Analyzing Sotnikova and Kim's footwork in the FS | Page 21 | Golden Skate

Analyzing Sotnikova and Kim's footwork in the FS

Status
Not open for further replies.

capcomeback

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
How did Adelina fail in delivering Complexity? I have delineated a scenario when she would have performed turns and steps in BOTH directions. Sorry, I don't buy BoP's SINGULAR interpretation that in fact discourages Variety. That is his/hers alone, and NO ONE else out there has raised this issue, not even those who have criticized her performance.

Besides, unless I have sat there and played in slow motion and counted every step and turn, I will not readily accept a third person's account when hundreds, if not thousands (most of them in the figure skating profession and including journalists and specialists) have scrutinized the same performances and HAVE NOT raised this issue in any manner.

Yes, why don't you call or file BoP's opinion to the ISU about Adelina's Step Sequence? I'm curious how they would reply to this!

I think I need some help from actual skaters before I state this as fact, but isn't it easier to do some turns/steps in some directions than others based upon a skater's right/left dominance? If so, complexity would be greater if a skater could execute all the required turn/footwork elements in both directions. This would explain the variety versus complexity argument and why Level 4 should be so hard to achieve.
 

Ven

Match Penalty
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
I disagree. They usually score on quality.

Do you really think that judges bother to make agreements about what scores to give some 13-year-old they never heard of at her first JGP?

Yes, yes I do. And so does anyone who knows anything about figure skating and has a functioning brain.

The scores are just imaginary numbers and placeholders. As you can see by someone's PCS going from 60 to near world record 74 in 2 competitions, and technical errors being disregarded, the abuse of the GOE's, and levels that do not match criteria, it's obvious to anyone with even a small amount of intelligence that the placements are agreed upon before the competition begins, according to politicking and back-room deals. The numbers are meaningless because they are manipulated to verify the agreements. Skaters' abilities might play into the placements a lot, but so do nationalities, grudges, partnerships between various federations, etc.

In the case of the Sochi Olympics, it was clear that all the Russian girls had to do was not fall down and they would have finished 1-2 regardless of the quality of their skating and the performance of the other ladies. Lipnitskaia was so bad she could not even be propped up enough, but the cheating was obvious even with her ridiculous score and placement. Adelina at least skated well, so the ISU could feign "subjectivity" and cherry pick bs propaganda arguments to try and justify her placement after the fact, but anyone with two eyes knows her skating was not on par with Kim and Kostner, and deserved the bronze only.
 

jaylee

Medalist
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Yes, yes I do. And so does anyone who knows anything about figure skating and has a functioning brain.

The scores are just imaginary numbers and placeholders. As you can see by someone's PCS going from 60 to near world record 74 in 2 competitions, and technical errors being disregarded, the abuse of the GOE's, and levels that do not match criteria, it's obvious to anyone with even a small amount of intelligence that the placements are agreed upon before the competition begins, according to politicking and back-room deals. The numbers are meaningless because they are manipulated to verify the agreements. Skaters' abilities might play into the placements a lot, but so do nationalities, grudges, partnerships between various federations, etc.

In the case of the Sochi Olympics, it was clear that all the Russian girls had to do was not fall down and they would have finished 1-2 regardless of the quality of their skating and the performance of the other ladies. Lipnitskaia was so bad she could not even be propped up enough, but the cheating was obvious even with her ridiculous score and placement. Adelina at least skated well, so the ISU could feign "subjectivity" and cherry pick bs propaganda arguments to try and justify her placement after the fact, but anyone with two eyes knows her skating was not on par with Kim and Kostner, and deserved the bronze only.

You need to stop with the unnecessary insults to anyone who disagrees with you. Your insults are not helpful at all in supporting your argument.
 

Mista Ekko

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
I have not scrutinized either SS in slow motion, so the caveat is that we're all taking BoP word at face. *If* Yuna's SS satisfied all the other criteria for Level 4 SS, and she did 5CW+5CCW, then yes, hers would also qualify for Level 4.

