How are components affected by mistakes?

[yfan1]

This is inspired by this snippet:

I agree. But to the prior points, I do find that when a skater is not delivering the elements, or doesn't feel entirely comfortable out there, they start pushing off their toe, or their edges flatten. They skate with less "power/speed". They might miss exit and entrance transitions and leave out choreo that may reduce the "variety of edges/steps/turns/movements/directions" than they would otherwise exhibit if they were performing cleanly. They may sacrifice clarity of edge because they're just not into the performance/phone it in. Of course, if they stumble, the skating skills should definitely take a hit (I am so annoyed in ice dance seeing 9.5's on SS for stumbles or falls).

I agree. Even beyond what this poster is saying, many times, after a skater makes a mistake, they try to gain back speed with less than ideal pushes to get to the next element or musical cue.

Ultimately it varies with each skater and mistake, and it's a judgment call on your end, but it's true, IMO, that a skating skill score should be affected by mistakes in most cases.

 

[4everchan]

Yup. The problem is that the stars are not punished the same way as the second tier skaters

 

[Mathman]

Well, mistakes interrupt the choreography, the musical interpretation, and performance values, as well as being a negative factor for skating skills. So I would say this should be reflected in the component scores.

Similarly a clean performance is very pleasing terms of "program as a whole at any level.

 

[gkelly]

many times, after a skater makes a mistake, they try to gain back speed with less than ideal pushes to get to the next element or musical cue.

Ultimately it varies with each skater and mistake, and it's a judgment call on your end, but it's true, IMO, that a skating skill score should be affected by mistakes in most cases.

Definitely. It depends a lot on the mistake.

First, not all errors are serious. And some are serious in the sense that they result in a significant loss of points but are not disruptive (e.g., an underrotated/downgraded jump with a moderate touchdown of the free toe on the landing but no loss of balance -- a casual viewer might not notice at all).

From the current ISU Singles/Pairs guidelines, ISU Communication 2788:

Program Components evaluation
If a program contains 1 Serious error, the maximum score for each program component is 9.50. If a program contains 2 or more Serious errors, the maximum score for each program component is 8.75.
Serious errors are falls and/or mistakes which result in a break in the delivery of the program. This break can be minimal or more pronounced and noticeable. These errors must be reflected in the mark awarded for each program component. The consequence depends on the severity and impact they have on the fluidity and continuity of the program.
When awarding Program Components when there have been serious error(s), ensure each mark accurately meets the criteria for that range of mark even with serious errors.

This is then restated on the final page with the colored PCS chart.


Not directly related to PCS, but there are also guidelines about how errors affect maximum allowable GOE (see p. 16 of the document linked above).

I.e., if there are other positive qualities, a judge should reward those first up to +2, and then take the necessary reductions to end up with a final GOE that would be negative but not necessarily -5.

I mention this only because many of those errors that require starting GOE no higher than +2 before reductions are things that would not be disruptive or visible to casual viewers.

So if you're just watching and not looking at the protocols, you might see "Skater A had two mistakes! I saw them! Skater B was clean!" and think that Skater B therefore deserved higher PCS.
The judges might think "Skater A had two serious visible mistakes, but everything else was excellent. Skater B had a lot of small-to-medium technical errors, and their basic quality was just in the "Good" range, not Very Good.
So Skater A ends up with PCS in the 8s, Skater B with PCS in the low 7s, and viewers who judge technique mainly on the presence or absence of obvious disruptive errors think the decisions were made based on reputation. But the reputation may be based on actual technique that's harder to appreciate on video or without significant training.

That would be most relevant to the Skating Skills component, which is where technical quality would be most reflected in the current 3-component setup.

For the other components, a disruptive error like a fall is more likely to disrupt the performance quality or timing to the music, or possibly the composition if the skater has to abandon choreography to catch up to where they need to be for their next element. Or it might not. Not all falls are equally disruptive, and in rare cases skaters are even able to work the fall into the performance quality.

