PDA

View Full Version : Should the automatic deduction for a fall be increased?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Yukari Lepisto
11-06-2010, 09:54 PM
In light of the 4 fall victory for Chan at SC, should the automatic deduction for a fall be increased?

maybe -2? or even -3?

Ziggy
11-06-2010, 10:07 PM
:rolleyes:

No.

pinky166
11-06-2010, 11:05 PM
No, the -3 GOE and 1 point deduction already makes a fall costly enough. Plus if the deduction is raised no men will try quads and a bunch of ladies will end up doubling jumps...

Sonata
11-06-2010, 11:33 PM
Personally, a program full of cheated jumps bothers me more than a program with a fall but other well executed jumps. (Not referring to Chan, but to programs generally).

Schmeck
11-06-2010, 11:40 PM
Personally, a program full of cheated jumps bothers me more than a program with a fall but other well executed jumps. (Not referring to Chan, but to programs generally).

Sorry they bother you. They do get penalized by downgrading and -GOEs, usually -2 and -3. Just as harmful as a fall, imo.

miki88
11-06-2010, 11:44 PM
The additional deduction should come in the PCS portion, because it does disrupt flow of the program, yet PCS never really reflects what's actually going on the ice.

GarrAarghHrumph
11-06-2010, 11:49 PM
The additional deduction should come in the PCS portion, because it does disrupt flow of the program, yet PCS never really reflects what's actually going on the ice.

I agree. I feel that falls can disrupt the program, and when they do, it should hit the PCS more than it does now.

victoriaheidi
11-07-2010, 12:01 AM
Eh. Leave it at -1. I'd rather that people keep attempting to break new ground in the jump world than that we fall back to the dark ages of jumping.

Ziggy
11-07-2010, 12:11 AM
Sorry they bother you. They do get penalized by downgrading and -GOEs, usually -2 and -3. Just as harmful as a fall, imo.

Unless they are cheated 1/4 or less. ;)

And negative GOE was often not given until this season when the judges started seeing < signs.


The additional deduction should come in the PCS portion, because it does disrupt flow of the program, yet PCS never really reflects what's actually going on the ice.

Judges usually deduct PE somewhat but I guess in some cases not enough.

On the other hand, I don't agree that falls automatically disrupt the flow of the program. Often skaters, immediately bounce up and continue.

bek
11-07-2010, 12:21 AM
On the other hand, I don't agree that falls automatically disrupt the flow of the program. Often skaters, immediately bounce up and continue.

Even if those skaters get up and continue multiple falls still cause an impact. People remember that so and so fell on three of his technical elements. A fall in and of itself is distracting. There's something to be said for a skater who executes all of his/her elements correctly.

Ziggy
11-07-2010, 12:26 AM
Even if those skaters get up and continue multiple falls still cause an impact. People remember that so and so fell on three of his technical elements. A fall in and of itself is distracting. There's something to be said for a skater who executes all of his/her elements correctly.

And here's exactly where the problem lies.

Chan executed his programs to extremely high standard, far surpassing any of his competitors.

But because he fell a number of times, people whine about his victory.

People remember falls more than the rest of the program. It's natural for the human brain to focus on the negative. Falls stand out and make more of an impact than "ordinary" elements that comprise a performance.

But there is no rational reason to penalise for them beyond what is already established in the rules.

If you fall on a jump, you lose at least 4 points.

If falls are very disruptive and messy, then yes deduct more on the PCS. But if they aren't, I don't see any reason to.

bek
11-07-2010, 01:04 AM
And here's exactly where the problem lies.

Chan executed his programs to extremely high standard, far surpassing any of his competitors.

But because he fell a number of times, people whine about his victory.

People remember falls more than the rest of the program. It's natural for the human brain to focus on the negative. Falls stand out and make more of an impact than "ordinary" elements that comprise a performance.

But there is no rational reason to penalise for them beyond what is already established in the rules.

If you fall on a jump, you lose at least 4 points.

If falls are very disruptive and messy, then yes deduct more on the PCS. But if they aren't, I don't see any reason to.

I'm sorry but defend to me the concept that Patrick's short program was far better executed than Oda's or Rippons. Sorry not getting that one. Chan fell on 3 out of the 7 elements in the short. And do you seriously want to argue his 3/3 was better than Oda's. Nor is he that much better of a spinner. Yes Chan has better choregraphy than Oda, I won't deny that. But THAT's one aspect, and its hard to appreciate choregraphy when its interupted by falls. Adam Rippon was also clean, and while his skating skills are not as good as Chans not close. He executed his elements cleanly, Chan did not. And Adam actually does have choregraphy and transitions.

And its not about hating Patrick Chan its about hating a system that essentially makes it so that people don't actually have to skate well that night. You have to land your elements. Sure one mistake can be ignored but multiple? It shouldn't be. The whole point of a sport is delivering when it counts. And it matters if the skater is falling all over the place.

