Why do "full rotations" matter?

[Mathman]

This is becoming ridiculous...

I need a break. I'm angry.

For me, I am not angry at anyone, but I do wish that we could declare a moratorium on the word "clearly."

We all look at a jump. Half of the observers, both expert and casual, say, "that was clearly under-rotated." The other half say, "that was clearly fully rotated."

This is the very definition of "unclear."

Plus, this language is an attempt at proof by intimidation. "How splendid the emperor's ew clothes look today. Only a fool could say otherwise" Well, nobody wants to be a fool, so I guess it must be clear after all. Silly me -- for a minute there I thought it was unclear.

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

For me, I am not angry at anyone, but I do wish that we could declare a moratorium on the word "clearly."

We all look at a jump. Half of the observers, both expert and casual, say, "that was clearly under-rotated." The other half say, "that was clearly fully rotated."

This is the very definition of "unclear."

Plus, this language is an attempt at proof by intimidation. "How splendid the emperor's ew clothes look today. Only a fool could say otherwise" Well, nobody wants to be a fool, so I guess it must be clear after all. Silly me -- for a minute there I thought it was unclear.

Did you watch the videos? Those who pretend that the Emperor's "new clothes" are splendid, are those who don't call real underrotations yet call imaginary qs.
Furthermore, I understand your post as meaning that out of principle, it's impossible, even with two slow motions at different angles, to see if a jump is underrotated. Don't you think that it's a reach? Don't you think that calling intimidation the fact of pointing the evidence, becomes a sort of projection in the context of this statement? I don't like gaslighting, you know.
And I'm rough to the point that I may have to refrain from recalling you the Emperor's New Clothes, knowing myself I'm not even sure that it won't escape me some time when I forget I mustn't.

 

[Mathman]

Did you watch the videos?

No. These slo-motion videos and stop-frame stills seem to me to be mostly partisan propaganda. They just make me more uncertain than ever.

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

No. These slo-motion videos and stop-frame stills seem to me to be mostly partisan propaganda. They just make me more uncertain than ever.

I can understand your viewpoint yet to others (to most I think, and to Technical Panels when they have a doubt) it's the best way to see. And I did see.

 

[Mathman]

I have become discouraged. I am seldom able to see what everybody else tells me is as plain as my face.

As for tech panels, I do envy them their acuity of eyesight and their expertise. They deserve a big thanks for what they do. Without them, fans would be continually arguing about everything.

 

[gkelly]

I can understand your viewpoint yet to others (to most I think, and to Technical Panels when they have a doubt) it's the best way to see. And I did see.

But if what you saw was not identical to what the tech panel called, or to what some other fan saw, does that mean that anyone who saw something different than what you saw must be wrong?

Or do you acknowledge that tech panels may have seen something different watching from a different angle?

And that different fans may also have watched different broadcasts (this can be mitigated by providing one link for all fans involved in the discussion to reference), might have different levels of resolution on their viewing devices and in their eyesight/visual acuity), and might have different understandings of how tech specialists define exactly when a jump leaves the ice or lands.

 

[Anna K.]

For me, I am not angry at anyone, but I do wish that we could declare a moratorium on the word "clearly."

We all look at a jump. Half of the observers, both expert and casual, say, "that was clearly under-rotated." The other half say, "that was clearly fully rotated."

This is the very definition of "unclear."

Plus, this language is an attempt at proof by intimidation. "How splendid the emperor's ew clothes look today. Only a fool could say otherwise" Well, nobody wants to be a fool, so I guess it must be clear after all. Silly me -- for a minute there I thought it was unclear.

Hey, you are the Zamboni Driver! Do your job: Ban that frickin word already so that we can start replacing it with stars, stripes and other fun!

Kidding! We both know that it will not help.
Thanks for making me laugh though even if it wasn't your intention because my anger is gone now.

As for this topic, I asked "why full rotations matter" and specifically noted that I was looking for skaters' explanation (although only Ic3Rabbit responded; others apparently decided not to mess with idiots ) because of this:

Successfully completing the rotations is crucial for a controlled landing. A lack of rotation can cause the skater to spin into the ice upon landing, which can result in a failed landing and/or possible injury.

What matters is an accomplished acrobatic element. What doesn't matter is how many measurable degrees in the air it actually takes to accomplish it (although I would like to know and many people would like to know: we live in the era of data; we want data about everything).

I never asked anyone to bring here their scoring pains. I actually even asked someone not to in clea... Well, whatever

 

[AxelLover]

How would you explain this to a first-time viewer who becomes irritated by the commentator's rotation talks and goes like this: "It looks all the same to me. Am I supposed to believe that this is something that matters?"

I have a few ideas but I'd prefer to know what people who actually skate say

I'm not a skater myself but I'd like to point out one thing. Rules of any sport or game are arbitrarily made up by people. If the ISU decides there will be bonus points when a skater sticks their tongue out mid air, then sticking your tongue out suddenly becomes something that "matters". But then someone can say that they don't care about skaters' tongue, and that the thing that really matters is whether the skater lands their jumps facing south. Everyone has their own preferences about which aspects of jumps should affect the score. You can just hope your preferences will overlap with those of the ISU as much as possible. There's no truly objective reason for counting rotations, and there's no truly objective reason for not counting rotations.

