PDA

View Full Version : Judges' Favorites



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8

VALuvsMKwan
03-15-2012, 04:12 PM
:rolleyes: Butts sliding across the ice are never rewarded. They are penalized with a 1 point deduction, and a required negative GOE for the element (if they occur on an element).

True. The argument that I understand many posters to be making it is whether such deductions and/or negative GOE are sufficiently punitive in contrast with situations where falls and butt slides do not occur.

Five different people could give six different perspectives regarding that argument - which one is "right"? :confused:

RFOS
03-15-2012, 04:35 PM
True. The argument that I understand many posters to be making it is whether such deductions and/or negative GOE are sufficiently punitive in contrast with situations where falls and butt slides do not occur.

Five different people could give six different perspectives regarding that argument - which one is "right"? :confused:

Me! ;)

Yes, I do understand that debate and assume that is what the poster meant, but it annoys me when people use misleading statements to try to argue their point of view.

PashaFan
03-15-2012, 04:58 PM
OMG!!!! Plushy has an affair with his own wife? And with Marton and Dima Bilan too? :drama::plush::plush::lol:

I also had an affair with Plushenko.
It was boring. All he did was talk about himself :scream:

MrLucky
03-15-2012, 04:58 PM
:rolleyes: Butts sliding across the ice are never rewarded. They are penalized with a 1 point deduction, and a required negative GOE for the element (if they occur on an element).


Are you saying a 4T that ends with a butt slide is never rewarded? :rolleyes:

Maybe it depends on our idea of "rewarded."

julieann
03-15-2012, 05:23 PM
Are you saying a 4T that ends with a butt slide is never rewarded? :rolleyes:

Maybe it depends on our idea of "rewarded."

Perhaps but a fall doesn't mean an automatic -3 just a GOE in the negative.

Who got a positive GOE on a 4T that they fell on?

RFOS
03-15-2012, 05:44 PM
Are you saying a 4T that ends with a butt slide is never rewarded? :rolleyes:

Maybe it depends on our idea of "rewarded."

The skater achieves a base value (determined by the technical panel, not the judges) for being able to rotate a certain number of times in the air from a certain take off. That skill is "rewarded" in the base value, not the fall. The fall/butt slide itself is penalized (by the tech panel with a 1 point deduction and the judges with a 3 step reduction in GOE). I understand what you were trying to get at, and happen to agree that difficult jumps (particularly quads) with falls should probably not get as many points as they currently do, but the way you worded it, that "judges apparently love/reward butts sliding across the ice" is just false. The technical panel just assigns the base value based on what was attempted and to what degree it was completed, whether they "liked" it or not, and they don't have any say in how many points that is worth. Then the judges penalize the fall in the GOE. As far as I've seen, the technical panel and judges have been following these rules.

The degree to which falls should be reflected in the PCS is up for debate (as are what the point values of the elements should be depending on the GOE) but the judges would not reward falls in the PCS.

jettasian
03-15-2012, 06:12 PM
Some people don't seem to get it, or refuse to accept it, that if a jump is FULLY ROTATED, partial marks will be given even with a fall. "Oh he fell, why did he still get the marks" or "Oh he fell, that jump should be zero" blah blah blah will not going to work.

I think a fall on a quad, for example, could get a very big penalty. It really depends on the fall. If the same jump is landed perfectly, it will be rewarded with full mark, plus up to +3GOE. If it's a fall, only partial mark is rewarded, plus up to -3GOE. So the swing is 6+ difference. To me, that's alot already.

gkelly
03-15-2012, 07:08 PM
True. The argument that I understand many posters to be making it is whether such deductions and/or negative GOE are sufficiently punitive in contrast with situations where falls and butt slides do not occur.

Five different people could give six different perspectives regarding that argument - which one is "right"? :confused:

I don't think there can ever be a definitive answer to this question, because

-all falls are not equal (in severity, in how they affect the point value of the element if in fact they occur on an element, in how they affect the aesthetic impact of the program as a whole)

-the difference in overall quality between a skater who falls and the next-best skater who doesn't fall can vary significantly

-and all experts (if we include dedicated fans in addition to officials) are not equally bothered in principle by falls

So I don't think there's any way to write rules in advance that will guarantee that skaters who fall, or fall in particular ways or particular numbers of times, will always place lower than if they didn't fall.

