Should the automatic deduction for a fall be increased?

Discussion in 'Great Skate Debate' started by Yukari Lepisto, Nov 6, 2010.

  1. Yukari Lepisto

    Yukari Lepisto Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    698
    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?
     
  2. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2002
    Messages:
    20,569
    :rolleyes:

    No.
     
  3. pinky166

    pinky166 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2010
    Messages:
    10,268
    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...
     
  4. Sonata

    Sonata Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2003
    Messages:
    317
    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).
     
  5. Schmeck

    Schmeck New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    123
    Sorry they bother you. They do get penalized by downgrading and -GOEs, usually -2 and -3. Just as harmful as a fall, imo.
     
  6. miki88

    miki88 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Messages:
    806
    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.
     
  7. GarrAarghHrumph

    GarrAarghHrumph I can kill you with my brain

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2001
    Messages:
    16,174
    I agree. I feel that falls can disrupt the program, and when they do, it should hit the PCS more than it does now.
     
  8. victoriaheidi

    victoriaheidi New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,784
    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.
     
  9. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2002
    Messages:
    20,569
    Unless they are cheated 1/4 or less. ;)

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

    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.
     
  10. bek

    bek Guest

    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.
     
  11. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2002
    Messages:
    20,569
    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.
     
    Really and (deleted member) like this.
  12. bek

    bek Guest

    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.
     
  13. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,619
    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.
     
  14. RFOS

    RFOS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,353
    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.


    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2010
  15. bek

    bek Guest

    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...
     
  16. miki88

    miki88 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Messages:
    806
    ITA. Staying on one's feet is definitely not an easy task.
     
  17. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2002
    Messages:
    20,569
    gkelly - great, thoughtful post. :respec:

    I don't understand why you are arguing this particular point because Chan placed 4th in the SP, over 8 points below Oda.

    As for what was better, each of the components. By far.

    I wasn't speaking about the technical elements.

    We aren't under 6.0 anymore. If you want skaters to win because they made the best overall impression on you, then you would have to revert to that system.

    Under CoP, everything counts.

    And Chan skated very well in the FS, anyway.

    This forum - and the skating world in general - has been full of whining about quads not being rewarded enough, resulting in skaters not taking the risk to attempt them.

    Therefore the base value for quads has been increased.

    That is the side effect of this change. You can't have your cake and eat it.

    In any case, I think you are putting too much emphasis on staying on two feet. Fully rotating a jump is the hardest part. A tiny loss of balance or a moving your shoulder slightly back - any silly little thing like this - can cause a fall.

    P&E is NOT about how well somebody skated technically. TES reflects that.

    Chan fulfilled the P&E criteria much better than either Oda or Rippon.

    Do you realise that jumps are never 100% consistent, even in practice?

    As far as quadruple jumps are concerned, there will always be a high risk of a fall when attempting those.

    The vast majority of skaters would never attempt quads if they risked receiving a gigantic penalty on falling on them.

    Why risk performing a quad when falling on it would mean receiving 1.5 points (25% of base value -1) compared to 4.1 you could get for a triple?

    And it's not just quads, nobody would risk performing anything that isn't effortless for them.

    Would you really want to watch programs full of double jumps?
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2010
    Allen, kwanfan1818, gkelly and 3 others like this.
  18. Jenna

    Jenna Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    7,139
    :eek: I agree with Ziggy! ;)

    But seriously, although Patrick fell 3 times, and was appropriately deducted three times, he was also REWARDED for what he did well, specifically on the program components. Like Ziggy said, if this was 6.0, Chan would have placed much, much lower, because marks were based upon the overall impression that the skater made on the judge. With COP, each element, each component is dissected and analyzed individually. What's bad is deducted, but what's good is rewarded. Honestly, is Patrick even close to Preaubert, or worse, Gachinski in ANY of the five components??? No way! Although they may have out-jumped him, his placement over them is totally justified.
     
    alilou and (deleted member) like this.
  19. RFOS

    RFOS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,353
    But falls disrupt the "invisible connection between the skater and the audience" somewhat. :D (Also, the "precise execution of every movement"). I agree that through most of the program Chan fulfilled the majority of the criteria better than Oda or Rippon, but the 3 significant breaks in the program need to be reflected somewhat. He did get back into the program well right after the falls, so I wouldn't kill him in the marks, but it still was significantly below what he's capable of. To me, the "invisible connection" criterion is a way to capture that overall impression. The pinnacle of an "invisible connection" and "radiating energy" for me would be those performances where it seems as though the skater couldn't possibly have done anything wrong, and the excitement builds and builds until the finish as each element and movement in between is executed superbly. The ones you could watch 100 times and they'd still be exciting (For me, Jeremy Abbott's free skate from Nationals would be an example). Those kinds of performances are what would bring me into the 9-10 range for P&E.

