I agree with this. I've been ambivalent about the pros/cons of COP, but the Vancouver Olympics are not going to help those who oppose the system. Their logic garnered sympathy in large part due to poor field performances under COP in the past. But the level of performances in Vancouver no longer supports that position. It looks like skaters and coaches have learned to deal with the system, and more importantly the system was able to produce correct winners. I don't think there was much confusion about scores, either, except perhaps for the most casual level of viewers who were used to seeing 6.0's for decades.
Mid-point base value may be given to URed jumps
- Thread starter Bennett
- Start date
I disagree.... The midpoint base score on underrotation is a reasonable compromise between the current system and those who would simply ignore UR's. Simply dealing with underroations in the GOE is insufficient. Underrotation of jumps is a far more serious error than edge calls and should be dealt with more harshly.
If the midpoint base value were used and the GOE is allowed to be -3 - 0 (personally no one deserves a + GOE on an underrotated jump) then this would be a reasonable improvement to the system.
I don't think that UR is a more serious error than the wrong edge. Edge error occurs more consistently than the UR.
But ultimately, an under-rotation is poor execution. An UR triple isn't a double and making it something in between just continues the silliness of downgrading a jump and then whacking it again on GOE. Maybe an edge call should get an automatic -1 GOE (what does it get now?) and an UR an automatic -2. But an UR shouldn't get penalized twice (unless the negative GOE is for a poor landing or some other problem not related to the UR).
That's the thing. There needs to be room to penalize jumps that have multiple errors -- underrotation and also other errors.
At a certain point a really really badly failed attempt will end up not getting penalized for everything that was wrong with it. But just 3 levels of GOE reduction is not sufficient to distinguish between jumps with varying degrees of underrotation and no other errors, jumps that are fully rotated with errors, and jumps that are underrotated and also have other serious and/or multiple errors.
If anything that's recognizable as a triple attempt is to start with the base mark of the fully rotated triple, then judges need to have the option to distinguish between a fully rotated jump with mostly good technique that ends in a fall, a moderately cheated jump that otherwise looks good, and a badly cheated jump that's also badly telegraphed or has an incorrect takeoff, etc., and also results in a fall, step out, or two-foot landing.
Mid-point base value for jumps cheated 90-180 degrees, with GOEs up to 0 allowed especially in combinations with only one cheat, and down to -3 for other errors, is one way to do it.
Full base value with negative GOEs down to, say, -5 would be another way to handle it. The really disastrous attempts might deserve more like -6 or -7, but you have to draw the line somewhere. -3 is too generous for those failures compared with lesser or fewer errors.
At a certain point a really really badly failed attempt will end up not getting penalized for everything that was wrong with it. But just 3 levels of GOE reduction is not sufficient to distinguish between jumps with varying degrees of underrotation and no other errors, jumps that are fully rotated with errors, and jumps that are underrotated and also have other serious and/or multiple errors.
If anything that's recognizable as a triple attempt is to start with the base mark of the fully rotated triple, then judges need to have the option to distinguish between a fully rotated jump with mostly good technique that ends in a fall, a moderately cheated jump that otherwise looks good, and a badly cheated jump that's also badly telegraphed or has an incorrect takeoff, etc., and also results in a fall, step out, or two-foot landing.
Mid-point base value for jumps cheated 90-180 degrees, with GOEs up to 0 allowed especially in combinations with only one cheat, and down to -3 for other errors, is one way to do it.
Full base value with negative GOEs down to, say, -5 would be another way to handle it. The really disastrous attempts might deserve more like -6 or -7, but you have to draw the line somewhere. -3 is too generous for those failures compared with lesser or fewer errors.
You continue to insist that UR's get penalized twice this is not true. Currently the UR is a lower base value (the same as the jump with one rotation less) and the GOE for a UR can be anywhere from -3 to +2. Where is the double penalty? If you are assume that any UR is also a fall then yes you will get double dinged and you would deserve it!
Edge changes aren't nearly as severe as underrotations (you will never convice me or most skaters I know otherwise). That being said I have always felt that severe edge changes should alter the jump call to the actual jump executed. In otherwords a flutz should be called as a flip.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
So what should eb done about an underotated triple lutz with an change of edge that ends in a fall?
A fall is -3 across the board - so a skater who took off an otherwise well executed lutz of teh proper edge, ends up with the same score for that element as a skater who didn't rotate it or take off on the correct edge. That doesn't seem right to me.
Ant
Yes you could do it this way as long as there were checks in the system to ensure that there are manditory deductions applied for certian errors. I personally would want to see more than a +-5 range as the system is confusing enough to the casual viewers as it is. This is were having the UR calls obvious on the score card and based differently is an advantage it is a clear indicator as to why the element was scored lower. The skaters certainly appreciate knowing that they aren't rotating their jumps and they know to work on that aspect of their skating. Remember that the detail are more about providing feed back to the skaters than the fans.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I think the double penalty goes like this. If a judge believes that a jump is under rotated, that judge is supposed to factor that error in as -1 to -3 in his/her calculation of the GOE. True, the total GOE for the jump might be higher if it has positive features to outweigh the negative. But in the case where every other aspect of the jump is OK, neither good nor bad, the judge is expected to give -1 to -3 GOE depending on the judge's opinion of the severity of the under rotation.
This is on top of the downgrade to the lower base value by the technical specialist.
So the idea is that the same error is penalized by the technical specialist and then again, separately, by the judges.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
anything to make the scoring system of this sport more complicated than it already is or has to be, will have the effect of a Toyota Prius zooming out of control. Who the heck in that Arena is going to say Oh she got half a score for the UR. hmmm.
When I see competition LIVE, I can name the podium of 3 deserving podiumists.
I can name the Winner 99 out of 100 views.
When I see competition LIVE, I can name the podium of 3 deserving podiumists.
I can name the Winner 99 out of 100 views.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2010
Stupid idea. The ISU needs to reduce the role of technical controllers. Technical controllers should stop counting rotations under microscope which they are not capable of doing right anyway.Judges can decide to give -1 to -3 to an underrotated jump just as under 6.0.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
They should also get rid of the judges, because none of them seem to score PCS correctly. And the ice, as it somehow keeps causing skaters to land poorly. Then they could call it the Mr. and Miss World Pageant.
Similar threads
