Should the automatic deduction for a fall be increased?

[BittyBug]

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?

I don't think the current system does do this, because in the current system skaters are able to earn points for falling. So a skater with 7 completed jumps plus a fall on an 8th jump is always going to have an edge over a skater with only 7 completed jumps , everything else being equal. I don't think that's inherently correct.

[julieann]

I don't think the current system does do this, because in the current system skaters are able to earn points for falling. So a skater with 7 completed jumps plus a fall on an 8th jump is always going to have an edge over a skater with only 7 completed jumps , everything else being equal. I don't think that's inherently correct.

So is what you are saying, is just because a skater fell of the last move of an element, everything should be thrown out?

The skater gets no credit for the 8th jump even with a difficult entry, being high in the air, covering a lot of ice, rotating well....but a fall on the landing. that doesn't sound fair either. It's not just about the landing there are other things to consider as well, especially since the other skater didn't do it.

[gkelly]

I don't think the current system does do this, because in the current system skaters are able to earn points for falling.

Yes, but only on triples and quads and level 4 elements. FALLS ON ALL OTHER ELEMENTS, INCLUDING DOWNGRADED TRIPLES, OR BETWEEN ELEMENTS ALWAYS LOSE POINTS.

So a skater with 7 completed jumps plus a fall on an 8th jump is always going to have an edge over a skater with only 7 completed jumps , everything else being equal.

No, not always. Only if that 8th jump with the fall was harder than a triple toe, and fully rotated. And the fall was not disruptive enough to affect the PCS, unless you're already figuring that into the "everything else being equal" (i.e., the skater who fell would have been clearly better if s/he had just done a three turn into a nice landing position instead of attempting the jump).

I don't think that's inherently correct.

Of course all other things are never exactly equal or exactly comparable, and when they're close but not identical different judges and fans are going to disagree on whether the difference was larger or smaller than the value of an element with a fall.

But I do think that falling on a harder element should be worth more than falling on an easier element, especially when there are only so many element slots available. I.e., falling on a rotated triple axel should certainly be worth more

I know you don't think so, but I disagree on that point.

So I think the values of the -GOEs should be set so that the final element score of the harder element with -3 GOE should not be higher than 1.0 more than the value of an easier element that could be done instead, and the fall deduction will wipe out that 1.0 of the -3 element earns that score because of a fall.

What are the comparable easier elements?

For 3A, I'd say that a fall on a rotated 3A should not be worth more, after fall deduction, than a 2A with +1 GOE. The reason I say +1 rather than 0 is that there is a big difference in the base values for those two elements, deservedly because there is a big difference in difficulty. And because those elements would usually fill the same slot in the program. So skaters have the choice to attempt either 2A or 3A, and we don't want to encourage them to attempt the 3A if they're not even capable of earning +1 on a 2A.

Now that there's the intermediate base value for the < call, probably make sure that fall on 3A< is not worth more than 2A with 0 or even -1 GOE.

I'd use the same logic for 4T and 4S: fall on a rotated quad should not be worth more, after fall deduction, than a triple from the same takeoff with +1 GOE, and fall an underrotated < quad should not be worth more

Another way to think of the 4T value would be to say that fall on a rotated 4T should not be worth more than rotated 3F with 0 GOE. Different takeoff, but often done with similar approaches so especially in the senior men's SP it's often a choice between doing either 4T or 3F in the same slot.

For other triples, in long programs or in junior SPs where doubles are allowed, do we want to make the fall on rotated triple worth more or less than an adequate (0 GOE) double? Do we want to encourage "senior-level content" in senior programs (or junior, or even novice, at those levels), or do we want to encourage clean programs?

I think the coaches and the fans tend to have different opinions on that point.

We might be happy at novice level if a program with two clean triples and three falls on triple attempts loses to a program with zero attempted triples. Would the same be true for senior level?

[Ziggy]

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

How?

While I might not be able to rotate four times without practice

You wouldn't be able to do it, even if you practised a lot love. That's exactly the point.

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.

Did you miss the point where Chan got deducted both on the GOE and for each of the falls?

Yunah's scores at Worlds are another example.

I actually analysed her SP with a friend and outside all the wobbles, the program was skated extremely well and skated to the music.

Again - when you look at how much % of the routine the mistakes take, it's a very small value. You just remember those moments more.

