Figure Skating's Three Jumping Errors and Penalties

[Mathman]

I am actually happy to see underrotations heavily punished. And I don't mean that from an athletic standpoint.

I have no articles or research about this, but just knowing about human anatomy and physics makes me believe that underrotations are endangering the health of the skaters...

I forgot to give a :agree: for this excellent post!

 

[antmanb]

Incidentally, I think the "personal best" aspect of IJS scoring is actually pretty good, as long as you only look at the technical score, not the PCS marks. PCS marks tend to skew higher or lower depending on the competition and judges.

But so do the GOEs - and the technical caller changes and questionable elements can go either way. I just don't think any of it comparable if a different judging panel is used.

Ant

 

[antmanb]

Eurosport (in the UK at least) has shown every single grand prix event, including galas, and some shows in between.

With the notable exception of the actual GP Final :banging:

Ant

 

[tollerfan]

I think the reason we became sidetracked was because of the fact that audience appeal is key to the scoring system.
Ant

No wonder we have a hard time deciding what penalties should be assessed when we have such diverse views on what the scoring system should accomplish. I would never have said that audience appeal should have anything to do with the scoring system. It is only recently, due to the commercial value of the broadcast rights, that sport has made so much effort to cater to the consumer.

I have always thought that commercial considerations dilute the ideals of the sport. Maybe I need to update my views. (.....Nah, that can't be it)

 

[gkelly]

I agree, tollerfan.

If audience appeal and commercial considerations were key to the scoring system, then why not design it to appeal to the largest group of potential viewers (categories 1 and 2 in my post #91, instead of category 3 like most posters here) and attract even larger audiences?

Why penalize barely-detectable two-foot landings or wrong-edge takeoffs at all? Most of the audience doesn't notice. Most can't even tell a triple flip from a triple toe loop.

Why not allow backflips, and headbanger spins in pairs? Audiences enjoy them. Or rolling on the ice, cartwheels, extensive props, etc.

 

[antmanb]

No wonder we have a hard time deciding what penalties should be assessed when we have such diverse views on what the scoring system should accomplish. I would never have said that audience appeal should have anything to do with the scoring system. It is only recently, due to the commercial value of the broadcast rights, that sport has made so much effort to cater to the consumer.

I have always thought that commercial considerations dilute the ideals of the sport. Maybe I need to update my views. (.....Nah, that can't be it)

While i don't think it is the most important element to the scoring system - audience appeal is key in terms of the revenue brought in from the audience. Without it, the sport isn't televised, without that, it is far more difficult to get people into the the sport in the first place and Figure Skating ends up like gymnastics :scratch: I don't have an answer.

Ant

 

[tarotx]

I wish they would get rid of the slow motion reply though I think real speed replay is fine. Other then that I'm fine with the rules of edge call, rotation and falls (though not always the execution).

In 1998 we and she was told Michelle Kwan just had to skate clean and she would win. Then Tara won. It left people scratching their heads. After this Olympics people saw Michelle seemingly winning everything. Then the 2002 Olympics roll around and Michell falls and loses the gold because the other girl seemed clean. The girl who didn't really grab the audience attention. There was also the pair issue. People were just not impressed with the sport anymore. I even heard a few people say they understood why Tonya Harding went crazy now. Then the new scoring system came and Michelle started distancing herself from the sport and then her one time cop comp she didn't fair as well as people came to expect. All these years we were told that clean was the important part and now skaters aren't clean and even worst those who look clean are losing to those who are noticeably not clean. Then the 2006 Olympics and skaters with huge falls won medals. The commentators can never explain the rules to the audience and perhaps it's even worst for those at the comps. It just seems a different ballgame then it used to be. Though in reality those with more difficulty usually always won over a cleaner less difficult program.

I think the audience issue and is this the best way to score jumping errors will be fixed when skaters learn proper technique and do the real triple they are trying for....

Since that may not be soon then the the US needs to get commentators who can explain the rules as they are and not get emotional when a downgrade cost a skater a certain medal. That would make it more understandable to the audience. The US audience isn't really an adaptable bunch.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I wish they would get rid of the slow motion reply though I think real speed replay is fine. Other then that I'm fine with the rules of edge call, rotation and falls (though not always the execution).

