2020-21 Russian Ladies' Figure Skating

[Skatesocs]

But the point is that ! is for an unclear edge....if you knew it was incorrect then wouldn't it be e?

Incorrect = flat = unclear edge here.

Again, can you answer the question about whether it is fair to give a (!) to a Lutz that *you* are unsure about if it's outside or flat vs something that you know *for sure* is flat (and flats *do not* get (e)... so they must be given (!))?

That's the thing I'm interested in with this conversation.

 

[halulupu]

Instead of hating Zhenya blindly and badmouthing her any chance you get, maybe learn a bit about Alegria and her choreography, which is deliberate and choreographed by Shae-Lynn. I know innovative choreography may come as a shock to you when you're used to Dani G's incompetence, but it's out there. She mentioned in her interview after her glove slipped, on top of being clearly injured, despite downplaying it.

choreo could be interesting. her technical ability however degressed so much. hope she waters down the content for the russian cup and gain some confidence back. otherwise its painful to whatch

 

[Fluture]

I‘ve seen a lot of ridiculous criticism but shaming someone for skating like they were performing in a circus when their program is to Alegria (you know, Cirque du Soleil lol) probably tops it. I mean, everyone‘s free not to like the program/choreography - I‘m not sold on the music cuts yet either - but come on.

 

[Jeanie19]

I wonder if Evgenias goals for the rest of her career have remained the same. I know she was aiming for another olympic team and olympic gold after pyeongchang, but i wonder if she has reevaluated at all with her injuries and that her chances of making another team are extremely slim at this point, as happy as I would be to see her at a 2nd Olympics.

I bet Evgenia 's goal is the same. She's still fighting, she's still skating. The journey just isn't an easy one.

 

[Tolstoj]

That doesn't answer the question about whether you believe an edge *you* are unsure of is hit with the same warning as one you know for sure is incorrect. Your lack of clarity dinging a skater is unfair - it's why we don't see "<!" calls if the caller is unsure of UR.

I mean is it really unfair? that flat edge, maybe slightly to the outside, maybe slightly to the inside depending on the eyes watching, is still not correct in the end.

Exclamation attention call exists very much for unclear edges or flat, that's what the handbook says.

 

[Mathman]

But the point is that ! is for an unclear edge....if you knew it was incorrect then wouldn't it be e?

I guess that's the crucial question in interpreting the rules.

What if the caller is absolutely, positively 100% certain that the edge is flat. What should the call be?

I suppose one could argue that it is impossible for any human being to distinguish between a edge that is 91 drees to the ice (outside) and one that is 89 degrees (inside). Is the rule that if the edge is shallow (say within 15 degrees of being "clearly outside" or "clearly inside," then the tech specialist cannot be sure so the element deserves a designation of !

The actual quote from the rules is

If the take-off edge is not clean correct, the TP indicates the error to the Judges using the signs “e” (edge) and “!” (attention).

A little bit of "ISU English" here. I would say that a wobbly edge that switches over to the right or wrong edge only at the last split second is not "clean." (?)

 

[silveruskate]

Incorrect = flat = unclear edge here.

Again, can you answer the question about whether it is fair to give a (!) to a Lutz that *you* are unsure about if it's outside or flat vs something that you know *for sure* is flat (and flats *do not* get (e)... so they must be given (!))?

That's the thing I'm interested in with this conversation.

To me a clear flat edge *is* an incorrect edge as it's definitely not the correct edge. I checked and it also says this in the ISU handbook. If the take-off edge is definitely wrong then it is (e) regardless of whether it is flat or inside for Lz. It also says that if the take-off edge isn't "clean-correct" then it will deserve an (e) or !

 

[Jeanie19]

What exactly is a "cartwheel" in the context of figure skating? Doe she put her hands on the ice in the execution?

(Really wanting to know. )

See Evgenia fanfesr post 29829. In March she showed her cartwheel executed well.

 

[Mathman]

That doesn't answer the question about whether you believe an edge *you* are unsure of is hit with the same warning as one you know for sure is incorrect. Your lack of clarity dinging a skater is unfair - .

I think the lack of clarity is in the ISU rules, not in Tolstoi's interpretation of them.

In ordinary discursive English, what could "unclear" possibly mean except "unclear to a particular person."

This occurs in mathematics all the time. Lecturer: "It is clear that ..." Audience: "I haven't got the foggiest notion what he's talking about." Question: Is the lecturer's point "clear" or not?

I suppose you could have a rule that goes, more than 15 degrees to the outside, OK. 15 degrees one way of the other, unclear. More than 15 degrees to the inside, "e."

Actually, I tink the current rule works out OK in practice. The tech panel takes their shot at it: "OK," "something fishy about it (!)", or "wrong edge (e)." Then it's up to the judges' GOE. A judge could say about an "unclear" edge -- well, not the greatest Lutz I have ever seen, but the edge didn't look too bad to me. The height was good, nice air position, etc. I'll give it a +1 overall.

