- Joined
- Jan 10, 2014
2018-2019 Season - New rules
- Thread starter enzofv
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
That was a really nice extension on the Biellmann from the guy, but he did lose control with his skating foot.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
Yeah, I did mean the other kind. I think since it's harder to make it look nice, it would lead to lower GOE, and therefore it means that the skaters would be discouraged. Much like -3Lo combos are harder to get height in the -3Lo, and harder to rotate fully, and to get nice flow-out, and therefore lead to lower GOE. So, IMO, these should get higher BV. It seems not just that they are unfashionable to me, but it's also true that I don't know for sure.
This all makes me sad. I believe no pair will risk a throw quad now. The ISU is stopping progress! Paris' programs are going to have all the same content from now on although they have already been quite similar which usually bores me.
Meagan and Eric know when to stop.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
I should have clarified: any obvious technical error like a hand down or a step out. A skater can have a flutz or a < could still score a 10, IMO, because those are more innocuous. But any obvious stumble, pop, or fall detracts from the performance.
Also benevolent PCS scores for top skaters DOES affect lower skaters. It's pretty unfair if you go clean and yet you lose to a guy with 3-4 errors because the judges still kept their PCS high while you have to fight to get the PCS you get - which isn't as high regardless of how well you skate or how poorly your (top tier/popular/established) competitor skates.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2017
What I was referring to is that since the layback was (thankfully) made non-compulsory for women, we've seen a small but clear shift toward taking them out, not fancying them up - and the fellas in most cases haven't been picking up the slack. If more women start exploring the possibilities of a layback-free short program over the next few years, I don't think we'll see a parallel shift toward them developing more complex layback spins at the same time.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2014
IMO, CSG has overall been fair in listening to other's arguments while providing supporting data/calculations on his position, like how there was previous misinformation from certain posters that a fall on a fully rotated jump is worth less than a fall on an underrotated jump which is absolutely false.
I and some other posters didn't feel that great accommodation was made for 4EC's viewpoint in the tone of the posts found here and here.
However, I understand that in the heat of a discussion, on a topic that people are passionate about, that we all can sometimes get a little carried away. But all sides should keep an open mind for the viewpoints of others, and it's not just a one-way street.
That I agree with, but still think that a mandatory deduction is not the way to go (though not giving 10s for a performance with mistakes is okay)
While I generally agree with you, I think there is still something here worth discussing. How can we prove that a skater did not deserve their PC score? take any of the top skaters who people complained about last season and follow the discussion about their PC. You will find that there are many who believe their scores were merited or only slightly high. How do we know what is the "right score" in PC when it is a subjective measure and the judges could be truly impressed with the performance even with mistakes. Last season, you defended the PC of a skater that I though should have received 10 points less than they did. Who was right in this, you or me? How do we decided that? Is there an objective measure to use?
I know there are times when there is clear favoritism in scoring but I think it is also unfair to constantly attack top skaters as if they are never deserving of their scores, or always imply that they don't get high PCs based on their own abilities and skills. We need to be fair to everyone and that includes top skaters (all not just the ones we like).
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2017
I guess it's good they're voting to eliminate quad repetition then........
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2014
What I'm not too certain about is what happens in the case of a 3Lz(e)<+Rep with fall (granted a very rare case).
Would it be equal to 0.7*0.6*5.9 - 0.5*5.9 = -0.47?
Point 5 of page 8 only addresses the factor of +REP and that GOE is based on original BV, not whether e and/or < should also be factored in nor if negative values are allowed. Negative net points were possible in the old system like a fall on 3T< = 0.7*4.3-2.1-1 = -0.09 as an example.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2017
Good question! But ouch to negative GOE......
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
Yeah. Yet again, it's just not a very well thought-out system.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2017
I guess if it's a 3Lze it would get the 3Lze BV?
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
^^^
Again, you are missing the point by looking only at BVs and not taking into account changing in GOE. GOE can go to +5 now and its tied to BV of the element. So jump can score 50% more from its BV which wasnt the case before and any quad landing with max GOE can get you even more points compared with what quads brought you before. UR jumps can end with final GOE around 0, if that same jump will score +5 without UR etc
Again, you are missing the point by looking only at BVs and not taking into account changing in GOE. GOE can go to +5 now and its tied to BV of the element. So jump can score 50% more from its BV which wasnt the case before and any quad landing with max GOE can get you even more points compared with what quads brought you before. UR jumps can end with final GOE around 0, if that same jump will score +5 without UR etc
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
Alright. How about I just disagree with the BVs, and the fact that somehow we can end up with -ve quality elements?
Negative marks are a bit weird.
IMHO Skaters are supposed to get points by attempting elements (even if they don't get the base value of the element). They are not supposed to lose points by attempting elements (even if badly executed).
To have -0.5 is like to have a deduction on points that you didn't even get.
Neutral 0.00 would be appropriate i think.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Well that's where the subjectivity comes in. We all view performances differently and there's no set way to enjoy or dislike a performance. Any time I suggest a skater is underscored or overscored it's merely an opinion. The same way you and others are entitled to theirs, although we can all discuss or defend our assertions. But we are just members of a figure skating forum, and my opinion is as important and insignificant as the next person's (even though there are those on here who consider their opinions more valuable than others
).What I wish would happen more is the judges being compelled to defend obviously anomalous scores. Since their opinions are the ones that matter the most as they determine actual competition results, their scores (which of course are also opinions too) need the most scrutiny.
Well that's where the subjectivity comes in. We all view performances differently and there's no set way to enjoy or dislike a performance. Any time I suggest a skater is underscored or overscored it's merely an opinion. The same way you and others are entitled to theirs, although we can all discuss or defend our assertions. But we are just members of a figure skating forum, and my opinion is as important and insignificant as the next person's (even though there are those on here who consider their opinions more valuable than others
What I wish would happen more is the judges being compelled to defend obviously anomalous scores. Since their opinions are the ones that matter the most as they determine actual competition results, their scores (which of course are also opinions too) need the most scrutiny.
That I could totally get behind. I really wish there was more transparency when it comes to scoring in FS. I would love to have the judges discuss how they scored a certain competition afterward and explain what they were looking for and what the differences between skaters (that produced the results) were.
BTW, I don't think it is fair to roll your eyes at those people since we are all guilty of this behaviour, you and I included
