Lambiel robbed of new PB by technical specialist!

[Doggygirl]

OK - I'm still stuck in what would probably be considered an "old fashioned" sort of place. Lambiel won Gold, but he Wuzrobbed??? I guess that comes with the NJS territory?? I'm seriously trying to get in touch with that notion. The body and brains are getting old, so I'm in need of some help.

Mean time, it looks like about 3 posters actually question the 3A / 2A downgrade. I've watched it in slo-mo a couple times via ESPN/Tivo, but I'm just not a good enough technical caller. I'm certainly an "armchair fan." (and of course, I continue with my Rose Colored Glasses and all that!!) I tend to think the caller is probably in a better position than me, both technically and from an ice position (and instant replay) to determine that call. Where am I wrong?

(and if you say that FS judging is just ALL about Lyin' and Cheatin' and it's NEVER fair, and NEVER right, then I'm gonna ask you why you keep a-watchin'!!)

DG

 

[Big Deal]

I love to see Lambiel skating, he won fair and square!

But, please stop to cry about "small country" thing in his case.
He is the only figure skaters from small country (since Denise Bielmann won in 1981), who could break the wall and was able to win something "big". Stop blame judges for that, please!!

(the other exception is the Bulgarian Dance team , which needed Linichuk/Karponosov as a coach and "lobby team" behind themseves).

 

[Tonichelle]

The question is whether he did all of the same level enhancers in the spin. Not just the positions and/or the edge changes, but holding them the required amount of time to count. Many positions in spins and spirals have not counted because they haven't been held long enough in a given competition.

a point that hasn't been used yet!

 

[antmanb]

When the New Judging System first came out, the criticism was that under the CoP it was just as easy for judges to cheat as it was before, but harder to catch them at it.

After a couple of years of seeing the new system in action, I have to take my hat off to Speedy. The main thing that the NJS does is to transfer power from the panel of judges to the the tech specialist and his team.

The reason this is a brilliant move on Cinquanta's part is that the judges are under the control of the national federations severally, but the tech specialists are certified, selected and overseen by the ISU hierarchy directly.

Most of the tech specialists are former championship level skaters themselves. In theory, they have less interest in forming a bloc with Liechtentein and Moldavia to advance the fortunes of the skater from Myanmar, than in giving the athletes a fair shake. (In practice, who knows?)

MM

And we're supposed to be happy that instead of having people who trained for years and years and had to prove themselves for years before being able to judge at the senior international championship level, they put some young fresh off competitive ice kids through a couple of weeks of training and give them the ultimate most powerful job of the whole panel? We see judging biases when a whole panel is asked to judge a skate and now we have one person with their national biases calling other skater's programs.

I can tell you i'm not happy and think its plain wrong.

Ant

 

[antmanb]

In practice is the question indeed! Suppose, in the international world of coaching, two or three on the panel and a competitor were all students of the same world-class coach, who may be retiring or whatnot. There may not be a lot to stop the panel from helping the competitor for the coach's sake.

Exactly - i mean can Alexei Urmanov really switch off the years of training and relationship built up with Alexei Mishin when he's calling the elements for a Mishin student's program? I seriously doubt it...at least under the old system his one leaning or bias wouldn't skew the whole competition like it can now he's tech specialist.

Plus its so much easier now to screw with the result - you only have to bribe the one person as opposed to at least 5.

Ant

 

[antmanb]

OK - I'm still stuck in what would probably be considered an "old fashioned" sort of place. Lambiel won Gold, but he Wuzrobbed??? I guess that comes with the NJS territory?? I'm seriously trying to get in touch with that notion. The body and brains are getting old, so I'm in need of some help.

Mean time, it looks like about 3 posters actually question the 3A / 2A downgrade. I've watched it in slo-mo a couple times via ESPN/Tivo, but I'm just not a good enough technical caller. I'm certainly an "armchair fan." (and of course, I continue with my Rose Colored Glasses and all that!!) I tend to think the caller is probably in a better position than me, both technically and from an ice position (and instant replay) to determine that call. Where am I wrong?

