2018 USFS Olympic team selection thoughts

[ice coverage]

Under the rules, it's clear that both France and the U.S. did "earn" two pairs spots (for both Olympics and Worlds), but because that would cause the Olympic entries from Nebelhorn to be reduced for Olympics, the U.S. can "use" only one of its Olympic spots. ...

No, it is not clear (IMO) that your interpretation of "earn" is valid.

Agree to disagree.

(I am American and would love for a second U.S. pair to go to the Olympics, but I think speculation as to whether it really would be possible is mostly wishful thinking. YMMV.)

 

[skylark]

Ashley and Timothy are at Champs Camp as well

Yes:gclap:

Mitch Moyer is his name.

Worth recalling that Ashley Cain previously had taken herself off the market as a partner for pairs, and was turning down "great" opportunities in pairs.
Her stated goal in 2014 was to make the 2018 Olympic team in singles.

http://web.icenetwork.com/news/2014...elphia-postcards-cain-is-able-but-not-willing (Jul 2014)​

I didn't know that she'd taken herself off the market for pairs. I read a bunch of her Instagrams one late late night, and she sounded still very much interested in doing pairs. This was well before she teamed with Tim. thanks for the link.

Well, it just goes to show that one can be mistaken about where one's future lies. I think Ashley's much more impressive as a pairs girl. JMO

Even at the time when the Cain/LeDuc partnership first was announced, Ashley said that she intended to continue her singles career as well.

http://web.icenetwork.com/news/2016/05/31/181227238/the-inside-edge-cain-leduc-reenter-pairs-fray (May 2016)​

Now, I DO remember that. She competed in both events in an early competition, maybe it was regionals? ... and the pairs FS didn't go well. Good decision to let the singles go for now.

 

[skylark]

Good point, but I'm playing favorites. I just really like Cain/LeDuc's lines and classic style. I think they're a beautiful pair.
.

:agree: All of the above. I just re-watched their nationals and 4CC skates, and I remembered another thing I love about them. They really perform, and they're on the same wavelength in their programs. I really love them. Will be interesting to see their progress this fall.

 

[StitchMonkey]

If it turns out that France can't qualify two pairs, I fully expect a legal challenge by USFS.

I agree and I would hope for one. Even if the USA did not prevail there is enough of a question that it should be challenged and clarified... even if only as a reminder to think of bloody contingencies and plan for them in the rules from the start. I really do not think the cited rule was intended to apply to countries who had in fact in the spots in question and satisfied the requirements. A waiting list should apply in this case.

 

[StitchMonkey]

No, it is not clear (IMO) that your interpretation of "earn" is valid.

Then why does the USA have two spots for worlds? There is the proof that the spots were earned.

 

[ice coverage]

Then why does the USA have two spots for worlds? There is the proof that the spots were earned.

Two spots were earned for Worlds.

Which is not "proof" that two spots were earned for the Olympics -- b/c the Olympics have additional rules as to how spots are earned.

ISU Communication No. 2093

ENTRIES/PARTICIPATION 2018 OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES (OWG) SINGLE & PAIR SKATING/ICE DANCE

2. Remaining open entries: Rule 400 A., paragraph 4
According to Rule 400, paragraph 4, the remaining open entries available will be filled by ISU Members in order of their placements at a Senior International Competition designated by the ISU (Nebelhorn Trophy 2017, September 27-30, 2017, Oberstdorf/Germany). The open entries are available only to those ISU Members which have not previously earned an entry in the respective discipline (according to Rule 400, paragraphs 2 and 3) and only one (1) entry per discipline and ISU Member may be earned.

3. ISU Members having earned entries at the ISU World Figure Skating Championships 2017: Rule 400 A., paragraph 7
ISU Members who have earned entries under the provisions of Rule 400 A., paragraphs 2 and 3, should, after consultation with their NOC (National Olympic Committee), inform the ISU Secretariat not later than 15 September 2017 if they intend to use their full quota of entries. In the case that some ISU Members do not intend to use their full quotas of entries, the remaining open entries available will be filled by increasing the number of entries according to Rule 400 A., paragraph 4 ...

4. Entries earned by ISU Members according to Rule 400 A., paragraphs 2 and 3 ...

http://static.isu.org/media/516026/2093-entries-2018-owg-fsid-before-qual-comp.pdf (May 23, 2017)​

Per the table in the document above, the U.S. "earned" (per the ISU's own wording) one pair entry for the 2018 OWG, according to Rule 400 A., paragraphs 2 and 3.