    Patrick's performance was still very good in many aspects, but it definitely didn't have that because there was a certain amount of disappointment that came with each of the falls, breaking the "mood" of the program. Even though it might be true 95% of the program would've been the same between this program and a clean one, the overall impression (and resulting "invisible connection" ;)) was impacted by more than 5%. I agree with you that just because he fell (even 3 times) doesn't mean that his P&E mark automatically has to be lower than his competitors' who didn't fall, and that it's important to use the criteria to reflect the areas of that component in which he was still superior to them overall. While the overall impression was that Oda and Rippon skated "well" and there was a certain small degree of excitement that came from that fact (for me), they were still a far cry from the performances that just draw you in from start to finish and where I can't help but want to give a roaring standing ovation in my living. room. :lol: They were good, but not that good.

    All in all, I still think the comparable marks for the 3 of them on P&E for those performances were fair, but that's just my way of looking at things.

    OTOH, I thought Sui & Han's falls in their SP actually enhanced their performance and interpretation because it fit with the theme so well
    and actually added a degree of excitement. :lol:

    P.S., the criteria I'm looking at are here: http://www.usfigureskating.org/content/JS08A-Programcompexplan.pdf
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2010
    alilou and (deleted member) like this.
  20. julieann

    julieann Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    3,577
    ITA, I don't see deducting a 4 1/2 minumte program for a fall that takes up 2 seconds or less of the whole program. If that were the case should they stop the music and ask the skaters to leave because someone fell and it was so disruptive?

    To do it properly is even harder and most don't do it properly but because it's not a "fall" it's overlooked.
     
  21. bek

    bek Guest

    That's ridiculous. They can find ways to reward the quad, AND punish messy programs. A balance.
    I'm putting emphasis on landing it One one foot. And the fact that any silly little thing can throw you off and cause you to fall shows, why the landing is actually the most difficult part. Having control of the jump and in the end your blade to land on a tiny blade. While I might not be able to rotate four times without practice, any one can jump in the air and land on their butts. The REAL difficulty is controlling the jump and landing correctly.
    No Kidding! Do you think Tiger Woods always makes his golf shots in practice? No because making the shot is hard, just like making the jump is hard. And its even harder to make the put, and land the jump in the pressure of the competition. But you know what the great champions in the past in figure skating-land their jumps in the top moments. Just as Tiger Woods makes his shots. And when Tiger doesn't make his shots, when he doesn't golf well-Tiger loses.

    What I hate about the idea of well if Chan has a nice program and because Chan has nice skating skills, it doesn't matter if Chan falls on his butt four times. Is the fact it stops making figure skating a sport or even a competition. It makes things essentially predetermined. I'm sorry its not a good skate when your falling four times-that's not good skating. Everyone knows those are big mistakes. It should matter.
    When I say I'm glad Lambiel's retired, its not that I don't enjoy his skating. I do, but what I didn't enjoy was seeing Lambiel screwing up all these jump elements, and still getting huge scores. A kicker would be when poor Kozuka lost out on a GP medal to that type of thing. Yes lovely skater, but the skater has to land some of the jumps. The technical elements well executed are clearly not worth enough if someone can get away with those kind of errors.
     
  22. The Accordion

    The Accordion Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2005
    Messages:
    3,425
    You do that too? :shuffle:
     
  23. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,619
    Usually, but not by definition. Occasionally a skater can use the occasion of a fall to initiate or strengthen a direct connection to the audience by making eye contact with an "Oops!" or "I meant to do that!" facial expression and/or physical gesture.

    see fall and recovery at 2:23-24
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkIa8J4wJUg

    2nd jump at 1:23:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptnALdiKPuY

    Yes, definitely that. Unless they chose to go down to the ice in a choreographed fall and executed that well. But since that would now bring a fall deduction and had already been illegal and subject to an illegal move deduction for several years before that, no one would do it on purpose under today's rules.