(and if you say that FS judging is just ALL about Lyin' and Cheatin' and it's NEVER fair, and NEVER right, then I'm gonna ask you why you keep a-watchin'!!)

DG

I'm just jumping on the i hate the NJS bandwagon!!! No i'm joking (well partly). I've still not watched my dvd of the competition (maybe i should spend less time posting and more time watching!!) but i saw a quick flash of the 3A during an ice resurface break of some other competition ( i think the ladies SP). Witout paying any attention - i noted that Labiel had landed the 3A because its a jump he might otherwise pop or mess up, like i say i didn't pay much attention other than to think good on him for landing it. Because so many people raised it as an issue i presume it is in fact an issue, and as with everything with the new judging system - what is the point in having so many damn figures and so much paperwork produced if when there is a mistake, nothing is done about it. Like someone else said if its so important to have this stupid personal best, then Lambiel would have gotten a PB for that performance had the axel counted.

My original point still stands - even if the axel was underrotated and deserved to be called a double....not one (not a single one) of the judges took the -GOE for an underrotated jump...so the scenarios are:

1. The caller got it right - the jump was more than a quarter turn and should have been called a double. In which case 9 judges need to be disciplined for bad judging because not a single one of them gave him the -GOE he should have been given for an underrotated jump under the rules...bad judges! Bad!

2. The caller got it wrong - the jump was in fact cheated but by less than 90 degrees and should have called it a triple axel. The judges still didn't take the negative GOE that it should have have gotten for being between 1 and 90 degrees short. Bad tech panel! Bad Judges! Bad everyone (including lambiel for being short).

3. The caller got it totally wrong because the jump was infact completely clean and well landed, should have called it a triple. To me this is what the judges saw - as proved by the GOEs. The majority of the officials watching the element - the people who previsouly would have each called the element, saw a triple axel and not only that but more than half of them saw a good one worthy of +1 GOE. Out of interest did Lambiel land it by the boards near the judges or away from them?

I think the caller's job is tough. I consider myself fairly good at calling the elements at home and watching in real time/live on my TV i can usually spot and underotation/two foot etc etc. But actually live in a rink with the distance its much MUCH harder. I can usually tell that there was something wrong but i couldn't tell you exactly what until i see it on TV! I don't know anyone who would happily say - i can do it perfectly live in a rink everytime...which is why i'm appawled (sp?) that the job lies with one person.

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

This whole discussion on Lambiel's 3A is a nitpick. Nothing wrong with nitpicking. It keeps the board busy during the off season.

A Caller downgraded Lambiel's 3A to a double. Eyewitnesses and TV viewers disagree. The question should be, are Callers infallible? Nothing to do with cheating - just plain old mistaken.

Joe

 

[Mathman]

1. The caller got it right - the jump was more than a quarter turn and should have been called a double. In which case 9 judges need to be disciplined for bad judging because not a single one of them gave him the -GOE he should have been given for an underrotated jump under the rules...bad judges! Bad!

If it was called a double, then it was not underrotated. (It was overrotated by almost three-quarters of a turn, but I don't think there is a mandatory GOE penalty for overrotation.)

And we're supposed to be happy that instead of having people who trained for years and years and had to prove themselves for years before being able to judge at the senior international championship level, they put some young fresh off competitive ice kids through a couple of weeks of training and give them the ultimate most powerful job of the whole panel?

If this is specifically in response to my post, I didn't mean to say anything about being happy. I meant that this aspect of the NJS was a brilliant political move by Speedy, if he is interested in augmenting his own power at the expense of the chiefs of the national federations.

What really needs to happen is some sort of "referees association," independent of both the ISU administrative hierarchy and the ISU member federations. This is how it is in every other sport, and it seems to work out fine. The issue of, maybe the referee is a personal buddy of one of the coaches, etc., does not seem to pose an insurmountable problem in other sports.

Obviously, as Joe points out, referees make mistakes. That's sport. That's life.

In other sports, fans don't expend a whole lot of energy rehashing old events, saying, "boy oh boy, the referee made a bad call on that pass interference in the third quarter of the 2001 Super Bowl. Granted, Baltimore won anyway, but still, what a terrible call." (Well, on second thought, there was that Olympic basketball game between the U.S. and Russia in 1972 that people are still talking about.)

MM

 

[antmanb]

If it was called a double, then it was not underrotated. (It was overrotated by almost three-quarters of a turn, but I don't think there is a mandatory GOE penalty for overrotation.)If this is specifically in response to my post, I didn't mean to say anything about being happy. I meant that this aspect of the NJS was a brilliant political move by Speedy, if he is interested in augmenting his own power at the expense of the chiefs of the national federations.

Nope - that's the beauty of the double penalty and why i've been complaining about it since the NJS came into effect. The caller calls the element according to the rules - if its over a quarter underrotated then the caller calls it the next rotation down - in this case an attempt at a 3A becomes a 2A. The judges then grade the jump as they see it. If it is underrotated by 1-90 degrees its -1 on the GOE and if its any more than 90 degrees its -1 to -3 on the GOE depending on severity of the cheat. The judges are giving a GOE to the attempted triple axel since they cannot mark the GOE of a jump that was never attempted and therein lies the fundamental flaw with the downgrading. In my opinion the caller should call what was attempted, the caller isn't stupid and anyone with a good knowledge of skating knows if a jump is over rotated or underotated - you never accidnetally add more than a half turn to a jump when you overotated, overrotation of a jump (at the elite level at least) only usually occurs when the skater doesn't check the landing correctly. Its the judges who should take GOEs according to how severe the underotation is.

Sorry MM i thought you were making a value judgment and saying it was a good thing that he'd increased his power in that way etc!! My mistake!!

Ant

 

[Mathman]

Nope - that's the beauty of the double penalty and why i've been complaining about it since the NJS came into effect. The caller calls the element according to the rules - if its over a quarter underrotated then the caller calls it the next rotation down - in this case an attempt at a 3A becomes a 2A. The judges then grade the jump as they see it. If it is underrotated by 1-90 degrees its -1 on the GOE and if its any more than 90 degrees its -1 to -3 on the GOE depending on severity of the cheat. The judges are giving a GOE to the attempted triple axel since they cannot mark the GOE of a jump that was never attempted and therein lies the fundamental flaw with the downgrading.

What?! Are you sure? How could this be? Can you give me a link to the ISU rules?

What if a skater pops an intended triple Axel into a nothing, or just skates through it and doesn't jump at all. Are you saying that the judges would then give a negative GOE for an underrotation of 1160 degrees?

 

[Tonichelle]

In other sports, fans don't expend a whole lot of energy rehashing old events, saying, "boy oh boy, the referee made a bad call on that pass interference in the third quarter of the 2001 Super Bowl. Granted, Baltimore won anyway, but still, what a terrible call." (Well, on second thought, there was that Olympic basketball game between the U.S. and Russia in 1972 that people are still talking about.)

MM

do you ever watch Terry Bradshaw and Co. on Fox Sports during the Football season... they moan and groan over bad calls made in the 80s and 90s! LOL

What if a skater pops an intended triple Axel into a nothing, or just skates through it and doesn't jump at all. Are you saying that the judges would then give a negative GOE for an underrotation of 1160 degrees?

not that I know anything about the scoring system, but after the mens final at nationals the judges we were sitting with (Randy Gardner! too! lol) were talking about Mike getting fourth and one of the judges said that if he'd just let himself fall instead of popping the 3axel he'd be 3rd, not Savoie... I have no idea why but that's what we heard them saying and we basically said "really?" and he repeated himself lol (it didn't help MY feeling better about him not going to the olys at the time though)

ok I'll go back into hiding... this system makes me feel stupid lol

 

[Mathman]

Terry Bradshaw?!! He's a fine one to talk! The only reason the Pittsburgh Steelers won the NFC title and went on to the Super Bowl that year was because of the "immaculate reception." A referee's blown call on the last play of the game let Franco Harris score a phantom touchdown. Boooo!