I take it you have no problem with the difference between a lutz (back outside edge take-off) and a flutz (non back outside edge take-off) but that's ok for you. I think those clamoring for slomo is simply to ensure that jumps are executed by definitionl particularly the take-offs and landing. We all love air turns especially when they look good even with a fall. No problem.

 

[Mathman]

...It is only recently, due to the commercial value of the broadcast rights, that sport has made so much effort to cater to the consumer.

I think it depends on what you mean by "recently."

Commercial appeal was one of the reasons -- I believe the main reason -- that figures were eliminated (no one wanted to watch). As for broadcast rights, during the 6.0 era the ISU had a $20,000,000 contract with ABC to show figure skating events on network TV. Now they get virtually nothing from American TV.

I have always thought that commercial considerations dilute the ideals of the sport. Maybe I need to update my views. (.....Nah, that can't be it)

Love of money is the root of all evil.

I think you are exactly right. The ISU's dilemma is whether to remain pure (did you ever think you would see "ISU" and "pure" in the same sentence?) or whether to sell out and pander itself to the audience for cheap thrills. (I'm kind of a cheap thrill guy, myself. )

 

[antmanb]

I think you are exactly right. The ISU's dilemma is whether to remain pure (did you ever think you would see "ISU" and "pure" in the same sentence?) or whether to sell out and pander itself to the audience for cheep thrills. (I'm kind of a cheep thrill guy, myself. )

Maybe the ISU can take the sport into the "pure" area with it's difficult judging system, annonymous judging so that the judging gets more and more picky and less and less accountable, extinguish all the TV interest - turn it into a closed door sport, then maybe finally the WSF can take the reigns of the sport - clean up the judging get it back on TV again and save the day

Ant

 

[Mafke]

Commercial appeal was one of the reasons -- I believe the main reason -- that figures were eliminated (no one wanted to watch).

I think the two main reasons (looking at different sources in retrospect) were:

1. Figures comps were expensive to run and didn't pay their way mainly because big networks didn't want to show them (and usually went out of their way to make them seem boring when they did show a few seconds of them). Worse, there was no commentary on figures as they were being skated
For a better approach, look on youtube for ABC's coverage of figures in 1988 (especially ladies). It's kind of fun, especially Peggy Fleming ragging on Witt's figures and Dick Button's excitement over Thomas's second and third figures (and Thomas's 'wuz robbed' about her first figure). Not perfect and not enough coverage of the skates on the ice but overall the coverage was far from dull, Had that been the norm instead of a one-off figures (at worlds and olympics at least) could have paid their way.

2. Most members of the ISU didn't have levels or testing regimens and didn't have the infrastrcture or human resources for getting their skaters' figures in order. They saw them as a few powerful country's way of monopolizing the medals. Getting rid of figures was seen (rightly or wrongly) as a way of getting skaters from smaller countries on the podiums. It partly worked in letting the occasional green swan break through (Lu Chen, Baiul) but basically if a country didn't have the resources to train figures correctly there's no real reason to think they could train triple jumps correctly either.

 

[Mathman]

For a better approach, look on youtube for ABC's coverage of figures in 1988 (especially ladies). It's kind of fun, especially Peggy Fleming ragging on Witt's figures and Dick Button's excitement over Thomas's second and third figures (and Thomas's 'wuz robbed' about her first figure). Not perfect and not enough coverage of the skates on the ice but overall the coverage was far from dull.

I think the average fan would have a great deal of difficulty in telling the difference between a figure that got a 5.2 versus one that got a 5.5 (or however the scoring went).

Diving has a similar problem. Although the commentators point out various good and bad things about a dive shown in slow motion, really the only thing a typcal viewer can see is whether the diver made a big splash or not. In gymnastics, I don't think the audience has much of a notion about why one routine was worth 13.2 and another only 12.6. The only things most people can see are obvious errors like falling off the apparatus and how big a hop the athlete took on the landing.

Does figure skating fall into the same category, just by the nature iof the sport? I think audiences of non-specialists can recognize a WOW tewchnical performance and respond to an emotionally satisfying one. I am not sure how much the CoP enhances this involvement on the part of the audience.