Unless I do all the counting myself, I would give the Sochi Tech Panel the benefit of doubt as this isn't something that you can gloss over, there are many other professionals out there dissecting both skaters' performances.


I kinda thought that for this thread it's vital we try and not do that ;)
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Ven, you did not address gkelly's question. Adelina Sotnikova is not an unknown 13-year-old at her first junior grand prix event.

Gkelly's point is that most of the time (i.e., in 99% of figure skating contests that are never shown on TV, involving beginners on up), the volunteer judges try to do their jobs in a conscientious manner. I think so, too, Olympic controversies notwithstanding.
 

qwertyskates

Medalist
Joined
Nov 12, 2013
I think I need some help from actual skaters before I state this as fact, but isn't it easier to do some turns/steps in some directions than others based upon a skater's right/left dominance? If so, complexity would be greater if a skater could execute all elements in both directions. This would explain the variety versus complexity argument and why Level 4 should be so hard to achieve.


I think there's some confusion on the board here based on how some of us post about "variety" vs. the term "Variety" in the ISU Guide.

When I described achieving variety of types of turns and steps, that is to be meant as achieving greater numbers of types of turns and steps.

In the ISU guide, "Minimum Variety", "Simple Variety", "Variety", etc. the terms from "Minimum Variety" to "Variety" simply means ascending greater numbers in total of turns and steps ("counted not more than twice"), *not* greater numbers of types of turns and steps

Eg. Simple variety (Level 2) - Must include at least 6 turns and 4 steps, none of the types can be counted more than twice.
Variety (Level 3) - Must include at least 8 turns and 4 steps, none of the types can be counted more than twice

Please don't confuse everyday usage of the word "variety" (dictionary definition as used by me), which means "greater differences and diversity in types", instead of a "greater quantity" in assigning Levels!

In the end, the meaning of "Complexity" and Level 4 needs to be better explained.

I agree that turns and steps must be performed in both directions for Complexity, as delineated in my example, 6 Types, all of them 50% CW, 50% CCW, but it isn't clear that there's a *criteria* that each of the turn and step must be repeated in both directions. So both 5 types in both directions and 6 (or >5) types in both directions would qualify as Level 4, but doing all 6 turns = greater variety= advantage.

The Minimum No. of Types though, is clear enough, and *only* at Level 4 (Complexity) did they spell out the No. of Types (along with other criteria such as Difficult Combinations, Full Upper Body Movements, etc.).

More types means greater variety in everyday language, not greater quantity.

This is NOT to be confused with ISU terms "Minimum Variety", "Simple Variety", "Variety" for Level 1, Level 2, Level 3 SS.
 

bebevia

On the Ice
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
...So, looking at the number of checkmarks, if Sotnikova deserves Lv. 4, does that make Yuna and Carolina, who have more than her, Lv. 5 or something? If not, does having more checkmarks than Lv. 4 make them Lv. 3?
 

TMC

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
How did Adelina fail in delivering Complexity? I have delineated a scenario when she would have performed turns and steps in BOTH directions. Sorry, I don't buy BoP's SINGULAR interpretation that in fact discourages Variety. That is his/hers alone, and NO ONE else out there has raised this issue, not even those who have criticized her performance.

Besides, unless I have sat there and played in slow motion and counted every step and turn, I will not readily accept a third person's account when hundreds, if not thousands (most of them in the figure skating profession and including journalists and specialists) have scrutinized the same performances and HAVE NOT raised this issue in any manner.

Yes, why don't you call or file BoP's opinion to the ISU about Adelina's Step Sequence? I'm curious how they would reply to this!

My post was about the rule, not about Adelina.

Source: ISU Technical Handbook 2013/2014:

"Variety Must include at least 9 turns and 4 steps, none of the types can be counted more than twice."

That is the requirement for level 3. The turns and steps can be of any type and both can be executed in any direction.

Whereas

Complexity = Mandatory 5 different types of Turns & 3 different types of steps each once in both directions.

The way I see it, Level 4 is Variety (many steps and turns) + Complexity (a compulsory number of different types of turns executed in both directions at least once)

Level 4 is more difficult because of the required turns & steps and the directions.

