Ladies LP

[KBell]

I think you mean hemangioma. Hematomas are bruises = ecchymoses.

Attending physician

The classically recognized hemangioma is a visible red skin lesion that may be in the top skin layers (capillary hemangioma), deeper in the skin (cavernous hemangioma), or a mixture of both.

Hemangiomas are usually present at birth, although they may appear within a few months after birth,

Hematoma = Typically a bruise, can be serious, but usually not. People usually hear the term "Subdural Hematoma" on TV shows and think all Hematoma's mean a very serious head injury.

Hemangioma = Typically a "birth mark" also can be serious but usually disappear/fade or can be removed/faded with lasar treatment (like on the face). A hemangioma is an abnormal build up of blood vessels in the skin or internal organs.

 

[Marine63]

Caroline's LP

I think her 3/3 is getting better each time she tries it. Does anyone else not see the underrotation deduction she got for the 3/Loop?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WHFAmT6Hsko

 

[efreedman]

Hematomas

Hematomas?! Hematomas are serious, serious brain hemorrhages! Are you sure it isn't something else?

Hematomas can form anywhere in the body and not just on the brain. Depending on where they are and how extensive, they can be anywhere from dangerous down to a painful but far less serious painful condition. When you bleed into a muscle, especially over the hip bones, it can be particularly painful as witnessed by the protective padding that skaters sometimes wear. They also can take a fair amount of time to resolve and can restrict movement.

 

[Spun Silver]

I was not able to watch the competition but I've read reports that Caroline was a "low jumper". That might explain the alledged underrotations. Maybe jumping low creates some kind of illusion that she touches down before fully rotating.

You can still see it on a website I'm not sure if I can name. The one with complete coverage of Jr Worlds.

 

[Mathman]

^ Yes, you can name it. Golden Skate has a recipocating relationship with IceNetwork now.

OK, one more question. If a bruise is a hematoma, what's a contusion?

 

[luckyguy]

Mao has all the triples..........

Thanks for your helpful analysis. What do you think about the jumps of Maier, Lepistö, Sebestyen, Korpi and Wagner?

 

[feraina]

Does anyone else not see the underrotation deduction she got for the 3/Loop?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WHFAmT6Hsko

I know next to no Russian, but I think "chista" (sp?) is clean, and "unicza" (sp?) is beautiful or something. Tarasova says "chista" after the first five jumping passes, something complicated after the 6th (3R-2T-2R), and "unicza" after the 7th (3lz). Does anyone know Russian? What did she say after the loop combo?

I saved the original icenetwork live stream, which is maybe better resolution. To me the 3R looks just about 1/4 under-rotated. From this camera angle and with this blurry resolution, you just can't tell the exact orientation of the blade or when exactly it touches the ice. But I do think that it's a _very_ close call, it could have gone either way. I think if it had been ratified without incidence, afterwards very few people would've been puzzled why that jump wasn't downgraded.

However, whether this particular 3R was 89 or 91 degrees under-rotated and whether the call was fair is not the real issue. Until we have more consistent and accurate method for determining under-rotations (than a 3-person panel equipped with video streams from limited camera angel(s)), then having the tendency to under-rotate 60-90 degrees will always hurt you statistically. Sometimes the callers will be strict, and sometimes lenient, but the closer and more frequently you under-rotate up to 90 degrees, then the more likely you'll get downgraded, correctly or not in any given instance. The best thing a skater like Caroline can do is to go home and really work on those rotations and make sure that they're not anywhere close to 90 degrees, and do that consistently over many competitions and get rid of the reputation for under-rotation.

 

[Mathman]

However, whether this particular 3R was 89 or 91 degrees under-rotated and whether the call was fair is not the real issue. Until we have more consistent and accurate method for determining under-rotations (than a 3-person panel equipped with video streams from limited camera angel(s)), then having the tendency to under-rotate 60-90 degrees will always hurt you statistically. Sometimes the callers will be strict, and sometimes lenient, but the closer and more frequently you under-rotate up to 90 degrees, then the more likely you'll get downgraded, correctly or not in any given instance.

!!!

I'm going to work up some numbers on that! If you typically underrotate by 70 degrees plus or minus 40 degrees, and the tech specialist has calls underrotations at 100 degrees plus or minus 30, by how much can you decrease your probability of getting a downgrade if you can decrease your underrotation to 60 degrees plus or minus 30?

 

[PolymerBob]

!!!

I'm going to work up some numbers on that! If you typically underrotate by 70 degrees plus or minus 40 degrees, and the tech specialist has calls underrotations at 100 degrees plus or minus 30, by how much can you decrease your probability of getting a downgrade if you can decrease your underrotation to 60 degrees plus or minus 30?

But if the tech specialist calls underrotations at 100 degrees and over, how do the UR calls fall off from 100 to 70 deg? Linearly? Exponentially? Sinusoidally? Logarithmically? :scratch: Are any of those even words?

 

[emma]

But if the tech specialist calls underrotations at 100 degrees and over, how do the UR calls fall off from 100 to 70 deg? Linearly? Exponentially? Sinusoidally? Logarithmically? :scratch: Are any of those even words?

OMG - LOL!!!!

So, I can't weigh in on these mathematical problems - but they are a blast to read, really!!! However, I do wonder if we have to further adjust our calculations to account for DIFFERENT tech panels? I mean, if it's the same person over and over that's one thing (right?) but if it is different people, doesn't that create an additional variable?

