the 'dirty' look, I'd dare say, it's a good sign! And yes most of the times failure in a throw jump is the man's fault or at least it's half responsability! I do hope that fall did not have much consequence... injuries aside, one of the worst being shaken confidence (which is often her weakness). It was good to see him comforting and reassuring her after the program was over. Hope they can regroup, overcome the jetleg and skate good at nationals in 5 days!
GPF: Pairs' FS - Thoughts and Highlights
- Thread starter gsk8
- Start date
the 'dirty' look, I'd dare say, it's a good sign! And yes most of the times failure in a throw jump is the man's fault or at least it's half responsability! I do hope that fall did not have much consequence... injuries aside, one of the worst being shaken confidence (which is often her weakness). It was good to see him comforting and reassuring her after the program was over. Hope they can regroup, overcome the jetleg and skate good at nationals in 5 days!
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2016
They had already started the lift, then they tried again and got it up. It was up to the tech panel to judge whether the first attempt counted as the lift and the 2nd was therefore invalid. I'm not sure if they could argue it, but it's not surprising that it didn't count. I believe the rule is whether they have the intent to do it. It's the same when in singles someone slips on the takeoff and doesn't jump - if they started the preparation and were going to, it can count as that jumping pass. CBC compared the first attempt of the lift to a waxel, which would still count as a jumping pass. CBC commentators said the panel would review and decide whether to give them credit or not, but they expected not I believe.
And also, we all know that wasn't choreo, including the judges. It didn't look like choreo, it looked like a failed lift attempt.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2014
I enjoyed them in the short, and they are a great team. I definitely remember thinking "Oh, if looks could kill."
I'm sure they will regroup and be absolutely fine. Nothing more disappointing than having a skate you're not pleased with, especially at a big event.
It definitely was a botched attempt , they are not fooling anyone there. But if the threshold for not giving them credit is "intent", that opens a whole new can of worms. It is very difficult to prove intent--if Z/E argue that was part of their choreo, I have no argument against that. I have a problem with the singles rule too--why does it count as a jumping pass if they never got off the ice? How can you count a jumping pass just from the entry? You can't even tell what jump type it is or know how many revolutions there are (there are none). Similarly, it was impossible to tell what kind of lift Z/E were going to do form the botched entry alone, since the entry did not constitute a lift at all.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2012
About Nicole. I saw the fall, rewatched it but didn't see the one in practice. As with all throw falls it's pretty difficult to determine who is to blame...the set up, the rotation, the landing (obviously) but if you're thrown too high and too far away landing may be difficult. Her reactions were as if she blamed herself (and she did miss a SBS before, totally by herself) for things going wrong and he did not blame her at all. So, it's a conundrum....I am just hoping she wasn't hurt. She didn't seem to be as their exhibition was great fun...and she participated with great abandon.
as an element, a jump or lift includes the entry, the actual jump/lift, and the exit (this also applies for other elements). So the element begins when the entry begins. In Z/E's case, they began the entry but couldn't get it into the actual lift. in terms of singles, in most cases, you can tell what the jump type was supposed to be from the entry (edge, rotation, direction). Obviously you can't tell how many revolutions it was supposed to have, but that doesn't matter because it'll go into the protocol as the jump type without a number of revolutions (like it just says A for a botched axel, or Lz as a botched lutz). And in the end it doesn't really matter because there's no credit for the element anyways. For lifts, you can't really tell the type of lift from the entry, but again, it doesn't matter because there's no credit given. I believe on the protocol, they'll put the planned lift type with no level (in Z/E's case, 5ALi). They have to put something on the protocol to indicate that the element "existed" and was attempted because those are literal requirements for a program and they were there, just failed.
In most cases, a botched attempt is very obviously not part of the choreo, and thus intent is not difficult to determine. And I believe in the very questionable cases, the benefit of the doubt goes to the skater. The reason that this is the case, is to prevent skaters from purposely not doing the element because their entry was wonky and then try it again (to some extent, this can be done through an extended entry, but they can't stop the entry completely and try again). Now, if Z/E were to argue that it was part of their choreo (which it clearly wasn't), I don't know if the tech panel would give them credit (probably not, considering they deemed it an attempt to begin with). But that would also be incredibly unsportsmanlike.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2016
But it was their last lift, wasn't it? Don't they have to do a group 5? So you do know which lift it was going to be. I'm not sure intent was the right word, but the idea would be that they had started the element.
So you're saying if they botched that as their first lift, they would have gotten credit for it? Or at least gotten credit for the group 5 lift? Because if they botched it as their first lift, there was not way of knowing it was going to be a group 5 lift. (And on principle, it should not matter whether they botch it as their first lift or their last lift)
"i. Any additional element or elements exceeding the prescribed numbers will not be counted in the
result of a participant. Only the first attempt (or allowed number of attempts) of an element will be
taken into account."
This again from the ISU handbook, is quite subject to interpretation. In my opinion, Z/E's botch was an attempt at some sort of a lift; whether it was a group 5 lift cannot be determined. (from context I know, but from an actual skating perspective there is no way to tell. you should not be judging based on program sheets) The FS rules for pairs says "3 Overhead lifts". But Z/E's botch was not necessarily an attempt at an overhead lift, just a lift of some sort. So they should have gotten credit, IMO.
Yes in the LP it looked like she did it all by herself, not fighting at all to stand on her feet on that throw 3 loop. She was good enough to regroup herself to land a beautiful 3sal towards the end of the program but the damage was done. I saw a video of the exhibition and she indeed seemed fine... just step out on the throw 3 loop, which she didn't seem to have a good feeling with throughout the whole weekend (she also stepped out in the sp). We'll see how she will do at Nationals this weekend.