My favorite example (albeit not from eligible competition or IJS era): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isA3CIbU9dI&t=3m48s

Another example from 6.0-era competition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptnALdiKPuY&t=1m23s
That one is interesting to watch because there are a lot of serious technical errors on most of the jumps, but only 2 or 3 would count as disruptive. How would you rate the Composition and Performance of that program against a skater with no falls, clean triples (but no 3A attempt), and not much creativity or musicality?

 

[yfan1]

I wouldn't say URs are usually serious errors, and yes it depends. As an example, I'd say Yuna Kim's LP at 2007 really deserved the highest PCS of that segment, despite the errors, same goes for Sasha's LP at 2006 Olympics.

Sometimes, errors can even improve choreography/interpretation and perhaps performance.

TBH, seeing how SS and TR were supposed to be the more 'objective' components, it actually makes sense to me that they objectively reduce whenever an error happens. You either have flow out of a jump or you don't. You either have a transition out of a jump or you don't. You either used crossovers properly after a jump or you didn't. So on.

 

[yfan1]

My favorite example (albeit not from eligible competition or IJS era): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isA3CIbU9dI&t=3m48s

I mean this doesn't count lol. I do think he showed quick thinking on his feet, but otoh the theme is such that it can cover up almost any mistake.

Another example from 6.0-era competition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptnALdiKPuY&t=1m23s
That one is interesting to watch because there are a lot of serious technical errors on most of the jumps, but only 2 or 3 would count as disruptive. How would you rate the Composition and Performance of that program against a skater with no falls, clean triples (but no 3A attempt), and not much creativity or musicality?

Hah. I'd not seen this before.

I'm not sure if that's really his music? But I agree, I'd rate him higher than someone with bland choreo.

 

[TontoK]

Well, mistakes interrupt the choreography, the musical interpretation, and performance values, as well as being a negative factor for skating skills. So I would say this should be reflected in the component scores.

Similarly a clean performance is very pleasing terms of "program as a whole at any level.

While acknowledging the excellent points made by others on this thread, if I had to pick ONE thing, this would be it.

As a viewer, I want to be swept away by the performance. An error, especially something like a fall, disrupts that feeling. It breaks the spell.

And, as I've become a more experienced and sophisticated (some might say "finicky") fan of the sport, it takes less and less to break the spell. A step-out might not break the overall flow of the program very much, but in the mental background, I'm thinking "minus 3, maybe minus 4." When you're mentally noting the "dings" it's difficult to lose yourself in the performance. And NO, I can't set it aside. I've tried.

 

[gkelly]

I wouldn't say URs are usually serious errors,

Let's just say downgrades, then. Not disruptive if there's nothing else wrong with the jump, and casual viewers probably won't notice. Could have zero effect on CO and PE. But serious in the sense of how they're penalized technically in GOE and base value, and judges may consider them evidence of poor jumping technique.

and yes it depends. As an example, I'd say Yuna Kim's LP at 2007 really deserved the highest PCS of that segment, despite the errors, same goes for Sasha's LP at 2006 Olympics.

No argument from me.

Sometimes, errors can even improve choreography/interpretation and perhaps performance.

See my examples added above

TBH, seeing how SS and TR were supposed to be the more 'objective' components, it actually makes sense to me that they objectively reduce whenever an error happens. You either have flow out of a jump or you don't.

I don't think these are binary either/or decisions.

Assuming no falls, there can be a wide range of degrees of flow out of jumps.
Some successfully landed jumps land on the correct edge or wobble from the inside edge almost at a standstill gliding for maybe one blade length, and then the skater steps forward or steps backward onto the free foot, etc. Next to no flow on the jump landing, but the skater is able to move on to the rest of the program without calling attention to the weak landing.
Some jumps land with reasonably good flow held for a few feet/~1 meter on the back outside edge showcasing a simple solid landing position, then the skater transitions to whatever kind of stroking is choreographed next.
Some jumps land with as much speed as the skater had on the entrance and cover many feet/several meters of ice before the skater moves on.
Some have enhanced body positions on the sustained landing edge.
Some hold the back outside edge for a few feet and then transition to additional edge work on the same foot, without any push from the other foot, using the flow they're still carrying from the jump landing, with maybe an edge pull to generate some more speed/flow while still on that same foot.