And its not about hating Patrick, because I actually watching his free program at Skating, I do like the guy's skating-when he's staying on his feet. But I don't like falls, being rewarded with high marks. And Patrick got 20 points for all of his elements with falls. He scored higher on his quad fall than Adam did with his 3lutz. Ridiculous.

And its not just Chan getting scored like that, that annoys me. I like Lambiel's skating, but I've never been so glad to see a skater retire. Yes he's wonderful, yes he's artistic. But was freaking tired of seeing Lambiel getting rewarded for messy skates too.

gkelly
11-07-2010, 01:06 AM
What would be the reason for increasing the penalty?

Do you want to ensure that programs with falls always lose to programs without falls, regardless of the rest of the content or quality? Historically that has always explicitly not been the case and the rules have explicitly stated that a fall is no bar to winning.

Do you want to ensure that all falls are penalized exactly the same amount and force the panels to do be consistent in their penalties for all falls, regardless of how disruptive they were?

Right now there is a standard penalty of 1.0 for all falls in the form of the fall deduction. For falls on elements the GOE is almost always -3, in some cases -2 or even -1 if most of the element was completed and completed well . . . that wouldn't generally be the case for a solo jump.

The value of -GOE varies depending on the base value of element being attempted.

So some elements with falls already end up contributing negative points to the program total, and others end up contributing positive points even after the deduction and -GOE. Basically, triple and quad jumps and level 4 other elements are the only ones that come out ahead. And only the harder triples and quads come out significantly ahead.

For falls between elements, there's no other required penalty besides the fall deduction.

I don't think that falls on double jumps or level 2 elements, which already end up with negative net points, should be penalized even further with even larger negative deductions. I think what we want is to make sure that a jump with a fall doesn't end up being worth more than a nicely executed slightly easier jump that the skater could have done instead. And I think that would be better regulated by making the value of the -GOEs for triple axels and quads greater than 3 points again, as was the case last year.

But again, what would be the effect at novice level, or below-average juniors or weak seniors, for whom most of the elements have base values less than 3, and are worth less than 1.0 after -3 GOE is applied? Do you really want to make the mandatory fall penalties so high that those skaters could end up with negative total scores?

As for the effect on PCS, I don't like the idea of deciding in advance that all falls should reduce all components, or Performance/Execution specifically, by the exact same amount. All falls are not equal. And some errors that don't result in significant weight on body parts other than blades can be equally disruptive (e.g., "falling out of" a jump or spin, popped jumps with ugly air position).

But maybe there should be written guidelines to explicitly encourage judges to penalize falls in PCS as appropriate. Maybe something like "Judges should consider reducing the Performance/Execution score by at least 0.25 for each disruptive stumble or fall, more if the error significantly interrupts the program, and multiple disruptive errors should be considered to have a cumulative effect. Other components should also be reduced when falls or other unintentional breaks in the flow of movement indicate a momentary failure of skating skill or a break in the execution of transitions, choreography, or interpretation."

I'm sure some judges do this already, systematically or by gut feeling. If the guidelines were written down, then more would do so and would use more similar criteria for penalizing. But it would still be a judgment call and some judges would penalize more than others.

RFOS
11-07-2010, 01:12 AM
Sure one mistake can be ignored but multiple? It shouldn't be.

Chan's mistakes weren't ignored, they were deducted appropriately in the TES, and I think his overall PCS even with the falls should have been higher than Oda's and Rippon's in the SP (P&E is debatable, and they all scored very close on that component, but I think Patrick was definitely better on the other 4 components). And in the FS I thought his PCS were really in another league.



But I don't like falls, being rewarded with high marks. And Patrick got 20 points for all of his elements with falls. He scored higher on his quad fall than Adam did with his 3lutz. Ridiculous.

I agree with this. I'm OK with increasing the base value for triple axels and quads this year, but I wish they had kept the larger penalty for negative GOEs.

ETA: I agree with gkelly's reasoning above as to why increasing the penalty for negative GOEs on the most difficult elements makes more sense than increasing the fall deduction.

For the longest time I've been meaning to do some kind of simulation/recalculation of results with a different scale of values (i.e., a multiplicative system rather than an additive/subtractive system for GOEs where -3 = 25%/40% of base value, -2 = 50/60%, -1 = 75%/80%, etc.) Maybe I'll play around with that tomorrow.

bek
11-07-2010, 01:25 AM
Well the thing is that's why they could either move to no points for falls. Its a failed element which would be almost fair I think. Or they could move to just taking of percentage of base value. For example I don't think falling on an element should get someone anymore than 25% of a base value. (if even that). I think the fear is that the quad won't be done if this happens. But I really think the best way to encourage the quad, is to find ways to reward guys who have it. For example bonus points for a 4/3. Or letting a guy repeat the same quad and two triples in the free. Or the rule now allowing 2 quads in the short. All of the above are much better ways to encourage the quad than to be handing out points to people who fall on them.

Frankly maybe Jumps should have a mark in PCS so that the judges could evaluate jump content as a whole...