Should the automatic deduction for a fall be increased?

[bek]

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

That's ridiculous. They can find ways to reward the quad, AND punish messy programs. A balance.

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.

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.

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

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.

[The Accordion]

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.

You do that too?

[gkelly]

But falls disrupt the "invisible connection between the skater and the audience" somewhat.

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

(Also, the "precise execution of every movement").

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.

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.

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

[RFOS]

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

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.

[zebobes]

That's ridiculous. They can find ways to reward the quad, AND punish messy programs. A balance.

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.

[Japanfan]

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.

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.

[VIETgrlTerifa]

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.

[Aussie Willy]

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.

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.

[VIETgrlTerifa]

You mean skaters love it when they get rewarded? I wouldn't have thought that would be true.

[BittyBug]

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)?

[Angelskates]

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.

ITA

[attyfan]

What about having different rules in the SP and in the FS? In one, falls could punished much more heavily, so that it is worth while to do fewer revolutions but do them cleanly ... I would think this plan would be good in the SP where there is less time and less opportunity to "compensate" for any falls. In the other, falls would be punished less heavily.

Or, what about a "progressive" system, whereby deductions are increased with each fall (i.e., first fall is a 1 point deduction; second loses 2 points; etc.)?

[bek]

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.

Maybe but I love Yu-na Kim for example but even I was annoyed with her winning the free skate over Worlds. Asada outskated her by quite a lot but Kim still ended up with higher PCS. It bugs the heck of me. If your going to argue skating skills don't ever change/the program stays the same okay. But one half of the mark shouldn't be based on predetermined criteria. Some of the PCS should be evaluated on the individual skate. And I'm not sure any reasonable person can say that Yu-na performed better than Asada that day. And that should matter.

I'm cool with someone winning with one fall if everything else is superior. This shouldn't be a jump contest. But this isn't a choregraphy/transition contest only either. There are no actual points for choregraphy/transitions. There's no scale of values that tells skaters they will win this many points on their transition mark for this transition or not. So the idea that good choregraphy/transitions can make up for a LOT of poorly done elements is ridiculous to me. To me the winning skater should be the one who ties in good skating skills, with high level elements, and good presentation.

Not to mention giving huge rewards for difficult choregraphy no matter how well the program is executed actually encourages messy skates too. I'd rather see a little less transitions and a well executed skate, than jam packed transitions and falling several times.

I'm fine with 25% of the PCS being determined by the prestablished criteria because good basics do need to be rewarded and hard choregraphy. But the other 25% should have the judges looking at the actual skate. And if the person is falling all over the place, popping all over the place, they should BE hit because their elements were not well executed.

[hotskate]

I like the idea increase penatly for a fall.
But at the same time reward and punishmnet for the quality of jumps shuold be magnified.

[Cherub721]

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.

Word. Pairs at CoC cinched it for me.

[gkelly]

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.

How about jump combinations? If you fall on the second jump, should you still get full value (plus or minus GOE as appropriate) for the first one?

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)?[/quote]

That's why I'd penalize the fall on the 3A with larger values of negative GOE. So the penalties would decrease the ability to rack up points by falling on difficult jumps and still earning more positive points than a clean triple, but wouldn't overly penalize falls on low-value elements or between elements so much that they're worth several points less than 0.

Suppose we have a senior ladies' SP, in which the skaters are now allowed to do a solo triple axel.

Five different skaters do triple lutz-double toe and triple flip, with more or less comparable spins, steps, and PCS.

Skater J rotates a triple axel but falls. Skater K rotates a double axel but falls.

Would you be OK with them both earning the exact same scores (0s) for their axel attempts?

Or should judges find some place to reflect J's higher attempted difficulty, since the tech panel will no longer reflect it in the base value of the jump? Where would be the appropriate place to reflect that?

Skater L rotates a single axel and lands acceptably. Under the current rules this will be much lower base value for the easier jump and also -3 deduction since it's not according to requirements (required to be double or triple), but no fall deduction. Would that be the same in your system? Only worth a few tenths of a point, but better to pop and stay upright than to rotate a triple axel and fall?

