No you don't, he clearly says "people can argue about the angle of the blade" so it doesn't sound like the support for the flutzing theory is universal.
The Judging Controversy Thread
- Thread starter Andre Smith
- Start date
Man, you really like to pull out phrases out of context to make up pointless arguments.
It's not a theory that Adelina flutzed. She did, and she always has, she just was not called on it at the Olympics. Please accept it and move on. No "Kim partisan" denies that Yuna does 6 back crossovers prior to her 3Lz/3T. She does, and she builds up tremendous speed and accelerates even further with the moves that she does after the crossovers preceding the combo.
Yes, and those errors are supposed to be penalized in the GOE. And in the base mark in case of underrotation.
Nothing to do with the program component scores, except maybe Performance/Execution if the error is disruptive.
You don't know for a fact that rules weren't followed.
Did the technical panel see the jump from the same angle as the video circulated online that shows an edge change?
If they were watching live from an angle from which neither the edge change nor the underrotation were apparent, they might not even have called for a review on that element. No review, no < or e calls.
If they reviewed the element and the angle of the video they used for the review was inconclusive, according to the rules the panel is supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the skater.
And the judges also just mark what they saw, from their angle.
For all we know the element look just fine in real time from the angle of the tech panel and most judges. Or inconclusive upon review. We can speculate as to whether that was the case, or whether officials chose to ignore obvious flaws, but without knowing for sure we can't make accept accusation as fact. We're just guessing either way.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
There are unclear edge take offs and they are not required to be negative(gkelly- am I wrong here?) Yulia gets called quite frequently but it's only a 0.30 - 0.60 deduction most cases so since her BV of a 3lz-3t is 10.80 even when reduced it still scores 10.30- 10.50 which is I believe equal to Mao's 3a. If she has an egregious edge violation I think they can go -2 but she usually is very close if not at least flat. Yulia also throws her last two spins(both level 4) in the bonus time and more times than not gets +2's and +3's for GOE which also get more points than or as much as a 3a. I've seen a few knowledgable posters say things like even with the flutz its not that detrimental to her score and only someone looking to dislike her wouldn't acknowledge the ease and flow she has on this particular jump pass. What I'm getting at is these girls are using CoP at times to maximize their scores even if errors take place early in a program.
My point is a flutz can get different levels of deductions that won't necessarily sink a program. I've never personally found a flutz to be disruptive especially if the proper deduction is applied fairly but as is the case with all Olympics especially the last group they tend to be more generous as we saw with both Adelina's and Yuna's scores but certainly across most of the top girls.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
Yes, she is distorting what I said. yes, the camera angle is not perfect, but it is close enough for anybody with a good set of eyes to see that she flutzed. There is also this little matter of thrust, pitch and torque which based upon the angle that we do have, that unless Adelina could break the laws of physics, it would highly improbable that she could have done a proper lutz.
I'm not arguing that either is more important. They are both important mistakes or cheats by the tech panel. What I meant was that the UR was definitive. The Flutz was obvious (and can be argued based upon the angle of the camera but without the laws of science or common sense backing them). I also argued that Adelina's lack of speed (caused by her not using more cross-overs entering the jumping pass) was more related to the UR than her OBVIOUS flutz. So the lack of cross-overs caused the UR, not the Flutz (Adelina just does that naturally, lol).
BTW, not a Kim fan. I was rooting for Ashley (while knowing she hadn't a snowball's chance in Hades of making it to the podium, lol).
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
A flutz is a cheat. The skater is doing a triple flip and claiming it is a triple lutz. The lutz is a harder jump and has a higher BV, so Adelina should have just done a 3F 3T and been honest about it. The notion that she could skate a clean lutz should have been thrown out when she failed to include a naked one (not in combination where the edge call would be more obvious) in the SP (choosing the 3F instead). This and with her failures on the jump in the past makes this all kind of dubious.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
I♥Yuna;883492 said:Hades is the really cold underworld
OK, I was looking for a synonym for H. E. double hockey sticks (not sure if I would get bleeped out if I spelled it out, lol)
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
That is your opinion and the set up and counter rotation isn't the same just the edge.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2011
Yes.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
Could you elaborate?
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
Agreed, but if she has problems with the Lutz and has been dinged for it, why not just do a flip (unless she knows she won't get dinged for it at the Sochi, Russia Olympics like she has practically everywhere else)? She executed the flip just fine in the SP.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
I think "Yes" works fine, lol.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
I can't think for her or her coaches but I'm not one to just assume the worst in someone. Sorry if that's cheesy but I tend to give the benefit of doubt.
My guess is that is why a judge has the power to reduce the BV by 2pts.
Well, I didn't mention PCS...so no, it has nothing to do with PCS.
gkelly, I admire and respect your commitment to defending the judging system, explaining it, and support of its integrity, but it's clear we won't see eye to eye on this.
If the technical panel didn't have a good view of the jump to see the edge change, didn't review it, and did not give the skater either an edge call or UR call that is visible with other angles, then the technical panel and the equipment and the system failed. It simply defies belief that that could happen at the Olympics. If that's what happened, that's still a failure for the technical panel, and it's also embarrassing.
This competition was the Olympics. It is the most important competition for figure skating of the last 4 years. The scores and the technical calls given should be defensible for posterity. They are not in the case of Adelina's 3Lz/3T.
And while I can't prove that the rules weren't followed, neither can you prove that the rules were actually followed. But when a skater who has gotten called on her flutz in her career at most every ISU competition manages to not get called on it at the Olympics in Russia, I'd say there's more evidence on one side of the argument than the other that this was not just a bad call, but a deliberately bad call that favored one skater over another.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
So... your saying that she's saying. "I'm going to get it right this time, because I have...
"High hopes
High hopes
High apple pie in the sky hopes.."
I'd like to believe she knocked over that "rubber tree plant" but my eyes told me she used the home-cooked tech panel's bulldozer to do it for her.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
So... your saying that she's saying. "I'm going to get it right this time, because I have...
"High hopes
High hopes
High apple pie in the sky hopes.."
I'd like to believe she knocked over that "rubber tree plant" but my eyes told me she used the home-cooked tech panel's bulldozer to do it for her.
http://youtu.be/kGZDkVQkEmw
Here is one suggestion going forward: Release tech panel's decision making process and make it public. Allow recording of the process by broadcasters with permissions: papers, screenshots, voice recording, video recording, etc.
This should not cost much $$, if at all, in the grand scheme of things. (I think there will be volunteering broadcasters) Does anyone object to this proposal on a principle? I am theory-crafting here.
This should not cost much $$, if at all, in the grand scheme of things. (I think there will be volunteering broadcasters) Does anyone object to this proposal on a principle? I am theory-crafting here.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
I think we have all agreed on that. I also think the way "Blades of Passion" explained each PCS mark in a two to three sentence explanation should be easily accomplished. I'd require it for all top 6 skaters and then upon request by coaches for anyone else. It's ok to give the judge a day or two revisit video if necessary but it should help curb an under serving score if in fact the judge has to explain why. The skaters need to know why they received a 7.5 in order to make it a 8.0 and then so on and so forth. It will benefit the sport and allow the judges to clearly express what they want to or do not want to see.
Plus we won't need to fight with each other so much and can focus on judges. It's hard to read minds!