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.

There is nothing stopping other skater to try to improve on their PCS abilities.

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)?

Yes!

Hordes of skaters can rotate and land a 2axel.

Much much much less of them are able to rotate a triple one.

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 wouldn't.

Not taking risks makes this sport boring.

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.

Bek, PCS are supposed to reflect the PCS abilities and NOT the technical elements.

What you are saying above is that skaters should be marked for the technical elements twice over.

[BittyBug]

Yes, but only on triples and quads and level 4 elements. FALLS ON ALL OTHER ELEMENTS, INCLUDING DOWNGRADED TRIPLES, OR BETWEEN ELEMENTS ALWAYS LOSE POINTS.

You're right - I've been focused on the senior level, so qualify my previous statements as being for the senior level, and assume my comments are focused on triples.

For 3A, I'd say that a fall on a rotated 3A should not be worth more, after fall deduction, than a 2A with +1 GOE. The reason I say +1 rather than 0 is that there is a big difference in the base values for those two elements, deservedly because there is a big difference in difficulty. And because those elements would usually fill the same slot in the program. So skaters have the choice to attempt either 2A or 3A, and we don't want to encourage them to attempt the 3A if they're not even capable of earning +1 on a 2A.

Go back to my first example - what about two skaters who each planned a triple axel (so the slot was intended for the same element in both programs) and one reduces it to a double while the other falls on an attempted triple? I guess you think doubling the jump is a worse error than falling, while I disagree.

Do we want to encourage "senior-level content" in senior programs (or junior, or even novice, at those levels), or do we want to encourage clean programs?

I don't think these two goals are mutually exclusive. The system can give no credit for incomplete jumps, but as long as completed jumps of higher difficulty continue to be rewarded more than easier jumps, some skaters will continue to attempt the harder jumps. And some of those skaters will be successful in their efforts, and those skaters are going to prevail over those with simpler content who play it safe.

If you go in with easier content, your only shot at winning is if others fail, so ambitious skaters who want to be on the podium are still going to be motivated to up the ante and try the harder tricks. Not giving any credit for failing to successfully execute those harder tricks is not going to stop skaters from trying them.

[Ziggy]

I guess you think doubling the jump is a worse error than falling, while I disagree.

It's not about it being a worse error.

It's about it being much harder to execute.

Not giving any credit for failing to successfully execute those harder tricks is not going to stop skaters from trying them.

It will.

It will mean that nobody is going to try elements that aren't super consistent.

And quads are pretty much never super consistent.

It would mean skaters playing much more safe.

[Aussie Willy]

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.

Why should a skater be penalised when they have probably busted a gut and spent hours of effort on working on aspects of their program other than the jumps? A jump last less than a second. So in an SP that is less than 3 seconds of a 2 min 50 sec program dedicated to jumps. There is the rest of the program that needs to be evaluated and marked as well. But if a skater has put time, effort and thought into the rest of the program, they should be rewarded for that.

[Ziggy]

Why should a skater be penalised when they have probably busted a gut and spent hours of effort on working on aspects of their program other than the jumps? A jump last less than a second. So in an SP that is less than 3 seconds of a 2 min 50 sec program dedicated to jumps. There is the rest of the program that needs to be evaluated and marked as well. But if a skater has put time, effort and thought into the rest of the program, they should be rewarded for that.

Exactly.

Bek - you make it seem as if PCS are some ephemeral quality that is innate or something.

Some coaches and skaters put in a lot of effort to make their basics and programs good.

They should be rewarded for that, just like people get rewarded for landing jumps.

[Aussie Willy]

The other night at a figure session, a guy who just goes out and jumps all the time, commented that not a lot of people in the session were doing jumps. I replied to him "that is because they are working on all the other aspects of their programs because there is more to programs than just jumps!".

[bek]

Exactly.

Bek - you make it seem as if PCS are some ephemeral quality that is innate or something.

Some coaches and skaters put in a lot of effort to make their basics and programs good.

They should be rewarded for that, just like people get rewarded for landing jumps.

I never said skaters shouldn't be rewarded for having good choregraphy/good basics. I even said 25% of PCS should be based on that. But your missing something what I'm trying to say is that if for example if a skater does brackets into his triple axel, and falls every time, maybe that skater shouldn't be doing brackets into his triple axel? Maybe instead the skater should do an easier entrance to his/her triple axel.

