gkelly
11-03-2011, 08:58 PM
But if the skater falls multiple times, doesn't the mistakes cumulate. I.e the skater falls. Audience braces themselves okay hopefully said skater will get back into, and then the skater falls again, audience braces themselves, and then skater falls again. The cumulative effect of all the falls together is not good.[quote]
You seem to be one of those fans who spends programs reacting to and anticipating falls. I'm sure you're not alone.
Other fans may focus more on other aspects of the program and more or less forget about a fall once the skater gets back into the program, unless the skater lets it affect the rest of the performance. Not all falls are equally disruptive.
So a fall with quick recovery is more disruptive for you than for other viewers.
Your personal reaction is not the basis for the whole scoring system. But if you decide to train as a judge and if when you're judging you continue to find falls to be severely disruptive no matter how quickly the skater recovers, you can reflect that in your component scores.
[quoteBut for me I find the concept of handing someone 6 points for a fall offensive. Thats like giving every kid in a tournament a trophy whether they won or not.
I think what you're referring to here is handing someone 6 points for rotating four times in the air (but then falling on the landing). The points are not for the fall, but for the takeoff skill and rotational that allows those four rotations to happen, something most human beings are not able to achieve.
We've discussed this before. My opinion continues to be that the negative GOEs for quads should be larger, as they were a couple years ago, so that rotating four times but falling would earn no more points that rotating three times and landing beautifully.
As for other falls, I think they're adequately penalized.
Or every child a good grade whether the grade deserve one or not. Except this is an Olympic level sport and we are suppose to be judging whose the best.
Well, it's an Olympic level sport at the highest level and a recreational sport at the lowest levels and a developmental sport at middle levels. Some rules vary from one division to another -- e.g., novice rules are often different from junior, and some junior rules are different from senior. But even the worst skater who qualifies to compete at the senior level has to skate under the same rules as the world champion. So the senior rules have to make sense for the whole gamut of senior-level skating.
men? I was talking in general... maybe I should've said 40-190 range. rules should apply across all disciplines.
I agree rules should apply across all disciplines and across all competitors in the same event.
It might make sense to lower the fall deduction for novice level and below where most jumps are doubles (i.e., the value of almost any element with -3 GOE will be less than 1.00, so the fall deduction gives them negative net worth), or it might make some sense to raise it a little for junior and especially senior levels, where triple jumps are the norm. But whatever the deduction, it needs to be consistent across all competitors in the same division.
1.00 is a nice easy number to work with, which I'm sure is why it was chosen.
And why doesn't the ISU reward jumping with one or both hands overhead with a difficulty mark? It clearly is more difficult: The center of gravity and take off are changed to make the jump happen. Why isn't the USFSA suggesting this?
There is already a place for judges to reward this -- it's a bullet point toward positive GOE. Sometimes this positive point gets canceled out by other weaknesses in the jump, so the final GOE may end up being 0 or negative even with credit being given for the difficult position. But in general a clean jump with hands overhead will get positive GOE, +1 or +2 or occasionally +3 depending on how much else is good about the jump.
Are you suggesting that it be built into the base mark somehow? E.g., triple lutz is worth 6.0 in the scale of values, triple lutz with one arm overhead is worth 6.1 or 6.5 or whatever the consensus is of its difficulty, triple lutz with two arms overhead is worth 6.2 or 7.0, etc.? That would be pretty hard to codify, given all the possible enhancements that add difficulty to jumps.
As for what a fall on a non-element should count as, I think that should be very variable as different falls impact the performance to different degrees. And that's exactly what the rules state. It's at the judges discretion as to what to take off the PE mark based on their own judgement as to how the fall impacted the performance.
Well, they all get the 1.0 fall deduction. But I agree, how much it disrupts the performance of the program as a whole will vary from one fall to another, and the perception of the disruption will vary from one observer to another. So it's an area where judges have discretion on how much to penalize, and few of them are as sensitive to falls as bek seems to be.
In practice it's not very variable though. The variability range btw different program components is rather small (usually btw .25-.75 pts). One could argue whether that's by design (judging corridor) or execution (judges generally keep all pcs within a tight range even if technically they could vary it more), but I think it's difficult to argue there's tremendous variability btw the different program components.
Not sure what this refers to:
Variation that each judge gives between highest and lowest component for the same performance?