2. Most members of the ISU didn't have levels or testing regimens and didn't have the infrastrcture or human resources for getting their skaters' figures in order. They saw them as a few powerful country's way of monopolizing the medals. Getting rid of figures was seen (rightly or wrongly) as a way of getting skaters from smaller countries on the podiums.

That is an interesting insight into ISU politics. I am surprised that the major powers were not able to block the move away from figures, if it came down to a power struggle betwween the haves and the have nots.

Sonia Bianchetti has a lot to say about all of this in her writings. I believe she was the chairman of the ISU rechnical committee when the debate was going on, and claims major credit for the elimination of figures in favor of the more showy side of the sport.

 

[gkelly]

That is an interesting insight into ISU politics. I am surprised that the major powers were not able to block the move away from figures, if it came down to a power struggle betwween the haves and the have nots.

The Soviet Union could have been considered a "have" -- a major power -- and also one whose skaters had benefitted from leads in the school figures, but for whatever reason they voted against keeping them. And I'm sure had influence on other eastern bloc federations.

IIRC, in 1988 the only federations that voted to keep figures were the anglophone countries USA, Canada, Great Britain, and New Zealand.

In a way, it almost goes back to technical vs. artistic emphases of the British vs. "International" style conflict of a century earlier. Except that in the meantime, rotating multiple times in the air had also become an important (and athletically crowd-pleasing) part of the sport.

 

[mskater93]

The Soviet Union could have been considered a "have" -- a major power -- and also one whose skaters had benefitted from leads in the school figures, but for whatever reason they voted against keeping them. And I'm sure had influence on other eastern bloc federations.

IIRC, in 1988 the only federations that voted to keep figures were the anglophone countries USA, Canada, Great Britain, and New Zealand.

I believe the Soviet Union was starting to have issues and that many of their rinks could no longer support patch times and/or had broken down maintenance equipment (zambonis) so could no longer provide their skaters with clean ice to skate the figures.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Even, as was posted previously, Yukari had gotten credit for a double for the jumps that were downgraded but instead of -GOE, she was given 0, Carolina would still have beaten her.

Uh, yeah, and Yukari should have gotten a LOT more credit than doing a double. She did not do doubles. Her 3Flip shouldn't have been downgraded in the first place.

Carolina's 3Toe in her 2Axel-3Toe combination SHOULD have been downgraded if the caller was being that strict. Not to mention that her -GOE on a couple elements should have been higher. Losing only 1 point when you land forward on a jump and smash your free hand into the ice to prevent a fall is not accurate. A light hand down on the ice on a landing is a 1 point deduction in my book. Carolina lost barely any points for her mistakes and Nakano lost 10 points for the calls she got on cleanly landed jumps.

Then, there is also the issue of spins not being properly rewarded. An excellent spin that gets +2 GOE only gets 1 extra point total, whereas it would have been 2 points extra had it been a jump. Yukari Nakano is a much better spinner than Carolina Kostner.

The placements at last year's Worlds were a travesty.

This comment is a pretty good description of your poor viewpoint:

CoP's attitude toward UR is like a crazy person's attitude toward their favorite conspiracy theory.

 

[skatingbc]

Uh, yeah, and Yukari should have gotten a LOT more credit than doing a double. She did not do doubles. Her 3Flip shouldn't have been downgraded in the first place.

This comment is a pretty good description of your poor viewpoint:

No, Yukari did not do doubles, but she did not do triples either. I think attempting to give points to partial rotations is ridiculous. It just opens the door for so much judging crap.

Ok. You can disagree with me. No problem. But who says one viewpoint is better than the other? Just because I don't agree with pretty much anything you say, that does not make my viewpoint poor. Attack what I write please, not me.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Diving has a similar problem. Although the commentators point out various good and bad things about a dive shown in slow motion, really the only thing a typcal viewer can see is whether the diver made a big splash or not. In gymnastics, I don't think the audience has much of a notion about why one routine was worth 13.2 and another only 12.6. The only things most people can see are obvious errors like falling off the apparatus and how big a hop the athlete took on the landing.

