Russian (Supposed) inflations and their Olympic consequences

[Olympia]

One small point:

There are always going to be disputes and feelings of "wuzobbed" in one competition or another. But it's important to remember that back in the 6.0 days or even in the early CoP days, underrotations were not scrutinized as closely by judges, and certain other elements weren't marked down either, so you can't compare, say, Sarah Hughes' free skate in 2002 with anyone's of today. You could still make a case for judges' bias in any of those situations, but you can't use those details as evidence.

 

[capcomeback]

But her actual skating between elements which is what PCS is supposed to judge is not. PCS and jumps are supposed to be disconnected until jumping errors start to completely wreck the program. Having said that though from what she did in the SP her PCS should have been about 30 with a max of 31. I haven't actually seen her LP, but judging from what the protocol says and what she did at Nationals combined ith what went on with other PCS I would put her at 62 max.

What you're talking about is "transitions" that is only one part of PCS. I think Julia gets an edge here but we're not talking about a Kostner type advantage. In comparison, Polina is pretty much on par with Julia in most aspects of PCS. They're both young and budding in their artistry. Julia tried to mask her deficiencies in this with her music and costume in her FS. Polina with her light, upbeat FS program. In fairness to Polina, transitions are much more apparent in a lyrical piece like Julia skated.

Bottom line: the Russians had their PCS jacked way more than everybody else (despite most skaters receiving some inflation).

 

[dardar1126]

Twitter:

Retweeted by Lynn Rutherford
Christina Gao ‏@christina_gao 3h
Check out the article on judging in figure skating I wrote for The Harvard Crimson opinion section! (@CrimsonOpinion) http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014/2/26/on-thin-ice/ …

 

[usethis2]

One small point:

There are always going to be disputes and feelings of "wuzobbed" in one competition or another. But it's important to remember that back in the 6.0 days or even in the early CoP days, underrotations were not scrutinized as closely by judges, and certain other elements weren't marked down either, so you can't compare, say, Sarah Hughes' free skate in 2002 with anyone's of today. You could still make a case for judges' bias in any of those situations, but you can't use those details as evidence.

I agree with that. Different times, different systems, similar corruptions. The devil is in the details.

 

[Spinerette]

So Christina Gao is supporting the idea that Kim lost because she had six triples. Then how did Carolina and Mao not beat Adelina. No wonder Gao never made the Olympic and the World team-she doesn't know how to add the base values of the jumps from the sp and the lp.

 

[Spinerette]

Such a shame !!! People like Hamilton or Sandra B. should also speak out, but they don't have the courage to do it or they are blind. I really liked Kurt Browning's comments about the whole thing : "You don't become a better skater in such a short period of time" or that her components SHOULDN'T be near Yuna's

I watched Sandra's interview on the skating lesson. She probably thinks that Yuna should win judging from all the disdain she felt about the cheating incident in 2002. However, I think she's keeping her mouth shut so she could keep her job at NBC.

 

[usethis2]

So Christina Gao is supporting the idea that Kim lost because she had six triples. Then how did Carolina and Mao not beat Adelina. No wonder Gao never made the Olympic and the World team-she doesn't know how to add the base values of the jumps from the sp and the lp.

I did not get that vibe out of Gao's piece.

 

[jenaj]

Adelina had a great FS at Bompard, Her score allowed her to be competitive with The likes of Wagner
That's 3 months ago.

But I think she lost points for her see-through dress.

 

[jenaj]

Salt Lake City

Gold for Hughes??? 5,6 for Slutskaya's artistry))) Scandalous second gold for Canadians...

Vancouver

Scandalous scores for Chan, Dube/Davidson, bronze for Rochette... Gold for safe Evan with no quad?

It happens every time.

What you guys are saying is double standards. You're ok with winnings of those who are immature, young but North Americans (Lipinski, Hughes, Gold) or mature but not good enough in TES as long as they're North Americans (Evan, Rochette...).

All the underrotations and falls will not be counted for Russians and will be for others. Face it! Nobody's going to rob those who truly deserve it. If they don't fall. Men: Hanyu or Chan, Women: Mao or Yu-Na. Pairs: VT or SS. Ice dance: VM or DW.

VT will win if they don't make major mistakes. What's wrong with that? BS or IK will get the bronze if they are 100% clean. Julia and Adelina will medal if they're clean, can win if Mao and Yu-Na make mistakes.

What's wrong with that?

