What's with the Russian Fed and the CoP? | Page 2 | Golden Skate

What's with the Russian Fed and the CoP?

Ptichka said:
The caller says "Lutz" or "Flip". The judge determines how well it was completed. However, most "flutzes" still fall under the category of a lutz with deductions:

-1: Short change of edge in take-off of lfip or lutz
-2: Moderate change of edge on take-off of flip or lutz
-3: Severe change of edge on take-off of flip or lutz

Which means this is back to the judges -- will judges give a well-landed Sasha lutz -3?

Another point: if a jump is under-rotated, the judge has to give it a '-2' or '-3'. (BTW, official rules say nothing about over-rotating.) So EITHER judges should make this deduction on a jump, OR caller has to put it in as a lesser jump (if it's bad enough). Not both.

From what you said.... The Caller says Lutz and the judges determine whether or not it is a flutz and score accordingly.

Apparently, the judging is not on the landing but on the take-off. If a skater does a well landed flutz, the -3 goes with the take-off.

So the Caller can downgrade a jump but he can not say Flutz. Am I correct":rolleye:

Joe
 
thvudragon said:
:rolleye:
I hate this whole idea of geographic distribution because it has little validity in its use. What exactly does geographic distribution do in the positive? Why should a controller/specialist from USA or CAN have more of chance to be drawn for competition than say, Alexander Laternik? Your idea does nothing but discriminate against those who happen to be part of federations in continents with more federations. It does the opposite of its intention. It increases unfairness.

TV

I see nothing wrong with having the troika composed of one North American, One Asian and One European. With this formular there would be no screaming 'foul' with the Caller. It's good preventive medicine.

Joe
 
Joesitz said:
From what you said.... The Caller says Lutz and the judges determine whether or not it is a flutz and score accordingly.

Apparently, the judging is not on the landing but on the take-off. If a skater does a well landed flutz, the -3 goes with the take-off.

So the Caller can downgrade a jump but he can not say Flutz. Am I correct":rolleye:
Basically, yes. The judge has to take into account the steps leading into into the jump, the take-off, the rotation, and the landing. The GoE is based on all of it. Presumably, a flutz CANNOT do better than a -1 even if EVERYTHING ELSE about the jump is perfect. Once again, we are yet to see judges punishing elite skaters.
 
Do the callers or judges have a run down of a skaters planned program? If a skater intends to lutz and flips instead can they be deducted for this? Or do they kinda get to fly by the seat of their pants in this respect? If the judges and callers are familiar with your planned routine, wouldnt it be advantageous to water it down on paper... for example if you plan a 3-3, but only manage to get a 3-2, if the judges are expecting a 3-3 they are more likely to feel that you are failing somehow. If you plan for a 3-2 and are able to pull off a 3-3, seems like they would be impressed that you were exceeding your own expectations.... just my ponderings.
 
I disagree. I think if the judges see you planning more, they are more likely to treat you as a better skater
 
I can see both sides... Its kinda tricky. Does anyone know for sure if the judges or callers have notes for your planned program or if they call it like the see it? The commentators seem very familiar with the planned programs, but I think that it is because they are around at practices all week.

I judge high school dance team tryouts and competitions quite frequently, and they use a system based on a 100 point value.... it is INCREDIBLY BIASED, often "dynasty" teams are rewarded just to keep the powers at be happy while up and coming teams fight for second and third places. At least in figure skating the coaches are not at all affiliated with the organizations doing the evaluations. In the dance team world coaches are often employees of competition companies and those teams reap the benefits of those relationships
 
Joesitz said:
I see nothing wrong with having the troika composed of one North American, One Asian and One European. With this formular there would be no screaming 'foul' with the Caller. It's good preventive medicine.

Joe
It's also called discrimination, or what I like to call "Affirmative Action for Figure Skating". The idea in itself does the opposite of its intention. Look at the breakdown of federations and continents.

NA - 3 federations
Asia - 3 federations
Europe - dozens (lol, i'm not going to count, but the number is more than 5x more than the others)

Here lies the question which you did not answer. Why should callers from NA or Asia have more a chance of being chosen than someone from Europe, just because they happen to be from NA or Asia? Where's the fairness when you're blatantly discriminating against European callers?