 

[mskater93]

It does, but another variable is if you are a "known offender" then anything questionable will likely be called by the tech team, no matter who they are. Kind of like in basketball where the better team tends to get the benefit of the doubt in plays that could go either way.

 

[Mathman]

But if the tech specialist calls underrotations at 100 degrees and over, how do the UR calls fall off from 100 to 70 deg? Linearly? Exponentially? Sinusoidally? Logarithmically? :scratch: Are any of those even words?

The most reasonable assumption is that the probability distribution would be approximately normal (Gaussian), so it would fall off like

(1/60pi)e^[(-1/2)(x-100)/30)^2]

Edited to add: integrate this from -infinity to +infinity to make sure it adds up to 100%

 

[Skye]

Why are there no deductions for spins with obvious mistakes? Granted, Mirai got only 0,14 GOE for it, but do they calculate like this: oh, beautiful position, well-centered - oops, now she nearly fell, let's not give her the usual +2,00 GOE.

I noticed this too, and IIRC that same strange judging happened when Mao Asada had troubles with a donut spin and Carolina Kostner struggled to get in the Bielmann position on her spirals. I agree with you Medusa that when perfectly-rotated-but-faulty-on-landing jumps get a mandatory deduction then that should be the case for all other elements as well. Mistakes like those just ruin the beauty of it, no matter how high levels they get.

 

[Mathman]

Kind of like in basketball where the better team tends to get the benefit of the doubt in plays that could go either way.

Basketball is a good analogy. In the "no contact" sport of basketball, all ten players make contact on every play. On every play there could legitimately be a foul on either team. The game is totally and completely decided by which fouls are called and which are ignored.

That's why basketball cannot be described as a "true sport." Fishing, on the other hand, that's a true sport because one guy catches 49 pounds and the other guy catches 48 pounds. The scale doesn't lie.

What about figure skating? We seem to be agreed that, as in basketball (mutatis mutandis), almost every jump is both pre-rotated and underrotated at least a little. Here are some contests this season where the margin of victory was less than one underrotation call -- one that was called on the loser or else one that might have been called on the winner, but wasn't.

Skate America, Meissner over Ando
Cup of China, Weir over Lysacek
NHK, Kostner over Meier
GP Final, Lambiel over Takahashi
Euros, Kostner over Meier
U.S. Nationals, 3-way, Nagasu over Flatt and Wagner
U.S. Nationals, Lysacek over Weir
Junior Worlds, Flatt over Zhang

One could easily argue that all of these contests were decided, not by what the skaters put on the ice, but by the whim of a single questionable call or non-call.

 

[feraina]

(1/60pi)e^[(-1/2)(x-100)/30)^2]

I think you would want a logistic or sigmoidal function, not normal, because the probability of being downgraded ought to monotonically increase with how much you under-rotate.

 

[Mathman]

I think you would want a logistic or sigmoidal function, not normal, because the probability of being downgraded ought to monotonically increase with how much you under-rotate.

*Smacks head* (why don't we have a smiley for that?)

Oh. Yeah.

Hmm. I still think that would be the right idea in the most interesting case, though. Let's say the skater underrotates by 80 degrees and the caller typically calls it at 100 degrees. So we are talking about the intersection of the two distributions (one of them normal), and the effect on this intersection of sliding the skater's graph to the left. This is monotone decreasing as the skater gets better and better.

I will think this through and start a thread on the Edge about it if anything interesting pops up.

 

[megsy]

A hematoma is a serious bruise, where internal bleeding has caused the skin to swell and the bruise to collect as a pool of blood beneath the skin.

Think of it as a hard bruise, with a pool of blood underneath. Can need surgery to resolve, otherwise, the hematoma can stay as a raised lump on the body for up to a year, depending on how large and where it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematoma - here, the guy in the photo had 150ml of blood drained from his hematoma.

I fell down a flight of stairs in a shop, and got a hematoma - I couldn't walk properly for a week.

 

[PolymerBob]

I fell down a flight of stairs in a shop, and got a hematoma - I couldn't walk properly for a week.

Well, I know of a girl who had one of those, and did a triple-triple.

 

[Bennett]

Congrat's to all the medalists!

I expected that Flatt might be the one who would win given the small margin Mirai had after SP; and she did it.

I am also glad that Caroline medaled here.

Personally, I am a bit sad that Mirai didn't win after all the brilliant records this season. But her comments are very respectable. she always shows such a good attitude! Good girl!

 

[ChrisH]

I sadly agree. Under this new judging system we are seeing contest after contest being decided by officials' whimsy.

From the very beginnings of the CoP, I said the Caller (the name used in the early days) was all powerful. As usual, no one agreed.

Here are some contests this season where the margin of victory was less than one underrotation call -- one that was called on the loser or else one that might have been called on the winner, but wasn't.

Skate America, Meissner over Ando
Cup of China, Weir over Lysacek
NHK, Kostner over Meier
GP Final, Lambiel over Takahashi
Euros, Kostner over Meier
U.S. Nationals, 3-way, Nagasu over Flatt and Wagner
U.S. Nationals, Lysacek over Weir
Junior Worlds, Flatt over Zhang

One could easily argue that all of these contests were decided, not by what the skaters put on the ice, but by the whim of a single questionable call or non-call.

It's not just that a lot depends on the technical specialist, but his calls can affect (and perhaps even overrule) the GoEs (and perhaps even the PCSs) of the judges. Many of the observations of the judges are thus lost. I believe that Mathman said something similar to this previously.

It wouldn't be so bad that the technical specialist can overrule the judges if the specialist was always right ...