At best, the rules can standardize specific penalties for falls and allow for additional penalties (i.e., in PCS) at the judges' individual discretion.

gingercat
03-15-2012, 07:36 PM
Watch Patick Chan's short program at 4 CC's his quad - was it a fall? The definition is supposed to be if a hand is down but the skater could have stayed up without the hand it is not a fall. As far as I can see, hand or no hand it was a fall. Slow motion or regular speed. He was given -3 from the judges but no fall from the Tech Panel. There is always playing room from judges or tech panel - you just hope that sometime it goes in your favor.

julieann
03-15-2012, 09:56 PM
Watch Patick Chan's short program at 4 CC's his quad - was it a fall? The definition is supposed to be if a hand is down but the skater could have stayed up without the hand it is not a fall. As far as I can see, hand or no hand it was a fall. Slow motion or regular speed. He was given -3 from the judges but no fall from the Tech Panel. There is always playing room from judges or tech panel - you just hope that sometime it goes in your favor.

-3 in GOE by the judges doesn't aways mean a fall on an element happened.

Skaters put their hands down to prevent a fall they know is going to happen and usually they touch the ice just enough to correct the landing, but if they could have landed the jump they wouldn't have put their hand down in the first place.

Sylvia
03-15-2012, 10:00 PM
I originally posted this in another thread in the Trash Can (what gingercat described above):
Did Chan Fall in the [4 Continents] Short Program? (http://www.iceskatingintnl.com/archive/results_four_continents/4c12%20Fall%20Definition.htm)

I re-watched this moment on video and the "fall" is not as obvious as pictured in the 2 still photos.

aliceanne
03-15-2012, 10:03 PM
I think the way Kostner skates is part of her charm. Sometimes she looks like she is making it up as she goes (I like that).
Lepisto winning Bronze in 2010 still makes me cross. I like Lepisto & think she is very nice to watch but I watched the top four the other day & she fell apart yet Miki skated clean. It was a bad decision IMO.
On the subject of Plushenko being judges favourite, I have watched him since the very start of his career & being a Yagudin fan I guess in the the early day's I was quite upset when the judges held him up.
Year's later I can now watch him & understand what an amazing talent he is.
BUT the BIG problem I have with Plushenko is how he treats ISU skating.
He is like an unfaithful husband who goes off & has affairs with other women (Skating shows, media) then when he get's bored or wants to raise his profile again (In case we forget him) he returns. Skates okay, wins (Comes back to the loyal wife) then leaves again.
Plushenko needs skating, skating does not need Plushenko.
I WANT A DIVORCE:lol:

I think Plushenko wants to stay in competitive skating, but his knees say no. Staying active in shows is less taxing. He would probably get big appearance fees to skate in ISU eligible competition.

I find him entertaining, even when his jumps are crooked and he windmills his arms. But as a husband - too high maintenance:lol:

gingercat
03-16-2012, 12:05 AM
-3 in GOE by the judges doesn't aways mean a fall on an element happened.

Skaters put their hands down to prevent a fall they know is going to happen and usually they touch the ice just enough to correct the landing, but if they could have landed the jump they wouldn't have put their hand down in the first place.

Yes, I understand in this instance, since the Tech panel did not give a fall to the skater that the judges gave -3 GOE because the poor execution of the jump. Thanks

Aussie Willy
03-16-2012, 01:38 AM
-3 in GOE by the judges doesn't aways mean a fall on an element happened.

Skaters put their hands down to prevent a fall they know is going to happen and usually they touch the ice just enough to correct the landing, but if they could have landed the jump they wouldn't have put their hand down in the first place.
Also a skater can do enough that the tally of deductions can equal a -3.

With a skater like Chan, their technique is usually so good on an element like the quad that without a fall it would have been +2 to start with. With the fall a judge could justify only going to a -1 rather than -3. People complaining that certain skaters get held up on GOEs may not be considering that the element was pretty good to start with and the judges are still giving credit to the positive aspects of an element and then apply the deduction.

Because when they don't make mistakes they blow every other competitor out of the water.

jettasian
03-16-2012, 03:16 AM
I originally posted this in another thread in the Trash Can (what gingercat described above):
Did Chan Fall in the [4 Continents] Short Program? (http://www.iceskatingintnl.com/archive/results_four_continents/4c12%20Fall%20Definition.htm)

I re-watched this moment on video and the "fall" is not as obvious as pictured in the 2 still photos.

When people "CSI" a picture to prove something, it shows desperation. I dare to say that if it was another skater instead of Chan, nobody would have cared.


Also a skater can do enough that the tally of deductions can equal a -3.

With a skater like Chan, their technique is usually so good on an element like the quad that without a fall it would have been +2 to start with. With the fall a judge could justify only going to a -1 rather than -3. People complaining that certain skaters get held up on GOEs may not be considering that the element was pretty good to start with and the judges are still giving credit to the positive aspects of an element and then apply the deduction.

Because when they don't make mistakes they blow every other competitor out of the water.

That's why I love watching Kurt/Tracy's commentary. They usually point out the difficulties that non experts, such as me, won't be able to tell. Such has the 4CC LP:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLFPKdAL5hA