(And the table in the document has this footnote:

** As indicated in Rule 400, paragraph 3, the last ISU Member to reach the qualifying limit would not be permitted to enter a Couple that would cause the limit to be exceeded.)​

If France were to "return" one spot, I do not see anything "clear" or any "proof" in the ISU rules that would entitle the U.S. to that spot.

If the decision were made by jury and if I were a member of the jury, my take on the rules is that a spot returned by France must be added to the number of spots to be contested at Nebelhorn. YMMV.

 

[Moxiejan]

Even if the USA did not prevail there is enough of a question that it should be challenged and clarified... even if only as a reminder to think of bloody contingencies and plan for them in the rules from the start. I really do not think the cited rule was intended to apply to countries who had in fact in the spots in question and satisfied the requirements. A waiting list should apply in this case.

Yes, indeed! And I really don't think the intent of the rule (IF France has citizenship for only 1 team) was to push a spot from Worlds qualifying to Nebelhorn qualifying.

Here's another scenario to consider: What would happen if France can't send ANY pairs? Not that farfetched, if James/Cipres get injured and the other 2 French pairs can't get citizenship. It would be quite bizarre if France's two spots were allocated at Nebelhorn, with the U.S. still having just 1 from Worlds and not allowed to earn another one at Nebelhorn.

 

[Blades of Passion]

The rule stupid. The entire system of qualification in figure skating is stupid. USFSA should be petitioning the ISU to make an amendment in time for this Olympics. USA deserves 2 spots in Pairs.

 

[VIETgrlTerifa]

I agree that if France is not able to use both spots, it should be given to the U.S. because they would have received two spots but for the whole quota and having a set number of spots to be earned at Nebelhorn. Reading the rule to give that spot to Nebelhorn seems needlessly punitive to the U.S. And any other similarly-situated federation who could find themselves in that same situation. I actually doubt the drafters of the rule intended to do that, though it'd be nice to have a legislative history to support that. Even if you side with the idea that the U.S. Did not earn a second Olympic spot and it should be given to those competing at Nebelhorn, then the U.S. Should still challenge it just to receive clarification. Also, wouldn't a judge or similar judicial panel be in charge of interpreting the rule rather than a jury? This seems to be more of a question of "law" than "fact".

 

[TontoK]

The rule stupid. The entire system of qualification in figure skating is stupid. USFSA should be petitioning the ISU to make an amendment in time for this Olympics. USA deserves 2 spots in Pairs.

I'm an American, but I disagree with this. The rules were understood going in. If our pairs wanted more than one spot, then they should have performed better.

There are federations without an Olympic pair guarantee at all, and they finished higher than our second pair.

It doesn't sit well that those federations should go without, while we get a second pair because of an after-the-fact rule change.

 

[Moxiejan]

I'm an American, but I disagree with this. The rules were understood going in. If our pairs wanted more than one spot, then they should have performed better. There are federations without an Olympic pair guarantee at all, and they finished higher than our second pair. It doesn't sit well that those federations should go without, while we get a second pair because of an after-the-fact rule change.

Using your logic, if those federations wanted a spot, then they should have performed better. The rules were understood going in. Their failure had zero to do with the U.S.'s second pair.

 

[Blades of Passion]

If the 2nd U.S. Pair had skated better, making the free skate and finishing 13th or 14th place, it would still be the exact same situation. And these teams who didn't yet earn a single spot for their country, have never shown the same level of skating at their peaks.

The real problem is that qualification for events should all be determined on an individual basis. It makes no sense for anyone to be at an event unless they themselves earned the right to be there. Especially in these cases of teams who aren't even eligible for the Olympics being the ones who actually obtain the spot(s) for their country!

Nor does it make sense that the results of a competition a year before the Olympics should determine who goes to the Olympics (and also Worlds each year). Nor should entries be capped at 3 per country, especially for Worlds. I understand the Olympics are a specific thing, but 3 is too few entries when there are such great athletes who deserve to go, it should at least be 4. What other sport has such a small allotment? Look at how many swimmers get sent to the Olympics.

 

[gkelly]

I understand the Olympics are a specific thing, but 3 is too few entries when there are such great athletes who deserve to go, it should at least be 4. What other sport has such a small allotment? Look at how many swimmers get sent to the Olympics.

How many swimmers in each race? How many from each country?

To get more skaters at the Olympics, the answer might be more different disciplines. (Instead of the team event with some of the same skaters performing the same programs)

 

[Mrs. P]

There are more swimmers because they're are more events. I remember watching swimming trials and recalling that only the top 2 got sent from each event. I guess it wasn't as "heart breaking" cause you had more shots to get on the team.