 

[Arigato]

Right, you are a Shun Sato fan and you post the slow-mo with "there is no doubt that the jump was lacking less than a quarter of a turn".
Was that jump deemed clean, the next day the slow-mo would be posted by somebody who is not a Shun Sato fan with "how can those lenient techs deem this clean when there clearly was a three-turn on the exit".

This is becoming ridiculous. RIDICULOUS. The endless fan complaints posed as "we want fair score" are becoming ridiculous especially because in cases like Sato's the score will be frickig the same q or not q.

The current rules have made it unclear if marred exits like Sato's should be punished by giving a q and then judges can give their remaining +GOE or there is no call and judges apply their -GOE but at the end of the day it's the same.

I need a break. I'm angry.

I still haven't seen the video. I must be missing the link hiding in plain sight. For the record, I can't stand still photos and won't even waste my time if a person posts those. I want a video that hasn't been tampered with by the person who posted it. Having said that, yes, fans of skaters are usually the guilty party who do anything to try and clear a q call. Why, I do not know. They're simply routine calls and nothing to get bent out of shape over. And thanks for mentioning what is obvious to some, but not all. Flipping out over a q call can be a waste of time since the judges can easily subtract from the GOE on a jump. In conclusion, a lot of people really need to sit their asses in a bucket of ice and chill out.

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

But if what you saw was not identical to what the tech panel called, or to what some other fan saw, does that mean that anyone who saw something different than what you saw must be wrong?

Or do you acknowledge that tech panels may have seen something different watching from a different angle?

And that different fans may also have watched different broadcasts (this can be mitigated by providing one link for all fans involved in the discussion to reference), might have different levels of resolution on their viewing devices and in their eyesight/visual acuity), and might have different understandings of how tech specialists define exactly when a jump leaves the ice or lands.

Thank you for not having written "what the tech panel saw".

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

I still haven't seen the video. I must be missing the link hiding in plain sight. For the record, I can't stand still photos and won't even waste my time if a person posts those. I want a video that hasn't been tampered with by the person who posted it. Having said that, yes, fans of skaters are usually the guilty party who do anything to try and clear a q call. Why, I do not know. They're simply routine calls and nothing to get bent out of shape over. And thanks for mentioning what is obvious to some, but not all. Flipping out over a q call can be a waste of time since the judges can easily subtract from the GOE on a jump. In conclusion, a lot of people really need to sit their asses in a bucket of ice and chill out.

I had posted the link to the page where the videos were, the page appeared on the URL but clicking on the link would lead to the first page... I had also posted which page and which post it was, but I suppose I must post the videos themselves here. I fully agree with what you say about mere photos. Sometimes it's just an indication with angles drawn, supposing that the viewer is watching the video at the same time, this is useful, but just a photo, how can we assess the line/curve of the jump, after which the angle is calculated?
Here, there was a first video, I was sure that it hadn't been tampered with, hey, I don't think it's usual! Do you have an example of a video edited to pretend that a Figure Skater did this or that? This being said, while the jump didn't seem to lack a quarter, I didn't think it was "clear" enough to exclude absolutely a q, because of the angle; so I watched the official ISU video, which is the second link, and which I hope that you won't deem to have been tampered with. The angle on the official ISU video (slow motion part after the skate) was much better and there it was "clear" that the rotation was lacking less than a quarter of a turn, but I leave you to watch because a declaration by an anonymous poster on a forum isn't worth one's own eyes, for me at least:

https://imgur.com/a/cKy67HM#KWt5pRx

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

(On Youtube videos, it's possible to enhance the slow motion by setting the speed at 0.25.)

 

[Ic3Rabbit]

Hey, you are the Zamboni Driver! Do your job: Ban that frickin word already so that we can start replacing it with stars, stripes and other fun!

Kidding! We both know that it will not help.
Thanks for making me laugh though even if it wasn't your intention. Now, my anger is gone. Instead, I'm considering cross-posting. All these c-l-a-r-i-t-y issues would actually make great material for the "role of fans" thread

As for this topic, I asked "why full rotations matter" and specifically noted that I was looking for skaters' explanation (although only Ic3Rabbit responded; others apparently decided not to mess with idiots ) because of this:


What matters is an accomplished acrobatic element. What doesn't matter is how many measurable degrees in the air it actually takes to accomplish it (although I would like to know and many people would like to know: we live in the era of data; we want data about everything).

I never asked anyone to bring here their scoring pains. I actually even asked someone not to in clea... Well, whatever

I never said the degrees so IDK what you're going on about. All I did was explain the expected mechanics behind a properly rotated jump.

 

[Anna K.]

I never said the degrees so IDK what you're going on about. All I did was explain the expected mechanics behind a properly rotated jump.

My bad. Apparently it needed a question mark:

Is it so that what matters is an accomplished acrobatic element and what doesn't matter is how many measurable degrees in the air it actually takes to accomplish it?

Thanks for explaining the mechanics!

I am the one who believes that such information is good for people.
I acknowledge that there are also people who are capable of using any word and any information in malicious ways. But it doesn't mean that information as such is bad. It only means that we need to develop positive ways how to handle this information.