I like choregraphy and think hard choregraphy should be rewarded/encouraged . But you have some skaters who have jam packed choregraphy/difficult entrances into their jumps and they fall several times throughout their program. Maybe just maybe its becasue the program is too difficult for them to do the choregraphy AND the elements. And maybe just maybe said skater should be encouraged to perhaps do a little less, and skate clean. Because I'm sorry falling several times in your program-thats just not good skating.

In the end it should be a balance. Skaters should be encouraged to have a balance between difficulty but difficulty they can actually EXECUTE.

And as for saying it rewards jumps twice to punish those who had messy skates on the PCS front. May I suggest choregraphy and transitions are rewarded more than twice anyways. For example you have a difficult transition you are rewarded in a lot of cases in GOE. Than you are rewarded in the choregraphy mark, and then in the transition mark. That's 3 times. But somehow its ridiculous to punish a skater who fell on three jumps overall in the PCS.

All I'm saying and I stand by this is I do not like at a skater who falls multiple times and think oh boy did that person skate well today. I look at it and I see a messy program. The issue I have with IJS is that rewards parts, but it doesn't reward the whole. And I think is perfectly fair to suggest that there should be a mark that looks at the program as a whole and how well the skater executed. And if the person is falling MULTIPLE times on multiple elements (And Chan didn't just fall on his jumps but on his footwork) than the person should be marked down for it..IF the program is going to be evaluated as a whole. I don't find one fall to be the end of the world, but I do find multiple falls to be a bad skate. And it doesn't matter if its on a jump, footwork etc.

All I'm saying is that yes there should be a mark in PCS that evaluates basic skating, and a mark that evaluates choregraphy, and that will basically be the same. But there should also be a mark that evaluates the ACTUAL performance and how well the skater as a whole executed their elements-on that day.

[Aussie Willy]

All I'm saying is that yes there should be a mark in PCS that evaluates basic skating, and a mark that evaluates choregraphy, and that will basically be the same. But there should also be a mark that evaluates the ACTUAL performance and how well the skater as a whole executed their elements-on that day.

Well become a judge and then you can have some influence on that through your PE/EX mark.

[bek]

Well become a judge and then you can have some influence on that through your PE/EX mark.

I want to say that I am fine with Patrick Chan always getting higher choregraphy marks than 99% of the skaters and higher skating skills than most no matter how often he falls. Good choregraph basics deserves to be rewarded. And in fact maybe even more than 25% of the PCS. But I also feel good execution (and I wouldn't say because someone fell once they had bad execution.) needs to be rewarded too. I really feel that in order for the sport to be successful it needs to be both. And I'm sorry but when the casual fan sees anyone fall three times in a program, they do not think to themselves ooh what a nice skate, they think that person bombed.

I'm not sure how it should be done maybe the TES mark needs to be fixed some. But when I watch skating today, I don't think good execution is being rewarded at all.

[magnolia]

On goldenskate, someone suggested that the punishment be cumulative for falls, so e.g., the first fall gets -3 pt deduction, the second falls gets -5 pt deduction, the third fall gets -7 pt deduction, the fourth fall gets -9 pt deduction, etc.

ETA:

I like this idea because this would enable skaters to take calculated risks. If a skater has planned for two quads and doesn't fall on the first attempt, then he can go for the second attempt without worrying about excessive punishment. However, if he falls on the first attempt, he has the choice to gamble on a high risk high return choice and make the second quad attempt, or opt for a triple jump that is less risky.

[Ziggy]

I never said skaters shouldn't be rewarded for having good choregraphy/good basics. I even said 25% of PCS should be based on that.

How generous of you! That's what PCS *are.* They should be fully based on things like these.

But your missing something what I'm trying to say is that if for example if a skater does brackets into his triple axel, and falls every time, maybe that skater shouldn't be doing brackets into his triple axel? Maybe instead the skater should do an easier entrance to his/her triple axel.

I'm not missing it, I am disagreeing with it.

Encouraging skaters not to take risks, would result in people playing it safe and make the sport boring to watch as a result.

Because I'm sorry falling several times in your program-thats just not good skating.

Good skating is good skating.

You seem to have a serious problem separating the falls from everything else that happens in the program.