The first of those may be clean enough to warrant no GOE reductions, but it's not good.
The second might or might not be able to qualify for the "good takeoff and landing" bullet point.
The others are positives that should be rewarded in GOE.

You either have a transition out of a jump or you don't.

Yes, but was it difficult transition? Was it a high-quality transition? Not all transitions are equal.
Of course a skater who planned an intricate transition from a jump to a spin, for example, and usually performs it with high quality, would have to cut it out entirely if they fell on the jump landing.

You either used crossovers properly after a jump or you didn't. So on.

Well, ideally the best skaters won't use crossovers at all but will use good technique on more difficult stroking and edge work to move on from the jump landing.

 

[yfan1]

Some successfully landed jumps land on the correct edge or wobble from the inside edge almost at a standstill gliding for maybe one blade length, and then the skater steps forward or steps backward onto the free foot, etc. Next to no flow on the jump landing, but the skater is able to move on to the rest of the program without calling attention to the weak landing.

It's not really about attention, it's if the error here itself was due to poor skating skill.

I'd say likely this was a jump error, even if not a noteworthy one or deserving much GOE reduction.

Some jumps land with reasonably good flow held for a few feet/~1 meter on the back outside edge showcasing a simple solid landing position, then the skater transitions to whatever kind of stroking is choreographed next.
Some jumps land with as much speed as the skater had on the entrance and cover many feet/several meters of ice before the skater moves on.
Some have enhanced body positions on the sustained landing edge.

Wouldn't all this be affected by how well balanced you are over your skate, how solid of a position you've been able to achieve (even if "standard")? The enhanced body position one especially. And that'd certainly figure into skating skill.

Some hold the back outside edge for a few feet and then transition to additional edge work on the same foot, without any push from the other foot, using the flow they're still carrying from the jump landing, with maybe an edge pull to generate some more speed/flow while still on that same foot.

These particular "squiggles" are unfortunately what happen nowadays.

I'd first judge the body position over the skate, and then consider how the transitions out are being done, and with what kind of effortlessness. If it's forced or 'whippy' I'd not give it more credit compared to a 'standard' landing position held on a BOE.

The first of those may be clean enough to warrant no GOE reductions, but it's not good.
The second might or might not be able to qualify for the "good takeoff and landing" bullet point.
The others are positives that should be rewarded in GOE.

Well, we're talking about PCS.

Yes, but was it difficult transition? Was it a high-quality transition? Not all transitions are equal.

It first needs to exist before we move onto the quality and difficulty.

If someone fell on a jump, they're decidedly not doing a transition out of it. That's one opportunity for doing a transition gone. They may still end up with the highest score for it in the competition, but certainly it needs to be considered that they can't possibly achieve a maximum score anymore. How can they possibly?

Well, ideally the best skaters won't use crossovers at all but will use good technique on more difficult stroking and edge work to move on from the jump landing.

I disagree this is "ideal" since I'm fine with good quality crossovers (and think they're one of the most obvious "tells" of someone's basic skating, seeing how they're such a simple step that if you mess these up or don't do them properly, then you pretty inevitably have less than pure basics), but my point here is different, as I'd stated in my original post - it's that after a mistake, skaters often try to gain back speed with less than ideal pushes or stroking. That then will definitely be a reduction in skating skill scores.

 

[gkelly]

I'm not sure if that's really his music?

Why would you doubt a skater in 1980-81 using 1970s rock instrumentals, in an era when vocals were forbidden in competition but copyrights weren't being policed as they are now?

It's not really about attention, it's if the error here itself was due to poor skating skill.

I'd say likely this was a jump error, even if not a noteworthy one or deserving much GOE reduction.

If the skater usually has good landings, then yes, this would be a momentary error.
If they always land with no speed, that's probably the best they can do. Just adequate landing technique at best.
I.e., why some skaters get mostly 0s on their successful jumps and others get pluses.

Wouldn't all this be affected by how well balanced you are over your skate, how solid of a position you've been able to achieve (even if "standard")? The enhanced body position one especially. And that'd certainly figure into skating skill.