Skater M rotates a single axel and falls -- bad "waxel." She gets the same points as J and K (0) for that jump, even though she neither met the rotational requirements nor remained upright.

Skater N rotates a double axel and lands it acceptably.

We're all OK with skater N winning, since everything else is approximately equal, right? She's the only one who successfully met the requirement for a double or triple axel.

But how do you distinguish among the four skaters who failed on the solo axel requirement? Do you really want the one who popped and stayed upright to come out ahead on jump content, even by only a few tenths of a point?

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)?

If the rest of the skating really is comparable, then the scores should be close enough that that one jump could be the deciding factor in favor of the skater who doesn't fall.

But some judges or fans may see two skaters as close enough that one doesn't have more than a one-jump advantage over the other while other judges (or fans) might see one skater as enough better in small ways that add up over almost all the rest of the program that s/he could afford to fall once or twice and still come out ahead. E.g., Michelle Kwan over Angela Nikodinov in the 1997 Nationals LP or 2000 Nationals SP, or over Sarah Hughes at 2000 or 2001 Skate America. Or, say, three falls over no falls -- one of my favorites artistically for 4th in the long at 1998 Worlds.

Obviously, a majority of judges didn't think that everything else was all that close in those situations.

What about having different rules in the SP and in the FS? In one, falls could punished much more heavily, so that it is worth while to do fewer revolutions but do them cleanly ... I would think this plan would be good in the SP where there is less time and less opportunity to "compensate" for any falls. In the other, falls would be punished less heavily.

Worth considering.

Or, what about a "progressive" system, whereby deductions are increased with each fall (i.e., first fall is a 1 point deduction; second loses 2 points; etc.)?

Haha, that's what I suggested on Golden Skate a few days ago.

If your going to argue skating skills don't ever change/the program stays the same okay. But one half of the mark shouldn't be based on predetermined criteria. Some of the PCS should be evaluated on the individual skate.

No, all of the PCS should be evaluated on the individual skate. Just don't assume that an error or a couple of errors during the program negates the quality of everything else that happens during the other >3 1/2 minutes.

I'm cool with someone winning with one fall if everything else is superior. This shouldn't be a jump contest. But this isn't a choregraphy/transition contest only either.

True. Primarily it's a skating contest. If the quality of the skating is superior throughout, then each skater can try to gain extra points with more or better jumps (and spins and sequences) or with choreography and transitions etc. Depending how much better one skater is at the skating, s/he may be able to gain enough extra points in other components and in the elements s/he completes successfully to make up for the errors. Depends on the specific strengths and weaknesses of those specific strengths, as evaluated by that particular panel of judges, who may not even agree with each other much less agree with you.

There are no actual points for choregraphy/transitions. There's no scale of values that tells skaters they will win this many points on their transition mark for this transition or not.

There are PCS points available. Yes, the rules/guidelines are much vaguer and the process of assigning them much more subjective than the rules for TES.

Can those guidelines be made somewhat clearer so that judges will score those areas more consistently and skaters and fans will have a better idea what to expect?

[victoriaheidi]

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.

To some extent, I agree. I'm not a huge fan of CoP because I think that it can get too obsessive and has some issues. I think the generation that's growing up with it will fare much better than the generation that switched over to it (especially because I think that coaches will be a lot more vigilant about technical mistakes their young students make), but I still see issues. Obviously, though, there's no such thing as a perfect judging system.

[attyfan]

...

Haha, that's what I suggested on Golden Skate a few days ago.

Great minds think alike.

[BittyBug]

How about jump combinations? If you fall on the second jump, should you still get full value (plus or minus GOE as appropriate) for the first one?

If the first jump was landed, then yes, I think it's appropriate to give credit for the jump that was landed.

Skater J rotates a triple axel but falls. Skater K rotates a double axel but falls.

Would you be OK with them both earning the exact same scores (0s) for their axel attempts?

Yes - they both failed at their attempted jumps, so neither should receive credit.