So If Adelina (or any other skater) performed the following, they deserved Level 4:

5 different types of turns (three turns, twizzles, brackets, loops, counters, rockers). Each different type of turn once in CW and once in CCW direction.
3 different types of steps (toe steps, chasses, mohawks, choctaws, change of edge, cross rolls) Each different type of step once in CW and once in CCW direction

For example:

Skater Z performs 2x bracket, 2x counter, 2x rocker, 2x loop and 1 twizzle PLUS 2 mohawks and 2 choctaws. Skater Y also performs X number of other steps & turns in any direction. Skater Y receives Level 3

Skater X performs 1 bracket, 1 counter, 1 rocker, 1 loop and 1 twizzle PLUS 1 mohawk, 1 choctaw and 1 cross roll. She performs each of these turns and steps in CW direction AND CCW direction. Skater X also performs X number of other steps & turns in any direction. Skater X receives Level 4.

Did [insert name of skater] perform like Skater Z or like Skater X?
 
Last edited:

Ven

Match Penalty
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Ven, you did not address gkelly's question. Adelina Sotnikova is not an unknown 13-year-old at her first junior grand prix event.

Gkelly's point is that most of the time (i.e., in 99% of figure skating contests that are never shown on TV, involving beginners on up), the volunteer judges try to do their jobs in a conscientious manner. I think so, too, Olympic controversies notwithstanding.

I will not dispute that. The higher up you go, the more crooked everything gets. In all walks of life.
 

qwertyskates

Medalist
Joined
Nov 12, 2013
2. If a skater performs only variety (but not complexity) of steps and turns, the Level cannot be higher than 3.

You are confusing the definition of "Variety (Level 3)" Definition in ISU Guide, with what I meant by "variety" as in dictionary definition.

"Variety" in ISU Guide = Must include at least 9 turns and 4 steps, none of the types can be counted more than twice.

Of course if a skater only performed this, it cannot qualify for Level 4 (Complexity = 5 or more types of turns...etc.).
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
To the best of my knowledge the official language of the ISU was German from its founding in 1892 until sometime around the 1970s, when it was changed to English.

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?

Thank you for setting out the question clearly.

I do not think that the second interpretation makes any sense in context.

For one thing, not all steps even have a "direction" (e.g., "toe steps" and "running steps" may have no curve or rotation at all), whereas turns are specifically always either clockwise or counterclockwise. So it wouldn't make sense to require steps to be performed in both directions but not to require the same of turns.

The definition of "variety" requires 9 total turns, each kind counted a maximum of twice each, which would mean at least 5 different kinds of turns (4 performed twice and another performed once -- or all 6 kinds, 3 kinds performed twice and the other 3 once each).

So for level 3, with "variety" of turns and steps, a skater could get credit for performing the exact same turn from the same edge twice during the sequence, or could get credit for performing it from, say, both right forward inside and also left forward outside or right back outside -- different edges, in one case a different foot, but all with a counterclockwise entry curve. (The direction of the turn itself would depend on the type of turn -- in brackets and counters the body would turn clockwise from the edges named above.) Variety of types is required but not variety of direction.

The complexity requirement for level 4 adds the requirement that the different kinds of turns be performed in both directions. Level 4 is the only level that requires demonstration of the ability to turn approximately equally in both directions. Not only do the "variety" and "simple variety" definitions not require it, but also it's not necessary to include the rotation in each direction for 1/3 of the pattern feature in order to earn level 2 or 3.

For the highest level, the intention is clearly to demonstrate not only the ability to do the most different kinds of turns (level 3 as well as level 4 requires at least 5 different kinds), but also the ability to do each of those kinds of turns in both directions.

There would be no reason to add the "both directions" requirement to apply to steps only.

Where BoP and I disagree is not on the interpretation of the rule, which seems perfectly straightforward to me, but rather on the identification of a few of Sotnikova's turns and steps.