Isn't that what the Slow Motion fans want? An explanation by the commentators that the jump(s) had wrong take-offs, and more than 45% landing clearance. Hearing the explanation and seeing the slomo at the same time would certainly give the fans the reason(s) for the score. No? The score itself is less important to the fans than the placement the judges put the athlete in. We all see Splashes, and we all see Falls .How relevant are they in the scoring?

 

[Mathman]

The score itself is less important to the fans than the placement the judges put the athlete in.

Yes, absolutely, IMHO.

The "placement the judges put the skaters in" -- that is the definition of ordinals. Ordinals are more important to the fans -- and certainly more important to the skaters -- than CoP points.

I think attempting to give points to partial rotations is ridiculous. It just opens the door for so much judging crap.

It seems to me that a more consistent position would be to take a hard line about all technical errors on jumps.

If we are going to hammer underrotation to the point where skaters get essentially 0 credit for the element, why then does the ISU do an about face and let other errors -- wrong edge take-offs, uncontroled landings, hands down, etc. -- off with a wink and a nod?

Why the good CoP, bad CoP act?

 

[gkelly]

The "placement the judges put the skaters in" -- that is the definition of ordinals. Ordinals are more important to the fans -- and certainly more important to the skaters -- than CoP points.

For the skaters, I would think it depends on the event.

In a competition where several skaters are fairly evenly matched, it's interesting to see how each of the judges rank those skaters. It would be of interest to a skater who wins to know whether that decision was unanimous or based on the best majority of second- or even third-place ordinals, or somewhere in between. It would be of interest to a skater who hoped to place higher to know how many judges thought they were in fact better than the skater(s) ahead of them. But they don't know why.

In a competition where the skaters are not very evenly matched, where skater A was expected to win, skater B had only an outside chance to challenge, and skater X was destined to come in last even skating her best; or where A and B were well matched in theory but A skated perfectly and B had a few mistakes, and X had multiple problems, it's not very useful to look at ordinals of straight 1s for A, straight 2s for B, and straight 24s for X. It would be much more useful for A to know where she lost points that she'll need to make up to challenge for medals at the next level of competition, for B to know what areas to work on to present a more credible challenge to A, for X to know how far behind the rest of the pack she is and whether the deficits are more in planned content, the execution of that content, or global aspects of the performance.

 

[Mathman]

For the skaters, I would think it depends on the event.

I agree with this. I was thinking mostly of events like Worlds. Mao Asada's goal in Los Angeles in March is to win the World Championship. I do not think she is so much interested in season's bests, whether she got her step sequence up to a level four instead of a level three, or whether the Bulgarian judge gave her 7.50 instead of 7.75 in choreography. (As Michelle Kwan famously said, I don't mind a 5/4 split, as long as the 5 are for me! )

Joannie Rochette's goal is to make the podium (third place ordinal or higher.)

The two American ladies' goal is to get 6th and 7th, or 5th and 8th, or 4th and 9th. The opportuntity to get feedback from the judges about what they need to work on next year I think is farther down on their list of priorities.

But very reluctantly, I have to agree with you that the judging system ought to be primarily for "Category 5" (skaters, parents and coaches.) I say reluctantly because then we do not have the right to complain, or to be surprised, when Categories one though four gradually lose interest and drift away.

I have been stammering incoherently to put into words just what is missing from the CoP. Then I read Anton Sikharudlize's interview, where he explained it with great clarity.

http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26099

Under 6.0 judging the audience could take part in the process. You knew that 6.0 was perfect, 5.9 was very, very good, and so on. So you could watch a performance pretending to be a judge, and at the end say, Wow, that was super, I'll give a 5.8 for tech and a 5.9 for presentation. If anyone asks you to justify your marks, you could say things like, she landed all her jumps with nice flow , the split jump into a layback spin at the end was awsome , and that spiral right on the swell of the music touched my heart.

Then you wait with bated breath to see the scores of the real judges. Yay, the Japanese judge agreed with me! Boo, the Italian judge only gave her a 5.6. Oh no, the Russian judge placed her below the other girl!

Under the CoP all you can do is sit there dumbly until somebody tells you that the total score is 117.96, that she got an edge call on her Lutz which cost one point, and she spun only seven revolutions instead of 8 on her change camel spin.

OK, if you say so. What's on the other channels?