, let me provide you with a linguistic one. In what language was the original document written? My guess is it was not in English. As BoP has indicated (in the part of this interpretation that is being disputed), the standard for Level Four is five turns and three step sequences, Each of these elements done in both directions. My guess is that there should have been a comma in the English translation of the document, but it was left out of the English version (at least the particular one that people on this board are citing).

As BoP has eloquently cited, programs containing turn and footwork sequences that meet Level 4 requirements, adhere to the the interpretation BoP is espousing. This is the way choreographers are reading the rule (many who don't speak English, lol).

In English or otherwise, as the Rule is about grading *Complexity*, it makes more sense that *greater* variety rather than less would merit the higher level grade in terms of complexity of moves. So Adelina's SS with 6 different turns in both directions is more complex than Yuna's SS with 5 different turns in both directions. This overall preference for Variety is clearly reflected in the strictly enforced Zayak Rule. Skaters are penalized for repetition and rewarded for variety. So in terms of consistency, Adelina's SS makes sense.
 

Mista Ekko

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
In English or otherwise, as the Rule is about grading *Complexity*, it makes more sense that *greater* variety rather than less would merit the higher level grade in terms of complexity of moves. So Adelina's SS with 6 different turns in both directions is more complex than Yuna's SS with 5 different turns in both directions. This overall preference for Variety is especially reflected in the Zayak Rule, so in terms of consistency, Adelina's SS makes sense.

But wait, If all you need to make level 4 in that aspect is 5 different turns in both directions, What does it matter if you do 5 or 8, If anything packing it well at 5 is more professional, Or did i misunderstand what you wrote ?

And didn't the OP say that Adelina didn't have enough turns ?
 

qwertyskates

Medalist
Joined
Nov 12, 2013
1) Results in
- 10 turns (5 CW & 5 CCW)
- 6 steps (3 CW & 3 CCW)

2) Results in
- 5 turns
- 6 steps (3 CW & 3 CCW)

Are there other interpretations?

No, what about 10 turns in total, 5 CW + 5 CCW, but in 6 different types of turns?
 

jaylee

Medalist
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Possibly this is the main thing this entire thread demonstrates, i.e. that there is potential for interpretation of this rule in more than one way?

No. The rule is the rule and BoP's "interpretation" is just the reading of the rule. The choreographers, skaters, coaches, judges, and technical panels out there do not have a different "interpretation" of the rule than BoP. There is a HUGE difference between the two "interpretations" of the rules that people keep arguing about, and given the number of level 4 step sequences that have been intentionally choreographed and executed by skaters and received by technical panels this season according to ONE interpretation, I'd say there isn't potential to interpret it more than one way.

There's room for disagreement, but not on the subject of what the rule is. That folks here keep embarrassing themselves in trying to debate the interpretation of the rule rather than the application of the rule says more about their intention--a willful refusal to recognize that any aspect of Adelina Sotnikova's scores could be inaccurate--and lack of knowledge about the rules than anything else. It does not at all demonstrate the potential for interpretation of the rule in more than one way.

Here are areas that you CAN argue:
- Whether or not BoP's calling of the steps in Adelina Sotnikova's step sequence was accurate. To date, gkelly is the only poster to have offered a different analysis, and BoP addressed their disagreements.
- The GOE given to Adelina's step sequence. Did she deserve it or not?
- Whether or not the calling of the step sequence levels for other skaters was accurate. Perhaps Adelina was not the only one who was given the "benefit of the doubt". To prove this point, you would need to analyze the other level 4 step sequences given to the other ladies. So far, Yuna Kim's step sequence in the FS was analyzed in support of the argument that no, she was not given the benefit of the doubt and was inaccurately given a level 3. People are free to analyze Akiko, Mao, Kostner, and Osmond's step sequences to see if they were given a benefit of the doubt.
- The intention and motivation of the technical panel in calling Adelina Sotnikova's step sequence as a level 4.
- The significance of Adelina getting a level 4 instead of a level 3.

Note that I didn't say you'd be able to argue the above successfully, but the above is at least more open to debate than what the rule regarding level 4 step sequences is.

Also Yuna makes a pause at around the 2:05 mark. Could the technical panel have ruled that it was the end of the step sequence and thus ignored everything that came after? I'm not familiar with how step sequences are usually scored.

You see pauses in the midst of step sequences, level 4 or otherwise, pretty frequently. According to the rules, "Short stops in accordance with the music are permitted." http://static.isu.org/media/104198/tp_handbook_singles_2013-14_version_13-07-18.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top