    Heh. So would you give them higher PCS than if they hadn't fallen?
     
  24. RFOS

    RFOS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,353
    Well, OK, probably not higher, but I at least wouldn't take anything off from their P&E or interpretation marks (*maybe* skating skills and/or transitions, since it was on a transition between elements that wasn't executed as intended). If they had really "played it up" during the fall itself then I might have actually added something though. :lol:
     
  25. zebobes

    zebobes Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    540
    They just changed the value of all the elements, so there have been some probably unanticipated consequences. The judges probably aren't used to how everything adds up now, so they still have to get used to it. And who knows, maybe next year, they'll adjust the values again to be more of a balance between rewarding the quad and punishing falls.
     
  26. Japanfan

    Japanfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2002
    Messages:
    12,887
    Yunah's scores at Worlds are another example.

    Though in the case of Patrick, Stephan and Yunah - and others as well (i.e. Sasha had a two-mistake advantage) - TES points are lost due to mistakes but PCS remain high, and yes, this is to an extent predetermined. Whether or not you agree with the predetermination depends on your opinion of the skater involved. And it does not only apply to a few skaters, but to many. Consider Joubert's generally inflated PCS scores or (according to some) Kozuka's generally underrated PCS scores.

    Skaters have always been held up or kept down on the basis of artistry. B&S wuzgifted seriously in Nagano in the SP and only lost the LP because of a very stupid mistake at the end of the program. The judges clearly decided before the competition that it was desirable to give them the gold over M&K.

    Of course, some will argue that B&S were superior to M&K and such a great pair that their SP score was warranted. . .

    Again, a person's view of whether a skater wuzgifted will depend on their opinion of just how far above the pack the skater is.
     
  27. VIETgrlTerifa

    VIETgrlTerifa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    10,111
    At this point of my fandom, I just find everything to be arbitrary. I can't find much real logic to putting a real numbered value to an element and trying to decide how much falls and disruptions should be penalized. People just make up their own arguments to why things should be this way that's convenient for their vision of the way the sport should be despite their own conviction that their posts are based on logical arguments or "facts". I'm slowly finding myself not caring anymore.
     
  28. Aussie Willy

    Aussie Willy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    18,089
    I think this is what people seem to forget.

    I actually love a system that rewards skaters for what they do well. People seem to forget that 6.0 was all about looking for the negative when it came to judging. IJS allows you to tell a skater that they did something really well.

    The skaters are my rink that I judge in competition love it when I give them a +1 or +2 for something. Because they know that I don't do unless I think they deserve it.
     
    Allen and (deleted member) like this.
  29. VIETgrlTerifa

    VIETgrlTerifa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    10,111
    You mean skaters love it when they get rewarded? I wouldn't have thought that would be true. ;)
     
  30. BittyBug

    BittyBug Kiteless

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2003
    Messages:
    15,237
    I don't think skaters should get any points for jumps on which they fall. Sorry, but I don't care if you had a great set up, nice entry, and looked good in the air. If you land on your derriere, you missed the jump and you shouldn't get any points. I've been accused of having a "6.0 mentality" for having this point of view, but I really don't think partial credit should be awarded in jumps.

    As an alternative, I would propose a much lower base value for all jumps, with more of the "reward" in +GOE. It's ridiculous that someone can earn 4.5 points for falling on a triple axel, or 6.3 points for falling on a quad toe. That could easily be the difference between being on the podium or not, and I don't think skaters should be able to make their way to the podium by spending time on the ice on their butts.

    Viewed another way, suppose you had two male skaters of very comparable skill level and program content who execute all elements except one at a similar level. One pops an intended triple axel to a double, resulting in a 0 GOE from the judges for the jump and 3.3 total points for the element. The other skater rotates the triple axel but falls. The skater who fell would earn instead 4.5 points (factoring in the fall deduction). All other elements being equal, the skater who fell on his ass would win over the one who popped the jump. Do you really think that's the correct result (again, assuming all other aspects of the program are comparable)?

    The argument for those who defend the current scale of values often seems to assume that the skater falling would have to have superior elements or skills in other ways to emerge on top (e.g., Chan's skating skills). But as the above example shows, that doesn't have to be the case. What if the skills of the two skaters are otherwise reasonably equivalent (for example, Abbott at his 2010 Nationals performance level vs. Takahashi)?
     
    Matryeshka and (deleted member) like this.