I am not so terribly impressed when they push Scott Hamilton out afterward for damage control. He seemed embarrassed, and rightly so. He was stuck saying, no, you foolish people, Mirai's performance wasn't wonderful after all (like I thought yesterday, seeing it just like you before my very eyes). When you see it in slow motion you can see some flaws. And that's why the judges and the skating establishment are right, and all you sillies in the audience are wrong to like what you like.
You make it sound as though USFS was so embarrassed at the results they told Hamilton to go back on TV and explain the results better.
Any reason to believe that was the case? Isn't it the network, not the federation, that pushes Scott Hamilton out afterward for damage control -- to control the "damage" that he created in the first place with overenthusiastic untechnical commentary?
In the second place, no one is telling us we're wrong to like what we like. It's just that what we enjoy while watching uncritically for aesthetic reasons may not always match what the technical criteria of the sport. That's nothing new.
The results tell us that underrotated jumps are worth less than fully rotated jumps (by 2010 rules, quite a bit lower point value for only slightly less rotation -- the addition of the "underrotated" vs. "downgraded" call as of 2010-11 season could be considered damage control to mitigate that overpenalization).
The figure skating establishment never claimed that whoever the audience likes best deserves to win regardless of technical details. If the network producers and commentators choose to give that impression to try to get audiences emotionally involved, and then it backfires when technical details end up trumping likability, that's the network's mess. Same as if, for example, a tennis commentator overlooked a charismatic player's serve going out of bounds because they were so busy promoting the player's personality.
Regardless of how strict the technical rules are or what particular technical skills -- or presentation skills, for that matter -- are most favored by that year's rules and guidelines, there will be times when the commentators and audiences and often a minority of the judging panel will prefer one skater but the majority on the panel prefer a different one. As long as they're evaluating the skaters according to the established rules and what they actually see out there on the ice, they're not wrong. But if you prefer a skater who didn't have everything that that panel was looking to reward, that doesn't make your preference wrong. It just means you didn't agree with the consensus of this panel.
Heck, under IJS a majority of the judging panel could prefer skater A enough on PCS criteria to believe skater A deserves to win, but the way the technical calls and the base values and GOEs work out gives the win to skater B. If that consistently happens in the same direction and the judges and other officials agree with audiences and skaters and coaches that the wrong people are winning because quads aren't valued enough or clean programs aren't valued enough, or well-controlled almost-rotated jumps aren't valued enough, etc., then the rules will change to try to change that trend.
That would be an example of the ISU (or national federation, for rules that apply only domestically) doing damage control.
. It was my favorite ladies' program of the competition.
but it is so.
)