 

[Mathman]

See Evgenia fanfesr post 29829. In March she showed her cartwheel executed well.

Thank you!

(It's post #29028.)

 

[Skatesocs]

I think the lack of clarity is in the ISU rules, not in Tolstoi's interpretation of them.

I'm not arguing that Tolstoj's interpretation of rules lacks clarity - I understand where they're coming from. The lack of clarity I'm talking about is in the video/frame you referred to whence sprang this conversation. Suppose *you* are unsure of an edge if it's slight outside or flat, compare that to a jump you are *sure* had a flat edge - what do you end up interpreting those rules as and what should take precedence?

To my knowledge this "benefit of doubt" rule *was* put in because the cameras for the TP are lacking. Benefit of the doubt isn't just something random and rainbows, it's also supposed to account for technical deficiencies in camera work. If you are so unclear about what the edge looks like, how are you even calling it as anything?

 

[Skatesocs]

This occurs in mathematics all the time. Lecturer: "It is clear that ..." Audience: "I haven't git the foggiest notion what he's talking about." Question: Is the lecturer's point "clear" or not?

I don't have an answer. I just laugh now

 

[kmw227]

So is Rozanov not coaching Sasha? He wasn't at the boards with her yesterday and he wasn't even there today. I'm just curious as to how involved he actually is with her training, because IIRC he's one of the reasons why she moved to Plushenko in the first place. :think:

 

[Mathman]

A semi-related question. Is it harder to take off from an edge or from the flat?

In these fLutz discussions, historically I remember only two possibilities: outside or inside. It you are one degree to the outside, that's outside. If you are one degree to the inside, that's inside. If it is not clear which of the two is in play, then it is "unclear."

To me, that seems a reasonably unambiguous trichotomy, although the caller still has to make a judgment as best he can. Clearly outside, no call. Clearly inside, "e." If it is unclear whether it is inside or outside, then "!" is available for "not completely clear, but very suspicious if you ask me" versus no call for "eh, could be this, could be that, not a definite in your face error."

 

[guisadop]

so sad about evgeniya, it looked as if she was taking it well though with her failed cartwheel and all.

 

[Shayuki]

A semi-related question. Is it harder to take off from an edge or from the flat?

In these fLutz discussions, historically I remember only two possibilities: outside or inside. It you are one degree to the outside, that's outside. If you are one degree to the inside, that's inside. If it is not clear which of the two is in play, then it is "unclear."

To me, that seems a reasonably unambiguous trichotomy, although the caller still has to make a judgment as best he can. Clearly outside, no call. Clearly inside, "e." If it is unclear whether it is inside or outside, then "!" is available for "not completely clear, but very suspicious if you ask me" versus no call for "eh, could be this, could be that, not a definite in your face error."

Well, Flip pretty much was flat, I'm not sure why it became "inside" TBH. I don't think being inside is very necessary for a Flip.

Outside edge is quite clearly less natural, and hence should be more difficult. Along with the counterrotation.

 

[Skatesocs]

To me, that seems a reasonably unambiguous trichotomy, although the caller still has to make a judgment as best he can. Clearly outside, no call. Clearly inside, "e." If it is unclear whether it is inside or outside, then "!" is available for "not completely clear, but very suspicious if you ask me" versus no call for "eh, could be this, could be that, not a definite in your face error."

Another thing about benefit of doubt... If you're unsure if something is flat vs slight inside, you call it (!). I'm sure everyone will hate this post

 

[NadezhdaNadya]

So is Rozanov not coaching Sasha? He wasn't at the boards with her yesterday and he wasn't even there today. I'm just curious as to how involved he actually is with her training, because IIRC he's one of the reasons why she moved to Plushenko in the first place. :think:

I am also wondering whether the Russian king of beauty Sergey Rozanov is coaching Sasha. Hmm...

 

[vorravorra]

So is Rozanov not coaching Sasha? He wasn't at the boards with her yesterday and he wasn't even there today. I'm just curious as to how involved he actually is with her training, because IIRC he's one of the reasons why she moved to Plushenko in the first place. :think:

Nobody involved ever actually suggested Sasha moved to Plushenko because of Rozanov, it was speculation. From what Aliona has said it seems she is the one who moved to Plushenko because of Rozanov and he is working mostly with her.

 

[dunffvanstorn]

So is Rozanov not coaching Sasha? He wasn't at the boards with her yesterday and he wasn't even there today. I'm just curious as to how involved he actually is with her training, because IIRC he's one of the reasons why she moved to Plushenko in the first place. :think:

Of course he is, he even posted videos of her on his Instagram account. People are just saying that because they think it wasn’t enough having 3 people with Sasha at the boards, while there should be someone to help Aliona staying away from Eteri [emoji23]