Your idea also doesn't take account that there are federations in Africa and Australia, and that a future controller/specialist may come from one of those continents.

TV
 
Ptichka said:
Basically, yes. The judge has to take into account the steps leading into into the jump, the take-off, the rotation, and the landing. The GoE is based on all of it. Presumably, a flutz CANNOT do better than a -1 even if EVERYTHING ELSE about the jump is perfect. Once again, we are yet to see judges punishing elite skaters.
Actually this isn't so. Monika (from FSU) has talked to judges from Nebelhorn and she has said that at times, the Technical Specialist will tell the judges if a jump is flutzed or lipped, and at times will not. Either way though, it is still up to the judges.

Also, talking with other judges who like to frequent FSU, I have been told the following.
If a skater flutzes, he/she starts at +1, because to garner a +1, a skater needs only to be good in 3 of the 4 phases of the jump (A flutzes has a bad takeoff, but can still be good in prep/rotation/landing). Then though, if a skater flutzes, a deduction incurs. Depending on the degree, the GoE can range from base, to -2 in this case.

TV
 
thvudragon: "That's what the GP season was used for, testing. It was still in test phases at that time."

The kind of testing I was referring to was software testing. When judges enter scores, there should be a fallback where if a score entered is clearly out of the normal range, the judge should get at the very least a warning message. Software testing should have been completed long before the software was released for trial within the CoP testing.
 
chuckm said:
thvudragon: "That's what the GP season was used for, testing. It was still in test phases at that time."

The kind of testing I was referring to was software testing. When judges enter scores, there should be a fallback where if a score entered is clearly out of the normal range, the judge should get at the very least a warning message. Software testing should have been completed long before the software was released for trial within the CoP testing.
I really don't see any problems in software though. You cannot have a computer that tells a judge he/she may be out of line. The judge should give what marks he/she feels the skater should get according to the guidelines. I don't see why judge should get a warning for entering a 2.

Also, for L4 mistake at the GPF, it's now obvious that levels were left open because the software itself was still open to change. This becomes evident in the proposal for changes to CoP in which there are now 4 levels for most dance elements.

TV
 
Ptichka said:
Another point: if a jump is under-rotated, the judge has to give it a '-2' or '-3'. (BTW, official rules say nothing about over-rotating.) So EITHER judges should make this deduction on a jump, OR caller has to put it in as a lesser jump (if it's bad enough). Not both.

I think the rules might not specifically say "over-rotating" because if a skater does over-rotate a jump, they usually either have to step out of it or it is very hard to control on the landing - both of which are deductions. As for under-rotating, if a skater under-rotates a jump it can still appear to be landed cleanly - i.e. they can still get the landing, often even if they land forwards they can quickly turn to backwards. This has been shown many times - e.g. several of Sarah Hughes's jumps, and Michelle Kwan's flip in the Olympic SP. This requires a specific deduction, because often the skater can still get a BO edge landing out of it and hold it.

I agree with not penalising the same jump twice though.
 
Ptichka said:
Presumably, a flutz CANNOT do better than a -1 even if EVERYTHING ELSE about the jump is perfect. Once again, we are yet to see judges punishing elite skaters.

I saw some of the breakdowns of scores from the Grand Prix series - I'm pretty sure Sasha's combo in the SP never got more than -2 or -3, even when landed cleanly. IIRC, anyway.
 
Here are the scores for Sasha's 3Z2T (base value 7.4) in the SPs:
Skate America: GOE five -1s and six -2s; 5.8
Skate Canada: GOE four -1s, one 0, five +1, one +2; 7.8
Lalique: GOE four -1s, seven 0s; 7.2
GPF: GOE eleven -3s (she fell); 0.90

Since Sasha herself admits she doesn't have a 'true lutz' and she always flutzes/flips, it makes no sense to me how the GOE can vary from -2 to plus 2 from one competition to the other. This is not consistent scoring!
 
thvudragon said:
It's also called discrimination, or what I like to call "Affirmative Action for Figure Skating". The idea in itself does the opposite of its intention. Look at the breakdown of federations and continents.