Skater L rotates a single axel and lands acceptably. Under the current rules this will be much lower base value for the easier jump and also -3 deduction since it's not according to requirements (required to be double or triple), but no fall deduction. Would that be the same in your system? Only worth a few tenths of a point, but better to pop and stay upright than to rotate a triple axel and fall?

I would distinguish between the SP and the FS. In the SP, I would give no credit for a missed required element, even if something else was substituted. I realize this potentially conflicts with my comment about credits for the first half of a combo - I'd need to think about that one.

But some judges or fans may see two skaters as close enough that one doesn't have more than a one-jump advantage over the other while other judges (or fans) might see one skater as enough better in small ways that add up over almost all the rest of the program that s/he could afford to fall once or twice and still come out ahead. E.g., Michelle Kwan over Angela Nikodinov in the 1997 Nationals LP or 2000 Nationals SP, or over Sarah Hughes at 2000 or 2001 Skate America.

I'd have to review the performances, but I could see Michelle's overall skating skills and power compensating for a mistake or two over Nikodinov or Hughes.

Or, say, three falls over no falls -- one of my favorites artistically for 4th in the long at 1998 Worlds.Obviously, a majority of judges didn't think that everything else was all that close in those situations.

Vlascenko certainly had excellent choreo and a very interesting serpentine step sequence, but his performance was not perfect - the landing on his first 3A was a little wonky and his 2nd 3A was not in combo; his spins didn't have a lot of rotation nor did he really get down in his sit; and overall, he seems to lack power - he doesn't get into his knees when he strokes and needs to take a lot of steps to gain speed.

Plushenko, despite the 3 falls, did still manage to land 7 triple jumps, so on jumps the two were actually fairly comparable (Vlascenko had 8 triples but one was not done in combo as it should have been and he only had one 3/3 combo, whereas Plushy although he fell on one of his 3As still had 7 other triples, including two 3/3 combos). And Plushy's spins were harder (Bielmann and donut) and overall better executed. His circular steps were not nearly as difficult or interesting as Vlaschenko's serpentine steps, but Plushy has so much more power than Vlascenko that I would guess that the overall impression in the arena of his performance was likely one of strength, despite the falls.

In this case, comparing what each skater was successful at achieving, I can see it going either way, because in the end, the achieved technical content, while not identical, could be viewed as comparable. (This is a case where under the current system I would have had Plushy ahead on SS but Vlaschenko ahead on P/E, CH, and IN. They were probably equivalent on TR.)

[DinDonShamu]

Vlascenko certainly had excellent choreo and a very interesting serpentine step sequence, but his performance was not perfect - the landing on his first 3A was a little wonky and his 2nd 3A was not in combo; his spins didn't have a lot of rotation nor did he really get down in his sit; and overall, he seems to lack power - he doesn't get into his knees when he strokes and needs to take a lot of steps to gain speed.

Plushenko, despite the 3 falls, did still manage to land 7 triple jumps, so on jumps the two were actually fairly comparable (Vlascenko had 8 triples but one was not done in combo as it should have been and he only had one 3/3 combo, whereas Plushy although he fell on one of his 3As still had 7 other triples, including two 3/3 combos). And Plushy's spins were harder (Bielmann and donut) and overall better executed. His circular steps were not nearly as difficult or interesting as Vlaschenko's serpentine steps, but Plushy has so much more power than Vlascenko that I would guess that the overall impression in the arena of his performance was likely one of strength, despite the falls.

In this case, comparing what each skater was successful at achieving, I can see it going either way, because in the end, the achieved technical content, while not identical, could be viewed as comparable. (This is a case where under the current system I would have had Plushy ahead on SS but Vlaschenko ahead on P/E, CH, and IN. They were probably equivalent on TR.)

Isn't this what the current system is doing? That skaters with "comparable" cumulative technical contents will score close to each other regardless of falls? The only difference is that CoP quantifies these elements in actual points instead of the judges' heads. I agree with VIETgrlTerifa and victoriaheidi that there really is no perfect judging system. Everyone has a different scale on how much each element and quality of skating should be rewarded. We can tweak the system every season but the debate will never end.