May I suggest choregraphy and transitions are rewarded more than twice anyways. For example you have a difficult transition you are rewarded in a lot of cases in GOE. Than you are rewarded in the choregraphy mark, and then in the transition mark. That's 3 times.

Choreography is *not* about individual transitions.

And you are definitely not rewarded a lot on GOE because of individual transitions either. It's just one of many aspects of a jump to take info consideration.

All I'm saying is that yes there should be a mark in PCS that evaluates basic skating, and a mark that evaluates choregraphy, and that will basically be the same. But there should also be a mark that evaluates the ACTUAL performance and how well the skater as a whole executed their elements-on that day.

It's called TES.

---

Summing up, it's cause and effect.

If you make attempting jumps more of a risk than it already is, then skaters are going to play it safe.

We would see even less complex programs and less difficult jumps attempted.

Look what happened after the changes to downgrades this season. More skaters are now attempting jumps which are not very consistent for them yet because the incentive to do so has been greatly increased.

[Marco]

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

No offence, but weren't you the person who bitched the most last season when Yuna won everything by accumulating huge GOEs for her gorgeous jumps? and when Plushenko didn't beat Lysacek with a 4/3?

So there you have it. More points for the quad and less points for GOEs.

Still not happy. I suddenly really want to lock you with some of my ex-gfs in a cave somewhere and seal the entrance shut.

[Aussie Willy]

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

Isn't that what the system is meant to do? Seriously you cannot have it both ways.

Also what if it is the other way around? Doesn't do a quad, might have a couple of other problems but everything else is superb. Doesn't a skater deserve to get credit for that?

[magnolia]

No offence, but weren't you the person who bitched the most last season when Yuna won everything by accumulating huge GOEs for her gorgeous jumps? and when Plushenko didn't beat Lysacek with a 4/3?

What are you talking about? Bek's a huge, staunch fan of Yuna.

I, on the other hand, did complain about Yuna winning by a huge gap when she did three double-axels against Mao who did two triple-axels in her LP.

I thought it was right that Yuna won OGM because Mao had two jump mistakes. But I did not think that it was right that Yuna got a higher score than Mao in her LP at Worlds, when she had three huge blunders including a fall (and three double-axels), whereas Mao had no visible mistakes (and an under-rotation call on her triple-axel, a mistake which was not visible to the naked eye).

Anyway, that was last season and CoP has since been corrected so that such scenarios cannot happen anymore, but falls are still not penalized enough, IMO.

[magnolia]

Isn't that what the system is meant to do? Seriously you cannot have it both ways.

You can have it both ways. What about that cumulative punishment suggestion for falls?

Also what if it is the other way around? Doesn't do a quad, might have a couple of other problems but everything else is superb. Doesn't a skater deserve to get credit for that?

If a skater doesn't do a quad and has other mistakes on top of that, no way should that skater top another skater who does a quad and makes less mistakes.

[medousa]

What's interesting to me is that Chan's quad attempt in the SP garnered him 7.30 points, plus a one point deduction for the fall, for a net of 6.30 points. The jump was tilted and looked problematic in the air. No surprise he fell.

Joubert's quad attempt in the FS at Cup of China was downgraded (when was the last time this happened when he landed the jump?), and he walked away with 6.20 points. Joubert's quad did not look under-rotated to me, and I didn't realize it was until I checked the protocols. It had excellent air position and the landing was solid.

So as long as he can rotate them, it would always be to Chan's advantage to attempt the jump and fall as oppose to slightly under-rotate the jump and land it.

Was I the only one who didn't think Joubert under-rotated the jump? I only was able to watch it online. They didn't zoom in on his foot.

[VIETgrlTerifa]

Like, omigod, don't you know that URs are like the worst thing ever? I mean like if a skater has URs but lands it well with great air position...well, he/she/they/it should just quit the sport. They couldn't even rotate it all the way and fall like a real champion and innovator of the sport? Who do they think they are? Sarah Hughes? I mean come on...

Seriously though, I've always felt that the ISU became a little too obsessed with penalizing URs (as have many skating fans) and a little excited that they decreased it somewhat (but not too much). I find it funny that so many are so forgiving of falls but God-forbid a skater UR slightly (I'm not talking about URs that are way UR). I have my reasons for thinking that but I think I should keep them to myself.