Should the automatic deduction for a fall be increased?

[Dragonlady]

That says more about the skater than the rules.If they want to win bad enough and be the best skater they can be,they'd keep trying till they succeeded.It'd be like a basketball player who isn't that great at 3 point shots,just giving up instead of practicing till he(or she) is good at it.

Bad analogy. The basketball player isn't restricted to 8 shots in a game. His team is not necessarily going to lose is he misses one of his shots.

New fans to replace us when we are gone.Do need to be won over.

Then you better start finding commentators who can do a decent job of explaining the scoring and who don't constantly tell people the scoring system is too complicated for mere mortals to understand.

Having skaters stroking around stalking quads is not the way to do it either. If it was, the past 10 years would have been the glory years of skating, not the decline of same.

[wonderlen]

I agree with the idea that a fall should get 0 points in the SP. It is the technical program after all and splatting on a required element should be a severe penalty.

The LP is a different story.

So, I just basically agree with BigB08822's post.

I agree too. It just make no sense that when a skater fail to do the mandatory combination by poping the second jump or only single it, they get
-3GOE regardless. Same with double a solo jump, you get -3GOE mandatory and which pretty much wipe out the whole jump value. Why not give a zero too.

LP is supposed to be free skate and you can double or splat all you want to the podium.

[Andrushka]

Bad analogy. The basketball player isn't restricted to 8 shots in a game. His team is not necessarily going to lose is he misses one of his shots.

Basketball players usually don't play an entire game,they spend time on court and on the bench.If what they do on the court,is horrible.They are in danger of loosing their jobs.No one is going to keep a player that can't make any baskets.And no one wants to watch a singles skater that can't jump.Not pushing for all quads,but a competitive un-injured mens champion should be able to land a clean triple axel.And stay on his feet for most of the program.

Then you better start finding commentators who can do a decent job of explaining the scoring and who don't constantly tell people the scoring system is too complicated for mere mortals to understand.

Having skaters stroking around stalking quads is not the way to do it either. If it was, the past 10 years would have been the glory years of skating, not the decline of same.

First off.That's not my job.That's the various federations job. Secondly the last 7-8 years of the last 10 years of decline has been COP.A good but imperfect system .

[dundas]

A fall should get ZERO regardless whether it's a quad or triple. A flawed jump also should get severe penalty. A value of a well executed quad should be increased further. A skater can decide whether he should go for a quad well aware of zero point he may get.


ISU needs some investment 101. High risk = high return = high volatility. Low risk = low return = low volatility.

[Marco]

A fall should get ZERO regardless whether it's a quad or triple. A flawed jump also should get severe penalty. A value of a well executed quad should be increased further. A skater can decide whether he should go for a quad well aware of zero point he may get.


ISU needs some investment 101. High risk = high return = high volatility. Low risk = low return = low volatility.

I don't agree with your first sentence but I agree with the rest.

Last year was great because Yuna's huge jumps were rewarded, and so were quality spins and spirals etc. Quality and difficulty both meant a lot. That's why Plushenko couldn't defend his Olympic gold with his croaked jumps and wonky spins even with the kind of overscore he was getting all season.

This year it's just about difficulty. Quality means much much less. As long as you have the rotation and the level, execution means much less. People have no one to blame but themselves over this Chan situation for having whined about Yuna establishing too much of a lead over Mao and making competition uninteresting .

[Japanfan]

Last year was great because Yuna's huge jumps were rewarded, and so were quality spins and spirals etc. Quality and difficulty both meant a lot. That's why Plushenko couldn't defend his Olympic gold with his croaked jumps and wonky spins even with the kind of overscore he was getting all season.

Yuna was also generously rewarded for skating poorly at the World Championships.

This year it's just about difficulty. Quality means much much less. As long as you have the rotation and the level, execution means much less. People have no one to blame but themselves over this Chan situation for having whined about Yuna establishing too much of a lead over Mao and making competition uninteresting .

The complaints about Patrick's scores were the same last year as they are this year. And quality still means a lot in terms of PCS.

The higher value for the quad this year is warranted and it is making more men try it, which adds excitement to the field. And the change in the under-rotation penalty is also fair.

It it were all about difficulty, Kevin Reynolds with his two quads in the SP would be much more dominant in the men's field.

[let`s talk]

A fall should get ZERO regardless whether it's a quad or triple.

I am afraid skaters will stop taking a risk and we will never see any quad. Even now they are on short.

[FSWer]

I'd say...leave it the way it is. Skaters who deserve to be in first are already not getting it because of the Downgrades.

[Artifice]

I am afraid skaters will stop taking a risk and we will never see any quad. Even now they are on short.

That's what i'm afraid of as well. But the idea of giving absolute zero for an failed (fall) element in the SP made sense to me.
It's just that something should be found so that the rule won't discourage skaters from going for the quad.

It could be a bigger deduction for a fall, like -2, instead of -1.

[gkelly]

That's what i'm afraid of as well. But the idea of giving absolute zero for an failed (fall) element in the SP made sense to me.

In the 6.0 system, judges took into account the difficulty of what was attempted in setting their base marks, before taking the appropriate deductions. All falls were not equal.

Giving 0 points for all failed attempts would mean that a valiant attempt at a difficult element would receive exactly the same score as a not-even-close attempt at an easy element.

And indeed falls between elements were not required to be punished at all -- certainly there was no mandatory deduction for those falls under 6.0.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9TxjLVlPvI

I assume you mean falls on solo jump landings (or takeoffs) and spin entrances only, not for falls that occur after the majority of a spin, step sequence, or jump combo had already been completed satisfactorily?

It's just that something should be found so that the rule won't discourage skaters from going for the quad. It could be a bigger deduction for a fall, like -2, instead of -1.

For all falls at all levels? Or only for falls on high-value elements like triple axels and quads? (In that case, I say take it off the GOE instead.) Only at senior level, or only in the most elite senior competitions, where skaters are expected to be doing multiple triple jumps?

[Schmeck]

I'd say...leave it the way it is. Skaters who deserve to be in first are already not getting it because of the Downgrades.

"deserve" as in , you want them to win, because ??? You mentioned before that you thought skaters shouldn't get dinged for under-rotated jumps in certain odd competitions - that's not a fair assessment of how a sport should be judged. You can't make exceptions to a scoring system just because your favorite skater under-rotates jumps.

[victoriaheidi]

I am afraid skaters will stop taking a risk and we will never see any quad. Even now they are on short.

Agreed. I hope to see advances in quads (like more people attempting quad flips and such, and maybe some women attempting quads period), not regression.