About Weiss' triple Axel, I understand what they were saying (whether I agree that this is a good rule is another question, but still...)

If you do a triple Axel but fall on the landing you get 7.5 base points for the element, then you get a -3 GOE and -1 fall deduction for the element. So you end up with 3.5 point for the element.

If you pop it into a double, you only get 3.3 (and then you still might get a negative GOE to subtract from that).

And if you pop it into a single, you only get 0.8 points.

So it is always better to go for the big jumps (provided you can complete the rotations), even if you fall. This strategy for the quad got Jeff Buttle an Olympic gold medal.

MM

 

[tarotx]

....This strategy for the quad got Jeff Buttle an Olympic gold medal.

MM

 

[Mathman]

(I meant bronze.)

 

[Doggygirl]

Score Sheet Trivia!!!!

I love it. Toni, I was very interested in the point brought up about Weiss's popped Axel (into a 1A) at US Nats. I hunted down the score sheets.

Strictly on the technical happenings, Weiss would not have been in the medals if he fully rotated the 3A but fell, v. popping to a landed 1A. Here are the points for the TES portion:

The difference between Matt's total score and Mikey's total score was 10.88 points. (this assumes I wrote down the SP and LP total scores correctly from USFSA, and then typed them in correctly to my mini-spreadsheet. A big assumption right off the bat. )

For Mikey, the popped Axel in question was in the "time zone" for the 10% bonus. So scores are adjusted to reflect that.

Reality: What Mikey got for the popped Axel to a 1A was .9 in base value, and another factored -.11 in GOE for a total of .79 for that element.

What-If: If Mikey had completed a 3A in revolution, but with a fall, he would have gotten 8.3 base value for the element, but -4 total in deductions for the fall (-3 GOE, -1 Fall) for a total of 4.3 for the element.

That's a difference in tech score of 3.51 between what he did, and what a different result might have been on that jump. Clearly not enough to make up the 10.88 deficit between him and Matt for spot 3 on the podium.

There are a couple of other interesting things in the "What-If." After the 1A (which was after an already done 3A combo early in the program) Michael was also credited with a 2A. Was that an attempt to get another 3A in? If he hadn't popped into the 1A, would that have been a 3S? (the only other tripple jump that I can see that could have been counted at that point - Zayak).

Had Mikey rotated the 3A with a fall, then done a 3S in place of the 2A (assuming no + or - GOE) that would have eked out a little more in points, but still not enough to make up the deficit between him and Matt. Actually, since this is a "What-If" had Mikey completed the 3A attempt without a fall, and done a 3S rather than the 2A, that STILL would not have made up the point difference between him and Matt for the podium.

What might have made a difference to affect podium would lie in PCS. And I would agree that if Mikey had skated the program differently (solo 3A, especially WITH a landing, and a 3S instead of the 2A that followed) then that might have quite fairly had a positive influence on PCS. I do believe that well executed, difficult programs deserve PCS props, especially in P/E and IN categories, and one might argue that great SS skills are required to execute a TES worthy program too.

So Toni, I find the judge comment QUITE interesting since Mikey on the podium cannot really be justified on TES alone. It would take some adjusting in PCS as well to make that statement work.

(I will reiterate what MM has said before - "presentation" marks followed technical marks in 6.0 as well. And I don't have a huge problem with that, because presenting a more difficult program effectively IMO should get higher presentation marks than presenting a lesser technical program effectively)

I hope we can get a decent discussion going about this. I think it gets to the core of NJS, and the impact.

DG

So the only thing left to consider is the PCS.