For the turns, rockers and counters specifically (and also whether to count the second twizzle as a twizzle or as three turns). The fact that there was ambiguity on these turns depending on which camera angle one uses, and also perhaps depending on how strict or forgiving we want to be, doesn't speak well of the quality of those specific turns.

But if you accept that the tech panel may have been more forgiving of what they saw in real time and may have been watching from an angle more similar to the ones I used, then those turns could legitimately have been identified in a way that just meets the requirement for 5 different kinds of turns in both directions. It's not necessary to reinterpret the rule in order to come up with Sotnikova meeting the requirement -- only to interpret a few of the ambiguous turns differently than BoP did.

Similarly, if you're generous in identifying and counting all the choctaws and edge changes that I noted and that BoP did not, then she would meet the requirement for steps in both directions as well.

Was the panel overly generous to her, giving credit for a few turns and steps that didn't deserve to be counted? Maybe. But they may have looked adequate in real time, from their angle, to the tech panel member who was counting them.

Same with the 3Lz+3T, although that's not directly relevant to this thread.

For both the step sequence level and the 3-3 combo, I think it's fair to say that upon strict scrutiny after-the-fact it appears that the tech panel may have erred on the side of generosity in their calls for these two elements of Sotnikova's. I don't think that necessarily implies that they went out of their way to make incorrect calls -- one has to watch from specific angles in slow motion to see small errors that may not have been apparent in real time from the official angle.
 

TMC

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
I agree that turns and steps must be performed in both directions for Complexity, as delineated in my example, 6 Types, all of them 50% CW, 50% CCW, but it isn't clear that there's a *criteria* that each of the turn and step must be repeated in both directions. So both 5 types in both directions and 6 (or >5) types in both directions would qualify as Level 4, but doing all 6 turns = greater variety= advantage.

Must include at least 5 different types of turns and 3 different types of steps all executed at least once in both directions. None of the types of turns and steps can be counted more than twice. “Both directions” refers to rotational direction not only for turns, but also for steps, e.g. mohawks, choctaws, chassés, change of edge. Skating forward and skating backward is not a change of rotational direction.
 

TMC

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
You are confusing the definition of "Variety (Level 3)" Definition in ISU Guide, with what I meant by "variety" as in dictionary definition.

"Variety" in ISU Guide = Must include at least 9 turns and 4 steps, none of the types can be counted more than twice.

Of course if a skater only performed this, it cannot qualify for Level 4 (Complexity = 5 or more types of turns...etc.).

I didn't write that! It was a quote from ISU :laugh:
 

npavel

On the Ice
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
A little bit off-topic, but hats off to posters like Blades of Passion and GKelly who are capable of this kind of analysis.:bow: :bow: :bow:

yes, and thank you so much to both of you. I'm really grateful as I can't do it myself but had the feeling it was wrong. I think it's difficult to write down every move.:clap:
This tree would be so much easier to read if all only would talk about steps.
 

PlaysInTheDirt

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Googling around, another source gives additional information about the interpretation of this:

https://www.usfigureskating.org/content/First Aid Singles.pdf

"Must include at least 5 different types of turns and 3 different types of steps all executed at least once in both directions. None of the types of turns and steps can be counted more than twice. “Both directions” refers to rotational direction not only for turns, but also for steps, e.g. mohawks, choctaws, chassés, change of edge. Skating forward and skating backward is not a change of rotational direction. "


Well, this clarification was a great find. This honestly doesn't clear it up once and for all? And if not, why not?
 

capcomeback

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
I think there's some confusion on the board here based on how some of us post about "variety" vs. the term "Variety" in the ISU Guide.

When I described achieving variety of types of turns and steps, that is to be meant as achieving greater numbers of types of turns and steps.

In the ISU guide, "Minimum Variety", "Simple Variety", "Variety", etc. the terms from "Minimum Variety" to "Variety" simply means ascending greater numbers in total of turns and steps ("counted not more than twice"), *not* greater numbers of types of turns and steps

Eg. Simple variety (Level 2) - Must include at least 6 turns and 4 steps, none of the types can be counted more than twice.
Variety (Level 3) - Must include at least 8 turns and 4 steps, none of the types can be counted more than twice

Please don't confuse everyday usage of the word "variety" (dictionary definition as used by me), which means "greater differences and diversity in types", instead of a "greater quantity" in assigning Levels!

