Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 192
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Norcal
    Posts
    698
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0

    Should the automatic deduction for a fall be increased?

    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. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    LEAVE EDMUNDS ALONE!!1!
    Posts
    20,430
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0


    No.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,234
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    316
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    123
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonata View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    806
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    City of Blinding Light
    Posts
    15,866
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    10901
    Quote Originally Posted by miki88 View Post
    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.
    Use Yah Blinkah!

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    SoCal!
    Posts
    1,784
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    LEAVE EDMUNDS ALONE!!1!
    Posts
    20,430
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmeck View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by miki88 View Post
    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.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,017
    vCash
    1561
    Rep Power
    4990
    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.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    LEAVE EDMUNDS ALONE!!1!
    Posts
    20,430
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bek View Post
    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.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,017
    vCash
    1561
    Rep Power
    4990
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    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.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,423
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20617
    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. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,208
    vCash
    5550
    Rep Power
    16897
    Quote Originally Posted by bek View Post
    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.
    Last edited by RFOS; 11-07-2010 at 01:23 AM.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,017
    vCash
    1561
    Rep Power
    4990
    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. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    806
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bek View Post
    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.
    ITA. Staying on one's feet is definitely not an easy task.

  17. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    LEAVE EDMUNDS ALONE!!1!
    Posts
    20,430
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    gkelly - great, thoughtful post.

    Quote Originally Posted by bek View Post
    I'm sorry but defend to me the concept that Patrick's short program was far better executed than Oda's or Rippons.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by bek View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by bek View Post
    He scored higher on his quad fall than Adam did with his 3lutz. Ridiculous.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by RFOS View Post
    (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).
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by bek View Post
    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.
    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 by Ziggy; 11-07-2010 at 01:57 AM.

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    7,137
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,208
    vCash
    5550
    Rep Power
    16897
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    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.
    But falls disrupt the "invisible connection between the skater and the audience" somewhat. (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. 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.

    P.S., the criteria I'm looking at are here: http://www.usfigureskating.org/conte...compexplan.pdf
    Last edited by RFOS; 11-07-2010 at 03:15 AM.

  20. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,502
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    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.
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by miki88 View Post
    ITA. Staying on one's feet is definitely not an easy task.
    To do it properly is even harder and most don't do it properly but because it's not a "fall" it's overlooked.

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •