Lambiel robbed of new PB by technical specialist!

[antmanb]

But in 2004 he came roaring back as captain of team Fuzion of the Major League Figure Skating league.

Fuzion beat team Velocity, headed by Tonia Kwiatkowski (I have an autographed picture! ) for the championship.

http://www.mlfskating.com/shell.asp?Target=index

What ever happened to the ML figure skating league?

Ant

 

[Mathman]

I guess the "league" itself is inactive. But according to their site, they are the ones behind Kristi Yamaguchi's "reality" show, Skating's Next Star.

 

[anything_for_skating]

read this-and pay some attention to it...

OK,all of you are just ignoring me.....:sheesh:
Just one thing to add to this:
As all of you started to talk about Stephane's axel, you also started to talk about Technical Specialists.
I didn't read all of the posts (so long, how did you write it anyway?), but I know a lot of you started to comment specialists.
I have something to say on it:
Technical specialists are just the same normal people as you are. Urmanov was a world champion, why he wouldn't be a specialist? You just have no idea how hard and stressfull is to give that exam and become a specialist. There are ex-top skaters who couldn't do it. Chill out, about judging other people's lifes...
Trust me, I know why am I telling you this, I have a good reason for that.
That's all.
Hope you will not ignore it.

 

[Mathman]

Anything for Skating, people are not ignoring you. Some people just have different opinions, that's all.

You are saying to give the technical specialists a break. Others are saying, sure, but still we want to do everything possible to hold them to the highest standards.

Everyone makes mistakes. As for me, what I want from figure skating judging is zeal and transparency in holding the mistakes to a minimum.

MM

 

[anything_for_skating]

Anything for Skating, people are not ignoring you. Some people just have different opinions, that's all.

You are saying to give the technical specialists a break. Others are saying, sure, but still we want to do everything possible to hold them to the highest standards.

Everyone makes mistakes. As for me, what I want from figure skating judging is zeal and transparency in holding the mistakes to a minimum.

MM

I know all of what you are saying, I am not telling that we should just forget about the mistake. I am just saying...you started to talk about specialists and about Urmanov, and everybody...why he wouldn't be a judge? Viktor Petrenko's brother also did an exam last year.

About Lambiel's case...look, we all know that nobody can talk against specialist. His/Her word is a law. But wherever a skater who they,let's say don't like, makes a mistake-they can take it badly...

Let's face Stephane's axel: IT WAS LANDED BETWEEN A QUARTER AND A FULL TURN, and by the new rules, it's a clean jump.

There are two options:
1)according to the rules, what a skater does with his uper body doesn't have matter. Maybe specialist made a mistake of this type. But come on, everybody are turning the body before they jump....
2)as I said, specialist could take his mark off because he just made the rotation. That would also make a clear way for Canadian and American skaters.

For me, it's option No2. In any of the cases, specialist has made a huge mistake.

 

[slutskayafan21]

I am glad many of you saw this injustice, and even those who did not are willing to engage in a healthy debate over this. It would be a travesty if something like this was not atleast examined and scrutinized and I think all those who participated and kept this thread alive.

 

[Zuranthium]

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!

This part doesn't make sense. If the jump was downgraded to a 2Axel then it most certainly wouldn't have been underrotated. As a 2Axel it actually would have had an EXTRA half rotation (or whatever extra amount it was that caused it to come up short of a 3Axel).

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

This part doesn't make sense. If the jump was downgraded to a 2Axel then it most certainly wouldn't have been underrotated. As a 2Axel it actually would have had an EXTRA half rotation (or whatever extra amount it was that caused it to come up short of a 3Axel).

I think after the downgrade the judges then give - scores out for overrotation. the whole concept of this is silly especilly when one does a flip instead of a lutz and is credited with a flawed lutz. You figure.

AntmanB - Those 9 judges are telling the caller to be careful. I wonder if they will bring this up in that supposed meeting in May?

Joe

 

[antmanb]

This part doesn't make sense. If the jump was downgraded to a 2Axel then it most certainly wouldn't have been underrotated. As a 2Axel it actually would have had an EXTRA half rotation (or whatever extra amount it was that caused it to come up short of a 3Axel).

Sorry i don't understand your statement - the bit i've highlighted is the part i'm struggling to understand - if the jump was downgraded then it has to have been underrotated, otherwise it wouldn't have been downgraded, it would have been called a triple.

Ant

 

[antmanb]

I think after the downgrade the judges then give - scores out for overrotation. the whole concept of this is silly especilly when one does a flip instead of a lutz and is credited with a flawed lutz. You figure.

AntmanB - Those 9 judges are telling the caller to be careful. I wonder if they will bring this up in that supposed meeting in May?

Joe

I hope so...it highlights my other huge issue with the system - the judges (who are the ones that have been doing this for years and gone through years of training) are all being overruled by an overzealous technical panel...that just isn't right.

Let's hope they do kick up a fuss and this underrotating double penalty is gotten rid of.

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I hope so...it highlights my other huge issue with the system - the judges (who are the ones that have been doing this for years and gone through years of training) are all being overruled by an overzealous technical panel...that just isn't right.

Let's hope they do kick up a fuss and this underrotating double penalty is gotten rid of.

Ant

It would be a help, if the Caller announces an underrotated jump to be studied on the monitor after the skate. the defiitive results would be a majority of the officials in attendance.

Joe

 

[antmanb]

It would be a help, if the Caller announces an underrotated jump to be studied on the monitor after the skate. the defiitive results would be a majority of the officials in attendance.

Joe

I agree that would be a much better way to have a majority rules on the call of an underrotated jump. The only potential problem with that is that the GOE should be different depending on the call of the jump so would th ejudges who gave a GOE to the "different" jump (ie the jump they saw rather than the one that was called) get to go back and change it?

Actually my solution for this is to not have the jump downgraded at all - the caller should call what was clearly attempted - a third short on rotation on a triple is clearly an attempted triple not an attempted doube, and then have harsh GOE penalties for the jump that makes it worth less than a base value double.

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Actually my solution for this is to not have the jump downgraded at all - the caller should call what was clearly attempted - a third short on rotation on a triple is clearly an attempted triple not an attempted doube, and then have harsh GOE penalties for the jump that makes it worth less than a base value double.

Ant

Now, that makes the most sense, and it is already in operation when you consider that they judge an attempted lutz.

Joe

 

[Mathman]

Still, that opens a can of worms. Is a popped jump an "attempted triple?" Is a triple an attempted quad? What constitutes an "attempt?"

In my last program I attempted some level four circular footwork, but instead I fell on my face and lay there for 20 seconds.

 

[hockeyfan228]

Actually my solution for this is to not have the jump downgraded at all - the caller should call what was clearly attempted - a third short on rotation on a triple is clearly an attempted triple not an attempted doube, and then have harsh GOE penalties for the jump that makes it worth less than a base value double.

I think the opposite should happen: the caller should call what is actually performed, and the judges should give it GOE without the underrotation penalty. The downgrade already decreases the base value by more than half:

3T to 2T: 4.0 to 1.3
4T to 3T: 9.0 to 4.0

It is impossible for a caller to call a flutz a flip and a lip a lutz, because as I believe gkelly (please correct me if I'm wrong) has explained, there is more to a lutz and a flip than the take-off edge. A flutz and flip are lutzes and flips with improper take-off edges, for which CoP has specific deductions based on severity, or they are hybrids which are not defined on the points grid and receive 0 points, which I think would be absurdly harsh.

 

[Vash01]

I agree that would be a much better way to have a majority rules on the call of an underrotated jump. The only potential problem with that is that the GOE should be different depending on the call of the jump so would th ejudges who gave a GOE to the "different" jump (ie the jump they saw rather than the one that was called) get to go back and change it?

Actually my solution for this is to not have the jump downgraded at all - the caller should call what was clearly attempted - a third short on rotation on a triple is clearly an attempted triple not an attempted doube, and then have harsh GOE penalties for the jump that makes it worth less than a base value double.

Ant

I agree with this approach. When a jump is downgraded, it is a severe penalty. Assessing a GOE penalty on top of it does not make sense. Either they should penalize the underrotation or the negative GOE on the jump that was ATTEMPTED.

Vash

 

[antmanb]

Still, that opens a can of worms. Is a popped jump an "attempted triple?" Is a triple an attempted quad? What constitutes an "attempt?"

In my last program I attempted some level four circular footwork, but instead I fell on my face and lay there for 20 seconds.

I don't think it does - it never did under 6.0. A popped jump is exactly that - a popped jump. Regardless what the skater puts on the crib sheet given to the judges, they do what they do. Anyone with any knowledge of skating knows very well whether a jump is underrotated or overrotated - the two cannot ever be confused, at all, certainyl not at the international senior level.

An attempt is what you put out on the ice. A popped jump is a popped jump - you opened out and landed a double whatever. You slip off the entrance edge to a triple loop and all you completed was a fall (certainly not take up one of your jumping passed with "Lp 0" on the score sheet).

Ant

 

[antmanb]

I think the opposite should happen: the caller should call what is actually performed, and the judges should give it GOE without the underrotation penalty. The downgrade already decreases the base value by more than half:

3T to 2T: 4.0 to 1.3
4T to 3T: 9.0 to 4.0

It is impossible for a caller to call a flutz a flip and a lip a lutz, because as I believe gkelly (please correct me if I'm wrong) has explained, there is more to a lutz and a flip than the take-off edge. A flutz and flip are lutzes and flips with improper take-off edges, for which CoP has specific deductions based on severity, or they are hybrids which are not defined on the points grid and receive 0 points, which I think would be absurdly harsh.

I see what you are saying and honestly i don't mind which they do so long as the double penalty is removed.

The reason i lean more to getting rid of the downgrade is because the jump is flawed therefore philosophically i don't see how you could just give a GOE of 0 even if it is called a revolution short because a GOE of 0 denotes that the jump was adequate when it clearly was not - it was flawed. To my mind the jump (a triple that is a third short) is definitely a flawed triple rather than a flawed double.

Again that's how the flutzing/lipping penalty works too - the jump is called what the attempt was ie a Lutz or a Flip and the error is taken into account with the GOE depending on the severity of the change of edge.

Alternatively an new off the wall idea - how about a multiplier reduction on the base value of the jump depending on the severity of the underotation so a quarter turn short gets the base value multiplied by 0.9, up to half a turn short base value multiplied by 0.75, anything more than half a turn short gets a 0.5 multiplier?

Obvisouly that's thumb in the air figures but you see what the theory is behind it, i think if the multiplier is put on then you could still give a negative GOE in order to penalise the jump enough such that a half turn short gets 0.5 multiplier (which would in most cases still make it worth more than a clean double) but i don't think an underotated jump short by half should get as much credit as a clean double so the added GOE should leave it about right (obviously a more scientific appraoch could be taken to working out the proper mulitipliers and potential GOEs!!!).

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

It is impossible for a caller to call a flutz a flip and a lip a lutz, because as I believe gkelly (please correct me if I'm wrong) has explained, there is more to a lutz and a flip than the take-off edge. A flutz and flip are lutzes and flips with improper take-off edges, for which CoP has specific deductions based on severity, or they are hybrids which are not defined on the points grid and receive 0 points, which I think would be absurdly harsh.

One could also attempt a lutz and take off with the skating blade on the flat. Kwan has done that a few times, and a hundred years ago, it was my specialty. We called that a flutz (flat lutz). Once it hits a back inside edge it may be an attempted lutz but it sure is a flip.

Joe

 

[hockeyfan228]

Once it hits a back inside edge it may be an attempted lutz but it sure is a flip. Joe

Except that the body in the entrance to the jump is sure not a flip.