Since when is there such a thing as a North American bias? The US and Canada are rivals. It's like saying the Japanese and Koreans vote together to prop up their skaters. Sarah Hughes won by default, not by any bias. Evan won because the Russians hadn't figured out yet how to put one of their own skaters over the top. Just look at Plushenkos's PCS, for a transitionless program, performed with none of his usual bravado. And he only lost by a small fraction, as I recall. I do agree that there is Canadian bias but the second gold medal to S&P was the result of a French judge admitting she had been pressured to cheat. It is twisted logic to assume that Canadian bias influenced the outcome of an event not even held in Canada. And many (US) Americans are not OK with Lipinski's win over Kwan. It is still being debated after all of these years.

 

[ILuvYuna]

But a flutz is a flutz. Flutz deserves -GOE not +1.4

Hi guys I'm new

I've been thinking about this since the ladies event (can't hide the bias in my username ), and I wonder if anyone else agrees that they really ought to take a much tougher stance when it comes to flutzing. I think it should be considered way more serious than just a matter of GoE.

The reason is because the 3Lz is considered second only to the 3A in terms of difficulty (quads not considered), and I think if it's truly supposed to be one of the skills that separates "la creme de la creme", then that fact should translate directly into the base value points and overall score.

For example: if you claim to have a skill in your repertoire - in this case 3Lz - and you don't perform it, it should be considered an omission, and thus the base value of 6 should be omitted from your score as well. The "e" would be replaced by another letter (maybe "o" for omission?) and both the base value and GoE would be zero.

If the matter is debatable - say you took off a flat edge - then it would be at the judges discretion. But if they decide to count the jump as a Lz, it should be a mandatory -2GoE (on par with a bad stumble on the landing). I know that seems really harsh, but if all jumps are defined according to their take-off edge, then a near-failure to properly launch a lutz should count the same as a near-failure to land it (it's the same difference).

As it stands, it seems too easy for skaters who do not yet have a handle on this skill to claim it as part of their point total, and I think it's unfairly putting them on par with skaters who have mastered it. I don't skate myself, but for those who do - what is the point of practicing a lutz, when you can simply mimic the long entry, swing your foot around for a second to a BOE, and then change the jump completely at the last minute into something that's much easier for you? It seems all to easy to get points just for claiming that you can do something when really, you can't do it at all hwell:

Obviously, doing this would immediately put the less skilled skaters at a 6-12 pt. disadvantage to the ones who have mastered the 3Lz (at least going into the lp), but overall I think it would be a good thing. It would force the less skilled skaters to either improve their technique until they master the jump, or find ways around their point disadvantage, by improving their artistry, spins, footwork, edge quality, flexibility, endurance etc. Adjusting the scoring system in this way would be akin to an "evolutionary pressure" - forcing skaters to adapt/improve one way or another - and it would ensure that the skaters who present the most compelte package would consistently lead the pack.

Well, that's it. Let me know what you guys think about this idea (and I apologize if any of this sounds ignorant! When the scoring system changed over, I had a hard time understanding it. I don't know the finer points as I've been out of the loop for a while).

 

[capcomeback]

Hi guys I'm new

I've been thinking about this since the ladies event (can't hide the bias in my username ), and I wonder if anyone else agrees that they really ought to take a much tougher stance when it comes to flutzing. I think it should be considered way more serious than just a matter of GoE.

The reason is because the 3Lz is considered second only to the 3A in terms of difficulty (quads not considered), and I think if it's truly supposed to be one of the skills that separates "la creme de la creme", then that fact should translate directly into the base value points and overall score.

For example: if you claim to have a skill in your repertoire - in this case 3Lz - and you don't perform it, it should be considered an omission, and thus the base value of 6 should be omitted from your score as well. The "e" would be replaced by another letter (maybe "o" for omission?) and both the base value and GoE would be zero.

If the matter is debatable - say you took off a flat edge - then it would be at the judges discretion. But if they decide to count the jump as a Lz, it should be a mandatory -2GoE (on par with a bad stumble on the landing). I know that seems really harsh, but if all jumps are defined according to their take-off edge, then a near-failure to properly launch a lutz should count the same as a near-failure to land it (it's the same difference).

As it stands, it seems too easy for skaters who do not yet have a handle on this skill to claim it as part of their point total, and I think it's unfairly putting them on par with skaters who have mastered it. I don't skate myself, but for those who do - what is the point of practicing a lutz, when you can simply mimic the long entry, swing your foot around for a second to a BOE, and then change the jump completely at the last minute into something that's much easier for you? It seems all to easy to get points just for claiming that you can do something when really, you can't do it at all hwell:

Obviously, doing this would immediately put the less skilled skaters at a 6-12 pt. disadvantage to the ones who have mastered the 3Lz (at least going into the lp), but overall I think it would be a good thing. It would force the less skilled skaters to either improve their technique until they master the jump, or find ways around their point disadvantage, by improving their artistry, spins, footwork, edge quality, flexibility, endurance etc. Adjusting the scoring system in this way would be akin to an "evolutionary pressure" - forcing skaters to adapt/improve one way or another - and it would ensure that the skaters who present the most compelte package would consistently lead the pack.

