very low score for Bronsard-Richmond... will have to look at their protocols...Results for Senior RD are up, but no details
Hensen/Lickers 66.18
Robertson/Portz 60.08
Bronsard/Richmond 57.76
Malcom/Chant 53.06
very low score for Bronsard-Richmond... will have to look at their protocols...Results for Senior RD are up, but no details
Hensen/Lickers 66.18
Robertson/Portz 60.08
Bronsard/Richmond 57.76
Malcom/Chant 53.06
They aren't up yet. I thought maybe she fell on one of the step sequences, but I wasn't sure if it was that or just an awkward move. The score wart crapped out, as did the scores. What I saw was just the total score, not broken into TES + PCS - DED, so I couldn't see if there was a deduction.very low score for Bronsard-Richmond... will have to look at their protocols...
i also got so excited about the music that i didn't look super carefully LOLThey aren't up yet. I thought maybe she fell on one of the step sequences, but I wasn't sure if it was that or just an awkward move. The score wart crapped out, as did the scores. What I saw was just the total score, not broken into TES + PCS - DED, so I couldn't see if there was a deduction.
very low score for Bronsard-Richmond... will have to look at their protocols...
They aren't up yet. I thought maybe she fell on one of the step sequences, but I wasn't sure if it was that or just an awkward move. The score wart crapped out, as did the scores. What I saw was just the total score, not broken into TES + PCS - DED, so I couldn't see if there was a deduction.
The protocols are up. Indeed she fell on the pattern step. While the two teams ahead of them got 9.82 points on that element, they got 2.25. Factor in the -1 for the fall and they lost 8.57 points on the one element. That would have been enough to just edge them into first place.i also got so excited about the music that i didn't look super carefully LOL
makes sense... and of course, the PCS probably went down...The protocols are up. Indeed she fell on the pattern step. While the two teams ahead of them got 9.82 points on that element, they got 2.25. Factor in the -1 for the fall and they lost 8.57 points on the one element. That would have been enough to just edge them into first place.
ha ! why not use skater 1 and 2? i mean...There has been a change in the protocols. Where the skaters are judged separately, They are designated as A and B rather than M and F (or maybe F and M). My first reaction to seeing any Bs is an echo of Madison Hubbell's incredulous "BASIC??????". I'll have to figure out which skater is A and which is B. Probably the first skater listed in the team's name is "skater A".
maybe because the numbers would then get confused with levels in the protocols? Not sureha ! why not use skater 1 and 2? i mean...
yeah... i guess so... in any case, this will be only done in Canada I suppose...maybe because the numbers would then get confused with levels in the protocols? Not sure
Currently:
sqTwA1+sqtwB3
If they did skater 1 and 2 id assume it would then be sqtw11+sqtw23 which would look more confusing I guesd
Until the ISU changes its rules about pair/ice dance team makeup.yeah... i guess so... in any case, this will be only done in Canada I suppose...
I just noticed the A and B in the protocols. I can't even remember that the ISU uses, except I think it's M for the man. And no, I have no idea how you can tell which skater is A and which is B. Maybe someone can ask Skate Canada or Ted Barton on social media.A and B? Hmm.. is there any statement which equals which?
Why not use initials? Sounds elaborate but somehow they will have to connect the A/B in the background as well?
When they shorten names in tennis inserts it's also been "Fed vs. Nad" and not "P1 vs. P2".
Or in Formula 1 for example.