In the end, the meaning of "Complexity" and Level 4 needs to be better explained.

I agree that turns and steps must be performed in both directions for Complexity, as delineated in my example, 6 Types, all of them 50% CW, 50% CCW, but it isn't clear that there's a *criteria* that each of the turn and step must be repeated in both directions. So both 5 types in both directions and 6 (or >5) types in both directions would qualify as Level 4, but doing all 6 turns = greater variety= advantage.

The Minimum No. of Types though, is clear enough, and *only* at Level 4 (Complexity) did they spell out the No. of Types (along with other criteria such as Difficult Combinations, Full Upper Body Movements, etc.).

More types means greater variety in everyday language, not greater quantity.

This is NOT to be confused with ISU terms "Minimum Variety", "Simple Variety", "Variety" for Level 1, Level 2, Level 3 SS.

This still does not answer my question as far as the level of difficulty of being able to turn/step certain elements more easily based upon a skaters right/left dominance. This gets to the heart of intent. For example, if Adelina has problems skating an Illusion or Bracket Turns clockwise (not saying she does, but she failed to skate them that way, only skating them counterclockwise), then does this show the same kind of complexity as Yuna skating Rocker, Bracket, Twizzle, Loop, Three Turns in both directions? When the framers of the rules adapted this, would they have in mind that you could just substitute other turns/steps to hide possible shortcomings from performing the turns/steps in certain directions? Again, my questioned remains unanswered. I can't consider the validity of your point without knowing what the creators of the rules had in mind (or better yet a clarification of the rule).
 

qwertyskates

Medalist
Joined
Nov 12, 2013
My post was about the rule, not about Adelina.

Source: ISU Technical Handbook 2013/2014:

"Variety Must include at least 9 turns and 4 steps, none of the types can be counted more than twice."

That is the requirement for level 3. The turns and steps can be of any type and both can be executed in any direction.

Whereas

Complexity = Mandatory 5 different types of Turns & 3 different types of steps each once in both directions.

The way I see it, Level 4 is Variety (many steps and turns) + Complexity (a compulsory number of different types of turns executed in both directions at least once)

Level 4 is more difficult because of the required turns & steps and the directions.

"Variety Level 3" and "Complexity Level 4" are totally different, and rightly, Level 4 is more demanding than "Variety", which only spells out a minimum quantity of steps and turns.

Level 4 spells out a specific number of TYPES of turns and steps, plus the criteria that all of these must be attempted in both directions. If the Rule is that EACH type must be performed TWICE, once in each direction, then it should have been spelt out like that. Try
1) placing a comma before "in both direction" or a pause in the Complexity Rule,
2) considering that Complexity rewards a wider spectrum of Types of Moves, Difficulties in Combinations, etc., and that we're dealing with a (turns)Plural:(steps)Plural:(direction)Plural permutation/combination here, and that
3) no figure skating technical specialist/judge/skater/coach/journalist, in Korea or the mass media world wide, has raised a ruckus about this

I don't think the Sochi Tech Panel (intentionally or otherwise) erred in awarding Adelina Level 4 simply because she (her coach, her choreographer, her Fed, etc.) didn't follow this particular BoP's interpretation.
 

capcomeback

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
"Variety Level 3" and "Complexity Level 4" are totally different, and rightly, Level 4 is more demanding than "Variety", which only spells out a minimum quantity of steps and turns.