Variation in the average of the whole panel between highest and lowest component for the same performance (this will tend to be smaller than the individual judges' variation because of averaging effects, and dropping high and low marks)?
Variation in the same skater's scores for the same component between performances with and without falls?
You seem to be one of those fans who spends programs reacting to and anticipating falls. I'm sure you're not alone.
Other fans may focus more on other aspects of the program and more or less forget about a fall once the skater gets back into the program, unless the skater lets it affect the rest of the performance. Not all falls are equally disruptive.
So a fall with quick recovery is more disruptive for you than for other viewers.
Your personal reaction is not the basis for the whole scoring system. But if you decide to train as a judge and if when you're judging you continue to find falls to be severely disruptive no matter how quickly the skater recovers, you can reflect that in your component scores.
[quoteBut for me I find the concept of handing someone 6 points for a fall offensive. Thats like giving every kid in a tournament a trophy whether they won or not.
I think what you're referring to here is handing someone 6 points for rotating four times in the air (but then falling on the landing). The points are not for the fall, but for the takeoff skill and rotational that allows those four rotations to happen, something most human beings are not able to achieve.
We've discussed this before. My opinion continues to be that the negative GOEs for quads should be larger, as they were a couple years ago, so that rotating four times but falling would earn no more points that rotating three times and landing beautifully.
As for other falls, I think they're adequately penalized.
Or every child a good grade whether the grade deserve one or not. Except this is an Olympic level sport and we are suppose to be judging whose the best.
Well, it's an Olympic level sport at the highest level and a recreational sport at the lowest levels and a developmental sport at middle levels. Some rules vary from one division to another -- e.g., novice rules are often different from junior, and some junior rules are different from senior. But even the worst skater who qualifies to compete at the senior level has to skate under the same rules as the world champion. So the senior rules have to make sense for the whole gamut of senior-level skating.
men? I was talking in general... maybe I should've said 40-190 range. rules should apply across all disciplines.
I agree rules should apply across all disciplines and across all competitors in the same event.
It might make sense to lower the fall deduction for novice level and below where most jumps are doubles (i.e., the value of almost any element with -3 GOE will be less than 1.00, so the fall deduction gives them negative net worth), or it might make some sense to raise it a little for junior and especially senior levels, where triple jumps are the norm. But whatever the deduction, it needs to be consistent across all competitors in the same division.
1.00 is a nice easy number to work with, which I'm sure is why it was chosen.
And why doesn't the ISU reward jumping with one or both hands overhead with a difficulty mark? It clearly is more difficult: The center of gravity and take off are changed to make the jump happen. Why isn't the USFSA suggesting this?
There is already a place for judges to reward this -- it's a bullet point toward positive GOE. Sometimes this positive point gets canceled out by other weaknesses in the jump, so the final GOE may end up being 0 or negative even with credit being given for the difficult position. But in general a clean jump with hands overhead will get positive GOE, +1 or +2 or occasionally +3 depending on how much else is good about the jump.
Are you suggesting that it be built into the base mark somehow? E.g., triple lutz is worth 6.0 in the scale of values, triple lutz with one arm overhead is worth 6.1 or 6.5 or whatever the consensus is of its difficulty, triple lutz with two arms overhead is worth 6.2 or 7.0, etc.? That would be pretty hard to codify, given all the possible enhancements that add difficulty to jumps.
As for what a fall on a non-element should count as, I think that should be very variable as different falls impact the performance to different degrees. And that's exactly what the rules state. It's at the judges discretion as to what to take off the PE mark based on their own judgement as to how the fall impacted the performance.
Well, they all get the 1.0 fall deduction. But I agree, how much it disrupts the performance of the program as a whole will vary from one fall to another, and the perception of the disruption will vary from one observer to another. So it's an area where judges have discretion on how much to penalize, and few of them are as sensitive to falls as bek seems to be.
In practice it's not very variable though. The variability range btw different program components is rather small (usually btw .25-.75 pts). One could argue whether that's by design (judging corridor) or execution (judges generally keep all pcs within a tight range even if technically they could vary it more), but I think it's difficult to argue there's tremendous variability btw the different program components.
Not sure what this refers to:
Variation that each judge gives between highest and lowest component for the same performance?
Variation in the average of the whole panel between highest and lowest component for the same performance (this will tend to be smaller than the individual judges' variation because of averaging effects, and dropping high and low marks)?
Variation in the same skater's scores for the same component between performances with and without falls?