I think sending additional members for the team event isn't a bad idea.

 

[Blades of Passion]

To get more skaters at the Olympics, the answer might be more different disciplines. (Instead of the team event with some of the same skaters performing the same programs)

The Short Program and Long Program being separate is something I'm in favor of.

Ideally we could even have it set up so that the Short Program event requires two different Short Programs where the skaters have to show different elements between each program. Not being able to repeat any of the same jump types, and requiring a +Toeloop combo in one program and a +Loop combo in the other, would create some really interesting scenarios. Same for the Pairs/Dance with all the different elements that can be chosen there. In addition to getting a better variety of Short Programs this way, it would also make the event equally prestigious to the Long Program event.

The issue is time constraint. Can we squeeze more Short Programs into competitions? I think it actually wouldn't be too difficult. We used to have all those compulsory dances, after all. You'd have to limit the 2nd round of Short Programs to something like 12 singles / 10 pairs for each discipline, the top finishers from the 1st round.

 

[karne]

Nor should entries be capped at 3 per country, especially for Worlds. I understand the Olympics are a specific thing, but 3 is too few entries when there are such great athletes who deserve to go, it should at least be 4.

*draws sword* And exactly where are you planning to get these extra spots, hmm? You will cut the little countries out over my dead body.

 

[ice coverage]

... Also, wouldn't a judge or similar judicial panel be in charge of interpreting the rule rather than a jury? ...

If you are referring to my post above, I was not suggesting that a legal challenge in this situation really would be put in the hands of a jury.

My reference to a jury was a completely hypothetical thing -- intended merely to underline that what I believe (YMMV) the ISU rules would call for (if France gives back a pair slot) is not the same as what I as a fan of U.S. pairs would hope for.

 

[TontoK]

Using your logic, if those federations wanted a spot, then they should have performed better. The rules were understood going in. Their failure had zero to do with the U.S.'s second pair.

I don't dispute that other federations missed earning a spot, just like USA missed out on earning a second spot.

My question is why USA deserves the second spot more than a higher ranking team from a smaller federation deserves that spot.

I bow to no one in my pride in being an American.

But, as a fair-minded sportsman, I don't see how a petition for a second US pair entry at the expense of another federation is warranted.

The rules, which we both cite, give the smaller federations a second chance to earn one Olympic spot. They do not give the US a second chance at a second Olympic spot.

 

[Moxiejan]

My question is why USA deserves the second spot more than a higher ranking team from a smaller federation deserves that spot.

Spots are awarded based on a country's total team performance at the previous Worlds, not on the ranking of specific pairs. The U.S. team met the qualifying points standard for two spots of 28 (10 for Knierims and 18 for D/F), but there is no requirement that they be the ones entered to fill those two spots for Worlds or that the Knierims (as the higher-ranked U.S. team at Worlds) be the pair entered for Olympics.

As for Olympics, only 20 total entries are allowed, with a maximum of 16 team spots coming from Worlds and a minimum of 4 team spots from Nebelhorn.
It should be noted that in the ISU table that lists countries and entries for Olympics, the 1 for the U.S. is listed as 1**; the asterisks indicate that this is a special case from a standard 1 and adds a footnote to explain:

** As indicated in Rule 400, paragraph 3, the last ISU Member to reach the qualifying limit would not
be permitted to enter a Couple that would cause the limit to be exceeded.

Note that this doesn't say that the U.S. didn't QUALIFY for two spots; it says the U.S. won't be PERMITTED to enter a second pair, because that would cause the limit to be exceeded, with 17 spots from Worlds instead of 16.

HOWEVER, it gets murky after that. The rules state that teams have until 9/15/17 to confirm whether they will use their full quota; any entries not used will be allocated at Nebelhorn, with a stand-by list created if there are any pullouts after that.

The rules do not in any way address a case of a federation such as U.S. that met the standard for a certain number of entries but is not being permitted to use them. If there is a one-spot reduction by France, the U.S. in actuality would have the 15th- and 16th-qualified spots. But as it stands, that 16th-qualified spot would go to a federation that did not earn one at Worlds.

Sorry, that's just nuts.

 

[Blades of Passion]

*draws sword* And exactly where are you planning to get these extra spots, hmm? You will cut the little countries out over my dead body.

You don't need to cut anybody out. Extra skaters, the actual best skaters in the world, would just get to compete.