Yes, definitely.

These particular "squiggles" are unfortunately what happen nowadays.

I'm talking about intentional enhancements to the landing by intentionally adding embellishments after establishing the landing edge. These can be performed with good or bad quality or in between. It's definitely harder than just holding the BO edge. If the quality is bad that might cancel out the benefit of the added difficulty, but if the quality is good I'd consider it very fortunate indeed.

The examples that are most prominent in my memory are pre-IJS because in those days I used to watch the same programs over and over again on VHS tapes. Now that more programs are available on streaming, I rarely rewatch the same ones many times if at all. But I'll try to find some good IJS examples of what I'm talking about.

If someone fell on a jump, they're decidedly not doing a transition out of it.

How about Schramm's transition out of that first fall? :lol:

That's one opportunity for doing a transition gone. They may still end up with the highest score for it in the competition, but certainly it needs to be considered that they can't possibly achieve a maximum score anymore. How can they possibly?

If they fall, under the current rules they are not allowed to receive 10.00 or 9.75. No one is saying they should. (Maybe a few judges went there before the rules changed.)
How about this one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpVKTIEHrvk&t=1m57s

​

I disagree this is "ideal" since I'm fine with good quality crossovers (and think they're one of the most obvious "tells" of someone's basic skating, seeing how they're such a simple step that if you mess these up or don't do them properly, then you pretty inevitably have less than pure basics),

Another example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IG90SzWIdI&t34s
Do you think the skating skills would have been enhanced if he had chosen to do multiple crossovers in a row on his way from the first jump to the second?
Or to have just held the back outside landing of the triple axel and then stepped straight to the spin without the twizzle and body movement on the landing edge? Should he have done crossovers from the axel to the spin?

but my point here is different, as I'd stated in my original post - it's that after a mistake, skaters often try to gain back speed with less than ideal pushes or stroking. That then will definitely be a reduction in skating skill scores.

Yes, IF they use bad stroking to regain speed and catch up after a fall, they should be penalized for that in skating skills. What I'm saying is that not all falls demonstrate this.

Here, by the time the skater gets to the forward crossover, the quality of the crossover is about what we'd expect if he'd just stepped forward from an adequate landing. So we have one bad edge here (the BO landing that he fell on), and maybe one weak first edge as he gets up, but no toe pushing or walking. Different level of penalty required.

Again, it's a continuum, not either/or.

But the actual component scores available are discrete 0.25 increments. So sometimes one error will make a difference of 0.25 and sometimes it won't.

 

[yfan1]

Why would you doubt a skater in 1980-81 using 1970s rock instrumentals, in an era when vocals were forbidden in competition but copyrights weren't being policed as they are now?

Because the music sounds overlaid.

How about this one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpVKTIEHrvk&t=1m57s

This is good.

Another example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IG90SzWIdI&t34s
Do you think the skating skills would have been enhanced if he had chosen to do multiple crossovers in a row on his way from the first jump to the second?
Or to have just held the back outside landing of the triple axel and then stepped straight to the spin without the twizzle and body movement on the landing edge? Should he have done crossovers from the axel to the spin?

You said "ideally". I disagree doing transitions out of jumps is "ideal", and that I'm perfectly fine with doing COs after jumps.

In Jeremy's case, of course, he's doing a good job with his transitions and deserves a good score for his basic skating.

Yes, IF they use bad stroking to regain speed and catch up after a fall, they should be penalized for that in skating skills. What I'm saying is that not all falls demonstrate this.

I didn't get that from that part of your reply. Yes, I agree of course that not all skaters will gain speed the same way after a mistake, and I did state that mistakes and judgments will vary in my original post.

However, look at your own example with Jeremy. If Jeremy had fallen on the 3A, he wouldn't be doing the transitions after it, he'd be trying to regain speed. So for one, all his planned transitions would be gone, and for another the skating skill display after the 3A would also be gone. Since the jump and spin placement is so close together, he'd probably be doing a toe push or running or similar to regain the speed and move into the spin ASAP...