 

[Mathman]

The difference between Matt's total score and Mikey's total score was 10.88 points. (this assumes I wrote down the SP and LP total scores correctly from USFSA, and then typed them in correctly to my mini-spreadsheet. .

I think the difference at that point was only 4.88 points.

Savoie beat Weiss by 10 points in the LP, but Weiss was ahead by five points after the short. (Weiss, 77.55 + 139.93 = 217.48. Savoie, 72.50 + 149.86 = 222.36.)

So if Weiss had made up 3.5 points on the triple Axel, that would have almost closed the gap entirely, all by itself. (Of course, there is no guarantee that Michelle would have completed the revolutions anyway -- one presumes that he didn't pop it into a single on purpose!)

Based on the past experiences of these two skaters, it seems quite likely that the judges might have upped Weiss' PCS a tad if he was on the verge of making the podium. Throughout his career Matthew has had to struggle to squeeze any recognition out of the judges for his masterly presentation skills. The judges do like Mike.

MM

 

[Tonichelle]

So if Weiss had made up 3.5 points on the triple Axel, that would have almost closed the gap entirely, all by itself. (Of course, there is no guarantee that Michelle would have completed the revolutions anyway -- one presumes that he didn't pop it into a single on purpose!)

MM - what's with the Michelle mention halfway through???

 

[Doggygirl]

I think the difference at that point was only 4.88 points.

Savoie beat Weiss by 10 points in the LP, but Weiss was ahead by five points after the short. (Weiss, 77.55 + 139.93 = 217.48. Savoie, 72.50 + 149.86 = 222.36.)

So if Weiss had made up 3.5 points on the triple Axel, that would have almost closed the gap entirely, all by itself. (Of course, there is no guarantee that Michelle would have completed the revolutions anyway -- one presumes that he didn't pop it into a single on purpose!)

Based on the past experiences of these two skaters, it seems quite likely that the judges might have upped Weiss' PCS a tad if he was on the verge of making the podium. Throughout his career Matthew has had to struggle to squeeze any recognition out of the judges for his masterly presentation skills. The judges do like Mike.

MM

It's great that I don't "audit" anything using a "spreadsheet" for my living LOL!! MM, you are right. I made a typo in my original sheet (NOTE to USFSA - please put together the protocols in a similar way to the ISU, the Japanese Federation , every other Federation, and NBC for the Oly's.) You are correct that the total score difference between Mikey and Matt (SP+LP) was 4.88 points to Matt, at least according to my "corrections."

While that closes the gap a bit, it still doesn't leave Mikey with a podium finish on a total TES basis, replacing a 3A Fall (4.3 points, inc. -3 GOE, -1 Fall, 10% bonus) subbed for the 1A pop (.79 inc net -.11 GOE, 10% bonus). But ITA on your PCS point, and I agree. I view PCS as the way of looking at the program as a whole (even though it's broken down into many descriptions of specific things). So IMO, a better technical program will probably garner relatively higher PCS. AOK by ME.


DG

 

[Jaana]

He won! That should have made you happy but you are so focused on the negative that it seems nothing will make you happy. Your comments that others hate Lambiel or that the judges are anti-Lambiel are laughable considering that he won 2 world titles, one Olympic silver (with a poor skate), and one GPF. Vash

Yes, Lambiel won, but also I find it very worrysome that in spite of the video he was not judged by the technical panel rightly. If as it seems that the technical panel of Scott Davies, Pirjo Uimonen and Benoit Lavoie did such a mistake e.g. at the triple axel, they should not be allowed to be in the panels at important competitions like Worlds or Olympics any more. THIS time it did not matter so much because Lambiel won anyway. NEXT time it might happen in a situation where it really matters. Incompetence should be noticed by ISU and an action to be taken, in my opinion.

 

[anything_for_skating]

Can you all just stop talking like you know everything? Don't get me wrong, but you are posting like you are technical specialists yourself.