NA - 3 federations
Asia - 3 federations
Europe - dozens (lol, i'm not going to count, but the number is more than 5x more than the others)

Here lies the question which you did not answer. Why should callers from NA or Asia have more a chance of being chosen than someone from Europe, just because they happen to be from NA or Asia? Where's the fairness when you're blatantly discriminating against European callers?

Your idea also doesn't take account that there are federations in Africa and Australia, and that a future controller/specialist may come from one of those continents.

ITA. It may seem a simple solution to the rumours of "bloc judging" to say 1 NA, 1 Asian and 1 European judge, but when you look at how many different federations are in Europe, not to mention the fact that you're excluding Australia and others, it's not actually fair at all. I don't know how it should be worked out, but it's not fair to say that some judges should have a much better chance of selection than others. And Europe is such a diverse *continent* anyway. Judges from Europe constantly prove that they don't hold up other European skaters, just because of the same continent. You will probably always see a certain amount of national bias (from judges of *all* nationalities), maybe preference in style (again though, style varies enormously even within one nation, never mind a whole continent), but "continent bias" really is a bit ridiculous.

Back to the original topic - I read the interview in question, and I think Piseev's main concern is not the difficulty of getting judges to hold up Russian skaters :rolleye: but moreso concern over Worlds in Moscow being used as the first Worlds with COP, still an experimental system. I think he's got a valid point. It's only been used for one season, and even then it was not in the major competitions of Euros or Worlds etc, where the stakes are much higher than in the GP. And all through the "experiment", it's had several problems, things that clearly need to be worked out and altered. While COP may have had some great results (e.g. skaters working more on different aspects of their skating), it's still not ready. The problems that have already surfaced (the level 4 element in dance, Plushenko's loss at the GPF, the wrong scores, etc) may have been dealt with/changed already, but there are probably still lots more that haven't come out yet, and will only surface with more testing.
Piseev, to me, has a valid concern about using COP at Worlds in Moscow next year, when there's every chance that a problem like those that have already happened could easily happen again. And maybe the fact that Russian skaters are at the top could actually make the situation more concerning, because if a situation happened where a deserving Russian skater didn't win because of a COP glitch that hadn't been worked out, then it wouldn't go down very well, especially with the audiences. Not to mention the fact that Moscow Worlds is the qualifier for the next Olympics! A glitch in COP could effectively mean a country ends up with only 2 spots instead of 3, or only 1 instead of 2.
 
Why doesn't the ISU try out CoP first at Euros and 4CC? They are championship events, and they won't directly affect qualifying for the Olympics.

Also, in regard to the composition of the Technical team, I think it would be reasonable to specify that at least one member is from a different region than the other two, without specifying the region.
 
Last edited:
euterpe said:
Why doesn't the ISU try out CoP first at Euros and 4CC? They are championship events, and they won't directly affect qualifying for the Olympics.

Well, maybe not, but they can affect qualifying for Worlds. lol
 
I think the main problem with COP is that they are not giving it enough test time. They want to implement it in time for the '06 Olympics, but I think its too soon. I don't think that this system can be properly put togetether in such a short amount of time.
 
According to Speedy, CoP was developed in response to the SLC scandal. But if CoP was under development in 2000, that couldn't possibly be true.

In any case, wouldn't it have been the ISU technical committee working on CoP since 2000? It seems to me that Lakernik is the head of the technical committee, so wouldn't he have discussed with Piseev long ago how CoP was going to operate?
 
I really think the russian Federation is worried about having the entire CoP workable without question later. I am hoping that the powers that be are working on that over the summer months so that if a skater is careless and throws in an extra jump that it is clear that that is an infraction of the rules.

As for 'bloc' judging. I don't believe it really exists but I do believe there is cultural preferences in judging.

Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Russia, Belorus, Uzbekistan, Kazahkistan, Servia, Bosnia, Georgia, Azeerbaijan, Croatian Slovak Rep, Slovenia. (Are there others:)

The above is quite a grouping of countries with language ties. The chance of having any three of them for Caller and staff is quite possible, and they will dominate in the judging staff.

I would like the judging to be open so that I can track down if any group of judges are marking the same - not necessarily the Slavic group, butl all the groups. But then, France will be French and they belong to no groupings.

Joe
 
Back
Top