Level 4 spells out a specific number of TYPES of turns and steps, plus the criteria that all of these must be attempted in both directions. If the Rule is that EACH type must be performed TWICE, once in each direction, then it should have been spelt out like that. Try
1) placing a comma before "in both direction" or a pause in the Complexity Rule,
2) considering that Complexity rewards a wider spectrum of Types of Moves, Difficulties in Combinations, etc., and that we're dealing with a (turns)Plural:(steps)Plural:(direction)Plural permutation/combination here, and that
3) no figure skating technical specialist/judge/skater/coach/journalist, in Korea or the mass media world wide, has raised a ruckus about this

I don't think the Sochi Tech Panel (intentionally or otherwise) erred in awarding Adelina Level 4 simply because she (her coach, her choreographer, her Fed, etc.) didn't follow this particular BoP's interpretation.

Again, this is not necessarily a lesson in grammar, but a possible one in linguistics. As we've seen from the whole "triple sheepskin" (lol) fiasco, translations can be wrong (especially when it comes to punctuation). To me, I see no evidence that allows for "substitution" turns and steps (to make up for not skating certain turns/steps in both directions, which in sense is what you seem to be arguing for). I see the numbers 5 and 3, not 10 and 6.
 

qwertyskates

Medalist
Joined
Nov 12, 2013
This still does not answer my question as far as the level of difficulty of being able to turn/step certain elements more easily based upon a skaters right/left dominance. This gets to the heart of intent. For example, if Adelina has problems skating an Illusion or Bracket Turns clockwise (not saying she does, but she failed to skate them that way, only skating them counterclockwise), then does this show the same kind of complexity as Yuna skating Rocker, Bracket, Twizzle, Loop, Three Turns in both directions? When the framers of the rules adapted this, would they have in mind that you could just substitute other turns/steps to hide possible shortcomings from performing the turns/steps in certain directions? Again, my questioned remains unanswered. I can't consider the validity of your point without knowing what the creators of the rules had in mind (or better yet a clarification of the rule).


This is a conjecture, that somehow, in general, all skaters' mantle must be tested based on criteria of execution of each turns and steps in *both directions*, and NOT on their ability to execute a *greater variety* of types of turns and steps and the difficulties in the combinations, coverage, upper body movements, musicality, etc. OVERALL package, instead of just one element. It is also a conjecture that skaters who can execute them in both directions are somehow "better" and "more valued" according to the COP. It doesn't matter for most TES, scores don't go up if a skater can jump or spin in both directions. In fact based on Consistency of the COP Rules, eg. Zayak & SS Complexity, greater number of TYPES of jumps, of moves, of spins, are rewarded higher levels and greater BV. Repetition is penalized, variety is rewarded. I do think that execution of StepSequence in both directions matter for judging skating skills, in terms of rotation control, etc. to be graded Level 4, which is why it was included. It certainly makes for a more interesting and difficult choreography. However, does Adelina's SS deserve to be downgraded to Level 3 because she did this particular combination (6 types of turns)? I don't see the compelling case for it at all, especially when no one else seems to have noticed this "grave error" to torpedo her Level. In fact, I believe she was rewarded for achieving greater variety/types of moves. Again, I haven't seen either SS in slow motion, and I will only believe it when it is raised publicly in the mass media, ratified by figure skating experts.
 

Layfan

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
The rule actually 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." I've copied and pasted from page 9 of your link. The comma you added and the bolding which would clarify the rule do not exist in the document. If instead you added a comma after "once", any 5 counterclockwise turns and 5 any counterclockwise turns would meet the requirement. There is in fact no comma so the rule isn't clear. Again, why don't you take the time to do the same analysis on Yuna and see if her steps would be level 4 under either interpretation?

BOP's addition of the comma after "all" makes it a better written sentence but doesn't change the meaning. Either way, it's clear that "all" refers to every turn and step described in the sentence. They must all be executed once in both directions.

Adding a comma after "once" wouldn't change the meaning either. It would be bad use of punctuation, though.

ETA: Actually, now I think I might be wrong. Adding the comma after "all" might change the meaning to encompass all the turns and all the steps. Removing the comma might mean "all" refers only to the steps. But that would only make the rule more confusing because why would they only require the steps to be in both directions?


But I'm pretty sure you are wrong about adding the comma after "once." A comma has no grammatical business being there and wouldn't clarify anything.

Someone help me. This nerdy debate is going to drive me bonkers until it's settled.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top