Well, that's it. Let me know what you guys think about this idea (and I apologize if any of this sounds ignorant! When the scoring system changed over, I had a hard time understanding it. I don't know the finer points as I've been out of the loop for a while).

Don't worry. On the best days the scoring system is pretty confusing, lol.

I thought that there was some kind of deduction for a flutz. A flutz is really just a flip. It certainly would make sense to downgrade the combo from a 3lz/3T to a 3F/3T and then tack on the -GOE is a penalty for cheating the jump. From what I saw with Adelina, she was definitely cheating the jump and the edge call should have been made by the Tech panel. If the panel doesn't make an edge call, then it's to the judges to score it the way they see it (which is why Adelina got a -1 GOE and a zero from two judges who clearly did not think the jump was up to snuff -but since the edge call wasn't made, couldn't deduct anything. Does this sound right?

 

[usethis2]

It's really at the tech panel's whim. The system is already there but if the people are not willing to do the right thing, all is for naught.

 

[ILuvYuna]

Hi cap

I thought that there was some kind of deduction for a flutz. A flutz is really just a flip..... and the edge call should have been made by the Tech panel..... but since the edge call wasn't made, couldn't deduct anything. Does this sound right?

Yes that's exactly what happened in Adelina's long program, but I think the edge violation is decided by the Technical Specialist (so not the entire panel, but just the "caller"). To me, that seems like too much power to give to one person. As for the -1 and 0 GoE's - it must be frustrating to be in that position because sometimes flutzing & other technical errors are such that you can't help but notice it, even if you're not the caller, and yet, you have no power to call it, and the caller has all the power to ignore it. I think if it was up to me, I'd allow for the judging panel to override the caller's decisions with a 2/3rds majority vote upon replay (so 6 of 9 judges have to agree). Maybe that could mitigate the potential for corrupt calling from the technical specialist?

It certainly would make sense to downgrade the combo from a 3lz/3T to a 3F/3T and then tack on the -GOE is a penalty for cheating the jump.

Yeah, didn't they used to downgrade it sometimes in the old system?? I think it would be a good idea in the new system, but I disagree about -GOE as a penalty for a cheated lutz. I think once the caller downgrades it to a flip, it needs a grade of execution as a flip. Interesting tho, I found this score sheet on another site where Mao got an edge call for a lutz, and the deducation came out to -.60, so that it ended up being worth about the same as an average triple flip, with no deductions - so basically, just like a downgrade:

Except - notice that it happened in the long program, and she already had two other planned triple flips :sarcasm: It basically means that in the event of an edge call on a lutz - in the long program - unless you can think on your feet and change one of your upcoming flips into something else, you will accrue zero in bv for the improvised flip, because you are already maxed out on flips (right? :think: )

This sort of validates to me that the real "cheating" of a cheated triple lutz happens in the long program, where skaters usually have two triple flips already included, and they can basically sneak in two more (at higher base values!) by simply claiming them to be lutzes beforehand. So since the botched lutz/extra flip is already going to impact their bv score severely, maybe the penalty should be something really basic like -.5 from the total BV for any downgraded or added elements (small penalty for having to make changes to the base value score sheet as-was-submitted).

Anyway, to sum it up, I think the "edge violation" on a lutz is more of a giant gaping loophole than a proper penalization for what is actually happening out there. I see flutzing as nothing more than a way of getting 6-12 extra points tacked on to your total lp score for no more effort than it takes to do an extra flip or two. It's just not right, and the wrongness of it boils down to the fact that all you have to do to get those big extra points is proclaim "Hey judges, I will have lutzes in my program", and there ya go. It's +6 for "having" a lutz, and then -.6 for not even doing it (not to mention no penalty whatsoever for having more than 2 flips - assuming the Zayak rule is still in effect and I'm not showing my age here lol).

From what I saw with Adelina, she was definitely cheating the jump

I agree, although I don't mean to single out Adelina <3 I really like her and I think in time she will be able to master it. For me it's more about working out the kinks in the scoring system so that it's more fair to everyone in the future. And when it comes to the triple lutz, I really think it ought to be one of the measuring sticks of a skater's technical ability. Maybe I'm overestimating it's difficulty in comparison to the flip, but I believe the lutz deserves more respect from the scoring system than just an "edge violation" (we know how Petri Kokko felt about the finnstep & ice dance results - what would Alois Lutz think about the treatment of his own invention? )